alexclaber

[quote name='redstriper' post='363767' date='Dec 26 2008, 04:28 PM']It sounds like someone is actually slapping the side of the cab and you can only hear it from a distance - it sounds fine close up.[/quote] Maybe the handles or some of the joints rattling or creaking? Just working on a new crossover design for The Big One to give better on and off-axis response and more power handling. Alex

Once you're into this kind level of price and customisation surely it comes down almost entirely to personal taste? Alex

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='362545' date='Dec 24 2008, 09:23 AM']Or am I missing something?[/quote] The tension is only constant when the string is at rest. I was amazed by how much looser the strings felt on my Warwick than on the headless (double ball-end) Hohner that I had previously, which was due to increased elasticity beyond the witness points. I also suspect that instruments which exhibit more sustain of lower overtones feel looser because of increased string movement. Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='362648' date='Dec 24 2008, 11:10 AM']Alex, I'm not writing off the complex resonances of the system. I [i]have [/i]considered them, but I have reached a different conclusion to you.[/quote] Ah well, we can't all be right. Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='362628' date='Dec 24 2008, 10:37 AM']I disagree. I'm not missing it, I've discussed it above. I just don't consider it to have the same influence on the tone that you do.[/quote] If I close my eyes it doesn't exist? With a well constructed bass the body vibrates a lot - there is a lot of energy moving between the body and the strings. You can't just write off the complex feedback system of the resonant parts of the instrument just because you don't don't think it is important. Yes, it's all important, the player in particular, but the acoustic nature of the instrument is fundamental to its sound. Whatever you do with pickups and electronics you cannot get around the acoustic character of the instrument. Also remember that the note envelope and the change in timbre over time is competely dependant on acoustic characteristics, not what the electronics and pickups are doing. Alex

[quote name='Golchen' post='362599' date='Dec 24 2008, 10:04 AM']And I would probably be going elsewhere in future![/quote] I would but it's really hard to get custom gauge strings for a 36" scale... Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='362579' date='Dec 24 2008, 09:45 AM']I never said it had NO effect. I'm pointing out that I believe the two (imparting of tone vs rigidity of construction) to be inversely proportional to one another, and I rate construction of a lot of basses very highly.[/quote] You keep missing the point that the instrument has two key roles - providing a stiff structure to support the strings AND providing a resonant filtering and feedback system to give the sound character. Alex

I tried to order custom strings from Overwater at the end of February, through their website. I did this a couple of times, to no avail. Then emailed them in March, had a response saying they were waiting on those gauges. Then nothing. Chased them three times during April and May with no response. Eventually gave up and phoned them and managed to place an order. Credit card was debited twice but then refunded. The strings are great but what a palaver! The thing that bugged me most is that I continued to get spam from them having given them my email address on my initial inquiry - it's one thing getting spam but it's another thing getting spam when you're still waiting to hear from a human there! Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='362564' date='Dec 24 2008, 09:34 AM']However I attribute significantly more of the sound to the construction of a bass and the electronics before the wood.[/quote] Yes, it's all about the construction of the bass. And what are most basses constructed of? The wood!!! Alex

Close but not quite there! Energy does indeed leave the string via the witness points and anchor points and this energy resonates the body. As with any resonating system this energy does not need to be at the resonant frequency, just near it, to be absorbed and set the body resonating. A bass body has numerous resonant frequencies so this absorbtion occurs all over the frequency spectrum. However, this energy does also return to the string, further exciting it and giving sustain. The energy returned to the string depends upon the Q (or inverse of self-damping) of the resonator at the relevant frequency. If we look at an Alembic Series II, we have an incredibly stiff 'string-support-system' which causes minimal losses of energy from the string (though there will certainly be energy moving between the string and thru-neck) and then a chambered body which acts as the resonant feedback and filtering system that further shapes the tone of the instrument. If you were to use a graphite thru-neck and hard maple wings on an instrument then you would be nearing the point where you just hear the tone of a string which is suffering very little loss of energy to the resonators, or likewise with a small-bodied Steinberger. Many thru-neck basses are somewhat lacking in warmth or fatness because they have a stiff thru-neck and then body wings which do not get sufficiently involved in the feedback loop of energy. The reason the classic bolt-on approach works so well is because you combine a nice stiff maple neck with a body that by virtue of its cross-sectional-area is also rather stiff but is fully involved in the resonant system by virtue of almost all the energy having to pass through it. So when considering the effect of material upon tone you have quite a few different factors - stiffness, characteristic frequencies, Q at all points across the frequency spectrum, mass, etc, and no two pieces of wood are going to be identical, let alone two pieces from completely different species. Alex

Good post, well thought through. However, you've missed the first half of the system which is the instrument itself and the string/neck/body system! How does that work? Alex

