alexclaber

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1379244920' post='2210159']The amp handbook isn't much help as it gives recommendations for 2 pup basses.[/quote] Page 3 of the manual: "7. Not happy? Ask for help! Our cabs are uniquely versatile but sometimes it takes some lateral thinking to get what you want and we’re good at that, we’ve helped a lot of bassists out."

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1378305137' post='2198390']Is it not the case that Neo magnets are much more efficient, with a denser magnetic field[/quote] Yes. [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1378305137' post='2198390']resulting in an inherently stronger mid-range presence in some drivers?[/quote] No.

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1378318103' post='2198597']Well it's a good job I asked. I thought you said "Here's an example of how we do bracing".[/quote] Yes, that is how we do bracing. That is a sketch-up of a pre-production model which is why some of the and panels braces don't align correctly with each other and the grooves and rebates. That model is now in production but obviously the mistakes from that 3D model have been corrected. [quote name='stevie' timestamp='1378318103' post='2198597']Yes, agreed. Bracing is good and should be a feature of all properly built cabinets - but bracing is not unique to lightweight cabinets. Offet bracing is something every amateur speaker builder knows about and hardly worth mentioning.[/quote] Maybe those amateur speaker builders should go and educate lots of professional speaker manufacturers then because properly braced cabs seem to be few and far between regardless of mass.

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1378318103' post='2198597']While we're discussing the backwave, the biggest problem with a thinwall/lightweight cabinet is transmission through the cabinet walls because the mass law equation says that 6dB more of the backwave will escape through a cabinet with 9mm walls than one with 18mm walls - even more with a lightweight panel. So, if the goal is to contain the backwave, reducing wall thickness is exactly the wrong thing to do.[/quote] The main problem with the backwave is not it escaping through the enclosure walls but it escaping through the cone after it has reflected off the innards of the cab - 9mm of plywood stops far more sound than a fraction of a mm of paper can. Thicker walls don't help with that at all, in fact they make the problem worse.

That's a sketch-up of a pre-production model, we use it to check all the panel & brace dimensions are correct before cutting the first example. The final version then has a little more material taken out where it isn't doing anything useful. That large cab weighed about 20lbs empty - an 18mm baltic birch cab that size with no bracing would weigh about 50lbs. I see I have got some of my numbers wrong - it's hard to keep track of everything when you're doing this much multitasking! By the way, when I was messing around with DIY stuff some years ago I spent quite a while looking into foam-core ply and other composite methods - Flite have used quite a few different methods and also gone out of business and changed hands quite a few times, which isn't terribly reassuring... I like composites very much - my mech eng final year thesis was in them. But increasing panel stiffness through added thickness still leaves you with a single vibrating membrane with a fundamental frequency and a series of overtones - adding braces breaks that panel up into multiple segments. Spacing the bracing cleverly can make all the fundamentals occur at different frequencies. That makes a big difference. Now in an ideal world we don't want any panel resonances but I've yet to come across any PA or bass cab which has panels so rigid they have absolutely zero vibration at high SPL. Something that's been missed in this discussion, which makes a huge and under-appreciated difference to tone, is that complex internal bracing like this gives the backwave lots of different surfaces to to reflect off, of varying sizes, spacings and angles from the source - not a million miles dissimilar to how a Stealth F117 reduces its radar signature. The bracing also makes it easy to suspend the damping material away from the walls of the cab, which makes it much more effective at damping mids by catching the wave where the velocity is higher and pressure lower (like how you damp the right harmonics in a transmission line). The reflected backwaves that do return to the cone are thus much lower in amplitude and much more widely distributed in frequency so you don't suffer unwanted peaks and notches in the mids. For me it's never been about the weight - I'm fairly young and relatively fit as I ride bikes fast down steep muddy hills in my spare time so I don't really care what cabs weigh. It's always been about the tone and performance. If I felt that going light was compromising the tone and performance of cabs then we wouldn't do it. It's not like they'd be heavy for their output if we used traditional construction! Our cabs have always had extensive bracing but getting our own CNC machine really increased the possibilities and I'm glad that some of you now appreciate that we're walking the walk, not just talking the talk!

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1377715518' post='2190826']Whilst theoretically possible in an ideal world, getting a 12mm panel as stiff as an 18mm panel requires some serious bracing – enough to make the box nearly as heavy as making it out of 18mm in the first place. The way I remember it, if you reduce the thickness of plywood by 3mm you reduce its stiffness by 50%. So a 15mm panel is half as stiff as an 18mm panel and a 12mm panel is half as stiff again. An 18mm panel is actually 8 times as stiff as a 9mm panel – and it's a lot worse if you're also using lighter materials like softwood ply.[/quote] For someone with such strong opinions on this you're remarkably good at getting the facts wrong! Some points to consider: 1. Panel stiffness is proportional to the square of the thickness, not the cube. 2. The resonant frequency of a panel is proportional to its stiffness divided by its mass - halve the mass and you double the resonant frequency 3. A braced panel has numerous different resonant modes - if you vary the bracing distance and methods all these frequencies can be made non-coincident 4. By having lots of different resonant modes you can easily lower the Q of all these resonances 5. Surface coatings and internal damping can significantly attenuate such low Q higher frequency resonances 6. Plywood varies hugely - for instance, baltic birch is stiff for its thickness but has poor self-damping Here's an example of how we do bracing:

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1377265336' post='2185562']The second way of reducing overall weight is by reducing the weight of the cabinet. Because there is no technological advance involved here (such as carbon fibre panels, for example), manufacturers make the cabinet walls out of thinner or less dense materials to get the weight savings. It's fairly obvious that this is not ideal, because the cabinet is going to 'talk' when pounded with bass frequencies, but many people are prepared to accept the compromise to get the light weight.[b] I may be wrong...[/b][/quote] Yes you are!

I completely disagree with Jack, despite him being our most frequent customer. The so-called 'presence' of the heavy rigs is simply extra distortion (even if you don't hear it as such). The reason our neo cabs don't sound like those heavy cabs is because they use much better speakers with much lower distortion. If I want distortion I want it on my own terms, I don't want it to happen all the time nor to increase significantly before I play as loud as I need to. For the tone I want (most of the time) I don't want that distortion. When I do want that distortion (growl/bite/edge etc) then I have a '69er which uses speakers like those in those heavy cabs but in a radically lighter enclosure (which costs far more to make than a simple thick-walled unbraced box but consequently is easily as stiff and far less heavy). So what one bassist may consider 'presence' another bassist may considering an irritating lack of thump, bottom, punch, clarity, etc etc etc. Weight has nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean that all lightweight cabs perform well - a cheap way of making a cab light is simply to use thin ply, put in minimal or no bracing and use cheap stamped frame ferrite speakers with undersized magnets. Or a halfway house is to go neo and use a braced enclosure but go for a lower-end neo driver and not as much bracing as ideal.

[quote name='jimcroisdale' timestamp='1376907857' post='2180543']Sometimes when I stand right in front of my amp it sounds great - I can feel the bass in my stomach and I only need to play very gently. This is the best case scenario. Then I take four steps forwards and it all but disappears.....[/quote] Try taking another four steps forwards and seeing if the bass comes back - you're probably just standing in a null. There's no way that Trace 4x10" can produce more bottom than your Genz cab.

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1376578724' post='2176365'] Yes. You would. [/quote] I left that rather open for misquoting didn't I?!

clauster, if your cab really looks that bad bring it down to us and we'll have a look and refinish it if necessary. I don't know how old yours is but the overwhelming feedback we get NOWADAYS (bear in mind this all started in my garage in my spare time, five years ago!) is extremely positive about the look and fit and finish of the cabs. The acrylic coating is applied by hand and therefore how it looks comes down to the skill and experience and attention to detail of the people doing it and the environment they're doing it in and the equipment they're using. You'd expect us to be a lot better at it after hundreds and hundreds of cabs wouldn't you? I know I was a lot better at playing bass five years after I started...

Tone is a personal thing, most of our cabs are designed to mess with your tone as little as possible within the design bandwidth, whilst producing maximum output for their size. In most cases, great tone in equals great tone out. Regarding finish related things, if we switched to 1/2" ply then the front corners would be easier to fit because of the larger edge radius but the bare enclosures would then be about 1/2" bigger in all directions and would weigh 30% more without sounding any better. If we hid the ports behind the grill then it would be much easier to make them look nice because the grill would hide the finish - but by having the grill blocking the ports the cab would start to compress and distort in the lows at a lower SPL than otherwise or we'd have to put in larger ports and make the cab much bigger. If we covered the cab with tolex then it would be less time consuming to make the cab look nice but the finish would be more easily damaged in most cases and impossible to repair.

Everyone who wants/needs a replacement handle can obviously have one free of charge. If our new handles work out and it's possible to retro-fit them then we'll sort out some upgrade kits. Anyone who's waiting on parts, it's the summer holidays thus we're short-staffed and we're very busy - we will get them sent out! Have anyone's handles actually failed? No, they just look tatty and aren't as comfortable as before. It's annoying but it doesn't stop the cabs working whilst one of us here finds some time to get packages labelled and sent.

[quote name='Ant' timestamp='1375261634' post='2158875'] i dunno man! ive already got chunks of wood missing all over my S15 so i dont know how the cloth would fare better? but then i have no experience with it[/quote] If you want your cab to stay looking pretty, get a cover! Functionally the chips won't bother it in the slightest, though we're using a harder tougher plywood now. The cloth is bombproof - you could build trampolines from it: The plywood frame it's on will crack before you get a hammer through it, as some recent impromptu tests proved...

[quote name='Ant' timestamp='1375210791' post='2158311']i love the way the cloth grille looks, but no way would that thing last on tour![/quote] Seriously, it would.

