• 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 MBFusion 800

#23
There's no lack of GK content on these forums. The constant talk about them is what made me grab one so many years ago.

Only wish I had some money to splash out onto one of the new Fusion 800s. Could certainly do with a more portable amp... or so I'll keep telling myself. =D
 
#26
Chef said:
I've had mine for quite a long time now.
It's just like the MBFusion 500, except more. Much More.

If you're going to run at 8 ohms, and like your sound to stay clean, get the 800.
If you're running at 4 ohms, and are ok with just a Normal Huge Truckload of Power, get the 500.
If you're running at 4 ohms, and need a Giant Mother-Killing Truckload of Too Much;
get the 800.

hth.
Click to expand...

This isn't fiction.
 
#27
VanillaThundah said:
If it's anything like my MB200, it's freakin awesome. Absolutely love mine, can't imagine it's anything but warmer, louder, and more flexible.
Click to expand...

For some reason the tonal character and aural "shape" of the MB200 is just a tad almost imperceptably different. Not sure if it's the power modules imparting their own character or what, but it's got a really cool thing going on. For quiet restraunt gigs it's my go-to over the 800 and why I still keep it.
 
#30
I'd totally expect the MB200, used hard, to sound different than a Fusion MB.
And, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they "just felt different" at lower volumes too.
The Fusion's three preamp tube thing is gonna have a different mojojo to it, vs the FET thing.

Doug Parent said:
For some reason the tonal character and aural "shape" of the MB200 is just a tad almost imperceptably different. Not sure if it's the power modules imparting their own character or what, but it's got a really cool thing going on. For quiet restraunt gigs it's my go-to over the 800 and why I still keep it.
Click to expand...
 
#31
2string1 said:
To much what? Good or bad
Click to expand...

Couple reasons not in order of importance.

1. I really wanted a head with a smaller footprint and the Fusion 800 turned out to be bigger than was optimum.

2. The gain and headroom on tap far exceeds the needs for most of the gigs I do. I barely had the thing on, and it was just a waste of horsepower.

3. My MB200 actually sounded more clear at these lower volumes than the Fusion 800 which has it's 3 pre-amp tubes and a much warmer vibe with more complex textures tonally.

I've always been more of a SS guy.
 
#32
Doug Parent said:
Couple reasons not in order of importance.

1. I really wanted a head with a smaller footprint and the Fusion 800 turned out to be bigger than was optimum.

2. The gain and headroom on tap far exceeds the needs for most of the gigs I do. I barely had the thing on, and it was just a waste of horsepower.

3. My MB200 actually sounded more clear at these lower volumes than the Fusion 800 which has it's 3 pre-amp tubes and a much warmer vibe with more complex textures tonally.

I've always been more of a SS guy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the MB500 would be perfect for you. I think that head has the nice 'contour center point' switch also, and the contour is variable. Higher quality/lower noise than the MB200 also, and a fraction of the size of the MBF800.
 
#33
Chef said:
I'd totally expect the MB200, used hard, to sound different than a Fusion MB.
And, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they "just felt different" at lower volumes too.
The Fusion's three preamp tube thing is gonna have a different mojojo to it, vs the FET thing.
Click to expand...

totally. It's the reason why I sold my Demeter/Crown rig and went solid state. I prefer quick, dry, solid slam over warm round saggy and fat. (we're talking about bass gear here, right? ) :hiding:
 
#34
Doug Parent said:
totally. It's the reason why I sold my Demeter/Crown rig and went solid state. I prefer quick, dry, solid slam over warm round saggy and fat. (we're talking about bass gear here, right? ) :hiding:
Click to expand...

You're painting a broad stroke there. The GK Fusion sounds quite different than most tube amps. Someone looking for an Ampeg type sound is going to be very disappointed in the GK Fusion. It's designed to have the signature GK sound. I've found the clean sound to be nearly indistinguishable from the solid-state MB. It's every bit as quick, dry, and solid. It's the breakup, however, that sets the Fusion apart. The breakup on the Fusion is a bit less harsh.
 
#35
KJung said:
Sounds like the MB500 would be perfect for you. I think that head has the nice 'contour center point' switch also, and the contour is variable. Higher quality/lower noise than the MB200 also, and a fraction of the size of the MBF800.
Click to expand...

Actually you read my mind Ken. I've been keeping an eye on the classifieds for one because I'd like the change in flavor from time to time. Plus I like the top mounted switches on the 500 better as well as the form factor.
 
#36
domdec314 said:
You're painting a broad stroke there. The GK Fusion sounds quite different than most tube amps. Someone looking for an Ampeg type sound is going to be very disappointed in the GK Fusion. It's designed to have the signature GK sound. I've found the clean sound to be nearly indistinguishable from the solid-state MB. It's every bit as quick, dry, and solid. It's the breakup, however, that sets the Fusion apart. The breakup on the Fusion is a bit less harsh.
Click to expand...

I agree with you I was speaking more generally and sweeping Ampeg and Mesa in the bin as well, but to my point, the Fusion has more tube related complexity that I found a bit much for my tastes.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back