200W louder than 350W?????
Ben H
Up till now my rig has been a Fender Jazz into a GK 400RB amp (200W @ 4
ohms, ~150W @ 8 ohms) into an Ampeg 2x10 (8 ohms) and a Nessel 1x15 (16
ohms) - total impedance 5.33 ohms. Loved the tone, but the band I'm in is
fairly loud so I always had the GK cranking near the top of its range
('volume' and 'master' around 9 out of 10) to keep up. I was always
concerned that driving it that hard would damage either the amp or the
speakers, so last weekend I splashed out an bought a new amp - an Ampeg B2R
(350W @ 4 ohms, 200 W @ 8 ohms).
Tonight was the first rehearsal with the new head in a band situation, and
for some reason the B2R just wasn't cutting it. The tone was fine, no
distortion in the tone, but even with both the gain and volume on the B2R
close to being maxed out the volume out of my rig seemed lower than when I
was using the GK amp (everything was the same - same bass, same cabs)....
why would this be? Surely an amp of almost twice the power of the GK should
be louder? Could it be that there's something wrong with the B2R? If so
then what? I noticed that the chassis B2R didn't warm up at all over the 4
hour practice session, where the chassis of the GK used to get quite hot.
Could it be I'm not getting the maximum power out of the B2R ? (aside from
having 5.33 ohm in place of 4 ohms - I understand that bit.)
Any advice on this one would be appreciated.
ben.
Tim
Ben H <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:%HfB7.212109$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Surely an amp of almost twice the power of the GK should
> be louder
I am not an engineer but you did not buy an amp with twice the power. The
only comparison I can remember is
to double the output of a 25 watt amp would be to go to 225 watts. In other
words an engineer may or may not
be able to explain it to you ( its just voodoo to me ).
Tim
Bryan Bartone
While it MAY be true that the B2R is 350W, that doesn't tell you how loud it
will be. The BIG factor in loud bass is headroom. Low frequencies need a
LOT of spare power. While the B2R has higher RMS output, it may not have
the big reserves.
This was really driven home to me recently when in the market for a new amp.
I tried several including a 2500 watt Crown K2 power amp with a Kern IP-777
pre, and an all tube SVT. Of all the high powered amps I tried, the loudest
by far was the Ashdown 500 watt head. It had so much power it shook guitars
off the wall in the store. Far louder than the Crown or the SVT.
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:%HfB7.212109$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ted Partin
all else being equal, provide about a 3 db increase in volume.
_ _ _
/ \ o
| o
/
/
/
Ted Partin
http://members.aol.com/dblbassted
John Shaughnessy
iel a2500 watt amp is 2X as loud as a 250.
There are a lot of factors to consider as well: what is thedb boost cut on
the tone controls, how effeicient is the new amp (ie does most of the power
get lost as heat)? also, isf you are only running one cab, you are most
likely not getting the full 350 watts, more like 100 or 120. check the ohms
ratings on the back of the cab. That is a sneaky marketing trick companies
use.
--
John
"Tim" <mold...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:9r45oq$95$1...@iac5.navix.net...
Ric Williams
I agree. That's the way I learned it in electronics school, and anything less
than a 3db increase in volume is probably insignificant. Doubling the perceived
loudness requires increasing the output level by 10db which would take a huge
increase in power.
Manufacturer's ratings and specs are only good, at best, to give you *very*
general info about the power output of an amp. Since they don't adhere to any
particular ratings standards, comparing specs on paper or from the lips of sales
people will always be a case of comparing apples and pomegranates...
Hopefully the amp was purchased from somewhere that has a satisfaction
guarantee.
Ric
Ted Partin wrote:
--
*********************************************************
"Never pet a burning dog..."
Ric Williams
ric...@earthlink.net
*********************************************************
John "Lynrd" Leonardini
>I could be very wrong on this, but I was told that doubling the power would,
>all else being equal, provide about a 3 db increase in volume.
>
Yes, because power output is logarithmic...
Brent
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:%HfB7.212109$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> fairly loud so I always had the GK cranking near the top of its range
> ('volume' and 'master' around 9 out of 10) to keep up.
::in his best accent:: This wouldn't be a problem if all your amps went to
eleven. Eleven is one louder.
< /sarcasm>
Brent
Rankin Peters
"...driving it that hard would damage either the amp or the
speakers...." --what about your ears?? It must be the "old guy" in me but I
sure hope you're wearing earplugs.
FWIW, I had a B2 for a while and although I'm in a lower volume class :o}
than you are, I had to run the master up pretty hot due to having to use the
input pad with the gain waaaayyy down, but it never heated up much.
-Rankin
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:%HfB7.212109$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Tim
than you think,
and you can't tell anymore.
Tim
Brent <bdou...@homeNOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:URjB7.11133
7$Pr1.28...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Seymour Pohrn
IIRC, every 2 decible increase is twice as loud.
"John Shaughnessy" <johngoo...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:YkhB7.19302$jq6.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Todd H.
> Ok this one has me confused.
>
> Up till now my rig has been a Fender Jazz into a GK 400RB amp (200W @ 4
> ohms, ~150W @ 8 ohms) into an Ampeg 2x10 (8 ohms) and a Nessel 1x15 (16
> ohms) - total impedance 5.33 ohms. Loved the tone, but the band I'm in is
> fairly loud so I always had the GK cranking near the top of its range
> ('volume' and 'master' around 9 out of 10) to keep up.
Jesus H. Tell me you're wearing earplugs or are playing through the
world's least efficient cabinets. That amount of volume just ain't
healthy. How far are you standing from your cabinets?
> I was always concerned that driving it that hard would damage either
> the amp or the speakers, so last weekend I splashed out an bought a
> new amp - an Ampeg B2R (350W @ 4 ohms, 200 W @ 8 ohms).
>
> Tonight was the first rehearsal with the new head in a band
> situation, and for some reason the B2R just wasn't cutting it. The
> tone was fine, no distortion in the tone, but even with both the
> gain and volume on the B2R close to being maxed out the volume out
> of my rig seemed lower than when I was using the GK amp (everything
> was the same - same bass, same cabs).... why would this be? Surely
> an amp of almost twice the power of the GK should be louder?
Perhaps---but then again, perhaps not.
First it may be worthwhile to scrutinize the specs to make sure
they're really as different as we think. To be comparing apples to
apples you need
o RMS continuous power measurement in W (not peak, not program)
o specifying frequency range +/- some number of dB
o with no more than x% THD
As other posters mentioned, assuming all things equal, the difference
between these two amps mathematically is only 2.43dB
=10*log(350/200)... and that's not all that perceptable.
What I've noticed is that for their numbers, the GK amps sure seem
louder than the spec would indicate. Maybe there's compression hidden
in the gain lineup somehow to give such a fat tone, or perhaps their
volume and master interact to give you some compression that results
in a perception of "louder." I'm not sure.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
The C Man
>
> No, loudness is not a matter of watts, but of decibels.
>
> IIRC, every 2 decible increase is twice as loud.
As I recall from my car stereo days, 2x the power - say 100 watts to
200 - is a 3 decibel (dB) increase in loudness, but that 3dB doesn't
equate to twice as loud. The only reason to go from 100 watts to 200
would be for more headroom, as someone else mentioned. To double the
loudness requires a 10dB increase, which is 10x the power - 100 watts to
1000.
Of course, the easier way to increase loudness is to just add more
speaker cabinets, but that's not what this thread is about. Ben just
wanted to know why his new head isn't as loud as the old one.
Derek Tearne
H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Ok this one has me confused.
Which is going to go faster, a 7 litre V8, or 1.6 litre V8?
If you wanted speed and bought simply on engine capacity you
might be dissapointed, especially if the 7 litre was a diesel
engine in a Hummer and the 1.6 was in a formula one racing
car.
Watts alone are a very poor indicator of volume, other factors
- such as the efficiency of the amplifier - are far more important.
However, just as engine capacity is used as a marketting ploy
for cars - even though bhp, rpm and torque are more important -
watts are used as in the marketting of amplifiers.
