10's, 12's or 15's?

[Merton]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1430980306' post='2766412']


Oh? What does he use?
[/quote]

Barefaced I believe now - one of their first endorsing artists.

[Conan]

[quote name='Merton' timestamp='1431008325' post='2766848']
Barefaced I believe now - one of their first endorsing artists.
[/quote]
Ah! I didn't know that. Any idea which cabs he uses? He's one of my favourite players, so I should have known that!

[Merton]

No idea I'm afraid!

Conversely on the pro side, Phil Mulford and I exchanged views on the BF Super Compact a few months back and Phil very much didn't like it, and said he much prefers 10s and 15s to 12s and this cab was no different in changing his view that 12s had too much gnarly mids for his taste

[chris_b]

Merton, I've seen Phil Mulford using his Eden 410, which he says he likes, and his TC 210 combo, which he said he didn't like as much.

His TC didn't sound as good as the Eden, but on the other hand your BF SC cabs sound much better than his TC rig.

[Merton]

That would suggest there's something in this science/engineering then I suspect (in that we know the BF is well engineered and as I understand it the Eden 410 is as good an engineered 410 as you'll get; I'm casting aspersions on the TC cab here a little of course......)

[Conan]

[quote name='Merton' timestamp='1431013276' post='2766924']Phil Mulford and I exchanged views on the BF Super Compact a few months back and Phil very much didn't like it, and said he much prefers 10s and 15s to 12s and this cab was no different in changing his view that 12s had too much gnarly mids for his taste
[/quote]Ha ha! I wonder what he would have thought if he tried the old G1 or G2 Compact? Would all those "gnarly mids" have turned him off fifteens?

[vailbass]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1430918386' post='2765920']
So does high cone excursion result in poor transient response, as implied by the 'pro' and said not to be the case by Alex Claber and Bill Fitzmaurice. Which is correct?

Maybe he's never played a fast 32nd note slap line really digging into the strings hard? When I do that, the cabs I'm talking about get very confused, as I am playing another note before the speaker is done moving about reproducing the previous one; that gives a very mushy reponse. There are many other examples; I've spent the last 45 years experimenting with electric bass sound; countless variations of speakers, cabs, electronics, speaker placement, etc., etc., etc. I've used these experiments on thousands of actual gigs in the real world; not in a lab or a bedroom. :-) My goal has always been the best possible sound and reproduction of what I am playing all the way to the end user; the listener. Here's a great example of how choosing a speaker on specs alone would be a major mistake; the EVM 15" speakers that I love are rated for 100 watts! You would dismiss these immediately but they handle 500 watts of hard charging bass far better than the 800 watt rated neo- magnet speakers I used to use that kept failing on me. C'mon now


[/quote]

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='vailbass' timestamp='1431438328' post='2771337']Here's a great example of how choosing a speaker on specs alone would be a major mistake; the EVM 15" speakers that I love are rated for 100 watts!
[/quote]No professional loudspeaker designer, nor talented amateur for that matter, gives much attention to watts. Of the dozen odd driver parameters that are pertinent watts are possibly the least significant. This is just another example of those arguing against the science not understanding the science. The difference between a player who doesn't bother to learn the science and one who does is that the former knows that the EVM sounds good, the latter knows why.

[JTUK]

I guess you wouldn't understand his 'science' as it wouldn't always be in a written form that you'd relate to.
But I can also see how the groundwork certain people are involved in... studying the results at endless gigs
of various size and magnitude in a variety of rooms...to countless hours in the studio... ect etc to know what works
with regards to their own playing dynamic counts for a whole lot more.
Hell, if you said to me, whose take on all this would I believe... there is no question who would be right, for me..!!!

That is real world groundwork to my mind and just as relevant and probably more so. And since VJ's whole career
might be down to how well he does that, maybe that counts for more than trying to sell cabs on a bass forum...?
It kinda does for me...for sure.

You seem quite desperate for people to accept the 'science' when you have no real idea how it works for the specific people involved.
I'd expect many a player with a good few thousand hours of decent playing time to know what works for them first and foremost
and especially if they are known for their playing and sound and sought after.
You can read books and 'understand' and still have an awful set of ears... it is entirely possible and plausible, IME.

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1431444162' post='2771436']
The difference between a player who doesn't bother to learn the science and one who does is that the former knows that the EVM sounds good, the latter knows why.
[/quote]

If this isn't too much of a digression, it's notable that those specific EVM and JBL drivers are much appreciated by bassists who often claim to get something from them which they're not hearing from a lot of more modern drivers. Which specific properties from a technical perspective might be responsible for that? You've been quite clear that transient response isn't it, but what [i]is[/i] it?

