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.
Mesa M6 Carbine Mega Thread part 3:
- Thread starter Thor
- Start date
That is pretty much exactly what I did Friday night at my gig! ...Give or take a little 'less' on either. Did I say DAMN that amp is loud through a 4 ohm Bergantino AE410? I can't imagine any gig I do where I would ever need more.
Chef
In Memoriam
Really, I'd never need more power.
I suppose under some unforeseen by me set of circumstances, I might need more speakers, but, not more power.
I mean, I guess if I somehow got hooked up with a Rolling stones or Aerosmith tour I might, but, not here in my real life.
I suppose under some unforeseen by me set of circumstances, I might need more speakers, but, not more power.
I mean, I guess if I somehow got hooked up with a Rolling stones or Aerosmith tour I might, but, not here in my real life.
I have been following this thread, and smiling at the questions about whether the M6 or M9 would produce sufficient volume.
I am playing the M6 and M9's "little brother," a Carbine M3 (300W @ 4 ohms, 160W @ 8 ohms), through an 8-ohm Aguilar GS-112NT cabinet. Bass is a Fender Highway 1 P-bass with a Bartolini 8s pickup. So in theory, at least, I am playing a bass with one single passive pickup through "only" 160W and "only" a single 12" speaker.
The tone is great for what I play. It's clearly a hybrid amp (12AX7 tube in the preamp. Mosfet power output), with a fairly clean and defined sound, but it's capable of producing warm tones and some very deep bass. It sounds really good.
With the Gain control set at 1 o'clock, I have to keep the Master Volume set down at around 8 o'clock (the equivalent of 2 on a scale from 1 to 10), avoid using the "Pull Deep" Bass control setting, and keep the volume knob on my bass turned well down from maximum, in order to avoid drowning out the other musicians in my group.
While I usually play in a small group with just a guitarist, a sax player and a singer, I have had almost exactly the same experience in a larger group with a loud drummer, two electric guitar players, a keyboard player, and a sax player playing through a PA system. With the M3's Gain control set at 1 o'clock, the Master Volume set at 9 o'clock (the equivalent of 3 on a scale from 1 to 10), and the Volume knob on my P-Bass set well below maximum, two or three of the other musicians asked me to turn down at the same time because the bass was drowning out the other instruments. I obliged by dialing things back, and still had plenty of volume to work with and no problem being heard. Granted, we weren't playing heavy metal, or a stadium concert, but still...
If that's what an M3 sounds like played through one single 12" speaker at a low Master Volume setting, an M6 played through a 4x10" cabinet would probably loosen dental fillings in the audience, and an M9 played through an 8X10" cabinet would probably loosen nuts and bolts on cars out in the parking lot and window panes in nearby buildings. At higher Master Volume settings, one might cross that subtle and invisible line of demarcation between playing music and the sonic equivalent of detonating a large quantity of explosives.
The M3, M6 and M9 also all have built-in DI outputs, so that people playing in large to very large venues can go through the the group or house sound system instead of relying on the amp's power section.
Music involves pitch, tonality, rhythm, and harmonic structure as well as volume -- subtlety as well as brute force. On those factors, the M3 acquits itself very nicely indeed. It's a very musical amp. I gather that the M6 and M9, while similar, have the added flexibility of a Voicing control, and the M9 adds a graphic equalizer. The M6 puts out 600W RMS at 4 or 2 ohms, and the M9 does 900W RMS at 4 or 2 ohms. If you can't make yourself heard at those power levels, your equipment needs probably go beyond anything that comments on TalkBass can help you with.
I am playing the M6 and M9's "little brother," a Carbine M3 (300W @ 4 ohms, 160W @ 8 ohms), through an 8-ohm Aguilar GS-112NT cabinet. Bass is a Fender Highway 1 P-bass with a Bartolini 8s pickup. So in theory, at least, I am playing a bass with one single passive pickup through "only" 160W and "only" a single 12" speaker.
The tone is great for what I play. It's clearly a hybrid amp (12AX7 tube in the preamp. Mosfet power output), with a fairly clean and defined sound, but it's capable of producing warm tones and some very deep bass. It sounds really good.
With the Gain control set at 1 o'clock, I have to keep the Master Volume set down at around 8 o'clock (the equivalent of 2 on a scale from 1 to 10), avoid using the "Pull Deep" Bass control setting, and keep the volume knob on my bass turned well down from maximum, in order to avoid drowning out the other musicians in my group.
While I usually play in a small group with just a guitarist, a sax player and a singer, I have had almost exactly the same experience in a larger group with a loud drummer, two electric guitar players, a keyboard player, and a sax player playing through a PA system. With the M3's Gain control set at 1 o'clock, the Master Volume set at 9 o'clock (the equivalent of 3 on a scale from 1 to 10), and the Volume knob on my P-Bass set well below maximum, two or three of the other musicians asked me to turn down at the same time because the bass was drowning out the other instruments. I obliged by dialing things back, and still had plenty of volume to work with and no problem being heard. Granted, we weren't playing heavy metal, or a stadium concert, but still...
