LawrenceH

[quote name='Circle_of_Fifths' post='1041252' date='Nov 29 2010, 03:09 PM']--- but it has TWO chrome bling-things on it and they are both in the way for me - so even though it's beautiful, it's a No-Go too. [....] But somehow I (maybe) am missing the quality that everybody ELSE says that the Miller and the CVs have in the necks. I dunnow, but I like a less-rounded and less-plastic feeling neck.[/quote] Why not just remove the pickguards?! That's what everyone did with the early Fenders anyway I prefer the vintage neck profile you don't like - in the long run it gives me less fatigue than the thin ones, not something that's evident immediately though and I expect it depends on both hand size and technique. But you could try a Geddy Lee, necks on those are very narrow front-to-back, might be just your thing?

[quote name='Prime_BASS' post='1039576' date='Nov 28 2010, 03:08 AM']Itdefinatly interesting if I can get something lighter I'll get it. But there must be a reason it didn't catch on.[/quote] Cost - foam-cored cabs are more complicated to make than a simple wooden box. Check out [url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=432560"]this[/url] and [url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=549976"]this[/url] Amazing DIY cabs but the man-hours for the two 12" cabs were around 60 hours!

The VM jazz is a very upgradeable bass. Plus you could always refinish it in sonic blue!

It annoys me that this listing wasn't pulled a second time for being blatantly misleading. That fake signature decal on the headstock is enough for it to be a breach of copyright, but I don't really mind that, it's more that he's lying by omission about what it really is - at best a butchered Made in Mexico with stickers on the neck. It's not going to sound any more like a Marcus Miller than a standard MIM maple-necked bass, since it doesn't have the right pickup spacing and the body is almost certainly not ash.

[quote name='kneal6' post='1037451' date='Nov 26 2010, 09:44 AM']Bigger tone pot and tone cap so the tone control cuts more highs.[/quote] Yeah, making sure the tone cap and pot work and give nice gradual variation along its range is probably the most important!

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1037508' date='Nov 26 2010, 10:32 AM']Saying that tho, theres currently a Roadworn precision on here for £650. I`ve never been over keen on false relicing, but these basses are sooooo nice its unbelievable, the just feel so comfortable, and sound great.[/quote] If these are anything like as good as the jazz equivalents then I'd hold out for one of these at £600 secondhand.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1035183' date='Nov 24 2010, 03:28 PM']Science does have a tendency to win out over dogma, though sometimes it takes a while. Ask Galileo.[/quote] As a working scientist, I'm relieved to hear that.

[quote name='dood' post='1034365' date='Nov 23 2010, 08:22 PM']Big grin... Well, my main rig is a pair of Hartke Hydrives and the LH1000 - I really wanna get my hands on the new Kilo, which is (or on paper at least) a true stereo head. In the meantime, Hartke don't make a lil F1 sized head - so, just for shits and giggles I have put together a superlightweightanddisgustinglypowerful HiFi Stereo rig! I run (as far as possible) all my effects to the top end so the bottom end gets left alone. I've also found that the added 'muscle' helps reproduce those low notes of my 7 stringer. It's not all showy and 'eeeee look what I've got' or anything, not that kinda guy at all - I just really love listening to yummy stereo effects! So all of that aside, there is something slightly perverse about having all that power in something that weighs well - the whole rack cant weigh anymore than about 6 kilos! I'd have to stick it on some scales - but that's about 1000W! Golly![/quote] Sounds disgustingly, brilliantly prog. So are you using a crossover?

[quote name='lojo' post='1035413' date='Nov 24 2010, 06:24 PM']Why does a Precision sound so, well like a precision, is it all in the pick up, or are there other factors, surely the original mid/neck one on a Jazz was not all that different from the P in its design?[/quote] Pickup has got to make a difference thanks to split-coil design versus single, and the different windings, as well of course as the fact that it's not and can't be in exactly the same position. Though I wonder if a chunkier P neck also has a role. But actually, my Jap ash/maple jazz with neck pup solo'ed pretty much nails the tone on a lot of 70s funky tunes that I know were played on P basses, particularly that wicked dirty bark when you pop a string. It's not the lightest bass and I wonder if that contributes!

They look the business. Looking forward to your report!

[quote name='steve' post='1034102' date='Nov 23 2010, 05:02 PM']Mick, who's your supplier of Baltic Birch? I ended up going to B&Q when I built my omnis [/quote] In case anyone's interested, when we built a few J10s we used the lightweight poplar ply from Avon Plywood in Bristol. Not particularly cheap but it's good quality and incredibly light. Wasn't really sold on the J10s though, at least for PA.

