davidmwilson said:
David,
You are correct and I'm sure there are players that love that saturated sound, but IMO it would have been more useful if it
a) could provide a clean sound
b) or at least could be blended with the standard channel
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.
Thunderfunk TF420 vs. Aguilar AG500
- Thread starter michele
- Start date
David,
You are correct and I'm sure there are players that love that saturated sound, but IMO it would have been more useful if it
a) could provide a clean sound
b) or at least could be blended with the standard channel
Just wanted to respond back, I am the guy in Atlanta that did the comparison with Jome77, I thought both amps sounded great but IMO I thought the Aguilar AG500's tone was more focused and defined especialy at higher volumes. Don't get it wrong, the TunderFunk sounded good but IMO the Aguilar sounded better. Two nice amps. If I had a chance to do it again i'd get the Aguilar AG500 hands down. 
rbeard said:If I had a chance to do it again i'd get the Aguilar AG500 hands down.
It's a good thing you'd chose it again hands down because you'll need both hands to turn all the EQ knobs on the Aggie for the next song!
Just kidding!!! Glad you chimed in Roland. I wasn't sure of your TB name so I left you anonymous. Sounds like in the end both of us got what we wanted and still love it! Both great amps!
Yes, I must say both are outstanding heads. I guess both of these heads make the perfect storm, The Tunderfunk provides the thunder and the Aguilar AG500 provides the lightning. Whats a good storm without lightning. Just joking All jokes aside you can't go wrong with either head. 
All jokes aside you can't go wrong with either head. 
as an FYI, I should have a thunderfunk 500w version coming in the next two weeks to do a good A/B between them.
davidmwilson said:
David, you're a dirty doggie. I thought you were an Aggie purist.
So what's with the new TF 500watt? Is he building you one? I went ahead and ordered the AG500 instead of the AG500SC. I figure I'm not a big distortion guy, but the difference in the EQ parameters might be very interesting. I'm happy with Aggie tone, but I swear don't you dare give me more GAS, I'm all out of Phazyme ($$$). I think the distortion will be useful in a few of my situations, and I'll use it sparingly most likely. I'm interested to hear your review, you DAWG!!! 
A friend of mine just traded in his AMP BH-420 (The TF's granddaddy) for an AG500. He's impulsive.
I didn't get a chance to do a direct comparison with my ThunderFunk but I did a/b the BH-420 and the AG500. He's kicking himself for letting the AMP go. Hindsight is a mother.
The AG500 was nice and if I had no other point of reference I'm sure I could be happy with it. I didn't find the second channel useful so it was wasted on me. I ran an Ambush 5 and Brubaker Xtreme 5 through both heads and a few different cabs including an Epifani 112, Nahas 112, Bag End coax 115, Aguilar 410 and a few others. By no coincidence the combo that was truly scary was the AMP throught the coax Bag End, the same rig I gigged with tonight. Unbelievable sound from a tiny setup. Same results pushing that cab with the TFB-420.
The TF is plug and play. Hearing the very different vibes from the Ambush in single and dual coil modes then swapping out for the Brubaker and everything it can do while not having to touch the controls (everything set flat) on the amp is my idea of perfection.
) for an AG500. He's impulsive.I didn't get a chance to do a direct comparison with my ThunderFunk but I did a/b the BH-420 and the AG500. He's kicking himself for letting the AMP go. Hindsight is a mother.
The AG500 was nice and if I had no other point of reference I'm sure I could be happy with it. I didn't find the second channel useful so it was wasted on me. I ran an Ambush 5 and Brubaker Xtreme 5 through both heads and a few different cabs including an Epifani 112, Nahas 112, Bag End coax 115, Aguilar 410 and a few others. By no coincidence the combo that was truly scary was the AMP throught the coax Bag End, the same rig I gigged with tonight. Unbelievable sound from a tiny setup. Same results pushing that cab with the TFB-420.
The TF is plug and play. Hearing the very different vibes from the Ambush in single and dual coil modes then swapping out for the Brubaker and everything it can do while not having to touch the controls (everything set flat) on the amp is my idea of perfection.
I DO love Aguilar amps, but I have an open mind.DaveAceofBass said:David, you're a dirty doggie. I thought you were an Aggie purist.
With the 7 day tryout period from Thunderfunk I have nothing to lose.
