escholl

pretty much. outside of some select applications like doom metal or the original ampeg cabs, there is actually no practical need for two 8x10's.

[quote name='KASH' post='518419' date='Jun 19 2009, 02:31 PM']...and now in English? [/quote] a 15" cabinet for the lows below about 200 Hz. for frequencies above that, three ten inch guitar drivers in a separate internal enclosure arranged vertically, one on top of the other -- they will handle the frequencies of 200 Hz and up. A crossover would then be used either within the cabinet itself (or in a bi-amp setup, before the amplifier) to separate the low frequencies from the high ones and send each part of the audio spectrum to the respective drivers.

video gives me a headache. probably not the best thing to watch if you happen to have epilepsy...

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='517988' date='Jun 18 2009, 11:21 PM'][url="http://www.myspace.com/terrasolis"]Doom[/url][/quote] sounding good so far, i'm guessing you're looking to add more people to it?

ah, looking brilliant. this is seriously one of the best build threads ever.

write a bassline that sounds good, then play the complete opposite of that at 400 notes per second in a style reminiscent of a moped going up a hill at full throttle. wait, i'm not helping, am i?

have you gotten it yet?

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='517778' date='Jun 18 2009, 08:07 PM']Awesome so I can use my 300W and 600w cab happily?[/quote] looks that way it's on page 12, the last page, of [url="http://www.ampeg.com/manuals/SVT5PRO.pdf"]the manual[/url].

[quote name='Kongo' post='517601' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:19 PM'] Proof we all do start somewhere...so there is hope after all haha! I'd just like to know more about the tech sides to amps so I can judge one pre-played by looking at more than just watts and ohms and speaker size / number of speakers etc etc.[/quote] as someone who does know all the tech stuff, i can tell you still that the only way to judge and amp really, is to play it at volume. most manufacturer's specs are dubious and/or meaningless at best -- and even if they weren't, amps and speakers are such complex things that it would be nearly impossible to qualitatively evaluate them, nevermind analyze all that data.

[quote name='riff raff' post='517759' date='Jun 18 2009, 07:54 PM']is the ashdown any good?[/quote] yes. although, probably not as good as the bergantino or the matamp -- however significantly cheaper, very available, and still very good. IMO, YMMV, etc...

the hi/lo frequency is split using the balance and frequency controls on the bottom right. according to the spec sheet in the manual, the amp should output 205 watts rms to each 8 ohm cab in bi-amp mode. what a beast of an amp! i can def see why you would want one ^_^

[quote name='alexclaber' post='517366' date='Jun 18 2009, 01:37 PM']Don't do it! If you want to be able to mess with their tone independently then I'd use a stereo graphic EQ but I can't think why you'd want to. As soon as you stop the cabs working in unison you're cutting your sensitivity and power handling significantly and once you get more than about 10' away the wavefronts will be pretty much combined whatever you do. Alex[/quote] +1, it would make much more sense to go with the traditional biamp setup.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='517127' date='Jun 18 2009, 08:19 AM']But one of my first questions on The Bottom Line (email thing for bassists, before forums existed) was what can I do to get my 30W combo heard in a metal band...[/quote] did you try stuffing it with gunpowder? that would get you heard, briefly.

