LawrenceH

Fairly lowly when compared to a lot of the basses on this thread, but I bought an Aerodyne jazz intending to sell on but it was just too good, had to defret it to justify keeping!

Mine's probably 'medium', 3-4 mm at the 12th fret at a guess? Lower action and gentle technique are probably better for both fast technical playing and hand health, but all the same I find there's something about giving the notes a good funky spanking that you just can't replicate any other way. String harmonic decay must be pretty different at different levels of pluck, I'd assume, and an ultra-low action unfortunately gets in the way of that. Mind you, fretless doesn't have to be particularly low to feel as fast as anything

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1355407139' post='1897985'] The list of bass cabs where the woofers have any kind of crossover on them is quite a short one (Baer, Audiokinesis, some Barefaced, some Bergantino, anything else?) - the vast majority are running full-range. If we could run all our woofers full-range and get the performance we want then I would - big inductors are annoying components whilst passive crossovers and hot voice coils aren't the best combination. [/quote] Yep I think we're well aware of this, and it was kind of my point - I'd think the contribution of bass cabs to the world of high fidelity testing has historically been fairly minimal! Hence you'd expect it might be more audible in bass cab scenarios simply because they ask more of the woofer - even if they cross it's usually too high for 'hifi'.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355399774' post='1897820'] ...... and so it should be; vinyl is always best - it's been proven in another thread! [/quote] Oh damn, I forgot to put that in! MK is on CD, Flea on 1/4 inch tape. Phil, Stevie - just playing around with sims I found more obvious differences with Cms in some drivers than others, but was still varying it by a factor of at least 2 - very much depends on the degree to which materials will change in the real world (and that kind of break in would probably be effectively over after a few seconds!), but overall it's intuitively surprising (to me) how insensitive performance is to that fundamental parameter. Rms variation only appears in the equation for one derived parameter - Qms - so how mechanical resistance changes over time would be interesting. Just thinking out loud, it might be easier to reconcile reports of the low audibility of mid-range/treble effects with data like Alex's by considering that a lot of the changes would be at frequencies dominated by non-pistonic effects. Many drivers in-cab will be crossed below this point so raw driver response is not so relevant, also PA and definitely bass cab drivers are often asked to work higher than ideal for crossing, so manufacturers work more on fine-tuning behaviour higher up for these via more complex cone behaviour.

Larry Graham is outside the operational parameters of the model. MK v Flea. Gun to head. If you don't answer hell is an eternity of whichever one you don't want it to be most...

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1355328056' post='1896999'] Is this one still going? It must be a record! [/quote] I think it's awesome. Since it's already deviated into maple v rosewood and back again, I think the REAL question is, which is best? 1. Mark King playing fingerstyle on a maple-boarded ash-bodied Ray through a 100 watt all-valve amp into a broken-in BF Super 12, or 2. Flea playing slap on a rosewood-boarded modulus through a 300 watt class D head into a fresh Baer ML-212.

[quote name='JohnFitzgerald' timestamp='1355317933' post='1896808'] Might this explain the logic behind the slot opening in the old Trace BKLX combos ? [/quote] The old BLX80? It certainly had that effect, they were a 4th or 6th order bandpass design I think? The slot acted as a port that also allowed a proportion of direct radiated sound out to improve the bandwidth. Still a very scooped sound though! Real oddball design, but it worked surprisingly well in some contexts.

I apologise profusely and unreservedly if I've upset the delicate sensibilities of any bass player. Kisses xx

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1355319538' post='1896850'] If anyone doubts that speakers change a lot due to mechanical parameters shifting, notice how different your car stereo sounds when you've just de-iced the car compared to half an hour into the journey with the heaters on full blast. There's a big change in bass response! I wonder how well boot-mounted subwoofers work in the winter (mind is in the rear footwell!)? [/quote] I think that's not the easiest example, since half an hour into a journey road surface/engine noise is going to be pretty different! Thinking about your graph above I'd guess the off-axis response might alter even more drastically for a given position as changes in stiffness altered break-up behaviour etc. Could be a bigger deal in guitar speakers.

Hurrah! Well done Alex What difference do you think is attributable to temp versus 'break-in' here? EDIT: assuming the driver was 'fresh' for the first measurement, realise this might not be the case!

