CAB recommendations to go with MarkBass Little Mark Tube

[BenGoldingBass]

Hello fellow bassketeers!

I have recently acquired a Little Mark Tube 500 and I love the thing to bits. Just got back from using it on tour and I couldn't be happier!!

I've been running it through my EBS Proline 210 cab and it makes for a good combo. However the tweeter is knackered and I've been considering a new cab for ages as it's a bit of a brick for a 210... (22kg / 49lbs).

I'm looking for two set-ups moving forward:

• A touring rig. Thinking 410, 610 or two cabs stacked. Just something that gets me closer to ear height without stacking it on a box bigger than the cab itself...
• A "function" rig. Lightweight!!! Been looking at Markbass Travelller series, Vanderkley, etc...

Obviously I'd want to be able to safely run the Tube 500 through each set-up (500w @ 4ohm, 300w @ 8ohm).

 

Any recommendations or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated! Mainly hoping for people with experience running Markbass amps through different cabinets.

 

Thanks in advance

 

P.S. Anyone else have experience with the Tube500?

Edited March 30, 2018 by BenGoldingBass

[Lozz196]

I had a Tube 500, ran it through a Markbass 410HR, sounded great. But in my time of buying and selling on Basschat whenever I`ve delivered or collected an item of gear and the buyer/seller has had their rig plugged in, and it was a Markbass amp into a Barefaced cab, that`s when I`ve really thought the amp shined. Markbass cabs tend to have a high-end roll-off, whereas the more flat-response Barefaced let the whole sound through.

[chris_b]

I don't know the Little Mark Tube 500, but when I had an LM2 I ran it through 2 Bergantino 112's. Great sound. Bergs don't appear to have a UK dealership these days, which is a shame.

Anyway, I know a player using a Markbass LM800 amp through a Barefaced Super Compact. He sounds very good.

If you go down this route you can use 1 BF cab for the regular gigs and 2 for bigger gigs.

That's what I do. Modular work best for me every time.

[Al Krow]

36 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

Markbass cabs tend to have a high-end roll-off, whereas the more flat-response Barefaced let the whole sound through.

+1 to this. 

IMHO you could, however, substitute any higher end cab that doesn't roll the high-end off (e.g. Vanderkley, TKS, Tecamp/Eich etc.) as alternatives to Barefaced depending on the tone / colour you want. 

Or you could simply get an EQ pedal and notch up the treble frequencies to address the high end roll-off with Markbass cabs (assuming you don't actually want that 'warmer' overall Markbass head + cab sound!).

Obviously also depends on your budget - the other 'higher-end' cabs mentioned (BF, VK, TKS. Tecamp/Eich) are approximately double the price of Markbass ones.

PS @BenGoldingBass - if that was your first post, welcome to BC!

Edited March 31, 2018 by Al Krow

[M@23]

For function work, I think it's hard to beat the Markbass Ninja 122. It just does it all, in a cab with a small footprint, that weighs 18kg. They're 8 ohm, so you could run two, if needed. 

Defo check one out if you're able to. 

[BenGoldingBass]

On 3/31/2018 at 13:15, Lozz196 said:

 Markbass cabs tend to have a high-end roll-off, whereas the more flat-response Barefaced let the whole sound through.

I really need to have a play through a Barefaced cab, I've been hearing so many good things about them but never actually seen/heard one in person...

On 3/31/2018 at 13:51, Al Krow said:

Or you could simply get an EQ pedal and notch up the treble frequencies to address the high end roll-off with Markbass cabs (assuming you don't actually want that 'warmer' overall Markbass head + cab sound!).

Obviously also depends on your budget - the other 'higher-end' cabs mentioned (BF, VK, TKS. Tecamp/Eich) are approximately double the price of Markbass ones.

I do generally like the warmer sound of Markbass rigs, which was a big reason I went for the Tube500. However I feel the double markbass set up (head + cab) can be a bit too much in some situations. Would the high-end roll-off you speak of not be counteracted by just boosting the treble on the head?

I was very impressed by the Vanderkley cabs at the bass show a few years back, but as you say, quite big jump in the price tag...

Anyone have experience with any two or more of the "high-end" cabs mentioned and able to draw comparisons?

On 3/31/2018 at 13:51, Al Krow said:

PS @BenGoldingBass - if that was your first post, welcome to BC!

I had another profile but hadn't posted in a while and can't retrieve my account for various reasons. But thank you nonetheless!

[BenGoldingBass]

On 3/31/2018 at 20:46, M@23 said:

For function work, I think it's hard to beat the Markbass Ninja 122. It just does it all, in a cab with a small footprint, that weighs 18kg. They're 8 ohm, so you could run two, if needed. 

Defo check one out if you're able to. 

Do the Ninja 112's still have a bit of that top end roll off? Only thing is then you're getting two thirds of the way to a BF/VK price wise...

