A 1x10, a 1x12, a 2x10, a 1x15 and a 2x12 walked into a room!

[warwickhunt]

Just for a bit of fun I decided to do a little experiment and record a set of cabs to see if simply listening to them without seeing them, there was any discernible characteristics/differences.

 

I reiterate it was not scientific but I tried to keep some constants; I played into a looper, the mic and cab was placed in exactly the same place, amp settings were not changed (*) etc.  However there was one fly in the ointment in that one of the cabs was 4 ohm while the others 8 ohm.  It was immediately obvious when I hooked up the 4 ohm 2x12 cab it was significantly louder and put the recording in the red; (*) as a result I lowered the input gain on the amp to best match an average of the other cabs.  

 

There is one rogue recording.  I took the same signal from my amp via the pre out and fed that to my QSC K10 monitor (1x10 active cab), again I matched as best I could the approximate gain output (50% of travel on the output... not that it matters).

 

Sandberg with Aguilar JJ pups (passive)

Thunderfunk 550B

Aguilar DB112

Genz Benz NeoX 212

TC RS 210

TKS 115

QSC K10

 

The cab was located 1m from the nearest rear wall.

Mic was 2m from the front of the cab.

All cabs had a tweeter which was set at 50% (the QSC can't be adjusted).

 

I learned a lot doing this and I might do it again with a bit more detail. 

 

C5

 

C4

 

C3

 

C2

 

C1

 

 

 

Have a listen, make observations and ask questions.  I'll reveal which is which in a couple of days (the audio is labelled C1 - C5 but not in the same order as listed ).  

Edited January 19 by warwickhunt

[stevie]

Well, I've listened and made notes. Well done, @warwickhunt - nice job.

[warwickhunt]

I knew it was too easy!  LOL

 

On my laptop/screen the 5 actual sound samples appear at the foot of the first post (first one is 1:00, the others are 0:58) well just to confuse matters the first one (1:00) is actually C5 going down numerically to C1 being last... as clear as mud I'm sure!   

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

1 hour ago, warwickhunt said:

The cab was located 1m from the nearest rear wall.

That will result in a response cancellation notch centered around 80Hz. It wouldn't affect the comparison, they'd all suffer equally, but unless you're trying to reduce boomy response due to an 80Hz response peak you don't want a cab that far from the wall.  I won't venture an opinion on which is which, knowing that driver size alone only affects off-axis response.

[warwickhunt]

1 hour ago, Bill Fitzmaurice said:

That will result in a response cancellation notch centered around 80Hz. It wouldn't affect the comparison, they'd all suffer equally, but unless you're trying to reduce boomy response due to an 80Hz response peak you don't want a cab that far from the wall.  I won't venture an opinion on which is which, knowing that driver size alone only affects off-axis response.

 

Cheers Bill.  Actually your observation made me think about that and I realised my 'marker' was 1m from the wall to the 'front; of the cab; not sure if that alters that 80hz notch?

 

Even if not guessing which is which, it would be interesting if folk had a preference for 1 particular sample (or one they disliked) or even if folk thought there was very little difference.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

I figured you meant 1 meter to the front. 1 meter to the back would push the baffle even further from the wall, lowering the cancellation frequency. When dealing with hi-fi or PA where you have separate subs and mains the subs should be placed close enough to the wall so that the cancellation frequency is above the sub passband, while the mains should be placed far enough from the wall so that the cancellation frequency is below their passband. You can't accomplish that when the mains are mounted above the subs. For that reason the only time one should do so is if there is no rear wall, which is to say outdoors.

[warwickhunt]

[sandy_r]

 

[wrong thread]

 

Edited January 19 by sandy_r

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Obviously there are no glaring differences between those charts. Note the deep notch they all have at 90Hz. That's the cancellation caused by the distance from the cab baffle to the wall behind. There's another around 150Hz. That's probably from the distance between the mic and the floor.

[sandy_r]

[wrong thread]

 

 

Edited January 19 by sandy_r

[stevie]

I see nobody's put their head above the parapet yet.😁

 

I'm fairly sure the differences between these cabs would be more evident in person or if an ominidirectional mic had been used. The sound from directly in front of a cab is only a small part of the story. Anyway, here goes nothing. Bear in mind I don't think I've ever heard any of these cabs in person before.

 

The numbering of the actual sound files is hidden. On my PC, they go from top left to right, with C2 and C1 from left to right underneath.

 

C5. Upper mid and higher frequencies absent. Uneven in the lower registers, with some notes louder than others. Some boom. My least favourite. I'm guessing this is the TKS.

C4. Good definition. Balanced frequency response but lacking some top end. Lows well controlled, although slight tendency to boom. A good quality cab. Guessing Genz Benz.

C3. Mids and HF present. Balanced with well controlled low end. I think I'm hearing plastic cab colouration here. So I'm guessing this is the QSC. No obvious shortcomings otherwise, and nice top end.

C2. Uneven, with some notes louder than others. Nice mids but let down by the lower end, which is a bit uncontrolled. On the positive side, it's got a punchy sound with good HF extension. It's a sound I'm sure lots of players will like. Guessing TC RS210.

C1. Balanced sound, warm and powerful with good mids and highs. Slight bloom on some notes but lower frequencies well controlled. This was my favourite. I'd guess this is the Aguilar.

Edited January 19 by stevie

[warwickhunt]

@stevie are you viewing it thus?  

