LukeFRC

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1407520577' post='2521491'] FWIW... and I don't mean to demean your experiment, but I don't know what you plugged into it and what sound you were looking at or wanted to hear.. bass-wise. I know what models you used but I don't know what sound you get out of them... [/quote] not demeaning at all - I stuck my status update up and a few folk (Discreet, Shergold and Kiwi - you're to blame!) were interested in some kinda write up - as you said no only does no one know what we were aiming for sound wise but it's so hard to both describe sound and know what info would be interested. Plus we mention Barefaced - the Basschat marmite.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1407505741' post='2521290'] Yes, it's beefier than Beefy Jack McBeef, winner of last year's 'Mr Beefy in the Bottom' competition. But the OP does say the Big One was only 'briefly' plugged in, so it looks like it was a bit of an afterthought here. There are no attenuators on The Big One, it has a 15" Kappalite driver and a 6.5" mid-range unit. It's an 8 ohm cab. For the record, mine has endless acres of bottom end. The joy is you don't need to dial it in, it's just there. I would agree that you do need to give it some beans to get the best out of it. Or maybe that's just what my G-K MB500 Fusion sounds like..? Remember, The Big One was Barefaced's flagship cab for a while, and it's still a lot better than most manufacturers' current offerings. In my humble opinion, of course. [/quote] We weren't stupid loud but we weren't running them super quiet either. James (who owns it and gigs it) said it was tuned higher than the big baby. We tried it briefly and it sounded like he described so didn't feel the need to question it further! We would need Alex back on the forums to comment if the Barefaced Big One is tuned higher or lower than the Big Baby. To my ears the Big baby went lower. And of course the ACME B2 is -3dB at 41Hz and -6dB at 31Hz and it's not as low tuned as that. The trade off is that it's more efficient.... Sorry it's my thread so I'm going to get on my soapbox... we got to try out some really good high end gear and it was all good - but aimed at different things... and I think this is the important thing to think about if discussing bass cabs. What is it designed for and what were the tradeoffs? Based on the three cabs we tried... If you want something to win a "Mr Beefy in the Bottom" competition go think about ACME cabs. If you want a one cab solution and often don't have PA support... Big One, If you have PA support more often than not... I would go for a Big Baby... Personally I don't think low end response is the be all and end all - I'ld personally like to hear the Big Baby 2 a Simplexx 112 and a Fearless F112... for James playing Reggae and synth bass a bigger low end is more important and I think he was going to try and hear a BFM Omni and go along those lines. Mind you Tomorrow I'm playing at a wedding and just plugging a Zoom b3 into the PA and using a set of headphones so make of that what you will!

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' timestamp='1407486452' post='2520929'] Thanks for the effort that's obviously gone into this Like. Interesting write up. It all goes to illustrate tat unless you can throw money at something to avoid compromise, or even better, if you can avoid physics altogether, then designing a speaker cabinet is a compromise. How those compromises are weighted will determine the overall balance of sound. Interesting comment regarding the Big One. I thought that the mid was pretty good when I had mine, but the newer mid/treble drivers Barefaced use are supposed to be much smoother. It sounds like they are a world apart now. I also remember the Big One being really beefy in the bottom end. Must resist temptation to investigate new gear.... must resist temptation to investigate new gear... must resist... must resist... [/quote] the big one was tuned a fair bit higher compared to the the bb and acme. James says it goes a lot louder

[quote name='Chienmortbb' timestamp='1407480447' post='2520873'] I think this proves what many of us knew the Ames will go way way down but the very low stuff is not realy good for real world gigging. Alex designs for real world playing good work although it may have been beter if you had made it a blind test. [/quote] well it depends very much on what you define real world gigging as. There's plenty of folk on here who play in bands where the whole bass sound comes from their amp.... Whereas when I was in a band the gigs we were playing always had PA support so the rig served a very different role. And that's before you get into what kind of music. I'm not sure a blanket statement that x y or z doesn't work in real life is either true or that helpful. It all works and is brilliantly engineered but it depends on what you are trying to do with it.

[quote name='funkle' timestamp='1407476655' post='2520855'] Nice work. Thanks for sharing! [/quote] no idea if any of that made sense to anyone else.

