BASS AMP 4-10 vs 1-15
Makoto
for a bass amp? How sound is different?
Thanks
Makoto
MDrive4
indoor spaces, 10s for everything else. Because of their higher bottom end,
10s tend to mix better. Because of their extremely low bottom end, 15s (and
18s, I s'pose) are virtually incomprehensible loud in a small place, but their
visceral impact is amazing. Soloists go for 10s for their superior
articulation, but bass ain't generally about articulation. The bottom-line
point is they're all good for something; it just depends on how you play and
what you want your part to accomplish within the music you play.
edvaard
Peter McFerrin
>
> Well, the guitar player in the band has a four 12" cabinet that is
> bigger and heavier than the four 10" standard bass cabinet. You mean to
> tell me that today's bass players are wimps!!!! Give me a break!!!!
>
Guitar cabinets have a whole lot less wood in them and are ALWAYS lower in
volume for their size, since they don't have to reproduce low frequencies.
A 4x12 bass cabinet, if properly designed, will crush that guitar player
flat. Guitar speakers also weigh next to nothing because they don't have to
handle any power.
Take two common high-end 2x12 combos, a Peavey 5150 guitar combo and an SWR
Silverado Special. The Silverado weighs 93 pounds, the 5150 85. However,
most of the Silverado's weight comes from the speakers and the enclosure.
The Peavey, having an all-tube head which weighs in between "horrifying" and
"godawful," gets most of its weight up top. (Having carried a
guitar-shredder friend's 5150 up and down auditorium steps, I know this to
be God's own truth.) Guitar enclosures weigh practically nothing for their
size.
I'm a big fan of the POWER PISTON concept. Yeah, you should flap a few pant
legs, but for modern styles, you should be heard. I grow weary of
old-timers using the term "real bass players." Music has evolved--deal with
it. It's not 1970 anymore and most of us bassists will be damned if we're
gonna push around a 150-pound refrigerator. God bless the good folks at
Ampeg for getting bassists to use tens, and the people of Eden and SWR for
making the 4x10 the dominant form factor. It's loud, proud, and ballsy.
Rich Koerner
First let me give some background on the history of the use of speakers
that have been used for bass instruments.
If you were to take a 8", 10", 12", 15", and am 18" speaker and place
them cone side up on a table. Then, with them all hooked up to the same
amp, you were to played a bass through them all at the same time at a
low volume, you would find out something very interesting.
Let's say that while you were playing the open "E" string, and you
listened to what you heard come from each speaker. As you walked from
speaker to speaker, you would notice that as the cones got larger, you
heard more bass coming from it. Something like the size of the drums
used in a drum kit. The bigger the drum, the lower the note/pitch. The
smaller the drum, the higher the note/pitch.
So it is with speakers. That is why you don't get much bass from a
small 10" speaker like that which is used in a Super Reverb. It's a
Mother Nature Thing!!!!!!!
Now, today we in our arrogance, we decided to turn those 10" speakers
into nothing more than Power Pistons!!!!! I call it the PPP. The
Power Piston Principle!
Instead of having a thin paper cone that flexed and produced some neat
tones, we made the paper ridge and as thick as cardboard, or something
like the Hartke Pie Tins.
To that we added big diameter voice coils that sit on thick forms that
will take the Heat generated from the tons of power we are going to
throw at it. Now we have the 10" power piston!!!!
The resulting sound is not the same as the mother nature way of doing
things. The power piston delivers the bass IN YOUR FACE off the cones
by shear force. There is little help of low frequency resonance from
the speaker cabinet because of its small size.
Hence, there is no Fat, Thick, Low on the Floor, Smooth Bass Tones that
roll around the room to be had.
That would be what the classic "W" bin with its 18" speaker was famous
for, and would throw around the room without the need of the tons of
power the Power Pistons Require for equal performance.
Remember the 3 db rule still applies here too!!!! It get 3 db over an
Acoustic 360 you had to have 400 watts or better.
Ahhhhh, then come the hype of the surface area of four 10" vs one 15"
cab. Well now, we seem to have now a bigger speaker that now is in the
wrong sized box for Mother Nature to be of any help with that 15"
speaker. There is simply not enough cu. ft. of air space in side the
cabinet for a 40 Hz system resonance, let alone an 80 Hz system
resonance.
It's still like trying to make a snare drum sound like a kick drum by
increasing the diameter and putting on 20" kick drum heads, and leaving
only 10" shell to separate the heads. Yup, it's not going to come close
to the sound of a kick drum that is 20 x 22.
So now, with this single 15" power piston that will be a little softer
and not as IN YOUR FACE as the four 10" power pistons, we can now see
clearly how the surface area and the numbers of power pistons compare.
By the numbers, the advantage goes to the four 10"s. However, it's IN
YOU FACE!!
For a Less IN YOUR FACE thing, you will blow up a lot more 15"s trying
to keep up with the four 10"s SPL. You need more than one 15" in the
properly designed speaker cabinet for that. One where MOTHER NATURE
RULES!!!!!
An old Sunn 2000-S cabinet for example.
God, I can hear the comments and complaints on that one right now.
But, IT'S TOO BIG!!!!
My car ain't big enough!
I can't carry something like that!
IT'S TOO BIG!!!
IT'S TOO HEAVY!!!
Well, the guitar player in the band has a four 12" cabinet that is
bigger and heavier than the four 10" standard bass cabinet. You mean to
tell me that today's bass players are wimps!!!! Give me a break!!!!
I'd take a Four 12" Marshall cabinet with four EV's or JBL's in a heart
beat compared to the standard four 10" cabs.
But then I remember the days when I had played through four 8x10"s SVT
cabinets with two SVT heads. Or Sunn's and "W" bins along for the
lows.
Those were the days when bass players were BASS PLAYERS!!!!!!
LOL,.. and bands were BANDS, That ROCKED The HOUSE!!!!!
The BASS should be FELT on the bottom end, and Heard on the top end.
My Point,... you can't give me either and me *not* be in your face.
I find that to be obnoxious in a band's sound.
Mother Nature Rules when it comes to BASS!!!!!
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
Service * Repair * Modifications * Design Engineering
Live Sound & Studio Production
Peter Duncan
First. No cabinet is just the driver alone. It isn't only the surface area
of the cone that matters, but also how much air a cabinet in it's totality
can move. Cabinet design is also EXTREMELY important in bass response.
Several people have written me about my recommendations of an cabinet that
can do it all. I recommend the Eden D210XLT b/c if its quick response, but
also cause of its uncanny lows.
I had a Peavey TNT 130 before this, 15" inch BW speaker. I can tell you that
the D210XLT (2x10's) throws WAY more bass than the 15". So, it isn't speaker
size alone. Additionally, call me insane, but I believe that the D210XLT
throws more bass than even the D410XLT (so, this blows away the theory of
more speakers = more surface area, etc.) something in the way the cabinets
of the D210XLT's are tuned. Certainly, if I bought another D210XLT as an
extension cabinet, I would have plenty-o-bass for even the largest of venues
as a stage monitor system.
The cabinet shape of the Edens are very deep. I don't really know of any
other cabinet that is this deep. The dual air dams also are a key reason
they seem bassy. If you have a 15 or an 18 or a 12, with a shallow cabinet,
and no adequate room for air displacement, you will not get as good bass
reponse. Now, if you had an 18, and a VERY deep cabinet, and ample ways to
move air, then you would have something. But...there is more to it than just
cabinet shape, and surface area of the drivers. There is also what
frequencies the cabinet is tuned to deliver.
Any halfway experienced bassist knows that it isn't the 40hz and below
frequencies that make a bass sound come alive and sound "bassy." Frequencies
around 100, 250 hz are more where the sweet spot of "perceived" bass lie.
So, it is how good a cabinet can deliver frequencies around this area that
make the difference. And, 10" cones with a properly tuned cabinet can work
wonders here. I am not saying that 15's or 18's won't help you out, but
recall that the bigger the speaker, the less definition and recovery time
from note to note (resolution). SO, the solution is to get a properly tuned
cabinet with drivers that are rigged with fast recovery times (why people
are so adamant about the Eden sound of the 2x10's.)
My .02
pd
--
"Rich Koerner" <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote in message
news:38C5CDBE...@timeelect.com...
Miles O'Neal
> I'm a big fan of the POWER PISTON concept. Yeah, you should flap a few pant
> legs, but for modern styles, you should be heard. I grow weary of
> old-timers using the term "real bass players." Music has evolved--deal with
> it. It's not 1970 anymore and most of us bassists will be damned if we're
> gonna push around a 150-pound refrigerator. God bless the good folks at
> Ampeg for getting bassists to use tens, and the people of Eden and SWR for
> making the 4x10 the dominant form factor. It's loud, proud, and ballsy.
Maybe you should try 6 8s? or 8 6s? (or 40 1s). Just go get some
Bose 800s.
Sure, there's new music that the Hartkes and such work fine for, But
there's plenty of music that they don't work that well for as well.
A dual 15 cab doesn't have to be 150 pounds. For that matter, juist
do like the guitar players should do. Get a smaller cab (say, 1 15)
or maybe a set (1 15, 2 12s or whatever) and mic it. Let the sound
guys worry about the heavy stuff.
Kevin Prosch's band runs a sound system with a layer of 18s under the
stage. The kick drum will flatten you like paper. The bass will pick
you up and dance you whether you want to be danced or not. I don;t
know what the bass player's rig was, but I didn't see anything like a
stack of dual 15s - or a Hartke clone.
-Miles
Rich Koerner
Peter McFerrin wrote:
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
> >
> > Well, the guitar player in the band has a four 12" cabinet that is
> > bigger and heavier than the four 10" standard bass cabinet. You mean to
> > tell me that today's bass players are wimps!!!! Give me a break!!!!
> >
>
> Guitar cabinets have a whole lot less wood in them and are ALWAYS lower in
> volume for their size, since they don't have to reproduce low frequencies.
Guess what! That Marshall four 12 has a lower cabinet resonant
Frequency than the Eden or SWR four 10" cab does. It is evidenced by the
Guitars that are tuned down to "D" with the sub harmonic effect on them
that wipes out those four 10" bass cabs. Guitar players in Metal Bands
do that everyday of the week to the bass players. Where have you been.
Think about this for a second.
That guitar player is on the same note as the bass player, and he cuts
the mix!
The bass player doesn't!!!!!
> A 4x12 bass cabinet, if properly designed, will crush that guitar player
> flat. Guitar speakers also weigh next to nothing because they don't have to
> handle any power.
You missed my point!!!
That four 12 Marshall cab with good bass speakers WILL CRUSH Your Four
10" cabs for Bass Response!!!!
Think about it. More cone surface area. Lower cabinet resonant
frequency!!!
Mother Nature Rules, You Don't!!!!!!
> Take two common high-end 2x12 combos, a Peavey 5150 guitar combo and an SWR
> Silverado Special. The Silverado weighs 93 pounds, the 5150 85. However,
> most of the Silverado's weight comes from the speakers and the enclosure.
> The Peavey, having an all-tube head which weighs in between "horrifying" and
> "godawful," gets most of its weight up top. (Having carried a
> guitar-shredder friend's 5150 up and down auditorium steps, I know this to
> be God's own truth.) Guitar enclosures weigh practically nothing for their
> size.
Not at all relevant, and it's a poor example of comparison.
Those things are toys.
> I'm a big fan of the POWER PISTON concept. Yeah, you should flap a few pant
> legs, but for modern styles, you should be heard. I grow weary of
> old-timers using the term "real bass players."
Don't try to make it an old vs new thing, when it is really a good vs
bad thing.
I guess some players get that a lot. There must be a valid reason for
that.
Here is an old time bass hero of mine!
http://www.carolkaye.com
Or, for some light reading on James Jamerson.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/book-reviews/0881888826/top100/103-4899831-7554212
> Music has evolved--deal with it.
You are putting me on. Right!
Evolved to what!!!!
I, and many others would call some of what you call music,... NOISE!!!!
Then *you*, are telling *me*, To DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<I know this is a troll, but,.... I'll go for it.>
OK, for example, why then was Woodstock 99 such a Musical flop!!
There was no ground breaking artists with musical talent that presented
any sounds that were not re-cycled sounds we all had heard before. At
Woodstock 69 a lot of the musical standards for years were set. Not so
at Woodstock 99!!!! There was none of that.
You can't Point to one new musical standard to come out of Woodstock 99
that is note worthy in the Musical History Books!!!!!
There was more bad non-music than there was MUSIC.
Where was the guitar playing talent.
Where was the bass playing talent.
Where was the drum playing talent.
Where was the Singing talent.
Where was the Song Writing talent.
Where was the Talent.
Where was the MUSIC!!!
It was there at Headstock 69!!
It wasn't at Headstock 99!!!
That, is in the Headstock 99 music history books!
> It's not 1970 anymore and most of us bassists will be damned if we're
> gonna push around a 150-pound refrigerator.
More excuses delivered with the arrogance of youth!!
First, they did not weigh 150 lbs. More like 80-110 lbs tops.
But then most guys could bench press that in high school.
Next, ever heard of wheels and hand trucks.
There are guys who still move B3's and leslies that way by themselves
today.
> God bless the good folks at
> Ampeg for getting bassists to use tens,
Yup, all 8 of them in one cabinet.
Let's include Sunn with the 2000-S and the most killer two 15" cabinet
ever!
Then there is the Acoustic Amps than Jaco Pastorius used.
But then the old Ampeg B-18 would be too much to carry for today's
player too.
And, the list of old time players and their amps goes on.
> and the people of Eden and SWR for
> making the 4x10 the dominant form factor. It's loud, proud, and ballsy.
Loud, Proud, and Ballsy is just an Attitude Thing.
Good music is not built on Attitude.
It's the other way around.
Now that you can put *THAT* into the Woodstock 99 Musical History Books.
Woodstock 99 was Loud, Proud, and Ballsy with no memorable musical
sounds or musical talent!! Just a pile of Attitude!!!!! All SHOW and
No Go!!!!
Did the CD's of Woodstock 99 out sell those of Woodstock 69 in their
first months after their release?
No one cares to spend on red cent for that Woodstock 99 CD set because
the bulk of the music was so pitiful!!! We all would rather spend it on
a CD that has Real Music HISTORY on it. Like that which took place at
Woodstock 69!!!
You have to remember that their are those of us out here who Know Music,
are Musically Schooled, and that attitude BS doesn't fool any of us one
bit.
From what you said before, you seem to dislike the old timers who have
learned to server the music, and in so doing, made great music in the
past. Our music was in the listeners ears. Today, it's ATTITUDE IN
YOUR FACE with noise called music!!!
Most of us would sooner walk bare foot across a bed of hot coals than
deal with that Adolescent ATTITUDE BS!!!
Sorry, it's just how it is.
