Sub woofers - sublime or ridiculous?

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

2 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 I'd be very interested to know why his general point about mid-range response and dispersion being overall better with 10" or 12" cones should not apply to all speaker cones irrespective of whether they happen to be inserted into a bass cab or PA cab? At the end of the day we're talking about speaker cones. 

It does apply. The midrange dispersion angle is the only factor where cone size alone affects the result. Where all the driver size baloney comes from is those who assume that larger drivers go lower, and smaller drivers go higher. They can, but not because of the cone size. It's from the other dozen or so factors that determine response, all of which can be jockeyed about so that there are many tens that go lower than the average fifteen, and many fifteens that go higher than the average ten.

[Phil Starr]

20 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Anyone using a sub woofer as standard in their rigs to enhance their bass or pedal effects?

If so which model have you gone for and are you finding it makes a big difference to your bass sound or your pedal board set up?

I think you have your answer here but I'll add my tuppence worth. You really don't want deep bass on stage, or in the rehearsal room. If it is loud enough to reach the audience then it is going to be a real nuisance for the band, and of course if the audience can't hear it why would you do it? If you want it in your rig for personal practice then fill your boots, it might be fun and it's only you that's affected. We've probably all tried it out if we have the PA sitting around at home

The problem is two fold. every extra sound you add into the stage mix makes it harder for all the band to distinguish sounds they need to hear to play well. Any band with drums in a small area is already making it tough for the vocalists to pitch even, let alone put in articulation and dynamics. Given that the dimensions of most of the places we play are around the wavelength of sub frequencies bass in enclosed spaces tends to be highly reverberant and therefore muddy. Making it harder for everyone to hear will produce the natural response to turn up and you have a volume war. Nobody wins a war.

Secondly the stage is full of mics. They' re going to pick up that bass and pass it on to the desk, even if you filter at the desk a little will get through and you aren't going to filter the kick mic most of the time. If the stage is wooden then the transmission will be through the floor and up the stands. Uuurghhh!

For me the best set up on stage is to gradually roll off the deep bass on your rig and to balance that up by rolling it back in at the PA. If you do it right you get all the upper bass/low mids delivered to your ears (the mids are more directional so you can have more me) the band get enough bass to get the changes right and can still hear what they need. The audience get a balanced sound and the singer gets a chance to deliver their best. Obviously in ears would deliver this differently but generally the lower the sound levels on stage the better and we ought to be thinking of what we don't need on stage, not adding to it.

[Phil Starr]

11 hours ago, skidder652003 said:

we have 2 x 15 active RCF's and 1 x Mackie sub, everything is mic'd to FOH,  but only the Kick, Toms and Bass through the Sub with high pass filter. The bass is turned way down through the sub, with the emphasis on the kick for that thud in the chest without mud. So IMO deffo no sub for backline, strictly FOH, but possibly not necessary for quality 15" PA Tops and a good quality Bass Backline, especially if we're talking Dog n Duck territory.

PS Mackie subs are terrible, should have gone for another RCF

No, 15's are not 'wrong' as tops. Working bands don't carry a range of different PA's for different venues. Steve's RCF's are great speakers which are going to be able to cope with almost all of his gigs on their own, so he won't need the subs. For the odd bigger gig the mackies can be wheeled out to take a little out of the tops and/or add a little extra to the sound. Of course of you plan to use subs all the time then you won't need a lot of bass from your tops and you can reduce the size of the bass driver, Why carry something big and heavy when you can do the job with something light but this is about engineering something practical for live music in a wide range of venues. 

[Owen]

I used to gig a Mackie SRM450 top and a Mackie SRS1500 sub. This was WAY before the cool kids went all FRFR. I  had GLORIOUS LF on stage and was constantly smiling when I went below my A string.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The room was absolutely drowning in LF and it was a short lived experiment.

Edited March 1, 2019 by owen
because he cannot spell

[itu]

12 hours ago, Al Krow said:

I'd be very interested to know why his general point about mid-range response and dispersion being overall better with 10" or 12" cones should not apply to all speaker cones irrespective of whether they happen to be inserted into a bass cab or PA cab? At the end of the day we're talking about speaker cones. 

