• 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.
#321
monsterthompson said:
The Pump is an amp. The Board is the output device you stand on for vibrations. The Pump is built to feed the Board.
Click to expand...

+1 Yup. If I were to play with in-ears, I'd probably run this setup or something similar to it. I've tried the Pleasure Board on several occasions. It really does a great job of conveying the feel of playing a rig while keeping the on-stage volume to near nil. :cool:
 
#322
monsterthompson said:
The Pump is an amp. The Board is the output device you stand on for vibrations. The Pump is built to feed the Board.
Click to expand...

+1 I remember now. The Pump is similar to the half of the original Puma1000 that was designed to drive the board, with that low pass filter and sub bass boost, etc.

If you use only in-ears, you would power the board with the 'pump'. If you still wanted some personal stage monitoring, you would run the cab and the board through the appropriate channels of the Puma1000.
 
#324
If I ever have the extra cash (yeah right...extra cash) I'd like to have one of these. I could pay for it by renting it out to some of my local fellow bass players. I just got the CD back from my first gig with the PUMA 500. Mid Punch for days. My tone is soooo good I can overlook all my mistakes :-). I can't post because the files are huge. If anyone wants to hear how good a Brubaker Brute MJX-5 with 8 mo old strings sound though a PUMA 500 and 2x12 cab PM me. Maybe I can send you a copy on CD. I ran the head flat, with the pickup selector at center detent. A great big ole mid punch fart sound. I love it.
 
#325
Finally got to open up this head. Club gig tonight with no FOH for the first set (a little fill for the 2nd set). 10 piece Steely Dan tribute band, and I brought both Berg AE210 cabs (stacked vertically). Played the Fodera YYD the whole night. That rig (Fodera -> Puma 500 -> 2xBerg AE210s just killed. The band was hitting on all cylinders, and I think part of it was due to the bass being *there* on every tune. Not over-bearing, just paving the pocket and stepping out when I wanted it to. Never felt like it was breathing hard, and I was only at about 9:00 on the master. Great night.

sj-15jun12-11.jpg
 
#328
The speakers are of a new small swedish brand called tks. They are small and light and sounds really good. I also have a 2/12" speaker to. The brand is getting bigger as time goes by. Dont be to surprised if you will hear about them soon outside Sweden.
 
#330
nostatic said:
Finally got to open up this head. Club gig tonight with no FOH for the first set (a little fill for the 2nd set). 10 piece Steely Dan tribute band, and I brought both Berg AE210 cabs (stacked vertically). Played the Fodera YYD the whole night. That rig (Fodera -> Puma 500 -> 2xBerg AE210s just killed. The band was hitting on all cylinders, and I think part of it was due to the bass being *there* on every tune. Not over-bearing, just paving the pocket and stepping out when I wanted it to. Never felt like it was breathing hard, and I was only at about 9:00 on the master. Great night.

sj-15jun12-11.jpg
Click to expand...

Very cool. I would think that the Fodera and PUMA 500 are voiced for each other. Looks like you're having fun too. I love my PUMA 500.
 
#331
I have a few more gigs under my belt with this head and am very impressed. Did an outdoor wedding gig Sat night with just a single 210 and it punched just fine into the night sky. I was also working with it in the studio last night and am finding that this may be the perfect amp for someone who doubles with a Rob Allen. The taste knob basically is all you need. If I want to thin out the RA a bit, I just move the taste towards dry and I'm good to go. If I want to stay really thick it just remains at noon. If I switch to the Fodera or Sadowsky PJ, just run it at noon, or if I want a bit more "vintage" warm thump, roll the taste towards 1:00 or 2:00.
 
#332
I have a question maybe you all can help me to make sense out of this. I just got a Puma900 from a TB member a couple of days ago. Beautiful sounding amp I love it but I feel the amp is lacking of power for being a 900 watts amp. I decided to compare it next to a MarkBass Little Mark limited edition which is a 600 Watts amp. I set the same settings on both amps, and the mark bass has way more power than the Puma900. Can someone explain why a 600watts amp seems to have more power than a 900 watts amp?