Kevin McCarthy
That was an odd post... You seem to have some issues with Woodstock 99. You
ranted about it for half of the post, and *you* are the one who brought it up.
I really doubt that you will find very many people in this newsgroup who
got too excited about Woodstock '99. It's only redeeming quality is that they
let moe. play there. Otherwise it was a farce as all Woodstocks have been and
will be, except the original.
As far as cabinet of choice... I'll put the bass response of my Acme Low B-4
4x10 cab against pretty much any 15" speaker... If you design the cabinet
properly, 10" speakers will do fine. There are good 4x10 speakers, and there
are bad ones. There are good 15" speakers, and there are bad ones. You CAN'T
make a blanket statement that ALL 4x10 cabinets are out performed by the
15" and 18" speakers. Before I got the Acme, I would have agreed that for
deep clear lows, you have to add a bigger speaker to the 10's, but I don't
think so anymore. Money spent on an additional 18" speaker would be a waste
of money, the Acme 4x10s make as much bass as any 18 I've heard.
And I WILL NOT believe that a Marshall 4x12 guitar cabinet is capable of
producing clear punchy 31 hz Low B string bass. It's just not going to happen.
The reason that the guitar tends to cut through the bass guitar is that mid
range and high end frequencies are easier to hear and consequently cut through
the mix. Try hooking up an sine wave generator to the Marshall and send it,
oh... say 40Hz. Turn it up loud, and see how much bass you get, measure pant
leg flap, what have you. Then come over to my house and we'll do it to my
bass rig and see how well my 4x10 cabinet performs with pure 40Hz sine wave.
I guarantee you'll have to re-think your statements about 4x10 cabinets.
-Kevin
Michael Nelson
->
->That was an odd post... You seem to have some issues with Woodstock 99. You
->ranted about it for half of the post, and *you* are the one who brought it up.
I pretty much consider any post with over 4,000 exclamation points to be
somewhat suspect and generally ignore them. ;-)
Michael
--
Michael Nelson San Francisco, CA nel...@imat.com
Matthew
>Guess what! That Marshall four 12 has a lower cabinet resonant
>Frequency than the Eden or SWR four 10" cab does.
>
about.
The Marshall speakers begin with a much higher resonant frequancy than the
Eden or SWR speakers (typically over 60 hz)---whatever size sealed cabinet
you put them in only makes the resonance higher. "Mother Nature"
The Eden and SWR woofers have free-air resonances below 50 hz. The Eden
10-inch XL woofers actually measure below 40 hz. The cabinets are vented and
tuned below 50 hz. They make flat bass about an octave lower than the
Marshall cabs. And the Eden/SWR woofers have linear excursions (Xmax) about
5-10 times higher than the 12-inch Celestions (or even EV or JBL guitar
speakers). They will move much more air at low frequencies than the Marshall
guitar cabinets.
Matthew Honnert
Director of Engineering
Alumapro Advanced Audio Products
Steve Burgess
Rich Koerner wrote in message <38C5CDBE...@timeelect.com>...
>
>
>Makoto wrote:
>>
>> In general, which of 4x 10" and 1 x 15" is better
>> for a bass amp? How sound is different?
I really like the sound of a mixture of the 2....
a single 15" with a 2 x 10" cabinet sounds great....
C'ya
Steve
remove x's to reply by mail
http://www.onlinerock.com/musicians/zaghost/
ICQ 3839381
Running Intel Free
Danny Russell
Rich Koerner wrote:
>
> Think about it. More cone surface area. Lower cabinet resonant
> frequency!!!
>
> Mother Nature Rules, You Don't!!!!!!
My prediction is that someone is going to spend some time and R&D a
specially designed 4x12 bass cab that is going to set the new
standard for bass sounds into the 21'st century. The 4x12 cab is
the V-8 engine of the music world. It's just inherently a superior
(I'm tempted to say "the perfect") machine for big onstage sound.
-Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
Peter McFerrin
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
> >
> > Think about it. More cone surface area. Lower cabinet resonant
> > frequency!!!
> >
> > Mother Nature Rules, You Don't!!!!!!
>
> specially designed 4x12 bass cab that is going to set the new
> standard for bass sounds into the 21'st century. The 4x12 cab is
> the V-8 engine of the music world. It's just inherently a superior
> (I'm tempted to say "the perfect") machine for big onstage sound.
> -Danny
>
> --
> <<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
It's also hard as hell on your back.
If you need *that* much sound, just plug into the damn PA.
Rich Koerner
Kevin McCarthy wrote:
>
> That was an odd post... You seem to have some issues with Woodstock 99. You
> ranted about it for half of the post, and *you* are the one who brought it up.
>
> I really doubt that you will find very many people in this newsgroup who
> got too excited about Woodstock '99. It's only redeeming quality is that they
> let moe. play there. Otherwise it was a farce as all Woodstocks have been and
> will be, except the original.
>
> As far as cabinet of choice... I'll put the bass response of my Acme Low B-4
> 4x10 cab against pretty much any 15" speaker... If you design the cabinet
> properly, 10" speakers will do fine. There are good 4x10 speakers, and there
> are bad ones. There are good 15" speakers, and there are bad ones. You CAN'T
> make a blanket statement that ALL 4x10 cabinets are out performed by the
> 15" and 18" speakers. Before I got the Acme, I would have agreed that for
> deep clear lows, you have to add a bigger speaker to the 10's, but I don't
> think so anymore. Money spent on an additional 18" speaker would be a waste
> of money, the Acme 4x10s make as much bass as any 18 I've heard.
>
> And I WILL NOT believe that a Marshall 4x12 guitar cabinet is capable of
> producing clear punchy 31 hz Low B string bass.
Never said that at all.
> It's just not going to happen.
> The reason that the guitar tends to cut through the bass guitar is that mid
> range and high end frequencies are easier to hear and consequently cut through
> the mix. Try hooking up an sine wave generator to the Marshall and send it,
> oh... say 40Hz.
Compare those two cabinets with a 10 watt input. We are not talking SPL
here. It's low frequency drop out that I'm referring to.
> Turn it up loud, and see how much bass you get, measure pant
> leg flap, what have you.
If I were going to get into a pant leg flap contest with you I use a 5KW
Crown on a McCauley or EAW cabinet and send that pitiful four 10" cab
into the middle of next week!!!!!!!!
But that would still not address the issue of the cabinet's low
frequency resonance design.
> Then come over to my house and we'll do it to my
> bass rig and see how well my 4x10 cabinet performs with pure 40Hz sine wave.
> I guarantee you'll have to re-think your statements about 4x10 cabinets.
The speaker cabinet with the largest volume (not SPL), but cu.ft.of air
contained within, has the lowest resonant frequency. Smaller boxes are
not going to lower the low frequency response. Going smaller only
raises it.
Take your yard stick, measure the speaker cabinet dimensions, then do
the math!
It's basic science and math. Side x Side x Side = Volume.
The cabinet with the larger Volume has a lower *system* resonant
frequency.
Mother Nature Wins every time!
Hey, you don't believe me.
Check it out in any of the good books on Acoustics in any library.
Then get back to me and show me I'm wrong.
Kevin McCarthy
I don't know that much about speaker design, or enclosure design or any of
this stuff, so I don't want to get into a heated debate over this, I'd loose
even if I was right....
But... I'm relatively sure that shape has something to do with resonant
frequency too. Does it not? Or are all boxes that have the same volume the
same? How abour sealed vs. ported enclosures? How about placement and size of
the ports? How about baffles inside the box? Or placement of the actual
speaker cones in the box? It sure seems to me that there are a LOT of
variables to deal with besides cone surface area and enclosure volume.
I still don't quite understand the "Mother Nature Wins everytime!" stuff
you keep telling us... What's natural about an electromagnetic speaker
enclosure anyway? Why is a 18" speaker that produces 30 Hz bass any more
"natural" than a 4x10" enclosure that can produce the same frequency at
the same SPL? Just because it takes a whole lot more design effort to build
a 4x10 that sounds good and can make decent bass than it does to make an 18"
enclosure that makes decent bass?
-Kevin
In alt.guitar.bass Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
> Kevin McCarthy wrote:
>>
>> That was an odd post... You seem to have some issues with Woodstock 99. You
>> ranted about it for half of the post, and *you* are the one who brought it up.
>>
>> I really doubt that you will find very many people in this newsgroup who
>> got too excited about Woodstock '99. It's only redeeming quality is that they
>> let moe. play there. Otherwise it was a farce as all Woodstocks have been and
>> will be, except the original.
>>
>> As far as cabinet of choice... I'll put the bass response of my Acme Low B-4
>> 4x10 cab against pretty much any 15" speaker... If you design the cabinet
>> properly, 10" speakers will do fine. There are good 4x10 speakers, and there
>> are bad ones. There are good 15" speakers, and there are bad ones. You CAN'T
>> make a blanket statement that ALL 4x10 cabinets are out performed by the
>> 15" and 18" speakers. Before I got the Acme, I would have agreed that for
>> deep clear lows, you have to add a bigger speaker to the 10's, but I don't
>> think so anymore. Money spent on an additional 18" speaker would be a waste
>> of money, the Acme 4x10s make as much bass as any 18 I've heard.
>>
>> And I WILL NOT believe that a Marshall 4x12 guitar cabinet is capable of
>> producing clear punchy 31 hz Low B string bass.
> Never said that at all.
>> It's just not going to happen.
>> The reason that the guitar tends to cut through the bass guitar is that mid
>> range and high end frequencies are easier to hear and consequently cut through
>> the mix. Try hooking up an sine wave generator to the Marshall and send it,
>> oh... say 40Hz.
> Compare those two cabinets with a 10 watt input. We are not talking SPL
> here. It's low frequency drop out that I'm referring to.
>> Turn it up loud, and see how much bass you get, measure pant
>> leg flap, what have you.
> If I were going to get into a pant leg flap contest with you I use a 5KW
> Crown on a McCauley or EAW cabinet and send that pitiful four 10" cab
> into the middle of next week!!!!!!!!
> But that would still not address the issue of the cabinet's low
> frequency resonance design.
>> Then come over to my house and we'll do it to my
>> bass rig and see how well my 4x10 cabinet performs with pure 40Hz sine wave.
>> I guarantee you'll have to re-think your statements about 4x10 cabinets.
> The speaker cabinet with the largest volume (not SPL), but cu.ft.of air
> contained within, has the lowest resonant frequency. Smaller boxes are
> not going to lower the low frequency response. Going smaller only
> raises it.
> Take your yard stick, measure the speaker cabinet dimensions, then do
> the math!
> It's basic science and math. Side x Side x Side = Volume.
> The cabinet with the larger Volume has a lower *system* resonant
> frequency.
> Mother Nature Wins every time!
> Hey, you don't believe me.
> Check it out in any of the good books on Acoustics in any library.
> Then get back to me and show me I'm wrong.
Aimish Wallace
can't escape the laws of Physics. Everything Rich has said is correct. I've played
around with cabinet designs a lot and studied Physics at the University level-
basically, you can build a cabinet that has great frequency response OR one that is
efficient. Building one that has both is not easy without having a huge cabinet and
high cost speakers! Cabinet design is an interesting topic- check it out, it can be
pretty fascinating! Check out Len Moskowitz's (hope I spelled that right) "Small
Bottom" cabinet design- very interesting and he talks about a lot of the basic
principles behind cabinet design.
Regards,
Aimish Wallace
General Manager
Griffiths Guitar Works
http://www.griffiths.nfld.net
Kevin McCarthy wrote:
> I don't know that much about speaker design, or enclosure design or any of
> this stuff, so I don't want to get into a heated debate over this, I'd loose
> even if I was right....
>
> But... I'm relatively sure that shape has something to do with resonant
> frequency too. Does it not? Or are all boxes that have the same volume the
> same? How abour sealed vs. ported enclosures? How about placement and size of
> the ports? How about baffles inside the box? Or placement of the actual
> speaker cones in the box? It sure seems to me that there are a LOT of
> variables to deal with besides cone surface area and enclosure volume.
>
> I still don't quite understand the "Mother Nature Wins everytime!" stuff
> you keep telling us... What's natural about an electromagnetic speaker
> enclosure anyway? Why is a 18" speaker that produces 30 Hz bass any more
> "natural" than a 4x10" enclosure that can produce the same frequency at
> the same SPL? Just because it takes a whole lot more design effort to build
> a 4x10 that sounds good and can make decent bass than it does to make an 18"
> enclosure that makes decent bass?
>
> -Kevin
>
> In alt.guitar.bass Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
>
> > Kevin McCarthy wrote:
> >>
> >> That was an odd post... You seem to have some issues with Woodstock 99. You
> >> ranted about it for half of the post, and *you* are the one who brought it up.
> >>
> >> I really doubt that you will find very many people in this newsgroup who
> >> got too excited about Woodstock '99. It's only redeeming quality is that they
> >> let moe. play there. Otherwise it was a farce as all Woodstocks have been and
> >> will be, except the original.
> >>
> >> As far as cabinet of choice... I'll put the bass response of my Acme Low B-4
> >> 4x10 cab against pretty much any 15" speaker... If you design the cabinet
> >> properly, 10" speakers will do fine. There are good 4x10 speakers, and there
> >> are bad ones. There are good 15" speakers, and there are bad ones. You CAN'T
> >> make a blanket statement that ALL 4x10 cabinets are out performed by the
> >> 15" and 18" speakers. Before I got the Acme, I would have agreed that for
> >> deep clear lows, you have to add a bigger speaker to the 10's, but I don't
> >> think so anymore. Money spent on an additional 18" speaker would be a waste
> >> of money, the Acme 4x10s make as much bass as any 18 I've heard.
> >>
> >> And I WILL NOT believe that a Marshall 4x12 guitar cabinet is capable of
> >> producing clear punchy 31 hz Low B string bass.
>
> > Never said that at all.
>
> >> It's just not going to happen.
> >> The reason that the guitar tends to cut through the bass guitar is that mid
> >> range and high end frequencies are easier to hear and consequently cut through
> >> the mix. Try hooking up an sine wave generator to the Marshall and send it,
> >> oh... say 40Hz.
>
> > Compare those two cabinets with a 10 watt input. We are not talking SPL
> > here. It's low frequency drop out that I'm referring to.
>
> >> Turn it up loud, and see how much bass you get, measure pant
> >> leg flap, what have you.
>
> > If I were going to get into a pant leg flap contest with you I use a 5KW
> > Crown on a McCauley or EAW cabinet and send that pitiful four 10" cab
> > into the middle of next week!!!!!!!!
>
> > But that would still not address the issue of the cabinet's low
> > frequency resonance design.
>
> >> Then come over to my house and we'll do it to my
> >> bass rig and see how well my 4x10 cabinet performs with pure 40Hz sine wave.
