• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

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

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.

I hear more difference between the MB500 and MB800 than I do between the MB500 and MBF500. Those MOSFETS seem to bring you closer to the more classic GK tone to me ear.

Yes, growing up using tube amps, I learned to hate, hate, hate them. Of course, I gigged Eden and SWR for years with no issue, but those tube executions were 'marketing tubes' that didn't really have an impact on voltage or whatever. Also, gigging with guitarists with tube amps that CONSTANTLY have trouble also makes me VERY happy when I can get 'my sound' from an amp free of tubes! IMO and IME there.
 
Yes, growing up using tube amps, I learned to hate, hate, hate them.
...
Also, gigging with guitarists with tube amps that CONSTANTLY have trouble also makes me VERY happy when I can get 'my sound' from an amp free of tubes! IMO and IME there.
Keep in mind the difference here is tubes (or lack thereof) in the POWER section. Those are the tubes that go out much more frequently, and of course with guitar amps, the "all tube" config is the more typical/desirable one, so my comments are only WRT the amps we're talking about here, or at least the most common case for bassists these days with tubes, which is only in the preamp section. And even with guitar heads (as well as both hybrid and full tube bass heads), preamp tubes are known to last a LONG time between replacements. Even (re)biasing issues are more common to power than preamp tubes.

So yeah, if you're gonna' talk really old school and other all tube configs like old Fenders, SVTs, or even newer amps like Mesa, Fender, Peavey, boutique, etc, I'd change my tune. But not for these amps.

At least IMHO/IME anyway.
 
A big plus 1
I'm on a Telefunken pre-amp tube craze these days.
I don't think any of them are newer them the late 60's although they all test at or above spec.

OTOH, no reason for a guy to have to like a tube front end.
Sometimes a discrete front end just kills for the application.

In my years in the studio, I didn't automatically use a Pulltec tube EQ just because we had a rack of them.

Funny though that the industry still caters to "sounds like tubes" although it would be perfectly reasonable to say that one didn't like the relaxed attack or airiness that tubes often times are associated with.

It's all good but I don't think that a quality pre-amp tube is less reliable than a chip in a modern amp; plus sometimes you can fix the problem yourself!
 
010_zps5fd7c463.jpg


Crappy cell phone pic. Dusting needed !!

MBF 800 sounds amazing !!
 
Keep in mind the difference here is tubes (or lack thereof) in the POWER section. Those are the tubes that go out much more frequently, and of course with guitar amps, the "all tube" config is the more typical/desirable one, so my comments are only WRT the amps we're talking about here, or at least the most common case for bassists these days with tubes, which is only in the preamp section. And even with guitar heads (as well as both hybrid and full tube bass heads), preamp tubes are known to last a LONG time between replacements. Even (re)biasing issues are more common to power than preamp tubes.

So yeah, if you're gonna' talk really old school and other all tube configs like old Fenders, SVTs, or even newer amps like Mesa, Fender, Peavey, boutique, etc, I'd change my tune. But not for these amps.

At least IMHO/IME anyway.

+1 Wear out is surely not an issue (even in power tubes, quite frankly).
 
Dunno man, "retubing" a guitar head is fairly common practice, and I don't think that's a snake oil issue.

I again try to avoid all tubes at all cost, assuming I can find something that sounds great without them. So, I guess now, +1.:D

Seriously, though, wear out of a preamp tube due to age would again not be a concern to me. That is kind of a separate issue that seems to be 'not an issue'.
 
I again try to avoid all tubes at all cost, assuming I can find something that sounds great without them. So, I guess now, +1.:D

Seriously, though, wear out of a preamp tube due to age would again not be a concern to me. That is kind of a separate issue that seems to be 'not an issue'.
Oh, my bad... we're crossing lines here...

I was talking about ONLY power amp tubes again.

Yes, retubing for preamp tubes (per my earlier post) is rare... even for guitar heads.

Sorry.
 
Oh, my bad... we're crossing lines here...

I was talking about ONLY power amp tubes again.

Yes, retubing for preamp tubes (per my earlier post) is rare... even for guitar heads.

Sorry.

Just musing here... not a big deal. Looks like a killer amp actually. I like the look of it (much more than the aesthetics of the MB800), and if it sounds and performs like the MB800, with a slightly more relaxed tone, they are going to sell a LOT of these, I think.
 
Last night:
AllevaLG5>MBF800>2xGK112; same as my first gig.
Sound guy said the DI level was plenty fine, so, no repeat of the first gig's sound guy concern, who apparently just didn't get that it's ok to bump up channel input gain trim from unity.

Sound guy last night: "man, that GK is the best combination of clean, fat, warm and articulate I've ever head. I dunno how they get all that coming out of it at the same time."

Perfect, for me.
 
Last night:
AllevaLG5>MBF800>2xGK112; same as my first gig.
Sound guy said the DI level was plenty fine, so, no repeat of the first gig's sound guy concern, who apparently just didn't get that it's ok to bump up channel input gain trim from unity.

Sound guy last night: "man, that GK is the best combination of clean, fat, warm and articulate I've ever head. I dunno how they get all that coming out of it at the same time."

Perfect, for me.

RAG :D
 
Anyone notice any significant tonal difference between the MBF 500 and MBF 800? I read where Chef said a little more " heft "...

I have been a/b'ing mine a lot. Obviously very close. It seems like there is a little something more with the 800 that is not just the power.

Obviously, a relatively trivial issue :hiding:

But because almost all of my gigs are low volume with acoustic world music instruments, just wondering if I really need all the power of the 800 and should just use my 500.
 
"Anyone notice any significant tonal difference between the MBF 500 and MBF 800? I read where Chef said a little more " heft "..."

I don't think it's anything anyone but the player is gonna notice, generally speaking; and, I think you can readily eq them to feel the same.
 
So; in light of that, "why onw the MBF800 over the MBF500?"

Simple.
"Never bring a knife to a gunfight."

(also, the lit knobs are great on stage, and the gain structuring diff is nice: change both channels with one master)