• 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.
#901
My Puma 500 arrived this afternoon and after just a few minutes with it all I can say is "WOW, what a great amp!" My immediate reaction was - this is the amp I've been looking for for a looong time - which is kinda funny as I've wanted one for a looong time. I'm glad I finally pulled the trigger.

Even when I kicked in my VT Bass it sounded really amazing; it seemed to elevate the VT Bass tone to a whole new level. More later, just first impressions.
 
#904
Mike Arnopol said:
just played my 900 through all of the speakers in my house. Wow. Power, definition and warmth. Best amp I've ever played through.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my conclusion. The only thing that tops it is running a Monique into the Puma power section. But when I want to travel light I just take the Puma and don't feel like I'm missing much if anything.
 
#906
Any comparisons of the puma 500 to a markbass F500, shuttlemax 9.2 or a thunderfunk 750A. Will have all three of these for a bit to test and need to know if the puma 500 is going to be next. Already tempted.
 
#907
Saluki said:
Any comparisons of the puma 500 to a markbass F500, shuttlemax 9.2 or a thunderfunk 750A. Will have all three of these for a bit to test and need to know if the puma 500 is going to be next. Already tempted.
Click to expand...

Owned them all (actually, my Thunderfunk was the 550b, but had the 750a at the house quite a bit when in Detroit).

Puma500 and Markbass F500 are quite similar to my ear (I again served as a field tester for the Puma500 prototype), and the only reason I don't own one is the similarity with my F500, which would make it redundant. Doesn't, of course, sound EXACTLY alike (Puma500 sounds a bit clearer and has a bit less compression when pushed), but with very slight EQ, VERY similar to me. I prefered the feature set on the F500.

Shuttle Max 9.2.... not surprisingly a bit louder in an absolute sense, a LOT brighter up top (if you remember, I had a clip up, EQing the FET channel to sound virtually identical to the F500 set flat a while back... got there pretty well. GREAT EQ, and you can get pretty close to either amp with the Max 9.2 (takes a lot of smoothing of the upper mids and sculpting of the low end with the FET channel). Lots more sounds in there also. GREAT head.

Thunderfunk 750a.... a lot of people get a bit confused with the output of the 750b. It is 630 watts into 4ohms, so it is in the same 'max volume' as these other heads (and a bit less than the Max 9.2). The 750b is a bit of the mirror image of the Max 9.2 set neutral out of the box... warm, organic and relaxed up top, lots of low mid push... another great head. I found that I could get close enough to the 750a with my F500 that the extra size, price and slight additional overall volume was not worth it for me. However, it is a beautiful piece of handmade iron, and short of needing a lot of upper treble sizzle and super bright upper midrange, it can do anything these other heads can. It does have a more 'creamy' sort of warm mid midrange than the others, which cab be very cool sounding for some tone goals. The new 800 is optimized (from what I understand) to run nicely at 2ohms, which none of these other heads do (runs a bit cooler at 2ohms than the 750a).

Obviously, since I owned and gigged all these heads, I could be quite happy with any of them, and it would be surprising if anyone 'loved one of these and hated the others'. Since I never hit the limits of my F500 with the cabs I used, and ended up EQing the other heads to sound close to the F500 set neutral (which is kind of the 'tone in my head'), they all went and the F500 stayed.

IMO and a lot of IME on this one! Look forward to hearing what you think about these amps. All 'top of the line' IMO.

Edit: Since the F500 is no longer in production, the Puma500 or 900 (depending on cabs and power needs) is my 'go to recommendation' for those looking for a powerful, small, high quality amp this is relatively 'neutral and transparent' but still warm/not sterile.
 
#909
Mike Arnopol said:
I wanted to ask about that. I was thinking of getting a Monique---works fine? I heard that the Monique's output was a bit low.
Click to expand...

