Bill Fitzmaurice

[quote name='Hamster' post='37369' date='Jul 26 2007, 10:28 AM']Who was it said American's don't have a sense of humour? [/quote]
Benny Hill?

[b]Acme's #1 Endorser:[/b]

[quote name='Bigwan' post='36552' date='Jul 24 2007, 03:09 PM']Hi Bill. I was hoping you'd see this post. If I were to build one of your cabs and disregarding size (within reason!) which of your omni series cabs would be the 'flatest'. From a VERY brief look at your website I'd assume it was the omni 15 full range cab - would an 8 ohm Kappa 15LF eminence driver be suitable for this cab? If size were a more pressing concern, would an omni 12 be suitable for what I'm looking for?

Cheers

Ian[/quote]
The O15 is the flattest to the lower reaches, but most will find that the LF extension and power of the O12 most adequate. When it comes to modeling it's the midrange that's critical, and that's where commercial cabs are the most dodgy. The Kappa 15LF is fine for the O15LF. 20" wide versions of both these Omnis will be available soon, so if you fancy a tallboy rather than the present versions wait until you see the TallBoy versions offered.

To get truly flat response a cab must either have a dedicated midrange driver or some very sophisticated engineering, if not both, and you will have a hard time finding either of those qualities in an inexpensive cab. As for size, good bass response at high levels requires a reasonably large cabinet, though not necessarily a heavy one. But again, the engineering required to build a cab that's large, lightweight and still inert won't be found in an inexpensive product.

The LA would be OK if it sold in the $500-$800 range. However, Bose has an advertising budget somewhat larger than the GNP of most countries, and paying that nut has to come from somewhere other than the pockets of the shareholders.

[quote name='paul, the' post='33801' date='Jul 18 2007, 02:07 PM']Any big box makers that aren't crazy expensive?[/quote]
I can't say, the last time I bought a cab it was 1965, and to say the least I'm not in the market to buy another within this lifetime. At any rate, the single easiest way to improve on the performance of most cabs would be to simply make them bigger, and in the grand scheme of things it's also the least expensive way to make them better. But the actual cost of making an item is seldom the main determining factor in what it sells for. Perceived value is.

[quote name='Merton' post='30367' date='Jul 11 2007, 12:38 PM']All the Trace cabs are deeper than their combos I'm afraid.[/quote]
As they should be. A cabinet's bass response is dictated more than any other factor by its size; the smaller the box, the less bass. The single most overriding reason why the vast majority of commercial cabs have performance well below what can be achieved is that visual esthetics and marketing concerns usually run roughshod over proper engineering. If engineers ruled the roost there would be no such thing as a 4x10 or a combo, as both concepts run totally counter to the notion of getting the best sound possible. In your case a larger box for the 15 and a smaller box for the 2x10 is a much better way to go than the other way around. OTOH, assuming the 2x10s are horizontally mounted to 'look right' you'll still be sacrificing utility for the sake of conventionality.

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='33006' date='Jul 17 2007, 08:13 AM']Mike, did this translate to a better (or different) sound out front or just how you heard it on stage?

when i first got my 1210 which i know is different to your cab i read that putting it on its side would reduce the low end although it would make hearing myself easier. Just wondering as i have only tried it once and it did seem to loose some low end out front but that could have just been the way I heard it.[/quote]Cab orientation has no effect on the low end. What is affected is midrange, and midrange defines what we hear. When you change the midrange you also change the perception of what is happening in the bass.

[quote name='Dr.Dave' post='32449' date='Jul 16 2007, 07:11 AM']2 turbo sound bass bins from our PA which weren't needed that day so I hooked up one of those. Got a phenomenal sound!!
.[/quote]
Of course you did, because they're high quality cabs that cost at least twenty times what the boxes in question here do. I suspect the entire reason for the poster's question is that he's seeking an inexpensive alternative to traditional bass cabs. The short answer: you get what you pay for.

