- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,942
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
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.
MB Fusion vs WalkAbout
- Thread starter tombowlus
- Start date
just to back up Ken's finding based solely on what I've read here (no hands on experience), there have been plenty of threads with people complaining about build quality throughout the MB line of products. sometimes just commenting on cheap feeling pots or knobs, so take that for what it's worth. but not even just the heads, mind you... there's a megathread in the making about the fact that the MB cabs use ZERO batting and bracing.
my first big rig was GK (2001RB, 410RBH), and while it was built to feel quite sturdy, it had its share of issues. i've also played through quite a few 800RB's in my day, and known a few of em to blow up. GK in general seems like good gear, and they hit a great price point, but its not "bombproof" like some other companies (Mesa, for example).
my first big rig was GK (2001RB, 410RBH), and while it was built to feel quite sturdy, it had its share of issues. i've also played through quite a few 800RB's in my day, and known a few of em to blow up. GK in general seems like good gear, and they hit a great price point, but its not "bombproof" like some other companies (Mesa, for example).
Well, I don't wanna' get OT here, but I think the whole batting thing (yes, I know about it), is pretty fairly debatable, and at least subjective testing seems to pretty consistently show it's a non-issue tonally for a bass amplification application.
Also, you can't compare the big heads to the micro heads. You have to compare the micro heads to the micro heads. Anything else is just not a reasonable thing to do. And again, I wanna' make sure we're dealing with just the new heads... not stuff that's "historical" at this point (the older MB2 heads) regarding these "problems".
Don't get me wrong, I'm no GK champion, nor do they need one (and I own four of the uber-light heads at this point, not just the GK)... I just wanna' make sure we're being truly fair here no matter who we're talking about.
It's ok. IMHO, science loses a lot of value if it's taken without consideration of a practical perspective... and I think sometimes people can forget that.its my fault for broaching the topic, but now its only a matter of time til rpsands finds your comment and begins the scientific assault...
Merely relating my experiences with the brand as a whole. With GK I always drew the line (in terms of quality expectations) between the backline/goldline stuff and all the rest of it. But should we lump the micros in with the cheaper product lines in terms of quality if its unfair to compare them to the "big" amps? If that's the case those micros wouldn't be in very good company, to be quite honest.
And I understand rating a product based on its individual merits, but its gotta be a little disconcerting to know that GK released an earlier micro with an absolute slew of problems. How a company chooses to design and construct their products in general is how I form an opinion on a company as a whole... "historical" issues or no, that still lends the impression of a hit-or-miss operation, no matter where the truth may lie. Just sayin, not trying to start a war
Bear in mind, I respect GK and have no issue using their gear as backline... I think they do a great job of bringing full-featured, decent sounding heads to the world at a really good price point. The tone isn't there for me, and I've had reliability issues in the past, so I've moved on, but I respect the fact that they're still on the amp scene and that a lot of folks love their stuff.
Fair enough on yer post in general, but I'd personally stop short of classifying a company as a "hit or miss operation" unless they had a longer track record of problematic products being their "norm". IMHO, GK doesn't qualify on that front, but given your experiences, I can understand how you could be sour on the brand.
FWIW, anyway. I'm just another poster like you.
- Feb 3, 2005
- 7,331
- 10,197
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Bergantino Audio Systems and GHS Strings
I don't care for the switches on the top, but maybe I just find them weird. I do like the heavy duty nature of the Walkabout for sure. To me, 13# is plenty light enough. Now, I see where the 4.5# is great when you are maybe doing a 1 trip in type gig where you can sneak it in the gig bag pocket.
I'd just say that at the end of the day, the heads are different. Although the MB Fusion is a little different, I think it is awfully close to the MB500. I don't think it really gives you a different sound. That is why I went Walkabout. Two totally different tones between the two.
I'd just say that at the end of the day, the heads are different. Although the MB Fusion is a little different, I think it is awfully close to the MB500. I don't think it really gives you a different sound. That is why I went Walkabout. Two totally different tones between the two.
so Tom, for someone who is totally in love with the Walkabout, would you say the RH450 or the MB Fusion is closer in overall tone ?