It kills. Jule tweaked the design and there is more output on tap if you want it (push/pull pots). Puma sounds awesome, Monique is sublime. If you love the feel and sound of a good tube amp, it's there. No "hybrid" head comes close. It really is that good. IMHO, ymmv.

From the manual:

As of November 2012 Monique has a built in option to increase the the Line Out level from the original maximum output level of 0db (.775 volts) to more than +4db (1.44 volts). To add the additional 4db to both the Line Output and the Balanced XLR Output just pull out the Line Out knob. Pushed in, Monique is exactly at the original 0db (.775 volt) levels.
 
#910
KJung said:
:D Told ya'. It is like the F500 you dug when I was over, but on steroids. If I needed the power, I'd be all over the 900. I hope you can figure out how to get one of these:bassist:
Click to expand...

Glenn at Austin Bass Traders and Tecamp were very gracious as far as giving me a nice endorsement.

Glenn is a great guy to deal with if you want a Tecamp! And thanks to Ken for putting the bug in my ear!
 
#911
Very cool Mike, I was wondering how the puma would play with some of your stuff. I still REALLY need to check out some of your smaller cabs.

I agree that the Monique into the Puma power section is the best bass head I've ever played through, with just gobs of tight, clean yet chewy tube tone.. Whenever I plug into someone elses head, I'm reminded how very good i have it with the Puma900. It just absolutely sounds great at every gig.
 
#912
KJung said:
Owned them all (actually, my Thunderfunk was the 550b, but had the 750a at the house quite a bit when in Detroit).

Puma500 and Markbass F500 are quite similar to my ear (I again served as a field tester for the Puma500 prototype), and the only reason I don't own one is the similarity with my F500, which would make it redundant. Doesn't, of course, sound EXACTLY alike (Puma500 sounds a bit clearer and has a bit less compression when pushed), but with very slight EQ, VERY similar to me. I prefered the feature set on the F500.

Shuttle Max 9.2.... not surprisingly a bit louder in an absolute sense, a LOT brighter up top (if you remember, I had a clip up, EQing the FET channel to sound virtually identical to the F500 set flat a while back... got there pretty well. GREAT EQ, and you can get pretty close to either amp with the Max 9.2 (takes a lot of smoothing of the upper mids and sculpting of the low end with the FET channel). Lots more sounds in there also. GREAT head.

Thunderfunk 750a.... a lot of people get a bit confused with the output of the 750b. It is 630 watts into 4ohms, so it is in the same 'max volume' as these other heads (and a bit less than the Max 9.2). The 750b is a bit of the mirror image of the Max 9.2 set neutral out of the box... warm, organic and relaxed up top, lots of low mid push... another great head. I found that I could get close enough to the 750a with my F500 that the extra size, price and slight additional overall volume was not worth it for me. However, it is a beautiful piece of handmade iron, and short of needing a lot of upper treble sizzle and super bright upper midrange, it can do anything these other heads can. It does have a more 'creamy' sort of warm mid midrange than the others, which cab be very cool sounding for some tone goals. The new 800 is optimized (from what I understand) to run nicely at 2ohms, which none of these other heads do (runs a bit cooler at 2ohms than the 750a).

Obviously, since I owned and gigged all these heads, I could be quite happy with any of them, and it would be surprising if anyone 'loved one of these and hated the others'. Since I never hit the limits of my F500 with the cabs I used, and ended up EQing the other heads to sound close to the F500 set neutral (which is kind of the 'tone in my head'), they all went and the F500 stayed.

IMO and a lot of IME on this one! Look forward to hearing what you think about these amps. All 'top of the line' IMO.

Edit: Since the F500 is no longer in production, the Puma500 or 900 (depending on cabs and power needs) is my 'go to recommendation' for those looking for a powerful, small, high quality amp this is relatively 'neutral and transparent' but still warm/not sterile.
Click to expand...