[quote name='dood' post='1033930' date='Nov 23 2010, 02:32 PM']Quick update, I've done a conversion on a US F1. It has been running for a good hour whilst I spank the **** out of it and it sounds fine! Fuse in the US model was a T6.3Al and I have swapped it to match my UK F1 @ T3.15Al.[/quote] Me too - works a treat! Why on earth do you need two F1s though, what kind of monster rig are you running?!

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1033808' date='Nov 23 2010, 12:55 PM']Point is, you are constantly referencing cheap crappy ported systems, and those are crap because of the cheap crapness, not the being ported. What I have noticed in studios is that whilst they are equipped with NS10s, they also have other speakers in the room, and they are ported. The NS10s being there as representative of home stereo speakers (since that is what they were designed for) and the other speakers used for the actual production.[/quote] I wasn't the one who brought the home market into this. Bill raised it as an example of where sealed cabs don't dominate and claimed this market doesn't care about bass volume, which is evidently not true at all, apparently in a quest to 'prove' that sealed cabinets are inherently inferior in every aspect to ported cabs which seems to me a very bizarre argument. I honestly can't see what's at all controversial about the idea that porting is used to boost low-end output of speakers but comes with its own set of compromises and complications, and if it wasn't necessary to boost LF volume output we wouldn't use it. With sealed cabs you get a nice gentle drop in frequency response that is much more easily matched with a simple shelving filter than the more complex rapid drop (with small hump or shelf) associated with ported cabs. Plus the phase issues around porting are inherently dealt with rather than having to be designed out. You may be able to minimise some of these things with ported cabs, but why be complicated when simple does it at least as well? It's because of the other serious benefits of porting which I didn't dispute. That is the only reason I made what was meant to be, as I said, a throwaway comment. It is frustrating to me that we've meandered off in a direction far away from the real point of my post, that it's not necessarily the bottom half-octave that you're looking to maximise power handling for in speaker cabs if it comes at the expense of the region slightly higher up where the strongest harmonics are. I'd be very interested to know where the typical power-bands of different basses lie. By the way the reason I referred to the NS10s (as monitors, so I should say the NS10Ms) was precisely [b]because[/b] they don't sound that great overall but are nonetheless widely held as an example of where certain aspects of sealed cabinets have advantages over ported. [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf"]Here[/url] is a link to an Institute of Acoustics research paper examining the NS10s in a bit more scientific fashion, conclusions refer to 'very fast low-frequency decay...aided by the 12dB/octave roll-off of the sealed-box cabinet' and a 'better than average step function response, which implies good reproduction of transients'. I feel justified in my statements about them as firstly they match what my ears tell me, second my ears accord with received wisdom based on theory, and third since people like Hugh Robjohns and Bob Katz seem to agree (if you don't know of him, he's worth looking up). My understanding is, the idea that NS10s are used because they sound like small home speakers started as a bit of a myth, this myth became popular so ended up becoming partly self-fulfilling. Consider that most home speakers are as Bill says ported - an NS10 is hardly representative. Plus no-one much likes their overall sound, which is the opposite of what the home hi-fi market wants, so probably their overall frequency response is not representative either. I only mentioned studio monitors in the first place because it's a market where revealing reproduction is much more important than overall output level - the live bass cab market obviously needs high output. If you listen to pretty much any sub-£600 studio monitors, the bass end has a character of its own that makes it difficult to fully trust in its translatability to another system. NS10s, [b]despite[/b] not being that great overall and not exhibiting anywhere like the volume output low down of ported designs, are (or were) unusual in the market in that a lot of deficiencies are subjectively far more audible on them than on these other cabs. Which is apparently and theoretically very plausibly at least partly attributable to their being sealed. In that sense the ported monitors are actually closer to the home hi-fi market. But, perhaps my pulling out a ubiquitous but relatively cheap example was a mistake, since there are other much more expensive sealed monitors that sound far nicer than NS10s while retaining the clarity at the low end.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1033405' date='Nov 22 2010, 11:42 PM']That is intended to address the issue of equal loudness. To do so it boosts both the lower and upper end of the spectrum when the volume pot is set at low levels, with the effect diminished as volume is increased.[/quote] I know. That's doesn't negate what I was saying in any way. I was just pointing out that small crap speakers are often sold by virtue of being bassy, and at the low volumes of such systems it matters, if anything, more than with bigger (partly because of the requirement for equal loudness contouring). Plus, on plenty of cheap stereos it doesn't disappear as you turn the volume up at all, you can switch it in and out and clearly hear it. There're also 'hyper bass boost' buttons and a hundred other similarly-named things which EQ small stereos around the porting frequency. But you know this, I really can't understand what you're arguing against if anything.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1033123' date='Nov 22 2010, 07:57 PM']By the market I meant speakers in general, not just electric bass. In home use output isn't the concern that it is with pro-sound, and yet ported still dominates every segment of the hi-fi market save one, HT subwoofers. There sealed is well represented for two reasons: cabin gain and high driver Qts.[/quote] Again, a slippery, almost eel-like point! What relevance is the home audio market? In any case it absolutely loves big bass, and it matters more at very low levels, hence the 'loudness function' which boosts the low-end precisely in the areas small reflexed boxes will also bump it up. A studio monitor handling typically, say 100W RMS deosn't really compare to a crappy 10 to 20W hi-fi. (The NS-10s are actually unusually low input by today's standards but that's by the by - it's a 30-year-old design). The number of terrible reflexed 'one-note-bass' plastic boxes for sale in the 80s and 90s and probably today, or the ipod docking station equivalent, are testament to how well bass sold home audio systems.

