4 Strings

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1012497' date='Nov 4 2010, 07:55 PM']Bi-amping with a crossover will allow you to send more bass to the Monster without worrying about the 10"s (plus it's theoretically a bit louder for the amount of watts under certain circumstances). Whether it's worth it or not will depend on the 10"s - I'd imagine if you're driving them hard you'll get a cleaner, tighter mid-range while still getting a big fat bass from the Monster. It's probably not worth using a passive crossover. I suppose you could try a simple high-pass cap to protect the 10"s if you want to send ridiculous amounts of low-end to the monster. EDIT: Just noticed Stevie's post and realised I hadn't spotted you were driving the amp below 4ohm! In which case, what he said. Crossover or bi-amp.[/quote] Yep, realise its running at an average 3 Ohm but, to be honest, the Monster will be out on occasional use (more's the shame).

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1012256' date='Nov 4 2010, 04:20 PM']No. There isn't enough difference in the response of the two cabs to justify it. All bass cabs are full range, quite different from better PA cabs that are designed to operate within distinct bandwidths.[/quote] Fair enough, I was trying to make life easier for the top cab as it would no longer be required to reproduce low frequencies. Even with bi-amps there's no crossover so the same goes to both (sets of) speakers.

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1012299' date='Nov 4 2010, 05:03 PM']I think a good 10" now might beat a bad 18" from back in the day, but not a good one - not by that much at least. Highest excursion specs I've seen on any PA 10" woofer are about 5mm xmax (though this depends on measuring method). Plus a modern 18" will have all the same technological advantages as the 10". If we assume Bill's conservative estimate of 4mm for the Monster, you're looking at 13mm! I'd be amazed if any 10" drivers could do that with anything like a reasonable sensitivity - and thermal power handling of 10" PA drivers seems to be capped around 250-300 watts. A set of four 10"s, though and you're laughing[/quote] Difficult to do an A/B for 18" vs four 10"s as they are usually designed to do different jobs. I have a wonderful Trace 4x10, which has a very deep cabinet but it doesn't seem to go as deep in bass as the Hartke 2x10, nor anything like the Monster. (I had a Trace 1518 (15") years ago and that did. It was wonderful, I long for the days when I used to gig with that lot!) I'm sure the A/B could be set up and show a favourable comparison with suitably designed speakers and cabinets but I can't help think that the 10s will be trying hard to do what a speaker like the Monster does with ease. Lastly, where does the 13mm you mention come from?

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1012263' date='Nov 4 2010, 04:23 PM']It doesn't. The voice coil diameter is 3 inches. Excursion is probably in the vicinity of 4 to 6mm.[/quote] Thanks, I'm sure you're right and I read it wrong, its described as a 'Long excursion 3" coil'. No wonder I could get it to go anything like 75mm! In fact here's the spec, although it doesn't tell you much apart from it not being terribly efficient and darn heavy: [i] 18" Hartke High Powered Driver with Long Excursion 3" coil. 120 oz. Magnet Heavy duty casters with and additional top handle for tilt back wheeling. 4 Airflow curved vents for superior low end. Highly dampened cabinet and substantial internal bracing Inputs: 1/4" and Speakon connectors Impedance: 4 ohms Power Handling: 400 watts SPL: 96 db / w / 2v Frequency Response: 28-300hz Dimensions: 30.75" (h) x 24" (w) x 18" (d) Weight: 94 lbs[/i]

Can anyone help me with this? I'm thinking about a high pass filter for the top cab of my set up (a 2x10) so it doesn't have to try and handle low frequencies which can go to the bottom (the Hartke Pro1800 'Monster' described in another post). Are these off the peg? Can I dial in the frequency? Should I bother anyway? How will this affect the overall impedance? (top speaker is 8 Ohm, bottom is 4 Ohm, amp would prefer to see 4 Ohms total) Thanks

[quote name='51m0n' post='1011732' date='Nov 4 2010, 09:50 AM']Its surprising though. Forgive me for keeping this simple and looking at the area of the circle rather than the cone (since we dont know the depth of the drivers), but an 18" driver has an area about 3.25 times greater than a 10" driver <just put (pi * (9^2)) / (pi * (5^2)) in to google> So if the 10" driver had an excursion limit more than 3.25 times the excursion limit of the 18" driver then they are pretty evenly matched. Given the ropey nature of most old 80's drivers, and a lot of 90's drivers I can well believe that that is either achievable now, or will very soon be. If you move up to a 12" driver then you are looking ar only 2.25 * the excursion.... We all know that current voice coils can take significantly more that 2 or 3 times the thermal energy of older voice coils too.[/quote] The speaker in the Monster cab has a 75mm (3") voice coil excursion. That seems huge to me, if one imagines the cone moving 32mm each way. I can't see a 10" speaker having a greater excursion than that, it would have to have a telescopic surround material! I have walloped it up loud and while the 10s in the top cab were clearly waving about, the big fella seemed to be hardly moving. Goodness knows what you have to do to get it to reach its excursion limits. Sounded great though!

