• 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.

Which GK head?

#21
What vintage of 400rb are you currently playing?

If it's the rbIV, then I'm not so sure you need a different head, unless you're playing huge stages.

That said, I play the 700rbII, and a 800rb (at one of my band's rehearsal spaces). One thing I love about the 700 compared to the 800 or any vintage of the 400 is the HMS. I also find myself missing the string filter on the 700 when using the 800...... I like to hear my low E when I play it. And one other thing about the 700 vs 800..... I can dial in the tone of the 800 with the 700...... but I can't get the 700's tone out of the 800.

You will not be able to get the grunt of the 400 from the 1001 unless you're at ear bleed volume levels.

The 700rbII can be had for a bit over $500 new, and will power the 2 212's just fine.
 
#22
+1 on the 1001RB head. I am totally thrilled with the one I bought. A TON of headroom, and speaking from my own point of view, the easiest head I have owned to get a good sound with minimal tweaking. They just sound good. I have heard some say that the 1001RB can be cold sounding, but IME this hasn't been the case. Great head, and they price is pretty darn tough to beat.
 
#23
ljazz said:
What vintage of 400rb are you currently playing?

If it's the rbIV, then I'm not so sure you need a different head, unless you're playing huge stages.

That said, I play the 700rbII, and a 800rb (at one of my band's rehearsal spaces). One thing I love about the 700 compared to the 800 or any vintage of the 400 is the HMS. I also find myself missing the string filter on the 700 when using the 800...... I like to hear my low E when I play it. And one other thing about the 700 vs 800..... I can dial in the tone of the 800 with the 700...... but I can't get the 700's tone out of the 800.

You will not be able to get the grunt of the 400 from the 1001 unless you're at ear bleed volume levels.

The 700rbII can be had for a bit over $500 new, and will power the 2 212's just fine.
Click to expand...


Agreed with all of the above - IME, the 700rb-II is one of the most versatile amps that G-K makes, and provides more *useable* volume and tone for your average gigging musician than the 101rb-II does... I typically play in loud modern rock/metal bands, and in clubs that hold 200-500 people - and the 700rb-II has always been way more than I needed, volume-wise... Unless you're looking for uber-clean sound, I'd pass on the 1001rb-II in favor of the 700rb-II...

It's not a coincidence that you see more 1001rb-IIs for sale on the used market than you do 700rb-IIs...



- georgestrings
 
#25
Try the MB500,ive had every GK amp and think the MB is the best balance between them all. Not to mention how light and small it is,id put it up against any of the small and light
500wt heads out currently. The 1001rb is just too much power for most folks.
 
#26
ljazz said:
What vintage of 400rb are you currently playing?

If it's the rbIV, then I'm not so sure you need a different head, unless you're playing huge stages.

That said, I play the 700rbII, and a 800rb (at one of my band's rehearsal spaces). One thing I love about the 700 compared to the 800 or any vintage of the 400 is the HMS. I also find myself missing the string filter on the 700 when using the 800...... I like to hear my low E when I play it. And one other thing about the 700 vs 800..... I can dial in the tone of the 800 with the 700...... but I can't get the 700's tone out of the 800.

You will not be able to get the grunt of the 400 from the 1001 unless you're at ear bleed volume levels.

The 700rbII can be had for a bit over $500 new, and will power the 2 212's just fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its the IV, the 700 has more options and stuff though. I think I might just get the cab and upgrade the head later. Not sure if this is right but I don't think the 400 can bi-amp, it also doesn't have tweeter control.
 
#27
StingrayDerek said:
Yeah, its the IV, the 700 has more options and stuff though. I think I might just get the cab and upgrade the head later. Not sure if this is right but I don't think the 400 can bi-amp, it also doesn't have tweeter control.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the 400rbIV does not have the HMS (I don't think of it as a true biamp.... it's a horn attenuator on the front of your amp). About the only part you'll miss from that is the ability to keep the "boost" out of the horn signal.

I think your plan is good..... stick with the 400 for now. It should do okay with the 2 cabs. Crap, I've played the old style 400's into ampeg 810's, and it sounded great.
 
#30
BillMason said:
What kind of venues are you playing? This is kind of relevant...

To get the GK sound, you need to be just slightly overdriving the power amp. Hard to do with the 1001RB-II unless you're playing some major venues.
Click to expand...

I somewhat disagree that the GK sound is just the slightly overdriven one, the amp has flavor when it's clean as well. ;)
It's got that whole sizzle in the mids going on.
 
#31
I use an old 400rb (version with attached power cord).

I'd get the other cab FIRST and see if more speakers still necessitates a new head as well.


I'm partial to the tone of my 400rb, and the only one i'd really want to upgrade to, would be an 800rb.

That said though, i've been really impressed by the 700rb and the MB series. The 1001 and 2001 just have too much headroom for my needs. Shoot, i play the 400rb through an 8x10 and the volume is never cranked much past noon... i can't fathom needing a 1001.
 
