• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

))))))))GK MB Fusion 800!!(((((((

#41
Chef said:
I have several things to say about this....;)

"the complexity and drama of tubes: preamp tubes are generally not problemtic, at all. I think in my entire career, I've had one fail. I've been gigging for...35-ish years now, and had more solid state stuff fail on me, fwiw.

"go with the smaller cheaper..." it is in fact true that the MB800 is a little less deep than either the MBF500 or MBF800; but, I personally prefer the tone of the MBF. So, I'm glad it's there as a choice. The cost diff b/t any of those isn't all that significant, if you start looking at some other manufacturers "top of the line" offerings; IMO.

ymmv, etc.
Click to expand...

+1 I would agree with 'generally not problematic' for sure (although an awful lot of posts on TB with various tube pre's regarding 'I'm hearing a crackle... what is it!), but if I can get rid of one more level of complexity and not really lose anything, that is a bit of a no brainer for me, especially with IMO the VERY minimal impact of the tube section of the MBF500 that I noticed (and that minimal difference seems to carry over into the MBF800 from the early reports).

I guess the big difference would be when you use the 'overdrive channel', since I did hear quite a difference in the nature of breakup from the 'F' models versus the more classic grind of the GK SS preamp. I greatly preferred the MB500 in that case. However, I can TOTALLY see many who like that sort of tone preferring the 'F' models, and I assume that is their primary 'reason for being'.

Just IMO and a bit of IME.
 
#42
I don't use the "overdrive/grind" factor.
However, I do have a strong pref for the MBF series over the MB series.
The diff may be "minimal" to some, but, it's not to me! Richer and more complex overall tone that also knocks some of that "MB Razor Edge" treble response off.
Which could also be, at least paritally, achieved with thre treble tone control.

Even just switching from the "clean channel to the tube channel," I hear an impactful difference, that I like a lot.

Some folks might not though, and, that's fine; and if those folks prefer the MB; that's certainly a valid choice!
 
#43
Chef said:
I don't use the "overdrive/grind" factor.
However, I do have a strong pref for the MBF series over the MB series.
The diff may be "minimal" to some, but, it's not to me! Richer and more complex overall tone that also knocks some of that "MB Razor Edge" treble response off.
Which could also be, at least paritally, achieved with thre treble tone control.

Even just switching from the "clean channel to the tube channel," I hear an impactful difference, that I like a lot.

Some folks might not though, and, that's fine; and if those folks prefer the MB; that's certainly a valid choice!
Click to expand...

+1 that I had to cut the treble just a smidge on the MB500 to match the tone of the MBF500. I again was commenting and agreeing with your post above that most would not be able to tell the difference between the 'clean channels' of the F and 'non F' models. Other than a bit more zing on the non 'F's (as you say, easily matched with just a slight cut of the treble control), I heard VERY little impact of the tube section at all. Kind of surprising to me.

+1 though that once you start to push the gain in the overdrive channel, those amps move a bit apart, which I guess is the point of having them both in the product portfolio!
 
#46
Chef said:
For whatever reason, I like the solid state side on the 800 ok-ish; whereas on the 500, I have a clear pref for the tube channel.
I doubt I'll use the ss channel on the 800 much though, the tube side just sounds so much nicer to me!
Click to expand...

Ok - so on an MB Fusion 500 there is really only a 'tube pre' with a foot swtitchable additional gain stage -at least accordingtothe minimalist block diagram in tha manual.

Does the 800 actually implement 2 different preamp signal paths, 1 FE and 1 tube ?

Kinda like my old Hartke 3500 of eon's past ? (That was a hella good amp to me, though I understnd other folks had issues with it.)

Jeeze Alan, I thought I was busy... My gig schedule would look like vacation to you...
 
#49
KJung said:
+1 that I had to cut the treble just a smidge on the MB500 to match the tone of the MBF500. I again was commenting and agreeing with your post above that most would not be able to tell the difference between the 'clean channels' of the F and 'non F' models. Other than a bit more zing on the non 'F's (as you say, easily matched with just a slight cut of the treble control), I heard VERY little impact of the tube section at all. Kind of surprising to me.
Click to expand...

