MoJ

Anything thats in my wallet at the time! May sound like a strange place to keep em but I know Ive always got me wallet on me so if I keep them there I know Ill have one. At the moment there's a heavey Planet Waves my guitarist gave me, plus a Tortex 1mm and possible a little Dunlop Jazz III which I never use so dont know why its in there! Basically as long as its thick, say 0.73mm up, Ill use it though I used to use the Big Stubby 3mm ones and found that cuz my hands get pretty sweaty I have to have a vice-like grip on my pick and found that because of that my hand would ache as they're too stiff. Only use a pick on one song so far so dont really have a favourite. Andy

Hmmm, not sure this'll help, or is the pedal you're after but having recently tried a Boss SYB-5, I know that pedal has a hold function, whereby you play a note and then hold down the footswitch and it will sustain that note, whilst you continue to play over the top. Depends on whether you like the synth sounds in that pedal though. It does feature a couple of modes that have your note (synth sound format) and octave below that at the same time, but not just one octave below. The hold function will give you a sustained synth note while what you play is un-synthed. As I say, dependant on you liking the sounds in the first place though. Andy

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='15958' date='Jun 11 2007, 10:50 PM']You can tune a bass but you can't tune a fish... (or something like that)[/quote] Ba dap tsshhh....!!!!

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='15468' date='Jun 11 2007, 10:33 AM']I can't speak for anyone else and their set up but I use the eq on the amp for address stage/room acoustics anyway. Bass = fundamental tone/character on board eq = coarse tone shaping for the bass according to the music style (before it goes to the desk) amp eq = room acoustics (DI is taken pre amp eq)[/quote] The TBP-1 has a sperate control called Room Balance on top of the EQ apparently. [quote name='Fender TBP-1 Spec']*Room Balance - Global EQ shift for cabinets/stage response -Clockwise cuts lower end frequencies while simultaneously raising upper frequencies -Counter-clockwise brings up lower end frequencies while simultaneously lowering upper frequencies[/quote] Not saying Dave should do this. Just highlighting it. I like what you say about a parametric EQ, even if it was only for mid band fequencies, but I have a feeling that would put the price up a fair bit and would be in line with Dave's work of minimal solid state afair. Thanks Andy

Hey, now you mention John East, would it be a crazy idea to get Dave to speak to John or Alan at ACG and see if he could fit the ACG filter preamp? Or something like it anyway? Just a though Andy

Ok, a pic finally added. As Ive edited the original post to say, apologies for the quality. It was done on my phone and Ive done my best to 'tidy' it up but the pic was more a case of having a reference for the setiings now Ive sorted out my tone on my amp, so I had to adjust the levels and gain appropriately. Ill do my best to get some sound up when I can. Thanks Andy

[quote name='The Funk' post='15521' date='Jun 11 2007, 12:21 PM']Ok here's a silly question. What's the point in having speakers of different sizes if you're not trying to get different sounds out of them? Bi-amping is just a more sophisticated approach to it. Even if your bass rig does just act as a stage monitor, it will hopefully be better designed for the job than monitor wedges, and should result in you and your band hearing you clearly and giving you all the sound you need to inspire the best in you.[/quote] My point exactley Funk. Surely a good performance is when the musician is happy, and to me that includes being able to hear yourself on stage, clearly. Especially if you have to rely on your rig for monitoring. Two guitars to get through makes that hard work too! As you say, a good sound can bring out the best in you (and the worse, as you may realise what bad tone has been covering up!) [quote name='dood' post='15583' date='Jun 11 2007, 01:49 PM']I really hated Tuna for years.. until I realised I had only ever had tinned Tuna!!! The shock came when I once had Tinned Salmon.. Euchhh.. talk about ruin a nice food!!![/quote] Dood, you havent lived until that point of fresh tuna steak pan fried! [quote name='Crazykiwi' post='15932' date='Jun 11 2007, 10:08 PM']I tend to marinate a 15mm thick steak in teppanyaki sauce first and flash fry it for 4 mins each side. The inside has to be raw and the outside crispy [/quote] Thats where Im at. Must admit, I a philistine compared to you guys. I like all my meat cooked with no pink bits whatsoever, and that includes tuna, but not dry mind you. Fried quick enough to get them crsipy bits and stay fresh, but long enough to be cooked all the way through...mmmm... How did we get to tuna by the way? Does tuna like to bi-amp?

