paulbuzz

YOU CAN'T REFER TO MY GRANDMA LIKE THAT!!! 😲 Oh wait I might have got the wrong end of the stick...

And here's one of the major problems: Most bass cab manufacturers rate their cabinets by simply quoting the thermal limit of the bass driver - ie how much power (in watts) it can take before the voice-coil is damaged by heat. BUT: For most uses of most bass drivers in most bass cabinets, the effective usage is limited WAY before the thermal limit by the excursion limits of the driver - ie how far the cone can travel back and forth before bad things start happening. Because of this limit, in reality most bass cabs can't make use of anything like the power suggested by the manufacturer's given (thermal) power handling spec figure. The excursion limits of any particular driver are given by the driver specs Xmax and Xlim (in mm), but how much power (in watts) it will take for the driver to reach these limits varies depending on the cab design and the frequencies being reproduced. All of this is sufficiently complicated that most cab manufacturers don't even attempt to explain about this stuff. Barefaced, by contrast, have loads of information about this stuff on their site. They make a point of using drivers with high excursion limits, which means their cabs can go unusually loud before things start sounding bad. These high-spec drivers are one of the things you pay a premium price for. But most manufacturers AND players don't want to have to get into a conversation about all this, so instead we tend to get stuck with unhelpful and misleading cab specs. This kind of stuff is very much the area of expertise of Bill, Phil, Stevie and a few others on this site, so I'm sure they'll jump in if I've explained any of this wrong! 😁

I think their point is that there just isn't any simple number that can give an unambiguous and definitive representation of the power handling of a given cab, so instead they have chosen to restrict themselves to an (admittedly vague) suggestion of what size of amp is likely to make a suitable match for their cabs. As to why the cab with the same bass driver, but in a bigger box with an added mid/high driver should be more suitable for a more powerful amp, I haven't got an answer. (Though of course the practical difference between 600W and 800W amps is minimal anyway; certainly less than the difference between identically rated amps from various different manufacturers. ) If I seem to be coming over as something of a Barefaced apologist here, I should perhaps make clear that I've never owned, played through, or even heard one of their cabs! 😁

A few relevant articles from the Barefaced website - there are a whole load of others...! https://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/understanding-power-handling.htm https://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/recommended-amp-power.htm https://barefacedbass.com/uploads/BGM68 Jul2011.pdf

To be fair to Alex/Barefaced, I think the OP has misinterpreted the information they give about their cabinets. I'm pretty sure that they don't claim anywhere that the Super Compact is "rated at 600W RMS" or the Big Baby "rated at 800W RMS". Instead, these figures are given as the top end of the range of output power of amplifiers that they recommend for use with these cabinets. Admittedly this is different to the way in which most cabinet manufacturers talk about the specs of their products, but there is a reason for this: the reason is that the traditional/usual practice of quoting a single "rated power handling" figure for a speaker cabinet is unsatisfactory and misleading for a number of reasons. This is illustrated by several of the points made by Bill and other posters upthread. So, as I understand it, Alex at Barefaced decided instead on the more nuanced (but arguably more vague!) set of descriptions used on the Barefaced website. I always got the impression that this was a genuine attempt to be less misleading than cab manufacturers have often been with their specs. Unfortunately, in this case at least, this approach seems to have led to increased confusion, rather than enlightenment...! As a self-confessed enthusiast for this kind of tech-talk, Alex has engaged in discussing this stuff repeatedly over the years; here on Basschat, on the Barefaced website, and in magazine articles. I'm sure his views on these matters will still be there somewhere on the Barefaced website.

That's the brutally-severed head of a Mk IV GP11 combo; possibly one of the huge 1x15 ones with massive vents below the speaker - in fact they may even have been horn-loaded? Can't find a decent picture of one now... I still have my Mk IV GP11 preamp, though it's largely in its well-earned retirement these days. An excellent bit of gear that was worked hard and never missed a beat.

I have a Mooer Radar and think it's excellent. In terms of its power supply requirements, I have just measured it as using 182 mA at 12V I have also just tried running it at 9V, and it seems to work fine; the current draw then goes up to 212 mA. I can't comment on whether this might have any impact on headroom, stability etc.