Yes, if we are talking about cones and cones only. And I can read between the lines, that you would love to hear that a bigger cone would relate to the lower frequency - like heavy weight should relate to bass' better sound (you can check Roger Sadowsky's work). But a cone works in a very different way depending on the application. If you just put a speaker element to the floor and start playing with it through a bass amp, your perception might be mixed. When the element is put to a speaker box of any kind, the sound changes dramatically. Then you change the shape and dimensions of the box and again, you get different results. I want to suggest that you should amaze yourself: buy an element and try it in different boxes and plates and by itself.

One element by itself is nearly non-functional. The size is just one dimension and it does not dictate the use per se, as @chris_b earlier pointed out.

Simplifications are nice but they need to have some reasonable physics behind them. Yes, you can say, that a 12" woofer is probably not very good for highest frequencies and a dome tweeter just does not work in a subwoofer. Still the difference between a 10" and 15" is not directly related to their use, the lowest possible frequency, or the power they can reproduce. There are so many other parameters, please take a quick look: http://www.eminence.com/pdf/Basslite_S2010.pdf

[Dan Dare]

On ‎28‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 23:08, Bill Fitzmaurice said:

It does apply. The midrange dispersion angle is the only factor where cone size alone affects the result. Where all the driver size baloney comes from is those who assume that larger drivers go lower, and smaller drivers go higher. They can, but not because of the cone size. It's from the other dozen or so factors that determine response, all of which can be jockeyed about so that there are many tens that go lower than the average fifteen, and many fifteens that go higher than the average ten.

Dead right. My Phil Jones cabs go plenty low with 5" drivers.

[Al Krow]

28 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

Dead right. My Phil Jones cabs go plenty low with 5" drivers.

Not in dispute.

But how many 5" speakers have you got in your PJB cab, how much does it weigh, what total watts can they handle and what is their frequency response range?

For reference my VK 210LNT

• two 10" speakers
• 44 lbs
• 1200W AES (= approx. similar RMS)
• 40Hz to 16KHz

Edited March 3, 2019 by Al Krow

[Cuzzie]

Are we willy waving spec sheets again?

What does it actually matter? 

if he said it was 100 5” speakers in the same frequency range as you listed but 1 lbs or 1 kg heavier or lighter, what does it prove?

Mr PJB and Mr VK are clever blokes that have given us products we can use to our taste.

You both probably sound good with your respective gear

[Al Krow]

28 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

if he said it was 100 5” speakers in the same frequency range as you listed but 1 lbs or 1 kg heavier or lighter, what does it prove?

Well actually if he did say that, it would be case closed.

But is there a cab with 5" speakers (have as many as you want) that approximately weighs the same and can handle the same watts and provides a similar or better frequency response range as that VK 210LNT made by ANYONE?

 

...I thought not.

So it seems to me that there's a very good reason that 10" and 12" speakers have become favoured industry standard (and not 5", or indeed 18", speakers).

They would appear to provide the best combination of weight, power handling and frequency response. Both manufacturers and bass players have voted with their feet and wallets on this. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Al Krow

[Cuzzie]

I don’t see VK or PJB going out of business anytime soon, so people are buying the excellent products they make.

So many variables in this and not just cones, drivers, voicing, enclosures etc.

It may be that you need the VK hammering out all 1200w juice from an amp to drive your sound without PA support.

It may be that the tone from 5” drivers with less wattage mic’d through a PA gives the tone you want.

As discussed here the draconian 1 size fits all is not right, within the ‘industry standard’ size you quite, there are dogs and golden eggs.

I’d take a top quality 5 or 8 above a rank 10 or 12

[Al Krow]

3 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

I’d take a top quality 5 or 8 above a rank 10 or 12

But you haven't had to choose between a top quality 5 or 8 and a rank 10 or 12 have you?

You are fortunate to have the option of choosing the best of both.

And guess what? You went for...a 2x12"

And that was because there isn't a 5 or 8 that delivered anything comparable in terms of power handling, weight, frequency response.

The same point is true for most of us, methinks - which is why 5" speakers are not what everyone is rushing out to buy and gig with.