[quote name='therealting' post='32110' date='Jul 15 2007, 12:18 PM']Was wondering whether anyone's tried using speakers like these in their bass rig:

[url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PAIR-New-300-Watt-15-Bass-PA-Disco-Speaker-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ270144714685QQihZ017QQcategoryZ69967QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PAIR-New-300-Watt-15...1QQcmdZViewItem[/url]

They're inexpensive, compact and pretty lightweight... I know I'd have to remove the passive low-pass-filter, but otherwise, is there anything to stop me getting a pair of 15" bass bins to use as bass speakers for pub gigs where I don't want to worry too much about beer being spilt over my equipment?[/quote]
Cheap junk IMO.

[quote name='The Funk' post='27977' date='Jul 6 2007, 11:35 AM']Who dares me to test this out one day?[/quote]
One day is all it would last. One note, even. Studio monitors are about 10dB shy of the sensitivity required for the stage. It would take 2,000 watts into a monitor to match 200 into, say, a 4x10.

[quote name='beerdragon' post='27885' date='Jul 6 2007, 08:02 AM']in this case its a trace 4x10, do you need an exact speaker as a replacement or would any 10inch do.
i suppose i could google but what's the average cost a speaker. thanks.[/quote]
Replacing a driver is no more difficult than replacing a spark plug. But just as with a sparkplug matching the driver is critical. If any 10 incher would do they'd only make one.

This 2x12 Matamp is what I mean:


That's how a 2x12 should be done. The Carlsbro appear to be PA boxes. The Marshalls are guitar cabs, open back, and that's a far better way to do it than a half-stack, but the benefits are lost when you put two side by side.
[quote]Are they designed like this for a reason other than making the cab a bit smaller?[/quote]No reason I can think of. If the high end PA industry built cabs based on how they look, rather than how they sound, at least 80% of those on the market today wouldn't exist.

[quote name='lowhand_mike' post='26376' date='Jul 3 2007, 05:14 AM']appart from looking a little odd would i get better response from my mag 2x10 combo by sticking it on its side?[/quote]
Your combo is basically the same configuration arrived at by Leo Fender in the late 1950s. The side by side 2x was used because it looked better than a cabinet high enough for the drivers to fit vertically. The fact that it was patently wrong to do so was never considered by Leo, because he was not an audio engineer and didn't know it was wrong. It continues to be the most popular configuration because the average customer isn't an audio engineer either.

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='25798' date='Jul 1 2007, 05:38 PM']Another 2x12 user here. I love mine but it is the same size as a 4x10. Most are because cab manufacturers make all their cabs so they can be stacked in any combination.[/quote]
A skeptic might say that's only done to minimize costs/maximize profits. By building a 4x10 or 2x12 or 1x15 from the same box, changing only the baffle to suit the configuration, rather then purpose designing every configuration for the best possible performance, considerable savings may be realized. Not that I'm a skeptic...

Use two 2x10s vertically stacked. You'll have as much low end as a 4x10, better midrange response and dispersion and the smallest possible footprint on stage.

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='23292' date='Jun 25 2007, 06:17 PM']IIRC the optimum volume for a 2x10 was around the size of an average 8x10.[/quote]
Not quite, MI drivers are optimized to operate in smaller enclosures than that. But on average the volume of the cabs they're mounted in is 1/2 to 1/3 what it should be for best results.
[quote]Well, it looks impressive! (And I suppose it doesn't hurt power handling.)[/quote]
True on both counts, but this points out the entire problem with todays bass cabs. The mold was cast 40 years ago when the average driver only handled 30 watts, and if you wanted to play loud and low you needed to use as many as could be stuffed into the box. Driver technology has made leaps and bounds in the interim, but the cabs they go into remain wallowed in the Dark Ages of audio engineering.

[quote name='The Funk' post='23064' date='Jun 25 2007, 11:02 AM']What do you guys make of [url="http://www.tonetubby.com/tonetunnel.htm"]these[/url]?[/quote]
As for the drivers, there are hundreds of materials that one may use to build driver cones from, and hemp fiber is one of them. As for the cabs the same comments as above apply, though from what I see in the pictures they are, like most commercial cabs, far too small for the driver complement to operate optimally.

