• 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 S212/Puma500 Ultra Light Rig

#521
bugbass said:
I see there`s alot of good words about the TecAmp 212 cabs here, well, I played a gig last night with the Puma Combo 212, and IMO it was no good at all. No precense, no volume, nothing. Very scooped tone, reminded me of some of the Ampeg stuff. I was pretty shocked, cause I love my L410 cab, but this sounded nothing like it.
I guess 12" are not for me, and I`m starting to think that the lightweight heads may not be for me too. I don`t like lack of low-end headroom of theese amps.
Click to expand...

Careful there. First, the Puma 212 combo is 8ohms, so you are only getting roughly half the power of the Puma500 that drives it. Secondly, the combo cab is a completely different design from the s212 and your L410. The combo has a non-adjustable paper cone mid driver, not the tweeter that your L410 and my s212 have.

There is absolutely no difference in headroom these days between a lightweight amp and an amp with a heavy power supply IF they are roughly the same watts.

You experience with the Puma500 run into a 4ohm s212 would have been much closer, IMO, to your experience and tone that you get from you L410 (although still not the absolute volume of a 410). My 410 cabs bury the little s212 also, but the tone is amazing (I assume very similar to the L410), and the volume is quite amazing for a 40 pound 'micro sized' 212. However, IMO, the Puma500, like most other moderate wattage heads (lightweight or otherwise) really doesn't open up and scream into a single, small 8ohm cab.

IMO!
 
#522
KJung said:
Careful there. First, the Puma 212 combo is 8ohms, so you are only getting roughly half the power of the Puma500 that drives it. Secondly, the combo cab is a completely different design from the s212 and your L410. The combo has a non-adjustable paper cone mid driver, not the tweeter that your L410 and my s212 have.

There is absolutely no difference in headroom these days between a lightweight amp and an amp with a heavy power supply IF they are roughly the same watts.

You experience with the Puma500 run into a 4ohm s212 would have been much closer, IMO, to your experience and tone that you get from you L410 (although still not the absolute volume of a 410). My 410 cabs bury the little s212 also, but the tone is amazing (I assume very similar to the L410), and the volume is quite amazing for a 40 pound 'micro sized' 212. However, IMO, the Puma500, like most other moderate wattage heads (lightweight or otherwise) really doesn't open up and scream into a single, small 8ohm cab.

IMO!
Click to expand...


I hear you, and agree in most of it, but this combo was disaponting. I tried it in the store, and it sounded good, but on the gig..never. And remember, its a not cheap! Some other combos in the same pricerange, like the MB CMD 102, totally kills this TecAmp combo IMO/IME
But again, I love my L410
 
#523
bugbass said:
I hear you, and agree in most of it, but this combo was disaponting. I tried it in the store, and it sounded good, but on the gig..never. And remember, its a not cheap! Some other combos in the same pricerange, like the MB CMD 102, totally kills this TecAmp combo IMO/IME
But again, I love my L410
Click to expand...

+1 I would not consider a rig running the Puma500 at 8ohms on even a moderate gig (while I love the tone of the Puma, it is not the loudest amp in its class, and is not particularly forceful to my ear running at 8ohms, where I believe the power rating is 280 watts according to the manual), and I'm not a personal fan of those two way with mid driver and no tweeter cabs.

My point was that this combo is IMO NOT representative of the rig I own and reviewed on this thread, which results in a more full range tone with the tweeter, and more volume due to the increased wattage. So, don't throw the baby (all 212 cabs) out with the bath water! The Puma212 combo has very little similarity to the Puma500/s212 rig, even though they are the same dimensions.
 
#525
Hou said:
I have the Bonafide on it's way and I'm really looking forward to check it out! I will post more later
Click to expand...

Very cool. That is a unique amp... can run bridged, in 'dual mono' or actually true stereo from what I understand (i.e., two totally independent pre's/amps driving two different cabs. That would be great for the 'stereo effects' sort of player.

Post up when you get it!
 
