Why did I not do this sooner?

[discreet]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1328291171' post='1525124']
I'm guessing that this unit can receive and handle very low frequencies, which then re-surface as interesting harmonics and general "texture". Putting the Thumpinator before this unit seems to lose some of that texture.
[/quote]

Thanks for this. I guess you would put a Thumpinator after a tube sim for much the same reason...
...trial and error though, as you say.

Edited February 3, 2012 by discreet

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='walbassist' timestamp='1328289448' post='1525105']
Do you have any Thumpinators in stock at the moment Max?
[/quote]

I run out of micro-Thumpinators but a new batch should be ready in around a week.

[Gwilym]

hi Max,
These Thumpinators sound very interesting - are they completely transparent? Do they have any effect tightening up the low-end at "home practice" volumes? I guess they might filter out the neighbour-annoying sub-sonics anyway.
I'm guessing it would probably be quite good with my ACME cabs, just to optimise the work being done by my amp. The ACME's are tuned to -6db @ 31 HZ (i.e. the low B fundamental), and quite power hungry, is the Thumpinator going to clash with that 31HZ tuning in any way?
Thanks!
G

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='Gwilym' timestamp='1328368880' post='1526103']
hi Max,
These Thumpinators sound very interesting - are they completely transparent?[/quote]
Hi G,

It depends what do you mean by “completely transparent”. Even cables are not, strictly speaking, “completely transparent”. Having said that none of my customer complained about the lack of transparency.

You may want to read [url="http://www.talkbass.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1568/title/-5bsfx-5d-thumpinator/cat/26"]this independent review[/url] about it.

[quote name='Gwilym' timestamp='1328368880' post='1526103']Do they have any effect tightening up the low-end at "home practice" volumes?[/quote]
It depends on the gear and how it is used.

If it is used to limit cone movements and improve the power amp efficiency, the micro-Thumpinator is more effective at higher volumes.

Some of my customers reported improvements in the sound in their headphones. I used it effectively in recording where I could limit the initial spike of the signal.

[quote name='Gwilym' timestamp='1328368880' post='1526103'](...) is the Thumpinator going to clash with that 31HZ tuning in any way?[/quote]

Interesting question. In theory the opposite is true: the Thumpinator filtering would remove the frequencies the cab cannot reproduce.

[BottomE]

Love to try one of these. It seems to make a lot of sense.

Silent Fly - nice of you to respond to all the questions.

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='Gwilym' timestamp='1328368880' post='1526103']
I guess they might filter out the neighbour-annoying sub-sonics anyway.
I'm guessing it would probably be quite good with my ACME cabs, just to optimise the work being done by my amp. The ACME's are tuned to -6db @ 31 HZ (i.e. the low B fundamental), and quite power hungry, is the Thumpinator going to clash with that 31HZ tuning in any way?
Thanks!
[/quote]

It'd surely remove the subsonic components- using the hpf on the QSC stops any unpleasantness when if/when (delete as per playing style) a string touches an open pole-piece.
Remember that one of the salient points about cabinet response is the level at which it reproduces the quoted frequency.
Presumably, it's referenced against the level produced at 1kHz for the same power input (under anechoic conditions and without boundary reinforcement - so hardly "real world" as we experience it)
If it is -6dB @ 31Hz, it'll be about 4 times quieter at that point than at the 1kHz level, leaving aside any issues due to low-frequency insensitivity of the human ear.

Using some sort of hpf will help save the driving amp's power by not having it try to reproduce lower frequencies that are;
1) relatively difficult to hear (if not feel!)
2) hard to reproduce at realistic levels compared to (for example) the midrange.
3) taxing for equipment to reproduce

At lower levels (as previously stated), it's less of an issue, as the amp has more headroom to spare, and this can be used in lf reproduction without flapping cones or compromising the systems reproduction of other frequencies.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Silent Fly' timestamp='1328288916' post='1525096']
I suggest you base your assessment on how the unit actually sounds and what other people you respect say about it.