[quote name='Mottlefeeder' post='22970' date='Jun 25 2007, 08:38 AM']Does that ring any bells with you?[/quote]
No. I'm sure that it's just another of the thousand and one things that have been tried because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Sounds like pseudo-scientific piffel to me.

[quote name='d-basser' post='19213' date='Jun 17 2007, 12:47 PM']how would the bottom end on that kinda beast be? It looks uber cool but being the omni top model will it handle say a low B without a sub?[/quote]
That depends how much fundamental versus harmonic content you're looking for. The response of the OTop 12 is very much like a retro style bass cab, though a lot louder. I wouldn't use it for modern style playing with a lot of low end. OTop 15 would be better, but the best arrangement would be either an OTop 1x12 or Omni 10 atop a T39. Between the O10 and OTop 12 the 2x10 O10 is where I'd go, having a better low end stand-alone when you don't need the additional capability of the T39.

[quote name='Oxblood' post='18912' date='Jun 16 2007, 03:24 PM']I was thinking of things like organ pipes and suchlike, but I suppose the natural resonance of a very short, very fat cylinder like this would be virtually subsonic.[/quote]
Their resonance is related to their length, not their shape, and is proportional to their length. A short pipe will have a high resonant frequency.

[quote name='Oxblood' post='18880' date='Jun 16 2007, 01:27 PM']something instinctively tells me that a cylindrical enclosure is bound to have a very strong resonance at one frequency, causing it to be something of a booming one-note samba.[/quote]
The opposite is actually the case, round structures are highly non-resonant and have a far higher strength to weight ratio than flat panel structures. But aside from that all the other shortcomings of the design as pointed out by Alex et all are spot on.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='18563' date='Jun 15 2007, 04:22 PM']Obviously a well designed cab? I don't know how you come to that conclusion! Looks like a bog standard under-braced, under-insulated box which is too small for the woofers to operate efficiently, has a speaker arrangement that causes poor off-axis response, has too small a horn tweeter to cross over well to the woofers and to cap it all the drivers don't even match. However, apart from the latter point, that would accurately describe the majority of bass cabs on the market...

Impressive name though!

Alex[/quote]
+1. If you took a course in audio engineering the typical 4x/tweeter configuration would be the example on the day they discussed 'How not to build a speaker'. It undoubtably sounds good in comparison to others of the same ilk, but the available room for improvement is vast.
[quote]I'm really tempted to just wack out the Neo's and put them into an Omni 210[/quote]
Aren't they 12s? Could go into one of these:
[url="http://billfitzmaurice.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3058"]http://billfitzmaurice.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3058[/url]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='16474' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:06 PM']The cheapest and usually worst sounding is the piezo tweeter -

Alex[/quote]
When properly employed piezos work better than dynamic compression drivers. The problem with piezos is they are the least expensive tweeters available, and that makes them the tweeter of choice in inexpensive poorly engineered speakers. I switched to piezos for good when I found that a dozen of them, at $2 each, worked better than my $275 JBL 2426 driver coupled to a $180 JBL 2370 horn.

[quote name='Muppet' post='15888' date='Jun 11 2007, 03:51 PM']I take your point entirely but I wasn't suggesting a single 12" cab, merely a single 4ohm cab. The number of speakers in the cabinet is up to Rumble.[/quote]
Either way it [horse and cart]s out with more than 50 watts per driver, so it can [horse and cart] out as a 4 ohm load or it can [horse and cart] out as an 8 ohm load but the stink is the same. My point is that far too many blokes shovel it against the tide going for as low a load impedance as possible thinking that 'getting all the watts out of my amp' will result in louder output, when the vast majority of the time it won't. OTOH, the vast majority of the time adding another speaker will give higher output. If you want to play loud and do it with one twelve take up guitar. If you want your bass to smack a room like Attila sacking Rome make two trips to the curb. Even better, three.