• 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.

Peavey MiniMega 1000

#1,261
In other words, like an expansion of your sonic pallet?
Click to expand...

I guess part of what I mean is that on some songs, I can just let a note simply sustain out and speak for itself where I would normally add more "filler" or add some sort of secondary attack. Also, I find I'm sticking to neck register "boxes" where I would normally slide up the neck to a different register to get the sound I'm going for. I'm feeling like I can get busier with lower notes while hearing what I'm playing, and it seems like I can use a more consistent attack across the neck. I'm remembering a debate between me and KJung years ago about that very thing. He was saying that it was because of the amps I was using, but I just figured he was being snobby. I hate to admit it, but I think he was right.

One shock to me is that a 4-string in standard tuning is capable of sounding damn low when the fundamental is being pushed and you have a cab that can reproduce it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daniel Piper, svtb15, BassOnTheSide and 2 others
#1,262
BbbyBld said:
I guess part of what I mean is that on some songs, I can just let a note simply sustain out and speak for itself where I would normally add more "filler" or add some sort of secondary attack. Also, I find I'm sticking to neck register "boxes" where I would normally slide up the neck to a different register to get the sound I'm going for. I'm feeling like I can get busier with lower notes while hearing what I'm playing, and it seems like I can use a more consistent attack across the neck. I'm remembering a debate between me and KJung years ago about that very thing. He was saying that it was because of the amps I was using, but I just figured he was being snobby. I hate to admit it, but I think he was right.

One shock to me is that a 4-string in standard tuning is capable of sounding damn low when the fundamental is being pushed and you have a cab that can reproduce it.
Click to expand...
So, instead of having to slide up to an A on the 12th fret of the A string you're getting the same depth of tone, more fundamental, even if playing 7th fret D string or maybe even 2nd fret G string?
 
#1,263
So, instead of having to slide up to an A on the 12th fret of the A string you're getting the same depth of tone, more fundamental, even if playing 7th fret D string or maybe even 2nd fret G string?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Or, I would typically (in the past) favor the tone of my 12th fret E-string E over the 7th fret A-string E, or like Bb and B at the 6th and 7th frets of the E-string over first position on the A-string.

If I played a song in F, I would previously need to turn up my bass up to be heard, but if the chord changed, I would need to watch my attack playing in C or else I'd be playing too loud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanwin17
#1,264
BbbyBld said:
Pretty much. Or, I would typically (in the past) favor the tone of my 12th fret E-string E over the 7th fret A-string E, or like Bb and B at the 6th and 7th frets of the E-string over first position on the A-string.

If I played a song in F, I would previously need to turn up my bass up to be heard, but if the chord changed, I would need to watch my attack playing in C or else I'd be playing too loud.
Click to expand...
I play that way all the time. Just a habit I picked up from when I first started playing bass and was going for that McCartney-esque tone.
 
#1,266
I just acquired an FDeck HPF, does the mM have a high pass filter built in?
Click to expand...

It does, but it is set much lower than the FDeck box and probably doesn't have as steep of a roll-off.

Nearly every Peavey bass amp since the early 90's had an infrasonic HPF. The Mini Mega is one of the first to not have it. Why? If you look at nearly every highly regarded bass amp made since the 70's, they don't have them. There are certainly multiple benefits to using a HPF, but there are certain types of sounds and feel you can't get with one. As I have posted before, I was chasing a tone with the mM, and I realized that I needed to lose the HPF to get the lows like I wanted, and how I know the majority of bass players want.

I could see how some players may benefit from using a HPF. FDeck is good people, so I hope he sells a million of those things.

The Headliner 1000 has a HPF built in. It's kind of interesting to listen to the mM and Headliner side by side because they have the same power amp module and very similar overall preamp designs, but the HPF in the Headliner is one of the main reasons why the two amps sound so different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: puff father, svtb15 and sanwin17
#1,267
Bobby, above re HPF, you say "It does", then go on to say the mM is the first "to not have it" (an infrasonic HPF). Can you further explain what it does have for an HPF, if any, and how it differs from the FDeck? Thx, Tom
 
#1,268
I like the idea and concept of this amp more and more..

BbbyBld said:
It does, but it is set much lower than the FDeck box and probably doesn't have as steep of a roll-off.

Nearly every Peavey bass amp since the early 90's had an infrasonic HPF. The Mini Mega is one of the first to not have it. Why? If you look at nearly every highly regarded bass amp made since the 70's, they don't have them. There are certainly multiple benefits to using a HPF, but there are certain types of sounds and feel you can't get with one. As I have posted before, I was chasing a tone with the mM, and I realized that I needed to lose the HPF to get the lows like I wanted, and how I know the majority of bass players want.