Comparing clean channels, I hear the MB Fusion as having a bit more harmonic excitement than the MB500 (which, conversely, sounds a bit more solid/even). The overall tonal balance, though, is quite similar.
 
#52
4Mal said:
Ok - so on an MB Fusion 500 there is really only a 'tube pre' with a foot swtitchable additional gain stage -at least accordingtothe minimalist block diagram in tha manual.

Does the 800 actually implement 2 different preamp signal paths, 1 FE and 1 tube ?

Kinda like my old Hartke 3500 of eon's past ? (That was a hella good amp to me, though I understnd other folks had issues with it.)

Jeeze Alan, I thought I was busy... My gig schedule would look like vacation to you...
Click to expand...

I always assumed they were the same with different gain structures, allowing for more 'overdrive' at the same settings in the 'B' channel or whatever. Gain matched, the two channels sounded the same to me. There is no 'non tube' preamp channel in the 'F' series.
 
#56
4Mal said:
consider it a one channel amp with two separate gain and volume settings available by footswitch.
Click to expand...

Another way to conceptualize it (if my ears where hearing what I think they were hearing when I spent a bit of time with the MBF500), is that the player can consider channel A as the 'primary channel' and channel B (which seems to have a higher gain structure) as the 'effects channel'. So, think of channel B as similar to an external overdrive pedal with an gain/overdrive control and an 'output' volume control, so that when you hit the overdrive mode, you can keep your absolute volume the same.

Nice way to execute this IMO... kind of like having most of the advantages of a two channel amp (at least where gain structure and pushing the tubes is concerned) without taking up the real estate and adding cost of two separate preamps.

I believe this is correct anyway.
 
#57
While I think you're right in terms of gain structure, I probably use it as a "add richer harmonics" thing to "unsterile" the sound.
I never push it into grit, grind, overdrive.
 
#58
KJung said:
+1 I would agree with 'generally not problematic' for sure (although an awful lot of posts on TB with various tube pre's regarding 'I'm hearing a crackle... what is it!), but if I can get rid of one more level of complexity and not really lose anything, that is a bit of a no brainer for me, especially with IMO the VERY minimal impact of the tube section of the MBF500 that I noticed (and that minimal difference seems to carry over into the MBF800 from the early reports).
Click to expand...
I do hear a richer tone with the MBF that I do feel I can hear well in a live mix, FWIW, and, regarding posts on TB about tube issues... keep in mind the TB "problem" posts still constitute only a microscopic percentage of the gigging world, so honestly, I really feel the whole complexity/drama concern is completely moot.

IMHO/IME!
 
#59
OK; Here it is; the big question; Can you hear the difference between the MB 800 and the Fusion in the mix or is it more of a feel thing like when using an all tube amp?
FWIW, my old WA and current 7-Pro did have some tube amp attributes like compression (which may react differently to frequency), increased touch sensitivity as well as smoother high end.

Lastly, don't the MB 500 and MB 800 have different pre amps with the latter being FET with the former being based on non-discrete components?

I was hoping the MB 800 sounded warmer than the 500 based purely on preamp design.

Alan, You and I seem to prefer the warm, clean, harmonically rich, 3-D tones of say the WA being pushed (but before obvious distortion).
Sounds like it takes the 800's overdrive channel to get to this point of harmonic complexity or can you get there with channel A?

Ken, did you have a horrible experience when you were a kid with tubes? ;)
I pretty much only use the 60's and 70's European, used, high end tubes and they seem rock solid (as he looks for wood to knock on)...

Edit: Simul-post with Vic; sounds like the difference is audible when the others are making racket too.
 
#60
Knocking on wood, I carry a ready supply... Right between my ears. That smell of wood burning ? That's me thinkin' real hard :D

Vic and I are pretty much on the same page. I view the MBF 500 as a less aggro MB500. Warmer with more 'air'... More presence, less treble. Still has the famlial GK punch and tight low end. Even being a GK fanboi, this is my fav GK yet.

I really can't see needing more power for me so the 800 is moot...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back