xgsjx Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) [quote name='stevie' timestamp='1336760331' post='1650760'] That claim is normally made by people who have done it. It may not be the whole truth, but at least it's based on practical experience. On the other hand, those talking about dispersion, mixing drivers, matching motors etc. are generally parroting what they've heard. [/quote] Maybe with your 80s rig, I don't know. I found that getting low end depended on the cab & not what sized drivers it housed & was why I went for 2 15" in separate 3 1/2 foot tall cabs. Now I use 10s & can still get just as much bass. [quote name='stevie' timestamp='1336760331' post='1650760'] So why are Fender Twins better on their end? [/quote] Harder for the audience to read the F word & get offended? Edited May 11, 2012 by xgsjx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinman Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 [quote name='stevie' timestamp='1336760331' post='1650760'] That claim is normally made by people who have done it. It may not be the whole truth, but at least it's based on practical experience. On the other hand, those talking about dispersion, mixing drivers, matching motors etc. are generally parroting what they've heard. So why are Fender Twins better on their end? [/quote] Out of fairness to what I know Bill FItzmaurice has said, it is not that mixing drivers is guaranteed to be bad , it's that the results are [u]unpredictable[/u], i.e. it could, by luck and for some, yield good results, or at least results that the listener is happy with. On the other hand, if you're not lucky, it may not be as good with sticking with something that has some science behind it. I have a suspicion that in some cases where someone had, say a 2 x 10", and felt they needed something extra, that they don't often consider adding more of the same as intuition might imply that you're just going to get the same sound but louder, whereas something different like an 1 x 15" might add a new dimension. In reality more of the same can do that too but I wonder if all options were actually tried. Also, I suspect we hear most from those where their luck was in! Personally, I'm of the view that if the user is happy with it then that's good - but I like to attempt to understand some of the science too as it helps eliminate some unknowns and risk. Some on this forum have an excellent understanding of the science (the Bills and Alexes) , many more have a reasonable grasp of the basics too - I don't think too many just parrot it as there are rational explanations available - it's science, not religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) [quote name='thinman' timestamp='1336763617' post='1650836'] Out of fairness to what I know Bill FItzmaurice has said, it is not that mixing drivers is guaranteed to be bad , it's that the results are [u]unpredictable[/u], [/quote] Bill Fitzmaurice is wrong. The results are perfectly predictable. They are quite easy to calculate, easy to measure (if you have the gear) and easy to predict if you have enough experience. Compared with calculating the performance of a modern stadium line array system, calculating the performance of a 1x15 and a 1x 12, or whatever combination of bass cabs you may care to mention, is child's play. Edited May 11, 2012 by stevie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceH Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 JTUK makes a fair point. There is a lot of 'myth debunking' online from people looking at things from an engineering perspective, and theoretically things like '10" drivers don't have a particular sound' are perfectly true. Thing is, once an idea has taken hold or a brand has established a dominant position, then a generalisation whilst not totally true can still be pretty useful. I still reckon a 'typical' 15" cab and a 'typical' multiple 10"-loaded cab will have a particular sound just because they are designed around relatively few drivers to conform to market stereotypes. Yes, there are cabs out there that are exceptions, and these are becoming more common, but the trends are still there. Another thing that's often overemphasised is the 'requirement' for long-excursion woofers. A lot of the interest amongst the bass-playing community originally came from people who were into Extended Range Bass - unusually low tuned instruments which typically have active EQ providing significant amounts of boost at VERY low frequencies. A world away from the typical tones of a passive P or J. Most of us have gigged or heard effing loud, great sounding mixed rigs where the speakers only have 2mm xmax. Not many people who sing the praises of the BFM jacks seem to realise that the bottom couple of octaves on these cabs, ie where excursion plays a significant role, basically behave like a typical reflex box! The horn loading only extends down to the low-mids, THAT'S where the volume increase is. Those sound of those cabs is subjectively nice on certain bass sounds, but they get their volume boost at the expense of any evenness in the frequency response. There is a massive hole between 1 and 2k in those cabs. Furthermore if you look at the port size then you realise that it's not even designed with really high excursion true bass in mind. The final thing is the mixing cabs - phase matching etc. If you can hear this, then good on you, but really these frequencies are not that big contributors to your tone and room acoustics will often dominate. I say all this as someone with 4 BFM Jack 10s, and who's just finished building a pair of speakers based around long-excursion 10" neo drivers! The advantages Alex and others talk about are all engineering facts, but they really apply more when you want to push the envelope on portability or frequency response, otherwise older designs are more than adequate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 don't think it is relevant at the lower frequencies and lower volumes...but sure, if it suits someones argument..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceH Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) I didn't mention dispersion but that is absolutely the best reason to choose smaller drivers and/or vertical stacking which have other significant compromises in terms of cost and weight. But even with dispersion it isn't a panacea, since vertical stacking reduces spread in the vertical plane. On a lot of tight stages unless your stack is right up to ear-height then doing it that way means you don't hear as much since you're still above your speakers which are now firing less at your ears than ever. A single driver on a tilted stand can be a better solution. Some people (including anyone who gigs a Jack) don't really need much above 1k in their sound anyway, so for them it's not an issue. The dispersion is IMO much more of a regular problem with guitarists using 12" drivers because there's so much more going on at the higher frequencies and there's a real beam of death from their cabs. Incidentally I think Alex C got into speaker building through an interest in extended range bass stuff, no? Edited May 12, 2012 by LawrenceH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertbass Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Actually, Bill does play bass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 [quote name='stevie' timestamp='1336771099' post='1650991'] Bill