• 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.

Double Bass My Fuchs arrived today

My FBS and FBT both arrived today.

I spent a couple of hours A/B/C-ing with my Woods with both my upright and a P bass.

After only a couple of hours of playing in my living room, here are my initial impressions...

1. The FBS definitely sounds Woods-like and would be a fine alternative. The Woods sounds a bit glassier (e.g., clean high end), but the FBS was more than fine. I was super happy playing through it.

2. The FBT sounds more like a B15 than an SVT to my ears. It had significantly less low and high end than the FBS. It's been ages since I've played through tubes, so I'll reserve judgement. I'll assume it's me and not the amp.

3. I was able to dial in a more than usable tone for my finicky upright with the FBS. Slightly different than the Woods, but again, it sounded good and was more than usable.

4. When I plugged my upright into the FBT, it definitely had B15 vibes, which isn't my thing.

5. The fan noise is real on both Fuchs amps. On a gig, I doubt that it would matter, but after decades with a WW, it was pretty different.

I plan to use the FBT all week, as it's the most foreign to what I'm used to.

I also did a few preamp captures of both Fuchs just for reference.

IMG_1479.jpeg
 
My FBS and FBT both arrived today.

I spent a couple of hours A/B/C-ing with my Woods with both my upright and a P bass.

After only a couple of hours of playing in my living room, here are my initial impressions...

1. The FBS definitely sounds Woods-like and would be a fine alternative. The Woods sounds a bit glassier (e.g., clean high end), but the FBS was more than fine. I was super happy playing through it.

2. The FBT sounds more like a B15 than an SVT to my ears. It had significantly less low and high end than the FBS. It's been ages since I've played through tubes, so I'll reserve judgement. I'll assume it's me and not the amp.

3. I was able to dial in a more than usable tone for my finicky upright with the FBS. Slightly different than the Woods, but again, it sounded good and was more than usable.

4. When I plugged my upright into the FBT, it definitely had B15 vibes, which isn't my thing.

5. The fan noise is real on both Fuchs amps. On a gig, I doubt that it would matter, but after decades with a WW, it was pretty different.

I plan to use the FBT all week, as it's the most foreign to what I'm used to.

I also did a few preamp captures of both Fuchs just for reference.

View attachment 6998260
Nice cabs, Don😎
 
The 4 ohm limitation is a bummer and the reason why I didn't buy one; that seems like a fairly antiquated approach. After having gigged for a decade+ with a 2 ohm head, there are far too many times on the job where I had to improvise with what was available and 2 ohm capability made a difference. 'Same reason why I got rid of my Raezer's Edge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazzdogg
If you look at Page 8 of the Fuchs manual (https://fuchsaudiotechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/BASS-AMP-MANUAL-all-models-PDF.pdf), the amp appears to support 2.67 ohm loads (e.g., three 8 ohm cabs in parallel).

Here's what the manual states about the 700w model.

• RL 2.65 Ohms 1000-Watts
• RL = 4 Ohms 720 Watts
• RL=8-Ohms 560 Watts

The Aguilar stuff also goes to 2.67 ohms.

The Berg was the only thing I considered that goes down to 2 ohms.

However, forty years of using a Woods has broken me of any attraction to going below 4 ohms.

It also trained me to pause when power cycling electronic products, but that's another story...
 
I disagree.

4 ohm cabs are common; 2.7 minimum does not even allow me to use two of them. That is a fail; it is 2024, not 1974. I use my equipment out on the job every week and it needs to handle any situation. 15 years of using 2 ohm capable Acoustic Image heads on over 500+ gigs has proven how valuable 2 ohm versatility is.

Other than that, they both look like great amps. I contacted Fuchs about six months ago trying to get a demo amp that we could pass around here in the community to get a variety of honest reviews, but they never followed up with any of it.
 
I disagree.

4 ohm cabs are common; 2.7 minimum does not even allow me to use two of them. That is a fail; it is 2024, not 1974. I use my equipment out on the job every week and it needs to handle any situation. 15 years of using 2 ohm capable Acoustic Image heads on over 500+ gigs has proven how valuable 2 ohm versatility is.

Other than that, they both look like great amps. I contacted Fuchs about six months ago trying to get a demo amp that we could pass around here in the community to get a variety of honest reviews, but they never followed up with any of it.
Hey James: I apologize that somehow your request for a loaner was overlooked. E-mail me ([email protected]), and I'll see what we can do. I appreciate the kind words.

A little clarification:

As far as 2 ohms, when we introduced our speaker line, I polled dealers and players, The consensus was 8-ohm cabs were "the norm". We do make up 4-ohm boxes by request, but 8 ohms is standard.

An 8 ohms and 4 ohms add up to 2.65, which our amps easily handle. We're limited by the ICE power modules, which simply shut down for a few seconds on transients, which is normal. There are some companies claiming 2-ohm operation, but I'm not sure if their fudging the numbers. I did ask the engineers at ICE if there might be a modification to the modules to permit 2 ohms. We're not the only company limited by the modules themselves, despite subsonic filtering and such. We're getting close to a kilowatt into 2.65...I-mean, how much more is enough ?!? lol.