Dave, if only for your info, I remebered that I was recently looking at the Fender TBP-1, which is a tube preamp with a seperate channel for overdrive. I mention as I know you use a tone stack based on the Fender Bassman circuit. It also has a blendable overdrive channel, but only one EQ for both channels. Obviously there are other features that have been mentioned like a user definible crossover, and some that havent such as "Room balance EQ" (????), a lot of which are I would imagine neither hear nor there. A [url="http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=2147000000"]link[/url] for it here, and also the [url="http://www.fender.com/products/view_specs.php?full_partno=2147000000&name=TBP-1+Tube+Bass+Pre-Amp"]spec[/url] here. The average price Ive so far seen it around for is £6/700, so I think you could easily compete with this if you manage to keep it within the price you want. And Im still going to champion a core unit with optional extras if it keeps the price affordable. Thanks Andy

[quote name='MoJ' post='15200' date='Jun 10 2007, 06:57 PM']Awesome. Being as Im looking into going for seperate pre/power amps, I shall be interested to see the progress of this. Definitly put me down for a unit with dual outputs! Andy[/quote] Just thought, as Im looking down the bi-amp route Id be using an external crossover unit (which unless Im mistaken Dave, you probably woulnt want to put into you unit. Could be wrong) and therefore probably wouldnt need dual outs other than to bypass a part of the crossover. However it could be one of the options for people, should they want to run stereo effetcs a la Dood. But then so could the crossover... [quote name='d-basser' post='15210' date='Jun 10 2007, 07:27 PM']BTW MoJ, i am having a listen to your band, nice stuff, bit otep/arch enemy with the female growl but the cleaner vocal sections lift it nicely, love growl but cant have it all the time.[/quote] Thanks d-basser. I have to say Im not normally one for growlers, unless its something unique. Its seems almost deriguer these days to have a vocalist doing that all the time, like with Arch Enemy or even other male vocalists. One of the many reasons why I accpeted to join the band as Jo (vocalist) does more 'traditional' vocals too. She has a very dynamic voice for it too and not all operatic like it can be sometimes with bands such as Nightwish (though Im not dissing that style, just not my thing and we're very far removed form Nightwish too). Thanks for checking the site out dude. Andy

Awesome. Being as Im looking into going for seperate pre/power amps, I shall be interested to see the progress of this. Definitly put me down for a unit with dual outputs! Andy

[quote name='alexclaber' post='15149' date='Jun 10 2007, 05:20 PM']I'm unconvinced by tuna on pizzas but I do like it raw and unsullied and will never refuse a rare tuna steak on the barbeque. Alex[/quote] Mmmmmmm..tuna steak.. ^_^

Dammit! Dood got there 1st! Still, looks like its an idea that could catch on.. Andy

[quote name='DHA' post='15033' date='Jun 10 2007, 01:18 PM']Hi, As all my stuff is handbuilt it's really not a problem to pick and mix the bits people want, so if there is a request for a stereo FX loop and stereo DI then you got it. I use a stereo FX return and stereo output stage on my own amp. Once you have tried stereo chorus and stereo echo there is no going back. Dave[/quote] Dave, I know you mentioned earlyier that you may possibley do a couple of units, but would it be worth doing a 'core' unit of say just the 2 independant channels, and then a list of optional extras that could be added like the compressor or blender? Obviously you couldnt have too many options as it would get silly and you only have so many hours in the day you can dedicate to your work. Not sure if that helps or is possible? Andy

