What does adding a 2 x 10 to a 1 x 15 do to the sound?

[Adrenochrome]

[quote name='Boneless' post='413070' date='Feb 18 2009, 02:06 PM']Maybe from an "audiophile" point of view.
A 2x10" cab may not perfectly acoustically pair with a 1x15", but it's a common solution: there must be a reason for it, and the reason is that many people actually like this speaker configuration. It may be "wrong", but many people actually steer away from high fidelity and clarity and frequency response. I prefer a better engineered cab / pair of cabs, but in the end, it's all down to taste.[/quote]

It works for me but I'm sure a lot of that is simply getting the 2x10 on top of my tallish 1x15 cab and thus a lot nearer my lugholes!
Also the 2x10 is a one handed lift unlike my backbreaking old Laney 4x10 which I think was made from cast iron and housebricks.

[redstriper]

[quote name='Linus27' post='413041' date='Feb 18 2009, 01:44 PM']The fact that I have the treble dial turned to full on my MAG 300H head, makes me think the 2 x 10 might be a good idea. My only worry is I don't want to thin the sound out to much. Plus it will be sitting on top of the 1 x 15 and will be at ear level and might sound too thin or trebly.[/quote]
Don't worry about thinning the sound out, that's unlikely to happen and if it does you can turn the treble down on the amp.
Have you tried reducing the bass eq rather than increasing the treble?
Cutting instead of boosting eq can be very effective and more natural sounding - just a thought.
Another thought - it's a good idea to listen to cabs from a distance of at least 15 feet as well as close up as the sound can be very different and more like what the crowd hears when there's no PA.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='Boneless' post='413070' date='Feb 18 2009, 09:06 AM']Maybe from an "audiophile" point of view.
A 2x10" cab may not perfectly acoustically pair with a 1x15", but it's a common solution: there must be a reason for it, and the reason is that many people actually like this speaker configuration.[/quote]
Your reply is the proof of the proverbial pudding. Cab manufacturers build what sells, what sells is what the consumer thinks 'looks right', and what 'looks right' is what they're used to. Since virtually every manufacturer turns out the same cookies using the same cookie cutter the opportunity for the average player to hear a superior product simply does not exist. And no manufacturer, save a small entity like Alex with his barefacedBass cabs, is going to invest in the R&D and tooling for a superior product that won't sell because it doesn't 'look right', especially when same old same old continues to go out the shop doors.

[Boneless]

But maybe you are misunderstanding me. I actually "get" you. But what I meant is that, as with sealed cabs, sometimes "better" is "worse".

[quote]And no manufacturer, save a small entity like Alex with his barefacedBass cabs, is going to invest in the R&D and tooling for a superior product that won't sell because it doesn't 'look right', especially when same old same old continues to go out the shop doors.[/quote]

That's just not true. Just take Markbass amps (and all the alternatives that came afterwards), who would have even thought of spending money in a 3lb head?
Who would have thought that you can actually have a 500W head in such a small package? And don't you think people might have said "nah, that's sh*t".
But, surprise surprise, lightweight amps are the latest craze, and a "revolution" in their own right.

And Schroeder is making some "different" cabs as well, and they sell alright... (and they're not exactly cheap, although they're not really expensive either).

That said, I'm actually intrigued by Alex's cabs, for example (I'd really like to try them out, but as I live in Italy, I doubt that's going to be easy ), but then again, many people will still prefer 2x10+1x15 combos, sealed cabs, etc.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Boneless

[redstriper]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='413431' date='Feb 18 2009, 05:53 PM']Your reply is the proof of the proverbial pudding. Cab manufacturers build what sells, what sells is what the consumer thinks 'looks right', and what 'looks right' is what they're used to. Since virtually every manufacturer turns out the same cookies using the same cookie cutter the opportunity for the average player to hear a superior product simply does not exist. And no manufacturer, save a small entity like Alex with his barefacedBass cabs, is going to invest in the R&D and tooling for a superior product that won't sell because it doesn't 'look right', especially when same old same old continues to go out the shop doors.[/quote]
Your proverbial pudding tastes like sour grapes to me and I beg to differ.
People often use their ears as well as their eyes when choosing gear and I did not choose my rig because it looks right.
I tried a lot of cabs and combinations regardless of looks and found the single 15 and 2 x 10 cabs work well together and make a sound that I'm very happy with, although two 15s are my preference.
I'm not alone in this choice and it's not because we are all blindly following fashion.
I made my choice of cabs based on personal preferences of sound, size, weight and price, with looks at the bottom of the list.
I don't think Alex's cabs are so far removed from other designs that they won't sell because they don't look right.
More likely, most people will choose mass produced cabs because they are less expensive, sound great and have the back up of an established company.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='redstriper' post='413552' date='Feb 18 2009, 03:03 PM']I tried a lot of cabs and combinations regardless of looks and found the single 15 and 2 x 10 cabs work well together and make a sound that I'm very happy with, although two 15s are my preference.[/quote]How many 2x8 or 2x6 cabs with vertically aligned drivers and high-pass filtering were you able to test matched up with a 2x15 with low pass filtering?

