LawrenceH

[quote name='EdwardHimself' timestamp='1340035983' post='1698024'] I agree, absolutely. I think some people worry that "traditional" music is under threat from these new fangled 12 string basses or whatever. I couldn't agree less with that myself; you still have people playing concertos from 1756 in their orchestras. There is no reason you can't choose to play bass in the "traditional" way (IE the 1950s sort of way) but equally, there are going to be people who want to push the boundaries. [/quote] I like that something that was new and controversial in the 1950s is now venerable enough to be 'traditional'. I wonder if old rockers who say 'slap is not proper bass playing' see the irony? Picks, can't be doing with them myself but I do like the sound Carol Kaye gets on Pet Sounds a lot, the pick attack really contributes to the overall production. Don't like bad, guitar-style pick playing, all muddy and with poor muting ie the kind you get at jam nights where there are 700 guitarists and not enough bassists.

I always assumed the name WAS a tongue-in-cheek ref to Father Ted's priestchat! I definitely laugh at myself for using this site so much but so what? The internet is +++AWESOME+++ for people with obscure hobbies and borderline obsessive natures, and IMO those people rock.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340042519' post='1698187'] How can it be 'all original' with that bloody great bridge hole in it?? [/quote] Simples - it was originally the body of a Fender bass!

Hi Andy, Since you can't run winISD I thought I'd have a look at some options myself. I've tried to do this in a way that is as relevant to your particular set-up as possible. I looked at the Eminence offerings and the Celestion Orange (4 ohm variants), then a couple of Faital drivers that looked likely and also come in 4 ohm versions, this assumes you would like a 1-cab solution that maximises output/headroom from the Hypex module. So, settings were 75l sealed cab, and total power into each driver for the max spl charts was based on 240w for 8 ohm drivers and 400w for 4 ohm variants to match the output of that hypex module, with the exception of the BN12-300S which I set at 300 watts (thermal limit). This obviously favours the 4 ohm variants but that seems reasonable given my understanding of your set-up. Cone excursion chart was set at 240w for all drivers I looked at regardless of power handling. Drivers: Em Kappalite 3015 - light blue Em Kappalite 3012HO - mid blue Em Kappalite 3012LF - dark blue Em Deltalite 2512 II - violet Celestion BN15-400S (4 ohm) - white Faital 15PR400 (4 ohm) - red Celestion BN12-300 (4 ohm) - yellow Faital 12FH500 (4 ohm) - orange First up, transfer function which shows that even the drivers with large Vas have less than 1dB mid-bass 'hump' in this set-up, so I personally would have no problem with a 15" driver in this application: [attachment=110661:Trans func mag for 75 sealed.jpg] Next sensitivity @ 1W/m for all drivers. Clear advantage for the 15s, though the 3012LF more or less keeps up below 60Hz [attachment=110662:SPL 1W@1M for 75 sealed.jpg] Cone excursion @ 240w, which related to xmax tells you about low frequency output capability before distortion. This gets inherently innacurate above xmax since the voice coil is leaving the magnet gap so it should be harder to reach xlim than it looks. Behaviour beyond xmax is generally not well-specified but subjectively some drivers do better than others! Nice thing about a sealed cab is you don't get unloading below port resonance so subsonics from things like string-thump aren't such an issue. Still worth building a subsonic filter into your pre-amp to gain headroom IMO! [attachment=110667:Cone excursion for 75 sealed @ 240W.jpg] The last graph relates to this one, max spl (400w/240w limit as mentioned). To level the playing field I've used a similar estimate for xmax for the celestions as other manufacturers (rather than Celestion's much more conservative ratings), adding on Hg/4 so for the BN15-400X you get 4.5mm rather than 2.5: [attachment=110668:Max SPL for 75 sealed.jpg] So you should get more overall output from the 15s, with the 15PR400 the overall 'winner' thanks to it being able to take full advantage of the hypex module. Though if you were able to power each driver to its maximum thermal rating then the kappalite 3015 would deliver the loudest clean broad spectrum spl. These programs are only useful up to ~200 or 300 Hz, above which point you should look at the freq response chart from the manufacturers and it becomes a matter of tonal preference - if you have a graphic or parametric EQ that can be really handy over decent headphones for roughly simulating how a particular driver might sound. Personally I'd probably choose the 15PR400, or the BN15-400S if I wanted really light weight. You may prefer the tonal profile of the Eminence drivers, note that the 3015 is the 'politest' of these and I'd say probably be most suited to jazz.

