funkle

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1406199885' post='2509219'] How feasible would it be to have a cab that could be easily retuned, eg. by partially blocking a port if it's shelf-ported? [/quote] Audiokinesis do this with their Thunderchild and Hathor cabs...round ports though. Fully blocked ports significantly shift the F3 etc upwards according to Duke for his TC cab. I assume if the cab is designed for it then blocking ports is feasible. I'm sure the 3 musketeers will chip in shortly in regards to this design....

Sounds good amp choice to me. My Streamliner 900 and CN112 work very well together.

I keep comparing other 1x12s to my CN112 and it keeps coming up trumps. I'm very close to picking up a second one. The only cab I really want to do a head to head with now is the Audiokinesis Hathor 1203. I can only imagine the CN212 to be a brilliant cab. Nice choice.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1405979350' post='2507282'] Perhaps. If you give up 3dB of sensitivity you need to increase excursion by 70% and double thermal power handling for equal output. Plus almost invariably the price of high xmax isn't just lower sensitivity, it's also less midrange. Changing driver parameters isn't like playing checkers, it's like playing 3 dimensional chess. [/quote] Thanks Bill. That is exactly the sort of detail I was hoping for. 3 dimensional chess sounds about right!

Phil, thanks for your considered response. Think we can end the thread derail here!

Luke, the Acmes were the first proper cabs I started to pay attention to. I had a Trace Elliot 15" combo before that and later on a Flite 4x10", then the Acmes, which I didn't understand well enough when I bought them. The Acmes I owned for 5 years and didn't do much comparing. So until fairly recently (last year or two) I didn't feel I had a huge amount of understanding/comparisons to judge by. Still learning. IMO the Acmes could be pushed hard with power. I didn't feel pushing them harder made them hugely louder once you started applying bigger power. The B2 was definitely beaten in volume by e.g. the Vanderkley 112MNT, but was waaay deeper. I don't know Xmax of Acme 10" driver or 112MNT 12" driver. Assuming the former was higher than the latter, IMO higher Xmax did not make up for inefficiency. But that would not be the only difference to consider between those cabs. And whilst we are on the subject it's difficult to compare Xmax between speaker manufacturers anyway as they seem to use different yardsticks. So, I'm trying to figure out if my experience is more generalisable or not.

Thanks Bill and Phil. Interesting to know the 3012HO mainly lost out on cost/accessibility. Again, the Beyma seems like good value, and you have been very specific in your criteria. I wrote a whole spiel, then realised from the Eminence charts the HO is lighter in the lows than the LF, and that they look to be designed for different jobs. Again, I'll ask though - in general - if you have a woofer which suits the job in hand, and enough power to drive it with, and it can take the power thermally and mechanically, but it isn't efficient, can applying extra power provide the extra volume to match another woofer with lower Xmax but higher efficiency? I shall call this the 'Acme' question, given they are inefficent but have high Xmax (though Xdamage isn't apparently much higher than that...)

Ok, just feeding back. Got my bass back from Sims and the job was just great. Really great. Went from this blue... [attachment=167254:Iphone 1189.JPG] To this blue.... [attachment=167257:1-IMG_3315.JPG] [attachment=167258:2-IMG_3318.JPG] Couldn't be more happy. Sims asked me to send physical pics which showed the correct colour (as well as the pics I originally emailed) because they wanted to be certain about the colour they were aiming for. Spot on. Expensive, but would recommend. Job took 6 weeks, exactly what I was quoted. Pete

Hah, yes, sorry about the lengthy post I made. I hope it was relevant though - mainly in regards the choices you have to make as a designer (How low? How efficient? How big a box?) and the trade-offs which are inherent to those choices. Bill, Alex, Dave Green, Andy Lewis, Roger Baer, Duke LeJeune, etc already have worked out their own compromises with the newer drivers - it seems like to buy a cab you haven't been able to hear first you have to work out what the compromises are and what the designer intended. I have a question. Does high Xmax (with high power handling, thermal and mechanical) + sufficient power compensate for low efficiency of a woofer? I'm thinking of e.g. the 3012LF vs the 3012HO here...

