Small and lightweight: what should I look into?

[MoJoKe]

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1339430118' post='1688351']
nope...as one dimensional as 15's and an antiquated choice.
[/quote]

Crikey, nobody told me that! Glad I've got the HR104 as well then...

[Musicman20]

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339420424' post='1688130']
Well then, dramatic turn of events after further testing

I did some more playing but this time sticking mostly to flat setting to get the true nature of the amps.

Genz Benz is eliminated, because of compression on both the Streamliner and Shuttle (which maybe is better on the Shuttle 6.2, not sure) and also because of that scooped baked in EQ that seems to be their signature sound. I really grew to dislike that today so not really interested in trying the 6.2 due to that philosophy of having such a strong voicing baked in. Feels like cheating to me somehow, as does the compression, like trying to get more volume out of their power, makes me feel they're not as powerful as the numbers say.

The Aguilar, though I love it, is off too. Love the Drive breakup thing and the beautiful dynamics, but the sound is a bit too middy, so the problem with this one is doesn't do scooped well. So both GB and Aguilar suffer from lack of flexibility for my intentions.

Surprise: Pretty dead set on MarkBass now. The reason why it seemed too flat last time was because I AB'd it quickly with GB and was fooled by that instant GB punch, then didn't go back to it. The Little Mark III is actually very warm and natural, and very, very flexible. Does scooped well, slap tones, aggressive rock tones, classic, modern, the lot... They should get the Little Mark Tube for me to try this weekend and I think one of these will be the one...

The fact I didn't like GB makes me think I won't like TC either, as they use similar tricks to simulate valves that by their own admission, compress the dynamics. I also read about reliability issues, knobs breaking etc. Not sure if I feel like driving 1 hour to test it alone, and not being able to AB it with MarkBass at that shop won't help much... But I'll see if I can do it somehow this weekend.

I tried a few cabs with the Little Mark III. MB cabs kind of sucked. Vanderkley was good, preferred the 210 to the 112 but had to turn down the tweeter a bit. EBS Neo 210 sounded just right. So what cabs would you advise for this amp, given that I liked Vanderkley and EBS and hated MB? I like that GK ones can tilt up, but worried they'll sound as trebly as their amps!!
[/quote]

I think before you jump (and don't get me wrong, Markbass is a fantastic choice), my advice is:

TC amps sound nothing like Markbass or Genz...at all

Genz Shuttle amps (the 3.0 and 6.0) have a high pass filter that takes the low end and cuts it off. They were designed to match with small combo cabs that Genz make, and this prevents failures (a small 1x12/10/8 will only take so much!!).

The 9.0, and more so the 6.2, 9.2 and Max .2s have a much fuller low end and a more pleasing voicing.

I haven't heard any natural scooped tones from the Genz Shuttle amps set flat. In actual fact they have a high mid bump to my ears...definitely not scooped set flat at all.

The Streamliner 600/900 has a very small mid dip which can be put to flat with the use of the mid knob put to 1 ish and the bass to 10 ish. It's and old fashioned EQ section...flat at 12 doesn't really matter.

The Markbass amps do sound great all at 12 on the EQ. My problem is that it has become a bass requirement to have this on all amps. Position doesn't matter as long as it sounds great.

If I was to buy Markbass I'd stick with the LM2/3 or F500. The Tube series sounds very un-tube like and the Rocker grit isn't very musical...

Edited June 11, 2012 by Musicman20

[JTUK]

[quote name='MoJoKe' timestamp='1339435828' post='1688452']
Crikey, nobody told me that! Glad I've got the HR104 as well then...
[/quote]

[1976fenderhead]

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1339448347' post='1688762']
I think before you jump (and don't get me wrong, Markbass is a fantastic choice), my advice is:

TC amps sound nothing like Markbass or Genz...at all

Genz Shuttle amps (the 3.0 and 6.0) have a high pass filter that takes the low end and cuts it off. They were designed to match with small combo cabs that Genz make, and this prevents failures (a small 1x12/10/8 will only take so much!!).

The 9.0, and more so the 6.2, 9.2 and Max .2s have a much fuller low end and a more pleasing voicing.