Just for my personal curiosity, could you give an example of typical HPF you are referring to?
[/quote]

Cheers Max, the ongoing discussion is interesting and useful, for me at least. So, a 'typical' HPF to me would be Buttterworth, Linkwitz-Riley, Chebyshev topologies for example.
I do find your 'suggestion' a bit unhelpful in this special case (normally I'd agree), let me explain why. The Thumpinator is unusual for an effect pedal - we're NOT looking for it to colour the sound, rather the aim is speaker protection and increasing amp headroom. This is, first, hard to assess without destructive testing(!) and second, it is the nature of reflex cabs that whether the product is functioning optimally for a given setup depends [i]entirely on the particular speaker used and the lowest tuning of the bass being played[/i]. I say optimally (rather than just 'adequately') because you are suggesting the thumpinator is designed 'optimally'. Which I'm sure it is, but only within a particular set of design parameters.
Because reflex cab cone excursion rises rapidly with port unloading below resonance, with a secondary peak above, by far the most critical factor for optimal protection is the filter cut-off frequency in relation to resonance. Filter Q is a secondary consideration, though still quite important. 'Typical' reflex cab tunings range from around 40 all the way up to 65Hz or maybe more. For optimal performance a sub-sonic filter should be tuned close to resonance. Cut-off too high and you will compromise the useful bass output. But, cut-off too low and the speakers can still over-excurse considerably. Similarly, relatively low q (say Butterworth) will give too gradual initial roll-off which might well affect the audible range adversely, whereas a high q filter topology with the characteristic boost above f0 could even potentially be damaging to the speaker if f0 is too low for that system! Cascaded lower order filters of different q at different frequencies could be used to minimise that boost while maintaining a sharp cut-off, but essentially it is still the interaction with system resonance that determines how well your filter is optimised. Incidentally in a system of cascaded filters like that group delay could come into play - it will be additive with the speaker increasing chances of audibility [i]in a system-dependent manner.[/i] Given that from your graph the thumpinator appears to be set to cut off low, (sub-30Hz) and with a boost above cutoff (unknown amount, graph not scaled) I would therefore suggest that for people playing 4-strings, particularly with small cabs tuned to give high output in the midbass region a sweepable HPF just employing a standard filter topology will give results closer to optimal.

That is not meant in any way as a criticism of your product which it's clear is very well put together, just my explanation why I feel more detailed specs (eg filter -3, -10 dB points and maybe even max resonant boost) are in fact very useful to assess value in relation to my setup. If it was a distortion pedal of course I would say ears are the only thing that mattered

Edited February 5, 2012 by LawrenceH

[Thor]

Just to chuck my two penneth in, I played my first gig last night using the Micro Thumpinator recently purchased from a BC'er, the difference to my sound was immediate - much tighter bottom end and definitely worth every penny. Incidentally, I tend to run mine at the very front of my signal path - which I agree does seem illogical to me but it definitely works.

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1328477510' post='1527870'] Cheers Max, the ongoing discussion is interesting and useful, for me at least. (...) I do find your 'suggestion' a bit unhelpful (...) [/quote]

Sorry to hear that you feel this way LawrenceH.

Although I would really like to start an in-depth discussion about the technical details of the micro-Thumpinator I am afraid I can't.

There are 2 main reasons:

- I simply don’t have the time. I already spent far more time than I should have to answer all the questions in this thread. I work very long hours often working instead of spending time with my family. I am sorry but I have to draw a line somewhere.

- It is a very interesting subject for a technical forum but BC might not be the best place to discuss filter topologies.

From what you said so far, it sounds like you are not convinced by the [sfx] micro-Thumpinator. It is understandable. It is an innovative product and, as far as I know, there isn’t anything similar on the marker. Some of my customers are a little bit risk-adverse and prefer to not take the risk (albeit limited). I understand their viewpoint.

If you are not convinced by the [sfx] micro-Thumpinator, I would recommend you don’t buy it. I probably sound I am a little bit blunt but I prefer to sell a pedal less instead of having a customer not entirely happy about his/her purchase. I wound say the same thing to any of my customers - there is nothing personal LawrenceH.

From what you write, it sounds like you know analogue filtering. If you need a bandwidth optimizer, the best options for you might be building your own version. In this way you can have a processor that is fine-tuned with your gear.

Please accept my apologies if I sound, in any way, rude or impolite - it isn’t my intention.

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1328477510' post='1527870']
So, a 'typical' HPF to me would be Buttterworth, Linkwitz-Riley, Chebyshev topologies for example. [/quote]
Sorry LawrenceH, I wasn’t clear in my question. I meant an off-the-shelf product not a circuit topology/design.

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='Thor' timestamp='1328479150' post='1527901']
Just to chuck my two penneth in, I played my first gig last night using the Micro Thumpinator recently purchased from a BC'er, the difference to my sound was immediate - much tighter bottom end and definitely worth every penny. (...)
[/quote]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your feedback! I glad to hear that you are happy with the [sfx] micro-Thumpinator.