I could see how some players may benefit from using a HPF. FDeck is good people, so I hope he sells a million of those things.

The Headliner 1000 has a HPF built in. It's kind of interesting to listen to the mM and Headliner side by side because they have the same power amp module and very similar overall preamp designs, but the HPF in the Headliner is one of the main reasons why the two amps sound so different.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: tombowlus, Ryan L. and puff father
#1,269
@TomB...Sorry, should have been more clear. What Peavey traditionally used is what I would call an infrasonic filter. It was something that profoundly affected the lower end of the audio band, was designed to have a certain phase response, and was designed so that the group delay of the entire preamp was set a certain way. This is basically the type of filtering that people around here call HPF.

What the mM has is subsonic filtering, so the roll off takes place below the audio band. It's done so that the amp operates properly (is usable in the practical sense), not to tune the lows. So anyway, it's a high-pass filter by definition, but it's a different type for a different purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: puff father, sanwin17 and mbelue
#1,270
BbbyBld said:
@TomB...Sorry, should have been more clear. What Peavey traditionally used is what I would call an infrasonic filter. It was something that profoundly affected the lower end of the audio band, was designed to have a certain phase response, and was designed so that the group delay of the entire preamp was set a certain way. This is basically the type of filtering that people around here call HPF.

What the mM has is subsonic filtering, so the roll off takes place below the audio band. It's done so that the amp operates properly (is usable in the practical sense), not to tune the lows. So anyway, it's a high-pass filter by definition, but it's a different type for a different purpose.
Click to expand...
Science!
 
  • Like
Reactions: D_Bag
#1,273
if the primary function of an (outboard) HPF is to remove sub-sonics, and the mM does this, is anything audible lost with its scheme vs. earlier Peavey designs, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

One of the main reasons for the earlier design was to maximize volume and to increase projection/cut when amplifier power and speaker power handling was much lower. The downside is that the low frequency output is reduced, so if you have the amp power and cabs needed to reproduce those frequencies, I think it can get in the way.

So anyway, I'd say at the 500W level, still highly useful at squeezing every last drop of clean volume out of each watt.

At the 1000W level, there's ample headroom and volume available, so I'd rather open up the low end for fidelity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: svtb15, puff father, mbelue and 1 other person
#1,276
svtb15 said:
Im guessing this will work good with a fearful, 1822 or the audiokinesis hathor 1855...
Click to expand...

Man, I'd love to try a Hathor 1855 some day. For now, I have a Fearless F115, two of my own BNA Audio 1822's and my prototype 218. I should be fine for now :)

My main interest in this cab are two things. The power section is of interest to me to see if it truly has more heft than say my GK MB800 or a similar class D amp. I like the GK but especially on upright the eq seems a bit harsh at times. Something with a smoother, cleaner eq section would be the ticket for me on upright gigs
 
  • Like
Reactions: svtb15
#1,277
dukeorock said:
Man, I'd love to try a Hathor 1855 some day. For now, I have a Fearless F115, two of my own BNA Audio 1822's and my prototype 218. I should be fine for now :)

My main interest in this cab are two things. The power section is of interest to me to see if it truly has more heft than say my GK MB800 or a similar class D amp. I like the GK but especially on upright the eq seems a bit harsh at times. Something with a smoother, cleaner eq section would be the ticket for me on upright gigs
Click to expand...

Having owned a GK800, I can say the mM I think matches or betters its sheer muscle. The EQ on the mM, to my ears, is way more transparent and "even". It's hard to get it to blow holes in your tone even with the mid bands set to narrow Q. When widened out, it's even more musical IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeorock
#1,278
husky123 said:
Having owned a GK800, I can say the mM I think matches or betters its sheer muscle. The EQ on the mM, to my ears, is way more transparent and "even". It's hard to get it to blow holes in your tone even with the mid bands set to narrow Q. When widened out, it's even more musical IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll know how it works for upright soon enough :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: husky123
#1,279
BbbyBld said:
One of the main reasons for the earlier design was to maximize volume and to increase projection/cut when amplifier power and speaker power handling was much lower. The downside is that the low frequency output is reduced, so if you have the amp power and cabs needed to reproduce those frequencies, I think it can get in the way.

So anyway, I'd say at the 500W level, still highly useful at squeezing every last drop of clean volume out of each watt.

At the 1000W level, there's ample headroom and volume available, so I'd rather open up the low end for fidelity.
Click to expand...

That's very helpful - thanks!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back