Amplifiers with different designs - even from the same manufacturers -
can't simply be compared on watts - a valve amp will tend to deliver
more volume per watt than a lot of solid state amps, but it's not a
hard and fast rule.
One of the loudest guitar amps I've ever had the misfortune of
having near my ears was a Vox AC 30 - by some quirk of design
it blew away 150 watt amps made by other companies.
Furthermore, perceived sound has a logarithmic relationship to
to energy of the source. A sound source has to be ten times
more powerful for it to sound twice as loud.
>Any advice on this one would be appreciated.
Don't compare amps based on watts - if the specs mention
db, make sure that they are comparing in the same
way - if one says peak (a bad measure really) make sure
the other says peak. Better still, look for continuous
RMS.
That THD (total harmonic distortion) thing is also
important - if one amp has a higer percentage this means
you won't be able to turn up as much before the amp
distorts.
GK make particularly efficient clean sounding amps
and it's not unsurprising that a 200 watt from them
may sound louder than a 350 watt from a different
company who were designing with different criteria
in mind - efficiency alone is not a good thing if
the resulting tone does not please the ears - most
companies trade efficiency for tone. I have also
suspect that some companies have deliberately
chosen inefficient designs as people like seeing
higher numbers on the side of the amps.
There are some subtle tonal things which also affect
the perceived volume that just don't get mentioned
in the specs.
In the end the only way to compare amps from different
manufacturers is to play them side by side.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne. --- @URL Internet Consultants --- http://url.co.nz/
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Rob Kloka
--
-rob
O
A
O>
( -)-* ..\\..
>_^_^_____ {_^_^_}
"Bryan Bartone" <sub...@home.com> wrote in message
news:pkhB7.10211$W91....@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
Jason Trill
"Brent" <bdou...@homeNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:URjB7.111337$Pr1.28...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
Ben H
I'm driving the B2R at close to max. then I don't seem to have increased my
available headroom at all.
ben.
"The C Man" <stee...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
news:3BD5F416...@accesstoledo.com...
Bryan Bartone
Phons are a measure of loudness.
"Seymour Pohrn" <spo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uklB7.137813$3d2.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John Shaughnessy
--
John
"The C Man" <stee...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
news:3BD5F416...@accesstoledo.com...
Brian Running
"Derek Tearne" <de...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote in message
news:derek-8B2AEA.12380324102001@[192.168.0.1]...
You said, watts are a very poor indicator of volume. Well, yes and no --
They MAY be a poor indicator of volume, but only because the effect of
additional wattage is not intuitive. Twice the watts is not twice the
volume. However, more watts will ALWAYS equal more volume, it's just a
question of how much more. Ben H. found out that the difference between 200
and 350 watts is not dramatic, but this is a fact: If your speaker puts out
a certain amount of dBs per watt input (as they all do), then more watts in
results in more dBs out. That is an immutable fact.
You said that the efficiency of the amplifier is more important than the
wattage -- did you mean the efficiency of the speaker? The efficiency of
the amplifier won't affect the output volume, it will only affect how hot
the amp gets when you run it at a certain volume level. The efficiency of
the speaker is very important, but here's where you really get into
hocus-pocus specifications. Manufacturers rate their speakers at certain
dB/W, but they very often don't specify the frequency range of that
efficiency specification. As we all know, our ears are much more efficient
at middle frequencies, so an efficiency rating at, for example, 1000 Hz is
pretty meaningless. An efficiency rating over the entire usable frequency
response of the speaker is much more valuable. We bassists want to know
what's happening at 80 Hz, not 1000 Hz.
The cabinets with the flattest, deepest response are also the least
efficient, because they can't have a big output peak at 1000 Hz. So, it
takes a lot of power to make them work right. If you have a very
flat-responding cabinet, it's going to seem a lot quieter with the same
input power than a very peaky cabinet.
In Ben H.'s case, I'd be willing to bet that his B2R "seemed" to be not as
loud as his older rig because he expected a huge difference, and didn't get
it. It's a matter of perception. He IS getting more headroom, and should
get a cleaner output than with his old, 200 W amp, but he just didn't get
blown away with a massive volume increase the way he expected.
Ben H
Everything you said makes sense - since I'm running exactly the same cabs
with the B2R as with the GK400 I was expecting a noticable increase in
volume with the increased power out of the amp.
You said I am getting more headroom - I was expecting this to show itself in
me not having to crank the new amp to almost maximum - are you saying that
instead the increase in headroom is showing itself as a cleaner output?
ben
"Brian Running" <brun...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3bd631cc$0$65156$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Gary Rosen
"Brian Running" <brun...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3bd631cc$0$65156$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> If your speaker puts out
> a certain amount of dBs per watt input (as they all do), then more watts
in
> results in more dBs out. That is an immutable fact.
That's certainly true. The other thing to remember when comparing
"loudness" (a *very* subjective quality) is to make sure you're
really comparing apples to apples. Playing through the same
speakers helps (IF both amps have very low output impedance,
which they probably do). But are you playing in the same room,
with the same band, everyone of whom is playing the same
thing with the same volume as the time you played through
your other amp several days ago that you're now trying
to remember? etc. etc. As Brian pointed out later in his post,
expectations influence what you think you are hearing.
Also, along the same lines, the tone settings of the amp can
make a difference. Usually different makes of amps have
completely different tone controls and this makes it very
difficult to do a fair comparison unless you know you can adjust
them exactly the same (usually only "straight up" or flat and
sometimes not even then). An amp with more emphasis on the
bass (or some frequency range you are sensitive to) will sound
louder for the same amount of watts.
Finally, based on the specs Ben gave, the power difference
is probably more like 280W vs. 180W - about a 2 dB difference.
- Gary Rosen
Todd H.
It's reasonable to assume that Seymour was implying dB SPL--and SPL is
related to perceived loudness based on "equal loudness contours" that
are frequency and SPL dependent.
For the pedant in all of us:
dB - decibel. One tenth of a Bel. A bel is defined as a logarithmic
ratio of two powers -- dB = 10*log(p1/p2) It's
dimensionless.
dB SPL - unit of sound pressure level referenced to the threshold of
audibility - 0dB SPL.
dBV is a voltage unit -- decibels referenced to 1V
dBv is a voltage unit - decibels referenced to 0.775V
dBm is a power unit - decibels referenced to 1mW
dBu is a voltage unit - decibels referenced to 1mW assuming a 600ohm load
Ben H
room, same bad jokes about the drummer. I specifically asked everyone to
play at thier normal rehearsal volume settings so I could make sure I wasn't
kidding myself. Also tried to get comparable EQ settings - still the B2R
didn't seem as loud as the GK.
ben.
"Gary Rosen" <garym...@home.com> wrote in message
news:V8rB7.61809$gT6.31...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
John Doe
104 dbs @ 1 watt meter) and found out they were 8 ohm. Maybe you should look
into matching up the impedence of the speakers to be the same. This may
improve your sound , and not make your amp work so hard, as it would if you
had the different impedence loads on the amp.I run these speakers through a
SVT Classic, and have no problem with TONS of sound.(although I want a 4-10
to go on top to give me more midrange)
Just my 2 cents worth,,Scott
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:bCrB7.213498$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ben H
the Ampeg B2R) was a GK 800 RB - theoretically would I have had the same
'lack of volume/headroom' type experience with the 800 RB as I did with the
B2R?
Ben.
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:%HfB7.212109$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Jón Fairbairn
> It's reasonable to assume that Seymour was implying dB SPL--and SPL is
> related to perceived loudness based on "equal loudness contours" that
> are frequency and SPL dependent.
Either way, an increase of 2dB is at the lower limit of what is audible.
2dB = 10log (a/b) => a/b = 10**0.2 = approx 0.6, which isn't "twice as
loud" either.