I haven't heard any natural scooped tones from the Genz Shuttle amps set flat. In actual fact they have a high mid bump to my ears...definitely not scooped set flat at all.

The Streamliner 600/900 has a very small mid dip which can be put to flat with the use of the mid knob put to 1 ish and the bass to 10 ish. It's and old fashioned EQ section...flat at 12 doesn't really matter.

The Markbass amps do sound great all at 12 on the EQ. My problem is that it has become a bass requirement to have this on all amps. Position doesn't matter as long as it sounds great.

If I was to buy Markbass I'd stick with the LM2/3 or F500. The Tube series sounds very un-tube like and the Rocker grit isn't very musical...
[/quote]

All good advice thanks, I will be AB'ing the RH450 today with some MarkBass heads. I think I won't have a chance to try a Shuttle 6.2 but to be honest, I'm pretty sure it will fundamentally have a similar character to the other GB's and they just didn't feel natural to me. They definitely colour and obscure the natural sound of the bass too much and make it sound like well, GB... That may be what some people look for (as with Ampeg I guess) but not me... Funny someone said here SWR users tend to go for MB and it looks like it's happening. Maybe TC will change my preconceived ideas. After all, tuner, compressor, tube emulation, foot-switchable presets, headphone and aux in, all sound very tempting, I almost want the sound to blow me away too

[JTUK]

The RH750 with its own cabs is worth a listen, IMO.

And older U.S made SWR isn't that wild a choice but loses out to Markbass for the portability. I wouldn't make that swap myself and old SM amps are as cheap as chips... NOTE, SM series..!!
They pretty well established the 4 band para and enhance type facility, the latter is standard on a lot of amps now..plus the 4 band is great for notching out horrible frequencies in bad rooms.
The SM is capable of great sounds but you need to get to know it..the Thunderfunk is modelled on it, IMV..and has a few updates on the theme and the sound is straight out of the box.

They say the difference between the SWR SM and the TF is that the TF is way easier to set up ..whereas the SWR will get there but you might spend time tweaking. The TF is just plug in and play, IMO.
You'll pay a round £600 Sh for a TF..if you can find one, but they are a class above.

[molan]

I know I've said this before but, just to reiterate, the TH500 absolutely works at its best with the Sl112 cabs in my opinion. I agree it can sound a bit too mid range focussed with some cabs but I don't find this with the SL's.

I had an MB Tube 500 until quite recently. Great little head but didn't deliver the musicality & warmth of the TH500 to my ears. I felt it needed much bigger, punchier, cabs to really sound best. My favourite combination for it was an MB 410 & a matching 210. Through 6 tens it sounded great and certainly needed at least the 410 to really punch its weight.

[1976fenderhead]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1339522067' post='1689885']
I know I've said this before but, just to reiterate, the TH500 absolutely works at its best with the Sl112 cabs in my opinion. I agree it can sound a bit too mid range focussed with some cabs but I don't find this with the SL's.
[/quote]

Funny you say that, because the TH500 is back in the race.

Today I AB'd the RH450 with the LM III. When set flat, the RH450 sounded balanced, while the LM sounded too trebly, which is something I had felt slightly already yesterday when playing it to a Vanderkley 210 (was using a TC BC210 today). But once I played with the EQ on both amps, I usually got a better sound off the LM than I did from the RH450 - could never get quite what I wanted (granted, I wasn't playing with the EQ frequency shifting but still)... So the LM needed more EQ'ing, but sounded better somehow, more direct, more 'forward' than the RH. I mean they're both great amps and I'm sure I'd like having either, but the LM seemed to have a very slight edge...

Likewise, though the LM sounds better flat than the TH500, fact of the matter is once EQ'd, in these 3 days of testing I had the most fun with the TH! There's something about its dynamic response that's just unique, and it's the one I found myself just forgetting about the time and that I was AB'ing it with something else and just improvising endlessly, enjoying its sound and getting ideas and inspiration from it. Yes it's a bit middy, but roll back that knob a bit and it's just so pleasurable! PLUS, the drive knob! Most musical and natural breakup of all the amps I tried that try to do that (RH450, LM Tube, Streamliner...). It sounds kind of tubey clean too, which the LM doesn't really...