It sounds monsterous! Hence my original question. I was already very impressed with the 2x10, which has a deep cabinet and ducted porting and gives plenty of bass (have even rolled it off slightly on the amp at some gigs), but anything not linked to the 'Monster' now sounds tinny.

[quote name='markstuk' date='Nov 3 2010, 06:52 PM' post='1011207'] "but I remember asking a glider pilot friend of mine whether new technology is reducing the span of glider wings, he responded this was kind of true but there's no substitute for span." Apart from Talent :-) (I'm a gliding instructor) Glider wings are long and thin (high aspect ratio) because for a given area this form factor produces the least total (form + induced) drag in the speed ranges gliders typically fly at.. So if anything we're using new materials (carbon fibre/kevlar) to make longer/thinner wings than we used to (subject to class/racing limitations in standard/15 metre class (both of these amusingly if confusingly comprising of gliders limited to 15m wingspans), 18 metre and "Open class" . As we approach 30 metres the penalty paid in handling/adverse yaw drag to date has proven to apply a practical limit. Any inprovements in aerofoil design/airflow management can be generally applied just as well to long wings as short wings, and the competition classing system (think yacht classes) means that there is no sporting benefit in having shorter wings than your compeition.. The only exceptions are open class aerobatic gliders but this a very fringe activity occupied by pilots with more money than sense .. On a pound per minute basis it's cheaper to run an Extra 300 than indulge in glider aerobatics.... Erm, so are they louder?

Rather than be left hungry I chose a transport problem! I think what I was really asking was whether the triad rule is true along each branch, ie despite sacrificing sensitivity do you get that same depth with a small cab as you do if you sacrifice size? Sensitivity is not such an issue nowadays with power coming cheap, so this would seem a good compromise (and one of which I would love to take advantage but they are so expensive!) but do you get such a deep and powerful tone?

[quote name='Alfie' post='1009661' date='Nov 2 2010, 03:02 PM']I don't think anyone should be judged solely (or at all) on the instrument they choose to play, as you have just done.[/quote] I wouldn't say judge purely on the instrument, but I haven't seen a great bass player with a pretend old bass yet. Fair point though, I realise I also judge drivers of cars with lots of plastic body accessories and writing on them as pretending to be the real thing too. Not a good trait, I will try to amend. I do like the look of worn guitars, but only if that's what they are. I've just bought an old cab (big one!) which has had something spilt down the front grille taking the paint off. I'd respray it, my lad though it looked cool. I'll probably leave it but I won't dribble brake fluid over my other cab to match though!

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1010195' date='Nov 2 2010, 11:27 PM']It's nice to see quite a variety of rigs. If I'm honest, I was expecting far more Ashdown or Ampeg rigs than are cropping up.[/quote] Variety is the spice of life! If there was a sub-question: 'What would you add?' it would be an expensive, 112 or even 110 for practices. Barefaced would be great, but that sort of thing. I've tried a couple but not really found one that I can currently afford to push out enough power.

Big 'bins' like the 1800 aren't designed to be used on their own and the sound on its own isn't one I would choose. Low frequencies are largely non-directional so any 'beaming' qualities of larger diameter cones will be irrelevant (not heard of that before - in old PAs it was always the high frequency horns which had directional lenses) especially if used with another cab with smaller cones. Clearly, despite an enormous magnet or 'motor', a massive 18" cone like this is not going to move about as quickly and as subtle as a smaller, 10" or even 5" cone and so will not be able to reproduce high frequencies so accurately or efficiently. 2 and 3 way speakers have been common in hi-fi for many years (accepting that its difficult to make a 3 way improve on a 2 way). Anyone remember the Bose PA speakers of yesteryear? Amazing loudness and bass response from 8 x 4" cones in each cab, but they needed a special equaliser to work. Cabinet volume is important (hence the smaller bass handling cabs being very deep - eg the new TC Electronic 112 - cheaper slim cabinets always sound boxy) and the length of port possible will help. No transmission line here, but four ports about 100mm dia and ~400mm long, not possible in a small box. I am not a speaker cabinet designer, black art to me, but I remember asking a glider pilot friend of mine whether new technology is reducing the span of glider wings, he responded this was kind of true but there's no substitute for span. I wonder if this is the same here, smaller boxes can mimic with ever increasing accuracy but there's no substitute for volume. Even if small cones can be made to work a lot of them will be needed.