[quote name='alexclaber' post='15020' date='Jun 10 2007, 12:54 PM']Check out this website, there is a lot of good reading here: [url="http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm"]http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm[/url] --------- My personal bugbear is the habit I repeatedly encounter of people trying something, hearing a qualitative result and thus deciding that X always equals Y without ever questioning why that might be. It is repeated all over the place in such quotes as: "You can't slap on a P-bass" "Fifteen inch speakers sound slow" "The bigger the speaker the lower it goes" "Rear ported cabs don't work properly without a wall behind them" "You have to play behind the beat on reggae" "Less is always more" "You have to cut your mids when slapping" "Picks are for guitarists only" "Deep lows cause boom problems" "Slap equals funk" etc, etc... WH, instead of saying you see no point to biamping because it didn't work for you in the past, consider what the frequency response plot of your rig would have been when run fullrange and run biamped. Also consider how the power handling changed when biamping. If the rig was the typical 10" for the top and 15" or 18" for the bottom, you biamping would cause the loss of a midrange hump where both cabs are working together (which gets you heard and sounds fat) and also reduce the power handling and max LF SPL as the 10"s are no longer contributing to the bottom. Bad idea. MoJ, I'm not attacking you I'm just asking you to consider this less simplistically. Sound reproduction, like music, is not a tidy affair - you cannot just say fullrange is good, biamping is bad, just as you cannot say diatonic harmony is good, dissonance is bad. There is a ton of information out there - when you want to know something google it, use wikipedia, ask questions on forums, but more importantly make an effort to understand WHY. And FWIW, I do not biamp and never have. I am intending to biamp with my next rig but only because that is what will work best for those particular speakers. Each case is different. Alex[/quote] Cool, glad we cleared that up. Thanks. I agree that there are many things dicussed on this forum that are not (but will be) quantifiable with a simple statement, but it would have been easier had you pointed this out to begin with. I shouldve had said "...if dont like the outcome of bi-amping...". By all accounts though, you think that bi-amping will not "sound" any different than full range, other than more control over that sound? This may be over simplifying too and what Im not saying is that I would be dissapointed if this would be the case, as Im looking to have more control over my sound. Im going to google bi-amping and maybe try wikipedia (with a pinch of salt), but that was why I started here. I know that there are some people far knowledable and with more expeirence than myself so seemed the like the best way to start. Iwill though, do more research into this subject, and take a look at the link you posted as I would like to have a better understanding of bi-amping. Oh, and can I correct you? Dissonance gooooooood! Thanks Andy

[quote name='DHA' post='15008' date='Jun 10 2007, 12:23 PM']Hi Andy, There will be a separate passive EQ on each channel. I may consider a different version with active EQ but I want to do this one first so that the signal path is pure and without solid state. I was going to leave the clipping and colour controls on each channel as they are not big cost drivers. Dave[/quote] No, passive is fine Dave. Seperate EQ per channel would be awesome. Would allow to have two separate clean channels with different tones, or to re-EQ overdrive. Dave, I think this is some of the greatest news Ive heard, this new rackmount. Now that Im considering seperates, Im easliy tempted by the current VT2RM, but to have all these features would be great. Personally, I think the most essential thing is independant channel EQ, and maybe the fx loop and compressor, but those 2 I could easily live without. Cant wait to hear if this goes into action Dave! Thanks Andy

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='14985' date='Jun 10 2007, 11:16 AM']Now this is one subject where I must put my foot down Andy. Fresh tuna cooked so that it is still pink in the middle I love, tinned tuna in a sarnie with fresh pepper is fine BUT sorry, if we are talking pizza there is no debate 'tuna is wrong'! [/quote] I wouldnt say on pizza its wrong, but then Id eat both on they're own to be honest! did you ever think of a tuna/pepperoni feast? I only just have but hmm.... Hahahaaaa Andy

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='14957' date='Jun 10 2007, 10:06 AM']Don't worry about it Andy, I don't feel like I'm attacking anyone or being attacked. I have a view on the subject which is based on my attempts at improving the sound that I get through the process known as bi-amping; using manufacturers dedicated bi-amp equipped amps and with pre/power set-ups (H&K Fortress & Peavey DPC amp makes for quite a portable set-up). Alex has a view based upon his work with bi-amping, which due to his perseverance suits 'his' musical style (both genre and playing style). Neither of us can be wrong because it is a matter of taste. You may as well ask, which is better Fender or Warwick, 10"/12"/15" drivers, Eminence or B&C, Carlsberg or Fosters, Tuna or Pepperoni! Of course I could be wrong about this and there might be a definitive answer... who gives a sh*t? [/quote] Quite! There isn't a definitve answer, and as I said in the initial post, I was really just interested to know if anyone here bi-amps and if so, how they go about it, and what equipment they use. Opinions are also greatly welcomed, so long as there is a reason behind that opinion. So I kinda give sh*t. Anyhoo, lets get off this who's roght and who's wrong debate and get back to the matter in hand. Thank you both for your posts. All is duely noted. Now that Dave Hall has mentioned [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1390"]this[/url], Im all the more keen know. I love Dave's overdrive pedals and a preamp like this could just be my thing Thanks Andy Oh, and how dare you make me choose between tuna and pepperoni? Both just as tastey IMO...

