• 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.

TecAmp amplification club.....is there such a thing yet

Status
Not open for further replies.
#301
Fwiw, I could never quite get the M6 where I wanted. I had to upgrade to the M9 for the graphic EQ. Still it took a ton of tweaking to get the right sound. The problem with that is if I need another sound on the fly it took a bunch more tweaking. Ugh.

The puma is so much closer to the sound I'm going for with everything at noon. Only minor tweaks when necessary. And the form factor/weight difference makes it a no brainer. I wish I had more time with both together. I would have loved to see how close I could get the puma to the Mesa. Probably not very, but jack up the hi mid and highs, cut the lo mids and I'd imagine you're not too far away...
 
#302
Same here with the m6. Initially I loved it and I still think its a great amp, but it took alot of work to get it sounding right, and the high end, although plentiful and open, wasn't natural enough sounding for my tastes. The 900 is easy easy easy. The most ill ever move a knob is about "1 hour", and it sounds great in every setting so far. Truly plug n play
 
#303
I discovered another reason I miss the Puma - it doesn't require a speaker load to record as a DI, but you can also leave the speaker connected and turn the master to 0 and still get signal to the DAW. The M6 requires a speaker load, and the DI level goes to 0 if the master is at 0. I need to double check the Mesa manual to see if there is a trick I'm missing. I'm also hoping that the Jag can function like the Puma in this regard. I'm uncertain because the Jag lacks the headphone out, though Glenn at ABT was under the impression that the Jag would do silent direct recording.
 
#304
J.Wolf said:
Same here with the m6. Initially I loved it and I still think its a great amp, but it took alot of work to get it sounding right, and the high end, although plentiful and open, wasn't natural enough sounding for my tastes. The 900 is easy easy easy. The most ill ever move a knob is about "1 hour", and it sounds great in every setting so far. Truly plug n play
Click to expand...

This has been my experience as well. The amp sounds great flat, which is what I prefer. If I'm in a boomy room, I cut just a bit of bass or roll a bit towards dry. If I want a bit more cut, just a bit of high mids. A little more low-mid fill, add low mids. But it doesn't take much.
 
#305
nostatic said:
bah - just do what I do. Take it to a gig right out of the box :D

I gigged the Puma 500/S212 combo last night at a room I've played a number of times before. We had a sub on keys and no sax so it wasn't an "ideal" night as I had to be paying attention to things so dialing in a sound was another thing to keep track of. After the gig I came home and did an A/B/C with heads and cabs that I currently have.

I like the Puma 500 head a lot. I was barely at 9:00 and it was plenty loud. The taste behaves a little different in a band mix than solo, at least in my hands. It also depends on the bass. But the head has a more open sound than my TH500 so that pair will be the 1-2 punch depending on the gig.

The S212 is a very nice cab, but I'm now 0-5 on really liking a box loaded with 12" speakers (from 4 different brands). It is plenty loud and has a lot of booty. Probably a bit too much for my taste which seems to deviate from most people. My Berg AE210s remain my fav for sound and for form factor/portability. But again, I'm picky about form factor and have needs/wants that probably are different from some players. I like to be able to one-hand carry a cab, and I can do that with the Bergs (I carry and run them vertical).

The S212 is a beautiful cab though, really well built, light (40lbs), and fills a stage well. I'm just more a fan of a cab that is a bit thinner in the low mids and also in a perfect world, I like a shallow (front to back) cab for stage placement. No knock on the S212, as I haven't bonded with 12s from Berg (2 different models), GB, GK, or Aggie (though the ultra light weight of the SL112 has kept it in the rotation so far). If you like 12s, you likely will *love* the S212.

pics or didn't happen...
Click to expand...

Gorgeous gear, funny shirt. Well played, sir.
 
#306
monsterthompson said:
I discovered another reason I miss the Puma - it doesn't require a speaker load to record as a DI, but you can also leave the speaker connected and turn the master to 0 and still get signal to the DAW. The M6 requires a speaker load, and the DI level goes to 0 if the master is at 0. I need to double check the Mesa manual to see if there is a trick I'm missing. I'm also hoping that the Jag can function like the Puma in this regard. I'm uncertain because the Jag lacks the headphone out, though Glenn at ABT was under the impression that the Jag would do silent direct recording.
Click to expand...