[u]Amps...[/u] are harder to talk about. The ashdown power amp is a big heavy power amp that I can't wait to replace - but it does the job and I don't feel the need to say any more about it, it's a poweramp - and I doubt we were pushing it hard enough to be much different to any other power amp. The Shuttle 6.0 is a very well respected class D amp. with I think a valve the pre stage. The Hellborg is a very clean and very uncompressed sounding transformer and coil based preamp, based on a neve channel strip apparently. The Eq is quite nice and gives a wee flavour to the sound. I find it hard to compare as they are so different to each other - to my ears the Hellborg sounded nicer, and reproduced the synth very well - but then you would expect that. comparatively you could hear the way the Shuttle was a wee bit more compressed. What was surprising to me was while the Hellborg rig sounded broadly the same through all the cabs the shuttle sounded very different to my ears through the the ACME and BB, maybe because of the impedance difference, but while the Shuttle sounded fairly normal (what ever that means) through the ACME through the BB it suddenly seemed to go way more middy sounding. Like the slight spikeyness I heard and liked in the BB's mids compared to the ACME were boosted. The Shuttle I thought sounded pretty good through the ACME, less so with the BB. Whereas the Hellborg was possibly a bit too polite through the ACME but enjoyed the BB for bass, but for the synth the bottom end of the ACME came into play. Conclusions.... apples and oranges! they are different bits of gear for different things. For me the hellborg>light poweramp> big baby would be a nice rig (but pricey!) err I don't know what else to say that would be of any use to anyone!

One of the main things we wanted to do was compare the cabs, I think I'm right in saying James is looking for a massive bottom end in a not so massive package. For me I'm not so fussed about reproducing the fundamental of a low B and just like a nice sound, esp in the mids. I think we were very lucky to have the synth there as hearing the fuller (and sometimes way lower) sounds gave the speakers a better work out. The main comparisons were between the Big Baby and the ACME, we fed the two outputs of the Hellborg into the power amp and connected a cab to each side so we could switch between one and the other. I'm not really sure how to write up something like this so I guess here's my thoughts... [u]ACME B2[/u] This speaker, as you can guess has a big low end, sticking the synth through it it and it replicated this big full bottom end. The general response was smooth and flat through the range and it seemed to cross over to the tweeter earlier than the BB. Surprisingly very nice. We set it at the supposed "flat" settings as reported on t'internet. [u]BAREFACED BB[/u] With the power amp at the same setting it was as loud as the B2, even though the B2 is 4 ohms and the BB 8 ohms. So more sensitive (we all knew that though) As one of the cabs I've investigated and wanted I was expecting it to blow away my ACME... with the synth it didn't. The ACME was defiantly smoother sounding through the mids and the low end rolled off way sooner on the BB making it sound slightly lacking. and harsher. However with a normal bass sound ( not synth) the higher low end roll off made less difference. On stage probably better, and the more aggressive mid driver gave a really pleasant "spikeyness" to the sound which to my ear would work really nicely in a band setting. Turning the attenuation all the way on on the ACME brought it closer in sound to the BB. My conclusions from comparing the two.... the ACME felt and sounded like the better, more expensive and more engineered cab. It was bigger, smoother and more hi-fi. BUT like James pointed out you would possibly struggle for volume with just one... and it's supposedly easy to crease the cones. The Barefaced was obviously engineered for a different job. Back to back I felt the ACME sounded "better" but I thought the sound of the Big Baby would work better in a band context. I really liked the spiky mids and it sounded good with my streamer. For running the synth through the ACME sounded a bit smoother, but I guess my concern was how much volume it would be able to put out live whereas the Big baby you felt had power on tap. We also briefly plugged in the Big One, it's an earlier Barefaced design using a 15 inch Kappalite 3015 and I believe is similar in design ethos to the fEARful 15/6, I can't remember if it had a tweeter in at all. It was a lot louder and way higher tuned so the lows weren't present in the way our ears had got used to and the mids were very very aggressive and unpleasant sounding to my ears. To be honest I really didn't like it, but I also don't know how any attenuators were set... so... even still it was leagues behind the Big Baby. After a few moments we went back the the big baby and B2!

I was looking on one of those Facebook music forums things and ended up talking to James Wiltshire (also called that on Basschat) there about cabs and his cabs and mine... we discovered we lived about half a mile from each other and decided a cup of tea and comparison session was in order. I found it very exciting and rewarding to be able to play and try a load of quite esoteric gear AND be able to hear someone else play them and get a more removed impression... I stuck that in my status on here and a few people asked for a wee write up... so here it is. Bare in mind... it was almost a week ago, and it was a just mine and Jame's ears giving an opinion. James should hopefully chime in here too and give his views... Me, former indie-artschool-pop bands, backing singer songwriters and at the moment mostly playing at church. Very much an amateur, I was using a 1991 Warwick thumb with barts and a ACG preamp fitted. James, super cool pro guy, great player. If I remember rightly he plays Reggae, electro type stuff, recording sessions and function bands. He had a (big no idea type) synth thing and a midi jazz bass that could go from a trigger for the synth to a trad jazz tone. Gear compared.... Cabs... ACME B2 (4 ohm) Barefaced Big Baby (8 ohm) Barefaced Big One (8 ohm) Amplification... Hellborg Preamp Ashdown APM1000 power amp Genz Shuttle 6.0

