• 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.

Uber 410 = Uber Bad *ss

#141
Eublet said:
Agreed there, Mike. I think the LMII/Shuttle 6.0 is the most valid comparison, not the F1. Even though they are a different class, they seem to have much more similar applications and intended audience. The LMII is the one that is most often recommended for players looking for a warm tone and more traditional sound, not the F1. The power ratings are close enough to make them almost negligible. Both the F1 and the Shuttle 6.0 seem to be the SMPS amps that are seeking to better emulate the traditional feel and tone of a Class A/B with torodial PS. Even if the Shuttle 6.0 is class D, it doesn't appear that the typical Class D tone was any part of the design goal. My guess is that the F1 will appear worlds apart from the Shuttle 6.0, and should instead be compared with the 3.0, even though the power rating gap would be significant.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that really isn't the point. The point, and what I always try to do, is to accurately describe the differences among these products so that those who aren't lucky enough to try (or much less own) all of them can kind of make a decision.

Of course they will sound different... every piece of gear does. My main interest is in seeing if the 6.0 can clean up enough to keep a player like me happy, or if the 6.0 and F1/LMII are so different that they are meant for totally different tone goals. I have not been able to glean that out of the limited reviews at this point!
 
#142
Eublet said:
I think the Neo-pak is VERY clean. I don't hear any grit when I set it up purposefully to leave it out, but it does still have tube characteristics, harmonics, and some slight low end bloom. IMO, to say it isn't clean means that it is somehow dirty, gritty, grindy, etc. All the things we typically use to describe a tube being overdriven a bit.

The Neo-pak does "tube-clean" if we can call it that. SS-clean is another animal. The difference between the two is very subtle to most players, and not noticeable at all to many others unless you do an A/B and help them to hear the differences. Shades of gray perhaps, until you really drive the tube.
Click to expand...

The above post makes my point....:smug:
 
#146
KJung said:
That's actually very heavy for a neo 410. For example, the ceramic Bergantino HS410 is only about 15 pounds more, and the new AE410 is right at 60 pounds, with a 16" depth (wonderful). The classic Epifani410UL is at 57 pounds, although it is full size (18" depth). There are quite a few neo 410's that are in the 55-60 pound range that are also awesome. Make sure you do your homework before you take the plunge... lot's of great stuff out there.
Click to expand...

Point well taken KJung! Thanks.
 
#148
Fretlessboy said:
I have but it has been a year or so. Honestly it really didn't wow me. It was nice but for me it just didn't do it. That's when I thank god there are a lot of choices for everyone to choose from.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to the OP's comment that he had not heard lows out of a cabinet like the lows that come out of the Uber 410. That's when I asked if he had heard an Acme cab before - lows come out of that cabinet like lows unheard of in any other cabinet.

In other words, I was curious if the lows from the Uber 410 are similar to the lows from an Acme Low B4 4x10 cabinet.
 
#149
The Low B2 and B4 that I tried sounded very much like Eden XST's to me. They were low for sure, but nothing unworldly about them. The 210xst (which many people say is like the Low B2) I had often felt muddy in a mix, without enough cut to get the job done. It needed something nasally to compensate IMO, like the 112xlt. I haven't tried the Uber, but I personally hope that it is not like the Acme or XST cabinets. And since Dennis likes them as-is, my guess is that they are not.
 
#151
KJung said:
I believe the price point is a touch closer.
Click to expand...

List prices, yes. But street prices, the Shuttle 6.0 seems to be going for $699. So it's sort of in between the two, but actually closer to the LMII, if I remember Markbass pricing correctly.

In any event, I'm looking forward to comparisons between the Shuttle and the F1 as well. Cool ultralight gear all around, and if I wasn't so happy with Genz Benz, I imagine that I would be playing Markbass right now.

Okay, sorry to further the thread derail!

Cheers
 
#152
Eublet said:
The Low B2 and B4 that I tried sounded very much like Eden XST's to me. They were low for sure, but nothing unworldly about them. The 210xst (which many people say is like the Low B2) I had often felt muddy in a mix, without enough cut to get the job done. It needed something nasally to compensate IMO, like the 112xlt. I haven't tried the Uber, but I personally hope that it is not like the Acme or XST cabinets. And since Dennis likes them as-is, my guess is that they are not.
Click to expand...

after having extensively gigged with Eden 210XST's and Acme Low B2's, i strongly disagree with this statement. i did a brief heads-up review somewhere here on TB, but a huge difference for me is how they reproduce low end. I'm particularly sensitive to soundwave reproduction below 45hz from being very picky with my home theater subwoofers (that go down to 18hz), and that was a big difference between the 2. The XST does not extend as low as the Acme, which is shown when you play below a low G and downward. The Eden has a lot of mid-bass, which is what you were hearing. not low bass. The XST is also more 'nasal' than the Acme's which i thought was pretty obvious. I think these differences may not be apparent to many/most players, but are a huge deal for other/some players.
 
