• 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.
#141
Scott McArron said:
and a pic of the rig from this weekend's gig...

Rig.jpg
Click to expand...

I can concur that this is an awesome rig and have it set up in my shop :-)

Thomas at Tecampo sent me over the 900 to try out and it is very cool, warmer than the Genz STL amps but cleaner than the Mark BAss amps IMO - the taste knob is an acquired taste, like KJung I like the sound flat - too many micro amps choices at the moment!!!

Mark
 
#142
KJung said:
The taste filter is interesting, and is a bit more 'active' than the VLE on the MB heads, and is, in a way, similar to the VLE when turned clockwise and a 'reverse VPF' when turned counterclockwise.

So, when turned clockwise, the treble and eventually midrange is rolled off, for a Motown or DUB sort of voicing. When turned counterclockwise, the lows and highs are rolled off and the mid mids are boosted, for that sort of 'mwaw' fretless type tone.

Quite frankly, I found the taste knob a bit too extreme for me, and pretty much left it alone. But, nice to have for a quick and somewhat extreme change to the tonality of the amp for some contexts.


Andy.... GREAT clip... sounds great!
Click to expand...

good to know. i've been thinking markbass for small and light, but i've heard they don't play well with the fEARfuls, so other options are being sought.
 
#148
Another impressed owner here.
I have the 212 puma combo.
Just wondering.....
Has any got an opinion about which extension cab would be best to use with this combo?
I have a chance to buy an XS112... has anyone tried this cab with the combo?
Should I hold out for something bigger?
I'm just looking for little bit more volume / bottom end for the bigger rooms we occasionally play.
 
#150
Just finished a gig with the 212 puma combo. I'm really getting to grips with it now.
Excellent. If I closed my eyes, I couldn't tell that it was a 40lb cab with neos. Sounded as phat as my EBS 410.... although I suspect it doesn't have the same headroom. But you can't have everything eh?
I'm still going to take a punt on the xs112 to give me a touch more volume and height.
 
#155
Powersoft versions have more sub low end, and a higher top end than their ICE counterparts. For the Puma 500/1000 stuff, it could be summed up generally like this:

Powersoft: More like the original SWR, or Euphonic Audio voicing.

ICE: More like a Markbass Littlemark voicing.

That's painting with pretty broad strokes, but will give you a general impression of the differences.
 
#156
I'd say that the powersoft is 'slightly' glossier sounding with sweeter mids, and is fatter and wider down low. The ICE sounded more forward and articulate, with a tighter bottom. I'm only comparing the powersoft puma500 to the ICE puma900 though.
 
#158
J.Wolf said:
I'd say that the powersoft is 'slightly' glossier sounding with sweeter mids, and is fatter and wider down low. The ICE sounded more forward and articulate, with a tighter bottom. I'm only comparing the powersoft puma500 to the ICE puma900 though.
Click to expand...

Hi all. Just got the new Puma 900 last night. Tried it out for a little while with a few basses (Rob Allen mice and some P basses) through 1 or 2 Berg HT112ERs and an Accugroove Tri115L (with or without a Berg sub woofer). Still need to try it in a mix setting.

I would agree with JW's characterization, though it's been a few months since I played through the older Puma 500. One other notable difference that I heard was the Puma 900 is more dynamic and quicker (what JW perhaps meant by "more forward") and it is seriously powerful. Lots of Whump that the older Puma 500 didn't have.

I pretty much only played the 900 flat, or with a slight roll-off of upper mids and a hair counter-clockwise on the Taste knob. I like clean but warm, full but articulate, natural/organic sounding. I am not into grit and growl and the 900 has none of that to my ears when set flat (the older 500 didn't either). I did try briefly boosting low and high mids (separately), so the grind is there for those who want it. I also assume the EQ on the 900 works like that on the older 500. In short, the 900 sounded very clear and articulate, no saggy bottom (very tight on the boominess scale, but the tone of the low notes came through clearly), and only the slightest bit of warm coloration (I would say warmer and smoother than the LMIII to my ears).

I'm A/B'ing the 900 with the Epifani UL501 and a hot-rodded TFunk 550B (does 600w at 4 ohms). Hard to choose. All very good in their own, but similar, way. The 900 kinda sits in the middle of these 2 in terms of inherent tone (warmer and smoother than the TFunk, not as thick/warm as the Epifani UL501; the TFunk was the quickest of the 3; the Epi the slowest (but not slow)). But if you want warm, clean and smooth (with versatility) in a super portable format, the 900 is hard to beat.

Hope this helps those who were waiting for a review. Not sure what I'm gonna do. Any suggestions? Enjoy, DM
 
#159
KJung said:
Count me in.... Puma500/s212(I..4ohm).

Wonderful small rig... more volume and low end and punch than any 210 I've played, and about the same size as many 210's but lighter weight (under 40 pounds!)... bonus! Warm, but clean and crisp!

VF5Recording.gif
Click to expand...

Now go to the corner of the room and stay there. :-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back