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1355282022' post='1896384'] While I deal with theory all the time I don't blndly accept it. I verify it by taking my own measurements, of both drivers and finished cabs before and after break-in. [/quote] Indeed, and this discussion would be much richer if you shared any of those currently intangible measurements, indicating how much difference it can make! Or at least gave some expert insight into how T-S params like Cms and Rms tend to change in the real world, and the effect this would have in simulation... [quote name='Ghost_Bass' timestamp='1355309520' post='1896614'] - No, Just play the damn thing! The amp's EQ is there to shape your tone at any moment. Cheers [/quote] Agreed, which is exactly why I said [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1355280857' post='1896383'] So I'll carry on breaking in speakers if I'm building/testing a cab, and in all other situations I just wouldn't care! [/quote] and I think most others have expressed this sentiment as well. Of course interest in this is more than just academic when you're building a cab, and from a manufacturer's perspective, if the cab sounded noticeably weaker/harsher until broken in then it could have a negative impact on sales.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1355272098' post='1896345'] In fact, I was. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but if you want to offer an expert opinion you first must become an expert. Like Vance Dickason. Or the guy who's name is directly below his on the masthead of AudioExpress magazine, and Speaker Builder magazine before that: Mine. [/quote] Sorry Bill, but argument from authority is on the naughty list: [url="http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx"]http://www.theskepti...lfallacies.aspx[/url] Now I wouldn't claim to be an 'expert' but if people want to argue scientifically, they have to understand what science is, and the major methodological differences between proper scientific method, anecdotal evidence, and engineering solutions. So far on this thread there has been a load of waffly rubbish, some subjective anecdotes (nothing wrong with that but you have to recognise it for what it is) and some actual measurements based around a scientific theory of how loudspeakers work, provided by only ONE person. The measurements are one half of some science, but more measurements would be needed to do it that way - which those "arguing from authority" seem strangely reticent to provide. A shame. The other half is the theory. It's easy to solve this argument more objectively, at least for the bass response, [b]if we accept that the theory is true[/b], and actually bother to LOOK AT IT! Which no-one arguing seems to have done either, at least not in any depth or with adequate explanation. So, assume the Thiele-Small model is true. Mmd (or we can use Mms), Cms, Re, Rms, Sd, Bl (and Le). Those are the fundamental parameters (not necessarily the ones you'd measure) that can't be completely described by each other. However Fs, Vas, Qes/ms are all functions of those parameters. If we accept that material compliance can vary over time, easily demonstrated by flexing a piece of card, then we can vary that one parameter in the model and see what it does. WinISD can even do it for us to save having to do horrible maths. Just make a fictitious loudspeaker using only the fundamental parameters and let it fill in the gaps, then make another that differs only in Cms, let it fill in the gaps again, and see what happens. When I tried this, starting with a real speaker spec for my base parameters, as compliance increases the effect of the change becomes less and less. What this implies is that the effect of a change in Cms will vary not only dependent on the magnitude of the change, but that the absolute starting value is also important, ie how much suspension stiffness is limiting cone movement in the first place. This is pretty obvious really, when you think about it mechanically. (Go back to the derived parameter definitions. Note that while Fs and Vas do indeed change in complementary directions, Vas is defined as proportional to Cms but Fs is inversely proportional to the square root of Cms. This is important because it means they can't totally balance each other out) Note that in Stevie's measurements, Cms is not the only fundamental parameter to vary. But you can't assume they'd always vary in totally complementary fashion and doing so doesn't fit with the model as described. In a way, it's clear that if one or more of the fundamental parameters in the model can vary over time, they can't always just cancel out or they wouldn't be in the model as fundamental parameters in the first place! In the real world? Most measurements Stevie references and provides seem to suggest it's fairly subtle, but subjective experiences here suggest otherwise, quite probably (and obviously) related to the Cms's original contribution to cone movement. Personally, I'm fairly sure I've heard it happening in some Deltalites, because it didn't really seem subtle at all and loose objects were certainly vibrating more later on than at the beginning. There's a limit to how much your ears can adapt! Though now I wish I'd had a mic up recording the process. The other issue as mentioned elsewhere on the thread is the midrange - the T/S model doesn't deal with that. So I'll carry on breaking in speakers if I'm building/testing a cab, and in all other situations I just wouldn't care!

So that's recommendations for 2 cabs weighing about 90lb total, for someone asking if they could get a 1 cab solution weighing under 30lb?! A typical neo 212 weighs under 60lb and is plenty by lots of people's standards...([i]edit:[/i] not disputing the tonal qualities of the aggies which a lot of people really like) Personally I could get by gigging with a mid-level 112 for a lot of indoor scenarios, but if you wanted the 'biggest' 112 sound you could get in a reasonable lightweight form and had the watts to drive them, then the BF Big Baby, Vanderkley 112MNT or even Kappalite-loaded BFM Jack 112 have the best output potential IMO. The choice depends a lot on preferred voicing for me - where you want the volume has a big impact.

Takes up less floor space but still the cabs are squat enough to be stable, gets the speakers closer to your ears, you get a little benefit in terms of mid-range dispersion, AND the TE badges are the right way up! What's not to like about the vertical stack? If you got a second set of cabs, then 1. It wouldn't be technically ideal to have them side-by-side but 2. It's hard to see how to do it otherwise and 3. You probably wouldn't notice or care about the sonic difference

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1355221180' post='1895439'] Where do you draw the line with your argument though? [/quote] 3dB difference is a fairly standard place to draw the line, and is IME sensible for live use. You can hear a difference of a lot less than this in a very well-balanced mix though.

