TecAmp Puma 900 vs Aguilar AG 700

#2
melodiaopus said:
just curious if any of y’all have any experience with either head.A/b tested with different cabs.

Right now I run my puma 900 with an XS112. Need a larger rig for bigger venues. I was thinking of either getting a M410 by TecAmp or an Aguilar rig (AG 700 w/SL410X or DB410)

Thoughts, recommendations?
Click to expand...

For me with the Puma 900, this is the magic combination with the TecAmp S212 Classic cab. I have more than enough volume/presence at the 400 capacity club I play at every Saturday plus the cab has ceramic speakers and only weighs 44 pounds. I’ve also done outdoor shows with this set up and didn’t need more than it put out. The S212 Classic came highly recommended to me by Glenn Kawamoto of TecAmp.

Click on the link below to check out a review in Bass Musician Magazine of this amp/cab combo in which they describe it as a match made in heaven. I couldn't agree more:

Review – TecAmp Puma 900 Bass Amp Head and TecAmp S 212 Classic Bass Cabinet

886603DF-F88A-4F19-953E-0A96E1417606.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bass nitro, wmhill, AztecViking and 1 other person
#3
+1 on the Puma900 with the S212. I find it to be more well balanced top to bottom than the M212, which sounds a little boxier and middle low mid heavy.

I'm curious how people are liking the AG700, which brought me to this thread..
 
#4
I have not tried these two amps back-to-back, but I own (and love) a Puma 900 and I have heard the AG700 at last year's NAMM Show. I was definitely impressed with the AG700, which has a more "quick, clean and articulate" tone/attack than the TH heads. There are certainly a lot of overall similarities between the Puma 900 and the AG700. Both have nicely defined highs, are not too aggressive in the mids, and seem "deep but tight" in the lows. This would be an interesting A/B, for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bass nitro and bassbooty
#5
Based on what I know about the power modules used in both, I would expect the 900 to have a little more ultimate volume. This is of course dependent on how the modules are implemented, and each amplifiers built-in voicing having an effect on perceived volume, but theoretically…
 
  • Like
Reactions: eff-clef
#6
J.Wolf said:
Based on what I know about the power modules used in both, I would expect the 900 to have a little more ultimate volume. This is of course dependent on how the modules are implemented, and each amplifiers built-in voicing having an effect on perceived volume, but theoretically…
Click to expand...

I have a Puma 900 and really like it, but it is definitely not as powerful as other micros with lower power ratings such as the subway. I’ve never compared it with an AG700 so I can’t answer the OP’s question. Regardless, the Puma is still my favorite micro though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bass nitro
#7
Interesting, I would attribute that squarely to inherit voicing and perceived volume. I haven’t gigged a subway, but I gigged a puma 900 for about five years and thought it at least satisfied it’s published/marketed rating, compared to other heads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bassbooty
#9
One of my issues with the Puma was the relaxed midrange and big/wide low end, which sounded great by itself/at home, but occasionally didnt punch through on the gig. The low mid EQ helped, but sometimes caused more problems than it fixed. But that baked in big low end helped it feel louder than it potentially was.

Thank you guys at BGM for providing real world and empirical specs, and taking subjectivity out of the mix. You're a serious asset to the community Tom!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ, bass nitro and tombowlus
#10
#11
  • Like
Reactions: bass nitro
#13
tombowlus said:
We have not tested the D800 (yet) and have no plans to test the AG700, but the Magellan put out 728w (continuous), 741w (burst) into a 4-ohm load, with 5% THD+N.
Click to expand...

thats cool! This is the first empirical data I've seen that shows the 700w ICE module can compete with the 250ASX2. Is that your general experience? I prefer the sound of the 700 (smoother, less grainy), but havent been convinced it puts out comparable wattage. Always with the GAS inducing TOM! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tombowlus
#14
J.Wolf said:
thats cool! This is the first empirical data I've seen that shows the 700w ICE module can compete with the 250ASX2. Is that your general experience? I prefer the sound of the 700 (smoother, less grainy), but havent been convinced it puts out comparable wattage. Always with the GAS inducing TOM! :)
Click to expand...

IME/IMHO, both on the bench and at the gig, the newer 700w ICE module does compete quite well. The 250ASX2 - in certain heads, at least - does exhibit more burst power, and you can feel that with some heads, for sure. But I've never felt that I was lacking anything with the 700w ICE modules.
 
#15
tombowlus said:
IME/IMHO, both on the bench and at the gig, the newer 700w ICE module does compete quite well. The 250ASX2 - in certain heads, at least - does exhibit more burst power, and you can feel that with some heads, for sure. But I've never felt that I was lacking anything with the 700w ICE modules.
Click to expand...


good to know this. I almost picked up a D800+ but opted for the Quilter (obvs very different in several ways), as I had played a "700 in a box" and was underwhelmed with its volume, but again implementation is everything. putting a module in a box an amp does not make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eff-clef
#16
I cannot compare because I have not tried the Ag700. I own and use a Puma 900. I did own a Subway D-800+. I stick with the Puma because it has tons of power and has immediate and quick attack I could not get on the Subway. Also, with the gains set to just below breakup on both amps (I call it "full clean gain," where it's as high as it can get when my loudest attack does not distort), the Puma started earthquakes with the master set around 11:00, while the Mesa had to be past noon to get a decent stage volume. Same basses, same cabs, flat EQ's. Just IME.

Oh, and FWIW, I use the Tecamp M212 in medium and larger venues and have never been left wanting for volume or tone with the Puma head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdwinva and bassbooty
#17
I don't exactly have/had the amps in question but did have a Tone Hammer 500 and still have a Puma 1000, both at the same time so was able to compare. I am not the right person for the Tone Hammer so it went to a new home. Love the Puma 1000 and that is my gig amp. Both had the respective brands signature sound.

I don't have any loud gigs anymore and generally use a Fearless 15/6/1 and the Puma. I felt the clarity I like with the Tone Hammer was missing and that it was pretty noisy.

Hope this helps
 
  • Like
Reactions: melodiaopus and bassbooty
#18
melodiaopus said:
just curious if any of y’all have any experience with either head.A/b tested with different cabs.

Right now I run my puma 900 with an XS112. Need a larger rig for bigger venues. I was thinking of either getting a M410 by TecAmp or an Aguilar rig (AG 700 w/SL410X or DB410)

Thoughts, recommendations?
@KJung @tombowlus
Click to expand...
If it was me I would start out with a second XS112, especially if you like the sound. You get 6 db more by adding the second cab, which is significant. The dispersion is going to be better than the 4x10, the stack is going to be closer to your ear, its modular.
From a volume perspective the 2 x XS112 is going to be about the same volume per watt than the 410 (102 dB/W). The 410 has a higher maximum volume only because it can take 1200 W vs. the 600 W of the XS112 stack. Now, as Tom pointed out, the Puma only really delivers ~740 W, so the higher power handling capability of the 410 is not that big of an advantage since the Puma can't push it to its limit.
- Do you like the sound of the XS112? Are you close to what you need volume wise? -> second XS112
- You do not like the sound OR one XS112 is not even close to the volume you need -> M410
 
  • Like
Reactions: melodiaopus and pjbassist
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back