• 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.
#341
For smaller gigs I run a sealed 2x10 cab (now out of business) by a comapy called Horizon. it's only rated at 230 watts but it's amazing in terms of the gigs it can handle. I love the immediacy and punch of 10's but for larger gigs I run a 2x12. With 2x12's you just have to work with them a little and can still find a happy medium but they still won't be as reactive as a 2x10. I just run a little more mids for punch. As I've stated before, with the PUMA 500 I just leave everything flat which is why I like this head. I love it because it is (to me) so clean and clear. I'm wondering what a full range cab would sound like with this head.
 
#342
I have a question. I keep reading there are different versions of the Puma amp. Is there anything that can distiguished them? I just got a used Puma 900 i dont know if there is diferent versions and when did this amp came out?
 
#343
From what I understand there are two versions. The original is a 2-rack space high unit and uses the Powersoft power module.

Invalid Link Removed

The newer version is a 1-rack space high unit and uses the ICE power module.

Invalid Link Removed

In addition I believe the original had two speakon jacks on the back (as opposed to one for the newer one). I have the newer one and dig it - it is my main amp at the moment.
 
#347
foderaman said:
I think the new version of the Puma 1000 can be bridged to 4 Ohms but has a lower rating when channels are used seperate.2x500 at 2 ohms so i would figure about 350 or so at 4 ohms?
Click to expand...

The new Puma 1000 is 2x500w at 2 ohms, so I'd guess the 4-ohm output will be about 250w per channel (or 1,000w in bridged mode, of course).
 
#348
otto B said:
I have a question. I keep reading there are different versions of the Puma amp. Is there anything that can distiguished them? I just got a used Puma 900 i dont know if there is diferent versions and when did this amp came out?
Click to expand...

As alluded to above, the original Puma500 used a Powersoft power module, and was 2 rack space. The voicing was VERY hi fi... deep, deep bass, and very little midrange distortion. The new Puma500 uses the more typical (and more reliable) B&O Ice power module (although I believe they use a bit higher end model in that line than other manufacturers.... lots of different ICE modules).

There is a difference in voicing... less deep, sub bass, and a bit warmer (i.e. some pleasant midrange distortion) that makes the amp seem a bit louder, and more controlled down low. The revoicing moved this amp (and the 900) a bit closer to the Markbass F500 (I had a small part in the revoicing of the amp, gigging a prototype and providing feedback), although it is still clearer and cleaner in the midrange, and a bit more 'hi fi' up top.

The Puma900 is a new model... basically the bigger brother of the Puma500... same voicing to my ear, a bit more ooomph.

The Puma1000 is still in the line, but IMO makes little sense given the 900 now in the line. Originally, the Puma1000 put out full power into 4ohms per side when run in dual mono. This resulted in it being limited to 8ohm bridging, which reduced its appeal for those who had a single, large 8ohm cab. The change was made (according to a number of discussions I had with various people associated with the brand), to allow TecAmp to provide a very high powered, 4ohm friendly head that could drive a 215 or high end 410 or 212 at 4ohms. This, of course, reduced the power when run in dual mono mode.

Since the 900 came out, and puts out its full power into 4ohms, and significant power into 8ohms, the Puma1000 is kind of the 'ugly stepsister' of the line IMO. My guess is, it will be discontinued eventually. I guess its original design goal of powering a cab and a 'pleasure pad' is still valid, but I assume that is a VERY small part of the market.
 
#350
KJung said:
There is a difference in voicing... less deep, sub bass, and a bit warmer (i.e. some pleasant midrange distortion) that makes the amp seem a bit louder, and more controlled down low. The revoicing moved this amp (and the 900) a bit closer to the Markbass F500 (I had a small part in the revoicing of the amp, gigging a prototype and providing feedback), although it is still clearer and cleaner in the midrange, and a bit more 'hi fi' up top.
Click to expand...

To the extent you had a hand, I'll buy you a beer when I'm in your neck of the woods as I find the 500 to be voiced perfectly. I could almost list without the eq and just twist the taste knob a bit to deal with different instruments or rooms.
 
#351
nostatic said:
To the extent you had a hand, I'll buy you a beer when I'm in your neck of the woods as I find the 500 to be voiced perfectly. I could almost list without the eq and just twist the taste knob a bit to deal with different instruments or rooms.
Click to expand...

My only input was: 'This voicing is not as pretty in the basement, but with most cabs and basses, works better on the gig'. It seems most of the 'triers' felt the same way.

The only reason I don't own one is that the new Puma500 sounds close enough to my F500 to not really make much of a difference to me on the gig, and none of my current cabs (all 4ohm) justify the mighty Puma900!

PS And... I'll buy you a beer based on your posts which resulted in my buying the TH500 for my more 'grunty' requirements with my P.... another nice voicing. We kind of do the same thing (I think), with you doing the Puma for 'crisp and clean' and the TH500 for a bit more grunty/growly/grindy, and me doing the same, but with the F500 for the clean thing.
 