It's interesting to bear in mind that the speed of sound is roughly one foot per millisecond, so a piece of gear that introduces a 1ms delay is equivalent to stepping one foot further away from your amp. It would be interesting to see some real-world objectively measured figures for the amount of delay introduced by these items, as Stub was proposing upthread. I wait with bated breath! 😉

I know you were largely being humorous Al, but that's an interesting point about the MarkBass VLE. I haven't owned a MarkBass amp, but have got a Harley Benton amp which copies the same feature. I've measured its frequency response, and found that it rolls off the top end at 12 dB per octave, which isn't really steep enough to achieve the desired fizz-reduction without losing all the desirable top end (which may be why you regard MarkBass as having a muddy sound!). The kind of top-end rolloff required is really at least 18dB per octave. As I said, the response of 10/12/15 inch drivers tend to drop off like a stone above a certain point; this is the fizz-free sound that we're attempting to emulate. It would be interesting to see a measurement of the response of the genuine MarkBass VLE circuit. Apologies to Stub if this geekiness-heavy discussion is getting too off-topic! 🙄

No, you're right - tweeter down is perfectly adequate! 🙂 My points 1, 2 and 3 were intended as alternatives to each other, not intending to imply that all were necessary! 😁 Although turning the tweeter down does still potentially leave you with the problem of horrible fizz in your DI signal to the PA, if that's used.

I was taking "cab without a tweeter" to include "cab with the tweeter turned down". Didn't want to elaborate every point as it was enough of a wall of text already! 😁 As to 'why a speaker sim...' : because the most notable feature of a speaker sim is that it rolls off the fizzy frequencies very steeply, as required. It will also have additional EQ characteristics that one might or might not find desirable!

Haha, fair enough, experiences differ! 😁 But I'd genuinely be interested to hear what combination of non-rolled-off overdrive pedal and tweetered cab you've managed to get a decent non-fizzy overdrive from...?

After many years of experimentation, my conclusion is that, if you want a non-fizzy overdrive sound, there's one factor that's super-important; much more so than any specific type of pedal or amp, and it's this: *** At some stage later in the chain than where the overdrive is generated, you MUST get rid of pretty much all the frequencies above about 5KHz, as this is where the horrible insectoid fizz comes from. *** This is often touched on in such discussions, but I don't think is emphasised nearly enough. Also, it's not sufficient to try to do this with any normal treble/tone controls on an amplifier or pedal , because they just don't have a steep enough cutoff of the upper frequencies. So, there are various ways of achieving the necessary steep HF rolloff: 1) Old school approach: Use a cab without a tweeter (since most bass cab woofers have a frequency response that drops like a stone above ~5KHz) [ But note: if you're also sending a DI signal to a PA system, you're still left the with the problem of removing the unwanted fizzy frequencies from that signal too! ] 2) Use an overdrive pedal with a built-in speaker simulator or low-pass filter @ ~5K This would include pedals such as the Tech 21 Sansamps, VT Bass etc, amongst others. ( Bargain hint: the Joyo American Sound pedal is a clone of the Tech21 Blonde, is cheap as chips, and works great for bass despite being intended for guitar...) 3) Use a separate speaker simulator or low-pass filter after your overdrive pedal(s) There are lots of these available these days, some of which allow you to load your own Impulse Response files to get the exact frequency response you want. I've found the Mooer Radar to be a great little pedal to play with for this kind of purpose. As long as you get this vital HF rolloff sorted via some method or other, there's a very wide range of pedals that will do the kind of job you're talking about. The other thing that seems to be very helpful for overdriven sounds is a (relatively gentle) bass roll-off BEFORE the overdrive generation, compensated for by some bass boost AFTER the overdrive (or perhaps mixing in some non-overdriven signal, as lots of pedals allow you to do these days). Good luck on the never-ending quest for the perfect bass overdrive sound! 😋 (PS: the Boss ODB3 may be the worst-sounding overdrive pedal I've ever tried!) (PPS I have a Danelectro Transparent Overdrive V1 which is a clone of the Paul Cochrane Timmy, and is fantastic, but is no longer available. The Caline Pure Sky is another super-cheap Timmy clone and may therefore also be great, but I haven't actually tried one... )

Another left-hander who plays 'right-handed' here. Seems advantageous to me for some of the reasons mentioned above (including some of those that were getting ridiculed 😉 ). Additionally, it's much more likely to be possible to make temporary use of someone else's guitar/bass if the occasion demands it. Whilst I agree that people need to be free to make their own decisions about which way round they want to learn, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest the option of learning 'right-handed' style to left-handed beginners that don't have an immediate preference for 'left-handed' style.

I feel your pain. I have an Ashdown pedal that originally had similar polished knobs. Under most lighting conditions it was impossible to tell where they were set. I changed them ASAP. I haven't any useful advice to add, but good luck with your replacement efforts!

Oh, I should have mentioned that for this to work, the "Line select" effect block needs to be the one that's 'on-screen'!

It is possible to use the stomp switch to bypass the entire 'chain' of effect blocks in a patch; to do this you just need to set the 'Line select' effect as the first effect block in the patch's chain. Having done this, when you're in 'play' mode (ie not the patch list), the stomp switch will bypass the whole chain as required. Hope this makes sense - I can elaborate further if needed!