> >> I guarantee you'll have to re-think your statements about 4x10 cabinets.
>
> > The speaker cabinet with the largest volume (not SPL), but cu.ft.of air
> > contained within, has the lowest resonant frequency. Smaller boxes are
> > not going to lower the low frequency response. Going smaller only
> > raises it.
>
> > Take your yard stick, measure the speaker cabinet dimensions, then do
> > the math!
>
> > It's basic science and math. Side x Side x Side = Volume.
>
> > The cabinet with the larger Volume has a lower *system* resonant
> > frequency.
>
> > Mother Nature Wins every time!
>
> > Hey, you don't believe me.
>
> > Check it out in any of the good books on Acoustics in any library.
>
> > Then get back to me and show me I'm wrong.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Rich Koerner,
> > Time Electronics.
> > http://www.timeelect.com
>
> > Service * Repair * Modifications * Design Engineering
> > Live Sound & Studio Production
--
Wämp
Any of you guys ever been in or near a REAL organ, like found in the big cathedrals,
when they go? The fluid in your body has no choice were or when it goes. No
substitute for the real thing. Chris
Rich Koerner wrote:
> Kevin McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > That was an odd post... You seem to have some issues with Woodstock 99. You
> > ranted about it for half of the post, and *you* are the one who brought it up.
> >
> > I really doubt that you will find very many people in this newsgroup who
> > got too excited about Woodstock '99. It's only redeeming quality is that they
> > let moe. play there. Otherwise it was a farce as all Woodstocks have been and
> > will be, except the original.
> >
> > As far as cabinet of choice... I'll put the bass response of my Acme Low B-4
> > 4x10 cab against pretty much any 15" speaker... If you design the cabinet
> > properly, 10" speakers will do fine. There are good 4x10 speakers, and there
> > are bad ones. There are good 15" speakers, and there are bad ones. You CAN'T
> > make a blanket statement that ALL 4x10 cabinets are out performed by the
> > 15" and 18" speakers. Before I got the Acme, I would have agreed that for
> > deep clear lows, you have to add a bigger speaker to the 10's, but I don't
> > think so anymore. Money spent on an additional 18" speaker would be a waste
> > of money, the Acme 4x10s make as much bass as any 18 I've heard.
> >
> > And I WILL NOT believe that a Marshall 4x12 guitar cabinet is capable of
> > producing clear punchy 31 hz Low B string bass.
>
> Never said that at all.
>
> > It's just not going to happen.
> > The reason that the guitar tends to cut through the bass guitar is that mid
> > range and high end frequencies are easier to hear and consequently cut through
> > the mix. Try hooking up an sine wave generator to the Marshall and send it,
> > oh... say 40Hz.
>
> Compare those two cabinets with a 10 watt input. We are not talking SPL
> here. It's low frequency drop out that I'm referring to.
>
> > Turn it up loud, and see how much bass you get, measure pant
> > leg flap, what have you.
>
> If I were going to get into a pant leg flap contest with you I use a 5KW
> Crown on a McCauley or EAW cabinet and send that pitiful four 10" cab
> into the middle of next week!!!!!!!!
>
> But that would still not address the issue of the cabinet's low
> frequency resonance design.
>
> > Then come over to my house and we'll do it to my
> > bass rig and see how well my 4x10 cabinet performs with pure 40Hz sine wave.
> > I guarantee you'll have to re-think your statements about 4x10 cabinets.
>
> The speaker cabinet with the largest volume (not SPL), but cu.ft.of air
> contained within, has the lowest resonant frequency. Smaller boxes are
> not going to lower the low frequency response. Going smaller only
> raises it.
>
> Take your yard stick, measure the speaker cabinet dimensions, then do
> the math!
>
> It's basic science and math. Side x Side x Side = Volume.
>
> The cabinet with the larger Volume has a lower *system* resonant
> frequency.
>
> Mother Nature Wins every time!
>
> Hey, you don't believe me.
>
> Check it out in any of the good books on Acoustics in any library.
>
> Then get back to me and show me I'm wrong.
>
Peter McFerrin
noises, which is what "Mother Nature intended." Part of a tight, punchy
sound is having a pretty good content of your second and third overtones,
and a lot of low mids, but not too much fundamental--the classic "dead
flatwounds on an old P-bass" sound, essentially. Part of what makes James
Jamerson lines so memorable is that they don't have too much fundamental,
thanks to Berry Gordy's car-radio-friendly EQing.
If you don't want to be heard but want to screw up the house mix, fine with
me.
Randy Payne
>
> In general, which of 4x 10" and 1 x 15" is better
> for a bass amp? How sound is different?
>
> Makoto
The reason 4x10 cabs are so popular, is because they provide an upper
bass/lower midrange enhancement that gives the sound more clarity and
"punch". I've played hundreds of gigs over the years, and a common
problem is acoustics that result in boomy, mushy bass, that requires you
to roll off the very lowest frequencies. With my 1x15 cab I do this with
my EQ, but the 4x10 cab does this inherently.
Most 4x10 cabs are probably not as flat down to 40 Hz as a single 15 cab
OF THE SAME VOLUMN is. I've used some of these speaker simulation
programs that show this. It is not just cabinet volumn that determines
low end response, but the total cone area of the speakers you have
crammed in the cabinet as well.
Randy
Peter McFerrin
to know that it's pretty damned farty.
Oh well, it all comes down to personal taste, I guess. What's junk to my
ears is gold to yours.
Rich Koerner
"Wämp" wrote:
>
> Yes to Mother nature, I laugh at the complacency of mankind. (oh no the pc thing)
> Any of you guys ever been in or near a REAL organ, like found in the big cathedrals,
> when they go? The fluid in your body has no choice were or when it goes. No
> substitute for the real thing. Chris
I had worked on the pipe organ in my church many years ago. It is a
trip to sit in the pipe room and be totally surrounded by all the sounds
from the different ranks. Those pipes vary in size from as little as an
inch to, and some longer than 20 feet. Some are folded to fit in the
building. Some are round and some are square. A most amazing place to
sit and enjoy the Music of Mother Nature!!!!
The best book on the subject I have ever found is titled, On The
Sensations Of Tone. The author is Hermann Helmholtz, made available by
Dover Publications of NYC.
Helmholtz's works were translated from the German in 1877. It is that
far back that this man documented the *Laws* that Mother Nature RULES By
in YOUR World of TONE!
Had any of the acoustics engineers known of Helmholtz's works, today's
Bass speaker cabinets would function on different principles.
Those of Mother Nature!!! Not Man's!!!
There is nothing energy efficient about today's power piston principle
cabinets.
It's just Man's way of putting the Muscle, on Mother Nature.
Rich Koerner
Peter McFerrin wrote:
>
> My "world of tone" does not consist of making big, farty, pure-sine-wave
> noises, which is what "Mother Nature intended."
Farty is what *man* put on Mother Natures FART LESS sine wave, either at
the string end, or by the way the amplifier system's malfunction
reproducing it.
> Part of a tight, punchy
> sound is having a pretty good content of your second and third overtones,
Don't forget, Mother Nature GAVE you those second, third, etc...
overtones. You didn't create them!!! That, She gave you by way of the
strings natural vibration.
> and a lot of low mids, but not too much fundamental--the classic "dead
> flatwounds on an old P-bass" sound, essentially. Part of what makes James
> Jamerson lines so memorable is that they don't have too much fundamental,
> thanks to Berry Gordy's car-radio-friendly EQing.
So man selected with the EQ what sounded pleasing. So????
That's been done everyday since Edison gave us the means!!
> If you don't want to be heard but want to screw up the house mix, fine with
> me.
Don't Blame Mother Nature for CAUSING A Bad MIX!!!!!!!
That's just another wanna be sound engineer's excuse for not being on
top of his/her game in Mixing The Low End!!!!!!!!!
Michael Nelson
More mother nature drivel!!!!!!
I've had enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<PLONK>
--
"WARNING! Keep Away From Children" -- Words to live by! ;-)
Rich Koerner
Peter McFerrin wrote:
>
> I've heard enough 31Hz sine wave in my day, from messing with soft-synths,
> to know that it's pretty damned farty.
Well, I have engineered and mixed live sound for Bernie Worrell & the
WOO Warriors for 3 years now. There is nothing but clean deep low end
from His Moog! 370,000 watts worth without a fart from the west stage
at Woodstock 99. I know, I was there.
But I can tell you this for sure. In most of the places I have
engineered for him, the systems most of the times have a serious lack of
proper subs and the power required to deliver fart less bass low end.
If it's there, the hairs on your arms will move before the ears can
detect a fart. The fart comes when the system is being pushed too hard
and the speaker cones no longer track the sine wave.
That's the Man made system failure, Pilot Error, or both which produces
that.
Mother Nature is/was not in error.
> Oh well, it all comes down to personal taste, I guess. What's junk to my
> ears is gold to yours.
I don't like farts just as much as the next guy. It's my job to keep
that from happening. A bit of study will lead to an understanding of
just what is going on when a system produces these farts. Not always is
the cause in the output amplifier and speakers. It can be anywhere in
the signal chain from a hot level feeding a DI, board settings,
electronic crossovers, to power amp levels sent to the speakers.
You just have to get a handle on the different methods that are used to
reproduce the low end of the bass. Some speaker cabinets require muscle
to get their way there, and some use Mother Natures Help!!
When that is done, it is a Very Nice Thing!!!
Kevin McCarthy
so far, and I will not argue with it. You can't make a 4x10 speaker that is
efficient and has a flat response down to 30 Hz. But so what? I throw massive
wattage at my Acme and I get great frequency response. I was under the
impression that Rich was trying to tell us that you could not have decent
frequency response from a 4x10 and that is simply not true. But whatever...
-Kevin
Danny Russell
Peter McFerrin wrote:
>
> It's also hard as hell on your back.
>
> If you need *that* much sound, just plug into the damn PA.
I don't think that that any of that has to be. On a relative
comparison standard, a 4x12 bass cab could be crafted so as to
outperform an 8x10 SVT style cab, and weigh substantially less. The
cab would be slightly on the large side, but big bass sound will
never come from a small sealed enclosure, that's just part of the
price. As far as what constitutes "heavy", It boils down to a
personal standard. Anything you or I personally can't lift, is
heavy. Nonetheless, just because you and I might be too damn lazy
to get off the couch and try to recover some the muscle tone God
intended for us to have, doesn't mean that the universal standard
for bass equipment has to suffer. There's a whole world full of
rebelious youth anxious to vent some rage via amplified havoc, and I
assure you that some irrelevent old man's standard isn't going to
mean jack shit. As far as the the PA issue is concerned, a seasoned
bass player knows that he's responsible for providing himself and
his bandmates with adequate stage coverage. The PA system is like a
box of Cracker Jack; always a surprize. Face it, a lot of equipment
is designed and voiced to demo well in a showroon setting, but falls
short in an actual performance environment. -Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
Peter McFerrin
This is true. The bands I know of who go into the PA only generally have
REALLYREALLYREALLY nice stuff, not some noisy cheapo system with crappy
monitors.
Pat Lyman
>
> Rich Koerner,
> Time Electronics.
> http://www.timeelect.com
>
> Service * Repair * Modifications * Design Engineering
> Live Sound & Studio Production
>
--
It occurs to me that no one in thread (that I've seen) is addressing
one of the most driving reasons for "man-made" designs intended to work
around Mother Nature. That is, some of us are just tired of the Sunday
morning backaches resulting from schlepping wooden refrigerators.
Rich, I believe you mentioned you once had 2 SVT heads and 4 SVT cabs?
I perceive that you are not far off from my age (48). How much of that
gear would you be willing to haul around for 1-3 gigs every weekend?
Even half of it? Even one head and one cab?
Bear in mind, most of the places I play at do not have a PA and we must
bring our own.
If this were. alt.pro.live-sound or alt.sound.melt-your-balls-off,
perhaps I should hold my tongue (typing fingers?). I have no doubt
that Rich could spec a system I could die for, but someone has to pay
for it, and worse, someone (always me) has to store and cart it around.
My question last year was, how little sacrifice in bass tone can I get
away with, and still fit everything in one cart load?
I can easily lift a 50 lb. up on to a four foot stage, but no longer a
100 lb. cab.
Acme cabs do the trick for me! Are they the last word in ultimate bass
tone? No. Do they do an amazing job for their size and weight? IMO,
a resounding YES.
_____________
Pat Lyman
Heat Of The Night; R&B, blues, and soul band:
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/3012
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eric Bacon
currently spend more at the chiropractor's than at the music store (where my
money truly belongs) I can appreciate this.
Cheers,
Eric
Rich Koerner
Peter McFerrin wrote:
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
> >
> > Peter McFerrin wrote:
<snip of Rich's stuff.>
> A-HA! There we go. Speaker efficiency is one thing;
Yes it is. Here is an experiment worth doing for the experience and
learning potential.
Select the speaker with the greatest SPL rating, hopefully at the lowest
Frequency you want to reproduce. Ask the different manufacturers to
supply this information.
Then place the speaker/s in a speaker cabinet designed for the same
resonant frequency.
Then place on that speaker cabinet more amplifier than the power limits
of the speaker.
Then place an AC RMS reading Volt Meter on the output of the power
amplifier, and an AC CURRENT Reading Meter in line with the speaker
cabinet.
Note - I like to watch the analog needles swing than watch the numbers
dance on a digital display when I do this.
Then with a very good rack mounted compressor/limiter, slowly adjust the
output level to the power amplifier. Take it up to medium volume, hit
the lowest note on your bass. Mark down the readings on both the AC
Volt meter, and the AC Current Meter.
Side Note - later a sine wave generator can be used to sweep the
frequency range to collect more data from the meters and develop some
graphs.
Multiply both those readings times each other, and you will have the
power that is going to your speakers. Now do that as you approach the
limits of the power ratings of those speakers in the cabinet.
I like to stay on the conservative side at 80% of the rating. Mark your
settings on the compressor limiter and never exceed them.
At this point it would be nice to measure the SPL C weighted at a point
of 4 feet away straight out from the center of the cabinet outside, or
in a very large room. This reading will be very telling, and make clear
the message I tried to bring here to this thread on the Laws of Mother
Nature.
If this experiment that I have outlined above was done with a Mother
Nature Minded Sunn 2000-S ported and properly dampened cabinet, a
comparison to the Power Piston Principle and now be made.
To do this, repeat the above experiment now with one of the current
popular four 10" cabinets. You will see from comparing the numbers what
is exactly happening in terms of the power that was used to produce the
SAME SPL's at the Same Frequencies. Plus the differences in frequency
response over all, with respect to the Power vs SPL vs Frequency family
of curves that can now be drawn.
> not providing enough
> power in the first place is another. I bite my thumb at anyone who wants to
> have massive low end without applying huge amounts of power, because
> fundamental requires a lot more power to be heard at the same level as
> midrange frequencies.
