Bugera BT115TS Bass Cabinet (1600 Watts, 1x15")

#61
Search: Bugera BT210TS and BT115TS review (The Nuke, and Veyron also ;-p)

Bugera BT210TS and BT115TS review (The Nuke, and Veyron also ;-p)

For all the whining about needing actual user reviews and name calling the info has been here all along.
And as to gear snobbery, not I!
I play what appeals to me, and spend the least I can to achieve my goals.
I have and play "sub brand" low-end gear as applicable to my needs.
Danelectro basses and effects.
Goya, Squier, etc currently.
Behringer: I have the x series, my band uses Turbosound monitors. I have owned Bx4500 head, a couple combos, a 410 and a 210.
And found little to like in the tone.
Boxy and flabby lows, strident harsh highs.
The 410 was more like a guitar cab, I had a better tone using a Carvin 412 GUITAR CAB (Carvin stuff punches above it's cost factor)
I have played a Veyron and it would make a reasonable backup amp, The Fender Rumble 500 eats it's lunch for volume and tone, I could have bought either.
I have owned TC Electronics, and liked the tone, but was unimpressed using it live.
The former backup amp, Carvin MB 210, and 210 ext cab was impressively loud with a solid tone. Less than 350 used for the complete setup. The Fender Rumble series at a comparitive price point smokes the Bugera stuff hands down, shrug:
To each their own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BadExample
#62
https://c3.zzounds.com/media/BT115TS_PID-7f6069db4a5298c76a6621006b68d9f9.pdf
behringerjunk.png


The deception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassmanPaul, /\/\3phist0, GlassToMouth and 1 other person
#70
jeff7bass said:
Possible, or the other one was altered... :O
Click to expand...

Actually, and this is something that I'm qualified to weigh in on - neither @BadExample 's nor this official product shot from the MusicTribe site are actual back-plate photographs.

P0B4Q-Rear.jpg


I'm sure that many won't be surprised to hear that, but they're both composite mock-ups. So... both were altered. ;)

Nothing unusual about that though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jeff7bass
#71
I would say Uli is more in the business or randomly making up specs and changing his mind later than ZZ is in the business of making up fake Behinger specs. I looked those up at lunch when I had a slow day and could hang out at home a bit. His 1000 or 1600 "peak" spec has nothing to do with any sort of standard, except maybe his own. There are a couple of well recognized standards that reputable manufacturers follow. They all have to do with waveform and duty cycle. Peak for speakers is a marketing scam, although it's close enough 2 x program to call it a day. Uli himself says, quoted by his then rep who seems to have gone into hiding now, in 1000 word or less, nothing:

Sean Fairchild - MG said:
Dear MuthaFunk,

Thank you for those questions. Some of those are better suited for the technical guys in our CARE department to answer, who you can contact if you like at [email protected].

On the subject of power ratings however, I can offer a quote from our CEO, Uli Behringer, on the philosophy behind the way in which are power ratings are determined:


Although over the years there have been attempts at standardizing the way power amplifiers are measured and rated, it appears to me that even in the face of legislation, there continues to be no consensus in the pro audio industry.

There was a time when the accepted method for measuring amplifier power was to inject a sinusoidal signal (usually 1 kHz) and measure the output just as the sine wave began to distort. This type of measurement assumed that the amplifier would be operated in that manner, although we were all aware that actual program material was very different to a sine wave. Regardless, this RMS measurement became a standard.

While there have been several variations on this theme, the net effect of standard practice has always been that power measurements have been based on a continuous sinusoidal signal applied at the input. As imperfect as this system may have been, it did allow consumers to compare one amplifier to another and conclude which one had a higher rated power. Sounds good? Not so fast.

The problem with this method is, as most manufacturers and users discovered over time, that it measures a parameter that may not necessarily be the best predictor of actual amplifier performance. Real program material, whether it be music or speech, is very different from a sine wave and it is a leap of faith to correlate one to the other. Imagine a car that is capable of pulling a heavy load up a mountain compared to one that accelerates aggressively; which one is more powerful? It depends on what your objective is.