#32
Interesting article, incidentally:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

"When I got serious about designing bass amps, I designed them to solve a problem that I'd observed: In a lot of live performance situations, especially large concerts, you hear the kick drum, but not the bass player, because the sound of most bass amps wafts around the stage as a low-level rumble. You can't put that in the monitors or out to the audience without drowning the whole building in rolling boom. I've always attempted to bring the instrument out to be a more meaningful contributor to the band sound, as well as doing justice to the artistry of the player. To make the bass amp sound articulate-to deliver a tremendous kick to the speaker instead of an indistinct 'woofing' sound--it has to respond fast. A tube has a lower damping factor, and it's relatively slow. That slow, indistinct response is what some people equate with 'warmth'; it sounds great in your living room, but as soon as you start playing with a couple of guitar players and a drummer and keyboardist, the crispness and the clarity get lost. That's why I've never tried to emulate a tube sound; I've always just tried to solve this problem." Just as musicians of the '70s swore by Gallien-Krueger amps for their sheer power, a new generation of bassists began endorsing them for their ability to project their sound with unmatched impact and clarity. Players such as James MacDonough (Megadeth), Tony Kanal (No Doubt), and Duff McKagan (Velvet Revolver) have credited G-K amps with the driving, pulsating push of their sound in concerts. Gallien suggests, "Bass players have been getting hip to the fact that they can come out of the shadows a bit if they use the right kind of amplifier. [Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist] Flea would have been Flea no matter what kind of amp he uses, but he's told me that he's tried every amp on the market, and that for him and his bandmates, G-K is the only amp that delivers the sound they need. And he's not the only one who talks like that."
 
#33
joeydavidson said:
I somewhat disagree that the GK sound is just the slightly overdriven one, the amp has flavor when it's clean as well. ;)
It's got that whole sizzle in the mids going on.
Click to expand...


http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=587141&page=9
ljazz said:
I find the interaction with the poweramp to be just as important as the boost. "Hitting the rails" in the power section is a key ingrediant of the "gk growl". That's a big reason as to why cats dig their old 400's and 800's..... they crank them. My 700rbII's grunt is so much more pleasing when I've got the master up to 12 or higher, in conjuction with the boost. I had a 1001rbII for a bit, and it had to have the master up to 3:00 to get as pleasing..... but that was just too loud!

And I do agree with the right input variable...... I adjust the gain on my EBS MultiComp (or sometimes the VT pedal) like you would a input level on a variable input level equipped head..... adjust until the clip light comes on, then back off a touch. Preamp gain (vol control) stays between 8 and 11..... much higher, and the pre starts to sound "brittle." In the 8-11 range, it stays "thick".
Click to expand...


Also, this - the last paragraph:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#34
MB-500.
Yeah, all those other heads are cool. The 800 and hte whole RB-II series but ... MB-500. Sounds lke a GK, get's hella loud, fit's in the poakcet of your bass gig bag. My MB2-500 A07 get's a lot of work... I bought it as the backup to my WT-800A and the 800 sit's home a bunch.
 
#35
I've loved about every GK model I've ever heard or played. Their naming of models has always seemed a bit confusing. Some models are double the watts, some are equal. Some have a 1 on the end, some don't, etc. I agree that a new cab/speaks may give your amp a new breath of life. I played the same cabs for over 15 years and when I got a couple new cabs, the volume and tone was far increased. I never really thought of "wearing out" speakers, but I think I did. I tried bi-amping back in the '90s with the 800rb, but I preferred running it straight 4 ohms with 300 watts. They do sound really freaking good and seem like they seem more powerful than they are rated. Something about the MB's 500 watts is just more aggressive for me and that is what I want.
 
#37
ljazz said:
You are correct, the 400rbIV does not have the HMS (I don't think of it as a true biamp.... it's a horn attenuator on the front of your amp). About the only part you'll miss from that is the ability to keep the "boost" out of the horn signal.

I think your plan is good..... stick with the 400 for now. It should do okay with the 2 cabs. Crap, I've played the old style 400's into ampeg 810's, and it sounded great.
Click to expand...

On the amps, would I just keep them in Full Range then?
 
#38
ljazz said:
I also find myself missing the string filter on the 700 when using the 800...... I like to hear my low E when I play it.
Click to expand...
?- I have NO such problem- my E comes through like a truck. And yes, the 400RB and 800RB have their own sound and sound nearly identical. And the 800 will BURY the 400.
Next, what is the impedance of the cab you have now? Hopefully it's 8Ohms because if it's 4Ohms and you intend to add another one, you're out of luck with the 700, 800, and 1001RB's- they're only good down to 4Ohms total load.
 
#40
This may sound noobish:

After reading the manual for the cab, I saw some things that confused me. It says, "DO NOT connect more than one amplifier to your speaker enclosure. This will cause damage to your equipment." Does that mean I can't have two cabs being used at one time without bi-amping? If this is true, how come there are two 1/4" Input Jacks on the back of the head? So I start looking on how to bi-amp, but I remember that I can't do this because I have the 400RB which lacks that option. :confused:

Any advice?

Here is the link to the manual: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back