#527
Since this thread is active again, here's a brief 'after many gigs' follow-up to the Puma500/s212 rig review:

The positives:

1) Tone... I continue to feel this is one of the best sounding rigs I've ever had, and virtually everyone who has heard it at either a GTG or on the gig likes it. Fat and warm, but VERY articulate!

2) Quality... top, top notch all the way, from the pots to the cab covering to the cases to the tone.

3) Weight.... featherweight to schlep around.


The negatives (probably too strong of a word):

1) I again found the newest version of the s212 with the much lower tuning/larger port to sound beautiful at moderate volumes, but to compress when really pushed more than the somewhat tighter voiced original s212. So, I continue to prefer the original design. I am now convinced that the M212 is probably the best 'bang for the size and weight' in the TecAmp cab line (based on extrapolating from my original s212... I haven't heard one.... the M212 tuning was not changed, so it's basically a bigger version of my original s212).

2) While this rig keeps up with most other 2 x 112 stacks, it's still a very small 212 cab (smaller than some 210's). So, my dream of this rig replacing my 410 rig(s) was unfortunately misplaced. It wumps pretty good, but it reinforces my view that 212 does not equal 410 in volume, punch, low end and push. So, instead of this rig being my primary gigging rig, it will be used for smaller clubs and venues. Nothing wrong with that.

3) While I still feel the Puma500 is among the best sounding heads I've ever heard (a unique combination of warm and fat down low, but very articulate and hi fi up top), it does not provide the wump of my Markbass heads regarding absolute volume (to be fair, I haven't heard any other micro-amps that wump like the MB's). My F1/F500 feels like it has 25% more absolute power, even though the ratings are the same. It's plenty loud, and has totally transparent power amp limiting (i.e., it just stops getting louder, but does not clamp up), but it is 'in the middle' of the 500-600 watt micro amp category regarding absolute volume capability. Gosh, it sounds amazing though!


So, in summary, I continue to feel that the TecAmp stuff is at the top of the heap tonewise, and the Puma500/s212(4ohm) is KILLER if you want a 'super210 rig' that is top notch in quality and tone. If you really need to wump, a bridged Puma1000 into an 8ohm M212 would probably be closer to what I call '410 performance (if you have the big bucks to buy one anyway).

All in all, I'm a happy camper, if just a touch disappointed that it turned out to be just a REALLY good sounding small rig versus a 'giant killer'.
 
#531
Shiveringbass said:
Great !

One of a few chance to have a direct comparison between Puma 500 and 1000 and S212 and M212.
:)

Thumb up for Detroy !
:)
Click to expand...

+1 I'm looking very forward to doing this in the near future.

The only thing we won't be able to do is a true A/B of the M212 and s212, since the M212 will be 8ohms. However, we can surely adjust the gain to get an approximate comparison of the tone differences, and also directly compare the 'baby bear rig' (s212/Puma500) with the 'papa bear rig' (m212/Puma1000. We can also do a direct tonal comparison of the Puma1000 and Puma500 by running one side of the Puma1000 into the s212, which will equate output to isolate any tonal differences.

Cool!
 
#532
KJung said:
Careful there. First, the Puma 212 combo is 8ohms, so you are only getting roughly half the power of the Puma500 that drives it.
Click to expand...

Just a side not on that Ken... The puma 500 (in the large combos 210/212) has been optimized to run at 320 watts into 8 ohms, unlike the stand alone head (which is 260 i think). I don't know why that is... but the specs are on the website, AND on the 'hard copy' manual I recieved with my combo.

KJung said:
the volume is quite amazing for a 40 pound 'micro sized' 212. However, IMO, the Puma500, like most other moderate wattage heads (lightweight or otherwise) really doesn't open up and scream into a single, small 8ohm cab.
Click to expand...


Hey ken, have you actually played through the 8 ohm version? A/B'ed or gigged them both? what versions?