Anyway, either of these 3 would be good. Now I'll stop trying stuff for a bit and look at prices, deals, second hand stuff, etc... And look back at what I played and what I remember, and if I continue to miss the TH500 the most...

[1976fenderhead]

Btw, regarding the LM Tube, also AB'd it with the III. Thought the difference between the 2 preamps in the Tube was very small. Slightly warmer on the tube side but also louder on the highs. It seemed to me that if I increased the highs a bit while set to full solid state I got the same-ish result. Biggest problem seemed to me to be the breakup you start getting pretty low on the gain if you set it to the tube side... It doesn't sound great and I'm sure if I was pushing it live I'd end up turning it full to the solid state side to avoid that breakup, so it would defeat the purpose of having this one over the III...

[Musicman20]

The tube is so small on the LMTube it's insignificant, plus you can't change it.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Musicman20

[molan]

If you want to try the TH vs an LMIII through a pair of SL112's then Phil at BassGear can set this up (he has an MB combo in stock which ha the LMIII in it).

I am covering for him on Friday and will be in the shop all day

It's 45 mins on the train from Paddington and just 2 mins walk from Twyford station.

I could bring my AG in as well. It's a full width 19" head but might give you a different perspective on sound.

He also has a Carvin BX500 head in stock. Mid sized but weighs sod all and made in USA I think. I haven't had a chance to really try it yet but Phil likes it a lot.

[1976fenderhead]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1339530280' post='1690099']
If you want to try the TH vs an LMIII through a pair of SL112's then Phil at BassGear can set this up (he has an MB combo in stock which ha the LMIII in it).

I am covering for him on Friday and will be in the shop all day

It's 45 mins on the train from Paddington and just 2 mins walk from Twyford station.

I could bring my AG in as well. It's a full width 19" head but might give you a different perspective on sound.

He also has a Carvin BX500 head in stock. Mid sized but weighs sod all and made in USA I think. I haven't had a chance to really try it yet but Phil likes it a lot.
[/quote]

Thanks Molan, well up for that, but can only do it either tomorrow or Saturday. No need for the AG, thanks. What about those Bag End cabs, any good?

[molan]

Phil has everything apart from the AG500 (which has been discontinued now in favour of the TH500).

Also has a few Bag Ends & DB series cabs (but not any DB112's as these seem to sell as soon as they arrive!).

The Baggies are nice, very clean & punchy. Good as reference type cabs as they don't add a lot of artificial colour to the sound. They are all pretty weighty though. The powered cabs are great, 1000w super clean power amp and you just stick whatever pre-amp in front of them that you fancy. One nice option is just to use a little pocket sized Sansamp, or similar, as the pre which you can tuck away in a gig bag.

The baby 1x10 is pretty cool, I've gigged with one of these on its own There's a couple of 'name' players I know that use Bag End as their 'real' cabs but don't show them on stage as they have endorsement deals with other brands. . .

In fact the only time I've had a quick blast on the Carvin was through a Baggie 4x10 & a 2x12 at the same time - shop next door was closed & I had it jacked up pretty loud, had the roof seriously shaking, lol.

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339529576' post='1690071']
Btw, regarding the LM Tube, also AB'd it with the III. Thought the difference between the 2 preamps in the Tube was very small. Slightly warmer on the tube side but also louder on the highs. It seemed to me that if I increased the highs a bit while set to full solid state I got the same-ish result. Biggest problem seemed to me to be the breakup you start getting pretty low on the gain if you set it to the tube side... It doesn't sound great and I'm sure if I was pushing it live I'd end up turning it full to the solid state side to avoid that breakup, so it would defeat the purpose of having this one over the III...
[/quote]
[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1339529701' post='1690074']
The tube is so small on the LMTube it's insignificant, plus you can't change it.
[/quote]

Very surprised at this. Personally I prefer the tube head that Markbass do, as I find the solid state pre to be very nasally and a little lacking in soemthing, not that it's bad it just doesn't tick boxes for me.
The added highs you are hearing is the extra harmonic distortion you get from having a tube in the signal, especially as it's a very clean amp anyway. I find the difference enough to ignore the solid state side all together. But it also depends on the cabs used. Been using barefaced and markbass and the difference is audible enough even at rehearsal volumes.
I also find that the gain needs to be set higher on the tube side to get the best signal to noise ratio, and lower on the solid state side. The thing is these amps arn't for breaking up they are for clean and transparent, but with the eq knobs and the filters you can use the head in any situation. Plus it weighs nothing!
Setting everything 12? Yes I do this only because I like the way my signal sounds DI'd and the cab's give a faithful representation of that signal, but on the gig cause I am going DI'd I will EQ to the stage/room so I can hear myself and the band can hear me.
Regardless of how big or small the tube is it creates what I like about preamp tubes, and thats enoough for me.

