is there a way to turn off the speaker output while practicing with headphones? my 500 has a headphone out jack but when i plug in the headphones sound is still coming from my cabinet too.. the manual says to use the master volume knob to control the headphone volume etc.. anyone know if this is supposed to be how it works? every other amp i've used in the past would mute the speaker while using the headphone jack.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter g4string
- Start date
- Status
Verify with the manual, but my memory says you can run that head with no speaker load, so unplug your cab.
haha , yeah besides that
There's nothing besides that. To get headphones only, you need to unplug the cab.
This is a follow up to some issues that I had concerning my Puma 900. The gain structure was such that there was no volume until the gain knob was up to about 3
clock and the amp was getting very hot after about an hour of use.
I contacted Glenn at Austinbasstraders where I bought the amp and he had me send it back to him so he and Thomas at Tecamp could evaluate the problem. Not sure if they ever figured out the problem but Glenn being a great guy to do business with replaced the amp with a new one no questions asked.
The new amp runs cooler and the gain structure is more of what I am used to.
A big head up to Glenn at Austinbasstraders for taking care of me so promptly. If you are interested in buying a Tecamp product, Austinbasstraders is the place to go.
Thanks again to Glenn
clock and the amp was getting very hot after about an hour of use.I contacted Glenn at Austinbasstraders where I bought the amp and he had me send it back to him so he and Thomas at Tecamp could evaluate the problem. Not sure if they ever figured out the problem but Glenn being a great guy to do business with replaced the amp with a new one no questions asked.
The new amp runs cooler and the gain structure is more of what I am used to.
A big head up to Glenn at Austinbasstraders for taking care of me so promptly. If you are interested in buying a Tecamp product, Austinbasstraders is the place to go.
Thanks again to Glenn
Two thumbs up, MRSKI! I've bought two PUMA's from Glenn (among many other items)-he is great to work with and always stands behind his sales. A true friend of any TB'er!
agreed. glenn is the man. had a jag issue he sorted out
How is the Jag working out for you? I love mine to death. I recently purchased an M210 to go with it. Great combination. I have never been happier.
The Jag is pretty amazing. I generally leave the comp at 9 o'clock on fast and tweak from there. Sometimes I like more Rock, sometimes less. Sometimes I move the Taste around. The EQ is great to finetune things. My Nash PB 63 into that head and 15/6 cab is pretty gnarly.
I've run it as a DI for some gigs, with no speaker connection, too.
It just smokes.
I've run it as a DI for some gigs, with no speaker connection, too.
It just smokes.
It doesn't feel like an effect. It just feels like a touch of something extra to round things out.
In view of what has been happening with other D-class amps, are the watts on the Puma 900 accurate?
I believe he's referring to the TC "watt-gate".
My Puma 500 was really loud. The 900 is ear-splitting loud. The numbers on the spec sheet don't impress me one way or another. Accuracy of the spec is pretty over-rated, and some (many?) here on TB misunderestimate technical data one way or another.
Since I have yet to hand out frequency plots at a gig, I always default to real-world experience. Tecamp delivers.
My Puma 500 was really loud. The 900 is ear-splitting loud. The numbers on the spec sheet don't impress me one way or another. Accuracy of the spec is pretty over-rated, and some (many?) here on TB misunderestimate technical data one way or another.
Since I have yet to hand out frequency plots at a gig, I always default to real-world experience. Tecamp delivers.
They've been hanging out with the SMPS gang and as we all know where that will lead. Pretty soon they'll start with the petty crimes - staying out of phase too late, a little clipping here and there. But before you know it they'll be into the hard stuff like thermal shutdown and smoking square waves.
Ah, yeah zero issue with the Puma heads (and most others). Fudging spec's has nothing to do with power amp topology!
Interesting comparo between the Eden WT550 and original Puma 500. Been ABing these puppies for 3 days now and can't really decide which is the keeper. As soon as I plugged the Puma in I was pretty impressed - clean, punchy, dynamic.... and at 1/3 the weight (not a huge difference in size).
