Mottlefeeder

First bass, school project - blockwood body, teak neck, Formica fretboard, no intonation adjustment, no truss rod, string height adjustment by grinding metal off the bridge. It worked, just. Bought and sold: Yamaha BBN4: upgraded to a 5-string, then sold this one. Cort Curbow: 5-string (owned for about a week, didn't like the tone through my rig, exchanged for RBX 765) Yamaha RBX765: 5-string - still got this Warwick Corvette 4-string fretless - Bubinga body, Wenge neck, Ebony fingerboard. Tuned BEAD. First attempt at fretless, eventually upgraded to a 5-string Warwick Corvette 5-string fretless - Swamp-ash body, Ovankol neck. Neck heavy compared to 4-string: tried various fixes then sold it Steinberger CR5M: 5-string EUB - hands couldn't cope so sold it. Yamaha TRB1005: 5-string fretless - nice to play, but my playing did not make the progress I had hoped for - sold it. Ibanez EWB205: 5-string ABG -still got this 4-string headless bass kit: started as a Hohner Jack copy and then I clipped its wings so it's an asymmetric paddle - still got it, but not playing it. Countryman Bass ukulele: tried EADG, then BEAD then decided to stick with 5-string basses only. Sold it Hohner B2 V: 5-string headless - nice and small for playing under a gazebo in the rain (I'm a busker) Still got it. David

My usual rig is a pair of 10s powered by an Ashdown MiBass 500W amp, but I can also use one of the 10s with a small battery amp for acoustic nights and small gigs. Unfortunately, at 300 * 300 * 450 mm, even that is a little bit too big to be unobtrusive, so I started thinking about something as loud as my 10 inch battery rig, but somewhere between a Phil Jones briefcase and a Roland Bass Micro Cube in size. Obvious first question, why not just buy one of those? Answer, the PJB costs more than I wanted to spend for something that would be used occasionally, and I haven't been impressed with the Bass Micro Cubes I have tried, possibly because I play low-B 5 string basses. My small battery rig is a class D stereo amp producing 12 W @ 8 ohms / 20 W @ 4 ohms per channel, and according to WinISD, will produce 106 dB from 100 Hz upwards at max volume using one 8 ohm Eminence Basslite S2010. The -3dB point is 66 Hz. That is what I want to achieve in a smaller box. After a bit of searching, I found a 5 inch Faital Pro driver, available in a 4 ohm version, and two of those in a cab 350 * 350 * 170 mm will produce the same frequency response and the same volume. However, Hoffman's Iron law kicks in here, in that a speaker can go low, go loud, or be efficient, but only two of those at a time. These smaller speakers take 4 times the power of the single 10 inch speaker to reach the same volume. However, for a battery-powered pub session of 3-4 hours, I can do that on one battery charge. A few pictures of the build - 1 The basic shape - speakers at the front, vent in between them, electronics compartment recessed into the back face 2 The cab is sized to include the battery, which sits on a sledge which comes in through an airtight hatch in the back wall. 3 I'm not sure if this is 'you can never have too many clamps' or 'you can never have too much bracing' Bill Fitzmaurice seems to have standardised on 15 mm ply and a shelf brace every 200 mm, and I'm using 9 mm ply, so I'm bracing every 150 mm. 4 Have I missed anything before I glue the second side on? More to follow David

I made a U-shaped sleeve for my Ashdown MiBass Mk1, and added kitchen-cupboard kick-panel brackets to a speaker cab top and to a sleeve bottom so that I could clip it together to make a combo or a stand alone. This one is finished in TuffCab. David

As of today, I will no longer be monitoring this thread. If you want me to help, send me a pm David

Rod Elliott recommends using the 100 ohm resistors on the outputs to ensure stability, especially when connecting cables to those outputs, so if you dispense with the resistors it might be advisable to put a small capacitor in parallel with the feedback resistor to roll off the gain at high frequencies. David

I'm not a nerd, honestly, I just happened to be searching for components when I checked into Basschat for a break. Digikey stock a switch which looks similar, but we need to check whether the pin spacing, etc, is the same. If your unit is USA designed thirty years ago, it may be imperial, and most components these days are metric. ENG_CD_1825290_A3.pdf The switch drawing in squares C6-C7 is the type you need (I think) so can you check the dimensions of your switch against this drawing. The pin-spacing-grid width and length is important, as are the locating lugs on the corners. The length of the operating lever might also be important if you want it to work. David

OK that's a side-operated two-pole 3-way slide switch with a long actuating lever. The first problem will be finding a replacement of the right size. Failing that, have you got all the bits from the existing switch? I'm happy to do a bit of digging, but I make no promises - I'm based about 5 miles out from Altrincham. David

I'm using D'Addario Chromes and I can recommend them. Also, although it may be a minority interest, I'm using a 5-string acoustic, an Ibanez from their 'Exotic woods' series.

My string adaptor just sits on the end of the existing nut. The nut end face is angled slightly, so the string tension pulls the adaptor towards the back of the neck. Also worth checking is the 'Overlord of Music' nut and bridge set, sometimes sold individually. That nut will take standard strings, but it clamps them by bending them through 90 degrees, which some strings will not take. I don't know if it is a drop-in replacement for the existing nut assembly. David

I'm having mixed results, probably due to low internet connection speeds - there is no fibre I can get to, and since the exchange is at the end of our street, we are not likely to be upgraded until everyone else has.been. I started with a Behringer UCA222 with an analogue mixer, and then moved on to a Behringer 302USB. Both are fine if all you want is to record onto Audacity, and play back backing tracks, but both had latency that was too great for JamKazam, even with the generic ASIO driver ASIO4ALL. I'm currently running a Steinberg UR22C which gives you the option of an HPF on each track going in, and EQ or other built-in FX on either the inward track or the outward track. It works well with Jamulus, but I'm still not flying on JamKazam. One-to-one seems to work, but when I join someone else's session I get no audio. David