I believe that this disparity between what was measured and what was really needed was driven by the measurement technology of the day. In fact, the use of a steady-state sine wave is a throw-back to a time before digital oscilloscopes and programmable signal generators, when pretty much any technician could replicate the measurements on their test bench. Regardless of whether it was the “right” measurement, it was at least a measurement that almost anyone could make.

In the last 10-15 years we have seen the emergence of a whole new breed of amplifiers with power ratings in the thousands of watts, not just hundreds. Respected brands such as Lab Gruppen and Powersoft have led the way into this new realm not by measuring amplifiers the “old” way using a steady-state sine wave but by other means that more closely mimic the dynamics of real program material. The objective is to better quantify the performance of their products in the actual environment where they will be used.

Inherent in this approach is a lack of agreed measurement standards and definitions. I have yet to see published documentation on the precise measurement methods and techniques used by these and other manufacturers claiming specifications based on "maximum output power".

I can only assume that capable engineers are using good judgment in creating test routines that inject impulse signals of sufficient amplitude and duration along with periods of reduced energy to arrive at their power ratings. In any event, most manufacturers must consider this proprietary IP as they are not publishing such data currently.

While we always support standards and also ensure that all of our products are UL listed and FCC compliant, even though many of our competitors skirt the law (try searching www.fcc.gov to see who has been fined for non-compliance), it appears that power amplifier measurement standards have not kept up with measurement technology.

If such a standard does come to pass, then rest assured that we will follow it right along with venerable competitors such as Lab Gruppen, Powersoft, Crown and QSC among others.


Thank you again for your questions and interest in Bugera amps, and should any of you have any other questions of this type, please do feel free to email our CARE department at [email protected] or get in touch with me, and I'll find an answer for you if at all possible.

Best regards,
Sean Fairchild
Specialist, Product Support
MUSIC Group
BUGERA
Click to expand...

I stumbled upon that post a few days before your name calling and rude words came along. That is BTW an interesting thread: Bugera BTX3600 "The Nuke" Mysteries Revealed (Lots of Pics) The first post displays really bad soldering, insulation melted on mains wiring and describes how the heat sinks hit each other from chassis flex when you lift it. Then there was junk floating around inside. When I ran a factory service shop (non-audio, similar in some ways, and very detail oriented), I would give one warning for crappy workmanship, then send the tech packing. I raised hell about ANY production defects that were workmanship related (very few), even after warranty, and I covered those on the service account. I clearly would have been fired (or more likely quit, even without a new job) in the Uli-shop. Although commendable that @MuthaFunk took the initiative to do the inspection, analysis and testing, I don't agree with his math on the rated watts "3,800 W Peak" would be equal to "2,687 W RMS." For amplifier power specification, peak would be about double RMS. In other words, peak/2=RMS. So, I would say if it were really 3800 W Peak, it should be 1900 watts RMS. So I respectfully expect less WRMS than @MuthaFunk did.

Skip onto post 15 on page one, and see the measured results:

Using a 1 Khz signal in, and a maximum of 2% distortion here's the results:

2 Ohm operation with only 1 channel = 930 WRMS
4 Ohm operation both sides at the same time = 625 WRMS per ch.
4 Ohm bridged = 1500 WRMS

DO note the disclaimer of accuracy, and the conclusion (he does not call it such a bad deal). For your convenience, since I'm not lazy or angry, post 15: Bugera BTX3600 "The Nuke" Mysteries Revealed (Lots of Pics)

Skip to the last page. The recent posts are interesting. It seems the amp would be good for well under 400 WRMS.

Back to the cab in question, I understand your unwillingness to return to the tribal web site. It's a real POS. But if you go there, and look up the speaker in question, there is a photo of the same "fake" back plate. If your display is high enough resolution, you can even read the wattage ratings (which seem to be all over the place). I'll leave that up to you to discover. Oh, how about weight? Behringer claims it's lightweight, but I think around 60 Lbs (I can look that up for you). I built a 3/4" plywood 3ish cu ft 1 x 15 that's close to that. I have no intention on lifting it, so I avoided 1/2" plywood and bracing. So guess that's light weight too.