Just curious because I get the impression from your posts that you are convinced a 4 ohm rig will ALWAYS, 'sound better' or 'be louder' (by a wide margin) than it's 8 ohm counterpart. That's fair enough if that has just been your experience with other cabs, or because the math/physics say so... but in this case, I feel it would be much better to have a direct A/B comparison to go on. I've been told that Thomas Eich lightly prefers these cabs in the 8 ohm config, and that the difference between the 4/8 ohms is almost inaudable. Anyhow, just playing devils advocate here.:D

So as for an update... I continue to feel that this combo sounds great for 212's... even into 8 ohms and at high volumes, practicing or gigging. While I'm still convinced the berg stack is the holy grail of tone, this combo does some things that my stack never did, and still sounds really great! Keep in mind... my volume needs are ALWAYS less than what ANY 212 is capable of... so for me, this cab fits the bill to a 'T' volume wise. I have however, been able to squeeze some bad sounds out of this rig. :hmm: By either pushing it really hard in a small room or just a little bit of poor EQing, which can go wrong really fast with this powerful little amp. But these instances are beyond what I would describe as 'normal' operating conditions, and I assume the same could be done with the similar 4 ohm 212 cabs etc.

At this point, Im convinced that Tecamp makes great products, and the 212 combo is one of them. It's definitely a 'niche' market product, with form factor (portability/conveinience/weight) being at the forefront of it's design. So, as long as you know what your needs are, and what this cab is capable of, it surely won't disapoint.

pat.
 
#533
speyer said:
Just a side not on that Ken... The puma 500 (in the large combos 210/212) has been optimized to run at 320 watts into 8 ohms, unlike the stand alone head (which is 260 i think). I don't know why that is... but the specs are on the website, AND on the 'hard copy' manual I recieved with my combo.




Hey ken, have you actually played through the 8 ohm version? A/B'ed or gigged them both? what versions?

Just curious because I get the impression from your posts that you are convinced a 4 ohm rig will ALWAYS, 'sound better' or 'be louder' than it's 8 ohm counterpart. That's fair enough if that has just been your experience with other cabs, or because the math/physics say so... but in this case, I feel it would be much better to have a direct A/B comparison to go on. I've been told that Thomas Eich lightly prefers these cabs in the 8 ohm config, and that the difference between the 4/8 ohms is almost inaudable. Anyhow, just playing devils advocate here.:D

So as for an update... I continue to feel that this combo sounds great for 212's... even into 8 ohms and at high volumes, practicing or gigging. While I'm still convinced the berg stack is the holy grail of tone, this combo does some things that my stack never did, and still sounds really great! Keep in mind... my volume needs are ALWAYS less than what ANY 212 is capable of... so for me, this cab fits the bill to a 'T' volume wise. I have however, been able to squeeze some bad sounds out of this rig. :hmm: By either pushing it really hard in a small room or just a little bit of poor EQing, which can go wrong really fast with this powerful little amp. But these instances are byond what I would describe as 'normal' operating conditions, and I assume the same could be done with the similar 4 ohm 212 cabs etc.
Click to expand...

Interesting on the Puma500 optimized for 8ohm performance in the combo. That would help a bit I'm sure.

I have not played an 8ohm s212, but find the Puma a relatively 'soft' 500 watts, even into 4ohms. I would definitely not want to lower the wattage more than that, and unlike your cab with the fixed mid driver, the stand-alone has the adjustable tweeter, so you can bring up that tweeter to compensate for a bit more volume coming out of the drivers. I believe the comment about the '8ohm cab sounding better' from the TecAmp crew was based on your combo cab, with the fixed mid driver. That makes TOTAL sense, since that mid driver is voiced for that specific cab in 8ohm version.

I think the key to your above statement is that you 'typically play at volumes below the capability of 212 cabs'. Of course, if that's the case, you would be totally in good shape with that rig.

Again, as I've posted many times, volume is a hard thing to talk about. If you play relatively softly, and/or play with a more traditional fingerpluck style only with a relatively light tough, it's amazing how little power and box you need. If, on the other hand, you play in busy mixes, dig in a bit, slap on occasion, etc., it's equally amazing how much power and big of a box you need.