More to the point 10log (350/200) = 2.4 dB, so the amount of increase
in volume attributable to the increase in power would also be barely
audible. Most of the difference in volume comes from differences in
speaker/enclosure efficiency, so it's fairly easy to find a 200W box
that's louder than a 350W one. Take a look at
<URL:http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Power/Graph_F.html>: you can do
116dB SPL with a 40W amp if you have a really efficient speaker! The
article linked at the bottom is well worth a read.
Not that to get a speaker that efficient for bass it would have to be
HUGE.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Brian Running
means that for any given volume, you should not be as close to clipping as
you were with your old amp. There's less danger of damaging your speakers
with a clipped signal, even though you are cranking the volume control as
high. Whether you'll notice a cleaner sound or not depends on whether you
ever drove your old amp into clipping.
A few years ago, I upgraded some amps in our PA. We had been running a
Peavey 800CS, 400W per channel, and I replaced it with a QSC RMX2450, 750W
per channel. Like you, I was expecting to be blown away with the new
output -- while there was a noticeable increase in power, the real
difference was in the sound quality, not volume. The peaks were cleaner,
more dynamic, more "effortless".
It's still true, you can't have too much power for bass, but the effects of
boosting the power aren't always what you'd think they'd be. Give your new
rig some time, and listen for other qualities besides higher volume. And,
take care of your ears, for crying out loud!
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:OPqB7.213201$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
John "Lynrd" Leonardini
wrote:
>Decibels are NOT a measure of loudness but of gain. 1 dBv = 0.775 Volts.
>
and here I was, going through life thinking audio decibels were a
measurement of sound pressure...
David Van de Sype
internally completely identical to the B2R.
What have I learned from this amp during these 4 years?
In the first year I played it with an SVT410HE (4x10'') cab, I liked the
tone but I thought the volume was too low. So, one day I bought myself an
Ampeg SVT18e-cab (18''). With the 2 cabs the amplifier was louder but under
some conditions I still wasn't able of hearing myself. After 2 more years I
decided to get rid off the 2 very heavy cabs (each 100lbs) and replace them
by a single lightweight SWR Goliath Junior III (2x10''@4Ohm). This cab made
my rig sound as loud as before with 1/4th the weight (no complaints from my
back here). But still the rig wasn't very loud. However I noticed that with
the factory settings of my amp the sound coming from the speaker contained
(too) much low frequency. So one day I decided to cut the lows severally and
boost the low mid. Wauw, I was able to hear myself.
The tone coming from the preamp contains far too much low frequencies (to
compensate the lack of bottom in the crappy Ampeg cabs), this consumes all
your power and doesn't provide audibility! So, cut the bottoms severely and
boost the low mids with your EQ.
And don't buy amplifiers with higher wattage but buy better cabs if you
still have problems hearing yourself. A 100Watt amp with a cab with an SPL
of 110dB is as loud as a 1000Watt amp with a cab rated at SPL 100dB. And the
differences in SPL rating of good versus bad cabs are easily 20dB.
David
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:2lvB7.214712$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
anthony.gosnell
>Ben H <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:%HfB7.212109$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> be louder
There is a possibility that the new amp requires a higher input signal.
David Van de Sype
loud pop) that the peak led of your preamp flashes shortly, otherwise push
the button next to the input plug to increase the input sensitivity by 15dB.
Turn up the gain until this peak led flashes when you hit the string, use
the master to adjust volume.
A compressor can also increase the output of your rig.
David
Brian Rost
The Ampeg may be RATED at 350 watts but I have known a few people who
bought them and had the same experience as Ben H....it was NOT AS LOUD
as a less (rated) powerful amp they owned.
I'm an engineer, I know all the db, watts, ohms and other arguments. All
I know is that the Ampeg solid state heads don't seem to sound as loud
as similar rated heads from other makers (and the "Ampeg sound" is
prominent midrange which should make it sound louder).
One reason to try before you buy...specs don't tell you everything.
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Brian E Running
cabinet rated at "103 dB/W/m" but only at 1000 Hz is not necessarily better
than "100 dB/W/m" from 40 Hz to 3000 Hz. You can't get something for
nothing -- if you want full, fat, deep low-end response, it's going to take
a lot of power. If all you want is to be heard, well hell, then just go
ahead and EQ to get the loudest result. Boost the mids, cut the lows,
you'll be heard, but what will it sound like?
This is the phenomenon that all Acme speaker owners face -- they sound
great, because they have flat, extended response. But because their
perceived volume isn't enhanced by an artificial response peak in the
midrange, they take a ton of power. You can't get something for nothing,
and you can't have too much power for bass.
This is also the same thing you experience when you realize that the best EQ
setting when you're at home practicing alone is not the best setting when
you're playing on stage. At home, you want that big, fat low-end, but when
you try that in the band, all you get is boom and you can't hear yourself.
So you boost the mids, and presto, you're louder and can be heard. But you
don't have the big, fat tone you might want. If you want that, you're going
to need lots of watts, and cabinets that can handle it. There's no magic
pill.
"David Van de Sype" <vand...@elmape.rug.ac.be> wrote in message
news:9r6i67$51k$1...@inf6serv.rug.ac.be...
Todd H.
> ...which kinda leads to my second question - my second option (other than
> the Ampeg B2R) was a GK 800 RB - theoretically would I have had the same
> 'lack of volume/headroom' type experience with the 800 RB as I did with the
> B2R?
With the 800RB, you would get 300W into 4ohms if you only used the big
side of the amp. It also has a 100W into 8ohm amp in it.
If you ran the amp stereo, you may get some more headroom, but whether
it's audible or not....not likely. You'd have to try it and see, I
think.
> > Up till now my rig has been a Fender Jazz into a GK 400RB amp (200W @ 4
> > ohms, ~150W @ 8 ohms) into an Ampeg 2x10 (8 ohms) and a Nessel 1x15 (16
> > ohms) - total impedance 5.33 ohms. Loved the tone, but the band I'm in is
> > fairly loud so I always had the GK cranking near the top of its range
> > ('volume' and 'master' around 9 out of 10) to keep up. I was always
> > concerned that driving it that hard would damage either the amp or the
> > speakers, so last weekend I splashed out an bought a new amp - an Ampeg
> B2R
> > (350W @ 4 ohms, 200 W @ 8 ohms).
--
Steve Kim
efficient than the ones you have. swr's and edens tend to have higher
efficiency ratings than ampegs.
steve
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<2lvB7.214712$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Jonathan Byrd
I was thinking the same thing. The impedance matching between the
pickups and the input circuitry of the amp can make a significant
difference. Also, having pedals between the instrument and amp can
affect the characteristics of the input signal that the amp sees.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA
Michael Edelman
First of all, 1dB is generally the minimum perceptible change in sound
pressure level. And SpL should be linearly related to power output.
Doubling the power results in an increase of 6 dB. Power dB = log (ratio).
Doubling the perceived stimulus intensity requires a 10dB increase in
stimulus. 10dB power = 10x.
Why did the 200 watt amp sound louder than the 300 watt amp? In addition to
the proffered explanations, it may be that the 200 watt amp was clipping
heavily, adding more harmonics to the output and sounding subjectively
louder.
-- mike
-----------------------------------
Michael Edelman m...@spamcop.net
http://www.foldingkayaks.org
http://www.findascope.com
Ben H
of the manufacturers' websites don't list speaker efficiencies - any tips as
to other sources for this information?
ben.
"Steve Kim" <steve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f041b269.01102...@posting.google.com...
Ben H
and another is quoted at 100 dB SPL @ 1W1M, will the second cab seem twice
as loud as the first (assuming all other thngs being equal, and assuming
each 3 dB = a doubling of volume).
I just read a spec. given as 105 dB SPL @ 1W1M (-3dB @ 40Hz and 15KHz), I
understand the first part but could someone please explain the part in
brackets?
ben.
"Ben H" <pigl...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:OUJB7.221753$bY5.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David Van de Sype
If all manufacturers were to specify their amplifier ratings and cab ratings
the same way.... life would be much easier for us. You can only decide by
listening to as many amplifiers and cabinets you can.