Nice woody tone. The bass is big compared with a 5-string Yamaha RBX, but it's light, and comfortable whether I am standing or sitting. It's a 34 inch scale, and the neck feels good to me, and B string works well - there aren't many 5-string acoustics around, and I preferred this to the Boulder Creek at nearly double the price. David

EWB205WNE - 'exotic woods' 5-string with flatwounds. David

Thank you both, and contributors to the previous thread. In summary, I have a viable design based on the maths and the experience of others and no defined route, other than trial and error, to making the cab smaller by using a smaller volume port. I only want to build this once, so that sounds like a good place to stop. David

My earlier thoughts were to use the two 4 ohm speakers, each fed from a 20 W amplifier, with the option to connect them in series to connect to a 75 W @ 8 ohm / 150 W @ 4 ohm amplifier when I needed more volume. I've since found a 50+50 W @ 4 ohms module so I'm going up from 75 W total input to 100 W total input. We all seem to agree that the 30-60 Hz octave is unlikely to be a problem, so I am interested in your thoughts on porting at 64 Hz - do I need to allow for 100W at that frequency, and if not, how do you decide how many watts to design for? With my current layout of components, I can accommodate a 200mm long port. David

I get the impression that we are running on similar but slightly different lines of thought, so I'm not getting the answers I was hoping for. Having said that, I'm grateful for the explanations you have provided. They have filled in a lot of gaps for me. With my bass, the fundamental is 12 dB down, and since there will also be a 60 Hz 18 dB/octave HPF in the pre-amp, I agree that the fundamental is not an issue in my design. The speakers are rated at 80 watts each, and in a cab of the appropriate volume (11.4 l), are capable of taking 100 W at any frequency above 57 Hz. The excursion plots show that with the HPF in circuit, the speakers are below Xmax at all frequencies at 100 W. The proposed cab is tuned to 64 Hz, which seems to give the best compromise of size, smooth roll-of and bass extension, but a port capable of handling 100 W at 64 Hz makes the cab bigger than I want, so reducing the port power-handling capacity is a compromise I'm investigating. As I posted earlier, the spectral analysis of my lowest bass notes shows equal volumes at 60 Hz and 120 Hz, so I was hoping someone could comment on whether it was reasonable to assume that a low 100 W note could be regarded as for example 45 W at 60 Hz, 45 W at 120 Hz, and 10 W for everything else. That would give me the 'science' I need to reduce the size of the port and still be confident that it would do what I wanted. Am I oversimplifying a complex problem? Also, I was under the impression that if I reduced the port power handling capacity too much I would get chuffing, but you suggest that compression would be the more likely outcome. What does port compression do to the response of the cab? David

Unfortunately it's my nature to analyse things to death, and I still cut wood to the wrong size ... Taking your second paragraph first, I've taken on board that the harmonic mix will change as I move around the fretboard, but I chose the low C because it is the note most likely to overwhelm a port tuned to its harmonic. With regard to what the amp will deliver, I'm assuming that at some point I will turn up the amp and it will start to clip - 5 inch speakers are not as efficient as 10 inch speakers, so this is inevitable. Turning down slightly from that volume, the amp will be delivering its maximum voltage to the speaker, and the signal will initially have the lowest two harmonics predominating as each note decays. Using that scenario, I'm questioning whether I can derate the power handling of the port, but you appear to be saying that a port overload for the initial fraction of the note can be ignored. So, if the aim is to avoid chuffing, is chuffing a continuous overload of the port, or just overloading during the initial transient? David

Following on from my thread about whether WinISD was giving me bad advice, I'm now trying to work out whether I need a port sized for full power, or something less that full power. I downloaded a spectrum analyser and played a low C through it (lowest available fretted note). The analyser shows that the signal at ~30 Hz is about 12 dB below the signal at ~60 Hz, which is the same level as the signal at ~100-120Hz. For a port tuned to 60 Hz, my question is, if the voltage applied to the speaker is mainly two frequencies, and one transducer is reproducing those frequencies, the power must be split between those frequencies, so is it reasonable to design the port to take a maximum of half the amplifier power at 60 Hz, on the basis that the rest of the power will be at other frequencies? David

Assuming that the noise limiter was installed because of complaints by the neighbours, you aren't doing the pub any favours by playing louder than they want. David

If they are really old, then they will run at 5 volts. However the recent crop of fast chargers can run at higher voltages depending on what they are connected to. Check the charger labels - they should tell you. David

Just a quick update, and thanks to all of you who responded. I wasn't sure whether to go make a rectangular port or buy in a round one, so (amongst other things) I measured the internal diameter of the port pipe I would use, and it is 63 mm, not the 68 mm default in WinISD. This means that my port will be shorter than originally thought. Also, in calculating how much room I had in the box, I forgot that the port comes through the box wall, which means there is less of it in the box. The combination of those two means that I have room to use a straight port, and it finishes more than one diameter from the back wall, which seems to tick all the boxes. One of the things I have learned came from this thread - http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/156355-winisd-slot-ports.html - in summary, WinISD gives the option of modelling a port (a) finishing flush with a baffle, or (b) finishing hanging in free space, but a shelf port is neither of those. The 5th poster reported that a port finishing by being boxed in by the enclosure base and two sides, needs to be about considerably shorter than WinISD calculates it. He misremembered it as 40%, and later corrected that to 20%. So, if any air movement restriction in the vicinity of the port causes the port to act as it it was longer, this suggests that if you have to put a bend in your port, then you need to have at least a diameter's length of port after the bend to avoid the pipe before the bend affecting the air flow. Thankfully not something I need to worry about this time. David