LawrenceH

[quote name='hamfist' timestamp='1372940260' post='2131858'] OK, they were fine in the days when a bass guitar in music really was only there to fill in the low end sonically, but these days, modern genres require so much more from a bass tone that IMO "traditional" designed bass cabs with their poor mid/highs dispersion are simply not fit for purpose. There ... I've said it ! [/quote] This is the crux of it really, does your particular sound require even dispersion above 1k or so? Plus, do the players who have their cabs below their waists realise how much they can be blasting a beam of treble death across a section of the audience to get it sounding right 30 degrees off axis, where their ears are? I am really interested in knowing more about which frequencies different players prioritise in the way they hear their sound, I am convinced it's really variable.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1372923926' post='2131581'] I think you're misunderstanding what I meant by 'uncompressed high SPL tone and bottom'. I wasn't just talking about the lowest octave of the tone, I was talking about everything, up into the many kHz. And in particular, I don't mean trying to get the F3 of the cab as low as possible because that causes a lot of compromises in other respects and as you say, is not always the most musically appropriate thing for backline. [/quote] But the bottom end is the only bit that really needs compressing in the better quality active PA cabs to compete with a deeper tuned, longer excursion woofer. On the other frequencies its just a bonus/safety feature that can eke out a few more decibels when necessary. Opinions vary and it's about where you choose your compromises but for me at PA level a good quality compression driver mated to a decent horn does the high kHz extremely well (though I must say I've no experience with ribbons). Beyond a certain point as well, passive filters just don't make sense any more. Bit of a rant, for which I apologise in advance. A few years back I feel you were more willing to discuss these compromises openly because you came at it from a DIY perspective - I'm sorry I missed the boat there, it would have been interesting to be involved and there's not so much DIY discussion going on these days - but now you have commercial interests I find your constant plugging of your products at the expense of others a little frustrating, your customers can do that for you, and do it well. These PA cabs under discussion are similar ball-park prices to your cabs or cheaper, but include powerful amps (and processing) as well that would cost several hundred pounds as standalone units. Of course there are going to be limitations which I've tried to make clear (it was me who pointed out the roll-off on the DARTS in the first place, and I also qualified the advantages by limiting comparison to 2-way designs). Nonetheless there are also advantages to these other approaches which make them valid alternatives. I also always make clear that I think you have good designs and I'm happy to believe they sound excellent, to the point where if I wasn't into the DIY I'd probably own one. I've made sure never to go out of my way to point out the design compromises in your own products in these discussions, because I think they are well-chosen such that they'd barely be an issue in the real world of bass amplification. I also think it would be a shame if people started worrying about things that they'd never previously even considered, that all their previous cabs had exhibited to a worse degree in the past! This is what happened with the fEarfuls, no? But it's still ok for them to appreciate the strengths of other design approaches and form factors. Designing ported loudspeakers is not particularly hard these days, in fact it's amazing what you can do just with a computer, some free software and a cheap calibrated measurement mic, certainly compared to when I started dabbling in the 90s. An actual r&d section with proper facilities is not going to lag behind. No-one has a magic product that's light-years ahead of the competition, just slightly different design priorities depending on product intended use and price-point. /rant