But in general you can say that it doesn't help much to go to a higher
amplifier wattage rating. Look for an amp that sounds good,and is rated
between 200Watts and 500Watts and then find yourself some decent cabs. As a
rule, the flatter the respons of the cab, the less efficient the cab will
be. So for gigging you need "peeky" cabs like e.g. SWR, eden, ... and for
practicing at home you can use Acme, Ampeg .... (unless you've got a ton of
power).
David
Jón Fairbairn
> Oops, I forgot to ask - if one cab efficiency is quoted at 97 dB SPL @ 1W1M
> and another is quoted at 100 dB SPL @ 1W1M, will the second cab seem twice
> as loud as the first (assuming all other thngs being equal, and assuming
> each 3 dB = a doubling of volume).
No, 3dB is approximately twice the power, but is percieved as
(approximately) the minimum increase detectable. Arguably this _is_
"twice as loud" since it's as much louder as having two things playing
at once, each at the original volume. However, perception is different
and "twice as loud" is more like 10dB.
> I just read a spec. given as 105 dB SPL @ 1W1M (-3dB @ 40Hz and 15KHz), I
> understand the first part but could someone please explain the part in
> brackets?
It means that if you put one Watt in you get 105 dB SPL if you are one
metre away and the sound is between a bit more than 40Hz and a bit
less than 15kHz. For a tone at 40Hz (which is higher than the
fundamental of the lowest note you can play even on a four-string),
the output is 3dB less (102 dB SPL). Below that the output will be
even less. Similarly at 15kHz the output would be 102dB SPL, and
reduce more the higher the tone is.
I'm not sure how important it is that 40Hz will be 3dB down: much of
the perception of bass notes is constructed from the harmonics rather
than the fundamental. OTOH, the sensation in the guts and the shaking
of the building come from the low frequencies. Note that you'll have a
hard time finding something that doesn't roll off below 40 or 50Hz
unless it's really big, simply because of the physics. A 40Hz
soundwave is about 8m long. To produce that at a significant volume
requires shifting a lot of air.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Edward G.
>
>--
>-rob
I think it's the Brits always feel they have something to prove.
Edward G.
'It's not a gang; it's a club.'
Trevor Prinn
wrote:
> I've heard that British watts are louder than `merican watts.
Yeah. Americans don't mix their electricity right. We put a lot more
volts in ours.
Trevor Prinn
http://www.spiderfish.co.uk
Bob C
louder.
Panhead
>
> Oops, I forgot to ask - if one cab efficiency is quoted at 97 dB SPL @ 1W1M
> and another is quoted at 100 dB SPL @ 1W1M, will the second cab seem twice
> as loud as the first (assuming all other thngs being equal, and assuming
> each 3 dB = a doubling of volume).
>
> I just read a spec. given as 105 dB SPL @ 1W1M (-3dB @ 40Hz and 15KHz), I
> understand the first part but could someone please explain the part in
> brackets?
(snip a bit)
If I understood it all correctly, we will assume (just for
shits-n-giggles) that the ultimate speaker system will produce a
sound pressure level of 105 db from 1 HZ to 30k HZ, with
absolutely no deviance's.
And when seen on a graph of sorts that displays the
white/pink/whatever other color type of noise that is recorded
from that speaker as it is being put into the speaker, that
speaker will generate ALL those frequencies when mushed all
together AT that same pressure, when fed a certain amount of
power ( 1 watt) when measured at a certain distance( 1 meter).
That graph would look like a PERFECTLY straight line.
Like this:
105 DB ___________________________________
1 hz 30 kHz
Measured with one watt at one mile!...OK OK one meter. :)
Alas, the perfect speaker doesn't exist, so when you look at the
charts of some speaker makers, you will see that it has many dips
and rises in it's FREQUENCY RANGE, and the SPL, for the
frequencies it can handle and was possibly designed for.
Like this explains:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm
Meaning, in the example you gave, it's losing 3db at and even
more, below the range of 40hz, and the same again (and more) at
15khz and all above.
Meaning also, the "curve" is anything but a "flat line" for the
frequencies it can reproduce at a sustained spl output with the
wattage input used for testing and reproducing/measured.
But being as almost all speakers handle MUCH more than 1 watt,
those "shapes" change ever so slightly, and come into play to
ones advantage, as the amp you have starts "doing its thing", as
well as the "speaker" does, when fed like the hungry child it is.
You have tone controls to boost this or that, right?
Right!
That is NOT to say the particular speaker can not reproduce
those frequencies above and beyond its manufactures design
limits, it just means they might not do them as well with any
sort of efficiency before it says "I give up" and starts
distorting, causing Mr. Voice Coil to get very irritated and
decide to mate prematurely with Mr. Magnet.
There are laws against that sort of thing in many states. :/
Fusion marriage due to friction and heat between the metals is
NOT a good thing!
So to recap, Power from the amp isn't everything, when a well
designed speaker can reproduce vast amounts of the SPL you need
at the frequencies you desire.
Hence the beauty and efficiency of the well designed folded
horn enclosure for the LOWER tones. Bad new is, they tend to be
LARGE and heavy and need extra crossover electronics (and roadies
to carry them) to separate the POWER-o-de-bottom end, versus the
"tone" that needs to be dispersed in a like wise manner.
The lower frequencies are omni-directional, just remember that.
Hope that helps to clarify the mud.
mud
Panhead wrote:
<major snipage>
> Hope that helps to clarify the mud.
no,, I am still a confused mess ;-)
bass good,
mud
Tony Hwang
And there ain't perfect player or ears either!
Are you one of them?
The lower freq. is not omni directional, because it has longer wave
length, it just seems so. And nothing mentioned about acoustic
characteristics on the venue(where you're playing). The thing is, analog
devices involving human sense does not go hand in hand with theory.
That is why numerically superior amps/speakers sound like s!$t to our
ears some times. It's all collective subjective matters.
Most importantly have fun whatever you're playing with whatever means.
Tony
Gary Rosen
"Jón Fairbairn" <j...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> It means that if you put one Watt in you get 105 dB SPL if you are one
> metre away and the sound is between a bit more than 40Hz and a bit
> less than 15kHz. For a tone at 40Hz (which is higher than the
> fundamental of the lowest note you can play even on a four-string),
Not quite right - low E on a 4-string is 41.25 Hz. Otherwise this is
a good analysis of what happens at bass frequencies.
> the output is 3dB less (102 dB SPL). Below that the output will be
> even less. Similarly at 15kHz the output would be 102dB SPL, and
> reduce more the higher the tone is.
>
> I'm not sure how important it is that 40Hz will be 3dB down: much of
> the perception of bass notes is constructed from the harmonics rather
> than the fundamental. OTOH, the sensation in the guts and the shaking
> of the building come from the low frequencies. Note that you'll have a
> hard time finding something that doesn't roll off below 40 or 50Hz
> unless it's really big, simply because of the physics. A 40Hz
> soundwave is about 8m long. To produce that at a significant volume
> requires shifting a lot of air.
- Gary Rosen
for the mathematically inclined/anal retentive, here's my analysis of the
freq. of low E: 1) A above middle C = 440 Hz; 2) A down 4 octaves
= 440/(2^4) = 27.5; 3) low E on bass is a fifth above this ~= 27.5*(3/2)
= 41.25. Note that this note is *written* one octave above where it
actually is if you read bass clef in standard notation.
Low B on a 5-string is ~31 Hz.
Jón Fairbairn
> "Jón Fairbairn" <j...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > It means that if you put one Watt in you get 105 dB SPL if you are one
> > metre away and the sound is between a bit more than 40Hz and a bit
> > less than 15kHz. For a tone at 40Hz (which is higher than the
> > fundamental of the lowest note you can play even on a four-string),
>
> Not quite right - low E on a 4-string is 41.25 Hz.
Oops. You'd have to have tuned it a semitone flat for my statement to
be true. I should have calculated it rather than trying to
remember. Thanks for the correction.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Todd H.
