stevie

So exactly what is this old Trace sound of which you speak?

Actually, my comment was tongue-in-cheek, BigRed. It's a logical fallacy that something must work in the future if it worked in the past.

There is so much marketing bull surrounding replacement pickups that it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't. A couple of years ago, there was a link on here to a small bass manufacturer's website where they demonstrated around 10 different P-bass pickups on the same bass. Even though the price differences were great, the differences in sound were marginal. It was basically impossible to tell the cheapest Chinese copy from the most expensive hand-wound-by-dwarfs-and-aged-in-whiskey-in-California models. I suppose it's hardly surprising when you consider that this is fairly primitive technology that is very easy to copy. So I'm not surprised that there is disagreement on this topic (expectation bias and all that). On the other hand, I have certainly heard some pickups that provided an overall "more desirable" sound than stock models and I know the differences were not a product of my imagination. I'm currently playing an Ibanez SR500 with Asian-built Bartolini's. I wouldn't mind upgrading the pickups if I could be confident that I would actually get an improvement, but the views on the internet about upgrading are as inconsistent as the those in this thread about the Duncans. It's very frustrating. I would also mention that I've heard replacement pickups that were worse than the originals, and that generally includes most so-called "hot", overwound pickups.

That's very generous of you.

That is a work of art. A pointless work of art IMO, but still a thing of wonder.

And as we all know, if something has worked well in the past it is bound to work well today. It's only logical, in'it?

I wish I'd thought of that bass line.

I'm familiar with Duncan pickups but not with the Duncan-designed versions. However, I would posit that if the Duncan-designed really are inferior to the Santa Barbara equivalent, then either Seymour deliberately designed an inferior product to stick his name on, or the Chinese (or Taiwanese) are not technologically advanced enough to produce a pickup as good as the US versions. I really think the marketing department had a hand in this. A simple test would reveal all. Has anyone actually done a proper comparison of the two?

Considering that the Chinese make most of the products we buy nowadays, why not a Chinese brand?

And here's a link to the bass part as a pdf: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q47xf1kg9i56weg/Queen - Somebody To Love-bass.pdf?dl=0

Here's a link to the midi. I'm assuming you have the software (?) https://www.dropbox.com/s/0rx5uzegbdgsdgy/Queen - Somebody To Love.MID?dl=0

I can recommend the BMS 15N620, which works well in smallish cabs like the Trace combo. I have one in an Eden cab and it sounds amazing. Very low distortion, clear, crisp, punchy with a very sweet, extended midrange. It needs an internal volume of at least 70 litres - so I'd suggest you measure the internal volume first. It's a bit pricey at £200, but well worth it. It's a genuine 500 watts. Made in Europe. It weighs 3.7kg, which is relatively light for what it offers. The equivalent ceramic model weighs in at 9kg. So you are saving quite a bit of weight.

I've got it on midi. It's in A flat (the original key I suspect), but I can transpose it if you prefer. I could also extract the bass part, but not until tomorrow.

I've nothing against critical comments about products - in fact it doesn't happen enough - but if you're going to slag a product off like that you really need to explain yourself.

I'm using a small ported cab with a P.Audio 8" driver, which sounds really nice. It's here: <http://www.bluearan.co.uk/index.php?id=PAUE8200N&browsemode=category>. It's neo - so you're paying a (very) slight premium - but it's very light, takes up less room than a ceramic 8" , and won't be fazed by being in an open-backed cabinet as long as you don't go mad with the volume.

You are Michael Gove and I claim my five pounds!

That's quite big. A 2x12 cab is normally half that size. I agree that the Celestion bass drivers are good though. The new Pulse 12 would probably work, or you could get a pair of the BL12-200X, which appears to be the same driver and is available for £45 from Lean. Assuming the baffle is 18mm thick, cut two holes 127mm in the baffle for your ports.

Silverfoxnik was selling a couple of relatively lightweight JBL cabs which would work well with these. The cutouts are for a 12" driver, but your tens would work fine if you were to cut a simple circular sub-baffle for them. Then you'd have the choice of one cab or two. http://basschat.co.uk/topic/300635-fs-two-jbl-4646a-12-speaker-cabs-unloaded-l25-each-ono-pp/page__p__3373633__hl__jbl__fromsearch__1#entry3373633

Not that one. It's a guitar cab with an open back and isn't designed to reproduce bass frequencies. Looks smart and is a good price though. The maker might have something similar for bass. You could always ask. The cab and driver is still going to weigh 10kgs.