Oh yes and the Hugh Robjohns quote was taken from an introductory article - not meant to be highly technical, I included it because over here he is very well-respected as an ex-broadcast engineer with a solid electronics and audio background, and his views aren't known for straying into the crazy realms of hifi that I mentioned in my last post. His ears and opinions carry rather more weight than my own...

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1033031' date='Nov 22 2010, 06:40 PM']Using terms like 'time smearing' = BS. Fairly sure your ear ear/brain doesn't perceive much relevant to that in the port tuning sort of frequency band. The term 'transients' also makes me suspicious, but that might be to do with Ampeg's marketing BS. I don't think I've encountered any decent sealed bass cabs.[/quote] I'm talking about the studio monitor market, not Ampeg. I didn't really want to go down this road because originally I was only making a throwaway point that ported cabs are not without compromises of their own, but I dislike such a didactic and obfuscating response to a point as I originally got (especially when it effective diverted from the main thrust of my argument). The 'time smearing', whatever you want to call it, is perfectly measurable. You can design ported cabs to minimise it, but a sealed cab offers a simple and reliable solution. Whether it's audible is another matter, but the world of mastering engineering is far away from that of exotic hifi fruitloopery. I can definitely hear something, and my ears are OK though not particularly 'golden'. I've never tested it systematically, because life is too short. I've heard speakers that use both and subjectively I've often preferred the sealed ones in terms of clarity. That's not as bass guitar cabs, but as monitors that are reproducing, amongst other things, bass guitar. Of course playback isn't the same (consider mic-ing a cab, then replaying it, both using ported systems, both with a similar delay characteristic) but I like what I hear there and I've heard some excellent live stage sounds using sealed 8x10s. Two popular explanations are offered for the ubiquity of the NS10s, one is mine, one is Bill's - but the problem with Bill's is that it doesn't explain WHY it'll sound good translated across to almost any speaker, particularly over using an actual consumer loudspeaker. The lack of port colouring obscuring problems that might become apparent on other, differently ported systems is one possible, I'd say highly plausible explanation. Bill has again decided to obscure my point entirely by saying that if 'sealed was superior then that's what would dominate the market'. Ignoring the fact that I acknowledged the very real and more problematic compromises such a cab has in the loudness stakes, which is the very reason it doesn't dominate. I'll restate what I'm trying to say [b] If volume was unimportant [/b] and we just wanted a good clear tone, then we wouldn't bother with porting. A shelving EQ matching the gentle rolloff of a sealed cab does very nicely to give an excellent linear response, and porting introduces potential pitfalls of its own. These can be minimised, but then your design is a three-way compromise between the best reflexing for overall volume, even frequency response and acceptable time-domain characteristics. KISS principle applies.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1032706' date='Nov 22 2010, 03:00 PM']Not any designers I know. There's nothing the least bit magical about sealed cabs. Most cabs in the 60s were sealed not because they sounded better but because most of the drivers available didn't work any better in vented alignments. Designers/manufacturers who still create sealed cabs don't do so because they're better, they do so because they sell, mainly to customers who think there's something inherently better about the tone of a sealed cab. The fact of the matter is that a good designer can precisely duplicate the transfer function of a sealed cab with a vented alignment.[/quote] My ears like sealed cabinets and I find it easier to separate out the bass on them. But I guess that doesn't mean much. Hugh Robjohns, who is a useful no-b******t reviewer has this to say on the matter (bear in mind it's from a simple beginners article [url="http://www.performing-musician.com/pm/oct08/articles/technotes.htm"]here[/url] ): [quote]In general, sealed-cabinet designs provide a very linear frequency response and — arguably of more importance — an excellent time-domain performance, by which I mean that transients are handled cleanly and without time smearing. However, sealed cabinet designs aren't particularly efficient and so it's not easy to make them go very loud. Consequently, this kind of design tends to be restricted to high-quality domestic hi-fi applications and professional near-field monitoring, where high replay volume isn't the primary requirement and relatively small size is an advantage. The BBC's infamous LS3/5A is a sealed-cabinet design that is highly regarded for critical monitoring purposes. The classic Yamaha NS10 is too, and while its overall frequency response isn't quite as refined as that of the LS3/5A, its time domain precision enables it to provide superb clarity and separation of the bass elements in a mix, which is partly why it has been such a popular studio reference for decades.[/quote] Conservatism is a factor in governing markets but unless you really think those studio and mastering engineers who rate this design type are actually cloth-eared delusionists, then I think using the product limitations of the 1960s as an excuse for dismissing a design out-of-hand is a bit disingenuous. The NS10 is gash as far as response goes, but they do let you hear what's going on low down in a mix incredibly well. I do wonder though, how many people actually regularly listen to bass on decent sealed systems, monitors, hi-fis or cabs? We're probably more used to adapting to ported cabs. I can't use sealed cabs as an effective solution for compact bass cabs due to the loudness issue, but they are very revealing. Perhaps too much for some people.