[quote name='Thor' timestamp='1328479150' post='1527901']Incidentally, I tend to run mine at the very front of my signal path - which I agree does seem illogical to me but it definitely works.[/quote]
I use it as the first pedal of my pedalboard as well.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Silent Fly' timestamp='1328522590' post='1528304']
From what you said so far, it sounds like you are not convinced by the [sfx] micro-Thumpinator. It is understandable. It is an innovative product and, as far as I know, there isn't anything similar on the marker. Some of my customers are a little bit risk-adverse and prefer to not take the risk (albeit limited). I understand their viewpoint.
From what you write, it sounds like you know analogue filtering. If you need a bandwidth optimizer, the best options for you might be building your own version. In this way you can have a processor that is fine-tuned with your gear.
[/quote]
It isn't to do with risk, it is the engineering impossibility of a one-size-fits-all approach being optimal without variable filter cutoff frequency. It is a boutique product with high quality construction and a boutique price tag to match, so in that market context it would matter to me whether the product is matched to specific application. From a bit of delving it's apparent the Thumpinator as is wouldn't suit me as well as it suits others (eg 5-string users), but if there were slightly more detailed specs it would have been easier to work this out and wouldn't have required much knowledge of filtering on my part. My philosophy is that more information is always a good thing, it can always be ignored by those who aren't interested!

Making my own is something I have considered but it is a lot of trouble for a one-off. However to make a more positive suggestion for sfx, if you ever decided to produce circuit variants, say perhaps a 4-string version or even a 'small cab' version with a filter tuned deliberately higher to match modern 'micro' rigs where every watt and mm of excursion counts, then I would definitely be interested.

I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions even if you won't release any specifications, no offence taken and I hope likewise! Since you answered my questions on construction methods I have no doubts about the quality of the products

[discreet]

[quote name='Silent Fly' timestamp='1328522590' post='1528304']
I already spent far more time than I should have to answer all the questions in this thread. I work very long hours often working instead of spending time with my family. I am sorry but I have to draw a line somewhere.
[/quote]

Max, I insist you take time off and spend it with your family! Life is short!

On another subject... I was looking at a Zoom B3 (and still am), but think that a micro-Thumpinator takes priority... thanks for posting! I'll be in touch soon!

[shizznit]

I haven't joined the discussion, but I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest.

Max - Be sure to let us know when the new batch of Thumpinators are ready for sale.

[xilddx]

What a fascinating conversation!

How would the SFX MT work in conjunction with my POD X3 LIVE which goes directly to the PA? (I don't use an amp/cab except at rehearsal)

The POD X3 has no HPF or LPF and I have to admit, although I like to use very subby tones, I often find that the subs are a bit uncontrollable and suck some of my midrange when put through a PA. The 4 band parametric eq is useful, but limited.

I'm interested to know if the MT will tighten up my bottom somewhat and give me a little more controllable definition, and minimise the variables, since all PAs are different, as are the people operating them, and my FoH sound needs to be more predictable.

[Conan]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328534483' post='1528551']I'm interested to know if the MT will tighten up my bottom somewhat [/quote]

That's asking a lot!

[discreet]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328534483' post='1528551']
I'm interested to know if the MT will tighten up my bottom somewhat and give me a little more controllable definition, and minimise the variables, since all PAs are different, as are the people operating them, and my FoH sound needs to be more predictable.
[/quote]

May I refer the honourable gentleman to an earlier post?
[url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/165792-why-did-i-not-do-this-sooner/page__view__findpost__p__1524709"]http://basschat.co.uk/topic/165792-why-did-i-not-do-this-sooner/page__view__findpost__p__1524709[/url]

[xilddx]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1328534587' post='1528556']
That's asking a lot!
[/quote]
I just want my bottom to be more predicatable

[xilddx]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1328534793' post='1528562']
May I refer the honourable gentleman to an earlier post?
[url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/165792-why-did-i-not-do-this-sooner/page__view__findpost__p__1524709"]http://basschat.co.u...ost__p__1524709[/url]
[/quote]

Thanks mate, I had read that, but I am wondering where the MT would go in the signal path and if it's designed with such things as the POD in mind.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328535067' post='1528568']
I just want my bottom to be more predicatable
[/quote]

Oh yeah? How does that square with this from another thread:

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328482258' post='1527974']
I know [i]I'll[/i] never stick a white hot poker up me arse again. A lesson I'll never forget.
[/quote]

Unpredictable bottom? You've only got yourself to blame, sicko.

[xilddx]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1328535417' post='1528575']
Oh yeah? How does that square with this from another thread:



Unpredictable bottom? You've only got yourself to blame, sicko.
[/quote]
[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1328535417' post='1528575']
Oh yeah? How does that square with this from another thread:



Unpredictable bottom? You've only got yourself to blame, sicko.
[/quote]

HAHAHA!