I also note the reviews on sellers websites for this cab seem pretty high.

My only question to you was who determined the cab was rated at 400 Watts continuous. You then lashed out. I still am wondering what the cab is actually rated at. Since you don't believe in free teaching, here's my challenge to you: Discover how Behringer comes up with it's wattage ratings, for speakers either RMS, Program or Peak, and for amps either RMS or Peak. What standard do they use? I already know the answer... I'm not asking you to teach me. I'm asking you to learn.

My interest is not in convincing you about Behringer. You've been around the block. My interest is in newbies buying something they expect will be more than it is based in deceptive marketing practices, substandard quality, and dishonest business practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kirk Bryant, agedhorse and bobcruz
#72
Kro said:
Actually, and this is something that I'm qualified to weigh in on - neither @BadExample 's nor this official product shot from the MusicTribe site are actual back-plate photographs.

View attachment 3093902

I'm sure that many won't be surprised to hear that, but they're both composite mock-ups. So... both were altered. ;)

Nothing unusual about that though.
Click to expand...
Mock ups? Or just don't have the serial number and date code stickers?
 
#73
BadExample said:
Mock ups? Or just don't have the serial number and date code stickers?
Click to expand...

The shot that you provided in that PDF of the 1000w version and the image I posted from their current site of the 1600w are both composite mockups. You can see it in some of the details, but they're both essentially the exact same image with the text changed. In other words, it's an artist's rendition of what the back-plate looks like, not a photo.

Anyways, as I noted, that type of thing isn't uncommon when it comes to marketing consumer goods. I just felt it was interesting given the comment (I believe in jest) from @jeff7bass that the one you posted was altered, when in reality they're both official, and both just artist's renditions. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: /\/\3phist0, jeff7bass and BadExample
#74
BadExample said:
I would say Uli is more in the business or randomly making up specs and changing his mind later than ZZ is in the business of making up fake Behinger specs. I looked those up at lunch when I had a slow day and could hang out at home a bit. His 1000 or 1600 "peak" spec has nothing to do with any sort of standard, except maybe his own. There are a couple of well recognized standards that reputable manufacturers follow. They all have to do with waveform and duty cycle. Peak for speakers is a marketing scam, although it's close enough 2 x program to call it a day. Uli himself says, quoted by his then rep who seems to have gone into hiding now, in 1000 word or less, nothing:



I stumbled upon that post a few days before your name calling and rude words came along. That is BTW an interesting thread: Bugera BTX3600 "The Nuke" Mysteries Revealed (Lots of Pics) The first post displays really bad soldering, insulation melted on mains wiring and describes how the heat sinks hit each other from chassis flex when you lift it. Then there was junk floating around inside. When I ran a factory service shop (non-audio, similar in some ways, and very detail oriented), I would give one warning for crappy workmanship, then send the tech packing. I raised hell about ANY production defects that were workmanship related (very few), even after warranty, and I covered those on the service account. I clearly would have been fired (or more likely quit, even without a new job) in the Uli-shop. Although commendable that @MuthaFunk took the initiative to do the inspection, analysis and testing, I don't agree with his math on the rated watts "3,800 W Peak" would be equal to "2,687 W RMS." For amplifier power specification, peak would be about double RMS. In other words, peak/2=RMS. So, I would say if it were really 3800 W Peak, it should be 1900 watts RMS. So I respectfully expect less WRMS than @MuthaFunk did.

Skip onto post 15 on page one, and see the measured results:

Using a 1 Khz signal in, and a maximum of 2% distortion here's the results:

2 Ohm operation with only 1 channel = 930 WRMS
4 Ohm operation both sides at the same time = 625 WRMS per ch.
4 Ohm bridged = 1500 WRMS

DO note the disclaimer of accuracy, and the conclusion (he does not call it such a bad deal). For your convenience, since I'm not lazy or angry, post 15: Bugera BTX3600 "The Nuke" Mysteries Revealed (Lots of Pics)

Skip to the last page. The recent posts are interesting. It seems the amp would be good for well under 400 WRMS.