FYI, this is not so much a unique quality of the Puma, but rather a short coming of the Mesa heads. They link the master volume to the DI, which is unusual.
 
#308
No Static,
Are you using the newer one rack space Puma 500 & is your S212 the front or rear ported?
I own the front ported version and I love it with my F500. Would love to try out a 500 or 900 version. I have just heard the newer versions sound different than the original bigger 500.
Steve
 
#310
nostatic said:
My Puma is the newer one-space head. The S212 was the newer rear ported version. I believe that the newer heads have less low end and are a bit more aggressive in the mids than the original one.
Click to expand...

Never heard the older versions but I own a new PUMA 500 and wil attest to the mids being prominent on the new head. I bet a fretless would sound great with this head. Each room you play will have natural bass resonance so you won't miss the extra bass or bottom. in fact you will be much cleaner and clearer than you're ever been and there will be plenty bass for the room. Just no boom. and this is a good thing.
 
#311
phillybass101 said:
Never heard the older versions but I own a new PUMA 500 and wil attest to the mids being prominent on the new head. I bet a fretless would sound great with this head. Each room you play will have natural bass resonance so you won't miss the extra bass or bottom. in fact you will be much cleaner and clearer than you're ever been and there will be plenty bass for the room. Just no boom. and this is a good thing.
Click to expand...

+1 The newer version is quite a bit more controlled down low, and a bit brighter in the upper midrange. It actually sounds somewhat similar to my Markbass F1/F500.... still a bit smoother and cleaner, but pretty darn close. Great head! If I didn't own the F500, I'd pick one up.
 
#315
monsterthompson said:
They are the makers. Never heard of anyone trying it.
Click to expand...

I got a response from Malcolm Hall (Mr. Brubaker himself/PLENTYSTRINGS on youtube) and he said it was bass player heaven. If only I had the extra cash to splurge on something like this. Late night practices at home would become EVENTS!!!!!
 
#316
AREA said:
...and here it is...

29xjij7.jpg
Click to expand...

MAN!!! You have one of those Pleasure Boards. Tell us about it.
 
#317
phillybass101 said:
Is it tecamp that makes the pleasure board? has anyone tried one?
Click to expand...

The pleasure pump' (or whatever they called it) is just a 'vibration device' (OK, setting myself up for lots of OT discussion on that one:D) that is meant to give the player the 'feeling' of playing loud when using in ear monitors and very low stage sound. Many drummers doing stadium and arena level gigs, where the stage sound is very soft, but the music is really pumping, use one of those 'earthquake' drivers bolted to a piece of plywood on their drum riser for the same reason. Similar concept, as is the little 'studio rumble seat' that EA put out for a few years for studio use.

Pretty cool, but pretty limited usage for most of us. The Puma 1000 (the original one anywyay) was specifically designed for this situation, with one channel having a 'super deep bass boost' that was designed to run the pad, and the other channel normally voiced to run a cab at moderate volumes on stage.
 
#319
I've been experiencing some serious tone nirvana lately with a setup that i stumbled upon almost by accident, but it sounds frickin amazing to my ears.

Just picked up a used summit td100 to check out. Into the efx return of the puma 900 it sounds pretty good and is a nice hifi Tubey alternative to the pumas tone. However....... Using the td100 in the fx loop of the puma (fx send into td100 front panel, then balanced 1/4 out on the back of the summit into fx return) sounds like a million bucks. It sounds big, clear, very round and defined, with great upper mid harmonic content and firm plump lows. Anyone who has the pieces for this has got to try it and tell me what you think, but this is my rig of choice at this point. Not that there's anything wrong with the puma alone, but this setup is something to hear IMO.
 
#320
I currently have the S212 (original front port version). Running an F500. I am intrigued by the smaller Puma 500 & 900. The cab I have is rated at 600watts.
Is there a difference tone wise in the 500 & 900?
I always like to have extra headroom but don't won't to blow the cab.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back