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='362248' date='Dec 23 2008, 07:06 PM']Do you have the plots for any other commercially available cabs which could be classed as 'competitors'? It would be nice to compare.[/quote] It would indeed! If you bring them to me I'll measure them. One thing I will say is that if you think that plot looks bumpy you will die when you see how the average cab will perform with an underbraced and underdamped cabinet and cheaper less linear speaker. One thing I'd like to do in the future is some high power tests that show what happens when you put hundreds of watts into a cab - that's when the lack of Xmax and bracing in many cabs will become obvious, as will port non-linearity due to undersized ports. Alex

Done some measurement of the cabs today. This is the plot for The Compact, pretty much on-axis. Although it was done with a proper test mic, good soundcard and RTA software I didn't have time to voltage reference it so I had to correct the dB SPL scale to the calculated plot. Should be pretty damn accurate though. Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='361770' date='Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM']Sorry Alex, I disagree with your interpretation of the physics there.[/quote] In that case I'd be interested to hear your analysis of the physics of an electric bass from first principles. Very few people seem to actually get down to the nuts and bolts of what is actually going on, which is understandable because it is a very complex subject which is unlikely to be analysed accurately unless you have a good background in the relevant sciences and are willing to throw aside the numerous misconceptions and hearsay surrounding 'tone'... Alex

Years ago I tried two Warwick (Streamer I think) basses, one with the dual-Jazz pickup and one with a Musicman pickup, both in the same location. They sounded really really different to each other! It is about a decade ago but I remember the former sounding cleaner and sweeter which the latter had a bigger fatter sound. Now that I know more about this stuff I suspect the main difference is that normally the two coils in a dual-Jazz pickup are in parallel whilst those in a Musicman humbucker are in series. More recently at the SE Bass Bash I tried a Roscoe Beck 5, which has dual-Jazz pickups with the outer coils in the exact same place as a '60s J-Bass, and has single/series/parallel switching for each pickup, plus a 3-way pickup switch, passive volume and tone and a pull switch on the tone knob that pads back the neck pickup for that classic J-bass growl which would otherwise require dual volumes or a pan pot. Brilliant, just brilliant! If you can't get the sound you want out of that bass then consider quitting! Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='361216' date='Dec 22 2008, 05:22 PM']I have already acknowledged they have oscillating strings and a resonating body. However, we do not amplify the acoustic resonance of the body, which I would consider to be the true hallmark of an acoustic instrument. Instead we 'image' a narrow aperture of the vibrating aperture and amplify the specific frequencies that occur within that narrow aperture. As such, I have to disagree with this statement.[/quote] Aha, that's where you are oversimplifying the physics of an 'electric' instrument. Firstly the vibration of the strings is tightly linked to the resonance of the body as there is a feedback loop between the strings and the instrument whereby the instrument's neck/body/bridge rigidity and the body resonance interacts with the strings' vibration. Secondly there are no specific frequencies that occur within the narrow aperture that is the pickup's view of the strings - there are certainly nulls and peaks and everything in between but they vary with which string you're playing, which note you're playing and how you're exciting that string. The 'narrow window' that the pickup is seeing is no more narrow than a close mic on an acoustic instrument or a pickup on an acoustic instrument. I find this leads me to work all the tone from my hands and then when I plug in I'll switch to the pickup or pickup combination (in my case I have neck or bridge or both 50/50 in series or in parallel) whose remarkably broad window gives me the tonal range that best matches my needs. That choice does not stay constant - depending on the venue acoustics and the general vibe I might find myself using the neck pickup in a larger acoustic space but the bridge pickup in a smaller venue with a denser muddier vibe, and then my plucking/muting/etc may shift to fatten up the bridge pickup sound or add burp and growl to the neck pickup. It's all very fluid. Furthermore for any beginner the biggest weak point in the vast majority of cheap basses tends to be the electronics - and practice amps are usually equally sub-par. Many cheap basses sound pretty decent unplugged and thus using them unplugged is a great route to learning about tone and how your hands can control it - plug that in and the poor response of both both pickups and amp will muffle and cloud what your hands are achieving, leaving many beginners to anchor their thumb on the pickup and always pluck at the same point expecting different sounds to be achieved through their EQ or FX pedals. I don't think one can underestimate the value of weakening that psychological link between gear and tone! Alex