I continue to love this stuff, and my 500 watts into the 4ohm s212 performs at a similar level to my previously owned 2 x Aguilar DB112. Given that the entire 212 is lighter than one of the DB112's, I consider this amazing. That being said, it ain't a 410:smug:

My recent comments on this were in response to the poster who felt the Puma500/s212 totally sucked. Since mine does not suck at all, I was trying to figure out some of what he was hearing. It's my opinion that he was comparing a small 8ohm 212 to a large 4ohm 410, which is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You are correct, if it was 4ohm, it would have helped IMO and IME, but not in any way would it have equalized the playing field. So +1.

Edit: Also, +1 to your 'bad sounds' when pushed. Since I have A/B'd the original and current s212 with the different porting, I believe (as I've posted before) that going to the new, VERY deep tuning was a mistake, and I can easily drive the woofers in the newer designed cab beyond their xmax earlier than the original design (which, according to the spec's, is tuned to a more appropriate 42 hz for a small cab). Both cabs sound equally great when not pushed beyond their limits, but it wouldn't suprise me if the 'rear ported' cabs don't sound as different between 8 and 4ohms, since the usable power handling of the cabs with the new tuning seems lower to me. IME!
 
#534
KJung said:
My recent comments on this were in response to the poster who felt the Puma500/s212 totally sucked. Since mine does not suck at all, I was trying to figure out some of what he was hearing. It's my opinion that he was comparing a small 8ohm 212 to a large 4ohm 410, which is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You are correct, if it was 4ohm, it would have helped IMO and IME, but not in any way would it have equalized the playing field. So +1.
Click to expand...

Yes, my point exactly. It's important to have your expectations in check before making comparisons between two different products.

As you said, this combo "aint no 410" and that should go without saying! :D But since we are all after the same goal here (finding the ultimate rig, in the ultimate format) it is fun to see were things fit in the big picture... but lets just be realistic while we do it!

My 2 cents... this combo does not suck at all, and sure... it would be cool to try it in 4 ohm configuration, just to see what differences there would be. I honestly figure this 8 ohm 212 combo is about 85%-90%(clean volume-wise) of what my 4 ohm 1000 watt berg stack was, but with more useable low end through that range with my 6 string. IMO, that is pretty impressive for what I would call a 'VERY efficient' 320 watt combo that happens to only weigh in at 50 lbs! The tone is not quite as nice as playing through my old TD-1 and berg cabs, but thats okay... I expected that when I put 2k in my jeans AND brought this combo home. So as you can imagine, I feel that for it's 2k price tag, it's a great deal for any musician with the right expectations.

What else is there to say? I'm smitten with this little combo... and that IS the goal isn't it? :smug: This rig has hit the nail on the head for me personally and I still couldn't be happier. :bassist:

pat.
 
#535
speyer said:
Yes, my point exactly. It's important to have your expectations in check before making comparisons between two different products.

As you said, this combo "aint no 410" and that should go without saying! :D But since we are all after the same goal here (finding the ultimate rig, in the ultimate format) it is fun to see were things fit in the big picture... but lets just be realistic while we do it!

My 2 cents... this combo does not suck at all, and sure... it would be cool to try it in 4 ohm configuration, just to see what differences there would be. I honestly figure this 8 ohm 212 combo is about 85%-90%(clean volume-wise) of what my 4 ohm 1000 watt berg stack was, but with more useable low end through that range with my 6 string. IMO, that is pretty impressive for what I would call a 'VERY efficient' 320 watt combo that happens to only weigh in at 50 lbs! The tone is not quite as nice as playing through my old TD-1 and berg cabs, but thats okay... I expected that when I put 2k in my jeans AND brought this combo home. So as you can imagine, I feel that for it's 2k price tag, it's a great deal for any musician with the right expectations.

What else is there to say? I'm smitten with this little combo... and that IS the goal isn't it? :smug: This rig has hit the nail on the head for me personally and I still couldn't be happier. :bassist:

pat.
Click to expand...

+1 All the way. I absolutely LOVE the tone (again, my rig is a touch different than yours in voicing, but I assume more similar than different), and the volume is as good as one could expect from a small, moderately powered rig:hyper:
 
#536
KJung said:
I think the key to your above statement is that you 'typically play at volumes below the capability of 212 cabs'. Of course, if that's the case, you would be totally in good shape with that rig.
Click to expand...

