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

[z65]

thanks nostatic,

yes, i can understand ... it is only 22 lbs
have you ever tried the puma 500 with a tecamp 15 cab ?

ps: are you talking about the new slim Puma ?

thanks !

 

[nostatic]

thanks nostatic,

yes, i can understand ... it is only 22 lbs
have you ever tried the puma 500 with a tecamp 15 cab ?

ps: are you talking about the new slim Puma ?

thanks !

Yes, the new puma. Never played the old amps. I did however briefly try a blue soul and preferred the puma.

Haven't played the 15 but that's not usually my thing. Always preferred 10s. If you want more low end something like the thunderchild might fit the bill. Sounds great with the puma but I prefer more aggressive mids.

 

[z65]

^^^

ok thanks ! ;-)

 

[J.Wolf]

I wonder how the puma 900 would sound into an ae410. Seems like they might come from opposite ends of the tonal spectrum and could blend quite nicely. Or not .

 

[JI99]

Has anyone played the Tecamp combos? Are they availalble in the US yet?

 

[KJung]

I wonder how the puma 900 would sound into an ae410. Seems like they might come from opposite ends of the tonal spectrum and could blend quite nicely. Or not .

Very bright and tight. I always dug my Markbass F500 (which sounds quite similar to the new Puma models) with the AE410.... very articulate, SUPER unforgiving. Lots of space between the notes and lots of bright grind. Probably a bit much for some, but I like that 'hear the windings on the B string' sort of tone in some cases.

The original Puma voicing fattened and smoothed the AE410. The new Puma voicing (like the F1/F500) amplifies the AE410 voicing IMO. Punchy and aggressive!

I found the AE410 to have quite a bit in common with the smaller TecAmp cabs... very midrange present and bright up top... very articulate and unforgiving. Not that far off from the original TecAmp s212 model IME.

 

[KJung]

Has anyone played the Tecamp combos? Are they availalble in the US yet?

The combo's are a bit different than the separates. For example, the s212 combo has a mid driver instead of a tweeter. Confusing product line. Talk to Glenn at Austin Bass Traders about the current combo configurations... they seem to change much more quickly than the info is updated on the website.

 

[JI99]

Ken can u pm or email me, thanks
Jim

The combo's are a bit different than the separates. For example, the s212 combo has a mid driver instead of a tweeter. Confusing product line. Talk to Glenn at Austin Bass Traders about the current combo configurations... they seem to change much more quickly than the info is updated on the website.

 

[nostatic]

The Puma and the AE210 was a nice combination as well, and to echo Ken, very unforgiving depending on your playing style and other gear. Lots going on in the upper mids. fwiw I find the XS112 to be a bit sweeter in that range and easier to change based on tweeter switch position (3 choices). The M212 it a totally different beast, and had way more lows and low mids than the AE210. I didn't have an AE410 to compare it to, but no way I'm hauling anything over 50 lbs. The M212 at 44 lbs is my limit.

 

[J.Wolf]

Same here, any bigger or heavier than the M212, I'm not really needing or wanting to deal with these days. I've got a pair of VL110's inbound for small acoustic gigs, definitely interested to see how they pair with the 900.

 

[KJung]

The Puma and the AE210 was a nice combination as well, and to echo Ken, very unforgiving depending on your playing style and other gear. Lots going on in the upper mids. fwiw I find the XS112 to be a bit sweeter in that range and easier to change based on tweeter switch position (3 choices). The M212 it a totally different beast, and had way more lows and low mids than the AE210. I didn't have an AE410 to compare it to, but no way I'm hauling anything over 50 lbs. The M212 at 44 lbs is my limit.

+1 The M212 vibes the AE212 a bit more. The M212 can't quite keep up with the AE212 in absolute volume, but it is almost 10 pounds lighter.

 

[KJung]

Same here, any bigger or heavier than the M212, I'm not really needing or wanting to deal with these days. I've got a pair of VL110's inbound for small acoustic gigs, definitely interested to see how they pair with the 900.

Those VL110's weigh a ton for what they put out and for their size. Nice cabs for a mellow, round, organic tone, but man, I think each of them weigh more than the ML212!

 

[KJung]

Ken can u pm or email me, thanks
Jim

Don't do PM's any more, but am glad to respond to your posts on this thread

 

[J.Wolf]

Those VL110's weigh a ton for what they put out and for their size. Nice cabs for a mellow, round, organic tone, but man, I think each of them weigh more than the ML212!

I hear ya. I think these weigh less than that, the two of them together boxed was less than 80lbs. I know there are a few different series with various drivers/magnets so perhaps (fingers crossed) these arent quite that bad. that exact tone is what this gig calls for, and the schlep is a breeze with a wheelie cart. I suspect that the tone will match up well with the Puma, and two of them at 4 ohms will be surprisingly huge and clear.

In general though, I've given up on anything larger than a 210 thats not neo or lightweight. my tri112's have had me spoiled for the last few years.

 

[KJung]

I hear ya. I think these weigh less than that, the two of them together boxed was less than 80lbs. I know there are a few different series with various drivers/magnets so perhaps (fingers crossed) these arent quite that bad. that exact tone is what this gig calls for, and the schlep is a breeze with a wheelie cart. I suspect that the tone will match up well with the Puma, and two of them at 4 ohms will be surprisingly huge and clear.

In general though, I've given up on anything larger than a 210 thats not neo or lightweight. my tri112's have had me spoiled for the last few years.

+1 I believe they are 38 pounds each, give or take. Great for their time (I gigged a VL210 4ohm with a Walter for a few years back in the day). Very top end organic/polite and smooth.

+1 Should be a good match with the Puma900... those cabs suck up quite a bit of power.

 

[nostatic]

Small world - I had a pair of VL110s some years back, running them with an Ashdown ABM-500. I was playing Zons back then, primarily my Sonus 5 fretless with Lightwave setup. I usually just used a single cab. Not a lot of booty but nice defined mids. They were dense little suckers though...

 

[z65]

someone here has tried both the new puma 500 and the blackjag 500 ?
i tested the blackjag 500 and i'm curious about the differences between
this pair of heads.

thanks

 

[monsterthompson]

someone here has tried both the new puma 500 and the blackjag 500 ?
i tested the blackjag 500 and i'm curious about the differences between
this pair of heads.

thanks

I've tried both the 900 heads. The compression and rock controls are the obvious differences as well as the boost and frequency switches. They have otherwise similar feel and sound to my ears. The compression is nice but has limited control parameters. The rock will get some grunt but not fuzzy distortion. I'd pick the features of the Jag if you can afford it and run multiple basses or go for a variety of sounds. I also like the jag's rack size more than the small puma footprint. Weight difference is negligible.

 

[z65]

^^^

thanks ;-) i use only a bass and i have no needs to change often sounds.
i like plug and play heads, blackjag is nice but maybe you have to work a little more ;-)

 

[monsterthompson]

not much work. it is pretty plug-n-play. nothing requires me to use the extra switches and controls, but they have proven fun to have. i'm very happy with my jag 900.