I too am certainly somewhat sceptical; however, I have bought several examples of super-cheap gear that have been ridiculously good for the money (Harley Benton 250/500w 1x10 combo, Joyo American Sound pedal...), so I wouldn't write these things off out of hand. If minimum size/weight and super-low price are critical factors, these power amps seem like they could well be worth a punt. I'm not sure that they're very doom though - surely for that you would want a power amp to be at least 6U high and weigh the same as a small family car...?

That certainly is very cheap, and a proper bargain if it's any good. However (and at the risk of kicking off a "watts-are-watts-or-are-they?" debate), in my experience cheap amplifiers tend to be not as loud as expensive amplifiers of nominally the same wattage, so if you're tempted by this, I'd be inclined to push your budget slightly further to the next model up - apparently the same size and weight: https://www.bax-shop.co.uk/amplifiers/devine-d-600-class-d-amplifier-2x-540-w If you go for one of these, do let us know how you get on with it!

Yet another GAS-able product from Tech21 - good work! But I do find myself a bit dubious about the physical form of this, and many of their other recent products (the Steve Harris, the dUg, the Flyrigs etc). Specifically, the control knobs look awfully flimsy - like they might snap off if a drummer glanced sternly at them. Any owners of any of these products care to comment on their sturdiness...?

I also have the 1-spot meter and have found it to be extremely useful, largely for the same reasons mentioned by McNach. Very quick, easy and convenient to use. One small caution: When measuring the power consumption of a pedal, I have found that you need to ensure that its audio input and output sockets aren't connected to other pedals. This can throw the 1-spot meter reading out, for reasons that are well beyond my technical understanding! Very often, power consumption figures stated by pedal manufacturers are quite inaccurate, or, alternatively, reflect the output current capability of the included power adaptor, rather than the power consumption of the pedal. The Stinkfoot power list as mentioned by jrixn above is also very useful, but, as itu notes, seems to not be kept very up to date these days. I too contributed some measured figures for which I received an acknowledgement, but which haven't been added to his list. A shame, as it's a very useful resource.

... and also has a separate crappy wallwart thing. Ugh! 🤮

Interesting, and somewhat surprising (to me at least!), since Barefaced do specifically compare the accuracy of the BB2 to that of a studio monitor, which would very much imply neutrality! Mind you, different people's subjective opinions of speakers, even of 'neutral' studio monitors, do seem to vary wildly! 😀 In what ways did you find the BB2 not to be neutral?

Ok, I'll have a final stab at it! 😀 Your original question was "Is FRFR just a buzzword?" I would say that it IS a buzzword, in that it's bit of terminology that's only recently come into use, and is currently popular in marketing bass and guitar gear. Equipment that broadly matches the definition has been around for a long time, as the requirements are very similar to those that have always been needed for PA and acoustic instrument amplification. Essentially, if you were to play some finished pre-recorded music through this type of equipment, the music would still sound pretty much like it's supposed to. So while equipment with these characteristics has been around for a long time, nobody was calling it "FRFR" - that's a recent trend, ie it's a buzzword. However, it's not JUST a buzzword, because it actually means something specific in the context of electric guitar/bass amplification, which is a distinctly different approach to how amplifying these instruments has generally been done in the past. Since these instruments don't actually HAVE a 'natural' sound, you can amplify them any way you like as long as you like the result. The traditional approach to amplifying them (because it was easier) was to produce amplifiers/speakers for which you didn't worry too much about the frequency response, levels of distortion etc as long as users agreed that the end result was satisfactory. Indeed, lots of the gear used to produce what we now think of as 'classic' guitar/bass sounds was simply atrocious if viewed from the standpoint of technical accuracy - high levels of distortion, severely curtailed or wildly unbalanced frequency responses etc - but those technical flaws came to be regarded as desirable or essential elements of the guitar/bass sounds that people liked. More recently, it's become much more possible to reproduce these 'desirable flaws' of traditional guitar/bass gear accurately and in a controllable manner entirely within electronic circuitry (not going to start an analogue/digital debate here!). Having done so, what we then want is simply to amplify the result as accurately as possible. Handily, the right equipment for this then becomes very similar to what's already being used for PA. Attaching the term "FRFR" to this approach describes the difference between this strategy and the one traditionally used in the sphere of guitar/bass amplification. This seems to me to be a useful and meaningful distinction, and hence I would say that FRFR is not JUST a buzzword, even though it is one. Apologies for the massive wall of text - hope there may be something in it you find helpful or enlightening! Quite possibly not though! 😁