Not only that, but to prevent the square wave of a power amp driven into
clip from ever reaching the speaker that would sent the speaker's cones
into HANG TIME!!!!!!!!!
Thus over heating the voice coils with a power amplifier who's maximum
rating is less than that of the speakers. Yes, many High Power Rated
speakers have been slow cooked to death by amplifiers 2/3's their rating
because of HANG TIME Heating.
Power Pistons are costly to re-build or replace these days!!!
From the above, it is my preference to use Mother Natures Help as much
as possible with as much power as needed, rather than to use the *Screw*
Mother Nature Approach, and pour on the power to that small box with
those High Power 10" Pistons in it!!!!!!
One yields a more natural sound and is very pleasing to the listener,
the other is mostly in your face, and for some listeners it's less than
pleasant to listen to over long periods of listening.
<small snip.>
> I'm not a sound engineer, by any stretch of the imagination. I just go by
> what my ears tell me, and the fact is, I have rarely heard decent low end at
> either rock shows or in commercial recordings. Ultimately, this is due to
> power issues.
True, this along with using the proper speaker cabinets, this will make
all the difference. A lot of times the budget doesn't allow for such
things at some of the concerts or clubs. Many times I've had to request
additional subs and power to cover house systems when engineering for
Bernie Worrell & the WOO Warriors.
> The solution: MORE POWER! MORE! MORE! I'd like to get my hands on your
> 370kW...
Well, that system was supplied by Claire Brothers at Woodstock 99. In
my dreams would I like to have a system like that for a weekly touring
festival style summer tour of revolving headliners. Like a very upscale
H.O.R.D.E type thing.
That would be Terrific for a Showcase of Bass Players, and the Bottom
End Kings.
Rich Koerner
Pat Lyman wrote:
>
> In article <38C761EC...@timeelect.com>,
> Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
<snip of Rich's stuff.>
>
> It occurs to me that no one in thread (that I've seen) is addressing
> one of the most driving reasons for "man-made" designs intended to work
> around Mother Nature. That is, some of us are just tired of the Sunday
> morning backaches resulting from schlepping wooden refrigerators.
Well, in my day we played 6 nights a week for 4-6 months at a time. We
all worked together as a team. "WE WERE A TEAM." We used dollies and
hand trucks!!!
> Rich, I believe you mentioned you once had 2 SVT heads and 4 SVT cabs?
> I perceive that you are not far off from my age (48). How much of that
> gear would you be willing to haul around for 1-3 gigs every weekend?
> Even half of it? Even one head and one cab?
See above.
> Bear in mind, most of the places I play at do not have a PA and we must
> bring our own.
Now that depends on the make up of the band, and the performance level
desired by the band. If a band has a 100 watt PA for the vocals, B-18
for the bass, Super Reverb for the lead guitar, Bandmaster for the
rhythm guitar, and the drummer adjusts to the band's levels to achieve
uniform level balance, A Great Performance CAN be delivered.
I started out in bands at that level before the power trio bands that
followed later on.
> If this were. alt.pro.live-sound or alt.sound.melt-your-balls-off,
> perhaps I should hold my tongue (typing fingers?). I have no doubt
> that Rich could spec a system I could die for, but someone has to pay
> for it, and worse, someone (always me) has to store and cart it around.
Seems like you are the team, and the other members of the band are not
pulling their share of the work responsibilities..
> My question last year was, how little sacrifice in bass tone can I get
> away with, and still fit everything in one cart load?
>
> I can easily lift a 50 lb. up on to a four foot stage, but no longer a
> 100 lb. cab.
> Acme cabs do the trick for me! Are they the last word in ultimate bass
> tone? No. Do they do an amazing job for their size and weight? IMO,
> a resounding YES.
We all have to do what we have to do. But there are places where choice
can pop up.
For example, I have been playing out in a medium sized jam club. The
guitar amps range from Deluxe Reverbs to 50 watt Marshalls. Most of the
time I get to use an SVT Pro and a four ten cab. One night there was a
two 15" JBL ported cab with a Hartky amp sitting there for me to plug
into. I made the EQ adjustments and set the levels for my pickups, and
away we went. The difference in the sound was killer. Soft defined
lows up into the mids. My slap stuff had the crack of the JBL's on the
top end, and the bottom was sharp and fat as hell. No Farts either.
It was all over the room, fat and thick!
If I had a choice, I'd go with the two 15's every time. The weight
difference of the two cab may have been a pound of two. But the weight
of four magnets compared to two would be measured in a lot more pounds.
Not to mention, less power was used to fill the room.
One 15 is not enough!!!!!!
A pair of 200-S, or 2000-S Sunn cabs would be heaven with those JBL's.
One 2000-S could HUM the parking lot!!!
Rich Koerner
Matthew wrote:
>
> >Guess what! That Marshall four 12 has a lower cabinet resonant
> >Frequency than the Eden or SWR four 10" cab does.
> >Think about this for a second.
> >
> I thought about it and believe you cannot possibly know what you are talking
> about.
> The Marshall speakers begin with a much higher resonant frequancy than the
> Eden or SWR speakers (typically over 60 hz)---whatever size sealed cabinet
> you put them in only makes the resonance higher. "Mother Nature"
Wow, do you have selective reading skills!
I have been talking Bass Speakers with cabinet comparisons.
Not speaker comparisons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What? You think I don't know the difference between the speaker design
differences of a guitar speaker and a bass speaker. Give Me A Break!!
Get on the same page at least!!!!
>
> The Eden and SWR woofers have free-air resonances below 50 hz. The Eden
> 10-inch XL woofers actually measure below 40 hz. The cabinets are vented and
> tuned below 50 hz. They make flat bass about an octave lower than the
> Marshall cabs. And the Eden/SWR woofers have linear excursions (Xmax) about
> 5-10 times higher than the 12-inch Celestions (or even EV or JBL guitar
> speakers). They will move much more air at low frequencies than the Marshall
> guitar cabinets.
Just by the shear air volume of the cabinets I had referred to all
through this thread, you know full well what my point was.
Which cab has the greater volume. The standard run of the mill four ten
bass cab, or the basic run of the mill Marshall four 12 straight cab?
Side x Side x Side = volume
The larger the volume,
the lower the *CABINET* resonant frequency!!
Mother Nature!!!
Rich Koerner
Michael Nelson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 03:13:39 GMT, Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
>
> More mother nature drivel!!!!!!
>
> I've had enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> <PLONK>
LOL,..... :)
Just have fun, and play the bass!!!! :)
When you hear it, plug in and Play the Bass!! :)
Rich Koerner
Peter Duncan wrote:
>
> Let me be blunt. This is a rediculous post.
>
> First. No cabinet is just the driver alone. It isn't only the surface area
> of the cone that matters, but also how much air a cabinet in it's totality
> can move. Cabinet design is also EXTREMELY important in bass response.
>
> Several people have written me about my recommendations of an cabinet that
> can do it all. I recommend the Eden D210XLT b/c if its quick response, but
> also cause of its uncanny lows.
>
> I had a Peavey TNT 130 before this, 15" inch BW speaker. I can tell you that
> the D210XLT (2x10's) throws WAY more bass than the 15". So, it isn't speaker
> size alone. Additionally, call me insane, but I believe that the D210XLT
> throws more bass than even the D410XLT (so, this blows away the theory of
> more speakers = more surface area, etc.) something in the way the cabinets
> of the D210XLT's are tuned. Certainly, if I bought another D210XLT as an
> extension cabinet, I would have plenty-o-bass for even the largest of venues
> as a stage monitor system.
>
> The cabinet shape of the Edens are very deep. I don't really know of any
> other cabinet that is this deep. The dual air dams also are a key reason
> they seem bassy. If you have a 15 or an 18 or a 12, with a shallow cabinet,
> and no adequate room for air displacement, you will not get as good bass
> reponse. Now, if you had an 18, and a VERY deep cabinet, and ample ways to
> move air, then you would have something. But...there is more to it than just
> cabinet shape, and surface area of the drivers. There is also what
> frequencies the cabinet is tuned to deliver.
>
> Any halfway experienced bassist knows that it isn't the 40hz and below
> frequencies that make a bass sound come alive and sound "bassy." Frequencies
> around 100, 250 hz are more where the sweet spot of "perceived" bass lie.
> So, it is how good a cabinet can deliver frequencies around this area that
> make the difference. And, 10" cones with a properly tuned cabinet can work
> wonders here. I am not saying that 15's or 18's won't help you out, but
> recall that the bigger the speaker, the less definition and recovery time
> from note to note (resolution). SO, the solution is to get a properly tuned
> cabinet with drivers that are rigged with fast recovery times (why people
> are so adamant about the Eden sound of the 2x10's.)
>
> My .02
It's appreciated!
Hmmmm......?
What you had posted gave me a thought.
hmmmmm.....????
OK, if the four ten BASS Speaker Cabinet is so superior to anything
else,....
Hmmmm.......???????
Why then do you NOT see them being ALSO USED as SUB's or as the LOW's
cabinets for the House Systems in the club, or used in larger numbers as
part of the cabinet arrays for large outdoor concert systems.
How come I just don't see ARRAYS of four 10" Eden, or whatever, cabinets
with its superior 31 Hz low end performance used there!!!!
Just wondering???? :)
Rich Koerner
Danny Russell wrote:
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
> >
> > Think about it. More cone surface area. Lower cabinet resonant
> > frequency!!!
> >
> > Mother Nature Rules, You Don't!!!!!!
>
> My prediction is that someone is going to spend some time and R&D a
> specially designed 4x12 bass cab that is going to set the new
> standard for bass sounds into the 21'st century. The 4x12 cab is
> the V-8 engine of the music world. It's just inherently a superior
> (I'm tempted to say "the perfect") machine for big onstage sound.
> -Danny
Danny!!!!
From your lips to God ears!!!
No one believes me when I say Old Marshall JMP's make the greatest slap
bass amps Ever!!!
I had one of my Modified Marshalls on a customers four 12 cabinet with
four big EV's in it. He had the standard cracked plastic speaker jack
problem. No problem an aluminum plate and a Switchcraft Jack could not
handle.
Well I fired up on of my Marshall's to test it out with a guitar. I
cranked up the bottom and went for the Heavy Metal Chug thing. This
customer was the low end chugger for the band he was in. It sounded so
good, I grabbed my Jazz Bass. Boy was I suprised!!!!
Well with a very quick EQ mod for more low end on my Marshall,.... that
Marshall cab KILLED with the Slap Stuff!!!! And we all know what a
1966 Jazz Bass can do with Slap Sounds!!!!! Big fat deep lows with a
high end CRACK that would rip your head off!
I have improved that Marshall head since then just for such occasions.
Rich Koerner
Let's go back to something below.
Matthew wrote:
>
> >Guess what! That Marshall four 12 has a lower cabinet resonant
> >Frequency than the Eden or SWR four 10" cab does.
> >Think about this for a second.
> >
> I thought about it and believe you cannot possibly know what you are talking
> about.
> The Marshall speakers begin with a much higher resonant frequancy than the
> Eden or SWR speakers (typically over 60 hz)---whatever size sealed cabinet
> you put them in only makes the resonance higher. "Mother Nature"
>
> The Eden and SWR woofers have free-air resonances below 50 hz. The Eden
> 10-inch XL woofers actually measure below 40 hz. The cabinets are vented and
> tuned below 50 hz. They make flat bass about an octave lower than the
> Marshall cabs. And the Eden/SWR woofers have linear excursions (Xmax) about
> 5-10 times higher than the 12-inch Celestions (or even EV or JBL guitar
> speakers). They will move much more air at low frequencies than the Marshall
> guitar cabinets.
OK, how about taking one of these four ten run of the mill cabinets and
run the frequency response curve on that cabinet.
At what frequency is the Low Frequency *System* Resonant bump in the
graph. That is the BIG ONE. The Mother Nature Bump. The place in
frequency where the cabinet and the speaker don't fight each other, but
work together.
Then where does the Smaller Sub Harmonic Bump show up on the graph just
below that System Bump.
Let's set some standards.
Feed that cabinet with no more than 1 watt!!!
Sweep from 20 to 20K.
Take the response out of the air with the mic of the RTA at a distance
of one meter.
List all details, and the resultant graph so we all can duplicate the
same experiment for confirmation.
Peter Duncan
We are talking about bass amps, not PA systems.
The PA system receives WAY more power than the bass amp does. A 2(4)x10
can't handle all that power and volume needed for large venues. I have heard
smaller PA speakers deliver more bass than larger PA speakers.
Also, 31hz isn't what is giving us the perception of bass. It is harmonics
around the 100 and 250 hz range. If a speaker goes down to 20hz that doesn't
mean it will sound more bassy. It is that speakers response along the sound
spectrum. But somehow I knew you knew that. So, whether an 18 or a 15 can
hit that frequency (<30hz) is kind of irrelevant.
pd
--
"Rich Koerner" <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote in message
news:38CA2416...@timeelect.com...
Danny Russell
Rich Koerner wrote:
>
> Danny!!!!
>
> From your lips to God ears!!!
>
> No one believes me when I say Old Marshall JMP's make the greatest slap
> bass amps Ever!!!
>
> I had one of my Modified Marshalls on a customers four 12 cabinet with
> four big EV's in it. He had the standard cracked plastic speaker jack
> problem. No problem an aluminum plate and a Switchcraft Jack could not
> handle.
>
> Well I fired up on of my Marshall's to test it out with a guitar. I
> cranked up the bottom and went for the Heavy Metal Chug thing. This
> customer was the low end chugger for the band he was in. It sounded so
> good, I grabbed my Jazz Bass. Boy was I suprised!!!!
>
> Well with a very quick EQ mod for more low end on my Marshall,.... that
> Marshall cab KILLED with the Slap Stuff!!!! And we all know what a
> 1966 Jazz Bass can do with Slap Sounds!!!!! Big fat deep lows with a
> high end CRACK that would rip your head off!
>
> I have improved that Marshall head since then just for such occasions.
As far as the 4x12 is concerned, I liken it to a comparison between
an auto sound system using an active x-over subwoofer to get the
lows, v.s. the old standby of a set high-power 6x9's in the rear
deck driven by a good, strong amp and a little EQ. The sub system
is deeper for sure, but sounds loose and fragmented. The 6x9's in
the rear deck are just punchier and more integrated. Loud as hell
too, if done properly. The longer a person spends listening to
various cab configurations, the more they have to honestly come to
the conclusion that the 4x12 cab is a marvel. Just remember that
Marshall's wild success was in spite of things such as EL-34's that
lasted 5 gigs, crappy impedance selectors that caused the OT's to
blow, fragile plastic jacks that fell out all by themselves, and a
.005 bright cap that defies explanation. The two biggest factors to
Marshall's immortatilty in my estimation are the cool name and the
4x12 cabs. -Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
Peter McFerrin
>
> Why?