[quote name='fleabag' timestamp='1355232401' post='1895658'] Thanks a lot Phil - all advice noted. I dont mind shifting the wood I have tried to find another Jack - mine has 2 Betas @ 250 watt 8 ohm each, so another like that would be ideal, but they dont seem to be selling much anymore. I think the depreciation on those after someone's spent time and money building them is a big factor. At least 50% loss and more. So, i'm stuck with what i have, but i will try the crossover out of the BP8.... any recommendations as to which Hz value I should send to the BFM ? The crossover allows anything from 80hz and above, upto 500hz and above. I will experiment, but It'd be handy to know your thoughts on this PS is there much of a volume difference ( that can be heard ) between 350 watt @ 8 ohms and 500 watt @ 4 ohms ? [/quote] I'll chip in again, as I own some Jacks (if you want a couple of slightly rough unloaded Jacks 110s, let me know!). For 15 'sub' use I'd try crossing over a bit higher than usual, round about 150Hz-ish as that's where the horn loading starts to take effect. It does rather depend on how loud the 15 is in comparison though and personal taste in the sound, so experimenting a bit higher or lower would be sensible. There isn't much volume difference between 350 and 500 at all at the best of times, and if the drivers are being pushed to their limits then it will be virtually nothing. If you're driving the power amp to the edge of clipping to get just enough volume at 350 though, then the extra could make more of a tonal difference - for PA use I always liked having a little extra clean headroom. Btw Phil I agree that people worry more than necessary about mixing cabs, my concern with the Jacks is whether, running full-range, the horn loading would mean phasing issues were shifted higher up to a more critical region, so it could matter more than usual - perhaps unfounded though, since the Jacks would likely be so much more sensitive in this region anyway.

The Jack design is very 'voiced', has a big bump in the low mids but a big trough higher up (obviously depends a bit on what drivers you load into it). If you like that sound then the best thing to do would be add another identical cab. I'd be a bit wary of combining a J210 with another type of cab both running full range, but you could use an active crossover to split the signal and run the 15 as a sub, to take the strain from the J210 drivers at the low end below horn cutoff. Then you needn't worry about finding a 15 that plays nicely higher up.

But, two smaller cabs are a lot easier to move than one cab that's double the size If you want a lightweight 4ohm 410 that could actually handle a lot of watts and make use of them then you might take a look at the Aguilar SL410 - rapidly discontinued I think due to Aguilar having issues with Eminence neo driver supplies. Remaining stock is still available from a few suppliers I think, it's not cheap, but the price reflects the quality of the drivers its loaded with. Btw the Trace cab wouldn't be a great platform for upgrading because the port size isn't big enough to cope, you'd get issues with chuffing around resonance if you did put more power in regardless of what drivers it was loaded with.

Cheers, that's very interesting thanks. Did you add any additional bracing? Looks like there's a bit in the second pic down on that page. Also did you do any tests after they were built (other than the 'firing it up and going '&*% that's loud'' test)? There's not been much discussion of horn designs on here at all, other than a bit about the BFM offerings.

Really depends on the driver units as JT says, but given that the GK 10" and 12" drivers are probably based around the same motor design you might expect 4x10s to give roughly equivalent performance to 2x12s with the added advantage of modularity. A good 410 is very loud. Recently I've been gigging a single 10" but it's a better driver than you'll find in any commercial (bass guitar) speaker, I EQ to suit the limitations and can usually rely on FoH for low-end reinforcement. All this really depends on what kind of volume levels you want and what sound you're after?

Just from using them in rehearsal rooms I wonder if a lot of the problems with those Trace 410s farting out is down to their being tuned a bit high to give more upper-bass oomph, leaving the cones undamped at lower frequencies. At any rate it wouldn't cost anything to try blocking one of the ports, which would lower cab resonance and offer a bit more protection. Depends where the problem lies though, it could make it worse - but worth a go perhaps.

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1355061249' post='1893457'] If you want more basses then go find a way to make it happen instead of bitching on here about it in some sort of attempt to make me feel guilty for any success that I have worked hard to achieve. [/quote] I didn't see any bitching, just an expression of surprise at the collections that some people amass, without pointing to anyone specific. No need to be so defensive!

Hah, bass cabs are the stock cars of the speaker world - you get some real souped-up labours of love, and some right old bangers cobbled together with whatever was going cheap! Even to the extent of summarily changing driver type loaded into a cab model for (understandable) reasons of cost and availability. But generally, stuff at the mid end of the market up works well enough in the real world if you spend some time working out how to coax the best from it, and some of it works very well indeed. Never been a better time to play in terms of gear portability, price and sound quality IMO The OP specifically mentions impedence in the title. Largely a non-issue with solid state stuff as long as you don't go below the minimum spec. Certain driver/cab/amp combinations don't play well where they've stretched the spec a little though - impedence is only nominal after all, but that's rare enough these days I think.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355004712' post='1892966'] alleged knowledge........... ad nauseum. [/quote] Hi Stu, that'll be nauseating people like me then? I do go on a bit sorry! Mixing and matching can get you closer to what you want than set manufacturer combinations, really depends what you're after tonally and if it matches with what a manufacturer is aiming for. I think the idea that no manufacturers ever put any thought into their cab designs whatsoever beyond appearance, is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. There's always been good stuff out there and a lot of modern manufacturers have upped their game IMO.

As a 'born again' Fender user I'd still rather spend 2 grand on a Yammy than a new Fender! Would love to try the 2024, but then again perhaps it's better for my spiritual well-being that I don't