> for the mathematically inclined/anal retentive,
You've got my attention. :-)
> here's my analysis of the freq. of low E: 1) A above middle C = 440
> Hz; 2) A down 4 octaves = 440/(2^4) = 27.5; 3) low E on bass is a
> fifth above this ~= 27.5*(3/2) = 41.25. Note that this note is
> *written* one octave above where it actually is if you read bass
> clef in standard notation. Low B on a 5-string is ~31 Hz.
Bitchin'. Thanks for this--never seen this before.
So frequency-wise, how is a perfect 5th defined? i.e. where does this
magical 1.5 come from?
Jón Fairbairn
That's kind of difficult to answer, because one answer would be that a
perfect fifth is defined as 1.5.
In more words, the consonant intervals are the first few harmonics of
a note:
ratio: 1 2 3 4 5 6
usual name: root octave fifth' octave' third'' fifth''
example: A a e a' c'# e'
frequency: 440 880 1320 1760 2200 2640
where ' indicates an octave above the named note.
So if you drop them back into one octave (by dividing by two to drop
one octave or four to drop two) you get
name: root third fifth octave
ratio: 1 5/4 3/2 2
Unfortunately this only works for Pythagorean tuning. For equal
temperament (necessary for keyboard instruments), the whole thing is
done by dividing the octave into 12 equal semitone steps, where a
major third comes out as 2**(4/12) = 1.25992... and a fifth as
2**(7/12) = 1.49831...
This makes low E 27.5*(2**(7/12)) = 41.2034 and low B 30.8677Hz
Actually, I regard this as one of the sadder facts about the universe:
you can't have intervals perfectly in tune and have only twelve notes
to the octave.
Gary: I've done my best, but please correct any mistakes!
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Andrew Cooke
http://pages.globetrotter.net/roule/temper.htm is a very good
explanation or temperaments (well, I learnt a lot from it).
Andrew
Todd H.
> bmi...@toddh.net (Todd H.) writes:
> >
> > So frequency-wise, how is a perfect 5th defined? i.e. where does this
> > magical 1.5 come from?
>
> That's kind of difficult to answer, because one answer would be that a
> perfect fifth is defined as 1.5.
>
> In more words, the consonant intervals are the first few harmonics of
> a note:
>
> ratio: 1 2 3 4 5 6
> usual name: root octave fifth' octave' third'' fifth''
> example: A a e a' c'# e'
> frequency: 440 880 1320 1760 2200 2640
>
> where ' indicates an octave above the named note.
Neato. :-)
> So if you drop them back into one octave (by dividing by two to drop
> one octave or four to drop two) you get
>
> name: root third fifth octave
> ratio: 1 5/4 3/2 2
>
> Unfortunately this only works for Pythagorean tuning. For equal
> temperament (necessary for keyboard instruments), the whole thing is
> done by dividing the octave into 12 equal semitone steps, where a
> major third comes out as 2**(4/12) = 1.25992... and a fifth as
> 2**(7/12) = 1.49831...
>
> This makes low E 27.5*(2**(7/12)) = 41.2034 and low B 30.8677Hz
Very cool. I've always wondered how this works, but have never been
so motivated as to search for it on the net. Thanks for the
education!
Michael Edelman
> ....
> So frequency-wise, how is a perfect 5th defined? i.e. where does this
> magical 1.5 come from?
Start with a fundamental tone- say 40 Hz- and start multiplying it to get
harmonics:
1x 40 Hz
2x 80 Hz
3x 120 Hz
...etc., and the musical result is:
1x 40 Hz Fundamental (First harmonic)
2x 80 Hz Octave (First overtone / Second harmonic)
3x 120 Hz Fifth (Second overtone / Third harmonic)
4x 160 Hz Octave (Third overtone / Fourth harmonic)
5x 200 Hz Third (Fourth overtone / Fifth harmonic)
6x 240 Hz Fifth (Fifth overtone / Sixth harmonic)
7x 280 Hz Octave (Sixth overtone / Seventh harmonic)
.....that's the overtone series. If you do a web search on "overtone
series" you'll find a lot of good illustrations
Matthew Tomich
: Ok this one has me confused.
Without getting into the technical end, here's a subjective analysis:
Two years ago I was using a Ampeg SVT-3 Pro and a GK RB800 as a backup.
Technically, the wattage on these amps isn't that much apart.
But the tonal characteristics made the GK 'cut' through alot more and make
it more audible when competing against two Marshalls at full wail. I (and
everybody else) could hear what I was playing far more when using the GK.
It definitely appeared to be louder. I truly think it's a function of the
way the midrange is presented. I think Peavey's have a strong midrange
honk that makes them very present and easy to hear. Considering how the
'modern bass sound' is scooped mids, I don't know if that's what everybody
wants, but if you want to hear yourself, it works well.
Now, you can get into "the 3PRO's 475 wattage rating is overstated" and
all these arguments, but I think it comes down to the tonal
characteristics and sound of the amp that makes you heard that makes you
sound 'loud'.
For example, I can *never* hear an SWR amp. I feel like no matter how
loud you turn them up, in rock bands at least, they get lost in the mix.
But I own the Ashdown 500 that somebody spoke of before, and while it's
wattage is high (576), because of its tonal characteristics (and maybe
because it has plenty of headroom,) you can always hear that thing!
Just an idea.
Matt
P.S. Just my opinions. Not to slag's anyone's equipment. What you like
and use and works for you is just as legit as anybody elses.
Merijn v/d Wijdeven
you should test the amp with a full band to see how it works. It depends on
the style aswell: My Hartke KB15 has plenty of room when playing with a Big
Band, but it lacks a lot when playing with a funkrock band. (the KB
(kickback) is 120 watts btw)
Merijn
"Matthew Tomich" <ma...@novia.net> schreef in bericht
news:3be2b070$0$52221$45be...@newscene.com...
Panhead
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:19:05 GMT, "Bryan Bartone" <sub...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Decibels are NOT a measure of loudness but of gain. 1 dBv = 0.775 Volts.
> >
> and here I was, going through life thinking audio decibels were a
> measurement of sound pressure...
You big silly. :/
Michael Edelman
Decibels are not a measure of sound pressure, of gain or any other specific
parameter. Decibels are a way of expressing ratios in logarithmic fashion.
Sound pressure levels can be expressed as a ratio compared to 0dB, which is
equivalent to an absolute pressure of 0.0002 microbar. Thus we can refer to
80dB Spl. Usually we also include a weighting, i.e., 80dBA Spl
Line levels can also be referenced to 0dB, which in this case is 1V. That's why
microphone sensitivity is generally expressed as a negative dB, since most
microphones put out far less than 1V.
dB Spl is a power dB, so it's equivalent to 20 log (actual pressure/.0002 uBar)
Line level dB is voltage, so it's 10 log (actual level in volts)
--
John Leonardini
guest is Michael Edelman <m...@spamcop.net> who is here to talk about
Re: 200W louder than 350W?????:
>Panhead wrote:
>
>> John \"Lynrd\" Leonardini wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:19:05 GMT, "Bryan Bartone" <sub...@home.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Decibels are NOT a measure of loudness but of gain. 1 dBv = 0.775 Volts.
>> > >
>> > and here I was, going through life thinking audio decibels were a
>> > measurement of sound pressure...
>
>Decibels are not a measure of sound pressure, of gain or any other specific
>parameter. Decibels are a way of expressing ratios in logarithmic fashion.
>
>Sound pressure levels can be expressed as a ratio compared to 0dB, which is
>equivalent to an absolute pressure of 0.0002 microbar. Thus we can refer to
>80dB Spl. Usually we also include a weighting, i.e., 80dBA Spl
>
>Line levels can also be referenced to 0dB, which in this case is 1V. That's why
>microphone sensitivity is generally expressed as a negative dB, since most
>microphones put out far less than 1V.
>
>dB Spl is a power dB, so it's equivalent to 20 log (actual pressure/.0002 uBar)
>
>Line level dB is voltage, so it's 10 log (actual level in volts)
You're making that up!