When I referenced the K series, it was as a midrange small-format PA system with some clever engineering that gets more from its components than it otherwise should - it's not considered 'high end' in the world of pro audio, just an example of a system that I've actually used (for general PA duties, though that includes bass), that if you factor in amp cost is rather good value compared to a lot of dedicated bass gear. There're sound engineers who sniff at it, but you look at the cost of what they use For Alex, an uncompressed bottom octave is obviously very important - as I've said, for PA that's not usually an issue in a 'full-range' box, and from a FoH perspective I think it's not always the most musically appropriate thing either for backline. Another thing to bear in mind when using PA cabs is you have to understand your signal chain very well to get the most out of it- it won't be plug and play if you're used to particular types of colouration/filtering coming from the amp and speaker. The issue of weight is interesting. Going off on a tangent... The usual argument put around on here seems to be that PA companies are cheapskates and can't be bothered to brace properly so use thick panels... but if you're shipping from China then I'd have thought a double weight box cost you a lot more in transport than a thinner one containing a few extra bits of wood when you're cnc cutting everything anyway - especially when the raw material will be cheaper as a result. Plus if you look inside a really good PA box it does contain bracing. There is raw strength as well, of course, PA stuff has to take stress at key points like pole mounts and fly points, these absolutely cannot afford to fail. But also if you look at serious hi-fi, they like ridiculously thick walls plus massive amounts of bracing as well! I would hazard a guess that one reason is, that it's comparatively easy to brace resonant problems away from the bass, but as you go up through the mid-range it gets progressively harder to push the modes higher, no matter what bracing strategy you use, ultimately you are limited by the stiffness of the material in its weakest plane, whether you're using i-beams, struts or full matrices a la the classic B&Ws (pre-stressed bracing is as I understand it a bit of a red herring when you're talking about wood, as it won't stay pre-stressed). What sounds beautifully clean on a bass guitar, may not sound quite so good on a vocal. I'm not sure what the scenario is with ABS plastic, obviously the advantage of moulding is that you maximise the stiffness of the geometry, but the material limit is still there - I wonder if it relies also on the material being inherently highly damped? Energy will get lost in the structure still, there's no free lunch, but it won't be so objectionaly audible compared to something that, as dicreet put it earlier, 'rings like a bell'. Anyway, back to the original topic...

[quote name='funkle' timestamp='1372833107' post='2130372'] No, the fEARless (or however the right way to spell it) stuff I think is all solely based around the 3012LF. So, in essence: most decent PA gear is designed to cross over to a sub at frequencies below 50 Hz, but will have better components and design for reproducing midrange and top end. Bass cabs will win on colouration of sound, small footprint and sub 50 Hz reproduction (depending on the manufacturer) but tend to lose out in accuracy of reproduction of thie mids. No active EQ or DSP built in, etc. Didn't Bergantino do powered cabs for a while with DSP? Their website doesn't have them listed anymore, I suppose the product line wasn't supportable in the market place. I'm really keen to go and try out a K12 now...though Talkbass users report not enough welly for bass without a sub. [/quote] Yeah, pretty much. I wasn't very clear about crossovers, for subs you typically cross around 80-100Hz, but the standalone cabs are designed to work ok without this when necessary, 50-60Hz being a practical lower limit (also there are advantages to crossing well above tuning frequency). I'm very suprised they say not enough for bass on the Ks, they sound massive to me (I notice there are two version though, the ABS plastic and the birch). But what they won't have is the hump that you get with a lot of cabs so that might be what they're missing? The pre-amp would make a big difference too. To me, these high quality monitorsr sound like what you get with a DI so it all hinges on what you drive them with.

[quote name='funkle' timestamp='1372798988' post='2130230'] Lawrence, what's your take on the cream of the bass cab 'full range' crop (Barefaced, Audiokinesis, etc) vs the cream of the PA crop (QSC K series, etc)? [/quote] Well, I've not used most of the boutique bass stuff (but I do have experience with some of the raw drivers, eg Eminence and to a limited extent Faital). But the PA gear these days is just incredible. Looking at it in terms of spec and design - the very best bass stuff generally has as good or sometimes better woofers than the small-format PA stuff (not necessarily so when you are talking really top-line systems, but they're for BIG sound). But the PA stuff generally has much nicer compression drivers and horn profiles, which makes a big difference in perceived quality IME. Barefaced are using a nice midrange (I thought it was Beyma?) but that tweeter is pretty long in the tooth. I don't know what Audiokinesis are using, it may be very good but bear in mind the [i]really[/i] high-end comp drivers cost more than the woofers! Having said that, the smaller PA stuff is, as far as I can tell, usually using decent but not eye-wateringly expensive components in this respect and making them sound great. The secret I think is in part due to the integration with the amps and DSP. I don't know of any bass companies doing this and I don't imagine most have the capacity/inclination to, at least not at that level of sophistication (TC as mentioned are a company that probably could). Bi-amping comes with its own real advantages anyway, and while DSP on top of that can't fix speakers that are total arse, it can make already good ones sound great, enhancing the strengths and making the compromises nearly irrelevant. The two areas the bass stuff may have an advantage as an all-in-one format are a) if you like the way typical mid-woofer cones colour the sound (I do actually, to a limited extent) or b ) if you want to go really low in a small footprint without using a separate sub, eg the Big series stuff, or I guess Acme? PA stuff is pretty much always designed to cross to a sub if you want to get much below 50Hz or have massive sub-60Hz output. What you could do is take something like a Barefaced and bi- or tri-amp with a good PA loudspeaker management system that incorporated eg delays, parametric crossovers and nice-sounding limiters. But that probably wouldn't be cost effective and you'd have to tune it to your system yourself. It's a real shame the Eminence D-Fend was released to consumers in such an incredibly sucky way, the OEM boards they demo'ed seemed like a really useful bit of kit for passive instrument cabs that offered some of the advantages of active gear in terms of bass management. Really though all this stuff is very nice whichever route you take especially if you understand how to set it up! Environmental acoustics are probably more of a limitation in 99% of gigs, and all this gear is designed to mitigate that one way or another (waveguides, directivity matching, EQ, ergonomics). Regarding the fEarless stuff, I don't think there's much new going on just a different tuning frequency and more compact midrange unit (it'll have a different voicing as a result, of course). Does it offer different woofer options?