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1431462152' post='2771687']
If this isn't too much of a digression, it's notable that those specific EVM and JBL drivers are much appreciated by bassists who often claim to get something from them which they're not hearing from a lot of more modern drivers. Which specific properties from a technical perspective might be responsible for that? You've been quite clear that transient response isn't it, but what [i]is[/i] it?
[/quote]The main difference between a vintage EMV or JBL and most modern drivers is the Qes, which is basically the effective magnet strength. The lower the value the higher the effectivemagnet strength. Anything below 0.35 is considered low by modern standards. The EVM 15L is 0.25, the JBL E140 is 0.19. Very low Qes results in high sensitivity in the mids, but it also chokes off the low end response. The EVM15B is better, at 0.3. Its main limitation is the result of the short 3.3mm xmax. Today drivers with twice that xmax are common, and that translates to needing two 15B to get the same output as one good modern fifteen, or you can get as much output from a modern twelve as a 15B.
Note that what many might think is better transient response with these drivers is actually less low end content. What might be mistaken for poor transient response in modern electric bass drivers may actually be more low frequency capability. Another possibility is with very high Qes drivers, 0.5 and higher, which are common in cheap cabs. They tend to be boomy in the midbass, which can be mistaken for poor transient response. Poor transient response is a common trait of subwoofers, but you shouldn't be using subwoofers in the midrange where poor transient response would be evident anyway.

If you know what you're looking for in the specs you can find modern drivers that sound like vintage EV and JBL. The Eminence EPS 15C, for instance, nearly duplicates the EVM15B. But having the same 3.3mm xmax it doesn't quite make it as an electric bass driver by todays standards. They market it for pedal steel guitar. The EPS 12C nearly duplicates the EVM 12L, it's also marketed for pedal steel.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Bill Fitzmaurice

[Noisyjon]

Slightly OT but Bill, thanks for telling us this stuff!

[vailbass]

Oh brother..What a load of crap, even for this guy! Sheesh :-) he did this at the Talk Bass website, too. I never said I didn't understand the 'science', he's assuming so much as to be laughable. To say that according to the numbers, you would need 2 EVM 15's to get 'the sound' of a single 'modern' 15 is ridiculous. Which 'modern 15', for example?. Here's the bottom line that is written in stone, irrefutable and infallible......
What does it SOUND like? That's all that matters in the end, nothing else; the color of the tolex, the material of the magnet, the origin of the plywood the cab is made from, how many handles does it have? etc., etc., etc. The reason I care little about debating the 'specs' is that early on in my quest for my degree in mathematics, I learned how to lie with statistics to such a degree that I can give you several logical and correct conclusions from one set of numbers; the result of which being a healthy skepticism for anyone touting numbers over real world experience......who would you listen to when it comes to recommending a football shoe, the salesman at Nike who played a bit in primary school or the guy with a lifetime pro career who's played in a few World Cups? Please, while useful to some degree for comparison, let's end this ridiculous notion that specs determine what it actually SOUNDS like. It just doesn't.

[Lw.]

I'd buy from whichever one called it a football boot.

[Kiwi]

Perhaps some people would like to believe that, as a measure of quality, the specs are a substitute for being able to hear the cabs.

I believe there's a happy balance between technical efficiency and "character" but we all have to find out what that is for ourselves. Claber is on top of that with the try out offer he has for his Barefaced cabs.

We went down the same road on here with graphite necks a number of years ago. Composite necks are very efficient at transferring energy but not all graphite necks sound the same...ironically they tend to sound better if they have a little bit of give in them...in my experience. But not too much.

[JTUK]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1431528476' post='2772271']
Perhaps some people would like to believe that, as a measure of quality, the specs are a substitute for being able to hear the cabs.

....................
[/quote]

I'll go with this. What you are 'told' you should be hearing is overwritten by what can actually hear.
Some people will have a far far far better educated pair of ears than others... science can't really do anything
about that.. IMO.

[machinehead]

[quote name='vailbass' timestamp='1431522891' post='2772181']
.....who would you listen to when it comes to recommending a football shoe, the salesman at Nike who played a bit in primary school or the guy with a lifetime pro career who's played in a few World Cups? Please, while useful to some degree for comparison, let's end this ridiculous notion that specs determine what it actually SOUNDS like. It just doesn't.
[/quote]

I think that's an inappropriate comparison.