>
> We are talking about bass amps, not PA systems.
>
> The PA system receives WAY more power than the bass amp does. A 2(4)x10
> can't handle all that power and volume needed for large venues. I have heard
> smaller PA speakers deliver more bass than larger PA speakers.
>
> Also, 31hz isn't what is giving us the perception of bass. It is harmonics
> around the 100 and 250 hz range. If a speaker goes down to 20hz that doesn't
> mean it will sound more bassy. It is that speakers response along the sound
> spectrum. But somehow I knew you knew that. So, whether an 18 or a 15 can
> hit that frequency (<30hz) is kind of irrelevant.
>
> pd
>
Again: DING! Having to spend power on producing fundamental robs your
speakers of having power to spend on the midrange. It's not exactly a
surprise that I sound louder *and* clearer when I turn down my onboard
preamp's bass knob.
Rich Koerner
Peter Duncan wrote:
>
> Why?
>
> We are talking about bass amps, not PA systems.
>
> The PA system receives WAY more power than the bass amp does. A 2(4)x10
> can't handle all that power and volume needed for large venues. I have heard
> smaller PA speakers deliver more bass than larger PA speakers.
>
> Also, 31hz isn't what is giving us the perception of bass. It is harmonics
> around the 100 and 250 hz range. If a speaker goes down to 20hz that doesn't
> mean it will sound more bassy. It is that speakers response along the sound
> spectrum. But somehow I knew you knew that. So, whether an 18 or a 15 can
> hit that frequency (<30hz) is kind of irrelevant.
>
Ahhhhh!!! But it is!!!!
There we go!!!!
You just answered my question below, and made my point!!!!!
You just told me that its the Cabinet's Tune for the "B" above Low "B"
that fakes us into thinking we *really* hear the Low "B" fundamental at
all. And, that is BETTER than hearing the Real Low "B" with all the
Mother Nature's Vibration in the string!!!!
So, it would seem that besides filtering unwanted fundamentals at the EQ
dials, the speaker cabinet does the Same Thing Too!!!!!
Imagine that!
Not to mention, the main reason that the DI is used on the bass as an
excepted standard for live sound, and in the studio.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!!!!!
Or yourself, either.
Rich Koerner
RIGHT ON
DANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
Oop's, I have to re-load another clip.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There, MUCH BETTER!!!!! :)
Boy I'm glad Clifton didn't push for an assault exclamation mark
ban!!!!!!!!
Pat Lyman
methods of carting the tools. I also couldn't help but notice that your
examples are in the past tense.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com>
Newsgroups: alt.guitar.amps,alt.guitar.bass
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: BASS AMP 4-10 vs 1-15
>
>
> Pat Lyman wrote:
> >
> > In article <38C761EC...@timeelect.com>,
> > Rich Koerner <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote:
>
> <snip of Rich's stuff.>
>
> >
> > It occurs to me that no one in thread (that I've seen) is addressing
> > one of the most driving reasons for "man-made" designs intended to work
> > around Mother Nature. That is, some of us are just tired of the Sunday
> > morning backaches resulting from schlepping wooden refrigerators.
>
> Well, in my day we played 6 nights a week for 4-6 months at a time. We
> all worked together as a team. "WE WERE A TEAM." We used dollies and
> hand trucks!!!
I remember days like that. Perhaps times and standards have changed. Most
bands I have been in within the last ten years were made up of hired guns
found along the jam circuits, and as such tended to make themselves as
independent as possible.
Note that I do *not* mean independent from a musical standpoint, but from a
logistical one. My Daytimer (and now my Palm Vx) has lists of such players
who can be counted upon logisitically. That is, none of the core members
has to drive over and pick them up, or help them with their gear.
We *do* help each other when convenient, but from a logistical and cartage
standpoint, we can operate independently.
Man, our drummer can load in, set up, tear down, and load out like I've
never seen!
There are a lot of gigs for freelancers. In 1998, I played (from memory,
without looking at my tax records) about 85 gigs with 17 different bands
(and I'm simply a typical weekend warrior). A repuation of being a
"no-load" player goes a long way in repeat hireability.
>
>
> > Rich, I believe you mentioned you once had 2 SVT heads and 4 SVT cabs?
> > I perceive that you are not far off from my age (48). How much of that
> > gear would you be willing to haul around for 1-3 gigs every weekend?
> > Even half of it? Even one head and one cab?
>
> See above.
Ditto for my standpoint.
>
> > Bear in mind, most of the places I play at do not have a PA and we must
> > bring our own.
>
> Now that depends on the make up of the band, and the performance level
> desired by the band. If a band has a 100 watt PA for the vocals, B-18
> for the bass, Super Reverb for the lead guitar, Bandmaster for the
> rhythm guitar, and the drummer adjusts to the band's levels to achieve
> uniform level balance, A Great Performance CAN be delivered.
Oh, no doubt! Still, that B-18 stretches what the limit of what I
personally would care to cart around.
>
> I started out in bands at that level before the power trio bands that
> followed later on.
>
> > If this were. alt.pro.live-sound or alt.sound.melt-your-balls-off,
> > perhaps I should hold my tongue (typing fingers?). I have no doubt
> > that Rich could spec a system I could die for, but someone has to pay
> > for it, and worse, someone (always me) has to store and cart it around.
>
> Seems like you are the team, and the other members of the band are not
> pulling their share of the work responsibilities..
It's a personal thing, I guess. It would bother me that someone *has* to
help me with my gear every gig.
>
>
> > My question last year was, how little sacrifice in bass tone can I get
> > away with, and still fit everything in one cart load?
> >
> > I can easily lift a 50 lb. up on to a four foot stage, but no longer a
> > 100 lb. cab.
>
> > Acme cabs do the trick for me! Are they the last word in ultimate bass
> > tone? No. Do they do an amazing job for their size and weight? IMO,
> > a resounding YES.
>
> We all have to do what we have to do. But there are places where choice
> can pop up.
>
> For example, I have been playing out in a medium sized jam club. The
> guitar amps range from Deluxe Reverbs to 50 watt Marshalls. Most of the
> time I get to use an SVT Pro and a four ten cab. One night there was a
> two 15" JBL ported cab with a Hartky amp sitting there for me to plug
> into. I made the EQ adjustments and set the levels for my pickups, and
> away we went. The difference in the sound was killer. Soft defined
> lows up into the mids. My slap stuff had the crack of the JBL's on the
> top end, and the bottom was sharp and fat as hell. No Farts either.
> It was all over the room, fat and thick!
>
> If I had a choice, I'd go with the two 15's every time. The weight
> difference of the two cab may have been a pound of two. But the weight
> of four magnets compared to two would be measured in a lot more pounds.
Which 4x10 is within a pound or two of a cab with two JBL 15's? I may be
wrong, but I have dealt with a few of those of various designs, and not one
would I risk picking up by myself.
This would be in contrast to my 98 lb. Eden, which was noticeably heavier
than any Hartke 4x10 I ever had the (dis)pleasure of lifting.
>
> Not to mention, less power was used to fill the room.
>
> One 15 is not enough!!!!!!
>
> A pair of 200-S, or 2000-S Sunn cabs would be heaven with those JBL's.
>
> One 2000-S could HUM the parking lot!!!
>
Again, I don't disagree with the qualitative assessment of the sound. I
also coudn't help but notice that there was no mention of who carted those
rigs into the clubs. And how often.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rich Koerner,
> Time Electronics.
> http://www.timeelect.com
>
> Service * Repair * Modifications * Design Engineering
> Live Sound & Studio Production
Pat Lyman
Heat Of The Night; blues, r&b, and soul band:
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/3012
Peter Duncan
I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
<30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
This one will impress you. I have a mini subwoofer under my feet right here
and now at my PC. The speaker inside this is SMALLER than the 6.5 drivers in
my Tannoy near field monitors, yet it delivers more bass than the 6.5's.
"How do they do that?" Cabinet design, and tuning the speaker to deliver
bass frequencies at the responses that make the most sense for the human
ear. But, the power and volume coming from the PC is small enough for the
little subwoofer to handle just fine and deliver some pretty loud sound off
my PC. Bose systems are also notorious for throwing a ton-o-bass for their
size, much more than larger speakers. Many subwoofers for cars are 6x9 size
and a bit bigger (certainly not 15inch). My home stereo speakers have bigger
cones than that. BUT the design of the subwoofer cube or tube makes it
happen as far as bass goes. So, this sort of answers your question before,
"Why don't they use smaller speakers for subwoofers..." They do. It all
depends on the power of what is coming to them in terms of amplifying bass
(and bass drum, and synth, and so on).
Being in a studio, you should know, especially if you are engineering a CD,
that when the artist wants more bass, you probably don't go right for the
31hz frequency adjustment right? In fact, that can be detrimental to the
sound, making things unbearably muddy. The most desirable bass tones are at
80-250 range. The frequency reponse of my little Eden 2x10 is 40hz (still
lower than needed), and I haven't seen any 15 out there.
What I AM saying before you put words in my mouth again, is that it isn't
purely speaker SIZE that gets you to point B. It is many factors that are
involved. Otherwise, no matter what, ALL 15 inch speakers would sound
bassier than all 2x10's and everyone knows, including you, that this isn't
the case.
The original post (see subject above) is 4-10 vs 1-15. Not, "Re: if you take
each speaker out of the cabinet, what will sound bassier?"
You need to extend your mother nature theory to the other components of the
cabinet ALONG with the speaker size. It isn't wise to conveniently leave out
things to try to make your point. Than, it is just perception, and you are
avoiding the realities that you yourself seem to believe you are an expert
on.
pd
--
>
> > > Why then do you NOT see them being ALSO USED as SUB's or as the LOW's
> > > cabinets for the House Systems in the club, or used in larger numbers
as
> > > part of the cabinet arrays for large outdoor concert systems.
> > >
> > > How come I just don't see ARRAYS of four 10" Eden, or whatever,
cabinets
> > > with its superior 31 Hz low end performance used there!!!!
> > >
> > > Just wondering???? :)
>
>
Danny Russell
Peter Duncan wrote:
>
> I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
> What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
> <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
> PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
> bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
> still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
SNIP
Touring bands use more sub-cabs than they ever have before. They
just hide 'em under the stage where they won't block the view.
-Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
Miles O'Neal
> Boy I'm glad Clifton didn't push for an assault exclamation mark
> ban!!!!!!!!
There's still time for that.
Rich Koerner
Pat Lyman wrote:
>
> I think we agree on the principles of sound, only disagreeing upon the
> methods of carting the tools. I also couldn't help but notice that your
> examples are in the past tense.
I had played in formal bands from 1962 - 1970. Then freelanced till
1976.
I started playing Bass and then went to guitar. On the both, I played
it all. Jazz, country, R&B, blues, bluegrass, fusion, Classic rock when
it wasn't Classic, etc..
It's been only in the last four months I have been playing out again in
public again.
I jam for the fun of it now, and feel good when the other players ask if
I'm back into putting a band together again. Being married and having
to feed a family to feed keep ya from doing the things when you were
single. So for now, the Jam Club thing works. I have now started to
feel my bass chops on bass are just getting to where they were when I
left off in 1976. Now it I could only get the guitar chops back up
there, I'd feel like my old self again. The spirit wants to, but the
real world is another thing.
> I remember days like that. Perhaps times and standards have changed. Most
> bands I have been in within the last ten years were made up of hired guns
> found along the jam circuits, and as such tended to make themselves as
> independent as possible.
Yes, hired guns were not around during my playing days. They came in as
I was leaving.
> Note that I do *not* mean independent from a musical standpoint, but from a
> logistical one. My Daytimer (and now my Palm Vx) has lists of such players
> who can be counted upon logisitically. That is, none of the core members
> has to drive over and pick them up, or help them with their gear.
Yep, musicians on call kind of thing. It's just part of the world we
live in now.
Many of my customers are operating that way. Mainly because of the
hassles that happen with the conflicts in personality, music direction,
band direction, etc...
> We *do* help each other when convenient, but from a logistical and cartage
> standpoint, we can operate independently.
>
> Man, our drummer can load in, set up, tear down, and load out like I've
> never seen!
>
> There are a lot of gigs for freelancers. In 1998, I played (from memory,
> without looking at my tax records) about 85 gigs with 17 different bands
> (and I'm simply a typical weekend warrior). A repuation of being a
> "no-load" player goes a long way in repeat hireability.
My bands had the habit of becoming the house band for most of the clubs
we had played. That then turned into 5-6 night a week. In one year
there was over 280 gigs, adding in the parties, weddings, and misc.
side gigs. I was full time 100%. Then there was the studio work I did
along the way too. That is why I had burned out by 1970.
> Oh, no doubt! Still, that B-18 stretches what the limit of what I
> personally would care to cart around.
The SWR Basic Black is nice, and can be improved some.
> It's a personal thing, I guess. It would bother me that someone *has* to
> help me with my gear every gig.
Well, when I was doing the power trio's, I needed all the help I could
get with the gear. But we all had friends who came to the gig's that
pitched in with the gear moving. It was part of the scene them. Today,
people are different. The whole world is very self minded now. To
think of others is not on many peoples agendas.
> Which 4x10 is within a pound or two of a cab with two JBL 15's? I may be
> wrong, but I have dealt with a few of those of various designs, and not one
> would I risk picking up by myself.
Kustom with their Tuck & Roll covering had a large four ten cab that was
only a shade smaller that their 2-15" cabinet. That same 2-15" style
Kustom cabinet is what I have used at the Jam club with the Hearty head
on it.
> This would be in contrast to my 98 lb. Eden, which was noticeably heavier
> than any Hartke 4x10 I ever had the (dis)pleasure of lifting.
I just weighed a JBL D-140. It came in at 15 pounds. 30 pound for two
of them.
What can the wood weigh. What can the four tens weigh in total in
comparison to the 30 pounds of JBL.
> Again, I don't disagree with the qualitative assessment of the sound. I
> also coudn't help but notice that there was no mention of who carted those
> rigs into the clubs. And how often.
Well, we all help each other. Band mates and friends. Times were
different when I was playing!!! More were into the music as it was
more part of our lives in general. Now there are other things more
important to catch our attention it seems.
Rich Koerner
>
> I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
> What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
> <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
> PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
> bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
> still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
Case Closed!
> This one will impress you. I have a mini subwoofer under my feet right here
> and now at my PC. The speaker inside this is SMALLER than the 6.5 drivers in
> my Tannoy near field monitors, yet it delivers more bass than the 6.5's.