Ok I think we've both said our piece  

Back to sub-woofers and whether they can add something...

 

[Dan Dare]

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

Not in dispute.

But how many 5" speakers have you got in your PJB cab, how much does it weigh, what total watts can they handle and what is their frequency response range?

For reference my VK 210LNT

• two 10" speakers
• 44 lbs
• 1200W AES (= approx. similar RMS)
• 40Hz to 16KHz

Four 5" drivers in each (I have three PJB C4s), so 12 in total. Each cab weighs 29lb. Cabs are claimed to take 400w apiece, but I think that's a bit fanciful. 300 seems about the practical maximum. Stated freq. response is 35-15000 - again, maybe a touch optimistic, but a clean bottom E at respectable volume is no problem. I run an AG700 with them and that gives plenty of poke for any reasonably sized venue. Anything larger than that and I DI to the PA.

[Al Krow]

Just now, Dan Dare said:

Four 5" drivers in each (I have three PJB C4s), so 12 in total. Each cab weighs 29lb. Cabs are claimed to take 400w apiece, but I think that's a bit fanciful. 300 seems about the practical maximum. Stated freq. response is 35-15000 - again, maybe a touch optimistic, but a clean bottom E at respectable volume is no problem. I run an AG700 with them and that gives plenty of poke for any reasonably sized venue. Anything larger than that and I DI to the PA.

Cheers Dan - and don't get me wrong. PJB are an awesome brand!

Are you needing to use all three PJB 4s to get a full sound from your AG700 or do you typically use two?

[Cuzzie]

@Al Krow you are wrong actually, and I don’t really like the gear bingo that gets played, but........

Yep I have a 2x12, but the devil is in the detail which gets missed when blindly quoting either what someone has or has not and what specs are without thinking about application.

I have a Hartke HD25 8” - absolutely fine

PJB Bass Cub 2x5” and very nearly bought an extension cab for this to use this alone and get rid of the 2x12. PJB incidentally has one of the best DI’s you will ever use.

The reason I didn’t had nothing to do with the 212 being ‘better’ it’s different, that’s it, so in truth you don’t really  have all the info on my choices, but you know I research my gear properly before jumping in.

But my only point is, there is no fixed right - each on its merits for the application, and quality of build and sound reproduction for what you want, which although aside from the original topic title is actually inherent as to the misunderstandings leading to the question being asked.

 

Edit - typo’s changed to make sense!

Edited March 3, 2019 by Cuzzie

[Dan Dare]

5 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Cheers Dan - and don't get me wrong. PJB are an awesome brand!

Are you needing to use all three PJB 4s to get a full sound from your AG700 or do you typically use two?

I use two or three. Two is fine for smaller venues. Sometimes the drummer even asks me to turn down 😁. Three is mighty. One is fine for rehearsals at sensible levels. The beauty of them is that each weighs less than 30lb, which is a lot for such small boxes (each is about a one ft cube), but they are very solidly made. Having reached pensionable age, I would rather carry several small loads separately from/to the car than one large one. The thing I have noticed, when listening to others playing through my rig, is how well they project into the room, even when they don't sound that loud on stage. Tonally, I find them excellent. I don't like tweeters in bass cabs - find them too clicky/clanky. The PJBs give sufficient brightness and clarity without sounding harsh. I'm pretty happy with them. Haven't felt the urge to change for several years.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

3 hours ago, Al Krow said:

So it seems to me that there's a very good reason that 10" and 12" speakers have become favoured industry standard (and not 5", or indeed 18", speakers).

There is, it's called 'money'. To realize a given output at a given frequency it requires a given cone displacement. Cone displacement is area multiplied by excursion. You can get the same displacement with one average fifteen or with eight average fives. The fifteen will cost a lot less. The disadvantage to the fifteen lies in the narrow midrange dispersion. The cure for that is to use a fifteen only as high as its dispersion allows, typically to where the 30 degrees off-axis response is no more than 6dB down from the axial response, crossing over to a midrange driver to handle the frequencies above that. This isn't news to the hi-fi and PA industry, they've been doing this since the 1950s.