John Leonardini, MCSE
www.whiteboxcomputers.net
Mike Copeland
first amp is more sensitive it will have more gain that the new one. Power
ratings are just advertising, you need to check the overall gain. You did
provide a big clue when you mentioned the heat factor. Your first amp did
get warm, that means it is working hard. Whereas the new one did not,
therefore it is not working real hard. Assuming you had the volume on your
bass "wide open" the difference might be how well the new amp "hears" the
instrument. The gain is the ratio of the output to input
(goesouta/goesinta). The new amp may be able to produce more raw power it
needs more input to do it. If this is the case it is said to have less gain
than the old amp. It would be cheap to build an amp that puts out 500w if it
required 100w input. The gain is ~ 5:1. Your bass only puts out a few
milivolts (mV), your bass prolly puts out 30-50mV. If the new amp requires
100 mV to drive it to full power and your bass can only give it 50mV the amp
will never get hot cuz it can't work very hard with the input it is given.
Dig deeper and check the specs.
-Mike
"Merijn v/d Wijdeven" <mer...@dooby.myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:3be3f1a3$0$17...@news2.zeelandnet.nl...
pd
like
> > and use and works for you is just as legit as anybody elses.
Only after you are informed and have bought what you believe to be your
sound with $$ not being a factor. Otherwise what you "like" becomes only
what you have heard for how much funding you have.
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Mike Copeland" <mcop...@ATpobox.com> wrote in message
news:41fG7.27484$jP3.9...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
: You might also want to check the specs on the input sensitivity. If your
: >
: >
:
:
:
Andrew Cooke
Why shouldn't cost be a factor? Shouldn't your bass equipment be in
balance with the rest of your life? As far as I can see it is quite
*legitimate* to make your own compromise.
You're correct if you're posting in a world where everyone has a whole
pile of money and the only thing that matters in their life is their
bass. Maybe that's a good description of you, maybe that's why you have
a Zon, and maybe that's a good solution for other people like you. But
not everyone is like that. A lot of people have different priorities -
just because they're not like you doesn't make their views wrong.
Andrew
pd
like..." Typically they:
-CAN'T afford anything else, and are settling for something they "think"
they like
-CAN afford a decent setup and just don't know what else is out there, and
don't know all their options
-OR some combination of the above...Guitar Centers offer very little
selection for a bass that you can choose that "works for you."
Hell before I tried Zons, I thought Ibanez was the shit
Before I tried Ibanez, I thought Fender was the shit
Before I tried Eden, I thought my TNT130 Peavey was "what I liked."
After being able to attend NAMM and trying a dozen other brands of basses,
some even more expensive than Zons, and having tried a bunch of other rigs,
I can say with a lot of certainty that my Zon/Eden setup is what "works for
me." I also believe that although Zon/Eden are a little pricier than most
rigs, this setup gives you the most bang for the buck = VALUE.
It is funny b/c this group is supposed to be here to be informative to
share experiences, but when one person takes a stance on what they think is
a superior bass/amp setup, it is like, "You demon! How can you say that!"
You have to acknowledge that it is through external influences that you
become informed/curious enough to try new things. Otherwise you would be
gigging with that little plastic Sears electric guitar you got when you
were 5.
Others who haven't tried a lot of equipment, cannot really say with
certainty that their setup "works for them." What works for them is only
what they are "used to." True, sounds pretty arrogant, but unless you have
tried a bunch of stuff all across the price ranges, you can't really say
with credibility that your setup "works for you." That is just settling for
what you can get and justifying it.
: bass. Maybe that's a good description of you, maybe that's why you have
: a Zon, and maybe that's a good solution for other people like you.
Well, I happen to be single and have a great day job, and have no debt
whatsoever. HOWEVER, I don't get basses just b/c they are $$. I get what
"works for me." MTD basses are another 30% more than Zons, and aren't any
better, after actually trying them. So, no, my life doesn't revolve around
my basses, although I really look forward to the event when I get a new
one!
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Andrew Cooke" <and...@acooke.org> wrote in message
news:3BE9B96D...@acooke.org...
:
: Why shouldn't cost be a factor? Shouldn't your bass equipment be in
: > :
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
: >
:
Kurt Hesse
I've been lurking around here a while and am generally impressed that
other than a particularly obnoxious bung-hole who shall remain
un-named, everybody seems to get along quite well - amazing.
Now, the above is nearly correct, but not quite. I'll keep my comment
to what I know for sure about:
It is true that dB represents a scaled log (common log) of a ratio of
two quantities. What is incorrect is the scaling above. For a
voltage (or current) ratio:
dB = 20log(v1/v2) or 20log(i1/i2)
For a power ratio (at least electrically speaking):
dB = 10log(p1/p2)
I believe that the original usage was for power ratios and that the
"deci" portion of decibel is where the X10 scale factor comes from in
the above equation. Since power is a function of the square of
voltage or current, the exponent comes outside the log function and
you get the X20 scale factor...
Maybe that's helpful, maybe not.
Regards,
Kurt
Mark Latimour
I disagree almost completely with what you have said below for a fairly
simple reason. The statement you are arguing with is "what works for me (you
/ them etc)".
What is fundamental to that statement is the personal pronoun (be it me,
them etc). Now maybe you and I have different deffinitions of 'me' but my
understanding is that it can only incorporate your present level of
knowledge. Ie 'me' does not mean 'me' in a hypothetical world where you have
done lots of things that you havent done.
That being correct if someone says a 'Ibanez is what works best for me', you
cannot argue with it. You may say, if you had tried an MTD, you may find
that it works better for you. But, the reality is that what works for you
MUST be relative to what you have actually tried.
If you believe that opinions should not be relative to experience (what you
are implying below) then no one could have an opinion on anything!
regards,
Mark
"pd" <PADuncanS...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9mkG7.78766$D7.14...@news02.optonline.net...
Edward G.
>just because they're not like you doesn't make their views wrong.
>
>Andrew
Hey, not so fast there, pal.
Edward G.
'I swear there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell.'
John Leonardini
200W louder than 350W?????:
>>A lot of people have different priorities -
>>just because they're not like you doesn't make their views wrong.
>>
>>Andrew
>
>Hey, not so fast there, pal.
Yes, of course it does....
John Leonardini, MCSE
www.whiteboxcomputers.net
pd
hard to pin things down. "It all depends on what your definition of is,
is."
HOWEVER, Your statement:
: That being correct if someone says a 'Ibanez is what works best for me',
you
: cannot argue with it.
Yes I can. The CORRECT statement, is:
"For what I can afford, and what I have actually tried, Ibanez works for
me."
But that doesn't mean that in the whole spectrum of products concerning
bass guitars and amps, that this one works best for them. One would have to
try a whole bunch of equipment to make this conclusion accurately.
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Mark Latimour" <NOguybr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:TvpG7.312830$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: Pd,
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
Mark Latimour
"pd" <PADuncanS...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:xVwG7.89273$D7.15...@news02.optonline.net...
> Yes, I understand that in this day and age of moral relativism, that it is
> hard to pin things down. "It all depends on what your definition of is,
> is."
>
> HOWEVER, Your statement:
>
> : That being correct if someone says a 'Ibanez is what works best for me',
> you
> : cannot argue with it.
>
> Yes I can. The CORRECT statement, is:
>
> "For what I can afford, and what I have actually tried, Ibanez works for
> me."
>
> But that doesn't mean that in the whole spectrum of products concerning
> bass guitars and amps, that this one works best for them. One would have
to
> try a whole bunch of equipment to make this conclusion accurately.
>
My point is that 'For what I can afford, and what I have actually tried' is
always implicit when the statement 'for me' is used.
I know you hate 'relativism', but do some research into the use of personal
pronouns, their purpose is to make something relative to the person!
If you read your 'corrected' statement, it is just as correct if it is
written:
For what I can afford, and what I have actually tried, Ibanez works. ; or
Ibanez works for me.
Think about it, they mean exactly the same thing. Unless you have studied a
different version of the English language than I have!
regards,
Mark
pd
:
: Ibanez works for me.