Brad Johnson said:
Okay, just answer some questions for me. Was the AG500s second channel inferior because you don't like distorted bass, or because it just didn't sound good? Did you completely mess with the Contour and Presence controls? What about the Deep switch? I think having a second channel would be cool, but I've never played it yet.... And you liked the clean channel, but not as much as the TF? I have Aggie gear and it always sounded good to me, so I hope I made an appropriate decision.
Second, the TF has a ridiculous Parametric EQ section and a Limiter. What's the point of a Limiter on a 400 watt amp? The Limiter seems only useful when using underpowered cabs (or overpowered by the head). And if the amp is plug in and play, why the crazy parametric EQ? Wouldn't it be better to just have a more simple EQ like the Aggie? How will the tone differ when both are flat? Which amp will have the purist response? I like Acoustic Image amps, and they have a very flat tone. I always thought the Aggie had much more punch for an electric bass than the AI stuff, but the transparent sound of the AI was ideal for upright. Which amp has the best all around tone like that? Man, very tough call.... it's not too late to change my mind, but I don't think I should. The distortion will be useful for some of my groups, but both Davidmwilson and Dave Avenius at Aguilar talked me out of the Fulltone Bass Driver and into the AG500 instead of the pedal and an AG500SC. Tell me what all you TBers think.
davidmwilson said:
Did you order EU version then, or did TF figure out their new transformer doohickey?
It sounds good.DaveAceofBass said:
Seriously... engaging the limiter on the TFunk yields a (good) 'limited' sound, which you may find useful. I like it myself for fingerstyle playing.I agree it's plug 'n play, but so is the Aggie, based on my limited experience with the AG500 combo. The TFunk paraEQ does give you a lot of flexibilitiy, which you may/may not elect to use... it's all your choice!DaveAceofBass said:
DaveAceofBass said:
Glad to
You somewhow translated this: "I didn't find the second channel useful so it was wasted on me"...
into me saying the second channel was inferior. I didn't say anything apporaching that. "I" don't need any type of distortion for the sounds "I" want. As such when "I" judge an amp it is solely from "my" point of view. Since "I" didn't like the sound of the second channel and I had already heard others tweaking it I didn't spend much time repeating what they did.
I think a second channel could be cool too... just not this one, for me. And no, I didn't like the clean channel as much as the AMP. You had to be there
. Like a studio monitor with balls.The same thing happened when we compared a couple of 112 cabs, one from a high end builder and one from a local guy who built custom cabs (I use the local guy's cabs). The difference between the two was pretty obvious. The only thing left was deciding which one you like more.
I would hope words on a page wouldn't sway you from liking something you already like. I know that's not my intent. I'm expressing "my" impression of the AG500, that's all. I've had Aggie gear, now I don't. It happens.
Actually that would be more like fifth
The purpose of the limiter is, seriously, for people who want a built-in limiter. What's the point of a second channel?
The Limiter is not "needed" in my case. I don't use it. If OTOH I did want to use it, I don't have to buy one, I can just turn that knob.
The "ridiculous Parametric EQ section" is actually pretty simple. First, it "semi" parametric, which is simpler to use than fully parametric. You make two choices... what frequency you want to work with and whether to cut or boost that frequency. That's it. It helps to understand frequencies, just like it helps to understand frequencies when using shelving tone controls or graphic EQs.
There are four ranges of frequencies to work with.
Define "better"?
Would it be better to have something simpler... like only one channel? The reason it's there is because it offers some pretty extensive tone-shaping capabilities, along with the Bass and Treble controls and the very cool IMO Timbre control. They're there because, like the second distortion channel, some people may want to use them.
BTW in my case there is no "if"... I've been gigging with my TF for quite a while now and still haven't felt the need to touch any of the ridiculous EQ knobs, simply because the amp sounds great IMO without it. The people I play with think the same.
It's plug and play AND tweakable. Makes sense to me.
IME the AMP BH-420 sounded exactly like I wanted it to compared to the Aggie set flat, which didn't. I'd expect the same result subbing the TF for the AMP.
Beats me. There's no generally accepted standard of purest tone.
Again, my AMPs and TF have ridiculous punch, far exceeding what I've experienced in other amps. That's why I use them.
But that's just my opinion
I think that if you're happy with it... what's the question? Why should you change your mind? I would imagine we're going for two very different vibes.