Thanks ken, yes that was the point was trying to make...

I'm lucky to have bought into my combo with the right expectations... knowing that I will rarely, if ever, push my combo to it's limits. I learned that before I traded up my berg stack... 1x12 was just not enough, and two was always overkill. :bassist:

Like I've always said too, If they had puma 500-115 combo, I'd be ALL over that, because I love me a good tight 15" loaded cab. :D
 
#537
KJung said:
Interesting on the Puma500 optimized for 8ohm performance in the combo. That would help a bit I'm sure.

I have not played an 8ohm s212, but find the Puma a relatively 'soft' 500 watts, even into 4ohms. I would definitely not want to lower the wattage more than that, and unlike your cab with the fixed mid driver, the stand-alone has the adjustable tweeter, so you can bring up that tweeter to compensate for a bit more volume coming out of the drivers. I believe the comment about the '8ohm cab sounding better' from the TecAmp crew was based on your combo cab, with the fixed mid driver. That makes TOTAL sense, since that mid driver is voiced for that specific cab in 8ohm version.

I think the key to your above statement is that you 'typically play at volumes below the capability of 212 cabs'. Of course, if that's the case, you would be totally in good shape with that rig.

Again, as I've posted many times, volume is a hard thing to talk about. If you play relatively softly, and/or play with a more traditional fingerpluck style only with a relatively light tough, it's amazing how little power and box you need. If, on the other hand, you play in busy mixes, dig in a bit, slap on occasion, etc., it's equally amazing how much power and big of a box you need.

I continue to love this stuff, and my 500 watts into the 4ohm s212 performs at a similar level to my previously owned 2 x Aguilar DB112. Given that the entire 212 is lighter than one of the DB112's, I consider this amazing. That being said, it ain't a 410:smug:

My recent comments on this were in response to the poster who felt the Puma500/s212 totally sucked. Since mine does not suck at all, I was trying to figure out some of what he was hearing. It's my opinion that he was comparing a small 8ohm 212 to a large 4ohm 410, which is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You are correct, if it was 4ohm, it would have helped IMO and IME, but not in any way would it have equalized the playing field. So +1.

Edit: Also, +1 to your 'bad sounds' when pushed. Since I have A/B'd the original and current s212 with the different porting, I believe (as I've posted before) that going to the new, VERY deep tuning was a mistake, and I can easily drive the woofers in the newer designed cab beyond their xmax earlier than the original design (which, according to the spec's, is tuned to a more appropriate 42 hz for a small cab). Both cabs sound equally great when not pushed beyond their limits, but it wouldn't suprise me if the 'rear ported' cabs don't sound as different between 8 and 4ohms, since the usable power handling of the cabs with the new tuning seems lower to me. IME!
Click to expand...

I guess that one was for me. I did not say the Puma500/S212 sucked, but IMO the 212 Combo does. And I did not compared it to the L410, I played the combo at a medium loud gig, and I was not able to dial in a sound that cut through, and when the combo was not very loud too, I was f**ed. Very disapointed with this combo.
Even the soundguy came up to me and wondered why I did not sound as tight and good(not bragging here) as I normally do.
 
#538
bugbass said:
I guess that one was for me. I did not say the Puma500/S212 sucked, but IMO the 212 Combo does. And I did not compared it to the L410, I played the combo at a medium loud gig, and I was not able to dial in a sound that cut through, and when the combo was not very loud too, I was f**ed. Very disapointed with this combo.
Even the soundguy came up to me and wondered why I did not sound as tight and good(not bragging here) as I normally do.
Click to expand...

+1 I was referring to your comments. As you know, I find negative comments on gear MUCH more useful than gushing (and I gush with the best of them, but I also hammer when I don't like something).

From players with different tone goals and volume needs evaluating gear, the truth usually emerges.

I assumed you were using your L410 as a reference, but it sounds like you had a bad absolute experience.

I again very much dig my TecAmp rig, and it performs at a level similar to other 2 x 112 or small 212 cab rigs with 500 watts pumping into them. I again have not tried the 212 combo, which is lower wattage and a different cabinet design.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back