[xilddx]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328535208' post='1528569']
Thanks mate, I had read that, but I am wondering where the MT would go in the signal path and if it's designed with such things as the POD in mind.
[/quote]

And now I am wondering what the difference is btween the micro and it's bigger brother, other than size.

Do they ship with a PSU?

Edited February 6, 2012 by silddx

[simwells]

Almost definite the only difference between the micro and full size is the full size has balanced/unblanced ins and outs rather than just unbalanced.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328534483' post='1528551']
I'm interested to know if the MT will tighten up my bottom somewhat and give me a little more controllable definition, and minimise the variables, since all PAs are different, as are the people operating them, and my FoH sound needs to be more predictable.
[/quote]

I would guess (though don't know for sure) that if you're using the Pod cabinet models these will, if they're accurate, already roll off the extreme bottom end - mimicking what a cab would naturally do.
In any case, how effective the Thumpinator was in this context would also depend on where the subs are crossing over. 'Typical' PAs (if there is such a thing) cross over between 80-120 Hz (very roughly). Excessive boom could be as much a feature of poorly integrated subs outputting in the 50-100Hz band as true subsonic freq (sub-30Hz). SEs do like to turn them up until they wallop with the kick drum rather than aiming for flat response across the crossover! Also poor sub placement is often an issue (separated subs, one each side, is an inherently bad setup).

Edited February 6, 2012 by LawrenceH

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1328541679' post='1528703']
I would guess (though don't know for sure) that if you're using the Pod cabinet models these will, if they're accurate, already roll off the extreme bottom end - mimicking what a cab would naturally do.
[/quote]

Plus many of those cabinet models will likely incorporate a boost in the mid-bass (say round 100Hz) up into the low-mids, which might exacerbate any issues with the subs.

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1328532363' post='1528501'] (...)
However to make a more positive suggestion for sfx, if you ever decided to produce circuit variants, say perhaps a 4-string version or even a 'small cab' version with a filter tuned deliberately higher to match modern 'micro' rigs where every watt and mm of excursion counts, then I would definitely be interested.[/quote]

I can build a Custom Shop version tuned to any frequency. It is not a problem. So far nobody asked for a 4 string version but I can’t see why it can’t be done.

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1328532363' post='1528501'] (...)
I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions even if you won't release any specifications, no offence taken and I hope likewise! Since you answered my questions on construction methods I have no doubts about the quality of the products
[/quote]
The same here: no offence taken. It has been a pleasure.


[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1328533483' post='1528533']
Max, I insist you take time off and spend it with your family! Life is short! [/quote]
Very true.

[quote name='shizznit' timestamp='1328534216' post='1528549']
Max - Be sure to let us know when the new batch of Thumpinators are ready for sale.[/quote]
The new batch is almost ready. ...and it also almost all gone.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328534483' post='1528551'] (...)
How would the SFX MT work in conjunction with my POD X3 LIVE which goes directly to the PA? (I don't use an amp/cab except at rehearsal)

The POD X3 has no HPF or LPF and I have to admit, although I like to use very subby tones, I often find that the subs are a bit uncontrollable and suck some of my midrange when put through a PA. The 4 band parametric eq is useful, but limited.

I'm interested to know if the MT will tighten up my bottom somewhat and give me a little more controllable definition, and minimise the variables, since all PAs are different, as are the people operating them, and my FoH sound needs to be more predictable.
[/quote]

I don’t know much about the POD X3 and I prefer not to speculate about something I know so little about.

Strictly from the electronics viewpoint, I don’t see any compatibility problem but I cannot give you an absolute guaranty about the effectiveness of the micro-Thumpinator with the POD X3.

Regarding the use of the micro-Thumpinator with PAs, in my personal experience it works well. Some of my customers reported positively about it as well.

I used it in this gig:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGF_kol0LSI[/media]
The pedalboard was:[list]
[*][sfx] micro-Thumpinator
[*][sfx] micro-Comp (a [sfx] compressor that should be available soon)
[*][sfx] m:D2
[/list]
The PA was powerful and the micro-Thumpinator did his job pretty well.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328535497' post='1528577']
And now I am wondering what the difference is btween the micro and it's bigger brother, other than size.[/quote]
The only difference are the in/out. Balanced vs unbalanced.

I recommend the micro-Thumpinator unless it is used with balanced lines. The Thumpinator does a conversion balanced-unbalanced and unbalanced-balanced that unless is necessary it is better avoid.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328535497' post='1528577']
Do they ship with a PSU?
[/quote]
All [sfx] units are shipped without PSU. On the other side they all work at 9V-DC, Boss-type connector/polarity.