[quote name='DHA' post='14969' date='Jun 10 2007, 10:33 AM']Hi Andy, I think just a splitter and extra op-amp should give a line-level DI. Does anyone know what the impedance and level of a DI out is? Blending one channel with the other is interesting LED VU meter is in. Looking at crossovers. Stereo output could be an option and might even cover the DI issue as well. Cost would depend a bit on what we end up with and it may even be two or three models. But aiming to keep it around £500-£600. I know it's a lot but this will take about 2 weeks to make and have well over £250 in parts. Dave[/quote] Well, its not [i]that[/i] much when you consider that the only two Ampeg preamps being made at the moment are coming in at around that price. Add in to the equation that you're giving both channels tone controls (independant of each other I assume?) which Ive only seen on say the Ampeg BSP, and you maybe adding a compressor in there too, plus a footswitch to control all this (which I dont think are included wiht the Ampeg's but could be wrong) and its about right. Would taking out the silicon and germanium diodes and associated controls, and the colour controls do much to the price? I know I for one don't use those on my VT2, but cant speak for anyone else. Out of interest, where are you considering putting the compressor in the chain? As for the DI impedance, just looking in my trusty TE manual, which just so so happens to be near my PC, the spec at he back states the impedance as 600 ohms or greater. Wouldnt know if thats standard though. Not sure if DI out is overly essential, but if you did fit it Id make it post EQ if there is the option. Thanks Andy

[quote name='guyl' post='14912' date='Jun 10 2007, 01:21 AM']....but more importantly flashing lights make any piece of rackmount gear look cool IMHO....[/quote] You do know Dave puts little 'windows' in the front of his designs so you can see some of the valves, and are backlit with BLUE led's? Very cool indeed, especially on a darkly lit stage! Guess you can never have enough lighty bits though Andy

[quote name='DHA' post='14177' date='Jun 8 2007, 01:32 PM']Hi all, I am building a new 2U rack pre-amp for bass and I would grateful of a bit of market research before the design is set in stone. Dave[/quote] WOOOOOO!!!!! [quote name='Crazykiwi' post='14187' date='Jun 8 2007, 01:47 PM']Dave how will we set the levels of either channel so that loudness isn't affected when we change channel? Would it be worth putting in a crossover as well?[/quote] +1 for that! [quote name='bass_ferret' post='14947' date='Jun 10 2007, 09:47 AM']+1 for the DI - I dont use it myself but lots do. Less convinced about the x-over, not a lot of people run true bi-amp.[/quote] And +1 for a DI out too. I would say maybe not a crossover, but how about stereo/dual outputs, to at least allow a crossover to be used, or to bypass the 'high' part of the crossover for a full range and low pass arrangement. It would allow for a very flexible set up whatever though. I definitley like the idea of each channel having its own output so that levels could be matched. How about a blend control (not just the fx loop blender) to allow blending of the clean and overdrive channels? Would definitley like that option. How much roughly would soemthing like this go for Dave? Thanks Andy

[quote name='alexclaber' post='14869' date='Jun 10 2007, 12:26 AM']Just one thing, quickly. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE BIAMPING SOUND. Alex[/quote] Ok, well if I dont like how a bi-amped system sounds?? No need to shout Alex... Maybe if I said that id I dont like what bi-amping does or that I dont notice a difference? Either way, BFM cabs allow me a few options. I think this heat is messing with people's rational thought process's. Ive had a few people at work be really crabby and I dont really need it when they're the 10th person Ive served like that, and Im stuck in what feels like an oven! After reading the last few posts I really didnt aim for this to become a personal attack thread. If you's guys have got a beef with each other, please don't extend that to me Alex. Its far too hot (well it is in my pokey little flat) to be arguing online. There is a difference of opinion and lets leave it at that, no? I do appreciate and regard what you say Alex, as Ive read quite a number of your posts since the Bassworld days and you seem well informed (if that isnt putting it too mildly), but you start to invalidate them by saying that other people's opinions don't count. Thanks Andy