Beyma make serious speakers, usually with a price tag to match! I'm sure they'd sound clean and great [quote name='Balcro' timestamp='1339886924' post='1696029'] I must agree with LawrenceH about the Celestion. It is the weakest link. I ran it through winISD this morning and it exceeded xMax with an 80 watt input! I double checked Celestion's units and t/s parameters and they went into winISd without an error prompt. [/quote] Actually Xmax is a slippery spec... if Celestion used the same formulae for xmax as (say) Beyma, 18Sound, Faital or others then the figure on the spec sheet would be 2mm bigger and look far more respectable! There are other posts about this but it's basically to do with how much of the voicecoil can move outside the magnetic gap before it starts to give a noticeably non-linear response. The key problem being how you define 'noticeable'. I wouldn't rule it out on that basis though there are obviously others which manage more. Things like power compression, distortion and off-axis response are important but the problem is they don't often publish that data, and you might expect a high-end cast frame PA driver to outperform a pressed steel musical instrument speaker. Whether you like the sound though is another matter!

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1339871418' post='1695774'] I usually prefer to use my ears. [/quote] Nonono, that's absolutely not allowed! What if they actually heard something!? Placebo effect...uncontrolled variables...double-blind...bip bip bip kaboom

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1339862331' post='1695582'] I was going to light sand the body with very very very fine sandpaper to create a slightly rougher base. However I have decided to try and see what happens if I don't. It's bound to become a "relic" finish rather soon... but how soon? I'll find out. It can look cool. Or not. The only way to know is to try. It's only £20 delivered for one can... how wrong can it all go? So, I'm just going to clean the body very well, remove all traces of finger grease etc... and spray over it. Watch this space. [/quote] Be interesting to see how the finish stands up without any sanding prep! If you chicken out then 1200 grit followed by a good clean will gently rough it up without creating a ton of work after the nitro's on. If the shoreline gold is nitro already then it should just burn straight on and adhere well as the solvent eats into the current finish. Good luck!

Ha, I'm off to check this out Didn't see the iphone checking btw, that big fat column makes a useful screen!

lean-business.co.uk and bluearan.co.uk do faital plus 18sound, ciare, celestion, eminence... i've had celestions off the former and eminence plus various hardware from the latter with no problems. The free modelling software most people seem to use is winISD pro alpha. It's good, very very good for the money! Makes the whole process a lot easier and very worthwhile IMO

Sold Andre an SGC Nanyo, he paid promptly and arranged insured courier, good comms throughout. Thanks a lot, hope you enjoy that bass!

I'll look forward to a build diary then Vas is not a particularly useful parameter in isolation, it certainly doesn't necessarily represent optimal cab volume. are you using modelling software to predict low-end response? It's invaluable.

Sorry I forgot to direclty address the ohms issue! In terms of absolute output capability a lot of people dismiss it as it'll just add a couple of dB. But actually perception-wise I think it makes a worthwhile difference, likely due to running close to the limit and getting transient clipping/limiting.

Hi Andy, The Celestion is the weakest link on that list in terms of absolute quality, all the others are very nice cast frame PA drivers, though it might have weight advantages and at least is designed for a clean sound - I'd be happy using it though I'd go for the 15" model. I'd still see little advantage in going for a 12 over a 15 though apart from a small gain in dispersion and possibly weight depending which you choose at the cost of overall output capability. The 15PR400 I mentioned is also available in 4 ohm configuration which would presumably enable you to get a bit more from that hypex unit. I might be able to get hold of the specs for the 4 ohm variant if that was of interest. 18Sound are also making some very nice PA drivers with lots of variants in terms of weighting towards high output/extended frequency response or maximum bass power, worth looking at especially as they also have 4 ohm versions of several. The Kappalite 12s on your list are going to have the most obvious tonal coloration, look at how they behave around cone breakup on the charts. This might be good or bad depending what you're after (though I think the HO would need a LOT of EQ and depending what you're after the LF might just flat out not work). Up to a certain point I prioritise midrange response over low end cab tuning (so long as the driver will take EQ), because it has the greatest impact on perceived tone. The true low end is so affected by room acoustics anyway that a coule of db each way is almost by-the-by. The fearful Willem mentions is very well designed IMO, might be worth checking out the fearful forum. Be really interested to know more about your tube pre! I've been wondering about that kind of thing myself