KJ,

Thanks for the nice comparison! I will have all these heads for a bit to try and find the right fit for my Baer ML112s. Todd's clips with the puma baer combo have me GASSY for a puma. Haven't had amp gas for a long while....The STM900 paired really well with the Berg HD210s, but the HD210s are tighter and do not contain as much inherent low end content as the ML112s. While the STM900 paired better with HD210s, for my tone goals I prefer the ML112s and just need to find the right mix and match. The SM9.2 sounds great with the ML112s so I can't wait to hear the others. Given my past history, I'll probably pick the one I like best, order a puma, compare them, ditch the loser and be content for a year or so. Hi, I'm Cory and I have a problem...
 
#913
Saluki said:
KJ,

Thanks for the nice comparison! I will have all these heads for a bit to try and find the right fit for my Baer ML112s. Todd's clips with the puma baer combo have me GASSY for a puma. Haven't had amp gas for a long while....The STM900 paired really well with the Berg HD210s, but the HD210s are tighter and do not contain as much inherent low end content as the ML112s. While the STM900 paired better with HD210s, for my tone goals I prefer the ML112s and just need to find the right mix and match. The SM9.2 sounds great with the ML112s so I can't wait to hear the others. Given my past history, I'll probably pick the one I like best, order a puma, compare them, ditch the loser and be content for a year or so. Hi, I'm Cory and I have a problem...
Click to expand...

If you are using two ML112's, I'd spring for the Puma900. 450 watts or so into each of those cabs would be almost perfect, and a single ML112 can use the full 8ohm power of the Puma900. Of course, the 500 will sound great also, and if you don't need to push to massive volume, that will work also.

Again, if I didn't already own the F500, I'd definitely own the Puma500. I do love those semi-parametric dual midrange controls on the F500, and find the filters much more usable than the 'taste' filter on the Puma. That being said, just like the F1/F500, I rarely had to touch the EQ with the Puma.... beautifully neutral, transparent voice to that amp IMO and IME (and the low mid control is the 'burp-master'!
 
#914
KJung said:
If you are using two ML112's, I'd spring for the Puma900. 450 watts or so into each of those cabs would be almost perfect, and a single ML112 can use the full 8ohm power of the Puma500. Of course, the 500 will sound great also, and if you don't need to push to massive volume, that will work also.

Again, if I didn't already own the F500, I'd definitely own the Puma500. I do love those semi-parametric dual midrange controls on the F500, and find the filters much more usable than the 'taste' filter on the Puma. That being said, just like the F1/F500, I rarely had to touch the EQ with the Puma.... beautifully neutral, transparent voice to that amp IMO and IME (and the low mid control is the 'burp-master'!
Click to expand...

Good to know! I own a F500 now that is on its way. I have listened to Donovan's clips of the Puma from fretspot and love it. If the F500 is close I am sure I can be happy for a bit. I know I have issues, but the front DI on the Puma and the aguilar stuff is like a front input jack on a bass and it just bothers me.
 
#915
Saluki said:
Good to know! I own a F500 now that is on its way. I have listened to Donovan's clips of the Puma from fretspot and love it. If the F500 is close I am sure I can be happy for a bit. I know I have issues, but the front DI on the Puma and the aguilar stuff is like a front input jack on a bass and it just bothers me.
Click to expand...

All good stuff! I'm loving the TH500 also. Quite different, and really gives you that DB750 type big chewy tone in a very small package. The TH500 also puts out massive, deep open low end compared to most of the other 500 watt micro's I've tried. Virtually impossible to drive that amp into limiting IMO. Pretty cool.

Post up when you get it. IME, a very small touch of the VPF on the F500 will 'widen and sizzle' it enough to get very close to the Puma500. The TH500 is a TOTALLY different thing, for better or worse, depending on what you are looking for.

Edit: I too prefer the DI output on the back of the amp. Easier to get that cable out of the way. However, for me, very minor thing, but I'm too bothered by 'trivial things' sometimes. For example, I just can't get myself to consider one of those Orange micro's. Looks like a 'my little pony' lunchbox. Luckily, doesn't really fit my tone goals, but I would have a hard time with that form factor and paint scheme!
 