[quote name='alexclaber' post='14673' date='Jun 9 2007, 04:08 PM']I think the idea of an Omni 10.5 and Titan 39 is an excellent one. For quieter rehearsals or gigs with full PA support the Omni 10.5 should be loud enough as a fullrange cab, whilst you can add the Titan 39 and run the rig biamped with a ~150Hz crossover point for louder situations or where you're providing all the bottom. Do this with a rack preamp, crossover and power amp, and buy used and you should be able to assemble an awesome rig for very little money. I gather Thumper (who now resides on finnbass) has a similar rig in progress. Alex[/quote] Thats what Im thinking with regards to the O15/O10.5 + T39 debate. At least there is flexibility with the two seperate cabs, and should I find after a while that I dont like the bi-amping sound, I can revert to full range O10.5 and send a low signal to the T39, or just build another O10.5 (or O10 and have the O10.5 as a home practice cab) and go full range period! [quote name='warwickhunt' post='14710' date='Jun 9 2007, 05:42 PM']My view on bi-amping is as relevant as anyone else who has run an amp that has bi-amp capability and cabs that are readily available on the market today. I do fully accept your point that it [b]will[/b] be different with a custom pre/power dedicated cab(s) set-up. I still however have reservations about the benefits of such a rig for the majority of gigging bassists! If you are using decent PA support then you need to feed a full range signal to that and then it is dependent upon the PA as to how good the bi/tri-amp facility is. So you are left with your rig acting as a monitor in which case best hope that the stage or area you set-up on is of sufficient area to get the benefit. If the bi-amp rig you run is to be the FOH sound that is to be heard by the public then I hope the rest of the bands equipment is up to the standard that yours is! I'm not trying to argue anyone out of trying bi-amping just because it didn't do it for me, far from it. I'm simply pointing out that a full range signal into one or 2 way cabs is absolutely fine for many of us; there may well be newbie bassists who read this thread and think that they have to start worrying about the benefits and pitfalls of bi-amping, when really they should be spending more time studying song craft or their instruments potential. For a sector of the bass playing fraternity the issue of sound reinforcement is a valid and important issue and I 'know' that manufacturers are giving us short shrift with equipment, so long may we discuss how to achieve the holy grail of tone, maybe then good practise will creep into the equipment that we buy off the shop floor. [/quote] Two things, why do we all take a backline with us to gigs, even with 'decent' PA, with the exception to some, like Ped who use amp modeling and in-ear monitors?And although Ive not done too many gigs, Ive found that even the larger venues with supposedly decent PA, the wedge monitors just never give me what I like to hear of my sound. Some all Ive heard is the top end of my sound and completely overpowered the guitars, and some give me the low end and very weakly. This is probably more to do with the sound techs than anything, but why should I rely on them? Maybe its just my inexperience of being able to tell them what I want to hear but if I have a sound that I can rely on at gigs, that compliments the rest of the band, then I should use it and not have to rely on others interpretations. Sorry, I know that comes across as confrontational but thats how I see it. With regards to focusing less on sound and more on songs and instruments yes, this is still the backbone of why we ALL do this (I would imagine), new starter or old hand. However, when you have difficulty in hearing what you have written or how your instrument sounds, would like to hear it better, then these things need to be discussed. Hopefully as a byproduct then those with years of playin ahead can gleam something intelligable from it too.,As well as, as you point out Warwickhunt, maybe manufacturers will do too! Relevancy of opinion aside, out of interest what do you guys play, music wise? I guess while we're at it instrument wise and what kind of sound are you wanting to achieve? Just may give me some angle as to your opinions on this long debated matter And that goes for everyone too, not just Alex or Warwick.. Thanks Andy

[quote name='Alien' post='14460' date='Jun 9 2007, 01:10 AM']If you want a mono crossover, you could do a lot worse than the Rolls SX21 [url="http://www.smartsounddirect.com/content/ProductDetails.asp?ProductID=SSD1137"]http://www.smartsounddirect.com/content/Pr...oductID=SSD1137[/url] Small, sounds good, and well built. Andy[/quote] Thanks Andy, I had been wondering if such a thing were available,but as yet hadnt really looked in to it. That Rolls crossover looks a good price, and size. Might need it rackmonutable though if I follw the whole seperates idea through. Thanks though. [quote name='BeLow' post='14504' date='Jun 9 2007, 08:06 AM']Why would you bi-amp? I did wonder whether you were looking at bi-amping because there is the facility to do it using the pre-amp you were looking at - in the past I have been tempted to look at bi-amping, but more for the reason that the facility exists rather than because it is something that I really felt I needed.[/quote] Well,its now become a little of both really. When I first heard and understood what the procedure was, it was something that interested me from the start. After last night and going for an albeit crude attempt at full range and low pass, it seems like it is something Id like to persue. I appreciate your input though. As Ive said before, that is why I set up this thread. I wanted to get as man different views on bi-amping as I could. While I dont have the manpower that Entwistle would have had, Im still waying up the option of Bill's designs for a Titan 39 sub, and Omni 10.5 for for the top. I think this has a lot of flexibility to it as, as I understand it the O10.5 is designed essentially as a ful range cab meaning I can run it on its own for small gigs if I need to, or fully bi-amped for larger gigs or have the O10.5 full range and crossover (filter out?) a portion of my low end to the T39. I also realise that I wouldnt neccessarily need so much in the watts department now. This partial bi-amp idea has really got me so far. So,to summarise, its a case of wanting to know what it would sound like, and also I believe a need (see my previos post from last night about one of the guitarists in the band having too much bass in his sound, despite assking him to reduce it!). Besides all this, Im great at procrastination. I may not follow this up at all!! Thanks Andy

