alexclaber

[quote name='funkypenguin' post='480535' date='May 5 2009, 11:35 PM']this brings me to anthony jacksons concept... [url="http://www.fodera.com/a_jackson.html"]http://www.fodera.com/a_jackson.html[/url] an instrument all about the woods and metals with a single high quality pickup going through some seriously powerful amplification. (and an equally serious price tag....) the problem is that if you have a very flat/sterile amplifier (if (heaven forbid) you're using house equipment for instance) and you have no onboard EQ, you find yourself stuck with a sound you're unhappy with. Active EQ gives you more options IMO, by allowing greater manipulation of your bass sound. Active circuit with a proper active bypass (with passive tone controls) is the way to go IMHO.[/quote] If you have a very flat amplifier (not sterile) then you will hear the true sound of the bass. And if the bass sounds good then it will sound good once amplified. Anthony Jackson uses a high-end mic preamp with totally flat frequency response and essentially zero distortion which then goes through Meyer Sound cabs (which have as flat response and as low distortion as is possible from loudspeakers) and I'm sure he sounds great. I do the same thing on a lower budget (though with two pickups and 4-way switch giving me four starting points for my sound) with Q-Tuner passive pickups, Avalon U5 preamp, QSC PLX power amp and my own Barefaced Big One speaker cab. There is as little colouration as possible from the output jack of the bass to the sound hitting my ears and it sounds consistently fantastic. Let me put it another way - do cellists and classical guitarists need EQ to sound good or give them a range of sounds? So why should we? Alex

[quote name='budget bassist' post='480400' date='May 5 2009, 09:24 PM']...plus i've never liked the sound of a passive bass much, no amp EQing will change that, they just tend to sound dull and thuddy and you have no real control over the sound, at least not from the bass end. Not my style.[/quote] You really do need to try a GOOD passive bass! Alex

Can you try running fdeck's frequency response analyser through your UL502? I'd be very interested to see the results: [url="http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/#projects"]http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/#projects[/url] [url="http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/freesa.zip"]http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/freesa.zip[/url] I'm pretty certain the Epi UL cabs are scooped in the mids mainly because they have quite a hump in the midbass and then the bright compression tweeter. The strange thing is that the Compact is almost completely flat through the midrange, with just a bit more ouput in the lower treble region but by that point the dispersion is narrowing so it sounds more mellow than boosted there. Alex

Interesting - my understanding was that the UL502 is meant to sound very clean and pure, and as my U5/PLX rig is very clean and pure too and works great with the Compact I'd have thought that it too would have worked well. However I've noticed a lot of discussion on talkbass about the UL502 being particularly fussy about which cabs it sounds good with, so maybe it just doesn't like the Compact? Try some aggressive EQing - crank up that bottom! Alex

You could put the 3" port on the side, that should fit. Alternatively use a shelf port 0.8"x8" (i.e same csa) and make it 6" long (2/3 calculated length due to shelf port having extra end effect). Alex

The one thing I'll repeat is that watts are practically irrelevant. You need to consider both the sensitivity of the cab and the real-world power handling (not the silly thermal figure that's always quoted but the actual excursion limited power handling in the lows). That is why I said there's no point getting a more powerful amp if you're going to put it through an Ashdown 2x10" which won't manage to cleanly handle more than about 150W in the lows. I still think Pete's rig would whip any reasonably sized Ashdown rig whilst weighing half as much and thus is well worth hearing but then I would say that wouldn't I? Alex

[quote name='chris_pokkuri' post='479700' date='May 5 2009, 09:38 AM']Would the barefaced compact or bigone match up to a 410 and 115?[/quote] The Big One most certainly will. Bridge an LH1000 into it and stand well back! Alex

[quote name='Linus27' post='479100' date='May 4 2009, 04:42 PM']No, I didn't in the end. I did not want to waste his time in the end as I was still trying to decide what to go for.[/quote] So how did you manage to decide without trying it? Alex