#154
thejohnkim said:
after having extensively gigged with Eden 210XST's and Acme Low B2's, i strongly disagree with this statement. i did a brief heads-up review somewhere here on TB, but a huge difference for me is how they reproduce low end. I'm particularly sensitive to soundwave reproduction below 45hz from being very picky with my home theater subwoofers (that go down to 18hz), and that was a big difference between the 2. The XST does not extend as low as the Acme, which is shown when you play below a low G and downward. The Eden has a lot of mid-bass, which is what you were hearing. not low bass. The XST is also more 'nasal' than the Acme's which i thought was pretty obvious. I think these differences may not be apparent to many/most players, but are a huge deal for other/some players.
Click to expand...
You could be correct. For me though, if the Acme's go even lower than the XST's, then that would make them even less attractive to me, and I would still hope that the Uber would be nothing like them. Just my personal taste.
 
#157
Eublet said:
You could be correct. For me though, if the Acme's go even lower than the XST's, then that would make them even less attractive to me, and I would still hope that the Uber would be nothing like them. Just my personal taste.
Click to expand...

+1... the Acme's really do have a huge low end extension unlike any other cab I've ever owned except for the old EA VL-210, which had a similar 3 way design with those extremely high xmax speakers.

I, like you, find that deep low end to easily overwhelm the mids and treble of the Acme's, resulting in my case with more boom than definition, and a mushy presence in the mixes I play in. IMO there. I greatly prefer a cab that has plenty of useable low end (i.e., good response down to 50 hz or so) and then a nice dose of mid punch and the ability to sizzle if you need it. This also results in screaming volume with 500 or 600 watts as a bonus, and a tone that is still full, but articulate, and that also doesn't lay on the bass drum way down low. IMO, of course!

This is what I hear in the Epi410UL and the new BergAE410, and I would guess is what I would hear with the new Uber 410... plenty of low end punch, but nice mid definition and clarity, and high SPL with very little 'boom' way down low.
 
#158
Agreed Ken. I'm thinking more and more about using a high-pass filter to keep the low end tight. Many of the places I play are acoustical nightmares that are boomy enough without having all these extra low frequencies that most people can't even hear anyway. The small amount of time I've spent experimenting with a HPF was just WAY cool. Even with 5/6 string basses, the HPF really tightens up the low B and just gives it lots of authority and punch.
 
#159
Eublet said:
Agreed Ken. I'm thinking more and more about using a high-pass filter to keep the low end tight. Many of the places I play are acoustical nightmares that are boomy enough without having all these extra low frequencies that most people can't even hear anyway. The small amount of time I've spent experimenting with a HPF was just WAY cool. Even with 5/6 string basses, the HPF really tightens up the low B and just gives it lots of authority and punch.
Click to expand...

+1, and a few of the guys who use the Acme's and are really in the know use a powerful PA amp with a hi pass filter engaged to eliminate some of those sub frequencies. I love the idea of a Hi Pass filter in addition to standard shelving bass controls to sculpt the low end to sit properly in a mix. Pretty cool.

The old SWR400's were notorious for having that sub-bass come through (I think that amp was allowed to reproduce frequencies down to 20hz or something). The speakers would just be pistoning like crazy at moderate volume. Once you engaged the hi pass (I used a Rane parametric EQ at the time that had the option to switch the lowest frequency band from shelving to hi pass) at around 30hz, and the speaker pistoning decreased by a huge amount, and then you could actually turn the darn thing up and play!
 
#160
KJung said:
+1, and a few of the guys who use the Acme's and are really in the know use a powerful PA amp with a hi pass filter engaged to eliminate some of those sub frequencies.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I do. One of my amps has a hi pass at 30Hz, another has it at 33Hz.

I certainly don't have any low end rumble or boomy sound coming out of my Acmes at all, in all the various rooms I've played in. My sound is extremely tight and punchy and has been characterize that way by those who have heard it as well.

That being said, I don't want to derail the thread. I was only curious if the Uber 410 was/is as beefy as an Acme Low B4. If it is close, I would consider it for sure. For the record I've also had the joy of trying an Eden 410xst that was used at my local Guitar Center. No comparison - sounded beefier than most cabs but no comparison to the Acmes. Very mid range sensitive and nasally to my ears.

Now that I've heard true lows from my instrument... I simply can't go back to cabs that cut off at 50 or 60Hz (the majority of 'bass' cabs). But I'm not stuck on Acme; I'll always be interested in trying out other cabs!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back