If that's what an M3 sounds like played through one single 12" speaker at a low Master Volume setting, an M6 played through a 4x10" cabinet would probably loosen dental fillings in the audience, and an M9 played through an 8X10" cabinet would probably loosen nuts and bolts on cars out in the parking lot and window panes in nearby buildings. At higher Master Volume settings, one might cross that subtle and invisible line of demarcation between playing music and the sonic equivalent of detonating a large quantity of explosives.
The M3, M6 and M9 also all have built-in DI outputs, so that people playing in large to very large venues can go through the the group or house sound system instead of relying on the amp's power section.
Music involves pitch, tonality, rhythm, and harmonic structure as well as volume -- subtlety as well as brute force. On those factors, the M3 acquits itself very nicely indeed. It's a very musical amp. I gather that the M6 and M9, while similar, have the added flexibility of a Voicing control, and the M9 adds a graphic equalizer. The M6 puts out 600W RMS at 4 or 2 ohms, and the M9 does 900W RMS at 4 or 2 ohms. If you can't make yourself heard at those power levels, your equipment needs probably go beyond anything that comments on TalkBass can help you with.
Great post! Yeah, after gigging the M6 the other night in a VERY large room with a loud blues-rock band I was filling in with, (2 guitars, bass, drums, keys,) ...the M6 was Thunderously powerful through my 4 ohm Bergantino AE410. The Mesa M6 Carbine is truly a force to be reckoned with! I can't imagine the M6 or the more powerful M9 ever struggling to have enough volume. If you need to be concert stadium loud, then use the DI for FOH and keep stage volume at a tolerable level. Thats common sense in my experience. ...only on a few gigs in my career did I ever need to play that loud. that was on huge outdoor stages at festival events or at the State fairgrounds. Otherwise for club gigging, yeah, the M6 has PLENTY. MORE than plenty.
Dental fillings are NOT safe with the M6 and an efficient bass cab. That simple.
I used the Pull Deep bass control for the first time last night. The top of the amp was warm to the touch by the end of the night (never noticed that before). Talk about chest-pounding bass! Clean and articulate, too.
The gear used was Skjold 6 > M6 > Whappo Jr.
I didn't think another hundred watts of power would matter much (over my Thunderfunk TFB550). But the M6 is noticeably more powerful. At times I would push the TFunk near its limits. The M6 reaches those same levels without coming close to its limits.
The gear used was Skjold 6 > M6 > Whappo Jr.
I didn't think another hundred watts of power would matter much (over my Thunderfunk TFB550). But the M6 is noticeably more powerful. At times I would push the TFunk near its limits. The M6 reaches those same levels without coming close to its limits.
Don't put too much stock in printed specs. I also had both the TFB550 as well as a TFB750A. IMHO, the 750A was good for one thing... cooking eggs, which it would do faster than my electric griddle at home, btw. But yeah, while the TFB550 is a nice amp, it's not gonna' touch the M6 in both sheer horsepower or breadth of tone. I do think they're comparable in "quickness" however. They both have a great immediacy to their dynamic behavior IMHO.
True for both the TFunk and the M6.
Chef
In Memoriam
I ran my M6 at two ohms often, and do with my M9 as well.
It's never been an issue, either with performance or heat.
It's never been an issue, either with performance or heat.
That's good to know. Just for kicks and grins, I need to run my M6 through my Whappo Jr. and Schroeder 1515 (both are 4 ohms). With ear plugs!
No, I pretty much always ran my TFB's at 4 ohms. That 750, man, I just think Dave made some bad design choices on it, is all. The 550 is fine. I just found the tone a bit "masked" on it, so I moved on.
I just gigged tonight and the band asked me to join for a steady Tuesday/Wed weekly gig. I used my LMII/Bergie AE410. After playing through an M6 last week, I kept missing the low end slam of the M6 when I was using my LMII.
So now that a steady gig is looming with lots of work, I am tempted to score an M6. But I am wondering if I would value the M9 for its compressor and Graphic EQ? The M6 did not leave me wanting for power at all, so the extra wattage of the M9 doesn't really matter to me.
I've grown to love 'less is more' in terms of knobs/twiddling etc. So I wasn't initially interested in the M9 with its graphic EQ. But it occurs to me that gives the M9 ultimate flexibility to dial out unwanted frequencies in problematic rooms. and the compressor might be a nice feature since my slap technique is kinda like; "what if Joe Cocker played slap bass?"
So the question is; ....is the M9 that much more versatile and flexible? How nice and easy is the EQ to use? Is the M9 worth a little more?
I loved the M6. But I only got to gig with it once, so that's just one data point. Not enough to know if I'll want and need to tame the low end or other frequencies.