[quote name='fleabag' timestamp='1405945301' post='2506748'] Even if you use 5 or 6 string bass ? [/quote] I experimented recently with using recording software and EQ through monitors and good headphones to cut out everything below certain frequencies, to see if my perception of bass was significantly altered by trimming low frequencies, and if so, at what point. This was with a 5 string Modulus Q5 as the tester. As others will have predicted or known already, cutting out everything with shelving EQ and a steep slope below 30Hz caused no difference to me in bass tone at all (less rumble and low freq crap though, e.g. from hitting fingers on strings). Below 40 Hz - bass still sounded good. Cut off at 50Hz - still sounded good to me. Somewhere around the upper 50s the B string got thinner if I put the shelving point there. In a live environment I have to cut bass if near wall, corner, etc, and use a HPF or the bass knob on the amp. So, the question of 'how low do you need to go?' for me is upper 50's through headphones/monitors, and a bit higher using a HPF live, depending upon the room. You wouldn't even need to go that low for a 4 string. It has helped me to consider further what I want out of a cabinet. I'm currently trying out one of Duke's Audiokinesis Thunderchild TC112AFv2 (8 ohm) cabs - first cab I have tried with this woofer. From the charts, in the correct box, the 3012LF has enough low end content and has a high Xmax (so you can EQ in more if you want). I have found myself wondering if the 3012LF may even put out too much low end for many indoor venues. The Audiokinesis seems to me well designed in that though they now use a 3012LF stock woofer, Duke specifically aims for -3db around the first harmonic of low B, and I think the cab has a gentle roll off below that point. If you plug the ports on his cabs, the -3db moves a fair bit higher. He also does a lot of work with the crossover to get a smooth on and off axis response. Of course, using the 3012LF in the slightly smaller box size (than e.g. a Fearless F112), he sacrifices sensitivity, though if you have the watts I think you can get it back to some degree through the high Xmax. Still playing with it to figure out its capabilities. In the studio last week, the Thunderchild put out a ton of bass, and I couldn't get it to fart out even when diming the amp controls (Streamliner 900). I did scare myself by turning up the bass knob ludicrously high on my amp and watching the cone travel much further than I have ever seen...even with my old Acmes. I turned that knob back down pretty sharpish. I guess you can have too much low end content. It does all seem about the compromises. I'm still learning about all of them. Happy to take corrections if I have made any errors in the above Pete

I think the GK MB Fusion 800 can replace the Streamliner. Check my very quick review - http://basschat.co.uk/topic/236791-gk-mb-fusion-800/page__view__findpost__p__2494651

I've just spent some time tonight with the GKMB800, the GK MB Fusion 800 (both on trial from an online retailer), and my Streamliner 900. Home only, rehearsal later this week to test at full war volumes... The Fusion and the Streamliner are definitely in the same tone universe. 'Tubiness' and a little grit, or a lot more if you want it slightly driven. Close enough that I would only own one of those two amps. The Fusion is in active production and probably extends a little lower as it is not high passed in the same way as the Streamliner. Two channels and a free foot switch....probably a more flexible EQ overall too, though the 'deep' boost at 30 Hz I think is just asking for trouble with some cabs and in some environments. But...the Streamliner can be gotten a lot cheaper secondhand, and it's EQ is quite simple but powerful. The EQ knobs all interact with each other more than you would think, which I think the Fusion EQ does less of. I wouldn't use it for fine EQ for a room, just tone shaping. TBH I'd probably say the same of the Fusion, though. (And most bass preamps...I've found finer control using pedals, though if you have a rack system I imagine a Rane or something like that would give you very fine control indeed). The GK MB800 is, to my ears anyway, very wide and clean. Big bass/low end with controls set flat (as per the Bass Gear Magazine review which shows you how to do this - contour off, treble 11 o'clock, Low mid 1, high mid 1, bass 11). Surprisingly it sounded much less 'toppy' than the Fusion; I had to seriously boost (!!) the treble and high mids to get the same sort of upper end as I did on the Fusion. This was quite unexpected for me. It just sounded a bit darker and cleaner than I was expecting; perhaps I'm used to the extra tubiness/harmonics of the Streamliner. I think perhaps a good chunk of the GK sound must come from their cabs in combination with the heads, not just the heads alone. The Fusion and Streamliner are sufficiently different from the GK MB800 to justify owning both, if desired. IMO Test basses - Celinder Update (ash/maple), modded Squier CV Jazz (rosewood/alder). (My P bass is getting some tweaks so out of the house right now...) Test cabs - Bergantino CN112, Audiokinesis TC112AFv2 (8 ohm). ....NB...the most important factor in how I sound through all this stuff is mainly me. LOL

Thanks Phil. You are of course quite right about the 3012LF not being suitable without other drivers in there to cover the gap in freq response higher up. Interesting to know that Beyma rate Xmax more conservatively too. Really interesting work. I think you have more than met your design brief. The value seems excellent. IIRC the modified Faital 12PR300 in my Berg CN112 has an estimated Vd of 241cc and Xmax of 4.96mm - and that's using Faital's method of being a bit over generous in their calculation of Xmax. So your cheaper cab will definitely punch out more volume, and do it more evenly than my very voiced cabinet.