Edited February 18, 2009 by Bill Fitzmaurice

[Huge Hands]

I have an Ashdown MAG 210T combo and a 115T bin. My normal sound is quite low end only (tone mainly rolled off on the bass itself, amp EQ is set fairly flat). I find that with both cabs added together, I start to notice the sound loses definition and at higher volumes it starts to feel like there is a big "hole" in the sound. I am ashamed to say, as a supposed audiophile, this is the best way I can describe it, having never measured anything.

I have always put this down to cone filtering/phasing as Bill/Alex regularly describe a lot more clearly than I can.

I have not tried 2x 15 cabs, but I would imagine this would be the better sound.

However, as 90% of my gigs are small clubs and bars, the 2x10 combo is usually more than enough. I love it, so rarely use the 115 bin.

It may also be worth adding that I only really tend to use both cabs in larger venues, which coincidentally tend to be acoustic nightmares, so this could be adding to what I'm hearing. Maybe I've just never done a proper A/B in the same room.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Huge Hands

[redstriper]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='413649' date='Feb 18 2009, 09:47 PM']How many 2x8 or 2x6 cabs with vertically aligned drivers and high-pass filtering were you able to test matched up with a 2x15 with low pass filtering?[/quote]
Why would I try a 2 x 15 when I'm looking for lightweight cabs?

[Boneless]

Or, on the contrary, someone (not me, though) might actually like big, inefficient cabs.
Such as the vintage design 4x12s/2x15s/8x10s. Big, bulky and heavy, with a somewhat reduced frequency response, low sensibility and projection when compared to modern cabs, etc.
But if you want the tone of a sealed cab you're not gonna get it from a very well designed ported cab
I have a very sharp, percussive tone, but I see many others who actually like what I'd describe as utter sludge

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='redstriper' post='413686' date='Feb 18 2009, 05:31 PM']Why would I try a 2 x 15 when I'm looking for lightweight cabs?[/quote]
OK, how many 1x8 or 1x6 w/high pass filtering did you try along with 1x15s w/low pass filtering? When the question posed is whether a top and bottom cab combination have been optimally engineered to acoustically complement each other those options would have to be made available to the consumer. They aren't. The options that are offered are only matched in cosmetics and footprint.
Your response is to a different question entirely, that being whether you can run a 2x10 and 1x15 together with an acceptable result. Obviously the answer is yes. Whether it's the best possible sounding option one could only say if you could try the above mentioned 1x8/1x15 or 1x16/1x15 with appropriate crossover, but you can't, so you'll never know.
As for Alex's perceived concessions to the conformity game, I'm sure that they will never include a 2x10 to be used with a 1x15, nor a 2x10 with horizontally aligned drivers, nor a 4x10, period. He knows better, and that's more than you can say for the usual sources.

[Boneless]

What about 4x10s?
I thought they were one of the most efficient solutions for bass
When they were introduced, they were seen as kind of a revolution, and while many years have surely passed by, I can't really see the problem with 4 identical drivers in a well designed cabinet

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='Boneless' post='413769' date='Feb 18 2009, 06:48 PM']What about 4x10s?
I thought they were one of the most efficient solutions for bass
When they were introduced, they were seen as kind of a revolution, and while many years have surely passed by, I can't really see the problem with 4 identical drivers in a well designed cabinet [/quote]Drivers mounted side by side leads to comb filtering in the high frequencies, and of more significance halves the dispersion angle in the midrange compared to a single driver or a vertical alignment of multiple drivers.

[gilmour]

THe only company I can think of that mass manufactured cabs with smaller speakers (more appropriate for mid range) was Trace Elliot. With their Bright Box.



I have no idea whether or not they had any sort of crossover built in, and they weren't vertically aligned so not exactly what Bill was talking about. It's a shame that they are pretty rare, as it would be interesting to test them alongside a 1x15 or 2x15. I suspect the results would be superior to the traditional 2x10 and 1x15 combo.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='413831' date='Feb 19 2009, 01:20 AM']Drivers mounted side by side leads to comb filtering in the high frequencies, and of more significance halves the dispersion angle in the midrange compared to a single driver or a vertical alignment of multiple drivers.[/quote]

Gen question, not a flame: Why [i]is[/i] vertical better than horizontal? If two speakers are adjacent, surely the comb filtering is going to occur irrespective of their alignment? If I drop two stones into a pond, the ripples will intersect at some point, wherever I drop the stones.