I think it's about pickup position/tonal balance and where that sits in the mix, along with whether you want instruments to blend together or stand apart. It's why a P is stereotypically so good for rock, really thick low mids and good fundamental that help it blend into the guitars to create a solid sound without eating into the higher frequencies, where the guitars are really biting and the vocal sits. Funk and disco on the other hand, often uses a thinner, more tonally restricted guitar sound leaving more room for a bass to work as a distinct voice in rhythmic counterpoint (though like rock still blending with the kick drum), works well with the upper-mid bite of a jazz or 'ray. But plenty of great funk with the clankier 70-type Precision sound (Paul Jackson springs to mind). I'm not sure about long sustain for jazz, depends what you're playing but the thud and relatively rapid decay of a double bass is often what's required for walking. Obviously Jaco's bridge pup sound is a very prominent voicing, lots going on around 500-1.5k ie lower vocal range where our ears are nicely sensitive.

Molan might it help in diagnosis to isolate the frequency range he's talking about that's lacking? This would be easily do-able with a para or semi-para EQ either swept as a boost on bass that lacks it or as a cut on the bass that has it to find the centre freq. It might even solve the problem depending on the effect it had on tone from the other strings/positions, but at least you'd know which frequencies were lacking. I'd guess somewhere between 100 and 300Hz?

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1339757987' post='1693785'] If you were putting more tension on the neck and changing the tension of the string you would be changing the pitch. If you weren't changing the string tension but just helping the instrument become stiffer, then you could expect more sustain. I doubt you could change the dampening characteristics of the materials however because you're not changing how the string contacts the instrument at fret/nut and saddle. [/quote] Yeah I think we've gone a little OT now, was just pointing out that if the wood was so floppy that it vibrated substantially at low frequency then it would be easy to alter its tension noticeably... probably didn't make that point clearly enough! As for the damping, Q is determined by the whole structure not just the anchor points? Sustain around resonance IS determined by damping(Q)! Stiffness changes resonant frequence, Q the amplitude peak and bandwidth

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1339756455' post='1693753'] It wouldn't wobble. You're describing phase cancellation which only happens where there are two or more sources of vibration. The tuning of the string is a property of tension, not dampening. [/quote] And I'd be changing the overall tension as well as damping by how I held the neck and body.

Just realised Mr Foxen has also mentioned another factor which is really important but I don't think anyone has talked about, the damping factor (Q). Just like in a loudspeaker or electronic filter this relates to bandwidth and amplitude at resonance. Pick two hypothetical bits of wood with the same resonant frequency but very different q, make them into solid blocks like xylophone keys and hit them. The high q bit of wood will ring longer and sound a clearer note than the low q bit. Put a string along it and tune it to a similar frequency and pluck it, acoustically you will still get very different outputs as one block amplifies the note better than the other. Now add on a piezo and you should see the effect electrically as well, and all without a hollow body. Can the question be simplified to ask what is the difference in resonant frequency and q between different bits of wood, and how do the frequencies of resonance relate to the notes of a bass guitar? If the resonance isn't anywhere near the first few harmonics (say arbitrarily higher than 1k) and/or q is always low (the fact xylophone keys work would suggest otherwise) then wood variations couldn't impact much on tone. But otherwise then you'd expect to be able to measure it. I think in a lot of designs they're stiff enough that the major resonances ARE shifted higher and/or well damped which is why pine lumber can sound similar to say a guitar-shaped lump of alder. Laminate construction will obviously help here, making it stiff enough to shift the resonances higher to a range where they're not able to impact upon major string overtones. BUT, and this is from building loudspeakers and hearing the resonant panel modes in relation to their size, I would expect that some types of construction would have resonances and be of high enough q factor to audibly impact upon the midrange of the instrument. I am shifting further off the fence to say that wood [i]could be made to be [/i]important to tone. But still in a lot of cases changing it round won't do much because resonance and/or q won't be in range. So everyone's right, hurrah.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339755939' post='1693743'] The lack of stiffness in the structure (and other resonant properties causing damping etc) is what effects the vibration of the string. [/quote] That's the same thing, just approached from the other direction surely? The stiffness in the structure is critical for the tuning of the string, if the wood vibrated substantially at low frequency you'd have too much interaction and pitch would wobble all over the place depending on how hard you held the neck! It would sound all weird and intermodulation-distortiony