The TC stuff. It sounds great and looks great on paper but I would recommend that this be tried in the environments it's going to be used in. Yes the 450 is loud, but it's a different kind of loud. Louder than a 500watt Markbass head? No. It's hardc to describe how the head sounds. I had the RH750 for a while and it was loud but when it started pushing it had horrible dynamics, due to the way the power amp works. the on board compressor is nice yes but at volume it was useless, along with any minute EQ shift. Great amp, sounds good and feature packed but something missing. No way was it noticably louder than the 500watt MArkbass.

The Genz streamliners are just a better all round amp than the TC. Sound better at volume, if a little muchy in the lows. Again it has a similar compressing going on but only in the low band, so it does keep getting louder but only because it's squashing the lows.

At the end of the day, it's nice playing with stuff in a shop, everything sounds pretty decent. It's onlyon the gig where it matters. You may find the head you love in the shop doesn't perform on the gig. You also have to choose the amp for you and your needs.
My needs arn't very typical of a bassist, I just want to be able to hear myself clearly on stage, as most of the time I'm DI'd , I liek the sound of the DI thats not a problem. but when I need it to the Markbass will be the loudest thing there and pump my sound around a massive space.

[molan]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1339538546' post='1690369']

The TC stuff. It sounds great and looks great on paper but I would recommend that this be tried in the environments it's going to be used in. Yes the 450 is loud, but it's a different kind of loud. Louder than a 500watt Markbass head? No. It's hardc to describe how the head sounds. I had the RH750 for a while and it was loud but when it started pushing it had horrible dynamics, due to the way the power amp works. the on board compressor is nice yes but at volume it was useless, along with any minute EQ shift. Great amp, sounds good and feature packed but something missing.

At the end of the day, it's nice playing with stuff in a shop, everything sounds pretty decent. It's onlyon the gig where it matters. You may find the head you love in the shop doesn't perform on the gig.
[/quote]

I totally agree with this about the two TC heads I had. Loved all the features, spent an age getting the presets just how I wanted them & then hated the sound live. To be fair both my sound man & the band liked how they sounded but what I was hearing on stage was really quite nasty

I wouldn't mind trying an RH750 just to see if it cures the problems of the other two but I have a feeling it probably won't.

[chris_b]

I had a TC Staccato and the RH750. Both were loud and the 750 could blow any guitarist off the stage. The band loved the sound of both TC's and was sorry to see them go. I have a recording (from the stage) of one of the bands when I was using the Staccato and it sounds huge.

I sold them to upgrade the Thunderfunk but I certainly wouldn’t say no to owning another TC amp.

[gapiro]

A big +1 for Barefaced cabs here.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1339529701' post='1690074']
The tube is so small on the LMTube it's insignificant
[/quote]

That's not really how it works... more that all (I think) of these micro valve hybrids, with the notable exception of the GK MB Fusion, are running 'starved plate' designs where the plate voltage is much lower than the design spec of the valves call for. It may distort, but it's not a 'true' reflection of the 'classic' valve sound of old studio or Fender/Ampeg preamps. It's the subtle harmonic enrichment before audible breakup in high voltage designs that gives that 'magic smooth sheen' to classic valve pres. I'd be very interested to know if any of the other designs use a high plate voltage but I doubt it, as it's more expensive to implement and they'd be able to make a big thing of it, as GK have rightly done. That's why I am really keen to try an MB Fusion! Just concerned that it'll have been voiced to give too much of the signature GK aggression.