I do believe you're right. Never heard of F-Bass before, but they sure sound good. Sounds just like an ATK on that track though (trying to maintain some kind of credibility here.....).

Here's a very entertaining YouTube track that features an ATK quite strongly (no idea about the model): https://youtu.be/tJzlHBN3BT4 Extraordinary musicianship throughout that band.

Sorry for the delay in replying. It could be these ones: <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/39213-2x-MNC-Speaker-Port-Cabinet-Bass-Reflex-Tube-44mm/291694230421?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D48155%26meid%3Dd155c9af925643c9972daecacab05632%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D281946720890&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851>

Sure! It's as Alex described: in its simplest terms, you get a bass boost that fattens the sound up. I do try to keep my posts as jargon-free as possible, but sometimes you can't avoid it.

Alex, I said nothing about whether the cancellations were problematic; I just said they were there and you seem to agree that they are inevitable. But if there are cancellations, summing cannot be consistent, which makes frequency response uniformity impossible. It should be obvious why that matters. The gain you get from doubling cone area and power is frequency dependent - that’s true. When two cones are closely coupled (up to a quarter wavelength apart) you will get an extra 6dB in output. However, the theory also states that two drivers a half wavelength apart will cancel and cause comb filtering due to the different arrival times of the sound sources. The frequency and depth of these peaks and dips will vary depending on where you (and your audience) are standing. You cannot simply ignore this: it is important. One of the Adamson user manuals provides the formula for what happens when you use two 8” drivers together: “In this example we show two mid frequency drivers. The acoustic centres are 8” apart. If we use the same formula as we did on the 18” driver, 8” = .66 feet 1130/.66 = 1696Hz 1696Hz /2 – 848Hz we can calculate the maximum usable frequency. This time it allows a maximum of 848Hz. Anything above this frequency will result in interference when listening off axis.” I went into my workshop, stacked two fullrange 12” systems and measured the results. As expected, the pair was 6dB louder than the individual systems at low frequencies. However, above 600Hz or so the responses were extremely uneven, the peaks and dips changing dramatically with every step I took. This is the response on axis and 1.5 metres away from the top cabinet (red one cab, green two cabs): This is the response 30 degrees off axis, level with the top of the top cab (red one cab, green two cabs): In both cases you can see the half wavelength cancellation at around 700Hz and the peaks and dips above. What’s interesting is that the output from the top cab on its own (red) is greater at the measuring position between 400 and 1kHz than when it is used together with the bottom cab (green) – despite the extra power going into the system. Of course, this is only two points in space, but it should be enough to show what I am talking about. So how serious is this interference between stacked drivers really? Alex says that “most of the inevitable cancellations are not problematic”. It doesn’t look like that to me, and some speaker designers think they are serious enough to take measures to mitigate them. JBL’s JRX225 2x15 + horn PA cab is one example. This is how the blurb describes it: “A ‘Quasi 3-Way’ design offers the extra bass for which a dual fifteen system is designed, but without sacrificing performance in the critical mid-range. The upper woofer produces mid-frequencies and bass, while the lower woofer concentrates on bass only. The reduction in mid-range phase cancellation greatly improves midrange sound quality and coverage.” JBL clearly thinks it’s problematic - otherwise, why bother?. Peavey thinks so too because they do the same thing. Then there is Community, dB Technologies, Cerwin Vega, Wharfedale, Bose – and that’s just from a quick google. And yes, let’s not forget Barefaced! Its 2x10 uses exactly the same technique of rolling off one driver to prevent them from interfering with each other in the midrange. I quote: “Both drivers in the Two10 work in unison to produce big bass and punchy mids but to improve dispersion only one has treble output - just like a PA line array........ By only letting higher mids and treble come from one speaker we get much better dispersion through those frequencies so you have more consistent tone around the stage and venue.” Which is more of less what JBL says. It seems that Alex agrees with me after all.

That looks like a fairly standard commercial port that has been cut to size. Take a look here: <http://www.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/reflex-ports-31-c.asp>. It's probably one of those (you don't mention the diameter).