[quote name='funkle' timestamp='1372765968' post='2129582'] I haven't managed to get any tuning info from the greenboy chaps on their forums. I did earn a fair amount of negative commentary for asking for it, though. [/quote] It's a shame, there was some good stuff over there initially, but I find it all a bit sycophantic and especially now he has launched commercial lines there's not much discussion of design philosophy regarding speaker cabs.They're nice designs but use well-established principles and by PA standards these are low-tech cabs (which is good from a DIY/small commercial builder point of view). FWIW the fEarfuls are tuned around 45Hz IIRC. [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1372496366' post='2126363'] Would not that black plastic housing ring like a bell at battle levels..? [/quote] Depends how well they've braced it - but yeah I'd be a bit wary of plastic cabs for bass, be surprised if there was actual audible ringing but it might be a bit weak and smeary around the low mids. [quote name='owen' timestamp='1372792625' post='2130122'] Not all PA cabs are equal. I used a Mackie SRM450 for a few months [/quote] A case in point - these are just not in the same class as the QSC, HK etc stuff (though I haven't heard the most recent incarnation) and I suspect the plastic doesn't help.

I don't feel any jealousy at the Mumfords, just mild irritation that because they're successful exposure to their crap is harder to avoid. I think they're popular because they write very simple songs based around the same repetitive ideas, so people who aren't really into music at all don't have to deal with any kind of learning curve or emotional intensity, and if they like one song it's a fairly safe bet the others won't offer any unwanted challenges. The good thing for me is I find them so unbelievably un-memorable that they don't stick in my head at all. The bad thing is they trigger unwanted REM songs to play in my head instead. [quote name='bassace' timestamp='1372675840' post='2128329'] No they're not. [/quote] What?! Even if you dislike both intensely, which is fine, you can still objectively analyse Bellowhead's arrangements and you've got tons of complex polyphonic melody, syncopation and polyrhythm. If you do the same with the Mumfords you find a hollowed out husk of mediocrity - well, not quite but the relative complexities in the music are totally different.

You can't normally sand a metallic finish without altering the way it looks - the flakes are meant to sit upright within the colour layer then usually clear-coated on top. This may not be the case with these thick polyester finishes, but it'd be a risky experiment! If someone wanted to do this who already had the bass, they could try carefully rubbing the decal with acetone (just in case it's done on top for economy reasons), acetone wouldn't damage the polyester but should take off any unprotected decal.