Flicking back and forth bw the Eden and Puma the Eden sounded like it had a blanket over the speaker. ... But the more I played I could hear the Eden having a more polished edge to the note. Up the neck - particularly playing my 51RI P - the Tecamp sounded a bit harsh in comparison - The Eden more round and woolly. The Tecamp killed with the Duesenberg semi acoustic (with rounds) and a 71 J (flats) but with a more middy focussed P bass (flats), the Eden had a sweet resonance to it that I couldn't find on the Puma. Maybe the clarity of the Puma is a bit lost using that kinda bass. I tried a few pedals in the loop - VT with mild OD, FEA Comp, Empress EQ to "smooth it out"... didn't really get it.... Not something you'd hear if you didn't have both amps back to back - certainly wouldn't pick it in a live situ.
I haven't gigged the Puma but I can tell that the clarity and dynamic would help cut through and give a really articulate line live..... and it weighs nuthin. And Ken - I actually quite like the taste knob. It's subtle enough but I can see myself using that for uber quick tone tweakage on stage to pump mids/bass. Most of these filters I find you get a sound and stick to it. For ever. But I think that one might get a bit of use.
Flicking back and forth bw the Eden and Puma the Eden sounded like it had a blanket over the speaker. ... But the more I played I could hear the Eden having a more polished edge to the note. Up the neck - particularly playing my 51RI P - the Tecamp sounded a bit harsh in comparison - The Eden more round and woolly. The Tecamp killed with the Duesenberg semi acoustic (with rounds) and a 71 J (flats) but with a more middy focussed P bass (flats), the Eden had a sweet resonance to it that I couldn't find on the Puma. Maybe the clarity of the Puma is a bit lost using that kinda bass. I tried a few pedals in the loop - VT with mild OD, FEA Comp, Empress EQ to "smooth it out"... didn't really get it.... Not something you'd hear if you didn't have both amps back to back - certainly wouldn't pick it in a live situ.
I haven't gigged the Puma but I can tell that the clarity and dynamic would help cut through and give a really articulate line live..... and it weighs nuthin. And Ken - I actually quite like the taste knob. It's subtle enough but I can see myself using that for uber quick tone tweakage on stage to pump mids/bass. Most of these filters I find you get a sound and stick to it. For ever. But I think that one might get a bit of use.
Yeah, the original Puma is very neutral, clean and wide. It has a HUGE low end (very different hi passing than the Eden or the new Puma), and a very hi fi, crystal clear top end. VERY different tonalities between the much tighter, much more midrange voiced, much higher midrange distortion levels, and somewhat more lo passed top end and hi passed low end of the Eden. The newer Puma line would sound a bit more like the Eden, but would still be cleaner and more 'accurate/neutral'.
I LOVED my original Puma500 at home, and on more jazz type hits. That super wide, super clean tone tended to work against me a bit in a more pop/rock mix, and similar feedback from a lot of players results in the revoicing of the current Puma line, which doesn't sound as 'amazingly glorious' at home, but punches through a mix quite a bit better than the original voicing. IMO and IME.
And yes, while that filter is pretty extreme, it can surely be useful for some.
Edit: +1 also that the original Puma was not optimized for 'vintage' instruments like J and P basses IMO. I called that head the 'Anthony Jackson' head, as an oversimplified way of describing the huge low end, the lack of any sort of midrange distortion, and the very flat upper mid/treble response that extends up into the stratosphere. That can be an amazing voicing, and is quite similar to the Glockenklang amps. The new Puma (which I had a minor role in the voicing as a field tester of an early prototype) is more like, well, a 'better Eden' to my ear... punchy, with some mid character, but more even, smaller, and 'cleaner/more accurate' without being sterile on the one hand, or overl y wooly and midrange distorted on the other hand!
- Status