Sorry man, I am just gonnna have to go ahead and disagree with you here on
this one (assume Bill Lumburgh voice from "Office Space.")
A lot of people say things work for them b/c they are afraid to try new
things, or they are comfortable, or they can't afford anything else, or
they haven't tried anything else. This statement then transforms from fact
(if they had tried a bunch of instruments, and had decent funding) to a
justification, or rationalization.
How many times have we seen people on this group want to comletely modify
their bass instead of just buying a new one that fits their taste? I bet if
you asked those people before hand, they would say their instrument "works
for them" even though they now want to modify the crap out of it.
Personally, I have TRIED to go out and find a bass better than what I play,
but so far have been unsuccessful.
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Mark Latimour" <NOguybr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:NcBG7.314517$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: See below
:
:
Neil Paben
I work at a financial software house and I am trying to work 'TPF reports"
into
the corporate lingo.news:yMBG7.91928$D7.16...@news02.optonline.net...
Rob Kloka
I love saying that to my workers while holding my coffee mug. We have no
choice anyways, it's just funnier that way.
--
-rob
O>
/(\)
^^
"Neil Paben" <npa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:I4HG7.6014$XJ4.3...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
pd
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Rob Kloka" <rklo...@XXwi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SaHG7.435670$ME2.50...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
: "ummm, yeeah, I'm gonna need you to come in this weekend."
: > > :
: > >
: > >
: >
: >
:
:
Mark Latimour
Im off to another city (Sydney, Australia) for a couple of weeks so wont be
on this NG for 2 weeks --- therefore I will have to let this argument go!
Tis a shame, because I was just firing up :)
cheers,
Mark
"pd" <PADuncanS...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:yMBG7.91928$D7.16...@news02.optonline.net...
Edward G.
>things, or they are comfortable, or they can't afford anything else, or
>they haven't tried anything else. This statement then transforms from fact
>(if they had tried a bunch of instruments, and had decent funding) to a
>justification, or rationalization.
And, y'know, sometimes, as Freud said, "A cigar is just a cigar." Is there
anything else riding on this other than a personal opinion?
Wes Rhoades
That movie rocks!!! I like when they take and show the fax machine a lesson.
Wes
Devon Maloy
> their bass instead of just buying a new one that fits their taste? I bet if
> you asked those people before hand, they would say their instrument "works
> for them" even though they now want to modify the crap out of it.
>
Yeah, so first I bought a 1998 Fender Jazz 5-string for $550.
Then I bought EMG Jazz Active pickups for $110.
I tried to install them myself, but I can't solder, so I just burned
myself pretty good. I re-soldered the old pickups back in, after some
soldering practice.
I called up EMG and asked which set of pickups would actually fit my
bass. They said None of their pickups would drop into place on the
Fender Jazz 5 American Standards.
I took it to Fender Certified Technician Dan McCarthy in North-Dallas,
TX,(214-724-3789) and said "Don't cut my bass, instead cut the
screw-mounts on the pickups."
Dan removed and then re-placed the screw mounts. He's an artist, he had
to change the diameter of the screw-heads of the mounting-screws. This
costed $140.
Dan used both 9 volt adapters that came with the set, so now my bass
puts out 18 volts, 18 times it's original voltage, especially when I
turn all the knobs on it to "eleven."
When I plug into my Eden, the Set-Level ("Sweet Spot") light flashes
continually, now.
Modify the crap out of your bass. Then, you will have a
custom-instrument, and you'll be more dedicated to perfecting your
technique on that instrument. It's all you. Why buy another bass when
you can only play one at a time?
-Devo
pd
: custom-instrument, and you'll be more dedicated to perfecting your
: technique on that instrument. It's all you. Why buy another bass when
: you can only play one at a time?
Why modify the crap out of your bass and spend that much time, $$, and
effort when you should be playing/practicing?
BTW: There is nothing "custom" about what you have done, i.e., replacing
the electronics in a mass-produced (usually) poorly constructed bass
guitar. You have succeeded in depreciating the value of your bass though.
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Devon Maloy" <Devon...@usa.alcatel.com> wrote in message
news:3BEC5BF4...@usa.alcatel.com...
: > How many times have we seen people on this group want to comletely
Andrew Cooke
pd wrote:
> : Modify the crap out of your bass. Then, you will have a
> : custom-instrument, and you'll be more dedicated to perfecting your
> : technique on that instrument. It's all you. Why buy another bass when
> : you can only play one at a time?
>
> Why modify the crap out of your bass and spend that much time, $$, and
> effort when you should be playing/practicing?
Because it gave him pleasure?
> BTW: There is nothing "custom" about what you have done, i.e., replacing
> the electronics in a mass-produced (usually) poorly constructed bass
> guitar. You have succeeded in depreciating the value of your bass though.
As I said before, not everyone is like you. Some people find that
changing things is rewarding. Other like counting their money. I'm
sitting here still fixing up a pre/headphone amp I'm making that has
cost me maybe 2-300 pounds in parts and, much more expensively, six
months of my free time. If I'd worked in that time I could have used
the money to buy any preamp I wanted (and a Zon too, I guess). But
doing it my way is fun. OK, the guy you're replying to didn't end up
doing the work himself, but he still worried about what to do, arranged
the stuff, tried to do it, guided others, became involved.
If/when I get this damn amp finished, it will be *my* sound. You (and a
whole bunch of other people) might think it sounds crap, but most things
someone puts a lot of time and effort into end up pleasing the maker.
That's not because they're poor deluded fools, it's because aesthetics
is, ultimately, subjective and hugely affected by the relationship you
have with an object.
You're clearly financially successful and technically competent with the
bass. More than that, a lot of people here really like your music.
You're a clear and guiding light to people that want to go down that
route. You don't need to keep pushing your approach - people that
admire you and want to emulate you can easily do so. For the rest of us
- the poor misguided fools who want to do something different - just
stop ramming the "one true way of Zon/Eden" down our throats, OK?
Andrew
pd
:
:
: pd wrote:
:
: > : Modify the crap out of your bass. Then, you will have a
: > : custom-instrument, and you'll be more dedicated to perfecting your
: > : technique on that instrument. It's all you. Why buy another bass
when
: > : you can only play one at a time?
: >
: > Why modify the crap out of your bass and spend that much time, $$, and
: > effort when you should be playing/practicing?
:
:
: Because it gave him pleasure?
We can only assume as much. Sounded like his post indicated that it was a
pain in the ass for him.
:
:
: > BTW: There is nothing "custom" about what you have done, i.e.,
replacing
: > the electronics in a mass-produced (usually) poorly constructed bass
: > guitar. You have succeeded in depreciating the value of your bass
though.
:
:
: As I said before, not everyone is like you. Some people find that
: changing things is rewarding.
As I said before, there was nothing custom about what he did.
: If/when I get this damn amp finished, it will be *my* sound. You (and a
: whole bunch of other people) might think it sounds crap, but most things
: someone puts a lot of time and effort into end up pleasing the maker.
See, that isn't really *your* sound. It was a sound that you put together,
yes, but that doesn't make it yours.
Say I were to build a bass from scratch...just b/c I complete the project
doesn't make it *my* sound. It just means I finished it. Someone like Zon
or Tobias take YEARS of research, and development to find what they believe
to be *their* sound. They literally design their instruments around the
tonality they desire, not merely just complete an instrument and slap their
name on it.
: That's not because they're poor deluded fools, it's because aesthetics
: is, ultimately, subjective and hugely affected by the relationship you
: have with an object.
:
For the rest of us
: - the poor misguided fools who want to do something different - just
: stop ramming the "one true way of Zon/Eden" down our throats, OK?
Sorry you take it that way. I intent my points to be otherwise...if you are
really interested in what I have to say, I suggest you re-read my posts,
less the chip on your shoulder.