[Lozz196]

I suppose the high-end roll-off is only really a factor if you DI to FOH PA,  wanting your stage sound going out there, it affects this a fair bit. That`s what I found, and one of the reasons why I shifted from Markbass gear. If however it`s only ever used as backline in pub sized venues then not an issue.

[scalpy]

A ‘this is my rig’ post but I run my LMT500 through Aggie DB112S. I either use an ASAT with rounds and the rig is very clear, responsive to settings etc or a LB100 with flats for the vintage thing, which again is hard to beat.  Not the lightest or smallest of rigs but hasn’t been too big or not loud enough yet!

[BenGoldingBass]

32 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

I suppose the high-end roll-off is only really a factor if you DI to FOH PA,  wanting your stage sound going out there, it affects this a fair bit. That`s what I found, and one of the reasons why I shifted from Markbass gear. If however it`s only ever used as backline in pub sized venues then not an issue.

Do you mean how boosting the treble through EQ to counteract the roll-off would affect FOH? If so, good point...

[M@23]

Not for me because I always send pre EQ. I don't have the issues with 'high end roll off' that others do. I even use a touch of VLE. The Ninja rig is just my stage monitor for most gigs. As we always put everything FOH. It does a better job of that than any rig I've had previously. When it is a standalone, I really like the sound of it though. I never want for more highs. 

[Al Krow]

 

7 hours ago, BenGoldingBass said:

I do generally like the warmer sound of Markbass rigs, which was a big reason I went for the Tube500. However I feel the double markbass set up (head + cab) can be a bit too much in some situations. Would the high-end roll-off you speak of not be counteracted by just boosting the treble on the head?

I was very impressed by the Vanderkley cabs at the bass show a few years back, but as you say, quite big jump in the price tag...

Anyone have experience with any two or more of the "high-end" cabs mentioned and able to draw comparisons?

Hi Ben - to deal with your question in a bit of detail, the first thing to confirm is the EQ points on your LM Tube 500. If it's the same as my LM3 then its centre frequencies will be as follows:

• LOW:  40 Hz; level: ±16 dB
• LOW MID:  360 Hz, level: ±16 dB
• HIGH MID:  800 Hz, level: ±16 dB

[Massive gap!!]

• HIGH: 10 kHz, level: ±16 dB

For me, the bass EQ is a touch too low at 40Hz and more importantly there is a big gap between the upper mids (EQ centre at 800Hz) and high (EQ centre at 10kHz) - it would be great to have the ability to push the EQ between 1.5kHz and 5kHz in the 'usable treble' range to deal with the high end roll-off of the Markbass cab should we want to.

The (often underused!) VLE emulator is a shelf EQ that cuts a wider and wider range of high frequencies as you turn it up. Set this half way and it provides a cut for high-end treble at around 5kHz plus (which is akin to an LPF and can deal nicely with unwanted tweeter hiss).

=>  there’s no real way to boost the treble in the 3kHz to 5kHz range using just the available EQ on the LM3 Mbass head and you may find you have the same issue with your LM Tube 500?

But actually it's no biggie. If you feel the need to boost the treble, a decent / simple EQ pedal can do this e.g. there's an excellent little GEQ effects patch on the Zoom MS-60B if you have this versatile little multi-fx.

I can vouch your view that the the Vanderkley is  indeed a step up in class (and price) - fortunately I was able to source a pretty mint condition VK210 at a fair price in the FS section a few months back.

Hope that's helpful. 

[pbasspecial]

I use a Markbass tte500 (valve preamps) through 2 Barefaced Super Compacts.  Sounds fantastic.  1 super compact is more than enough.  I'm just very greedy.

[Dan Dare]

Take your head to a well-stocked shop and try it with a few cabs. Don't listen to us. We'll all recommend what we like and there's no guarantee you'll feel the same.

[billynoband]

I think most of the cabs mentioned look very smart and sound very good I have no doubt. They have been built well ,with good materials to the recommended box shaped dimensions and a premium speaker fitted sometimes with a great tweeter and crossover ala Barefaced cabs. All this is ok if you are splashing out. I would own any of these at the drop of a hat. If you are on a shoestring I think a BFM Simplex cab with the best recommended speakers you can afford will sound just as good as anything mentioned so far. 

 

[Quatschmacher]

On 31/03/2018 at 13:15, Lozz196 said:

I had a Tube 500, ran it through a Markbass 410HR, sounded great. But in my time of buying and selling on Basschat whenever I`ve delivered or collected an item of gear and the buyer/seller has had their rig plugged in, and it was a Markbass amp into a Barefaced cab, that`s when I`ve really thought the amp shined. Markbass cabs tend to have a high-end roll-off, whereas the more flat-response Barefaced let the whole sound through.

I heard one with a Barefaced 1x15 with a passive jazz on a gig and it sounded fantastic; fat and well-articulated.