#920
KJung said:
Owned them all (actually, my Thunderfunk was the 550b, but had the 750a at the house quite a bit when in Detroit).

Puma500 and Markbass F500 are quite similar to my ear (I again served as a field tester for the Puma500 prototype), and the only reason I don't own one is the similarity with my F500, which would make it redundant. Doesn't, of course, sound EXACTLY alike (Puma500 sounds a bit clearer and has a bit less compression when pushed), but with very slight EQ, VERY similar to me. I prefered the feature set on the F500.

Shuttle Max 9.2.... not surprisingly a bit louder in an absolute sense, a LOT brighter up top (if you remember, I had a clip up, EQing the FET channel to sound virtually identical to the F500 set flat a while back... got there pretty well. GREAT EQ, and you can get pretty close to either amp with the Max 9.2 (takes a lot of smoothing of the upper mids and sculpting of the low end with the FET channel). Lots more sounds in there also. GREAT head.

Thunderfunk 750a.... a lot of people get a bit confused with the output of the 750b. It is 630 watts into 4ohms, so it is in the same 'max volume' as these other heads (and a bit less than the Max 9.2). The 750b is a bit of the mirror image of the Max 9.2 set neutral out of the box... warm, organic and relaxed up top, lots of low mid push... another great head. I found that I could get close enough to the 750a with my F500 that the extra size, price and slight additional overall volume was not worth it for me. However, it is a beautiful piece of handmade iron, and short of needing a lot of upper treble sizzle and super bright upper midrange, it can do anything these other heads can. It does have a more 'creamy' sort of warm mid midrange than the others, which cab be very cool sounding for some tone goals. The new 800 is optimized (from what I understand) to run nicely at 2ohms, which none of these other heads do (runs a bit cooler at 2ohms than the 750a).

Obviously, since I owned and gigged all these heads, I could be quite happy with any of them, and it would be surprising if anyone 'loved one of these and hated the others'. Since I never hit the limits of my F500 with the cabs I used, and ended up EQing the other heads to sound close to the F500 set neutral (which is kind of the 'tone in my head'), they all went and the F500 stayed.

IMO and a lot of IME on this one! Look forward to hearing what you think about these amps. All 'top of the line' IMO.

Edit: Since the F500 is no longer in production, the Puma500 or 900 (depending on cabs and power needs) is my 'go to recommendation' for those looking for a powerful, small, high quality amp this is relatively 'neutral and transparent' but still warm/not sterile.
Click to expand...

OK to keep this relevant..probably going to order a Puma 900 this week. I was able to spend time a/b ing the STM 900, SM9.2 and TF750 so far. My STM 900 has the 5751 tube in V1 and a few non stock tubes. Played all through the ML112s with a a/b switch so the differences could be heard immediately. I can get the STM most similar to the SM9.2 with the bass at 9 and the mids at 220 or 600 goosed up to about 3 to 4 o'clock, but the STM 900 still has a bit more lag and a little more heft to the notes. Both the SM9.2 and the TF 750 are punchier with a more immediate attack, with the 750 a bit warmer in the mids with both set flat. I could get the SM9.2 to sound really close to the TF by bumping the low mids up a bit, and cutting the high mids and treble some. TH TF still sounded sweeter in the mids and SM9.2 a bit more clinical, but I doubt you'd ever hear it on the gig. At the same volume levels the TF is noticeably more quiet. Not that the SM9.2 was loud but the difference in the noise floor was noticeable. Again probably not in a crowded bar, but maybe in a silent setting.

Anyway, with my gigs mainly being church and some fill in work, I don't see the need to have a heavy amp. So, the TF will probably be sold, which will allow me to try the Puma 900. I can then put the puma up against the SM9.2, the F500 and the STM900. Probably keep the STM900 and one other to have some different flavors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back