[quote name='The Funk' post='14067' date='Jun 8 2007, 10:51 AM']Don't buy the DB680 new in the UK. Secondhand on the US ebay is far more reasonable, even after you've paid for delivery and the extra 22.5% in tax. Also, I wouldn't fork out the money for one if all you're after is trying out different bi-amping options. Lovely preamp though.[/quote] Well,I checked out [url="http://www.basstasters.com/"]this site[/url] as quoted in another thread in the Amps and Cabs section, and I appreciate that the samples they have are dependant on knowing the EQ settings they have used, I found the Aguilar didnt seem to have the extra brighness Im looking forward. That again is also dependant on the bass's used but there were others that I prefered. Particularly the Mesa Walkabout (bright and warm ) and the Warwick Quadruplet (a little darker but still bright enough). The TBP-1 just sounded muddy to me. Sadly the Mesa, if I could find anywhere selling them, is more than likely out of my budget. If I could find a Trace Elliot V-Type Id be made! Thanks for the info though Funk [quote name='alexclaber' post='14080' date='Jun 8 2007, 11:15 AM']I've decided to build my own active crossover, following these plans: [url="http://sound.westhost.com/project09.htm"]http://sound.westhost.com/project09.htm[/url] But there's tons of cheap and active rackmount ones - Rane make some fine examples - that you could use between preamp and power amp. Alex[/quote] Cheers. I had a brief look at that and being as Im not too bright electronics wise, I think Im better off buying one. I should be able to get a Peavey one from work cheap enough though. Cant see anything wrong with those but Ill have to see if I can try one first. Let me know how you get on with your set-up when your finished though Alex. Wouldnt mind hearing how you get on and what you're opinions on the end result are. [quote name='The Funk' post='14084' date='Jun 8 2007, 11:18 AM']Exactly. And with a dedicated active crossover you may get dual benefits of saving money and getting more control over your sound.[/quote] Indeed! Well,tonight I tried a make shift semi bi-amped set up. There is an old Peavey bas head lying around at the reheasal room, so I had that being fed off the line out of my Trace head which was going full range into my 4 x 10 and the highs and mids cut completely from the Peavey, and boosting from 80 hz to 340 hz, which was going into the 1 x 15. One of the guitarists, who has too much bass in his sound I think anyway (and is my main reason for tring this out) said that the bottom end was a little woolly (ie no definition) but I have to admit, I was rather impressed overall. I felt I had more control over the balance of the highs and lows of my sound and also found I could run the EQ on my Trace head alot flatter. In fact, apart from boosting around 1 kHz and 2 kHz and the pre-shape on, it was flat. Otherwise, I felt the bottom end was a lot bigger (and I actually felt the bottom end tonight, for once!) and considering I was running with less steam due to the load ptesented to each head being less (one 8 ohm cab per head) the Trace's output volume control remained in the same place as per 4 ohms, instead of having to increase it. The Peavey head is less watts than my Trace, and that wasnt even running near half way on the volume. All in all, Im definitley feeling this is the way forward for me. I know its a half-arsed way of doing it but it gave me the control I was after and near enough a decent sound to give a good idea of what to do. Chuffed as a chocolate frog! What I may do is build things up bit by bit. Buy a crossover and small(ish) power amp and run the line out from my Trace into the crossover and then power amp and do as I did tonight and have that feed one cab while my Trace does the full range bit. Then try buidling a/some BFM cabs and go full bi-amp, or at the very least continue full range and low pass but with a nice small preamp and rackmount the lot after selling everything I have now. Sorry for the long post guys. Once again, thanks for everybodies input, especially for those that sugeested this full range and low pass idea. Just had to share my findings. Andy

[quote name='The Funk' post='12443' date='Jun 5 2007, 01:08 PM']This is similar to what I do. My Aguilar DB680 preamp has a built-in crossover. I use the low crossover out for real low end to my 1 x 15 and I run the 2 x 10 full range. Sounds awesome like this.[/quote] Looks like [url="http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=2147000000"]this[/url] may well have the same possibility too, as it has an in-built crosover and also a full range out on it too. Just looked at the price of an DB680 and ouch, thats a bit too steep. Not that I know the price of the TBP-1 yet, but IM looking.. Andy