[quote name='WinterMute' post='517131' date='Jun 18 2009, 08:32 AM']I wasn't really trying to tell you anything, I was just carrying on a themed discussion on the merits of monitors, specifically the NS10... The lack of ports on any speaker severely limits the usefulness of the box on the response of the speaker, a closed box design like the NS10 gets very little help from the resonant frequency of the boxes internal design, (in this case, none, it's just box) better designed monitors have an internal structure that allows the volume to resonate at low frequencies, the ports to the front or rear allow that resonance to be projected and thus support the limited low frequency response of the raw driver. Tunable ports use various methods to allow the alteration of that resonant frequency to adjust the speaker to the needs on the room. PMC do it, Tannoy used to do it in the larger monitors, Urie do it, few others. The addition of any EQ peak in the design of a [i]monitor[/i] speaker is always a bad idea, as it forces the user to compensate and that means the user has to understand the curve and know enough about audio to avoid its effect, the 2K lift in most small box nearfields plays to the strengths of standard hifi speaker design and to small speaker systems like radios, TV and ICE. This is one of the reasons the NS10 was liked so much despite actually being quite a poor unit, a mix on NS10, when played through a standard hifi, would benefit from the enhanced presence that band brings, inducing that sense of impact that hi-fi speakers are designed to give. The clue to the orientation is in the writing on the box, original NS10's (the famous "tissue paper over the tweeter" model) were designed to stand up like hi fi speakers. The Studio model was supposed to sit in the more bridge friendly horizontal orientation, but there was no difference in the design bar an improved tweeter that made the response flatter, as you not, the sideways orientation buggers up the imaging, which is why the dual concentric design works for imaging. I'm not trying to pick a fight, and you can't actually buy NS10's new anymore (or can you?), but the NS10 simply isn't the best monitor for inexperienced engineers, and the OP was looking for advice.[/quote] Well, I'd recommend reading up a bit on the difference between [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex"]bass reflex[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker_enclosure#Infinite_baffle"]infinite baffle[/url] designs such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_suspension"]acoustic suspension[/url]. It is important to note the cutoff slope beyond the tuned frequency for a bass reflex enclosure is actually twice that of a sealed box design, at 12dB per octave versus 6db for the sealed box. So, in essence, the sealed box design has a much more natural bass roll-off, however with a lower efficiency than a reflex design. Tunable ports on near-field monitors sound like nothing more than a marketing gimmick (and I still can't find a specific example), I think you'll find the resonance of a driver system is a carefully engineered thing, there would be no benefit to adjusting it to "suit a room". EQ itself has only about one valid purpose on studio monitors, and neither that nor any sort of port tuning adjustment is going to correct for poor room acoustics. There are applications where carefully changing the port tuning can be beneficial, however to my knowledge studio monitors are not one of those applications. I am interested though, so if you can find me some specific examples I would love to see. While the response did peak at 2k it was still fairly mild and the slopes up and down from that were actually very smooth, considering. There is no such thing as a "flat" frequency response, nor is there really any need for one -- you may be surprised at some of the peaks and troughs that many "flat" monitors exhibit in anechoic space, and even more so once they are installed. As you say, it's not the speaker, it's knowing what it's telling you. The fact is, the NS10 and the NS10 studio model should [i]both[/i] have been used vertically due to their driver layout -- hence the interesting fact. Yes, I know yamaha changed the writing, they should have known better -- sort of a case of form over function there. Dual concentric designs work better in some ways, but have their drawbacks as well -- and as with any speaker design, imaging will be heavily dependent upon the correct application of acoustic treatment within the room itself. No, the NS10's aren't available anymore, they've been replaced with designs from Yamaha which are supposedly "carry on the tradition" of the NS10's, yet ironically have none of the features of them ^_^ Nevertheless the MSP series are still good monitors though for different reasons, however the lower HS range is harsh sounding and nothing special, really. IMO, YMMV, etc... I never actually recommended the NS10, in fact I'm not sure there are any monitors I'd recommend for 100 pounds new, other than to look around for some used stuff. For 150, the M-Audio BX-5a's are well reviewed although I've not used them, and I was quite impressed with the passive Tannoy Reveal 6's when I used them a while back. They would probably be the one's I'd go with although they'd need an amp and are a bit out of the OP's budget. I've got a set of M-Audio DX4's on my desk at the moment which I had given to me, no idea what they sounded like before I replaced some of the electronics, as they were thoroughly fried, however they don't sound [i]that[/i] awful, for the cheap price -- I quite like the mid and high-end response on them. They don't make those either anymore, however I'm sure the OP could likely pick some up for well under 100 pounds.

nice! liking the contrast. *approves*

[quote name='WinterMute' post='517036' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:47 PM']They cut off at 300hz, they have no tunable porting, they didn't have aligned elements, and the originals were designed to stand upright as you note, the "Studio" version had filtered tweeters and were designed to sit on their sides, but that buggered up the imaging. They all honk like a constipated goose at 2K, which is where the presence in a bass is (well, between 1K and 2.5K) and that really hurts your vocals and guitars too. No offence but these are really average speakers that have been excellently marketed. Oddly if you power them with a Yamaha GC 2520 (I think) amp, they sound pretty good, this was the amp they used when they designed them. Having said all that, I have used them on many occasions and have gotten good results out of them, I just find them much harder to mix on that good (and obviously more expensive) speakers. The KRK range is very good, the Rockets aren't all that expensive, the Tannoy Reveals are very nice, the dual concentric design give excellent imaging and time alignment. If you can find a pair of PMC TB2's on evilBay they are very good but need a decent amp. In the end, understanding what a speaker is telling you is more important than having great speakers, good engineers will get good results from almost anything.[/quote] Not sure what you're trying to tell me here. They didn't cut off at 300Hz they cut off around 100Hz when installed properly (IIRC) and they cut off with a less steep slope than bass reflex speakers, for that matter they're not a bass reflex design they're acoustic suspension and thus have much better time domain response in the low frequency for a box that size. Not sure what "tunable porting" is, but if you're somehow referring to the ability of the end user to physically change the port, I can't really see where there would be any advantage in a monitor having that capability, nor can I think of a single monitor with that capability. No idea what orientation they were designed for, but based on the driver layout both versions should have been used vertical, on their side to minimize horizontal response lobing and improve the imaging. The response peaks at 2K in an inverted V shape, like I mentioned -- this doesn't hurt vox or guitar IME, it helps bring them out a bit more so you can place them better. YMMV. Sure, they were marketed well -- so are a lot of other products. I never said they were the [i]ultimate[/i] monitor or something, simply that there were factual reasons behind their usefulness and success. Not sure why people are so vehemently trying to prove to me that they're no good -- I've used them, I've studied them, I've done this before and this is not my first day, thanks. The Rokits have a hyped frequency response IME, agree about the Tannoys to a point and I think it probably goes without saying that the PMC's will likely be good. Not sure if you're talking to me or the OP in the last two paragraphs however.