> "How do they do that?" Cabinet design, and tuning the speaker to deliver
> bass frequencies at the responses that make the most sense for the human
> ear. But, the power and volume coming from the PC is small enough for the
> little subwoofer to handle just fine and deliver some pretty loud sound off
> my PC. Bose systems are also notorious for throwing a ton-o-bass for their
> size, much more than larger speakers. Many subwoofers for cars are 6x9 size
> and a bit bigger (certainly not 15inch). My home stereo speakers have bigger
> cones than that. BUT the design of the subwoofer cube or tube makes it
> happen as far as bass goes. So, this sort of answers your question before,
> "Why don't they use smaller speakers for subwoofers..." They do. It all
> depends on the power of what is coming to them in terms of amplifying bass
> (and bass drum, and synth, and so on).
Impress me by taking them sub woofers to a gig and rumble the room with
the low end!!!
Take that sub woofer and place it on a four foot sand column outside and
see if it does the same thing now!!! Measure it with an SPL meter C
weighted.
> Being in a studio, you should know, especially if you are engineering a CD,
> that when the artist wants more bass, you probably don't go right for the
> 31hz frequency adjustment right? In fact, that can be detrimental to the
> sound, making things unbearably muddy. The most desirable bass tones are at
> 80-250 range. The frequency reponse of my little Eden 2x10 is 40hz (still
> lower than needed), and I haven't seen any 15 out there.
You miss that fact that there are two very different environments that
mixing has to be directed to. Don't make the mistake into thinking that
they are in anyway exactly the same. The end goal of Engineering and
mixing a mastered
CD is very different world to that of mixing live sound.
When you mix them as if they were the same, you will have problems with
one or the other depending on which your background comes from. SR
systems are quite different from the CD playing system's limits which
are used in the contained listening environments were lows fly around
like a bullet shot inside of a steel car.
That too, is Mother Nature!!!!
> What I AM saying before you put words in my mouth again, is that it isn't
> purely speaker SIZE that gets you to point B. It is many factors that are
> involved. Otherwise, no matter what,
I don't care what note you pick. What you had outlined described
exactly that.
You claimed the basic bass note fundamental is a waste to reproduce. It
gets in the way, and only the 2 & 3 harmonics are relevant into fooling
you into thinking the fundamental is there. RIGHT??? Or did I put
words into your mouth as you claim?
If so, someone else said that along the way. But, described it in your
past post anyway.
> ALL 15 inch speakers would sound
> bassier than all 2x10's and everyone knows, including you, that this isn't
> the case.
BS! 10's Don't Make The Trip to the back of the room in the club!!!
15's do.
Take only one of those bass 10" speakers and compare it to one 15" like
a TAD TL-1603 for example.
Place them on the floor facing up. Hook them both up to an amp and play
your bass through them. Walk around them. Listen to which one has the
lows.
NO CAB's!!! BARE FOOT!!!!! In the open, on the floor!!
What do you have? Mother Nature Talking To You!!!
Take that same single 10" speaker and put it into a cabinet one 1/4 the
size of it's four ten sized cabinet, and also put the single 15" into
its standard sized cabinet.
Hook them both up to an amp and play your bass through them. Walk
around them. Listen to which has the lows.
What do you have? Mother Nature Talking To You!!!
So now, just how many of those single 10" with their 1/4 size scaled
cabinets do have to add till you equal the low end reproduction of the
single 15" with the same power delivered to each at the same time. Two,
three, Four?????
Hmmmm.....
How do you think that sub on that PC, or the 6.5's will stack up here in
this equation?
Not very well. Their application would be mis-applied, that's clear.
> The original post (see subject above) is 4-10 vs 1-15. Not, "Re: if you take
> each speaker out of the cabinet, what will sound bassier?"
You live in a world that is *Ruled* By Mother Nature, how could you know
so little about her. If you knew Mother Nature, the answer is
obvious!!!
My points of the Mother Nature (Pleasent Sounding) vs the Muscle Concept
(In your Face and unpleasant), and the system resonance of speaker
enclosures seems not to be valid in the equation from your stand point.
Fine, I have no problem with that. I work everyday with all types of
sounds, with all types of musicians. Your thing, is your thing. I can
work with
that.
I'm just here presenting a Different Side to the current low end story
for the benefit of the open mind that may read through this thread.
OK, since you don't want to see the disadvantage the currently marketed
inferior 15" is in, with this unfair and unbalanced comparison. Let me
change hats, and I'll take you on in the Muscle game!!!! Let's bring
that single 15", and its cabinet up a peg or two.
I guess that would be only be right since the deck is currently stacked
four voice coils to one. Not to mention the difference in surface area,
and higher low frequency cabinet system resonant roll off, which is not
where a 15" performs it's best.
You take your best standard four ten bass cabinet with it's max. power
on it.
Then let's take a *Real* 15", maybe something like a McCauley in a
*REAL* single 15" Mother Nature Friendly Cabinet with some *Real* Muscle
Power on it!!!! Like Crown or QSC.
Thus yielding a 15" rated with four times the voice coil of the 10's,
for times the excursion of the 10's, and supplied with four times the
power used to power the 10's. With a Mother Nature cabinet too, no
less!!
You really think you have a chance now on this more equal playing
field!
Hey, how about a rather MORE FAIRER Contest for that four 10" cabinet.
Only this time it's against a four BASS 12" Mother Nature Cabinet.
Oh, but that would be an unfair contest?? No more unfair than the bogus
comparison contest as in the topic of the thread with the current
inferior single 15" that is available in the music stores.
Oh but Mother Nature will be giving that four 12" cabinet a lower system
resonant frequency for more efficient lows over the four 10's. And
there is the increase in surface area too.
But then, don't forget about those Guitar Players with their "D" tuning
and their sub harmonic effects, giving them the same low end notes of
the
bass, thus blowing the four 10" bass players away in the low end
soup war!!!!
The bass player may as well not be in the band at all for what little
you can hear of him. One band that comes in here tunes down to "C" with
13 ga sets of strings on their guitars. The lead guitar player also
switches to a 12 string for some songs tuned down the same way. Imagine
that.
Now, That, is a stacked deck against the bass player I would think.
That four 12 cabinet with four 12" bass speakers in it is starting to
look even better now because those 10's are no help in his case. Hey,
when you are loosing the low end game to the guitar players, why not
learn from what THEY ARE Using to Kick Your Butt.
Sorry, tens don't cut it with Mother Nature, or in the Muscle Game!!!
Peter McFerrin
>
> Peter Duncan wrote:
> >
> > I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
> > What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
> > <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> > reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
> > PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
> > bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
> > still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
>
> I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
> doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
> resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
> size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
>
> Case Closed!
>
I don't think PD (or I, for that matter) give a rat's patoot about
fundamental. It's all about the second and third harmonic and tens will
give it to you.
Just because you like the "old sound" (and hey, it has its merits) doesn't
mean that the current one is inherently bad.
Randy Payne
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
> > > What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
> > > <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> > > reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
> > > PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
> > > bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
> > > still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
> >
> > I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
> > doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
> > resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
> > size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
> >
> > Case Closed!
> >
>
> fundamental. It's all about the second and third harmonic and tens will
> give it to you.
>
> Just because you like the "old sound" (and hey, it has its merits) doesn't
> mean that the current one is inherently bad.
I've been following this hot thread, and it seems to me that everyone is
choosing sides on this. As I've said before, the reason 4x10's are so
popular, is because they provide an accentuated upper bass/low mid
response that helps cut down the mud in rooms with bad acoustics, and
also provide a punchy sound.
I don't think you want a cab with no fundamental whatsoever. The
fundamental is what you can feel, and what gives the bass that deep
foundation.
4x10 cabs are not devoid of fundamental. I think you do give a rat's ass
about fundamental. Try completely cutting your EQ at 40-100 HZ, and see
how it sounds.
Randy
Peter Duncan
The original post was about 4-10 vs 1-15. NOT about taking the speakers out
of the cabinet and declaring that the 15" is better. This isn't "natural."
This isn't the original post. You avoided taking into account what is
"natural" in bass amplification, and that is cabinet design, how much air is
being driven, and all other variables that make up for a cabinets response
to the electric bass. Now, I will address your points one at a time, and I
would like it if you did the same for everyones benefit.
> > I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny
guy.
> > What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can
hit
> > <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> > reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't
use
> > PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They
hang a
> > bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound,
while
> > still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
>
> I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
> doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
> resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
> size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
>
> Case Closed!
Case OPEN! E or B doesn't matter? The Fundamental frequency of the Low B on
a bass is 30.87hz. The Low E on a bass is 41.2hz. Nowhere have you indicated
that speaker size is a direct correlation with the frequency response of a
cabinet as a whole. Most adult humans can't hear past 40hz (perfect hearing
is 20hz to 20khz). Therefore, most humans don't even hear the fundamental of
the Low E on a bass guitar, nevermind the Low B. Check mate.
Onwards. Every hear of Lincoln Center in NYC? That hall's freqency response
in terms on proximity to the stage rolls off significantly just about
anywhere you stand in the room (even up close) from 125hz, yes,
one_hundred_and_twenty_five_hz and down. Even the BEST tuned rooms that we
pay hundreds of dollars to be in can't "resonate" the frequencies as low as
the fundamentals of the bass guitar's lowest notes. doubt me? See Science of
Musical Sound by Pierce, page 144, 1st edition. But, you can be sure that
people in there are hearing bass when bass is generated. This is b/c the
harmonics of the bass notes is what they hear, and they are strongest
between 80-250 hz (audible) Check mate.
You discount the need to push maximum, huge amounts of air for a large hall.
Each speaker has its application, and size of cone seems to be the least
important in terms of delivering chest thumping bass. Mass air being pushed,
cabinet design, etc. seem to be most important. A PA application to deliver
sound to an entire arena is different than a bass amp that has to produce
sound in a small club, or a mini subwoofer for computer speakers in a 15x15
room. It is about the right size speaker for the right environment. Indeed
there will be a tradeoff, just as in bass cabinet design, in a PA speaker
subwoofer design in that you can't just put the biggest speaker in there you
can find. There will be a tradeoff in speaker recovery time which will screw
up the resolution from note to note.
Again, look at a Bose compared to another comparible size radio. The Bose,
b/c of design engineering throws WAY more bass compared to the smaller
radio. If what you say is true, sound engineers for Bose would be out of
business, b/c all they would have to do is just put in a bigger speaker.
> Take that sub woofer and place it on a four foot sand column outside and
> see if it does the same thing now!!! Measure it with an SPL meter C
> weighted.
Why would you want to do that? That isn't comparing a 1-15 to a 4-10. That
isn't "natural." Check mate.
> > Being in a studio, you should know, especially if you are engineering a
CD,
> > that when the artist wants more bass, you probably don't go right for
the
> > 31hz frequency adjustment right? In fact, that can be detrimental to the
> > sound, making things unbearably muddy. The most desirable bass tones are
at
> > 80-250 range. The frequency reponse of my little Eden 2x10 is 40hz
(still
> > lower than needed), and I haven't seen any 15 out there.
>
> You miss that fact that there are two very different environments that
> mixing has to be directed to.
Nope. There is only one. Make it sound good on as many types of systems as
you can. That is why the mixdown speakers are not the HUGE speakers that you
really like. The mix down speakers are there to represent what an average
stereo would deliver. Many times, the frequency response of the mixdown
speakers isn't anywhere NEAR the fundamental of a low B on a bass guitar.
Check mate.
> > What I AM saying before you put words in my mouth again, is that it
isn't
> > purely speaker SIZE that gets you to point B. It is many factors that
are
> > involved. Otherwise, no matter what,
>
> I don't care what note you pick. What you had outlined described
> exactly that.
I didn't pick any notes here again, putting words in my mouth. I said to get
to "point b."
>
> You claimed the basic bass note fundamental is a waste to reproduce. It
> gets in the way, and only the 2 & 3 harmonics are relevant into fooling
> you into thinking the fundamental is there. RIGHT??? Or did I put
> words into your mouth as you claim?
Didn't say that, before, but what I will say now is YES you are correct. The
human ear can BARELY perceive notes at 30 hz which is where the low B's
fundamental is. This isn't the frequency that makes people go "Holy shit can
you hear all that bass?" It is the harmonics that are well above that, as I
said before, in the 80 to 250hz range. Check mate again.
> If so, someone else said that along the way. But, described it in your
> past post anyway.
>
> > ALL 15 inch speakers would sound
> > bassier than all 2x10's and everyone knows, including you, that this
isn't
> > the case.
>
> BS! 10's Don't Make The Trip to the back of the room in the club!!!
> 15's do.
Depends on cabinet design my friend. Bigger isn't always better.
Want proof? Take a Peavey TNT with a 15" BW speaker, and put it next to my
2x10 Eden D210XLT, and I GUARAN-Fing-TEE you that the Eden will throw more
bass. It isn't just about the cones. It is about the whole design. All
anyone has to do to disprove your theory is to find ONE 10" configuration
(2x10 or 4x10) that beats ONE 1x15 in terms of feeling bass in a club or
whatever. I have found that, and the Eden blows the Peavey away. Check mate
once again.
>
> Take only one of those bass 10" speakers and compare it to one 15" like
> a TAD TL-1603 for example.
>
> Place them on the floor facing up. Hook them both up to an amp and play
> your bass through them. Walk around them. Listen to which one has the
> lows.
There you go again. You want to keep taking the cones out. Why do you want
to do that? Who is going to play bass like that? See original subject header
again. I know you are a repair guy, but most folks like to keep their
cabinets intact when they play and listen to them.
I am even comparing a 2x10 to a 15. A 4x10 will have an even bigger cabinet,
and throw more bass. The cone size is "mostly" irrelevant for everything
except one thing my friend: The reason that people like the 10's better is
that they are more responsive than 15's, and THAT is fact. The lows can be
reproduced, and generated by cabinet design, but a 10" will always have a
tighter, quicker reponse for slapping, and fast finger style playing. The
speaker is smaller, and recovers faster, and doesn't oscillate as much, and
takes less time to recover from note to note. So, while the 15 will
certainly be able to deliver frequencies that most people can't even hear
(with all other cabinet design factors being equal) the reponsiveness of it
will be inferior, resulting in a muddier sound, which isn't subject to human
hearing limitations, but will be most certainly audible, b/c the audible
harmonics in the 80-200hz range will also be affected by the lack of
reponsiveness and sound muddy. And there is really no arguing that. 10's are
just more responsive, and the reaons they are more preferred than the 15's.
I like arguing with people like you b/c you tout all this "mother nature"
stuff like you are the Zen buddhist of sound and what you say is "the word."
Interesting, in this act you are putting on, you jade your own perceptions
and don't see what is natural (you know, how you want to take the speakers
out, then do all sorts of tests, etc.). Mother nature also is involved in
cabinet design, wood resonance, mass of air flow, etc. is it not? You seem
to only want to apply mother nature in an isolated part of a system, while
completely ignoring the other critical elements of the system. Why, if you
are as intelligent as you seem to be, would you want to be selective with
the whole mother nature thing?
