• 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.

Tec Puma Bass amps

#204
I considered a PM, but figured I'd ask you (Ken) here for the benefit of anyone else interested... you had some experience with the Berg IP series (specifically the 310) at Tom's GTG a while back, right? Given the similarity that the Puma seems to have with a "high end mixing board" kind of tone, how would you say it compares to the IP? I'm sure there's a great volume discrepency between the 500 and those cabs, but in general tonal terms...
 
#206
gruuv said:
I considered a PM, but figured I'd ask you (Ken) here for the benefit of anyone else interested... you had some experience with the Berg IP series (specifically the 310) at Tom's GTG a while back, right? Given the similarity that the Puma seems to have with a "high end mixing board" kind of tone, how would you say it compares to the IP? I'm sure there's a great volume discrepency between the 500 and those cabs, but in general tonal terms...
Click to expand...

I'm not Ken, but I'll chime in. The TechAmp gear does not sound entirely 'flat' to me. It does sound very, very good, and their amps and cabs do seem to be nicely balanced and able to cover a wide range of tones/styles. But, there seems to be some inherent voice to their gear (slightly on the round/lush side for the amps, and on the tight, quick, clean side for the cabs).

By contrast, the IP series cabs - as I hear them - are almost more defined by not having "too much of this" or "not enough of that." I suppose this creates a somewhat unique voice in their own right. Either way, I think the IP310 would be more neutral and also more massive sounding than a comparable TechAmp rig.

To be clear, I would say both setups would be more than excellent, and equally good. It would all boil down to personal preference, IMHO.

Of course, YMMV.

Tom.
 
#207
tombowlus said:
I'm not Ken, but I'll chime in. The TechAmp gear does not sound entirely 'flat' to me. It does sound very, very good, and their amps and cabs do seem to be nicely balanced and able to cover a wide range of tones/styles. But, there seems to be some inherent voice to their gear (slightly on the round/lush side for the amps, and on the tight, quick, clean side for the cabs).

By contrast, the IP series cabs - as I hear them - are almost more defined by not having "too much of this" or "not enough of that." I suppose this creates a somewhat unique voice in their own right. Either way, I think the IP310 would be more neutral and also more massive sounding than a comparable TechAmp rig.

To be clear, I would say both setups would be more than excellent, and equally good. It would all boil down to personal preference, IMHO.

Of course, YMMV.

Tom.
Click to expand...

Hey Tom, thanks for the input! I'd forgotten that you're checking out the 1000... good stuff. I guess it probably comes down to weight for me too, knowing that the IP stuff is much heavier (though probably sounds it, too).
 
#208
rok51 said:
Thank you, kind sir...truly a case of more gear than talent! :help:

Kim
Click to expand...

Hi,

I noticed your influences in your public profile. I had the good fortune to play several gigs with Nokie Edwards during the time I lived in Eugene, Oregon. I just played a birthday party this August with Nokie as the featured artist (among many very talented "old-timers.") He's a great player and a very gracious teacher / bandleader!

Greg
 
#209
tombowlus said:
I'm not Ken, but I'll chime in. The TechAmp gear does not sound entirely 'flat' to me. It does sound very, very good, and their amps and cabs do seem to be nicely balanced and able to cover a wide range of tones/styles. But, there seems to be some inherent voice to their gear (slightly on the round/lush side for the amps, and on the tight, quick, clean side for the cabs).

By contrast, the IP series cabs - as I hear them - are almost more defined by not having "too much of this" or "not enough of that." I suppose this creates a somewhat unique voice in their own right. Either way, I think the IP310 would be more neutral and also more massive sounding than a comparable TechAmp rig.

To be clear, I would say both setups would be more than excellent, and equally good. It would all boil down to personal preference, IMHO.

Of course, YMMV.

Tom.
Click to expand...

+1 in that they sound different. I don't hear the IP310 as neutral as Tom (HUGE low end, HUGE volume, and a very hi fi top end due to that big horn with lot's of frequencies coming through from the upper mids to the high treble). The IP310 is a beautiful piece of gear, just not my personal thing, and WAY too heavy.

I agree totally with Tom on the 'tight, quick and clean' on the cab, and while very clean and relatively even on the heads, there's a 'creaminess' that reminds me of the Glock and Epi heads (as I've posted before), which usually means a bit of a dip in the upper mids (which you can easily dial back in with the unique treble/crossover freq control), and a fatness in the low end (deep extension).

So, while each of the TecAmp components has quite a bit of 'voicing', when you combine them, it's about as transparent as you would ever need for the bass guitar IMO and IME (maybe too much so for some).
 
#210
KJung said:
+1 in that they sound different. I don't hear the IP's as neutral as Tom (HUGE low end, HUGE volume, and a very hi fi top end due to that big horn with lot's of frequencies coming through from the upper mids to the high treble). The IP310 is a beautiful piece of gear, just not my personal thing, and WAY too heavy.

I agree totally with Tom on the 'tight, quick and clean' on the cab, and while very clean and relatively even on the heads, there's a 'creaminess' that reminds me of the Glock and Epi heads (as I've posted before), which usually means a bit of a dip in the upper mids (which you can easily dial back in with the unique treble/crossover freq control), and a fatness in the low end (deep extension).

So, while each of the TecAmp components has quite a bit of 'voicing', when you combine them, it's about as transparent as you would ever need for the bass guitar IMO and IME (maybe too much so for some).
Click to expand...

Thanks! The Puma is looking better and better...
 
#211
gregbackstrom said:
Hi,

I noticed your influences in your public profile. I had the good fortune to play several gigs with Nokie Edwards during the time I lived in Eugene, Oregon. I just played a birthday party this August with Nokie as the featured artist (among many very talented "old-timers.") He's a great player and a very gracious teacher / bandleader!

Greg
Click to expand...

Would have loved to have been there!

Kim
 
#213
Mike Shevlin said:
Paging Mr. Bowlus - I would love to hear a Puma 1000 through an Accugroove Whappo Jr. My rig of Vegas doom is quickly taking shape.
Click to expand...

I can try and make that happen, but not right away.

I do now have two TechAmp 2x10's to drive with the Puma 1000, though! :D
 
#215
Mike Shevlin said:
Paging Mr. Bowlus - I would love to hear a Puma 1000 through an Accugroove Whappo Jr. My rig of Vegas doom is quickly taking shape.
Click to expand...

I believe the Whappo Jr. only comes in 4ohms, which would make a single one not optimal with the 1000 (you'd basically have a VERY expensive 500 with a few extra bells and whistles).

The 1000 bridges to an 8ohm minimum.
 
#217
Vic said:
...but what if you get one with the switch?? ;) :ninja:

:hiding:

(running away) :D
Click to expand...

whistling.gif
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back