It might be fairer to compare a world class coach who has managed many teams to many victories to a pro player who has played in a few world cups.

Anyway, as an engineer of 30+ years and a musician of 47 years, I think there's room for both approaches and I can see no reason whatsoever to favour one over the other, or indeed to exclude one or the other.

Frank.

[Conan]

Surely this thread is now a perfect example of irresistible force meeting immovable object? The two "sides" are so intransigent and convinced of their "correctness" that they won't listen to the other.

It's sad, and its unnecessary IMO. There is so much experience on offer, and it is a shame to see it being used in pointless [i]ad hominem[/i] bickering.

Or that's how I see it, anyway

[No lust in Jazz]

If you are playing music and enjoying it, I wouldn't worry about the nuances of speaker size.

One of the great things about punk rock was its DIY nature, get a band together, write some tunes, have some fun..

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1431586953' post='2772752']
Surely this thread is now a perfect example of irresistible force meeting immovable object? The two "sides" are so intransigent and convinced of their "correctness" that they won't listen to the other.

It's sad, and its unnecessary IMO. There is so much experience on offer, and it is a shame to see it being used in pointless [i]ad hominem[/i] bickering.

Or that's how I see it, anyway
[/quote]

I'm actually finding it kind of useful to read both, as it helps to correlate what we hear from different speakers with the measurements of them. Mr Johnson will no doubt disagree, but I don't think they're actually too far divergent. Bill's explanation about Qes makes sense to me, as the Qes value is described elsewhere as the electrical damping factor, with a low value meaning that with the coil and magnet have more control over the cone. Subjectively, when a musician plays through that, they might use words like tight, articulate or "fast", with a less well-damped driver coming across as loose, boomy or "slow". (Stop me if this is sounding like nonsense...)
I'm all for looking at the measurements to back up and interpret what we get from listening, otherwise we'd all be chasing a dwindling number of discontinued drivers rather than figuring out how to get the sound we want from newer gear.

[Conan]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1431593816' post='2772847']
I'm actually finding it kind of useful to read both, as it helps to correlate what we hear from different speakers with the measurements of them. Mr Johnson will no doubt disagree, but I don't think they're actually too far divergent. Bill's explanation about Qes makes sense to me, as the Qes value is described elsewhere as the electrical damping factor, with a low value meaning that with the coil and magnet have more control over the cone. Subjectively, when a musician plays through that, they might use words like tight, articulate or "fast", with a less well-damped driver coming across as loose, boomy or "slow". (Stop me if this is sounding like nonsense...)
I'm all for looking at the measurements to back up and interpret what we get from listening, otherwise we'd all be chasing a dwindling number of discontinued drivers rather than figuring out how to get the sound we want from newer gear.
[/quote]
Absolutely! I totally agree. There is room for both in my philosophy - but clearly not in everyone's. I find the opposite viewpoints fascinating, but I find the conflict wearing...

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1431586953' post='2772752']
Surely this thread is now a perfect example of irresistible force meeting immovable object? The two "sides" are so intransigent and convinced of their "correctness" that they won't listen to the other.
[/quote]The interpretation of what the two 'sides' stand for depends on which you're on. Those on the purely subjective side who deny the benefits of objectivity make the assumption that engineers wear white coats, work in laboratories, and wouldn't know an E string from a pickup. I don't own a white coat, and I don't have a laboratory. My work clothes are well imbedded with sawdust, as is my 'office'.
I don't know how long Alex has been a bassplayer, but I have been since 1965, and not immodestly would put my chops and ears up against [i]anyone[/i] elses. Just because I know how gear works doesn't mean I don't know how to use it.

[tauzero]

[quote name='vailbass' timestamp='1431522891' post='2772181']
Oh brother..What a load of crap, even for this guy! Sheesh :-) he did this at the Talk Bass website, too. I never said I didn't understand the 'science', he's assuming so much as to be laughable. To say that according to the numbers, you would need 2 EVM 15's to get 'the sound' of a single 'modern' 15 is ridiculous. Which 'modern 15', for example?.
[/quote]

That's not what he said. He said that to get the same output (that's volume level) as a modern 15 with twice the Xmax, you'd need two of the older drivers with 3.3mm Xmax. Nothing about "the sound".

[stevie]

I think it's clear what was meant, tauzero.

[stevie]

I'd be interested in knowing what modern 15" bass guitar driver can even get close to the output of two EVM 15s.