:
: Andrew
:
mud
it's that Zon thing again. . . . . . . . . . .
yikes!
pd wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Say I were to build a bass from scratch...just b/c I complete the project
> doesn't make it *my* sound. It just means I finished it. Someone like Zon
> or Tobias take YEARS of research, and development to find what they believe
> to be *their* sound. They literally design their instruments around the
> tonality they desire, not merely just complete an instrument and slap their
> name on it.
>
<SNIP>
Andrew Cooke
> "Andrew Cooke" <and...@acooke.org> wrote in message
> : If/when I get this damn amp finished, it will be *my* sound. You (and a
> : whole bunch of other people) might think it sounds crap, but most things
> : someone puts a lot of time and effort into end up pleasing the maker.
>
> See, that isn't really *your* sound. It was a sound that you put together,
> yes, but that doesn't make it yours.
I didn't mean I owned a particular waveform. I meant that I would have
an emotional attachement to the amplifier, to what it produced.
> Say I were to build a bass from scratch...just b/c I complete the project
> doesn't make it *my* sound. It just means I finished it. Someone like Zon
> or Tobias take YEARS of research, and development to find what they believe
> to be *their* sound. They literally design their instruments around the
> tonality they desire, not merely just complete an instrument and slap their
> name on it.
And I'm sure that after all that work whoever makes them feels very
proud of them. What boggles my mind as much as I obviously boggle yours
is why you should be so attached to Zons. It wasn't your work.
Andrew
pd
: proud of them. What boggles my mind as much as I obviously boggle yours
: is why you should be so attached to Zons. It wasn't your work.
:
: Andrew
Ohh, that is an easy one.
When you get to try out say 25 basses, you will probably find at least one
that feels good, looks good, and sounds good. You are choosing one from
many.
When you make ONE bass, with no prior experience, or even very little
experience, it isn't that it is YOUR sound, it is just the one you are
settling for b/c you made it.
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Andrew Cooke" <and...@acooke.org> wrote in message
news:3BEDB63...@acooke.org...
:
Rod MacNeil
? ? ?
?
?: When you make ONE bass, with no prior
experience, or even very little
: experience, it isn't that it is YOUR sound, it is just the one you are
: settling for b/c you made it. ?
? ? ?
:
Andrew Cooke
pd wrote:
> : And I'm sure that after all that work whoever makes them feels very
> : proud of them. What boggles my mind as much as I obviously boggle yours
> : is why you should be so attached to Zons. It wasn't your work.
> :
> : Andrew
>
> Ohh, that is an easy one.
>
> When you get to try out say 25 basses, you will probably find at least one
> that feels good, looks good, and sounds good. You are choosing one from
> many.
But this is just a consumer thing - buying something expensive that
performs well. There was a thread earlier about cars and basses - maybe
it's easier to think about cars. Take three people and their cars:
- one has built the car himself, from a "kit" (you generally get a
chassis and engine from a scrap yard and the kit provides the rest).
They didn't design it, but no-one goes round saying "pah, that's not
original, someone else designed that - loads of people have done that".
Instead people are genuinely impressed and curious - it looks fun.
- one has taken an old car and customized it. People's responses tend
to depend on whether they think it was done with taste or not. You and
I won't think much of a fat exhaust pipe, smoked windows and huge bass
bin on an ancient Ford, but each to his own.
- one has bought a fairly expensive sports car (after trying a few out).
Now I'd find it odd if the guy who bought the off-the-shelf sports car
went round criticising the others. Sure, his car probably performs
better and has been designed by some expert people. I'm just guessing
things here - I guess he might criticise the style of custom job, for
example. But if he went up to everyone and lecturd them on how they
were stupid not to buy a BMW (say), like his, I think people would start
to laugh at him behind his back and think him a bit of a bore...
> When you make ONE bass, with no prior experience, or even very little
> experience, it isn't that it is YOUR sound, it is just the one you are
> settling for b/c you made it.
I guess I'll just repeat what I said last time. I'm talking about an
emotional bond between maker and object, not generating a particular sound.
I can't see why you don't grok this - you make music, don't you take
pride in that? Can't you imagine others taking pride in what they do?
I don't post Victor Wooten MP3s here and say how cool they are, and how
much better they are than your playing - yet you use Zon's basses to put
down other people's instruments. Your identification with someone
else's work is plain weird.
Andrew
pd
:
:
That is fine Andrew. That is b/c I know that there are other great basses
BESIDES Zon basses, but you have to pay more for them (most of the time
even more than a Zon). I also know that I don't say that Zons outperform
and are better than any bass on the market, although I do tout their
greatness in general. So, if everyone wants to *think* that is what I say,
that is ok by me, as I will be the one laughing at how their little
insecurities change they way they perceive what was actually said.
Now regarding Zon vs. Fender with a "custom" EMG mod (replacing stock EMG
pickups) vs. a bass that I spec'd the body, neck, pickups, pre-amp, and top
wood on, and a bass that is essentially made by hand, and not popped off a
mass production line somewhre in Mexico, I would say that I have the best
of all worlds don't I? Essentially, I get my basses hand made by someone
that knows what they are actually doing, but *I* get to spec exactly what I
want done on the bass. And I get them for a significantly reduced price
than say a Tobias, F-Bass, Fodera, etc. Pretty neat huh? Wait till you see
the bass I am having done at Zon right now. Even with "pd" on the 12th
fret.
So, what category would that fall in in the examples you give above? It
isn't off the shelf. It is an old fixer upper, and it isn't a kit. It is a
bass that I contribute in the design off, to my spec, that is built by
someone that knows what they are doing.
Touche my friend.
Cable Plukker
personal
^pronouns, their purpose is to make something relative ^to : the person!
^
^
Sorry. but Your Soul Just Died
The admirers among the upcoming generation of Ultimately Skeptical young
bassists.
The scorn the new breed heaps upon standard notations
("has no real-world applications" ..."depends entirely on goofball Medieval
Modes"),
Chordal Theory ("Simandel worm bait"), and the Double Bass Theory
("creationism for nerds") has become withering.
If only Nietzsche were alive! He would have relished every minute of it!
Recently I happened to be dating to a prominent California geologist,
and she told me:
"When I first went into geology, we all thought that in science you create
a
solid layer of findings, through experiment and careful investigation, and
then you add a second layer, like a second layer of bricks,
all very carefully, and so on. Occasionally some adventurous scientist
stacks the
bricks up in towers, and these towers turn out to be insubstantial
and they get torn down. You proceed again with the careful layers.
But we now realize that the very first layers aren t even resting on solid
ground.
They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air,
and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
I suddenly had a picture of the entire astonishing edifice collapsing
and modern man plunging headlong back into the primordial ooze.
He's floundering, sloshing about, gulping for air, frantically treading
ooze,
when he feels something huge and smooth swim beneath him and boost him up,
like some almighty dolphin.
He can't see it, but he's impressed.
He names it GOD.
Rob Kloka
--
-rob
O>
/(\)
^^
"Cable Plukker" <g.j....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oLCH7.108238$WW.64...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Pat
are just too much! You must be hell to play with. If I interviewed for a
bass player for my band you would last 5 min. and I would say NEXT! I have
the money to buy any bass on the market. It is the end result that counts.
Can you play and get along with the rest of the band? Do you have a good
sound that matches our style? Thats the name of the game. And that is the
way life is.
To answer his question the dif is in the harmonic distortion he had from his
first amp is filling out his volume, because of the harmonic content. The
new amp is clean ie: less harmonic output and thus less percieved volume.
The reason his first amp is geting hot too.
pd
someone who gives a shit.
PS: I am sure your bass player is someone you like to kick around isn't he?
That is why he has lasted more than 5 minutes, and you have a hit single
you have written and are getting a grammy for, right?
Fuck you very much.
--
_______________
pd
http://www.virtualitystudios.com
http://www.peterduncan.net
"Pat" <pla...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kSFJ7.30733$RI2.14861729@news2...
: What does any of this ZON talk have to do with this man's question? PD
:
:
whitebox
"Pat" <pla...@home.com> arrogantly wrote in message
news:kSFJ7.30733$RI2.14861729@news2...
>I have the money to buy any bass on the market.
No you don't.