Man, this is getting deep. I think Brad is right on in his response. Why NOT have a parametric EQ? Just because the amp doesn't need it? And if I took it out and the amp cost the same??? Then what would be said? It lacks a para EQ? Would the Aggie be cheaper with only one channel? Would that make it more flexible?Brad Johnson said:
It does... AND it has a para EQ.DaveAceofBass said:
As for the limiter I've had many comments about how good the limiter is.... better than many outboards. So why not? It only costs a couple of dollars to put it in. Don't need a limiter because it's "only" a 400-watt amp? Isn't an SVT a 400-watt amp? Do bass players use compressors in the studio? Why? They're not playing that loud. If you have to ask this question you shouldn't be using a limiter. just turn it off. There's a handy push button just for that purpose.DaveAceofBass said:
The belief that a limiter will save an over powered cab is just missing the point. A limiter may limit the PEAK power into a cab but it will raise the AVERAGE power into the cab, which will still overheat and blow the speaker.
A limiter will smooth out the pops when playing live, and in the studio a limiter (or compressor) will reduce the dynamics to squeeze more power into a record that will be played on a radio with limited dynamic range, and give a record a more in your face, intimate feel.
Limiters are also used in radio to extend the range of a radio station by maintaining a higher AVERAGE power output, at the station's legal maximum.
Maybe Brad just THINKS the Thunderfunk sounds better. Maybe you'd still like Aggie better. I don't know.DaveAceofBass said:
DaveAceofBass said:
That's why I now offer "The Switch." Last year I almost designed the warm gutty tube tone out of the amp. This year I decided to offer both a warm tube tone and a flat clean tone in the same amp with the flick of a switch. This does not mean it's a two channel amp. That's not the intent.
Dave "Thunder" Funk
Dear Brad and Mr. Funk,
I did not mean to upset either one of you with my questions, I'm sorry if I did. Sometimes I like to pry into the minds of the designers and the owners of the amps and see the differences of opinion. I believe anyone in this business would respect the other guy if he/she knew that they were also building a good product not just for sheer profit, but to benefit the musicians who use them. I am very intrigued to hear one of your amps Mr. Funk, and in fact it may be a wise purchase for me. But currently I'm seeking a lighter weight version of a DB359 sound, which I've gotten used to and really like. I wouldn't say that any product is better than another either. I actually would have bought the AI if I knew that I could get the same punch on electric that I get out of the Aggie, but that has not been my experience, but they are an absolutely wonderful transparent amp. As for my opinion on parametric EQs, I have had an SWR SM-500, and a Presonus Eureka, and neither one was easy for me to find my tone. The bands of control on my DB359 seem to be placed right where I want them, and I like the switches for deep and bright, so the AG500 seems like the perfect flyweight. Nonetheless, it's not fair to judge your amp on how it would help my sound until I hear it for myself, and I just may do that, but you've got no dealers here!!! All I can say is, it seems like people really like your amp, and you must make a fantastic product, and for that you can be proud, and I wish you success in the growth of your company. So, I'll take the AG500 for now, and if I hear a TF and like it better, I can always sell it. I will say how pleased I am with Aguilar as well, they are also a fantastic company. The distortion is a new venture for me, and I feel it will be useful in my experimental jazz/funk/jam band fusion project. No hard feelings, maybe I'll make it to NAMM and see what it's all about.... Merry Christmas everyone!!!
I did not mean to upset either one of you with my questions, I'm sorry if I did. Sometimes I like to pry into the minds of the designers and the owners of the amps and see the differences of opinion. I believe anyone in this business would respect the other guy if he/she knew that they were also building a good product not just for sheer profit, but to benefit the musicians who use them. I am very intrigued to hear one of your amps Mr. Funk, and in fact it may be a wise purchase for me. But currently I'm seeking a lighter weight version of a DB359 sound, which I've gotten used to and really like. I wouldn't say that any product is better than another either. I actually would have bought the AI if I knew that I could get the same punch on electric that I get out of the Aggie, but that has not been my experience, but they are an absolutely wonderful transparent amp. As for my opinion on parametric EQs, I have had an SWR SM-500, and a Presonus Eureka, and neither one was easy for me to find my tone. The bands of control on my DB359 seem to be placed right where I want them, and I like the switches for deep and bright, so the AG500 seems like the perfect flyweight. Nonetheless, it's not fair to judge your amp on how it would help my sound until I hear it for myself, and I just may do that, but you've got no dealers here!!! All I can say is, it seems like people really like your amp, and you must make a fantastic product, and for that you can be proud, and I wish you success in the growth of your company. So, I'll take the AG500 for now, and if I hear a TF and like it better, I can always sell it. I will say how pleased I am with Aguilar as well, they are also a fantastic company. The distortion is a new venture for me, and I feel it will be useful in my experimental jazz/funk/jam band fusion project. No hard feelings, maybe I'll make it to NAMM and see what it's all about.... Merry Christmas everyone!!!