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1372355932' post='2124817'] What would be the closest bass specific thing to it? I'm guessing it's all about clever designed cabs and then using the electronics to get the most [/quote] I don't know of anything that is close in all aspects whilst being bass-specific, ie uncoloured and integrated. If it's that uncoloured then it wouldn't usually be marketed specifically at bass players, as it'd make an excellent PA which is a bigger market! Bassman7755 is probably right about the cabs, though it is hard for any passive design to match what can be achieved with active electronics especially at high volume. I would say though, that there are plenty of PA designs that would go usefully lower than the HK if that's what you want - for example the QSC K12, which I've recommended on here before, would be excellent as a compact bass cab (the older HPR122i isn't too shabby either). Or you could couple something like a K10 or K8 to a sub. But, I wouldn't be worried about the lack of deep bass action if the HK sounds great to you - from the perspective of FoH mixing, I'd consider it something of a plus in a lot of scenarios. If it's about the input side, then a high-quality preamp would be my choice.

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1372090802' post='2121442'] why do we not use something like this as a bass amp? unless you're going for a distinctive "SVT" tone... I mean this thing is about the same weight as a light combo, sounds great... what's the downsides? [/quote] Well it is -3dB at 80Hz, -10dB at 60 Hz, that's the big compromise. Try selling that to bass players as high-end! What it illustrates very nicely is how little genuine low bass you need to get the perception of a full tone on stage. It also demonstrates what you can achieve with active filtering and limiting, as a conventional reflex cab like that would be farting out like crazy at high volume thanks to the unloading below tuning causing the woofer to flap around. The high degree of integration possible in this type of design means they can wring out the absolute maximum in terms of performance from the components. [quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1372090802' post='2121442'] I'm also thinking that with the eq, and playing I could probably get my rig sounding more like this. [/quote] To an extent perhaps you could get it flatter but sadly I doubt you can match the clarity in the mid/treble region - having looked inside a Tecamp combo I owned briefly I can say fairly confidently the components just aren't as good as the HK stuff, you will have more inherent distortion.

Heheh I'm not surprised it was a nice sound - fully active with multiband limiting, 24db/oct crossover as low as 2k to a nice compression driver, and about £1000 rrp if I remember right. You won't find a 2-way bass cab which can match that in a similar footprint!

I had a Tecamp combo for a while, first the 10 and then the 12 (as the former came with a minor fault so I switched). I had a look inside the box, it was nicely put together using decent plywood, with egg-crate foam on the back panel. The woofer was a Sica 'Standard Lite' series, pressed steel chassis - not their premium cast range. The 4" midrange unit was some no-name OEM pressed steel chassis. These are probably decent enough speakers, but what I didn't think too much of was that the midrange was just high-passed using a single capacitor, with nothing on the woofer. Sounded ok on the 12 but harsh on the 10 which clearly had significant break-up modes of its own, and is overall a bit of a let down for the price point - I'd be worried about blowing the mid without a higher order crossover. I must say though, I think the standalone cabs may use a different crossover/high end which may be better.

I've only used one-part poly lacquer like that a limited amount (to touch up dings on a body), so I could be wrong, but I dont think it would offer worthwhile protection against roundwounds. I've used Rustin's Plastic Coating that Bloodaxe mentions on a defret, a two-part (acid catalysed) thing, suggested on here as a simpler alternative to epoxy. It's held up ok, overall, but there are clear superficial marks from the strings and the bass isn't that heavily played. It took me quite a while, as I brushed on several coats and these required sanding between. It also sank into the pores quite a bit over time suggesting it probably doesn't fill as well as epoxy. If I was doing it again I'd probably try superglue or just get the West systems epoxy and do it properly. The coating does change the sound btw, it is very grindy now which I like.

It's all about the midrange! A decent monitor is designed with the focus on delivering good, clean, evenly-dispersed midrange in the nearfield. Very few bass cabs have the same quality of components in this area. Mind you, a really decent monitor is more expensive than most bass cabs for a given volume level.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371728963' post='2117408'] Ironically (or is it?) I'm pretty sure I've written a ton about that already! [/quote] I can't really decide whether it's ironic or not but perhaps because people can model the low-end response of a cab easily these days there's a tendency to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. When I started building PA speakers as a teenager that wasn't a commonly available option, so you just played around with standard alignments, but chose your speakers as much on other criteria. Big series aside perhaps, I'm sure as many people like the Barefaced cabs for their rather upfront midrange tonal profile (and the weight) as they do for the extended bass capabilities - if you look at how popular e.g. other 2x12s based around lower excursion drivers are, I don't think people reach these limits so often when they're in multi-driver setups. [quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371728963' post='2117408'] And how the original cabs and drivers often weren't actually designed to work together anyway! [/quote] Well maybe, but I'd say more often they are just crap drivers - box tuning is never going to save that!