[Cuzzie]

@Bill Fitzmaurice thanks for that, it’s complete common sense.

Some dogma, is just that, dogma - not looking at actually what is possible, or just believing ‘that’s the way it is’

Usain Bolt was initially told he is too tall and has the wrong frame, legs (cones) too big to run 100m.

Michael johnson told his style and his stride was too small and choppy (small cones) to run 2 and 400m and look what they did

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

9 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

@Bill Fitzmaurice thanks for that, it’s complete common sense.

Some dogma, is just that, dogma - not looking at actually what is possible, or just believing ‘that’s the way it is’

Usain Bolt was initially told he is too tall and has the wrong frame, legs (cones) too big to run 100m.

Michael johnson told his style and his stride was too small and choppy (small cones) to run 2 and 400m and look what they did

And Tom Brady was too slow. He still is, I could outrun him and I'm an out of shape 69 year old with arthritis. But one of the prime rules of American football is if you want a short career as a quarterback run with the ball. Brady doesn't run, and now he's not only acknowledged as the greatest quarterback of all time, he's the greatest football player of all time. I thought he might hang it up after winning six Superbowls. He still wants to go for number seven.

[Dan Dare]

The point made by Bill and others about putting too much low frequency energy into a room reminds me of a wedding I played last year. It was in an old stately home, in a large oak panelled banqueting hall. The room was pretty live as a result and I kept the PA subs well down. When Mr Disco took over after we'd finished, it was like being beaten with wooden clubs. Horrendous. He had a large Bose rig and he cranked the subs. All the guests were complaining and most deserted the dance floor. I suggested (politely) to him that he might cut the bass a little, but he didn't want to know. We packed as quickly as possible, collected our money and left him to it.

[Cuzzie]

@Bill Fitzmaurice exactly, and wasn’t he something like round 6 199th overall draft pick?

All those teams, Too much time spent looking at combine stats and specs - classic example is Case Keenam at my beloved Texans - three for a million yards in college - but of course it was in a poorer lower college division, plus he had an awesome wide receiver artificially inflating his figures!

Case proven me thinks and good luck to Tom - a freak in the finest way

[paulbuzz]

6 hours ago, Cuzzie said:

@Bill Fitzmaurice exactly, and wasn’t he something like round 6 199th overall draft pick?

All those teams, Too much time spent looking at combine stats and specs - classic example is Case Keenam at my beloved Texans - three for a million yards in college - but of course it was in a poorer lower college division, plus he had an awesome wide receiver artificially inflating his figures!

Case proven me thinks and good luck to Tom - a freak in the finest way

 

Since I don't understand a single word of this, I don't have the faintest idea whether this is a wildly off-topic digression or part of an extended metaphor being deployed in an argument about driver sizes... 😁

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

It's very apropos. You can't judge a book by its cover, an athlete by his physique, or a speaker by the diameter of the cone.  Or, to bring in another analogy, it ain't the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

[paulbuzz]

56 minutes ago, Bill Fitzmaurice said:

It's very apropos. You can't judge a book by its cover, an athlete by his physique, or a speaker by the diameter of the cone.  Or, to bring in another analogy, it ain't the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Thanks for that Bill; it's getting weirder and weirder - we've moved on from American Football metaphors to dog fighting metaphors! I had a much better idea what was going on when we were just talking about speakers... 😜

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

dog fighting metaphors

You mean woofers, which takes us full circle. Next up: Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Bill Fitzmaurice

[Al Krow]

Consensus seems to be that:

1) a sub woofer could work with a band PA, and a few folk manage to use it well in that context; 

2) you almost certainly wouldn't use it as part of bass backline as an adjunct to your amp and cab;

3) fact is most professional PAs will have sub woofers delivering the low end for bass and kick drum;

4) 10" and 12" cabs are the most popular size and folk who argue that 5" cabs can still do the business just as well, somehow all have 10" or 12" speakers themselves. This is purely down to economics;

5) bumble bees shouldn't fly and Usain Bolt shouldn't be fast. But he is. Although he's not apparently going to be a great footballer, where his height would have been an a distinct advantage in the 6 yard box; 

6) I have no idea where the dog stuff is going... 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Al Krow