[quote name='mcgraham' post='360821' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 AM']I don't agree with doing this at all. Whilst our instruments may have oscillating strings and have [i]some[/i] limited acoustic volume, they are [i]electric[/i] instruments.[/quote] They are acoustic instruments before they are electric instruments. [quote name='mcgraham' post='360821' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 AM']Essentially, I consider that by doing this one would be learning to adjust one's playing and sound to be something that is NEVER the sound that would be produced by your amp, at least by a purely electric instrument with magnetic pickups. Even if they are Q-tuners.[/quote] I've been doing this for enough years to know it works for me. Maybe that's because I prefer to have a higher action and heavier strings on my basses and thus although my dynamic range is very wide I often play relatively hard. I know I'm good at getting the sound I want from almost any bass and I attribute part of that skill to unplugged practice. [quote name='mcgraham' post='360821' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 AM']I apologise if I sound slightly agitated on this point; it gets my heckles up when I see/hear/hear of people doing this (particularly electric guitarists).[/quote] Electric guitar is an instrument that requires the tone of the amp on 99.9% of recordings (special exemption for Nile Rodgers). Electric bass does not, it's personal preference. [quote name='mcgraham' post='360969' date='Dec 22 2008, 01:55 PM']Your bass is not your instrument, your whole setup is; you should treat it like a total instrument, i.e. think of every component as part of the equation when you practice.[/quote] My bass is my instrument, that's why my rig is how it is. When playing live I simply treat my pickup switch as an upright bassist might treat a selection of different mic or pickup positions and the tone knob as a very simplistic filter to mellow things out if need be. For me tone is a huge part of my playing - the whole sound of my band and our music starts at how I play the notes that form our bedrock. It all starts with me and it all starts back at home with me and my bass, unplugged, writing the music. My lines have to hit the spot even at the very low SPL of an unplugged bass guitar. If you make a conscious decision to shift the upper and lower points of your dynamic range downwards and thus your unplugged instrument has insufficient acoustic volume then I can understand thinking that you have to practice plugged in - you indeed may need to, but given a louder bass and/or player and a quieter home environment then you may not. But I would contend that any decision to limit your upper limit of manual loudness limits your dynamic range because we all hit the same noise floor at the bottom. Alex

[quote name='Al Heeley' post='360309' date='Dec 21 2008, 04:31 PM']Am I missing something here?[/quote] One thing I'd highlight is that if you can find a less expensive 15" with enough midrange punch and treble then it is highly likely to be able to move more air than an equivalent 2x10" (more cone area and usually more excursion). So two matching 15"s will give you more output than a 2x10"+15". If you find that in your price range you need to go with a 2x10" to get that punch then definitely try a pair of those rather than automatically assuming that because the 15" cab has more bottom than the 2x10" that the 2x10"+15" will have more bottom than two 2x10"s - there's a good chance they won't. What often catches people out with amplification is they make assumptions and then when they come to test gear out they subconsciously let their assumptions affect their judgement. Always question what you hear and remember that room acoustics have a huge effect so if you don't compare the cabs in identical positions in the same room then it isn't an accurate comparison - just moving a cab a foot or two could have a huge effect upon the response you hear. Another thing - when trying out cabs experiment with tilting them backwards so you can hear the midrange and treble better. Also always try turning 2x10" cabs on their side, much better audibility that way. Alex

[quote name='d-basser' post='359908' date='Dec 20 2008, 09:43 PM']Asking the opposite of Bigwan: would be possible to get a retro but with a metal grill, think your well built, high sensitivity 2x15 would go well with my Fafner, not sure I want the risk of a cloth front though.[/quote] My current intention is for the cloth to be fixed onto the metal grill so you get the best of both worlds! Alex

I tried CK's one of these at the SE Bass Bash. It is a fantastic little head, I was sorely tempted to acquire one myself. Running into one of The Compacts it played SO loud as well. Alex

I have a NOS 5751 lurking here somewhere if someone would like to try it in the LH500/1000... Alex

[quote name='Al Heeley' post='359923' date='Dec 20 2008, 10:06 PM']...best of all I'd like a 15" and two 10"'s.[/quote] Read this again: [quote name='alexclaber' post='359059' date='Dec 19 2008, 07:05 PM']That's certainly the commonly held yet incorrect wisdom. The reality is that it's completely dependent on the specific cabs - my old 2x10" cabs had more bottom than almost any 15" whilst my new smaller 1x15" cab has more punch than the vast majority of 2x10"s (and can play louder and move more air). My larger 15" cab has more bottom and more punch than any 4x10" I know of (but that's a big expensive beastie!) If you find a cab that works well for you but it doesn't play loud enough, adding another matching cab is often the best solution. I've been trying to work out a good way of explaining about mixing and matching cabs. Say we can describe cab A as producing an output of 7 in the lows 9 in the mids and 8 in the highs, whilst cab B produces 8 in the lows 8 in the mids and 4 in the highs. You might think that combining the two will we you 15 in the lows 17 in the mids and 12 in the highs because the outputs just add up. But it isn't like that - because the cabs are different some of the output adds but some of it subtracts. So the pairing might more likely get you 13 in the lows 14 in the mids and 11 in the highs - and you never know until you test the pairing. But if you get two of cab A then the outputs will totally add, no subtraction at all - so 14 in the lows, 18 in the mids and 16 in the highs. So even though cab B might have more bottom than cab A, adding cab B to cab A might not give you as much bottom as adding cab A to cab A. Likewise although cab A has more mids than cab B, adding cab A to cab B might not actually get you more mids than adding another cab B to cab B. Strange but true![/quote] Alex