Did you check out Pete's LH500 then? Alex

If I were you I'd go for the larger design as it gives a reasonably low F3 and is tuned low enough to not unload excessively with bass guitar. The higher tunings will indeed take more power above the tuning frequency but they'll also unload higher up so where you win on the one hand you lose on the other - fine for acoustic guitar where the lowest harmonic hitting the cab is likely to be 82Hz but with electric bass there will be some content down to 41 or even 31Hz unless you have a highpass filter in the signal chain. Larger vents work better because they suffer less friction, couple better with the air outside and cause less distortion - but as this 8" woofer doesn't move much air the recommended port only hits 5% Mach at 55W (which is where the woofer hits Xmax). Should be a very nice practice cab! Alex

The only problem I'd envisage is that the extra power of the ABM500 will be totally wasted on a 2x10", so you're better off sticking with your current head for now. Alex

[quote name='Pookus' post='477881' date='May 2 2009, 06:25 PM']I'm going ahead with the project using the Ashdown drivers. I'm keeping the 810 cab so it can all be put back together agian if needed. I can also buy some quality 10" drivers at a later date and switch them around.[/quote] Just bear in mind that it's rarely that easy to swap drivers - the bolt circle diameter and bolt spacing vary quite a lot even between bass guitar oriented 10"s! Alex

I'm gradually learning to read music. However it has essentially no bearing on the music I write and play and record or the gigs I do. When I have some time I'd like to get into playing jazz and for that it's very handy but for the original alternative rock-ish scene I inhabit it remains irrelevant. And whilst there are a lot of great players that read music well there are so many that don't, and the same is true for songwriters. It's a very useful tool but that's all it is - and just as when doing DIY a certain tool can be essential, helpful or unnecessary then so too can reading. (I do know what notes I'm playing, I know what the rhythms are, I generally know what's going on chordally, and I'm very happy with charts, it's just those funny little dots and squiggles I've never got to grips with). Alex

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='477654' date='May 2 2009, 12:48 PM']In Bristol you have Jesse James and the Bailey Brother's, I've spoken to Jesse and he is a bit oldschool, which is great for amp like yours but I'm madly dubious on his ideas about speakers.[/quote] I used to hire PA from Jesse when I was at uni there - a legend. IIRC his house ended up so full of gear he bought another house to live in! Alex

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='477593' date='May 2 2009, 10:51 AM']Active every time for me - I love the fact that an active will (almost) always sound sweeter due to the fact that you only use half the gain (or input volume.) Active basses always sound smoother to me as well.[/quote] Puzzled. Plenty of passive basses are as loud as active basses. And I don't know what the gain would have to do with the sweetness (presumably meaning lack of distortion) from the amp's preamp because it isn't the knob position but the actual voltage level going through the preamp that matters. Maybe the smoothness is actually to do with having a higher resonant peak from the pickups, which is certainly the case with true active pickups vs normal passive pickups. Buffered passive pickups will also have a higher resonant peak than a passive pickup that is loaded down by many feet of cable, thus dropping the resonant peak into the gnarlier lower treble area. Q-Tuners manage to maintain a high resonant peak and high output even when driving 30' of cable. I don't know how they do it but they sound very sweet and smooth on the treble thanks to raising the resonant peak way higher than on any other passive pickup. Black magic or something. Alex

[quote name='umph' post='477435' date='May 2 2009, 12:22 AM']was it a proper orange though or one of these new fangled ones[/quote] 'tis an old one. Alex

Two GS112s will go a lot louder than one, and because they can move twice as much air they'll sound bassier at volume as well - it all comes down to moving air when amplifying bass guitar, which requires a combination of cone area and undistorted speaker excursion (back & forth movement). The GS112 woofer can't do much clean excursion so you need to increase the cone area to get high SPL bottom. Alex