Now run along and go trade in that 15" and discover what you have been
missing!
pd
Alan N.
>
> Peter Duncan wrote:
> >
> > I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
> > What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
> > <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> > reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
> > PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
> > bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
> > still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
>
I'm not getting in this pissing match, but I will state this.. Last time
I saw RUSH ( MY FAV!!
BTW!! ) in Charlotte N.C. a few years ago, the sound flat out sucked..
Thin, not loud, was not what I expected out of the boyz..
In context, I saw Ozzy, in the same hall and the sound would knock your
balls off.
Loud, deep, clean..
It would have been AWSOME to hear "Show Don't Tell" thru a system like
this that could deliver the
dynamics that the song deserves..
I could only hope RUSH could get this company to do thier PA next time..
(P.S. us RUSH fans can only HOPE, there WILL be a NEXT TIME! )
Alan
================================================================
al...@roava.net (km...@arrl.net)
Coming to you from RedHat 6.2Beta and/or BeOS 4.5
===============================================================
Peter McFerrin
>
> Peter McFerrin wrote:
> >
> > Rich Koerner wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I never even mentioned the words "low b" in my post. You are a funny guy.
> > > > What I said that the frequency response of PA speaker, and that it can hit
> > > > <30hz doesn't make the that speaker sound bassier. In fact, this is the
> > > > reason that a lot of professional touring groups like RUSH, etc. don't use
> > > > PA on the side of the stage any more with the big ass speakers. They hang a
> > > > bunch of smaller ones from the ceiling of the arena. Punchier sound, while
> > > > still maintaning awesome bass sound (and clarity).
> > >
> > > I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
> > > doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
> > > resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
> > > size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
> > >
> > > Case Closed!
> > >
> >
> > fundamental. It's all about the second and third harmonic and tens will
> > give it to you.
> >
> > Just because you like the "old sound" (and hey, it has its merits) doesn't
> > mean that the current one is inherently bad.
>
> I've been following this hot thread, and it seems to me that everyone is
> choosing sides on this. As I've said before, the reason 4x10's are so
> popular, is because they provide an accentuated upper bass/low mid
> response that helps cut down the mud in rooms with bad acoustics, and
> also provide a punchy sound.
>
> I don't think you want a cab with no fundamental whatsoever. The
> fundamental is what you can feel, and what gives the bass that deep
> foundation.
>
> 4x10 cabs are not devoid of fundamental. I think you do give a rat's ass
> about fundamental. Try completely cutting your EQ at 40-100 HZ, and see
> how it sounds.
>
> Randy
Oh, it sounds terrible. But having too much of it wastes power.
Rich Koerner
Peter Duncan wrote:
> > I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
> > doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
> > resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
> > size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
> >
> > Case Closed!
>
> Case OPEN! E or B doesn't matter? The Fundamental frequency of the Low B on
> a bass is 30.87hz. The Low E on a bass is 41.2hz. Nowhere have you indicated
> that speaker size is a direct correlation with the frequency response of a
> cabinet as a whole. Most adult humans can't hear past 40hz (perfect hearing
> is 20hz to 20khz). Therefore, most humans don't even hear the fundamental of
> the Low E on a bass guitar, nevermind the Low B. Check mate.
But as others have posted here, when it's not there, it's missed!
You don't miss it?? Imagine that.
> Onwards. Every hear of Lincoln Center in NYC? That hall's freqency response
> in terms on proximity to the stage rolls off significantly just about
> anywhere you stand in the room (even up close) from 125hz, yes,
> one_hundred_and_twenty_five_hz and down. Even the BEST tuned rooms that we
> pay hundreds of dollars to be in can't "resonate" the frequencies as low as
> the fundamentals of the bass guitar's lowest notes. doubt me? See Science of
> Musical Sound by Pierce, page 144, 1st edition. But, you can be sure that
> people in there are hearing bass when bass is generated. This is b/c the
> harmonics of the bass notes is what they hear, and they are strongest
> between 80-250 hz (audible) Check mate.
What the hell does the acoustics properties of the four 10 cab have to
do with the acoustics of LC. Oh, they both can't resonate below 80 Hz.
Is that your point.
<sigh>
> You discount the need to push maximum, huge amounts of air for a large hall.
> Each speaker has its application, and size of cone seems to be the least
> important in terms of delivering chest thumping bass. Mass air being pushed,
> cabinet design, etc. seem to be most important. A PA application to deliver
> sound to an entire arena is different than a bass amp that has to produce
> sound in a small club, or a mini subwoofer for computer speakers in a 15x15
> room. It is about the right size speaker for the right environment. Indeed
> there will be a tradeoff, just as in bass cabinet design, in a PA speaker
> subwoofer design in that you can't just put the biggest speaker in there you
> can find. There will be a tradeoff in speaker recovery time which will screw
> up the resolution from note to note.
Yes, I know.
> Again, look at a Bose compared to another comparible size radio. The Bose,
> b/c of design engineering throws WAY more bass compared to the smaller
> radio. If what you say is true, sound engineers for Bose would be out of
> business, b/c all they would have to do is just put in a bigger speaker.
Maybe Bose should make a better version four 10" for doing gigs then.
> > Take that sub woofer and place it on a four foot sand column outside and
> > see if it does the same thing now!!! Measure it with an SPL meter C
> > weighted.
>
> Why would you want to do that? That isn't comparing a 1-15 to a 4-10. That
> isn't "natural." Check mate.
It just points out that in the absence of reflected sound waves in the
listening environment, things fall apart. Systems that fair well in the
listening room do fall on their face when placed on a raft in the middle
of a sandy desert.
> > You miss that fact that there are two very different environments that
> > mixing has to be directed to.
> Nope. There is only one. Make it sound good on as many types of systems as
> you can. That is why the mixdown speakers are not the HUGE speakers that you
> really like. The mix down speakers are there to represent what an average
> stereo would deliver. Many times, the frequency response of the mixdown
> speakers isn't anywhere NEAR the fundamental of a low B on a bass guitar.
> Check mate.
You Missed my point all together. You would not do well at Live Sound
then.
What works in the studio, does not work in the concert venue.
What works in the concert venue, does not work in the studio.
The end goal is different by the nature of the final acoustic listening
environments the mix will be heard in.
Two very different approcahes in the engineering, two very different
worlds all together, and a very common mistake.
Many live sound engineers find studio engineering a cakewalk!!!!!
> > You claimed the basic bass note fundamental is a waste to reproduce. It
> > gets in the way, and only the 2 & 3 harmonics are relevant into fooling
> > you into thinking the fundamental is there. RIGHT??? Or did I put
> > words into your mouth as you claim?
>
> Didn't say that, before, but what I will say now is YES you are correct. The
> human ear can BARELY perceive notes at 30 hz which is where the low B's
> fundamental is. This isn't the frequency that makes people go "Holy shit can
> you hear all that bass?" It is the harmonics that are well above that, as I
> said before, in the 80 to 250hz range. Check mate again.
So as you would have it, there would be NOTHING From The Bass That We
Could FEEL from your four 10 cabinet. WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!
I and others like to FEEL Something from the music. Everything about
the low end in music is *about* feeling it!! Most people want to FEEL
THAT Part of The Music!!!!
Those cars with their high power subs booming away riding down the
Nations Roads give testiment to that FACT!!!
The same desire is true at concerts and clubs. You Miss The Low End
Point!
> > BS! 10's Don't Make The Trip to the back of the room in the club!!!
> > 15's do.
>
> Depends on cabinet design my friend. Bigger isn't always better.
>
> Want proof? Take a Peavey TNT with a 15" BW speaker, and put it next to my
> 2x10 Eden D210XLT, and I GUARAN-Fing-TEE you that the Eden will throw more
> bass. It isn't just about the cones. It is about the whole design. All
> anyone has to do to disprove your theory is to find ONE 10" configuration
> (2x10 or 4x10) that beats ONE 1x15 in terms of feeling bass in a club or
> whatever. I have found that, and the Eden blows the Peavey away. Check mate
> once again.
One real good 15" in a tuned "W" bin will do that out to the parking lot
with out breaking a sweat. Most likely with less energy required too.
> > Take only one of those bass 10" speakers and compare it to one 15" like
> > a TAD TL-1603 for example.
> >
> > Place them on the floor facing up. Hook them both up to an amp and play
> > your bass through them. Walk around them. Listen to which one has the
> > lows.
>
> There you go again. You want to keep taking the cones out. Why do you want
> to do that? Who is going to play bass like that? See original subject header
> again. I know you are a repair guy, but most folks like to keep their
> cabinets intact when they play and listen to them.
If you did the experiment, you would under stand what Mother Nature is
all about.
You would understand why Kick Drums sound low pitched, and snare drums
sound high pitched. Not the other way around.
That is Mother Nature talking to you again.
This also relates to the size the cabinets we place those speakers in,
and how they will perform when placed in different sized boxes.
Big box, lower system resonance. Small box, higher system resonance.
Read on the subject of Mother Nature.
> I am even comparing a 2x10 to a 15. A 4x10 will have an even bigger cabinet,
> and throw more bass. The cone size is "mostly" irrelevant for everything
> except one thing my friend:
Cone size is important! Small cones don't do what big cones do. Small
Voice Coils don't do what Big Voice coils do. Mother Nature gives
efficiency when you let Her give it. Otherwise, you have the
inefficient Power Piston Method in front of you.
> The reason that people like the 10's better is
> that they are more responsive than 15's, and THAT is fact.
Nope!! It's because it's small, compact, loud, ballsy, and IN YOUR FACE
with all its missing low end fundamental tones!!!!
It's obnoxious to hear in R&B, FUNK, and BLUES.
GOD FORBID that four 10's were ever used in the Leslie for the B3
Hammond Organ!!!!!
He knew what he was doing!!!!
> The lows can be
> reproduced, and generated by cabinet design, but a 10" will always have a
> tighter, quicker reponse for slapping, and fast finger style playing.
I guess you are one of the younger Attitude guys who have never had the
experience of using some of the really light weight efficient assemblies
some of the 15's had in the 60's and early 70's.
A pair of them in my Mother Nature Cab will Make You Flinch with a slap
and pop from my Jazz Bass. You can't play faster than those cones can
jump.
You have read too much of the sales hype that sells four ten cabs.
> The
> speaker is smaller, and recovers faster, and doesn't oscillate as much, and
> takes less time to recover from note to note. So, while the 15 will
> certainly be able to deliver frequencies that most people can't even hear
> (with all other cabinet design factors being equal) the reponsiveness of it
> will be inferior, resulting in a muddier sound,
Not so from two stand points!!!
You Miss one very important point. You have outlined every thing if in
the singular. You compared one 10" to one 15". But that all falls
apart when you compare what is required in energy to get FOUR 10's in a
single cabinet to jump, compared to the energy required for the single
15" cab to jump. In the REAL WORLD that single 15" cab has the EDGE on
the ENERGY REQUIRED for the jump response time!!!!
Imagine that.
Then, with today's generation of Crown Crest, QSC, etc.. SS power
MUSCLE amps, that doesn't wash anymore!!!!! Those amps suck in and
push out those cones with so much available energy that hardly notice
any difference in the response times can be noticed by any human ear.
Test gear has to be used for microscopic inspect in order for you to see
it at all.
Add in to the equation the Muscle Amp!!!!
> which isn't subject to human
> hearing limitations, but will be most certainly audible, b/c the audible
> harmonics in the 80-200hz range will also be affected by the lack of
> reponsiveness and sound muddy. And there is really no arguing that. 10's are
> just more responsive, and the reaons they are more preferred than the 15's.
See above. It's been covered.
> I like arguing with people like you b/c you tout all this "mother nature"
> stuff like you are the Zen buddhist of sound and what you say is "the word."
> Interesting, in this act you are putting on, you jade your own perceptions
> and don't see what is natural (you know, how you want to take the speakers
> out, then do all sorts of tests, etc.). Mother nature also is involved in
> cabinet design, wood resonance, mass of air flow, etc. is it not? You seem
> to only want to apply mother nature in an isolated part of a system, while
> completely ignoring the other critical elements of the system.
Yes, why don't you point to one of those isolated parts of the system
for us as it relates to the power piston four 10's and the inferior 15"
cabinet that is being offered.
> Why, if you
> are as intelligent as you seem to be, would you want to be selective with
> the whole mother nature thing?
Because Mother Nature is a nice thing. You and I are here because of
her.
The whole world of sound around you is hers in all its wonder. We have
this idea that we can do things with out or in spite of her. When will
man learn he will loose every time, or be at a lesser for doing so.
Look around you and you will see it is so.
With respect to the Natural sound's of things, we are always looking to
out do and improve her sounds. A Lexicon concert hall effect is used in
a recording where none existed. The singers Voice is also processed to
where the singers natural voice sounds nothing like what is on the CD or
in the concert venue.
The acoustic sound of the drums are tweaked with EQ to the point that
the resultant sound is not even identifiable to the natural acoustic
original. But having gotten used to this processed drum sound, we have
come to think that the natural sound that appears on the CD.
Same as it is with these sounds, so it is with the bass guitar sounds.
Yeah, I was told to deal with evolution of today's music with the
included sounds that go along with it too. I had used as any example of
comparison the music of woodstock 69 to that of what appeared at
Woodstock 99.
I tried to show something in that comparison. Not all evolution is for
the good. We have to know the difference. Attitude, and rebellion is
sometimes the fuel for change, and that was used in the thread to make a
point.
However another main difference between Woodstock 69 and 99 was that in
Woodstock 69 Mother Nature was a large part of what it was all about.
There was real music, real talent producing the music, basic bare bones
sound reproduction, a mellow positive vibe was all over the place. THAT
was the equation that made Woodstock 69 what it was.
That was a form of Attitude, and Rebellion which included an
appreciation of Mother Nature and those who live in her domain.
In Woodstock 99, these things were not evident. Woodstock 99 was a
showcase of Adolescent Attitude In Your Face Middle Finger Waving at the
World, Real Music , the Audience, and the domain of Mother Nature.
Angry temper tantrum displays with noise producing guitars, screaming
and yelling rather than singing a melody of any kind, BS power chords in
place of any real musicianship, and a basic disregard and respect for
any thing that was contained in the memory of what Woodstock 69 was all
about.
So I sit here watching this Attitude Finger Waving going on by a
generation of musicians who have no interest in advancing to a higher
level of Musical talent and Musicianship for producing and performing
well written songs that make us ALL Feel good to be alive because we
feel good things from the music.
Real Music that people can feel, and makes people Feel Good, is what it
is all about!!!
> Now run along and go trade in that 15" and discover what you have been
> missing!
Yep, you are of that generation that made Woodstock 99 the flop is was.