Back to the cab in question, I understand your unwillingness to return to the tribal web site. It's a real POS. But if you go there, and look up the speaker in question, there is a photo of the same "fake" back plate. If your display is high enough resolution, you can even read the wattage ratings (which seem to be all over the place). I'll leave that up to you to discover. Oh, how about weight? Behringer claims it's lightweight, but I think around 60 Lbs (I can look that up for you). I built a 3/4" plywood 3ish cu ft 1 x 15 that's close to that. I have no intention on lifting it, so I avoided 1/2" plywood and bracing. So guess that's light weight too.

I also note the reviews on sellers websites for this cab seem pretty high.

My only question to you was who determined the cab was rated at 400 Watts continuous. You then lashed out. I still am wondering what the cab is actually rated at. Since you don't believe in free teaching, here's my challenge to you: Discover how Behringer comes up with it's wattage ratings, for speakers either RMS, Program or Peak, and for amps either RMS or Peak. What standard do they use? I already know the answer... I'm not asking you to teach me. I'm asking you to learn.

My interest is not in convincing you about Behringer. You've been around the block. My interest is in newbies buying something they expect will be more than it is based in deceptive marketing practices, substandard quality, and dishonest business practices.
Click to expand...
That was a whole lot of typing for nothing. Everybody here, including me know the difference between Peak and RMS ratings. The cab has BOTH on the backplate so whatever. Peak ratings are real so it's not deceptive. You just don't like them and high-end cab makers prefer not to use them, which is fine because they appeal to different customers. Regardless, all the harping about Behringer/Bugeras use of peak ratings is downright boring and a waste of time. Now has ANYBODY actually tried the cab? I know I can read reviews on Sweetwater, Amazon, whatever, but the royalty here at TB.com has determined them to be unworthy sources whom no doubt should be taken out back and thrashed for expressing their opinions.
 
#75
I had one of these, paired with the Bugera TS 2x10 of the same line and a Veyron M.

Compared to my Rumble 500c with the 2x10 extension cab it did not get as loud. However, it handled lows much deeper and clearer and the highs were smoother. I'm not sure if that was the cab moreso or the Veyron. While this sounded great in the bedroom, it didn't do me much in terms of live band mix.

The Rumble sounds less "deep" and more low mids, live this really proves to be a huge strength. It seems as if the Rumble squashes all the tones into the ones that really come out in a mix. The Bugera stuff sounded more full range but not really in a helpful way live.

The amp and cabs are well built and sound solid, they got compliments from bandmates and never "farted out" or sounded bad. Regardless of real/fake ratings, a Veyron with a 2x10 and 1x15 from Bugera would work in almost any live situation.

The one big con for me with the 1x15 was it is big and heavy, to the point that I didn't even want to lug it downstairs to my car for the gigs. This was a deal breaker for me. I had gotten this setup to have a more "modern" contrast to my Rumble, but the size and weight is what lead me to forgo the experiment. Another big con was the rat-fur, I hate rat-fur coverings on amps, and having a cat meant that the cab looked like crap within two days of owning it. I had to resort to keeping the door to my practice room shut so the cab would not become a scratching post.

If they release similar cabs with significantly reduced weight, I would consider this set-up again no problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff7bass
#76
jeff7bass said:
That was a whole lot of typing for nothing. Everybody here, including me know the difference between Peak and RMS ratings. The cab has BOTH on the backplate so whatever. Peak ratings are real so it's not deceptive. You just don't like them and high-end cab makers prefer not to use them, which is fine because they appeal to different customers. Regardless, all the harping about Behringer/Bugeras use of peak ratings is downright boring and a waste of time. Now has ANYBODY actually tried the cab? I know I can read reviews on Sweetwater, Amazon, whatever, but the royalty here at TB.com has determined them to be unworthy sources whom no doubt should be taken out back and thrashed for expressing their opinions.
Click to expand...
Try reading a previous post by me or a search. There are at least 2 threads on that very subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back