I will say that I thought about the Aguilar head before buying my Thunderfunk (TFB550! - 500W, with "the switch"), but I liked having the versatility that the Thunderfunk offers and so I decided to to that route instead. I've had quite a few amps in the past (Ashdown, SWR SM500, Carvin, Aguilar DB659, SWR workingmans) and to me, I like the Thunderfunk tone and versatility the best.
The EQ on the SWR SM500 is very different than the Thunderfunk EQ (even though they look similar). I don't really need the EQ on the Thunderfunk to achieve "my" tone, but every now and then I might boost the lows (55-60Hz) just 1 notch. The Thunderfunk EQ is powerful enough to allow this and have a dramatic effect. The SWR did not have the same response with EQ. It was much harder to achieve good tone with it. Dave makes a good product IMHO and I am happy with it.
-KB
The EQ on the SWR SM500 is very different than the Thunderfunk EQ (even though they look similar). I don't really need the EQ on the Thunderfunk to achieve "my" tone, but every now and then I might boost the lows (55-60Hz) just 1 notch. The Thunderfunk EQ is powerful enough to allow this and have a dramatic effect. The SWR did not have the same response with EQ. It was much harder to achieve good tone with it. Dave makes a good product IMHO and I am happy with it.
-KB
What is "the switch" ?
Anyone got a pic of the new 500W model? Does it look the same? Any other new internal/external changes?
Anyone got a pic of the new 500W model? Does it look the same? Any other new internal/external changes?
My 500W is a prototype so it is in a TFB420 chasis, so it looks just like other thunderfunks except I have a small "switch" above the power switch.
-KB
-KB
DaveAceofBass said:
Dave, I'm not the least bit upset. Just wanted to answer your questions as specifically as I could. Guess I could've deployed more smileys
Any flavor of parametric EQ can be hard to dial in until you get familiar with what you're trying to do. In my case I'd rather an EQ be an option rather than a necessity.
Anything short of that will limit what you "can" do... if you "want" to as far as tonal tweaks. I understand these types of EQ pretty well and one of the reasons I love (yes, love
) my TF is that I've yet to even come close to feeling the need to do a tweak at the amp, regardless of venue or situation. It's not some crazy mandate I've restricted myself to, I'd liken my amp to the Fonz, who goes into the bathroom at Arnold's to check his hair, has the comb out and realizes it's pointless because... it's already exactly how he wants it.Anyone who's been around here for a while knows I've been gushing about my AMP BH-420s and then my TFB-420 for years. Anyone who's spent decades fighting with preamps that seriously hamper your tone from the moment you plug in can appreciate showing up for a gig and in the time it takes to plug in and tune up, you're ready to go.
Imagine what a royal PITA it is to use lots of different basses and having to tweak the amp's EQ for each one. That's what I've found with way too many amps. Almost made me want to stick to one bass, just for sanity's sake. It's rare I even use the Timbre control, I typically plug in, bring up the gains and sit back and enjoy the ride
One of the main reasons I can do this is that a long time ago I figured out that just turning an amp up can cure a littany of tonal ills. Where others might tweak to compensate for what they're not hearing at lower volumes, I've found that by having the amp up and using other means to control my dynamics I'll get all the highs I'll ever need (without boosting at the amp)... and not at the expense of the lows or mids because everything will be there. What results is a very physical sound, you hear it AND feel it, even at lower volumes. Once you get used to that...
Whatever coloration these amps impart, it's coloration I like. They don't genericize whatever I plug in. I don't sound like I'm playing a ThunderFunk, I sound like I'm playing whatever I've plugged in. Sounds simple but it's not.
I hope you get a chance to crank one up for yourself and then you can see for yourself what the fuss is or isn't about. For myself, with everything available today, I'd still buy a TF first.