 

I'll message you the actual cabs, it does make for interesting reading.  

[stevie]

Yes, that's how I'm reading it. The files are actually named, but the names are hidden.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

2 hours ago, sandy_r said:

 

I suppose it's worth emphasising, as mentioned in with the graphs above, that these are not swept-frequency spectra, they show the accumulated peak levels at frequencies stimulated by the individual notes played and their accompanying harmonics. 

They're still very useful. In part the results are speaker and amp derived, but they also reflect the fact that by no means does the fundamental define the tone of the instrument, it's defined by the harmonics, and that starts with the bass itself.

[warwickhunt]

2 minutes ago, stevie said:

Yes, that's how I'm reading it. The files are actually named, but the names are hidden.

 

Thanks for the confirmation, I did name them but they weren't visible to me on the post

[stevie]

Your follow-up post makes the naming clear, at least to Windows users.

[stevie]

For those still wishing to take part, I can reveal that I didn't do very well with my guessing. So, don't let it put you off. You're likely to do better than me.

[warwickhunt]

3 minutes ago, stevie said:

For those still wishing to take part, I can reveal that I didn't do very well with my guessing. So, don't let it put you off. You're likely to do better than me.

 

...or did he and he's trying to make others shuffle his answers!   

[NickA]

I've not listened yet ...but won't it depend on what we listen through 🙂

 

I guess headphone is best ..though I have two pairs which sound quite different.  Then HiFi ( mine goes down to 25Hz ).  Laptop speakers = not a hope.  The PJB rig does bass frequencies really well, but will surely add colour of it's own ..not to mention room acoustics.

Edited January 20 by NickA

[warwickhunt]

Of course but all samples will be affected equally.  The other thing is that folks can get their knickers in a twist about their tone (often created by amp/speaker combinations )but then a sound guy takes a DI and puts your carefully sculpted tone through whatever speakers he has chosen.    

[NickA]

Suprisingly, different replay things accentuate different sounds and what sounds good through a HiFi may not sound so good through a bass amp - so I did both!

 

So laptop into a PJB bighead running as a D2A converter into the big stereo (naim amp and neat motive 1 speakers, which a perhaps a bit too good at bass).

 

from left to right

 

C5 = boomy. C4 = much clearer and revealing a bit of distortion, bit bass light. C3 = like c4 only bassier.  c2= nice dry uncoloured sound "hifi". c1 = middy, a bit brash.   C2 is my fave.

 

=> the 15" is probably C5?, 1x 12" = C4,  2x12" = C3, 2x10 = C2, 1x10" =C1.  Definitely guess work and personal bias, plus I admit to compromised hearing after 50+ years of orchestral and electric bass playing.

 

Doing it again using the same D2A and a PJB flightcase combo.

 

C5 that boominess sounds like room resonance now.  C3 also has a tad of that - my own room may be reacting (the bass combo faces a different way to the HiFi).  C1 is improved by the bass specific nature of the bass combo, but still the thinest sounding. 

 

It's a very personal thing tho isn't it?  I share house band duties with another bass player who hates high frequencies in his sound, uses almost all neck pickup on his jazz bass and rolls off the tone on his amp. I'm always looking for a bit of zing and my Wal chucks out "gritty" mid band frequencies, especially when biased towards the bridge pickup.  My double bass also needs a bit of a mid boost as the fundamentals are near sub-audible.  He wants to be Ralph Armstrong, I want to be Hadrien Feraud!!

 

 

And that has been an excellent bit of Saturday morning coffee time geekery 🙂 🙂

 

Edited January 20 by NickA

[warwickhunt]

1 hour ago, NickA said:

 

And that has been an excellent bit of Saturday morning coffee time geekery 🙂 🙂

 

 

I've messaged you the actual recording 'answers'

[tauzero]

Assuming 

C5 C4 C3

C2 C1

 

C5 - not a lot of bright top, probably tweeterless

C4 - not much difference to C5

C3 - not quite as full in the bass, some amp buzz - active?

C2 - more highs than C4 & C5, full bass too

C1 - similar highs to C2, slightly fuller bass - best balanced of the cabs
 

[Bolo]

On 18/01/2024 at 18:50, warwickhunt said:

I lowered the input gain on the amp

That is an odd choice as that's where a lot of sound signature of the amp is made. You'd want to adjust the output volume to keep the tone or timbre alike as much as possible.

 

That said, the bottom three all have a humm or crackle and certainly the last two are quite a bit louder that the first two.

 

I wouldn't dar venture a guess as I'm not familiar with any of the cabs.

[warwickhunt]

Comments re. distortion/buzz/crackle are of interest to me.  I 'think' my amp has an issue but oddly it went away when I took it along to a recent bass bash.  I noticed the slight break up on the decay of a note but wondered if it would be audible when recorded... apparently so.  

 

Turning down the input gain as opposed to output was a considered choice.  I was aware that it could change the tone but I made my choice after trialling turning down each before starting.  I've no idea why turning down the input a bit would have less impact than the output but it did.  When I turned down the output to match the record levels the overall tone seemed to lack depth and punch (vague terms I know), which turning down the input seemed to have less affect.  All just my feeling as I did it at the time but I certainly felt that that cab (4 ohm) was more representative of it's overall tone when adjusted that way.   In hindsight I could have possibly tried turning down both a little bit.  All things you have to test on the day/in the moment.