FWIW I thought that the Orange TB and TC RH450 sounded precisely nothing like the sweet spot of a classic valve pre, the Orange when I tried it just sounded broken to my ears no matter where I put the gain. Not heard the Ampeg, Genz or SWR models (though if the headlite could actually do the sizzling HV valve pre thing that the old Redhead etc do so well then that would be great)

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339605730' post='1691379']
That's not really how it works... more that all (I think) of these micro valve hybrids, with the notable exception of the GK MB Fusion, are running 'starved plate' designs
[/quote]

In fact thinking about it, I wonder if there might be an advantage to using a smaller valve in a low-voltage design, you could potentially use one actually designed to operate at low voltages... I wonder what the valve is in the markbass stuff?

Edited June 13, 2012 by LawrenceH

[1976fenderhead]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339605730' post='1691379']
Not heard the Ampeg, Genz or SWR models (though if the headlite could actually do the sizzling HV valve pre thing that the old Redhead etc do so well then that would be great)
[/quote]

The Headlite didn't sound valve-like to me at all, just very hi-fi with all the EQ and enhancement making very little difference to the default character of it. I didn't spend much time on it because it felt to me like playing to an amp bypassing the preamp section!

I tried the TH500 today with a pair of SL112's. Loved the sound playing with 2 of them, didn't like it at all playing with just 1. Would love to get the stack but I can't afford it new, no way.

So I'll just keep an eye on the 2nd hand stuff and see what comes up, will hardly find this stack for sale used because it's so new, but MarkBass or TC would be an improvement over what I have too, so if I get good deals coming up on those and nice cabs I might go for them. But I definitely want to get a stack straight away (2x 210 or 2x112 or 1x210 + 1x115) instead of one small cab for now, I was thinking I might be happy with using only 1 small cab in small pubs, and though that would work volume-wise, I always feel there's something lacking tone-wise and am not fully happy with it. 1 big cab would do but I want 2 "halves" for portability.

Edited June 13, 2012 by 1976fenderhead

[JTUK]

Not sure SWR build them like that anymore....which is why I kept my SM400 from eons ago.

I don't actually need or desire the slight breakup, but neither have I heard a convincing simulation.
Thunderfunk use one and it is ok for my needs...on those rare occasions.. but I am glad it is not a deal breaker.

Edited June 13, 2012 by JTUK

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339606783' post='1691419']
I tried the TH500 today with a pair of SL112's. Loved the sound playing with 2 of them, didn't like it at all playing with just 1. Would love to get the stack but I can't afford it new, no way.
[/quote]

Silly question, but did you try it with the single cab angled more towards your ear and bumping up the bass/low mids a tad? I'd be suprised if there was a noticeable difference in tone from the amp itself run at 8 v 4 ohms (though it is possible) so I'd have though the most likely difference would be the placement in relation to your ear combined with the low/mid frequency coupling.

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339605730' post='1691379']
That's not really how it works... more that all (I think) of these micro valve hybrids, with the notable exception of the GK MB Fusion, are running 'starved plate' designs where the plate voltage is much lower than the design spec of the valves call for. It may distort, but it's not a 'true' reflection of the 'classic' valve sound of old studio or Fender/Ampeg preamps. It's the subtle harmonic enrichment before audible breakup in high voltage designs that gives that 'magic smooth sheen' to classic valve pres. I'd be very interested to know if any of the other designs use a high plate voltage but I doubt it, as it's more expensive to implement and they'd be able to make a big thing of it, as GK have rightly done. That's why I am really keen to try an MB Fusion! Just concerned that it'll have been voiced to give too much of the signature GK aggression.
[/quote]

I don't know how far the family resemblance goes between the MB Fusion and the other MB heads, but my MB200 definitely has a baked-in smile curve. A guy over on Talkbass did some measurements and found that the MB200 [i]can[/i] be set more or less flat, but with the Contour off, Treble and Bass at 10 o'clock and the high and low Mids at 2 o'clock and 1 o'clock respectively, not with the knobs centred. Or is your concern more to do with aggressiveness in terms of gain?
I'd agree on the disappointment of starved-plate designs. Even though I'm a big fan of valve amps and gig with one whenever it's not too impractical, when I've tried hybrid heads which have the typical blendable valve stage for "drive", I've always preferred the sound without the valve stage blended in. I'm not sure why nobody has yet come out with a micro head with a simple Fender/Alembic/Hartke LH style clean valve preamp - I reckon a lot of players would be very happy if someone did.