Based on the some of the comments and reviews, I'm going to guess the TC is probably a closer relation than the GK, just due to the more typical GK tone goals (more modern/zingy). This is interesting considering that the RH450 is all digital/SS, whereas the GK has some real tubes in the pre. But i know that's just a matter of the over all design.
I am looking closely at both these amps for their "micro-ness" but also how closely they can get to the Walkabout tube warm tone. The other thing in the RH450 favor is that it has a switching power supply 220/240 and so does not need any factory or tech assistance to plug into non-US power (other than a plug adaptor).
Based on the some of the comments and reviews, I'm going to guess the TC is probably a closer relation than the GK, just due to the more typical GK tone goals (more modern/zingy). This is interesting considering that the RH450 is all digital/SS, whereas the GK has some real tubes in the pre. But i know that's just a matter of the over all design.
I am looking closely at both these amps for their "micro-ness" but also how closely they can get to the Walkabout tube warm tone. The other thing in the RH450 favor is that it has a switching power supply 220/240 and so does not need any factory or tech assistance to plug into non-US power (other than a plug adaptor).
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,942
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
I have spoken to Bob Gallien about their cab designs, and the fact that they do not use sound absorbing material in their cabinets. This is decision was made based upon their own design goals & listening tests, and was not a cost-based decision. It would not have made any significant manufacturing cost difference to add the insulation/batting. They prefer the sound of their cabs without it, and I have to say, the results are pretty darned good.
I do agree that normally I would expect to find some kind of sound-absorbing material inside of a bass enclosure, but this was an intentional decision on Bob's part, and not an effort to cut costs.
Tom.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,942
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
That's hard to say without my RH450, but I'd say that if you are in love with the WalkAbout (as I am, too!), then I say roll with the WalkAbout.
+1That's hard to say without my RH450, but I'd say that if you are in love with the WalkAbout (as I am, too!), then I say roll with the WalkAbout.
Also keep in mind the RH450 has a built-in low pass filter that pretty much blocks everything from 5K and up, which takes some of the sheen off the top compared to other amps, which would include both the GK and the Walkabout.
+1 The top end of the GK is among the zingiest, and the top end of the RH450 is among the most organic and old school. Totally different voicings. The low end of the RH450 is a bit more meaty and punchy versus the very wide, deep low end of the MB500 I recently tried, which is described as sounding very similar to the MBFusion.
Agreed on the RH450 top end. It is very 'smooth' and 'old school' in its top end. Last night I played with a SR5 HS, the RH450 and and RS212. I found the HF on the cabinet to be very 'sweet' and have none of that high end 'gank' as I call it....eg too much brightness. Even with the HF all the way up, it still didnt go injto overkill.
I like some zing, sometimes, but not that '80s' zing where it sounds very very modern.
This is IMO though, we all have different goals.
If Mesa made a 13lb-15lb 500-600 Walkabout, id jump on it NOW. Not saying the 300W isnt enough though. Trouble is, we pay top whack for Mesa in the UK
I like some zing, sometimes, but not that '80s' zing where it sounds very very modern.
This is IMO though, we all have different goals.
If Mesa made a 13lb-15lb 500-600 Walkabout, id jump on it NOW. Not saying the 300W isnt enough though. Trouble is, we pay top whack for Mesa in the UK
Chef
In Memoriam
Yep, that was me.
Hoped for a 600 watt Walkabout, and was thoroughly disappointed in that MP600.
I want a Walkabout with the M9 power section. Stupid headroom, giving me complete choice over how much of the saturated Walkabout tone I want: none, some, or nasty.
As it is now, I find the Walkabout underpowered for somethings, even when pushed hard at 2 ohms. Bummer, cause it's a great head, aside from that.
Hoped for a 600 watt Walkabout, and was thoroughly disappointed in that MP600.
I want a Walkabout with the M9 power section. Stupid headroom, giving me complete choice over how much of the saturated Walkabout tone I want: none, some, or nasty.
As it is now, I find the Walkabout underpowered for somethings, even when pushed hard at 2 ohms. Bummer, cause it's a great head, aside from that.