I test both amps on the same cab.
 
#334
I don't know specifically about the Puma, but for a general answer of "how can it be", if the MB had more inherent compression, and more inherent mid-focus; and if the Puma had an inherent scoop to the mids (with all knobs set identically) then you would hear exactly what you described.
 
#335
The older Puma heads (powersoft) were a bit more scooped in the mids from what I understand. When I compare the newer Puma 500 to the TH500 I find the comparable, though the TH500 has more mid punch with everything set at noon. But when I crank the Puma it gets plenty loud with a lot of edge if I want it. The eq also is pretty potent, with the hi mid being great for cut and lo mid for some wool (or move the taste knob clockwise).
 
#336
Same settings on each amp is potentially meaningless. The gain curve on each pot may be very different. Mesa amps have a reputation for going from zero to loud as hell when the master knob goes from zero to one. in comparison, the TecAmp has a much smoother taper on the gain/master. You would have to set both amps to full volume to compare the difference.

Also, the inherent voicing, as others mentioned, has something to do with it too. If the Puma has more of a dip in the mids, naturally, then it will feel like it is quieter than a more mid voiced amp. Similarly, the EQ knob settings will play a role in output volume. Noon on one amp isn't necessarily noon on another. The earlier generations of Puma have a bigger natural low end too, which eats watts to generate. That said, I have a feeling my M6 would be louder than my Puma if I raced them side by side, and it is 600 watts.

Which brings up a good point about watts and volume. You need to double the watts to get a 3db increase, which may be tough to notice at high enough volumes. So a 600w amp vs a 900w amp may be 300w difference, but it won't be as loud a jump as going from a 300w to a 600w amp. if you are running an 8ohm cab the 600 and 900 ratings at 4 ohms get cut to 300w and 450w respectively (roughly, though TecAmp claims a higher 8 ohm rating on their website).

Lastly, watts isn't just about output, but also about clean headroom. The MB amps have been noted (by KJung and others) as having more mid-range distortion than the Puma. It was part of the reason I went TecAmp over MB when looking for an amp to pair with my fEARful.

As long as it gets loud enoug to work for you, it is loud enough :)
 
#337
otto B said:
I have a question maybe you all can help me to make sense out of this. I just got a Puma900 from a TB member a couple of days ago. Beautiful sounding amp I love it but I feel the amp is lacking of power for being a 900 watts amp. I decided to compare it next to a MarkBass Little Mark limited edition which is a 600 Watts amp. I set the same settings on both amps, and the mark bass has way more power than the Puma900. Can someone explain why a 600watts amp seems to have more power than a 900 watts amp?

I test both amps on the same cab.
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, you are 'listening with your eyes' by setting the gain and master knobs the same on both those amps.

The Tecamp gain and master are more 'audio taper' designs than the Markbass. This means that the increase in gain and volume are much more even throughout the entire range of the pots on the Puma versus the Markbass (kind of like a mixing board).

You can really get a sense for this if you turn the master of both amps down, pound on your E string, and turn each gain up until you get the pre clip light to come on. You will find the Puma's knob needs to be at a higher level. The difference in the master is even more extreme between the two heads.

That being said, depending on the cabs capability, the absolute volume difference won't be that different, since most cabs start to compress past around 500 watts. What you will experience is a bit more volume, a 'cleaner' midrange response, and you will most likely NEVER hit the power amp limiting on the 900.
 
#338
Thanks for the feedback; it makes sense, what you all are saying. I for a moment thought the amp had some issues. The MB (LM III Limited Ed.) is a really nice amp, but is not as clean sounding amp as the puma. I am playing through the ACME series III 112FR and it sound amazing, but I am in the waiting of the AudioKinesis TC212, that would be the perfect match.
 
#340
nostatic,
I know you like 10's, but I do think you might like the original version of the Tecamp S212. It is front ported & IMO not as boomy as the newer rear port S212. I love mine with my F500. To me the cab sounds like a bigger 210 cab. If that makes any sense.
I am looking to get a Puma 500 or 900. To see if it can replace my F500 amp.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back