Beyma SM212 specs - http://www.beyma.com/uploads/ftp/Fichas_Tecnicas/000000730.PDF Interesting reading. The 98dB @ 1w/1m is an impressive figure. Not too heavy for a ferrite speaker. An apparently economical solution for a 2 or 3 way full range box. Vd of 382 cc and Xmax as you say 7mm. I wonder if the Xmax of 7mm calculated in the same way that Eminence do their Xmax calculation? The 3012LF, a high standard of comparison for Xmax in current bass cab drivers (apart from Alex Claber's proprietary 12" driver, where Vd is high - apparently 550cc - but we don't know how it is calculated) has bigger Xmax (9.1mm) and Vd (496cc) but much less efficiency at 1w/1m. I assume the 3012LF would really get going at higher power levels, and I note is rated for 450W RMS. Eminence specs - http://www.eminence.com/pdf/Kappalite_3012LF.pdf I assume the Beyma SM212 is significantly cheaper than the 3012LF, and would lead to a simpler build? The Greenboy and Audiokinesis builds around the 3012LF are not cheap, I assume due to the extra parts, labour, crossovers, and additional drivers used to cover mid and higher ranges...

[quote name='Mr.T' timestamp='1403739641' post='2485918'] Out of interest.... Do you have a standard amp setting, then use the parametric EQ just to dial out any unwanted frequencies? If so, what Q and frequency settings do you tend to use? [/quote] I set my Streamliner to flat. The EQ on that is not intuitive and the knobs interact. Talkbass has a good thread on this. On board bass preamp does some tone shaping. (East J Retro). Often not needed. Zoom pedal para EQ effect set to whatever suits the room. Small Q (broad freq range affected) does well for tone shaping, high Q (narrow freq range chosen) good for notch filtering. Q at 2 or 4 for musical sounding boosts; Q at 8 or 16 for narrow cuts. Through studio headphones, I like a boost using Q=2 at 100Hz for recording an ash/maple jazz; this area can be much more of a problem live, and can need cutting. Bill's advice re: 100-250hz area being an issue live is spot on. Q, frequency, and depth of cut vary with room.

[quote name='Greg Edwards69' timestamp='1401307092' post='2462356'] That's where the zoom ms-60b is worth it's weight in gold. I use the two band parametric almost every gig to dial out room resonances. [/quote] +1 to using the MS60B and B3 this way. Powerful tools. That 2 band para is great; lets you select both Q and frequency ( and of course boost/cut amount).

No worries Rumple. This link has some very useful Zoom info re: EQ and high pass filtering. http://www.talkbass.com/threads/zoom-ms60-b3-para-eq-help.999053/ Here is a direct link to the Fishman manual, which tells you how the HPF operates on the actual Fishman pre and on the Zoom emulation of it. http://www.fishman.com/files/pro_eq_platinum_bass_user_guide.pdf The relevant bit of the manual says: [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]The HPF is 12 dB/octave, and range can be moved from 15 Hz (at 5:00 position) to 125 Hz (7:00). [/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]'Depth:[/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]Tighten up your sound, or dial out deep-bass feedback with the Depth control. The Depth control works hand in hand with the Bass control to bring out tight and articulate lows:[/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]1. Start with the Depth turned up full (5:00) with the EQ set flat on your bass amp and/or PA.[/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]2. Set the Bass control to full boost.[/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]3. Play the bass and back off the Depth (counter-clockwise) until you hear the sound tighten up,[/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]usually between 9:00 and 1:00.[/font][/color] [color=#141414][font=verdana, geneva, lucida,]4. Re-set the Bass slider to taste.'[/font][/color]

[quote name='Rumple' timestamp='1403448077' post='2482738'] Hmmm.... so this works like a Thumpinator? brill if it does. [/quote] Yes, it does. Adjustable high pass filter in the Fishman model (Ac Bs Pre) which has already saved my sound once on a very boomy wooden stage in a nightmare venue (the Caves, Edinburgh). I think I ended up cutting most stuff below 100 Hz or so! Still didn't save the overall sound there though.

I just wanted to get a sense from everyone if separate compressors are so good that I should consider moving on from multifx. The answer looks like 'it depends'. Has to be said though, the Zoom's built in paraEQ and and Fishman Pre models on the B3 are really useful, and the high pass filter on the Fishman model is difficult to get without buying an actual HPF (eg thumpinator, etc). I also like a number of the effects and amp models and general utility for practicing/recording. So I'll maybe let my GAS for a pedal compressor relax for a bit. Software has come a long way.

The people have spoken. Thanks chaps. The B3 really is amazing, I keep finding useful things to do with it.

Hi all Just getting a little deeper into compression and effects in general recently. Didn't see the need for compression until I tried it out on my Zoom B3 and found I liked what it did to the sound and evenness of tone. I've mostly been using the dbx160a model in the Zoom B3 and really like its subtle, clean, but slightly fattening effects. The other compressors seem cool too though some are considerably more 'squashy' - cool effect though for some things. How do the compressors in the Zoom pedals stand up to the standalone pedals? (Markbass Compressore, Empress, Cali76, etc)... Ovnilabs hasn't done a review yet of the B3 compressors so your thoughts would be appreciated... Pete