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 Puma 1000 : reviews , opinions?
- Thread starter THBass
- Start date
The PUma1000 is a dual mono head. It will put out about 500 watts into 4ohms per side (into two four ohm cabs) or 1000 watts bridged into one 8ohm cab. So, it is not able to run a single 4ohm cab. (EDIT: THERE IS A NEW SPEC ON THE PUMA1000, making it similar to the 900 (1000 watts into 4ohm bridged). The rest of my post and recommendations are still accurate IMO).
It was primarily designed to run a backline cab from one channel, and the 'pleasure pad' or whatever that thing is called in the other channel with the deep filter engaged.
For the vast majority of users, the new Puma350/500/900 products would be superior. Smaller, much less expensive, and a traditional mono block design that puts full power into 4ohms.
I would recommend the Puma500 with a 4ohm s212 if you KNOW you would never need a second cab ever. Or, the Puma900 with an 8ohm s212, which would allow you to bring the thunder with a second 8ohm s212. The Puma900 puts out about the same wattage into a single 8ohm cab as the Puma500 does into a single 4ohm cab.
GREAT sounding stuff, and that Puma500/S212-4ohm is a killer, lightweight rig for up to moderate volume gigs.
IMO.. hope that helps.
It was primarily designed to run a backline cab from one channel, and the 'pleasure pad' or whatever that thing is called in the other channel with the deep filter engaged.
For the vast majority of users, the new Puma350/500/900 products would be superior. Smaller, much less expensive, and a traditional mono block design that puts full power into 4ohms.
I would recommend the Puma500 with a 4ohm s212 if you KNOW you would never need a second cab ever. Or, the Puma900 with an 8ohm s212, which would allow you to bring the thunder with a second 8ohm s212. The Puma900 puts out about the same wattage into a single 8ohm cab as the Puma500 does into a single 4ohm cab.
GREAT sounding stuff, and that Puma500/S212-4ohm is a killer, lightweight rig for up to moderate volume gigs.
IMO.. hope that helps.
PS Can't comment on EU tech support, but I assume it is fine.
Tonally, the new 500/900 are a bit tighter down low and a touch more mid present than the original line of Puma amps (like the 1000). Much smaller, less expensive, no fan needed, same amazing preamp... pure, clean, crystal clear.
Tonally, the new 500/900 are a bit tighter down low and a touch more mid present than the original line of Puma amps (like the 1000). Much smaller, less expensive, no fan needed, same amazing preamp... pure, clean, crystal clear.
It would the be Puma all the way. The TC RH series is a great head (owned the RH450 at the same time I owned my PUma500), but is much more geared to warm mids and a more vintage vibe. The RH450 heads sound kind of like an entire sealed vintage rig, with a somewhat compressed low end and a very warm, midrangey response.
The s212 4ohm with the new Puma500 is a pretty killer small rig... big, wide, crisp. Pretty hard to not dig it for the funk sort of thing. The s212 is a small cab, and it isn't going to keep up with a good quality 410 or a larger 212, but it will give you more than virtually any 210, and it weighs almost nothing. The new, rear porting of that cab results in a more extended low end. Great box, and a GREAT head.
IMO and IME.
With my J Basses, for the more modern funk/pop thing, I use a Markbass F500 and a Bergantino AE212. Both of those pieces of gear have been discontinued.
The Markbass F500 actually sounds quite a bit similar to the current, small Puma500. I like that even, clean tone, but with some 'warmth and character' (versus the super clean, clinical, sterile sort of hi fi thing). Both the F500 and Puma500 deliver that sound nicely.
For my P Bass, I typically use a Bergantino AE410 (a bit more punchy and grindy than the AE212), and a Genz Streamliner900, which is kind of like playing out of a big Tube amp into a more vintage type cab.
email is rarely a good way to get a problem resolved. I know Glenn Kawamoto (Austin Bass Traders) handles any US service needs, and does a great job with this brand.
I have no info on EU service and support though.
KJung said:
If a company does not answer mails it is terrible customer service. If they're not going to answer mails, they shouldn't post the address in the internet.
- Oct 8, 2007
- 970
- 60
- Disclosures
- Former Part-Time, Non-Commission Employee MOOG Audio
I emailed them and got a response 5 minutes later. remember these guys are in Germany so they are six hours (or nine hours for the west coast) ahead. Their reply may have gone into your junk mail or your mail may have gone into theirs. In my case I emailed them at 4AM my time and got the answers I needed right away.