I've pondered this for a while but I've yet to find a way of making a 4x10" that outperforms alternative designs. However as you already own all the drivers then there's some reasons for lateral thinking. The Schroeder/TechSoundsystems approach will work pretty well - you lose proper bottom but gain some upper bass and lower mids so it'll sound loud, only problem is the risk of excessive boom with the cheaper drivers from the Ashdown. I've just kicked around some more weird and wonderful ideas, like using six drivers in an isobaric ported cab and two in a small sealed cab, to make a tiny 8x10" but the efficiency cost is too great. I would suggest though that you'd probably end up with a better result and similar cost by selling the 8x10" and designing a cab from scratch, instead of trying to work with your existing drivers which really aren't all that great (but are quite valuable when inside a branded finished cab!) Alex

[quote name='mcc' post='477496' date='May 2 2009, 03:42 AM']My question is , what effect does a decrease in wood thickness bring to the cab, lets say down from 3/4" to 1/2" or less? I obviously expect it to be less durable (not a good candidate for sitting on), but besides that would the lower rigidity compromise sound?? In what way??[/quote] As everyone's already said, you can't just reduce the thickness of ply and expect it to perform well - the thinner the ply gets, the more bracing you have to add. So although weight goes down the build complexity/time goes up - but if you're building the cab yourself and you have the time and are precise with your woodwork then there's nothing to lose (other than unwanted weight!) As I've demonstrated a few times you can not only sit on my cabs, you can stand on them and jump up and down! I'd recommend both greenboy's fEarful plans and Bill F's Omni/DR ones - if you're looking for small/light the Omni 10.5 is a good approach. And if you find you have more money than time then you know where to come! Alex

I found the Fulltone BassDrive quite effective at this. Not cheap though... Alex

[quote name='51m0n' post='477113' date='May 1 2009, 03:43 PM']You're such a nerd Alex [/quote] Takes one to know one! [quote name='Ou7shined' post='477116' date='May 1 2009, 03:46 PM']I get a lot of turbulence from my passengers at high speeds. [/quote] Mine are ok at steady high velocities but seem to lack stability under lateral loading... Maybe I should suggest thicker sidewalls? Alex

[quote name='Linus27' post='477049' date='May 1 2009, 02:30 PM']I very much doubt Alexclaber is sliding and throwing his car into every corner and speeding everywhere.[/quote] I'm far too stingy for that - I like my brakes and tyres to last and I begrudge paying for petrol! After the fuel prices shot up I tried to get in the habit of sticking between 70-75 on the motorway instead of 75-80 and I got another 4 mpg or so, so I now have an overspeed alert on the satnav set at 75mph to slow me down. The car's a lot quieter at 70 than 80 too, a lot of airflow must shift from laminar to turbulent at that speed hence the big leap in fuel consumption. Alex

[quote name='Lifer' post='476907' date='May 1 2009, 12:19 PM']If you're on a public road then you can't be sure there's no-one around. You could be the drifting champion of the world but if someone less 'skilled' than you pulls out (maybe because they can't judge speed) in front while you're 'learning your limits' you're gonna be in trouble. Similarly you could meet someone learning their limits coming the other way.[/quote] Which is exactly why I talked about observation, forward planning and knowing the road. Also bear in mind that there is no step change from 100% grip to 100% drifting. There's a big transitional area and whilst you're on that satisfying point where you're balancing initial oversteer/understeer there is almost always a lot more grip to be had should you need it. I know I used to drive stupidly when I was 18 but thankfully the only accidents I had back then were low speed ones due to poor observation, not due to loss of control. 12 years on and I'm much safer and very aware of what's going on - I always seem to pull over for approaching ambulances/police cars/fire engines ages before anyone else has even twigged. Alex

I don't think the issue with them was the power handling per se but just the lack of durability and reliability, particularly the aluminium coned models. If you've given a good going over and it hasn't failed yet then maybe you've got one where all the glue joints are good etc. Adding a similar extension cab almost always makes a huge difference - typically increased sensitivity by 3dB where it matters and doubling the excursion limited power handling, so giving you up to another 6dB output in total. Figure in the weirdness of the human ear and that extra 6dB in the lows can sound like as much as 10dB which is twice as loud. Alex

A good example - at the SE Bass Bash I plugged my Warwick in to show how impressive my cabs are - the RIM 5 doesn't have that wow factor. But it records so much better and sounds so much better on the gig. Alex