So now that a steady gig is looming with lots of work, I am tempted to score an M6. But I am wondering if I would value the M9 for its compressor and Graphic EQ? The M6 did not leave me wanting for power at all, so the extra wattage of the M9 doesn't really matter to me.
I've grown to love 'less is more' in terms of knobs/twiddling etc. So I wasn't initially interested in the M9 with its graphic EQ. But it occurs to me that gives the M9 ultimate flexibility to dial out unwanted frequencies in problematic rooms. and the compressor might be a nice feature since my slap technique is kinda like; "what if Joe Cocker played slap bass?"
So the question is; ....is the M9 that much more versatile and flexible? How nice and easy is the EQ to use? Is the M9 worth a little more?
I loved the M6. But I only got to gig with it once, so that's just one data point. Not enough to know if I'll want and need to tame the low end or other frequencies.
Gary,
I know Alan (chef) and Vic both were/are (not sure) M6 owners and now have M9s. I believe they like the flexibility of the GEQ for removing specific problem frequencies. I am pretty sure neither needed the extra power over the M6. The compressor on the M9 is real nice. If you plan on using a compressor with the M6 it will need to a pedal or a type that goes before the amp input as the FX send is affected by the master, which may be ok for other effects but not very good for a compressor IMO. If you always use the M6 at a constant volume you could probably use a rack compressor, but just wanted you to know. I still have my M6 and a just dropped using a compressor. I have a foot switch that I can control 2 of the mid settings and the mute. This is great for those who don't like the pull mute on the master volume, and I can boost the mids on the fly if I am not cutting on a particular song.
I know Alan (chef) and Vic both were/are (not sure) M6 owners and now have M9s. I believe they like the flexibility of the GEQ for removing specific problem frequencies. I am pretty sure neither needed the extra power over the M6. The compressor on the M9 is real nice. If you plan on using a compressor with the M6 it will need to a pedal or a type that goes before the amp input as the FX send is affected by the master, which may be ok for other effects but not very good for a compressor IMO. If you always use the M6 at a constant volume you could probably use a rack compressor, but just wanted you to know. I still have my M6 and a just dropped using a compressor. I have a foot switch that I can control 2 of the mid settings and the mute. This is great for those who don't like the pull mute on the master volume, and I can boost the mids on the fly if I am not cutting on a particular song.
Saluki is correct, and really, if the selling price diff is around $250 (which is what I've seen), I think it might be worth it.
That said, if I already had an M6, I don't think it'd be a big enough deal to take a flip hit to purchase one. I was able to craft a lot of different tones with the M6 EQ. It's deceptively simple interface control a surprisingly flexible tone stack. You just have to not be afraid to really use it all. But on a new purchase, I think the M9 is the sweet spot.
Chef
In Memoriam
I replied in one of the other threads he asked this, but:
I found the M6 to sometimes have unmanageably deep low end in some very specific to me cases.
I never needed more headroom than the M6, but the M9 allowed me to address that problem very accurately via the graphic eq and compressor.
I found the M6 to sometimes have unmanageably deep low end in some very specific to me cases.
I never needed more headroom than the M6, but the M9 allowed me to address that problem very accurately via the graphic eq and compressor.
Yeah, but just as a counterpoint, I found a way through combining a voicing and the bass control to drop the very low end, which solved my "boom" problem for rooms with that problem. However, to be fair, you definitely have more specific control with the GEQ. Just pointing out that, at least for some people, it is possible to control the low end on the M6 pretty effectively.
Thanks Saluki. To be honest, while I should maybe see what a Compressor can do for me, I've never felt the need or desire to use one in a live setting. So that's not really of huge interest to me. Plus I've seen where players with the M9 don't use the compressor much if at all. As far as using an M6, I think I would mostly set-it and forget-it other than adjusting the gain/master a touch. But usually once I get those dialed in, I'm good for the rest of the night on any amp.
Sorry for the cross postings Chef. It was late last night and I was researching various M6/M9 Threads and was feeling excited and zealous perhaps. Your comments are great appreciated! In fact, it was your comment about needing to counteract boomy / deep low end with the graphic that got me thinking about the added value the Graphic of the M9 brings to the equation!
I actually like and prefer a simple interface. I used to get all excited about gear with tons of flexibility and options only to discover that I find what works and like to leave things alone and just play!
It wasn't the M6 it was the UL410
You may be kidding, but to be fair, I am using an AE410 and it is more focused and tight in the bass to begin with. I used/gigged the M6 with my AE410 just once, but it was in the boomiest room I know and that wasn't a problem. So I am guessing with the AE410, I may not find a deep/wide boomy bass issue. As always, I could be wrong.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,942
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
It wasn't the M6 it was the UL410
You beat me to it!
FWIW, I have gigged with the M9, but I'm sticking with my M6. I tend to get my tone without using much EQ, so for me, the M9 doesn't really bring much more to the table. I will say that the compressor is really nice, but I don't miss it on the M6. FWIW, I typically play my M6 with my Berg AE series cabs or my Mesa/Boogie cabs.