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1339747282' post='1693548'] It still doesn't follow that certain species of wood are so-called 'tonewoods' and other species of wood are not so-called 'tonewoods'. Your term 'different woods' will apply to different pieces of wood of the same species just as it might apply to different species. It's also extremely odd that looking like a coffee table and being a great so-called 'tonewood' so often appear to be in correlation. [/quote] Absolutely, up to a point...(addressed below) the coffee table factor totally blurs the real question. [quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339748631' post='1693578'] But as no two pieces of wood are the same even from the same tree how would you say [i]x[/i] class off wood gives [i]y[/i] results? [/quote] Wood does show variation from one bit to the next... but not nearly as much as between certain species eg pine versus oak. If the variation was so huge then no critical structure could ever be built out of wood! Or you'd just always use the cheapest fastest-growing species and sort for good v bad. My father-in-law is a structural engineer who specialises in timber and they have all sorts of info on structural properties of wood by variety. Some types are much more consistent than others, and some species are much further from average than others. [quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339748631' post='1693578'] Then aren't most pickups mounted on springs or foam therefore dampening the vibrations from the wood to the Pick up giving a somewhat shock absorber affect? [/quote] Pickups don't transduce mechanical vibrations directly (unless they're microphonic) but they electrically sense the vibration of the string, which is affected by whatever it's mounted to (ie bridge, nut, and whatever holds them in tension ie the wood) [quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339748631' post='1693578'] Then of course the location of the pickup changes the tone considerably so if wood wasa defining factor would moving a pickup an inch make a difference? [/quote] Yes, that's just like saying the guitar is a defining factor so would putting reverb or EQ on it make a difference. Broadly speaking a pickup acts just like a rather complicated filter that happens to be position-dependent. You could get rid of this variable in a test rig to simplify things, by using a piezo.

Cheers for taking my response in good spirit! To go on even more interminably (sorry everyone, skip to the end if you like) [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] Quite a coincidence that a rubbishy bit of crap from a substandard species declared by numerous suposed experts as being out with the acceptable range of consideration for the purpose let alone an experiment, sounded very similar to that of a member of an exclusive sub-sect. No? [/quote] Actually I don't think it's very suprising - it's pine, a wood with decent strength-weight ratio, structurally sound and a quite thick bit to provide good overall stiffness. Being compared to bog-standard alder or ash, again just middle-of-the-road woods in terms of structural properties. And the neck, by far the longest bit of wood, stays the same IIRC (a long time since I watched/listened to it!). You might hear an effect if one of the bits of wood had a resonant frequency in the upper bass/low mids, but probably neither did. Mahogony versus spruce? Those woods are structurally quite different. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] I think it's a shame to dismiss the guy's experiment because of semantics when our ears (our most fundimental tool as musicians) tell us the experiment was a sucsess. [/quote] I don't want to dismiss what he did, I thought it was a nice little experiment, but just to point out that it doesn't directly address the question of whether wood can be important for tone. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] It wasn't "made" to sound like it at all. Apart from anything the material was selected entirely at random. The simple fact remains that it ended up yielding similar tonal results to an established tone species (plus it cost a lot less ... and was more environmentally friendly) which was in direct contravention to what the tonewood guys said it should have been. Seen from the point of view of a non believer the test results weren't about "the same" it was about "the opposite" ie disproving. [/quote] Agreed about the 'made to' poor choice of words on my part! Perhaps I should have said 'can and often will given what basses are usually made from'. Personally I'd say if you accept deadspots' existence and that they're caused by mechanical resonance of the wood, that is a robust and conclusive counter in terms of 'can' wood affect tone for reasons already outlined. The more interesting question to me is 'when, how, how much' and I'm really on the fence with that one. 'Not in this instance' is the answer from his experiment. But nothing more about wood can be said from it with any validity. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] If a paper were to be written on the subject or a cure was being sought then yes (although I reject your bird analogy on the basis that we all have prior practical knowledge of birds (basses) and would never make such fundamental errors - as with the smoking one in conjunction with your "can do" "always will do" argument [i]"I'm 104 you know... and I've smoked 60 a day since I was 12")... [/i]but this is just a bunch of bass nerds discussing something that most punters can't hear and indeed I'm convinced a fair number of bass nerds can't either. I believe for it's purpose this experiment was fine. [/quote] This is where I disagree absolutely. Methodology is key for something to be considered science at all, and there is a flaw in the logical argument wrt conclusions about tone woods in general (that was the point of the birds bit). To argue that we all have prior knowledge isn't valid here because there is clear disagreement amongst people's subjective experience. To dismiss or favour either side of the argument here would be bias, there's no a priori reason to support one side or the other (if there was the experiment would be unnecessary!). The cancer bit was to point out an absolute need for statistical context in this type of correlative proof (classic mathematical-type proofs are different in that they require no statistics as the system is totally described). Those two things mean it's not science done in a slap-dash way but still following scientific method - it's just not science. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] And limitation which can be applied equally to both clips therefore on balance, quite fair. [/quote] 'Fair' but not useful. To use another of my oddball analogies, if you test two people's sight through a blurry screen you can't conclude much about their eyesight if they both do equally badly. More accurately it's about resolution versus variance in the data. Low resolution data is no good for looking at details and sadly that's just that, nothing much you can do. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] So in conclusion this thread should be entitled "Need advice about timbre timber..." (to be honest I'm awfully tired and my brain hurts trying to workout what you are saying here) [/quote] Yeah I don't think I convey my points well always! Hmmm [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] Agreed. [/quote] I think probably most of the apparent disagreement on this thread disappears at the practical end of things - I'd agree with a lot of what you say but I'd also go with what Mr Foxen has said which I think has a lot of validity - an electric instrument is ultimately, as Mr Beer called it 'electro-mechanical'. Dismissing all the mechanical bit is extreme and makes no logical sense given what we already know about the system. As someone who makes guitars with a high standard of workmanship, have you considered doing a test yourself? It'd be really useful experience for a luthier plus it'd be relatively easy to do with a lot more general validity than that talkbass thread. I've idly thought about doing it myself but really I'm happy tinkering (no ambition be a proper luthier) and am already confident enough in the validity of laws of simple harmonic motion and my own subjective experience that I already 'know' enough for my very lowly purposes. I wonder if you'd find it more personally worthwhile? Probably not I guess so until someone does the argument will roll on and on and on...