So More importantly to the OP the reason I needed to contact them was about my Puma500 210 combo. They don't publish the actual specs of the impedance of the internal speakers or the minimum possible load anywhere. On the back of the amp there is an external speaker out marked "8 ohms minimum" One would guess that the internal speakers would be 8ohm total and the external 8 dropping the entier load to 4 ohms...well that's not the case. It turns out that the internal speakers are 8 ohms EACH for a total or 4 ohms. The head will operate at 2.666 ohms no problem (with the addition of the 8 ohm suggested external speaker) however the extension speaker will only see HALF the power of the internal 210. they also say that the head will function fine at 2 ohms but will shut down in a protection mode if over heating, but you can't harm the head, it just won't be as reliable in loud situations.
I love the amp. it sounds amazing and is light as a feather, however I think I would have preferred to have an 8 ohm internal load not four and use a second 8 ohm 210 or even a 4 ohm 410 (at 2.66ohms) I wish they had published those specs PRIOR to my purchase!
Also if you do go the Tecamp route, be sure to tighten the set screws on the plastic handles often. They can work loose and rattle. A little clear nail varnish applied to the threads borrowed from the missus can prevent frequently needed tightenings.
Bottom line: Great amps but they should label and describe their products better, the service after the sale was quick prompt and clear. Now I wonder how much two replacement 10" speakers cost?
So am I (in Germany). I think it is highly unlikeky that every mail that I sent or they replied to didn't end up where they were supposed to (several different mail addresses and no junk mail on my side). Anyway to me it is a minor thing and if it had been anything urgent I would have called. The fact remains that I got no answer and I consider that terrible customer service.
ken, is there a spec change in model years? the older powersoft seem to list 500 into 4 and 1000 into 8, but the current website says
2 x 500 w (2 ohms), 1 x 1000 w (4 ohms) bridged mode
Link Removed
i thought the 1000 into 8 would be rad for my 15/6 fEARful. but now im confused
- Oct 8, 2007
- 970
- 60
- Disclosures
- Former Part-Time, Non-Commission Employee MOOG Audio
More fogginess regarding lowest possible impedance. My guess is that they were conservative on the initial ratings but they may have made production changes...
This is one area where they could improve. I'd like to see less cartoon cat's eyes and Bull's heads on the website and more accurate technical specifications in areas that matter, like speaker loads! If they made a product revision they should indicate which serial numbers are affected.
because it wouldn't make sense that the loads tolerances would change without seeing more power at the new lower ratings.(unless the original specs were a misprint)
This is one area where they could improve. I'd like to see less cartoon cat's eyes and Bull's heads on the website and more accurate technical specifications in areas that matter, like speaker loads! If they made a product revision they should indicate which serial numbers are affected.
because it wouldn't make sense that the loads tolerances would change without seeing more power at the new lower ratings.(unless the original specs were a misprint)
emails can get blocked, etc., etc. While I agree with you in general, a call is ALWAYS a better way to deal with a problem with any company, period. IMO and IME.
ken, is there a spec change in model years? the older powersoft seem to list 500 into 4 and 1000 into 8, but the current website says
2 x 500 w (2 ohms), 1 x 1000 w (4 ohms) bridged mode
Link Removed
i thought the 1000 into 8 would be rad for my 15/6 fEARful. but now im confused
Ah, they changed that unit. The spec makes total sense in that they now lowered the power output, but made the amp '2ohm per side' capable. So, to get 1000 watts bridged at 8ohms, each side would have to be capable of producing 500 watts at 2ohms.
That is probably why it is still in the large box with a fan, since that would generate quite a bit of heat.
I would personally avoid that model myself. The 900 puts out the same power into a single 8ohm cab (500 watts into 8ohms would be plenty to drive a 15/6(. Never liked the idea of 4ohm bridged with these small, class D amps myself.
Actually, that spec makes total sense. I did not realize they changed the design of that amp. However, the spec doesn't seem to really provide anything more than the 900, so not sure why they made that change, or have that unit still in the product portfolio. It basically puts out similar power into the same impedance as the 900, but in a more 'complicated' way.
Per the above, I didn't realize they modified the design of the Puma1000. Seems like it puts out pretty much the same power at the same impedance as the Puma900. So, IMO, no advantage of the 1000 over the smaller, more simple design of the 900 (i.e, no bridging required, etc.).
No, in some cases it is much better to have something in writing and in those cases it is mandatory to deal with a company in that way - especially if legal issues may develop.
