• 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.
#102
emjazz said:
LOVE my older Puma 500. Run flat into one or two Berg 112's is dead on for me. I got mine from Ken and can't thank him enough. Hey Ken!! Hey man...check out the video at my youtube channel called In Your Mind. I think you'll dig it.
Click to expand...

Andy! Good to hear from you. Man, that clip is great. You are becoming 'one of the cats'! Wonderful!

I was pretty sure the original Puma was perfect for 'your voice' on the instrument... fat, creamy, clean, articulate. Sounds great!!!!!
 
#103
Thanks guys. I appreciate it. To be honest, on that gig I played through the house amp. I didn't notice exactly what it was....some sort of SWR amp. It sounded great though. I think a 115 combo. What I think you're hearing is just the house system.

Ken, you were right about the Puma amp, especially with the original version Berg 112's that I have. The amp really fills in the lows of the Bergs. I add some mids on my bass' preamp and I'm good to go with the amp flat. Big, round and articulate with a sweet top end. Perfect for me.
 
#104
Got my Puma 500 yesterday. WOW! What a great amp right out of the box. Have not gigged with it yet but was able to spend one hour at home with it. That taste knob is wonderful and the tone controls are very efficient. Hooked it up to my two Aguilar SL1x12 and my EBS NEO 212. I prefered it with the Aguilars probably because the go deeper than the EBS that is somewhat compressed and punchy, the Aggies are more deep and neutral. I think the Puma sounds better with the Aggies than the Toneammer 500 or EBS Riedmar that I also use
More to come later...
 
#107
Sorry to barge in, the door was unlocked...

Anyone have the make/model of the 4- way cup handles Tec is using? Site says the tweet switch is in the handle. Anyone care to snap a pic?

Thanks.

Obligatory post relevance: the 110 Puma combo looks right up my alley.

----> thanks Ken! Found it. Parts-express. Forgot about that site. Looks like a speakon would fit right in there. :)
 
#108
coyoteboy said:
Sorry to barge in, the door was unlocked...

Anyone have the make/model of the 4- way cup handles Tec is using? Site says the tweet switch is in the handle. Anyone care to snap a pic?

Thanks.

Obligatory post relevance: the 110 Puma combo looks right up my alley.
Click to expand...

I know the handle is a standard part, but don't know much about that. Probably on Parts Express or some other site like that.

Here is a close-up of the tweeter 'crossover point/attenuator' control that is located in the 'right' handle facing the cab.

tec2.gif
 
#109
Sorry if this info is already in this thread somewhere, but does anyone know the EQ frequency points of the Puma 900? I am a bit scared that the EQ wouldn't be sufficient, I am used to having at least a three band semi-parametric EQ at hand.
 
#112
I have the older powersoft 500, which IIRC has slightly different eq points, (I can't remember the exact differences) but I agree, the eq on the puma preamp is very well designed and very effective.

PS, my M212 came this past week. Played a few gigs with it this weekend, and so far I'm very impressed. The tone is gorgeous, with plenty of power at 4 ohm with the Puma500. Plus its super light, a 1 hand lifter.
 
#116
I think those are the same eq points for the powersoft version of the 500, J.Wolf.

I knew it was stupid, but I recently sold my p'soft 500. Did it for a change to a micro with more power. Really miss the clean, warm and fat. Anyone wanna sell their 900 hit me up! :D
 
#117
I wish i could remember where i read that about the eq points. Either way it was damn close, not a huge diff iirc. But i also may be mistaken..

Grab a 900, they are killin!
 
#118
J.Wolf said:
I wish i could remember where i read that about the eq points. Either way it was damn close, not a huge diff iirc. But i also may be mistaken..

Grab a 900, they are killin!
Click to expand...

FYI, the EQ points are the same, but the voicing of the amp is VERY different. I had my original Puma500 and the Puma500 protype at the same time. The low end of the newer model is much more restrained (not sure if that is due to different hi passing or what). The mid mids are also a bit more pronounced.

This was done based on player feedback. The original mega-fat Puma voicing sounds GREAT for certain types of music, and always sounded amazing at home, but tended to result in a bit too much deep low end and 'smoothness' for many. So, the revised voicing results in a tone profile a bit closer to the Markbass F500 when set flat.... punchy, articulate. However, the Puma is much purer/cleaner in the mids, and has a more extended and crystal clear top end.

The Puma500/900 was BY FAR the best sounding amp (assuming you want clean and relatively accurate) that I heard at NAMM, and the size of the units is otherwordly given their output.
 
#119
Thanks for clearing that up ken, I must have had crossed wires on the eq point issue.

I also had both the older 500 and newer 900 at the same time and can easily see how one led to the other in terms of appealing to a wider range of players. If my 500 disappeared today I'd be happy to replace it with a newer one, but that big fat creamy power soft 500 is just heaven for me and my gear/gigs/tone goals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back