I think there are a lot of choices in the 15" range if you look beyond eminence. Incidentally the 3012LF is not so great without a separate midrange driver/crossover, which adds weight cost and complexity, unless you like a dubby sound with a bit of clank between 1 and 2k - not my first port of call for jazz and fusion though it is a very powerful driver if you have the amp to push it and I'd happily use it as is for reggae! Andy, several questions that might help people figure out good suggestions: what sort of sound do you like, especially with regard to midrange and treble? what are you going to power the cab with and how loud does it need to get? You say small venues, how many people and how big is the band (and how prominent is the bass)? What is the electric bass you'll be playing through it? Also what is your budget? I guess it'd also be interesting to know what the eminence model in there already is and how well that suits your sound. One driver that I think would work very well in this application would be the faital pro 15PR400 but it really depends on personal taste. The orange labels again might actually be good in a sealed box and if you look around I think you can get one for under £100. I'm not sure the green labels will be so great as the blurb imply that they're not the cleanest sounding drivers. The apparent low xmax puts people off the Celestion orange drivers but that spec is in this case a bit misleading.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339709188' post='1693301'] The hollow body bit mostly, which disapplies all the following statements as their significance are specific to hollow bodies. If my electric bass isn't plugged in, its an acoustic instrument, just a fairly quiet one, but I can play a tune to someone in the same room and they can hear it fine. [/quote] Ah right, I did misunderstand, With that double bass pic I thought it was a question about that sort of thing. If you'd read my previous posts, we're pretty much coming from the same place wrt electrics and I definitely agree you can't dismiss everything that comes before the pickup. EDIT: and about wood choice, pretty sure I've made that same point myself.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339706534' post='1693233'] Whole bunch of incorrect assumptions there. [/quote] Sorry I don't follow - incorrect about how acoustic instruments with hollow bodies work or my assumption that you were talking about hollow body instruments? Just to be clear i wasn't saying that the mechano-acoustic properties of an electric instrument aren't important, just that the dominant factors that govern what you hear in an hollow body acoustic relate to construction and specifically chamber resonance

Thinking about Mr F's comment I'd also suggest considering having one driver on the top panel and one directly below- that way you get better horizontal distribution (hear it more clearly from the side) but retain the monitoring benefits of the angled top speaker. You could easily enough play with this to see which way you preferred. The benefits of vertical stacking speakers is another subject that has been done to death here and on talkbass...