[quote name='Al Heeley' post='359042' date='Dec 19 2008, 06:39 PM']A 2 x 10 gives you the punch from the 10" speakers in a nice small unit, and the 1 x 15 fills out the lower frequencies with more solidity.[/quote] That's certainly the commonly held yet incorrect wisdom. The reality is that it's completely dependent on the specific cabs - my old 2x10" cabs had more bottom than almost any 15" whilst my new smaller 1x15" cab has more punch than the vast majority of 2x10"s (and can play louder and move more air). My larger 15" cab has more bottom and more punch than any 4x10" I know of (but that's a big expensive beastie!) If you find a cab that works well for you but it doesn't play loud enough, adding another matching cab is often the best solution. I've been trying to work out a good way of explaining about mixing and matching cabs. Say we can describe cab A as producing an output of 7 in the lows 9 in the mids and 8 in the highs, whilst cab B produces 8 in the lows 8 in the mids and 4 in the highs. You might think that combining the two will we you 15 in the lows 17 in the mids and 12 in the highs because the outputs just add up. But it isn't like that - because the cabs are different some of the output adds but some of it subtracts. So the pairing might more likely get you 13 in the lows 14 in the mids and 11 in the highs - and you never know until you test the pairing. But if you get two of cab A then the outputs will totally add, no subtraction at all - so 14 in the lows, 18 in the mids and 16 in the highs. So even though cab B might have more bottom than cab A, adding cab B to cab A might not give you as much bottom as adding cab A to cab A. Likewise although cab A has more mids than cab B, adding cab A to cab B might not actually get you more mids than adding another cab B to cab B. Strange but true! Regarding the amps I'd recommend the Hartke LH500, I think it's incredible for the money. I've yet to be impressed by any cheaper cabs, it's harder to make electro-mechanical devices work as well as purely electrical devices with such a restricted budget - but then again I would say that, I make cabs! Alex

[quote name='AM1' post='359026' date='Dec 19 2008, 06:17 PM']A great sound comes from a great craftsman and all the sonic scientists in the world can disagree, but the player maketh the music.[/quote] Indeed. I am particularly mistrustful of sonic scientists. A couple of other things: Regarding your earlier point "for example a one note accent at the start of a bar, where you play the note slightly off the beat (not syncopated) and with an accent, sforzando style. This can be heard in music on other instruments but I don't often hear it on the bass," I would attribute this to such accents having a habit of upsetting the groove of a piece. Now I'm even more obsessed with timing than I am with dynamics - particularly regarding note duration and position vs the beat - so I will often sit way back or play with loads of top spin but I can't think of many occasions where I'd shift my position vs the beat a long way within the course of a bar or a phrase. There are occasions when this does happen but it's more a case of the whole rhythm section going rubato, so my drummer and I might sit back so far on a 16th note fill that we pull it back into 8th note triplets before hitting the next downbeat and reverting to our previous groove locations. But if I were to do that on my own and the drummer didn't go with me it would sound very strange. Now I think about it more there are examples when maybe my guitarist and myself might move against the drummer similarly. I think it is possible on your own on the bass but only if you step forward sonically in the mix and briefly shift role from the bass role to a hybrid bass/lead role by maybe digging in back by the bridge or popping some notes or something. I thought I'd forgotten my other point but it has come back to me. A big part of emotional expression is speeding up or slowing down. More experienced players will often achieve this vibe with little or no change in tempo through shifting position vs the beat but that's not easy for newbies. The other big indicator of expression is dynamics - playing louder or softer. Generally when you ask someone to play louder they also play faster. When you ask someone to play softer they play slower - it's one of those annoying things that takes quite a lot of self-awareness to break the habit. What happens if you need to play louder but slower - like when you're grunging it out with some Sabbath-esque metal and pulling back as you go into an outro - not an easy thing to do unless you've make the break and learnt how to control tempo and dynamics independently. Another example where you need to separate dynamics and 'the dynamic' is when you break a song down into one of those intense quieter sections, where the rhythm section might switch into double-time but really quietly whilst the vocalist is almost whispering. You build a lot of tension through restraining the band from playing at the dynamic that the music wants and then when you do release and break into full loudness it works that much better. But to get that intensity whilst playing softly you have to learn to play intensely and aggressively yet quietly, which is totally at odds with simplistic convention. We may be talking about playing music but to do that you have to learn first! Alex

Finally listened to the whole of that rendition of Fannie Mae. Was all going so well until the drummer decided he'd just forget the groove for his solo and then Jaco took bass soloing to a new low... Ah well, at least he doesn't half groove well even when he's singing, I guess nobody's perfect! Alex