Clean tone, nice. Preamp has nicely chosen Eq points Earlier two unit Powersoft ones. Fat and warm Newer one unit ice power ones less fat and warm

I just go by what bill says

[quote name='Thunderbird' timestamp='1407274744' post='2519153'] Thats really good but if you live somewhere where there is not really many pros you either do it yourself or pay over the odds I think £30 for that set up was amazing value [/quote] He's in Cambridgeshire not the Isle of Rum! It's a bit strange I think, I wouldn't trust a nobody with a fret file, and the rest of the set up stuff is what I have done for free for my friends if they ask.

[quote name='roonjuice' timestamp='1407258131' post='2518897'] HAHAHAHAHA FLAME THROWER HEADSTOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/quote] Hi Chris Sorry I'm really really sorry that both the dogs got burnt, I saw the photos on Facebook and they do look odd without any hair. It must be hard to have to rub ointment into them every three hours. I guess you have the time now, how long do you think before you get the workshop up and running? Real shame about Alex, I'm sure you'll miss him. At this point PLEASE PLEASE can I point out that I had nothing to do with the flame thrower idea- I wouldn't suggest something that, as we now know, is so dangerous. I just was making a few suggestions to Roon and suggested they could help his Alpher bass "light up the stage" and he took it a bit literally. Luke

[quote name='roonjuice' timestamp='1407257428' post='2518883'] Cheers Luke, is exactly why I posted this thread, to extend ideas and see what's out there, ultimately I will be trusting Chris's judgment of course, that's why I am commissioning him as my luthier:) R [/quote] So if I suggest something idiotic and chris has to spend hours talking you down from the idea he's going to blame me isn't he? Alpher strings are really good!

personally I would be looking at this and asking Chris what he would think about making this part of the design.... http://basschat.co.uk/topic/239238-acg-eq03/page__p__2513463__hl__acg__fromsearch__1#entry2513463

my first thought is that anyone half decent wouldn't be running a service like that via gumtree. It doesn't seem that cheap either - its just a basic setup with a bit of a look at the frets. my second thought is.... if you're going to get someone mucking around with your frets go to a professional with a good rep. If you're just doing to just be setting, neck relief, height and intonation... flipping learn to do it yourself - it's not hard, it's not like many of us have floyd rose trems or the like!

I was about to start making suggestions but realised that I would just be describing a NT Warwick thumb - but you've got one of them! I think your challenge needs to be - growliest bass ever, that you can also dial other sounds out of!

[quote name='paulbass' timestamp='1406932010' post='2516118'] Well so far it seems like i'm going to be keeping the Warwick judging by all your kind comments . I just feel it should be used as it really is a top bass and i havent touched or missed it since getting the Jazz. Its an awesome bass to have as a second bass....i never thought i'd say that! But it has made me realise how lucky i am to 2 decent basses. I've always been a one bass man and a bit of guilt takes over i guess! [/quote] you'll get over it. I had the same with 3 basses. kept buying a third and selling it - went through about 5 good things I really wanted to keep that way. I went up to 4, now down to 3 and happy. Play them both for a few months, If you still want to sell keep the warwick in a case somewhere... if after another 3 months you've never got it out its case and you're not thinking about it at all... you're probably safe to sell. I did that with my JV precision - AMAZING bass, I loved it. But not getting played so stuck it in it's case and after 3-4 months realised it had never come out of it's case. Swapped it for a thumb bass which was my holy grail bass

ok. take a deep breath. Repeat after me... unless you're really hard up on cash. [b]It is okay, to have two basses[/b] I had a warwick and passive fender for years - and you know what after a few months you will find some things that the thumb can do far better than the jazz.... if you have them both you have the choice.

yes, But you could probably blow it with a 350w amp if you're not careful...

[quote name='tbonepete' timestamp='1406908821' post='2515851'] I guess the rise in popularity of sandberg has put them under pressure to increase production,...... but the newer ones I've had are decidedly lower quality in construction, component quality, and sound. [/quote] sounds like what happened to warwick around the turn of the century....