#352
Yeah, a P bass and the TH500 is a pretty sweet mix. I can get close to the TH500 voicing with the taste knob but the Puma still doesn't have quite the same midrange thump. If you only could have one amp, the Puma is probably a better choice as it can cop the warm/vintage thing of the TH500 whereas you really can't get a more open/towards-hi-fi out of the Aggie. But if you can have two amps, you can cover a lot of ground between the Puma and Aggie.

I think I'm going to grab one of the older front-ported S212 cabs and give that a try. I didn't really experiment much with the S212 in my short spin. Glenn suggests fiddling a fair amount with the attack knob as he thinks that could actually get somewhat close to the upper mid grind of my AE210s. We'll see. At any rate, I'm a Tecamp fan.
 
#353
nostatic said:
Yeah, a P bass and the TH500 is a pretty sweet mix. I can get close to the TH500 voicing with the taste knob but the Puma still doesn't have quite the same midrange thump. If you only could have one amp, the Puma is probably a better choice as it can cop the warm/vintage thing of the TH500 whereas you really can't get a more open/towards-hi-fi out of the Aggie. But if you can have two amps, you can cover a lot of ground between the Puma and Aggie.

I think I'm going to grab one of the older front-ported S212 cabs and give that a try. I didn't really experiment much with the S212 in my short spin. Glenn suggests fiddling a fair amount with the attack knob as he thinks that could actually get somewhat close to the upper mid grind of my AE210s. We'll see. At any rate, I'm a Tecamp fan.
Click to expand...

I think if you dig the AE210 (the original model with the very present upper mids), you will dig the original S212 (front ported). Very tight, VERY BRIGHT in the upper midrange/lower treble. Nice cab, super lightweight. Great crossover (adjustable for sizzle or grind, with a true 'off' which also sounds good).

+1 also that the F500 will always be my go to amp in general, and I can get it closer to the TH500 with EQ and the VLE filter than the other way around. MANY very good heads have 'come and gone' but that one stays around for me. Virtually perfect set 'neutral' for the 'tone in my head', and plenty usable EQ to keep it sounding that way in all but the worst rooms and with all but the most extremely voiced cabs. Similar to the Puma500, actually in that respect.
 
#354
This is something. I was thinking of selling one of my older heads and a few low end basses and picking up a TH350 as a backup amp. Seems like us tecamp people think alike. The prefect rig for the perfect gig=having both a PUMA and a aggie TH.
 
#356
Just got the Puma 500 used here on talkbass. Use it with a SWR Golight 410, bergantino hd112, and markbass ny115 (not at the same time of course).
 

Attachments

  • image-2312806099.jpg
    image-2312806099.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 97
  • image-1485301543.jpg
    image-1485301543.jpg
    69.8 KB · Views: 84
#357
Anyone tried the PUMA350? Is it just a smaller brother to the 500 or is there some difference. I believe for the Aggies there is some kind of difference in the power modules between the 500 and 350 and wondered if it was the same for the PUMA heads.
 
#358
phillybass101 said:
Anyone tried the PUMA350? Is it just a smaller brother to the 500 or is there some difference. I believe for the Aggies there is some kind of difference in the power modules between the 500 and 350 and wondered if it was the same for the PUMA heads.
Click to expand...

Aguliar models both use ICE modules as far as I know, and the tone reports have been that they sound identical.

The previous Puma350 (the old two space model) was a very different amp from the 500.... used a class A/B amp. As far as I know, the new 350/500/900 use different power versions of the ICE module and should sound identical.

Unless you are on a very strict budget, or hardly ever play in loud setting, neither the Aguilar 350 or Puma350 makes much sense to me (especially the Puma350, since it is exactly the same size as the 500). IMO there.
 
#359
I had both the TH500 and TH350 - sold the TH350 when I got the Puma 500. The two TH heads sound almost identical and the TH350 seemed plenty loud. The main reason I kept the 500 over the 350 was the effects loop. Even though I don't use it, it does give me the option of running some different preamp and using just the power amp of the TH500 (was curious about trying a Monique).

For the Puma, I think it just depends on your budget. I have yet to push my 500 very hard but if/when I get a second head I'll probably get a 900 just because despite the extra couple hundred bucks.
 
#360
KJung said:
Aguliar models both use ICE modules as far as I know, and the tone reports have been that they sound identical.

The previous Puma350 (the old two space model) was a very different amp from the 500.... used a class A/B amp. As far as I know, the new 350/500/900 use different power versions of the ICE module and should sound identical.

Unless you are on a very strict budget, or hardly ever play in loud setting, neither the Aguilar 350 or Puma350 makes much sense to me (especially the Puma350, since it is exactly the same size as the 500). IMO there.
Click to expand...

I've played many gigs with a 2x10 Horizon bass cab with a Trace Elliot GPSM7 300 head and have been told to turn down by the management or guys and gals in whatever band I was playing in. Many of the gigs I get are club gigs or bar/grill type gigs where I almost never get a chance to turn up. For awhile I thought people in my area don't like bass. It could have been me :-) I was just thinking instead of having two old backup heads, the trace and the swr, I'd sell one of them and pick up the aggie 350 as a backup. The only pedal I have is a boss chorus and I hardly ever use that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back