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1371675208' post='2116937'] A fresh set of Chromes would do the job. I've heard that Rotosounds also fill the "bright flatwound" niche, but haven't tried them. Nylon tapewounds might also be worth a look, as my D'Addario tapes may even be a little brighter than Chromes once both are played in (although as a caveat, I didn't like the B string on the tapes, though others have had different results). [/quote] Can you remind me which tapewounds you use? I'm wondering about replacing the 4-year-old DRs on that ash jazz, and remember yours sounded rather good.

This thread is a nice dose of reality. I think Barefaced and the like are great, but people often get too worried about a cab's response below 100 Hz without recognising how little of their 'sound' happens down there compared to the midrange. Not everyone needs massive excursion, especially if you're not trying to play the O2 with a 1x10. Dropping drivers into cabs - there are a few combinations that won't play well, but I think most of the time (given that most cabs and drivers are really quite similar), what comes out will do the job. Given the low cost of replacement drivers, it does highlight how bad some of the OEM ones are that come loaded in the cabs!

It's not ideal to mix speakers, but often when money's an issue it's about availability and working with what you already have. As such I think it's good to put a little perspective in there - the sky won't fall down if you do it! Mixing cabs is only unpredictable to a point, probably less than theory might predict given that most cabs, sealed units aside, will have fairly similar driver characteristics and reflex tunings. Don't forget that room modes and speaker placement effects will in many cases dwarf those of the cabs. If you stack 10" drivers, consider the effect of moving back and forth in front of them - chaging the incident angle will unavoidably cause changing midrange phase cancellations and reinforcements as the output from the two drivers combines at your ear. A single larger driver doesn't show this, but OTOH will have reduced mid/high dispersion in the perpendicular plane unless crossed over to a smaller unit. There's one major advantage to 15" drivers that's been lost in all this - assuming similar driver quality then they can perform in a similar range to three 10" drivers, but costing and weighing significantly less. It's all about choosing the best compromise for your situation.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371152817' post='2110668'] You're still not understanding what I'm trying to say! I'm not talking about any of those drivers, I've been talking about my search to find a motor that allows me to design a driver based around that magnet and pole pieces that does what I want. This is nothing to do with different brands, companies or factories, it's about specific castings and machined parts which have a certain geometry. [/quote] And you are failing to understand me! Brand is of course irrelevant, I was just being flippant based on the near universal bashing of anything non-Eminence that until recently used to be the norm on bass sites, I'm surprised you don't remember (especially given how Barefaced has been both beneficiary and victim of flavour-of-the-month-brand-itis). But how a driver's engineered to a /chosen/ set of criteria is what matters, the criteria in terms of design goal NOT method in which they're achieved, being partly subjective eg if I have my QSC amps then I don't give a monkeys if the speaker sensitivity is relatively low, I can still get phenomenally loud and deep out of a small box, IF the driver will take the watts without just using them to fry eggs. There are plenty of subwoofer drivers with better-tamed peaks than the 30xx series, but the mid response doesn't matter that much given that nearly every 12" 2-way is already rather compromised by the HF, may as well add a small mid ...hence your original Big One and Big Baby, surely? Watts are silly cheap and light nowadays. On the other hand if you want a more traditional sound then the true LF capability becomes far less of an issue anyway, may as well optimise for sensitivity, midrange distortion and weight. In reality several of the drivers I own already seem to offer an excellent balance between the two approaches, and these are older generation PA drivers that are surely superseded now Really I was only gently teasing you whilst you skimmed close to the line of self-promotion, as I'm fairly sure I'd agree with your design criteria and it's great to hear from someone who has access to the driver manufacturers where the real clever stuff happens - but I am often struck by the diversity of requirements people have from their gear and the way they get it to do what they want, which I think is too often overlooked. I am intrigued if you are having much custom tooling though, I'd have thought that was rather cost-prohibitive no?

