Chef
In Memoriam
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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!!(((((((
- Thread starter Vitamin J
- Start date
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
It's a resistor in the signal path, so it's going to affect the tone somewhat, just like wiring pickups straight to the output jack.
Yeah I forgot about that!
I think I'll keep this bad boy and work with it for awhile.
Anyone have any idea's about a neoprene (ish) type of sleeve that might fit this head? I don't want a full on bag because I'm gonna slip it inside my gig bag which is too big. (want to avoid slip and sliding around)
Played mine at the gig tonight. I kept it pretty tame for the first set, but a number of folks in the crowd wanted more bottom, so I let 'em have it after that. I wasn't even at noon and noon and that thing was LOUD. No complaints from the band.
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,944
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
The ShuttleMax 9.2 is my favorite Genz-Benz head, for sure, but I find that I'm still always twiddling knobs to try and dial in what I'm looking for from the low end. True, the 9.2 is much better in this regard than some other G-B heads, but even so, I feel like I am fighting the high pass filtering and built-in low end "control" features.
The GK tone stack and tone profile just works right out of the gate for me, especially with a slight cut to the Bass and Treble and a slight boost to the two mid controls (which Tom Lees found to be the "optimally flat" setting).
This is all IME/IMHO, though, and YMMV.
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
While I'm not much of a fan of the GK tone stack, +1 to your comparison. VERY differently voiced heads that would appeal to different players. I love the variable hi pass capability on the Max 9.2, while I always found the low end to treble to mid ratio on the GK micros hard to control/dial in (for my personal tone).
Two great flavors of good though. I agree, the GK definitely has a 'wider tonal footprint' (and both amps have powerful enough EQ to get most at least close to where they need to be, given they want a relatively bright and modern tone).
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
+1 Ken. I'll add that the CN212 is much tighter in the low end (seems like it's missing all that sub region that the AE212 has in spades) and that using the 9.2 Max with low boost on, and cranking the low bass on the preamp EQ yields a really tight thick and surprisingly defined low end. I'm still getting used to that head with this cabinet.
I used the Fusion 800 last night in a rehearsal with a bass that has very tight low end and like Tom mentioned boosting the mids got me where I needed to go.
The GK has one thing going for it, it has less knobs to tweak
+1 Ken. I'll add that the CN212 is much tighter in the low end (seems like it's missing all that sub region that the AE212 has in spades) and that using the 9.2 Max with low boost on, and cranking the low bass on the preamp EQ yields a really tight thick and surprisingly defined low end. I'm still getting used to that head with this cabinet.
I used the Fusion 800 last night in a rehearsal with a bass that has very tight low end and like Tom mentioned boosting the mids got me where I needed to go.
The GK has one thing going for it, it has less knobs to tweak
+1 The low end of the CN212 is pretty impressive. Less deep low end extension than the AE212 (per your point), but seems to have much more robust mechanical capability, which allows it to just POUND at 50hz or whatever. Perfect low end voicing for the Max 9.2, and I bet the Fusion800 sounds quite nice in a different way... bigger, wider, more aggressive up top.
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
Last night in rehearsal I had the treble on the GK turned down a tad. (bass I was using has EMG J pickups in it) and it was smooth and pretty articulate. In a raucous band setting I found any texture from the tubes was instantly lost in the mix and the overall tonal signature of the amp was cutting through.
Having less knobs to tweak may be a good thing for me.
Agreed on the CN212 being very pound-able in the 50hz region! WHat a different animal compared to the AE212. (Which I sort of miss, I have to admit)
FWIW, while I still like the GK cabs best these days, I do have a pair of the older Berg AE210 cabs, which are punchy as hell but with a pretty tight low end. Paired with a head that's also a bit tighter in the low end, it's a bit too much of a good thing, and it sounds just a tad on the boxy side. But the big sound of these GK heads really pairs nicely with those, too. A close second to my GK cabs.
Yeah, that first version of the AE210's were quite aggressive up top, which made the balance between the lows and highs a bit out of whack. Great cabs though. The CN cabs are an ENTIRELY different thing though. MUCH bigger down low than the AE10 cabs, and the crossover is a thing of wonder and beauty (somewhat similar up top to the revised vertical AE210v).
Definitely. If it weren't for the fact that I had such a great head to pair them with at this point, if I was shopping for Berg stuff right now, it'd definitely be a pair of 12's or one of the 212 cabs. I think those cover a bit more ground and do a better job of it overall... maybe put another way, much happier with a wider variety of amps.
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
Those are definitely my faves... actually any of the Neo 12 cabs. I say that, because if you get the 800, you definitely have enough power to blow up a pair of the 112's if you're not careful, but the 500 should be safe. With the 800, you might consider the 212's instead.
I do also have a pair of the Neo 115 cabs, and they pretty much just sound like bigger 112's due to their strong mid presence, and can take a bit more power, but IMHO, the sweet spot is a pair of the 112's. Man I love those cabs.
Chef
In Memoriam
"new knob layout"
-while I like the lit knobs, no matter how careful I am with the carry bag, one/some of the dual function knobs get triggered on the bag, meaning, I can't rely on "it's where I left it set last time I used it."
Also, the dual function knobs spin more easily, and are subject to movement in; and, in and out of the bag. So: mixed improvement there.
I actually prefer the deep/bright/contour shift buttons on the MBF500; fwiw.
Those never got moved in transit, or, in and out of the bag, for me.
"two 112's"
-yup, the MBF800 could demolish those. Careful! They're uberlightweight at 29lbs, and easy to move; and, they sound great and work great with the MB/RB heads. Total win.
-while I like the lit knobs, no matter how careful I am with the carry bag, one/some of the dual function knobs get triggered on the bag, meaning, I can't rely on "it's where I left it set last time I used it."
Also, the dual function knobs spin more easily, and are subject to movement in; and, in and out of the bag. So: mixed improvement there.
I actually prefer the deep/bright/contour shift buttons on the MBF500; fwiw.
Those never got moved in transit, or, in and out of the bag, for me.
"two 112's"
-yup, the MBF800 could demolish those. Careful! They're uberlightweight at 29lbs, and easy to move; and, they sound great and work great with the MB/RB heads. Total win.
They would need to fix that. +1 I REALLY don't like the version of the push/pulls that have no resistance. That should be a simple fix, since I've experienced push/pull pots that were very tight feeling.