You could also argue that in a 4x10, 2 pairs of speakers are, in fact, mounted vertically. Does that offset the same two pairs that are mounted horizontally?

If this is the case, would 2 diagonally mounted speakers be 50% better than horizontal but 50% worse than vertical?

Also, on that basis, is there an optimum space between two adjacent speakers? Or would it simply be better to use only one speaker to avoid comb filtering altogether?

Edited February 19, 2009 by skankdelvar

[Raggy]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='413853' date='Feb 19 2009, 02:33 AM']Gen question, not a flame: Why [i]is[/i] vertical better than horizontal? If two speakers are adjacent, surely the comb filtering is going to occur irrespective of their alignment? If I drop two stones into a pond, the ripples will intersect at some point, wherever I drop the stones.[/quote]

I'd like to know this as well!!

[alexclaber]

[quote name='gilmour' post='413835' date='Feb 19 2009, 01:22 AM']THe only company I can think of that mass manufactured cabs with smaller speakers (more appropriate for mid range) was Trace Elliot. With their Bright Box.



I have no idea whether or not they had any sort of crossover built in, and they weren't vertically aligned so not exactly what Bill was talking about. It's a shame that they are pretty rare, as it would be interesting to test them alongside a 1x15 or 2x15. I suspect the results would be superior to the traditional 2x10 and 1x15 combo.[/quote]

I believe the Bright Box does indeed have a highpass filter built in. I 100% guarantee that it will work far better if you stick it on its side, though it'll look silly and may fall over...

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='413853' date='Feb 19 2009, 02:33 AM']Gen question, not a flame: Why [i]is[/i] vertical better than horizontal? If two speakers are adjacent, surely the comb filtering is going to occur irrespective of their alignment? If I drop two stones into a pond, the ripples will intersect at some point, wherever I drop the stones.

You could also argue that in a 4x10, 2 pairs of speakers are, in fact, mounted vertically. Does that offset the same two pairs that are mounted horizontally?

If this is the case, would 2 diagonally mounted speakers be 50% better than horizontal but 50% worse than vertical?

Also, on that basis, is there an optimum space between two adjacent speakers? Or would it simply be better to use only one speaker to avoid comb filtering altogether?[/quote]

The comb filtering is definitely the secondary issue for bass guitar as opposed to hi-fi.

Focus first on midrange dispersion: Dispersion of a source at a given frequency is inversely proportional to the size of that source in the axis you're considering. So a tall thin source will have narrow vertical dispersion but broad horizontal dispersion. A squat wide source will have broad vertical dispersion but narrow horizontal dispersion. Take a snapshot of where your bandmates' and audiences' ears are and they usually lie within a narrow vertical distribution but a broad horizontal distribution.

Now if you could use a small source full-stop then making sure it was tall and thin wouldn't matter but if your midrange is coming from your woofers then to get high SPL you need quite a lot of area, hence a vertical column of tens is better than a 2x2 arrangement. If you're using a single fifteen then off-axis response won't be brilliant but it'll be better than a 2x2 arrangement of tens (or eights). If you use a fifteen plus a midrange driver then you are succeeding in using a small source for the midrange so you get good dispersion in all directions.

Alex

[Boneless]

Interesting.

[chris_b]

This is another example of science vs ears. In the real world, has the use of 4x12's, 8x10's and 4x10's over the last 50 years really been a problem? The fact that these cabs have been successfully and continuously used by all types of music from Status Quo and Metallica to Victor Wooten and Stanley Clark says it all.
The bottom line is know the science if you want but you [i]can[/i] believe your ears, and the ears of others.

[alexclaber]

[quote name='chris_b' post='413897' date='Feb 19 2009, 08:54 AM']This is another example of science vs ears. In the real world, has the use of 4x12's, 8x10's and 4x10's over the last 50 years really been a problem? The fact that these cabs have been successfully and continuously used by all types of music from Status Quo and Metallica to Victor Wooten and Stanley Clark says it all.
The bottom line is know the science if you want but you [i]can[/i] believe your ears, and the ears of others.[/quote]

As soon as you have decent monitors and a decent FOH PA then the dispersion of your cab becomes far less relevant, hence the status quo being how it is. In fact I've seen Steve Harris of Iron Maiden say that he loves his 4x12" cabs because they are so directional - he uses four of them stacking on top and side by side - so he can hear himself really loud if he stands in front of them without the rest of the band being annoyed by their output.

It isn't science vs ears at all. Ears agree if they bother to listen properly.

Alex

[Boneless]

[quote]science vs ears[/quote]

There is no science vs ears. Science determines what ears hear.

