EBS_freak

cheers @dave_bass5! Much appreciated.

Im in the camp of running a processed IEM mix (hence why I always run two desks - one for monitors, one for front of house). Why? Cos it can sound like this....

Right tool for the job and all that!

In which case, use a 4 string!

Big difference between the 915 and 945 due to the quality of the compression driver in the 945. The crossover is very low for a full range box meaning that most of the musical content is going through the super high quality horn, freeing up the woofer for the heavier lifting in the lows. Most boxes in this price range would have nothing near the quality of the horn in the 945 - which makes the 945 such an oddball. (Same as the 735... 745)

3 to 7 yes, absolutely. 7 to 9 - much less significant

No - because not all venues are the same and monitor placement is of upmost importance. Fire a backward facing speaker toward the band, bounces off the back wall, straight into the open mics of the drums, or the vocals etc. It absolutely not the time to do something like that!

You can play open strings as long as you dont need a drone from that open string going on.

Gruv Gear Fret wrap!

Bleugh.

Thanks very much! It was a bit of a lockdown get together. None of us are around enough to be a band! - I know at least two of this line up are out the country at the moment! Was a bit different to my normal playing though I guess - I had to order a plectrum off Amazon and crack out the RBX and raise the action (didn't want to mess with the action on my main basses - especially as they are fag paper low) as I don't normally do anything with a pick! Did put me into Bobby Vega mode for a while though!

I don’t think that I ever posted this. Quite a rare vid of me playing my RBX - and with a plectrum no less! And a laugh of a time signature too! Quite a cool line up on this one - Gaz especially… monster vocalist.

Agreed, as an alternative to a 58 or 58 beta, I'd much rather use a 935 or 945. Much more airy in the top end.

Stats are a nightmare - you can game the hell out of stats. In the same way that manufacturers bake humps in the 1-3k range (where the ear is most sensitive) to give the impression that one ccab is louder than another. RCF are DSPed to be completely flat with pink noise. Cant validate what the Alto is doing as I've never tested one.

No - I was referring to the 310 vs 910. There should be a tangible difference between the 912 and the 310 and 910 in terms of handling low end - and a slight volume advantage (assuming the speakers are otherwise comparable in other aspects aside of size).

I would say that on a gig, I wouldn't say that "a bigger sound" would be perceivable. If they are running different drivers, it would be logical that the drivers are of higher quality - so smoother, less fatiguing... and with more headroom in the amp, arguably more controlled. The thing is, as Phil alluded to, the DSP on the RCF are going to be protecting the speakers long before the driver and horn get anywhere near the output of what the amp can put out. As minimum, I would say the 10s and the 702 will give an OK sound. It will have low end - but will never thump or be a big sound.

If you are running bass through your tops at any significant volume - the bigger boxes and speaker sizes generally move more air (appreciate that the xmax involved in Vd is a significant variable). The more you can get the horn to do frees up the woofer to do more heavy lifting in the lows. You really want to HPF all the energy sapping lows too. Same logic goes with a sub - crossover the low lows, and then allow the crossover on the tops to handle just the highs, mids and high lows.

Just to add, the sub would be the biggest improvement - it will take some of the sapping low end of off the tops and thats where you are going to get your increased headroom from. I personally don't think 12s really cut as a sub (especially when only running 1 - and you'll need quite a bit of shaping and compression going on to get the most out of it. I used to dep with a band and when I introduced them to a triggered bass drum, it really helped to get more out of the sub.) - and would go 705 as a single box solution if you have the means to buy and transport it. If you are getting into a 3 box solution though... you know, you are getting into 735 territory. Whats your non negotiable? Size? Weight? Number of boxes?

Ah - I was thinking that you were adding to the existing 310s so you were running 4 boxes. I thought you were talking about crossing over the 3s and the 9s (which wouldnt be that advantageous!) Sorry for the misunderstanding.

In which case, the limit of how much bass these things can put out are going to be limited by the driver, not the power. Even if you throw more power at the drivers, if the drivers can't deliver the low end, they can't deliver the low end full stop. If you are planning on using 4 x10s, you may hit combing issues. Without thinking about it too much, I'd have two on the floor as centre fills. When you say a 910 for mid/low frequencies, are you planning on putting some crossovers in place or something? Whats stopping you from going to a 735/745? Are they just too big? They really are the sweet spot in the one stop shop for doing all without going into subs. A pair at £1500 is kinda ball park of the 910s and the 310s (granted you already own the 310s).

I know stats are mostly nonsense as they don't give you the full story - but the additional volume that you gain from the 910A is not really going to be perceivable as any real world advantage. You may get a better quality sound with the higher headroom - but whether that transforms in the real world through a 10... I wouldn't bet on it. I see there is 3dB to be gained in the 9 over the 3... but at what frequency. If it's in the lows, probably more useful... but I suspect it's not going to be in the lows. I haven't had much of a look through the thread of late - but what is it that you are trying to achieve by changing cabs? Greater quality? Greater volume? Are your 310s showing some deficiency in some area? Or are you just itching to spend some money (which is a valid argument also as naturally, we'd all take a 910 over a 310 if we could...)

Audix OM6. Great off axis rejection for live use... and great for capturing all those airy highs. The trying the mics out is a top tip... if you can find them all in one place, as different mics can suit different voices better. The off axis rejection of the Audix though, is what makes it one of my top choices in this case. Will need better mic technique from the singer - but the extra gain before feedback and cleaner vocal feed into the desk would make this a strong contender for me. (If she's a light singer, she will need to be right on the mic and on axis if she's singing with a band). In a live situation, I would take that cleaner signal over perhaps the best sound (not that the Audix is in any way deficient - it isn't... it's a great sounding mic). With a quieter singer, you are going to get into bleed and the realms of feedback a lot quicker, especially if she is not singing right on the mic. Obviously in a studio where you haven't got the extra complexities of other stuff going on, then yeah, finding the right mic for the singer is defo something to explore.

Anyway... back on topic. Bass Direct.

A P bass is a bass that I loathe playing. I hate the sound of it in isolation. In the mix...? Killer. Just works every time!