You have that ATTITUDE Problem with all your checkmates, and your "Now
Run Along....".
ATTITUDE doesn't make good Music, it just makes NOISE.
Real Music generates a Positive Attitude from the people it touches.
Danny Russell
Rich Koerner wrote:
BIG SNIP
> In Woodstock 99, these things were not evident. Woodstock 99 was a
> showcase of Adolescent Attitude In Your Face Middle Finger Waving at the
> World, Real Music , the Audience, and the domain of Mother Nature.
BIG SNIP
Hey, I had that happen to me at Pep Boys today while trying to buy a
case of oil. Whew... the help these days! I'm certain that a nice
recession would be a good thing right about now to put some
competition back in the workplace, ya know? That's a compelling
reason to vote republican. -Danny
--
<<<GET BLITZED!!!>>>
Peter Duncan
>
>
> Peter Duncan wrote:
>
> > > I don't care, pick your lowest bass note. "E" or "B", what ever, It
> > > doesn't matter. That four ten speaker cabinet will not have a system
> > > resonance anywhere close to the fundamental of that note. For it's
> > > size, Mother Nature Says, NO WAY!!!
> > >
> > > Case Closed!
> >
> > Case OPEN! E or B doesn't matter? The Fundamental frequency of the Low B
on
> > a bass is 30.87hz. The Low E on a bass is 41.2hz. Nowhere have you
indicated
> > that speaker size is a direct correlation with the frequency response of
a
> > cabinet as a whole. Most adult humans can't hear past 40hz (perfect
hearing
> > is 20hz to 20khz). Therefore, most humans don't even hear the
fundamental of
> > the Low E on a bass guitar, nevermind the Low B. Check mate.
>
> But as others have posted here, when it's not there, it's missed!
>
> You don't miss it?? Imagine that.
No, what I am saying is that it isn't heard, which blows your theory that
the 15 is a better speaker cause it can deliver the fundamental out of the
water. I might be able to do so, but we can't hear it anyway!
>
>
> > Onwards. Every hear of Lincoln Center in NYC? That hall's freqency
response
> > in terms on proximity to the stage rolls off significantly just about
> > anywhere you stand in the room (even up close) from 125hz, yes,
> > one_hundred_and_twenty_five_hz and down. Even the BEST tuned rooms that
we
> > pay hundreds of dollars to be in can't "resonate" the frequencies as low
as
> > the fundamentals of the bass guitar's lowest notes. doubt me? See
Science of
> > Musical Sound by Pierce, page 144, 1st edition. But, you can be sure
that
> > people in there are hearing bass when bass is generated. This is b/c the
> > harmonics of the bass notes is what they hear, and they are strongest
> > between 80-250 hz (audible) Check mate.
>
> What the hell does the acoustics properties of the four 10 cab have to
> do with the acoustics of LC. Oh, they both can't resonate below 80 Hz.
> Is that your point.
Interesting that NOW you have a problem with abstract comparison technique?
Up to now that is ALL your posts have been!
What the issue with LC says is that even if the 15 was better at delivering
the fundamental, the fundamental of the lower notes on the bass itself will
be lost even in the best of acoustic environments, even if the human ear
could hear it anyway. So, not only are humans limiting, but the best
acoustic environments are as well. hence, the advantage of the 15 is not
that much of an advantage after all, but in fact, you lose resolution from
note to note cause the 15 can't recover as well as a 10. Aditionally, the
FEEL issue comes up here too in that you won't be able to feel those unheard
notes either b/c they are lost in the acoustics of the room.
>
> <sigh>
Gasp!
>
> > You discount the need to push maximum, huge amounts of air for a large
hall.
> > Each speaker has its application, and size of cone seems to be the least
> > important in terms of delivering chest thumping bass. Mass air being
pushed,
> > cabinet design, etc. seem to be most important. A PA application to
deliver
> > sound to an entire arena is different than a bass amp that has to
produce
> > sound in a small club, or a mini subwoofer for computer speakers in a
15x15
> > room. It is about the right size speaker for the right environment.
Indeed
> > there will be a tradeoff, just as in bass cabinet design, in a PA
speaker
> > subwoofer design in that you can't just put the biggest speaker in there
you
> > can find. There will be a tradeoff in speaker recovery time which will
screw
> > up the resolution from note to note.
>
> Yes, I know.
At least we are in agreement here.
>
> > Again, look at a Bose compared to another comparible size radio. The
Bose,
> > b/c of design engineering throws WAY more bass compared to the smaller
> > radio. If what you say is true, sound engineers for Bose would be out of
> > business, b/c all they would have to do is just put in a bigger speaker.
>
> Maybe Bose should make a better version four 10" for doing gigs then.
Well, I see Bose in the form of Eden. The engineering behind the cabinet
enables 2x10's and 4x10's to exceed most other companies 15's and even 18's.
>
>
> > > Take that sub woofer and place it on a four foot sand column outside
and
> > > see if it does the same thing now!!! Measure it with an SPL meter C
> > > weighted.
> >
> > Why would you want to do that? That isn't comparing a 1-15 to a 4-10.
That
> > isn't "natural." Check mate.
>
> It just points out that in the absence of reflected sound waves in the
> listening environment, things fall apart. Systems that fair well in the
> listening room do fall on their face when placed on a raft in the middle
> of a sandy desert.
But we are comparing 1x15 and 4x10 cabinets, not a single 15 and a single
10. We are comparing the entire setup, and what sounds better. You can't
apply "mother nature" to only one part of a system, but you must apply it to
an entire system. The laws of physics disagree with you.
>
>
> > > You miss that fact that there are two very different environments that
> > > mixing has to be directed to.
>
> > Nope. There is only one. Make it sound good on as many types of systems
as
> > you can. That is why the mixdown speakers are not the HUGE speakers that
you
> > really like. The mix down speakers are there to represent what an
average
> > stereo would deliver. Many times, the frequency response of the mixdown
> > speakers isn't anywhere NEAR the fundamental of a low B on a bass
guitar.
> > Check mate.
>
> You Missed my point all together. You would not do well at Live Sound
> then.
You missed my ORIGINAL point, and that was mixing for a CD. YOU
automatically extended this to mixing live sound. I was only taking about
mixing in the studio for CD production. You have a nasty habit of putting
words in people's mouths and going off on tangents to suit yourself. I bet I
am not the only person to tell you that.
Allow me to reiterate that the mixdown speakers in the studios won't produce
the fundamental of the lowest notes on the bass either. Apparently, sound
engineers, and speaker manufacturers, and the average listener, don't care
about hearing fundamentals below 40 hz either.
>
> > > You claimed the basic bass note fundamental is a waste to reproduce.
It
> > > gets in the way, and only the 2 & 3 harmonics are relevant into
fooling
> > > you into thinking the fundamental is there. RIGHT??? Or did I put
> > > words into your mouth as you claim?
> >
> > Didn't say that, before, but what I will say now is YES you are correct.
The
> > human ear can BARELY perceive notes at 30 hz which is where the low B's
> > fundamental is. This isn't the frequency that makes people go "Holy shit
can
> > you hear all that bass?" It is the harmonics that are well above that,
as I
> > said before, in the 80 to 250hz range. Check mate again.
>
> So as you would have it, there would be NOTHING From The Bass That We
> Could FEEL from your four 10 cabinet. WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!
What are you talking about? The freq response of my cabinet is from 40hz and
above. Despite the 2x10 size. Freq response is not mutually exclusive to
cone size. It is the whole cabinet. The low E on a bass is at 41hz. So,
anything from E on up, fundamental comes out. Whether people actually hear
that, that is another issue. Additionally, you seem to feel that it is only
the frequencies that you can't hear that you can feel. You can also feel
frequencies that you *can* hear.
Additionaly, you probably know that the lower frequencies require more power
to push. The frequency response curve is not flat according to mother
nature, not in terms of amount of power need to produce them, nor what the
human can hear (we are biased towards the mid range area). So, it would take
an insane amount of power to make those fundamentals that you covet actually
be pushed out into the room where you could feel it. At the same time, the
REST of the audible spectrum on the bass would be magnified by that much. SO
for the average bass system, you would need a crossover for about 60hz and
below where you could individually set the gain controls for the low
fundamentals, and the rest of the bass spectrum. This only happens on a PA
setup where there are subs.
Getting back to this post however, (1x15 vs 4x10) this crossover doesn't
exist, on a single cabinet design (although it would be a great design idea
in both cases). Therefore, for a single cabinet system, even if you had the
power to push the fundamental out to the audience where they could hear it,
you would have to have the volume cranked, and the bass guitar itself would
be too damned loud b/c you would have to turn it up that much to get the
fundamentals out there in a appropriate amount that sounds good (feels good)
and at the same time, everying in the AUDIBLE range would be turned up that
much more (since the freq response is not flat). So, your claim on 15's are
better at delivering the fundamental is really a wash.
>
> I and others like to FEEL Something from the music. Everything about
> the low end in music is *about* feeling it!! Most people want to FEEL
> THAT Part of The Music!!!!
Ok, you are saying that folks in the clubs I play at can't a) hear my bass
at all and b) not feel it?
>
> If you did the experiment, you would under stand what Mother Nature is
> all about.
No, I don't want to. You are really strange man. Lets look at it like this.
You would rate a Mustang 5.0 as being faster since it is a 5 litre engine
and it has more displacement than a mercedes or a BMW with a much smaller
displacement, somewhere in the 2-3 litre range. You can't take each engine
out of the rest of the car and do tests to see which is more powerful. It is
the whole package. Again, talk mother nature on the whole system, not just
one part of the system. Did you ever take physics or were you blasted out of
your mind on acid back in the 60's?
>
> > The reason that people like the 10's better is
> > that they are more responsive than 15's, and THAT is fact.
>
> Nope!! It's because it's small, compact, loud, ballsy, and IN YOUR FACE
> with all its missing low end fundamental tones!!!!
Which ones, the ones you can't hear? Again, on a 4 string, my cabinet covers
it just fine, and DOES amplify the fundamental of the low E.
> You have read too much of the sales hype that sells four ten cabs.
No, I used to own a 15 my friend. Now I have 2x10. The 2x10 blows it away in
bass response, and articulation. I actually have to turn the bass shelving
DOWN to not overpower everyone in the band. That is a rolloff from 80hz on
down. I have played through every speaker config imaginable in the studios
in NYC, and NJ. I know what I have played through. It isn't sales hype, it
is experience.
Question? Have you ever played through an Eden head with an Eden 2x10 or
4x10? I doubt it. If you did, this conversation wouldn't even be happening.
>
> > The
> > speaker is smaller, and recovers faster, and doesn't oscillate as much,
and
> > takes less time to recover from note to note. So, while the 15 will
> > certainly be able to deliver frequencies that most people can't even
hear
> > (with all other cabinet design factors being equal) the reponsiveness of
it
> > will be inferior, resulting in a muddier sound,
>
> Not so from two stand points!!!
>
> You Miss one very important point. You have outlined every thing if in
> the singular. You compared one 10" to one 15". But that all falls
> apart when you compare what is required in energy to get FOUR 10's in a
> single cabinet to jump, compared to the energy required for the single
> 15" cab to jump. In the REAL WORLD that single 15" cab has the EDGE on
> the ENERGY REQUIRED for the jump response time!!!!
But ALL the 10's recover faster and are ready again. I didn't miss any
points. Stay with me now. Don't go off track!
>
> > Why, if you
> > are as intelligent as you seem to be, would you want to be selective
with
> > the whole mother nature thing?
>
> Because Mother Nature is a nice thing. You and I are here because of
> her.
Mother nature also is involved in
cabinet design, wood resonance, mass of air flow, etc. is it not? You seem
to only want to apply mother nature in an isolated part of a system, while
completely ignoring the other critical elements of the system.
You need to get beyond the 60's man. Sound has improved drastically since
then. Musical tastes are irrelevent and subjective. I suppose you are one of
those guys that says Digital recording is too harsh, and analog is the only
way to go too, and vinyl kicks CD's ass and all that too. Whatever.
I know I won't convince you, can't teach an old dog new tricks. Open your
mind.
pd
Rich Koerner
Peter Duncan wrote:
<Snip>
> What are you talking about? The freq response of my cabinet is from 40hz and
> above. Despite the 2x10 size.
Really!!!
Sit that cabinet 3 feet up off the floor in a large open room. Then with
one watt of constant input power, sweep from 5Hz up. With an C weighted
SPL meter placed one meter from the cabinet at center height, record the
readings on the SPL meter when the cabinet wakes ups and starts to talk
while maintaining only one watt the whole distance.
Note, and record the Peak Bumps as you sweep your way along.
The largest bump is your system resonant frequency.
The smaller ones below and above it, is not.
Resonates at, and goes down to, are two different things.
What is your cabinet's resonant frequency???
Which is not the advertized what it goes down to frequency?
Let us know the results.
Peter Duncan
pd
--
"Rich Koerner" <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote in message
news:38CC6BBD...@timeelect.com...
>
>
> Peter Duncan wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> > What are you talking about? The freq response of my cabinet is from 40hz
and
> > above. Despite the 2x10 size.
>
> Really!!!
>
> Sit that cabinet 3 feet up off the floor in a large open room. Then with
> one watt of constant input power, sweep from 5Hz up. With an C weighted
> SPL meter placed one meter from the cabinet at center height, record the
> readings on the SPL meter when the cabinet wakes ups and starts to talk
> while maintaining only one watt the whole distance.
>
> Note, and record the Peak Bumps as you sweep your way along.
>
> The largest bump is your system resonant frequency.
>
> The smaller ones below and above it, is not.
>
> Resonates at, and goes down to, are two different things.
>
> What is your cabinet's resonant frequency???
>
> Which is not the advertized what it goes down to frequency?
>
> Let us know the results.
>
>
MDrive4
They aren't my favorite, but a front-ported 2x10 is ALWAYS smaller than my
beloved 1x15, easier to transport, and because its speaker area is greater, at
least as loud. It's a trade-off my back truly appreciates after heavy gigging.
So, eventhough they are by no means my favorite, 2x10s drive a hard bargain in
the power-to-weight department. And they are capable of superb depth of tone.
edvaard
Brad Johnson
>Date: 3/13/00 9:09 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000313090905...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
I have two different small 1-15 cabs that are smaller than any 2-10 I've seen.
One has a 400w EVM driver, the other a 300w Emminence driver, they both sound
great and even moreso when used with a 2-10 on top. Serious lows. Light weight.
Brad
MDrive4
Are they front-ported reflex cabinets?
edvaard
Brad Johnson
>Message-id: <20000313184628...@ng-cj1.aol.com>
>
>Brad
>
>Are they front-ported reflex cabinets?
>
>edvaard
Yes, they have front vents. I also have an Ampeg combo with dual rear ports
that works very well.
Brad