[quote name='stonecoldbass' post='1032135' date='Nov 22 2010, 01:10 AM']Why would you not want your bass to have bass and low mids exactly...?![/quote] He said you don't want to [i]fill[/i] it with them - an unbalanced, boomy low end does tend to screw things up from a sound engineer's perspective. Bass-heavy sounds have to be tuned pretty carefully (especially indoors with room nodes and the like). To the OP, I think the fact you set the controls to noon was the root of the problem, I look forward to hearing how you get on next time!

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1031064' date='Nov 21 2010, 12:30 AM'][b]Where power/output demands are highest, from 41 to 65 Hz,[/b] the pair of 2x10s are louder.[/quote] This in bold is a rather sweeping statement, and I would definitely question its validity. Look again at that graph, and this time look at 65 to ~150 Hz. Think about a 4-string bass guitar. Bottom E fundamental at 40, 1st harmonic 80. How much 40Hz in that E, compared to 80Hz? We're not talking synthesisers here. Play up the bottom octave and ask the same question. Obviously it depends on the pickup placement, type, the bass etc etc. Nonetheless despite the fact that power demands are so high down there, it doesn't necessarily mean that you need a lot thanks to the harmonic balance of a bass guitar's output. Most ported cabs have a dip around the first harmonics of the lower notes (anywhere around 80-120ish?) I'd bet that when cabs fart out it's these harmonics that are causing the trouble just as often as the low fundamentals. It'll depend on the tonal goals of the player. Bill's graph tells you nothing about the mid-range response (of course if the Deltalites are significantly more sensitive then the twin 2x10s might win out there). A big boost at 40Hz does sound fat, but it's not the 'natural' tone of most bass guitars. My point is not that one cab is better than the other. Instead, I mean that even just in the loudness stakes, which is better depends on what you're asking it to do. And regarding tone, if loudness weren't an issue most designers wouldn't even use porting.

[quote name='TimR' post='1030968' date='Nov 20 2010, 10:57 PM']How loud does an 8x10 'sound' compared to a 4x10 vertical stack?[/quote] It's 1 louder

Don't listen to them! I'm sure the bongo is lovely but as a multitude of killer funk dancefloor classics will testify, you can't go wrong with a nice ash-bodied jazz. Pre-amp change if necessary is pretty trivial. Plus, let's face it, the jazz is gonna date a lot better

I find the Markbass tone the opposite of woolly - there's a pretty aggressive midrange to those speakers (and the frequency plots of the equivalent B&C stock 10" drivers bear this out with a rising response across the mids). Apologies for an obvious point, but one thing worth checking when using the combos is that the VLE/VPF filters are off to start with, they're not like EQ knobs where the centre is off, you have to turn them fully anti-clockwise. Too much of them and woolliness ensues.