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371144087' post='2110503'] "Best balance of compromises for the job in hand" [/quote] Sigh And that balance will be different for everyone, even within the relatively small world of bass guitar, thanks to the wide range of amps, basses and ears out there! There's no shame in admitting to a little subjectivity the objectivity comes in when you've decided what the criteria for judgement are. But I look forward to seeing and hopefully hearing what you've come up with, I'm sure it'll be a worthwhile step up. (In the meantime I will carry on quite happily with my non-Eminence drivers for bass guitar, while the Eminence ones sit on the shelf waiting for a new use, and shockingly I shall do so despite the knowledge that they have been judged to be objectively inferior and my taste is evidently defective).

Sorry to sound negative, but I can't imagine that a custom cab from a guitar speaker manufacturer is going to match let alone beat what you could buy for that money from a decent bass cab manufacturer if you do your market research. They'll just buy an off-the-shelf driver and bung it in a nice-looking box at huge markup. Box requirements for bass versus guitar are significantly different, as Bill says.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371137282' post='2110369'] Our target parameters/sound are simply to make the best bass instrument speaker it's possible to make! That's a different beast to the best PA top or subwoofer. [/quote] You do like a bit of the salesspeak nowadays Alex 'Best' doesn't mean much unless you set other rather more specific parameters! Everything's a compromise

I can't see it being worthwhile unless you get the saving from doing the cabs yourself, tbh - I'd say get a Big Baby unless you share Molan's objection to the cosmetics.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371129939' post='2110182'] The main issue I've had with the OEM versions we've tried with various European manufacturers is that most of the high-end drivers are very strongly split into PA main and subwoofer use, the former having lower moving mass but being incapable of achieving high excursion (so they're sensitive but can't do big high SPL lows) whilst the latter have very high moving mass (and thus low broadband sensitivity and peaky midrange response) and on the whole they tend to have very low Qts. We've tried all manner of things with different moving parts but kept running into the same problems. [/quote] That's interesting, thanks - I'm surprised it's such a deal-breaker, given that the Eminence drivers are not immune from these problems either, but I can understand you have your target parameters/sound. I'm looking forward to trying the 520 series Faitals myself to see how they stack up. I'll be using them for compact subwoofer duty (even though it's an in-betweener, it just happens to fit my particular cab size/weight/power requirements well and the price is right). But I'll definitely be giving it a little go without the filtering, just out of curiosity.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1371118236' post='2109963'] The key thing to consider.. [/quote] Aware of this, but it raises several points - first, subjectively the Faital unit I have behaves very well indeed (possibly in part due to demodulation ring?), in that you can push it very hard and it still sounds acceptable, unlike the Eminence units I have which show a far more drastic and audibly unpleasant transition as you push them 'too hard'. This is also true of older Celestion (ceramic) drivers I have, in that the transition behaviour is very different to the Eminence units. Second related point, THD is very much a proxy specification in this context, and not IMO any more useful than any other spec in isolation - 10% is a completely arbitrary figure, tells you nothing about the frequency distribution, and is limited to the frequency domain. I know the way the ERB cab concept evolved led people toward the Eminence drivers, partly because of specified xmax and partly because of cost (especially in the US) but I'd be interested to know what deficiencies you feel eg the Faital drivers, (or Beyma, 18Sound, B&C) have in comparison. Before I got more into the bass cab land I did a lot of PA work and I don't recall any high-end stuff using Eminence - presumably there're far more in the US. I don't doubt they can make good drivers, but at the same time I haven't heard any Eminence-loaded cabs since that have made me think their quality is particularly outstanding when compared to any other decent modern woofer. FWIW for me, the Kappalite range seem to have stood up well and if I was in the market for a very loud, light commercial cab I'd look to Barefaced over most of the other offerings, But, I feel the deltalite 10s and 12s underperform compared to what their spec would suggest when looking at similar offerings from other manufacturers. For example the Celestion 10" neos I have absolutely slay the Deltalite 10s when it comes to high power, and they are quite an old design now.