[quote name='Rimskidog' post='517043' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:54 PM']NS10's are awful. That's the whole point. When they became popular it was because they were as bad as most cheap home stereo's of the day. The idea was that if you checked your mix on them and it sounded ok then 1. that's how it would sound on a crappy home stereo and 2. it would sound great on anything even marginally better (they really are that awful!) Now what happened from there was that they became pretty ubiquitous (i.e., every studio had some) and people who had regular access to them 'learned' their flaws. Put those two things together and you've got dynamite because for freelancers (like me) it was possible to walk in any studio and 'know' how a mix should sound on those nasty things. What can you learn from that experience? Well, you can learn that even crappy speakers can be learned. For these purposes every one of the models mentioned above fit in this category. They are not flat but can be learned. The entry level reasonably flat studio monitor include Adam A7's, Dynaudio BM5a and Genelec 8030. Anything lower than that and you are going to have to work much harder to get a decent mix. Period. But (and it's a big but) if you are willing to put in 2 or 3 years of work on them eventually you'll start doing decent mixes even without anything else. Nw what are you waiting for... get to work! And FWIW, you don't need an NS10 driver to do the subkick trick. Any speaker will do it.[/quote] lol, well, from a scientific point of view, the NS10M's aren't so bad for nearfields -- certainly more than just glorified auratones. personal taste will vary, i suppose -- although the frequency response of a speaker on it's own is pretty meaningless, too many other factors. and sure, obviously any speaker can be a mic. doesn't mean it will sound good though, and the time domain response is going to be awful. ^_^

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='517013' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:16 PM']How do I import those? I saved the files to the 'drivers' directory, but they aren't in the same format. I tried copy and pasting the data, but something was wrong as it suggested a .2l enclosure with a 200m long port for 3015LFs. What I was trying to do was figure if I made a box the same size as my 8x10 with a pair of them in, how big should I make the ports. Alternatively, how much low would I get from one in the box from my 6x10.[/quote] they are in the same *.wdr format WinISD pro uses, not sure if that's different to the regular non-pro one.

[quote name='WinterMute' post='516970' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:15 PM']I've never bought the NS-10 argument, they are simply crap, why should I have to suffer listening to crap speakers during a mix.[/quote] I think the idea was that they were accurate in the time domain with minimal bass overhang, and had a fairly smooth frequency response in practical application, which peaked around 2kHz or so and let the detail on instruments such as guitars and vocals come out more clearly. The frequency response also has a bit of an inverted V shape to it, which is often cited as one of the reasons they tended to sound harsh but translated well to other systems. Interesting fact, most people mounted them incorrectly. I've used them a few times and I liked them as a tool (hence my desire to get the AE version), but then for some reason I like listening to music through (most) studio monitors and wouldn't mind a set of [url="http://www.in2guitar.com/stereo/ureiad39p.jpg"]these[/url] in my living room (simply because they look awesome -- that's right, buying speakers on [i]looks[/i] ), so I suppose there's no accounting for (my own) taste ^_^

you'll need to spend at least at much on the room itself as you do on those x-10's, or else there won't be much point. quite nice though, speaking as someone who can appreciate the technical aspects of the design.

[quote name='jasperok' post='516784' date='Jun 17 2009, 07:26 PM']Is it like a normal amp situation in that you plug a speakon into output 1 and the other end into a cab then another lead from the out of the cab into your next cab? or do they work different? both my cans are 8 ohm rated 375w i think. 50%of the gigs i can only use one of them. when i'm using both it appears easy just run a speakon from each out to each cab seperately?[/quote] yes, if you want to bridge it you'll need to either run the cable out of output one and into the first cab, then out of that cab into the next. conversely, you could make/have made a Y cable which will split the output so both cabs can be connected directly to the amp -- however if you use relatively short, thick speaker cables that probably won't be really necessary. if you want to run the amp in non-bridged mode, which in thinking about it would probably make more sense in some ways, then you'll just need to connect one cab to one output, and the other to the other output.

if the loads are equal, ie both cabs are 8 ohms, then the 700 watts will be split evenly between the two at 350 watts per cabinet.

afaik he's not been banned.

looks like it would be easiest to run both cabs together, with the amp bridged. in order to do this you'll need a four way speakon connector, connect the positive to +1 and the negative to +2, i think. -1 and -2 unconnected, and plug the speakon into channel one's output.

[url="http://www.tech21nyc.com/products/sansamp/bassdriverdlx.html"][/url] or if you don't need EQ, the LS-2 is a much more practical choice.