The fact is that we don't necessarily need a very "efficient" cab, really. And science can't always be "applied" (thoroughly).
For example, you could try to design a cab, that plays exactly like a sealed 4x12" but only has a couple of drivers and takes up a third of the space and weighs a tenth.
But would people actually buy a cab that's probably going to be expensive as hell?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Boneless

[synaesthesia]

[quote name='chris_b' post='413897' date='Feb 19 2009, 08:54 AM']This is another example of science vs ears. In the real world, has the use of 4x12's, 8x10's and 4x10's over the last 50 years really been a problem? The fact that these cabs have been successfully and continuously used by all types of music from Status Quo and Metallica to Victor Wooten and Stanley Clark says it all.
The bottom line is know the science if you want but you [i]can[/i] believe your ears, and the ears of others.[/quote]


Science vs ears? Not true at all. I have a spare bass cab kit made up of accumulated audio junk in the garage and built it to make this: 1X 15 PD driver in an old box, and a top box that is similar to the bright box by TE, but it houses 4 Galaxy neodymium 5" drivers in a line array. I cross it at 700 hz. The system uses top hats and a short plumbing tube. Anyone in east mids is quite welcome to PM me if you want to pop over for a demo of comb filtering.

If you place the 4X5" horizontally, as you walk around, you will find the mid range dropping in & out. In vertical top hatted mode, the dispersion is clear is a bell all around and the continuity is seamless between 1X15 and the 4X5".

The market preference for horizontal *X10s is a consequence of marketing and the legacy of Leo Fender putting drivers in that fashion in the fifties.
That many musicians do not hear the combing is largely due to the fact that many of the *X10s have fair to severe mid range drop offs, and are mainly pushing watts out between 80 - 800Khz. The single horn tweeter, if employed typical of this design does not contribute to comb filtering.

That top performers continue to use this is no excuse for the weekend warrior /less than stellar pro to follow suit. IEMs, good stage monitoring, no dependence on backline for public address, and excellent touring PA support MASKS the problem of comb filtering in typical bass cabs.

However, top pro or not, if your backline of *X10s or *X12s in gtr or bass, contributes to or is the main form of public address, you will have this problem. And if you have seen Stanley up close on EB in a small club ( I have to say I have on many occasions) you will HEAR his mid range drop out if you walk around; in many a spot all you get is low end mush and clickity clack of his tweeters from his SWRs (which he is currently using)

Edited February 19, 2009 by synaesthesia

[chris_b]

[quote name='synaesthesia' post='413929' date='Feb 19 2009, 09:56 AM']....The market preference for horizontal *X10s is a consequence of marketing and the legacy of Leo Fender putting drivers in that fashion in the fifties.
That many musicians do not hear the combing is largely due to the fact that many of the *X10s have fair to severe mid range drop offs, and are mainly pushing watts out between 80 - 800Khz. The single horn tweeter, if employed typical of this design does not contribute to comb filtering....[/quote]
So you are saying that due to the design of many *x10 cabs comb filtering is not an issue?

I'm not sure that comb filtering problems in a 4x5 cab is very relevent to most of us.

[alexclaber]

It's not comb filtering that is the big problem, it is lack of dispersion, i.e. beaming!

Eighteen Sound are good enough to give both on and 45 deg off-axis plots for their speakers. I just picked one of their tens at random and their 21" woofer. The size of a 4x10" array is similar to that of a 21" speaker (actually slightly larger width/height though smaller in cone area) and thus the difference between on and off-axis response will be similar. So firstly, see attached on and off-axis for a single 10". Response stays within a few dB up to 1kHz, then diverges until its 10dB down (10% power or half volume) by 2kHz.

Now look at the 21"s plot - try to ignore the peaky on-axis curve, what matters is the difference between on and off-axis. By 400Hz it's more than a few dB apart and then by 1kHz it's almost 10dB apart. Above 1kHz it gets really erratic as well (that's probably the result of comb filtering of cone break-up modes emanating from different points on the cone). A 4x10" array's off-axis output would look much more like this than than of a single 10" whilst a vertical stack of 10"s would match the single 10" in the horizontal plane.

Alex

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='synaesthesia' post='413929' date='Feb 19 2009, 09:56 AM']The market preference for horizontal *X10s is a consequence of marketing and the legacy of Leo Fender putting drivers in that fashion in the fifties.[/quote]

Which was probably primarily driven (no pun intended!) by an entirely practical consideration;
Stability.
Your vertically aligned stack is no good if it's laying on its side (or worse, face down) on the stage because it fell over!

[Mr.T]

I would certainly be into trying something 'different' in the way of cabs, but living out in the wilds of West Cornwall the opportunities are limited.
I have to buy 'on-line' so tend to play it safe.

My local music store doesn't even stock MarkBass amps because....
"Local folk won't buy those new fangled things".

To some extent maybe most people go with what they know.

However, I wouldn't say that I chose my current rig on looks.... it definately isn't pretty!