It's a volume displacement game really - all the power in the world won't do you any good if your cabs can't move the air and that requires the product of total cone area and excursion being as high as possible. You certainly had more than enough power to reach the volume displacement limits of your rig. I wouldn't go changing anything though - just stand close to your rig on the infrequent occasions that you play such big stages! If there are decent monitors (particularly the large side-fill ones you need deafening rock drummers' to their hearts' delights) try to get some of your bass sound through them to fill out your sound on stage (as long as the rest of the band are happy with that).

FX return is often functionally the same as a preamp in. Our Shuttle 6.0 has an Aux in which bypasses the preamp.

[quote name='Clarky72' timestamp='1374591099' post='2150596']Had you thought about the recessed handle Alex? Does it affect the sound movement inside the cabinet?[/quote] Yes, thought about it many times and revisited it once again after we picked a recessed handle for the '69er which I really like. However it just doesn't work with the side-ported design because of the massive turbulence it causes and thus the air noise and loss of bottom you get from the port. And that vertical slot port up the side of the cab works really well (low air speed for minimal compression, big radiating area for maximum efficiency, positioned so you can feel it, significant cooling for extra power handling and reduced compression, etc) so it's not something we'd change because of a handle. We'll see how durable this potential new strap handle is and if it's decent we'll see if it's possible to provide an upgrade kit at cost.

[quote name='Ghost_Bass' timestamp='1374589305' post='2150559'] You can always change to one of these: These aren't recessed and won't disturbe the cab's functionality.[/quote] Prone to rattling as they get older - so functionally rather than aesthetically annoying - and they make the cab wider when carrying it which invites knuckle:doorframe interactions...

You're not the first person with this by any means! I presume, as with everyone else, it isn't that the handles are functionally falling apart but that the ends of the rubber sleeve, where the steel core goes into the plastic ends, are fraying? We're looking to change the handles shortly, just need to test the new one we've chosen to make sure we don't jump from the frying pan into the fire. If anyone wants some replacement handle parts, email us on [email protected]

[quote name='Phil Starr' timestamp='1374486707' post='2149148']Speaker area isn't insignificant in the design process but there are compromises all the way like cone design and magnet size that equally affect the final sound, not to mention cabinet design. It's a bit like deciding your dream car must have 6 cylinders without looking at handling, power output, weight etc.[/quote] That's a good way of putting it. What you need is a cab that is loud enough for your situations with the amp you own, suits your tonal preferences (again with the amp you own), and fits your lifestyle (in your car, in your house, light enough for you to lift) and your budget. Whether it's a 2x10", 1x12", 1x15", 2x12", etc is immaterial. One of the best ways to choose gear is to do so by comparing it to gear you're already used to using - so whatever you use in those rehearsal rooms. Regarding the Terror Bass, it's very much a one trick pony. It's a good trick, and hopefully one that you like! It will be more fussy about cabs, not in terms of output because it's a loud head but in terms of tone, as it tends towards the boomier, muddier, woollier, dirtier end of the tonal spectrum. I'd try your head with all the rehearsal room gear before you buy anything. Bear in mind that a sound you like in a shop may not work well in your band - find out what works in your band, try to remember that as well as possible and try to replicate it in the shop. You still won't know if the cab will sound the same at rehearsal loudness as it does in the shop (basically it won't unless it's a very expensive small cab or a rather large cab) but at least you'll be some of the way there.

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1374315790' post='2147462']I agree that a Compact with a quality tweeter would probably sell quite well.[/quote] We have something akin to this in terms of performance coming out next month!

[quote name='Highfox' timestamp='1374213234' post='2146437'] Thanks for the clarification Alex. I've now sourced locally a pair of Aguilar GS112's , so I can test that theory. [/quote] I'm presuming you already have a GS212 to compare them to?

[quote name='Highfox' timestamp='1374095115' post='2145304'] I think I know what your talking about Pete. Normally with one of the Bands I play with I use 2 EBS CL 112's for practice and gigs and a Aguilar TH500, today I took along my GB212 neo xt as we have an outdoor gig on Sunday and thought I could do with the extra umph as most of our smaller gigs guitars and bass are never FOH .. anyway at practice same room, same volume the drummer turned to me after 2 songs and said ahh so that's what your you playing He could hear and feel it, seems the porting and and 2-12's stuck in the same box do have some magic.. or so it would seem. [/quote] What this proves is that a Neox 212 performs better than two CL112s. Nothing to do with 2x12" vs 1x12", everything to do with the Neox 12" vs the CL 12" - and their relative prices imply that the CL112 has to contain a much less expensive 12".

Although it wouldn't surprise me for the Genz to outperform the PCs, I really wouldn't expect such a vast difference. I wonder if one of the PC's had been mistakenly wired with reverse polarity so that they were cancelling each other out at low frequencies? By the way, we have something new impending with extended frequency response (highs to ~20kHz) and similar size, weight, sensitivity and maximum output to the Compact (comparable to good 2x12"s rather than 1x12"s).