[1976fenderhead]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339607561' post='1691445']
Silly question, but did you try it with the single cab angled more towards your ear and bumping up the bass/low mids a tad? I'd be suprised if there was a noticeable difference in tone from the amp itself run at 8 v 4 ohms (though it is possible) so I'd have though the most likely difference would be the placement in relation to your ear combined with the low/mid frequency coupling.
[/quote]

When using only one, it was the top one and I was sitting so it was pretty much pointing at my face. If anything when using 2 there was a more direct coupling with the floor adding lows? I also expected there to be only a difference in volume, but the tonal difference was massive, much fuller rounder sound, LOADS more headroom, totally different beast. Best way I can compare it is like the difference between running the Catalinbread SFT in 9v or 18v, but even much more evident and bigger improvement in this case. I then went back to one cab and tried to increase volume and EQ it to get close to the stack sound and couldn't get nowhere near!

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339610750' post='1691527']
When using only one, it was the top one and I was sitting so it was pretty much pointing at my face. If anything when using 2 there was a more direct coupling with the floor adding lows? I also expected there to be only a difference in volume, but the tonal difference was massive, much fuller rounder sound, LOADS more headroom, totally different beast. Best way I can compare it is like the difference between running the Catalinbread SFT in 9v or 18v, but even much more evident and bigger improvement in this case. I then went back to one cab and tried to increase volume and EQ it to get close to the stack sound and couldn't get nowhere near!
[/quote]

Hmm, thinking.. on a cab raised substantially off the floor you will unavoidably get some cancellation that'd typically affect the low mids - could it be that? Since it's a cancellation node EQ can't compensate for it but moving the cab close to the floor and tilting back would solve this. The ICEpower module in the tonehammer is capable (actually more powerful than that used in the Genz or GK MB500 even though they're rated similar outputs) so I'd be surprised if it didn't work well at 8 ohm.

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1339607942' post='1691451']
I don't know how far the family resemblance goes between the MB Fusion and the other MB heads, but my MB200 definitely has a baked-in smile curve. A guy over on Talkbass did some measurements and found that the MB200 [i]can[/i] be set more or less flat, but with the Contour off, Treble and Bass at 10 o'clock and the high and low Mids at 2 o'clock and 1 o'clock respectively, not with the knobs centred. Or is your concern more to do with aggressiveness in terms of gain?
I'd agree on the disappointment of starved-plate designs. Even though I'm a big fan of valve amps and gig with one whenever it's not too impractical, when I've tried hybrid heads which have the typical blendable valve stage for "drive", I've always preferred the sound without the valve stage blended in. I'm not sure why nobody has yet come out with a micro head with a simple Fender/Alembic/Hartke LH style clean valve preamp - I reckon a lot of players would be very happy if someone did.
[/quote]

Yes, absolutely an F2b type pre in a micro would be great! I suppose the micros are aimed at people who like 'more' features in general. My reservations probably would concern both EQ and gain, but particularly the latter (I think the passive tonestack in the F2b/whatever Fender clone is actually pretty mid scooped anyway...). I am really tempted to switch my F1 for a Fusion if I can find an extra £200 somewhere! But I'd need to try it first as the F1 is great - be pretty interested to hear your MB200, gigging with it sometime soon?

[1976fenderhead]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339611690' post='1691549']
Hmm, thinking.. on a cab raised substantially off the floor you will unavoidably get some cancellation that'd typically affect the low mids - could it be that? Since it's a cancellation node EQ can't compensate for it but moving the cab close to the floor and tilting back would solve this. The ICEpower module in the tonehammer is capable (actually more powerful than that used in the Genz or GK MB500 even though they're rated similar outputs) so I'd be surprised if it didn't work well at 8 ohm.
[/quote]

Could be, but I also tried it elsewhere with a MarkBass 210 standing on top of another one (unplugged) and it didn't sound at all like this, sounded much better... But when I tried it with a MarkBass 112 on the floor it did sound somewhat like this. I guess it just doesn't go well with a single 12" ?