I've never tried a Briefcase or Suitcase type amp, I know bigger and bigger sounds are coming from smaller speakers nowadays, but I've just bought a Hartke 1800 and its nuts! I love a bass sound offering a wide range of frequencies, so a 2.5XL cabinet (2x10 + 5") plus this monster gives the most huge sound, surely not available from small size cabinets. The sound volume is huge and the deep frequencies particularly satisfying, all from this huge speaker, its huge cab and the ports. Can a small cab do it?

Just 1 extendable rig: Hartke AH350 driving 2.5XL (2x10) for practices and most gigs New (to me) Hartke 1800 (1x18) for big gigs There's a 115XL which is now up for grabs and an old Trace 4x10 which I haven't the heart to sell, but ought to. Offers anyone? There's also an SWR Workingmans 300 which I've never liked but gets loaned out and offers some sort of backup - but only taken once as such. Not worth any money but could be useful. Oh, I also have a little Hartke 20W practice amp which I got in pristine condition from the 'Bay for a tenner for practice at home. I wonder how many others have more stuff than they thought.

Not sure I'm annoyed by relics, each to their own/market forces/images etc, just not for me and I do not admire the guitar nor the owner. Trouble is, as the making into a 'relic' gets better and more common it will become more difficult to tell them apart and, as in jeans, virtually becomes the default so someone who has actually owned and used a guitar over many years will be perceived to play a 'relic'. If you look at pics of John Frusciante, once of Red Hot Chilli Peppers, you'll see his Strat getting progressively more knackered during his career. This is what is being mimicked but there's not many of in the world get to play as much as him.

[quote name='Tait' post='1000648' date='Oct 25 2010, 10:28 PM']Are you sure? I'd always thought the term slab body meant that it didn't have tummy or wrist contours. The slab body precision still has a radius on it's edge, doesn't it? I'm probably wrong, or misunderstanding the question, but that's what I always thought slab body meant.[/quote] Yes. I have a pre-eb Stingray, also a slab body, no gut gap nor forearm rounding but rounded square edges. I love it.

I must say I have never played with a band which was so loud that I needed ear plugs. Things have got loud at rehearsals on occasion but no problems for me. If you're playing so loud that your ear's hurting then there's something wrong. Watching bands have hurt my ears on more than one occasion, its the PAs, not the backline or drums which does it for me. My ears ring from windy days, being tired, and noisy bands. Recover the following day though, still have excellent hearing, but I won't risk things. Whether you wear earplugs to watch depends on whether you want to have fun with the wall of sound and excitement or appreciate the quality of the mix. I'm in my 50s and still prefer the former, although I have walked out of gigs by, frankly, poor bands to whom I didn't want to sacrifice any hearing.

Sex on Fire - even the Kings don't like playing that one! Also, one which I think we'll have to do, Celebration Time, not looking forward to that.

I must admit, I find it all a bit odd. I can understand reissues to mimic neck profile, sound or whatever from a model in the past but to pretend its been well used cannot be a very satisfying thing. In my experience they are quickly identified (the sanding never seems to touch the neck) and have been played by people who clearly have not played the guitar enough to put that amount of wear on it. While I mourn every dig I put into a guitar I happily accept they show history and tell the guitar's (and owner's) story. What does a sanded, pretend wear mark tell you about the user? I don't buy pre-worn out jeans either so you can make your own mind up about my taste (or lack of it)

For what its worth here's my experience: 1. - MM said (about the original pre-eb basses anyway) the pre-amp battery draw is so low the battery lasts as long as its shelf life. The very early ones were always 'on', they pretty quickly used the jack as the switch, so unplug when not in use. Mine as been busy and has lasted a year, so far. 2. Yep, you'll need to play with the string pickup heights. MM are not brilliantly balanced and the G end needs to be as close to the string as poss. Yes, they do go all phasey if too close, then run the other end of the pickup further away to get a good balance. The screws go into proper inserts in the body and use proper springs (unlike Fenders) and so are easily adjusted, even by fingers if you press the pickup in. 3. Pluck where you like the sound, I use my fingers and rest my thumb between the pickup screws. Comfy, sounds good, fine. Rest is up to you. Variation is the spice of life! 4. Output signal should be pretty strong. Those huge magnets and massive windings (especially on the very early ones) give a healthy output. Maybe too far from the strings? One of the most powerful sounds from a bass.

Saw him at Ronnie Scotts a little while ago with Hiromi etc. I was equally dismayed when the upright came out (he played a couple on the electric) but he converted me. It was the most deeply moving musical experience I have ever had. I would love to repeat it. So much music. (I know some will consider the fast stuff as histrionics but, to me, its all one and all and, after all, what jazz player doesn't go fast sometimes?) He is amazing, for the me, the best.