Fitzmaurice is wrong. The results are perfectly predictable. They are quite easy to calculate, easy to measure (if you have the gear) and easy to predict if you have enough experience. Compared with calculating the performance of a modern stadium line array system, calculating the performance of a 1x15 and a 1x 12, or whatever combination of bass cabs you may care to mention, is child's play. [/quote] Child's play? Yes, we all do it every time we but a cab don't we? Technically, of course you are correct, but you've taken what I stated/quoted wildly out of context - I'm referring to the more common experience of putting cabs together and seeing what they sound like rather than treating it as a scientific exercise with the required knowledge and facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lozz196 Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I can see this, however since having Schroeder cabs, the problem is no longer there. I don`t know how Jorg manages it, but stand anywhere, directly in front, to the side, near to, far away (except probably behind them) and the sound just stays the same, including if the cab is at knee height. The man is a genius. The dispersal of sound is just amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 [quote name='thinman' timestamp='1336852522' post='1652044'] Technically, of course you are correct, but you've taken what I stated/quoted wildly out of context .... [/quote] I'm not sure what context you're referring to. You quoted Bill Fitzmaurice as saying the results of mixing cabs are unpredictable. By the way, Bill Fitzmaurice is on record as saying you should never mix cabs *period*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 As far as I am concerned the best argument for high level cabs is that it is probably nearer your ear..but then that is ok only if you assume you are the only one to benefit. I set my cabs to monitor for the band as they aren't going to be best pleased if they can't hear me..it would detract from the whole on-stage thing...plus if we can't hear within 30 feet or so...what sort of mix is furtehr out front. An argument against stacking vertically if it distorts the mix in favour of your position only. IMO. Aside from it looking just plain ridiculous and being potentially unstable, but there you go..!! I really think some people approach this all from the wrong direction but without hearing their set-up this is hard to quantify...but first things first. Bass tone..a compromise between what you can use from a playability POV. Some people pick a tone on this alone..and stuff all else. Bass tone into signal. you might want to think about how all those effects melts or dilutes your tone throughout the range of the instrument.. Amp and cab.. wow..where to start..!! Some people buy the thing that makes them feel good... but it doesn't really work when lined up with the rest of the band.. basically you need to start with clearing out sound ..rather than packing it in... not easily with loud drummers with untuned kits and 4x12's..!! Band mix and stage mix. Apply all the above to the other guys you are playing with. FOH... well, you can't heart most of the time so where to start there..??? So..a minefield of compromises, so you better know your onions otherwise you are at the mercy..of just about everything So, to uncomplicate it a bit.. make sure you and the band can hear perfectly and don't get too silly with things that can cancel this out..like volume and placement etc And then go and see a load of local bands and find most of them can't work it out either.. so stress over..!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I think you'll find this is more about raising the height of the top cab than having your speakers in a line. As Lawrence said in one of his very sensible posts earlier, when you stack cabs you reduce their vertical dispersion. It's just that you compensate by having the top speaker much closer to your ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinman Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 [quote name='stevie' timestamp='1336908153' post='1652539'] I'm not sure what context you're referring to. You quoted Bill Fitzmaurice as saying the results of mixing cabs are unpredictable. By the way, Bill Fitzmaurice is on record as saying you should never mix cabs *period*. [/quote] The context that in the real world most people are not going to be able to perform the tests/measurements that you claim are "child's play". Short of performing any measurements I'm purely taking the view that sticking to identical drivers will be more predictable than mixing when making choices on listening alone. I don't have a full history of everything Bill has ever said but obviously he has strong opinions, usually backed by sound reason. If you have specifics that you disagree with in his approaches then, keeping the personalities out of it, I'm interested to hear the technicalities in an attempt to understand the different points of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertbass Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Try this. [url="http://barefacedbass.com/uploads/BGM62%20Jan2011.pdf"][b]BGM62 January 2011- Polar response of loudspeakers[/b][/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Loads and loads of people sound great with mixed speakers, broken equipment, all sorts of 'incorrect' rigs in every way. Loads of people (more I'd argue) sound awful. Every real life situation decreases the effectiveness of every rig, I'd prefer having a rig that has better dispersion etc to help me fight my battles rather than also having to fight my amp. Being educated can only, only help. That way if choose to disregard the correct way of doing things, you know exactly what you're doing and why it sounds good enough to justify doing it incorrectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4 Strings Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Yes, mid cut. Took me a while to learn this one. Adding mid appears to take away the bottom (as the overall volume comes down a tad) but, of course, it doesn't. It fills that gaping shelf for anything above D on the A string apart from the fret buzz reproduced by the treble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I try and get out and about as we have had enforced downtime for a few personal reasons within the band and I often hear Markbass rigs as culprits for the worse sound....funnility enough. It is mainly combos though admittedly where people expect either the 12 or 210 combo to cope with a full; band sound..and it just can't. I've used the 102 myself and it needs an etn cab...and even then, I knew it wasn't a solution as far as I was concerned. Other than that, I can't explain it either. I have to say..in gereral, if I see a combo on a gig, be it Peavey, Marshall or Laney and inc Marbass, I'm afraid, of late... and the gig is powerful, I expect it to struggle... as the bass player ends up pushing the EQ for all its worth just to get level..which the cab then struggles with...and the bass sounds awful, strained and just not supportive of the band sound. The markbass just sounds flabby and indistinct so I think it is the cab rather than the amp, IMO.. Best sound, I've heard recently..by a country mile...old Jazz with flats through a Eden W4/500 and XLT410..but no real surprise there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.