Baer Amplification; Part 2!!

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by gillento

Thanks for your commitment to tone, Roger.

My concern is not the top end, but rather keeping the extended low end of the ML112 under control

Yeah, I know what you mean. I found myself boosting low-mids a touch with my Tone Hammer to even out the top end a bit. I also boosted lows, but the Tone Hammer (when the AGS is disengaged) doesn't really have an HPF to keep the sublows in check as I prefer. The TC RH450 has a very nice HPF that works great with the ML112. Also, since you can set the shelving frequency on the Bass control knob anywhere from 71hz all the way up to 1.1khz (default is 280hz), you can pretty much get that one knob to boost lows and low mids all at the same time without having the sub lows take over your sound which I love. It also leaves you with 3 extra bands of to control mids, upper mids and highs. Compared to the Tone Hammer, the RH450 just sound incredible with the ML112, so much so that I have an RH750 on the way so that I can get the extra power and headroom, plus have the Tweetertone control to get whatever amount of sparkle or lack thereof on top. I think it'll be the perfect matchup for this particular cab for people who want that retro-modern tone like I do.

The ML112 isn't really deep sounding on a flat head to me, but that 12" driver can really pound if you push the lows to it. With the Tone Hammer, I could really get it hitting hard which I think a lot of people would absolutely love, but I prefer a tighter bass tone like you. You could always consider something like Fdeck's HPF which has gotten many rave reviews. Having a driver that can handle those lows without really giving it a chance to can be a very nice thing.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by gillento

Thanks for your commitment to tone, Roger.

My concern is not the top end, but rather keeping the extended low end of the ML112 under control

Wow, extended low end is not one of the descriptors I would use when talking about the ML112. The beauty (IMO and IME) of the ML112 is the ability to just POUND the mid bass without any compression. The actual roll-off seems quite high to me compared to some other cabs. IMO the voicing Roger uses slots the bass WONDERFULLY into many mixes in many playing contexts. It puts the bass 'above the bass drum' and slots the treble 'below the cymbals. This results (again IMO and IME) in a voicing that seems much louder than it should be given the size of the cab, and also results in a tone that is similar (again IMO!) to where a producer/engineer slots the bass in may pop/funk/jazz/indie/rock recordings that I enjoy.

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by gillento

Thanks for your commitment to tone, Roger.

My concern is not the top end, but rather keeping the extended low end of the ML112 under control

Usually when I think "extended lows" I'm thinking more about a 3012LF loaded cab that can reproduce lows way far down into the 30Hz range without flinching. The low end on the ML112 really has more of a big, full low end, as that driver starts rolling off above what I would consider and extended low. Having the meat of the bass tone a little higher up, the bass control on your amp should be to dial a little out if necessary. Typically though, I don't about many of our customers rolling off the low end much with these cabs. I haven't heard one yet, but I would imagine that Fdeck HPF would also be a great thing for controlling the stuff way down low, without affecting the meat and potatoes of your sound much. You may also want to try the vertical stack, as you loose a touch of deep lows with the cab oriented that way.

[nostatic]

I'm pretty sensitive to boomy low end and I don't have any desire to reach for the bass knob running the ML112s.

[Eublet]

When I first receive my ML112, I think I posted that it was more extended in the low end than I was expecting based on reports. It's not a big round bottom, but it seems to have more going on down there than your average cab, especially a 112 cabinet. It has a big cab feel in a smaller footprint. The 12" driver is capable of quite a lot. Since the upper-mid is so aggressive, I think many people will wind up boosting the lows in an effort to compensate, and that driver will just take that boost such that it winds up making the bottom feel biggrer and not as tight as some people might have it. As I've mentioned here, I think the ML112 needs a little bit of low end and low-mid boost to even out the upper-mid, that is if you are trying to make it sound like a more typical cabinet. I realise that is not the design goal of this cabinet, but it is likely a starting point for many people who will naturally want to "un-tip" the scale in the other direction when they first test the cabinet.

If you have a head that doesn't let you boost low mids (150-250hz) then you could wind up dialing up the bass knob (40-80 hz on most heads) excessively which, with that very capable driver, will result in anything but a tight bass response. IME/YMMV

[gillento]

Originally Posted by R Baer

Usually when I think "extended lows" I'm thinking more about a 3012LF loaded cab that can reproduce lows way far down into the 30Hz range without flinching. The low end on the ML112 really has more of a big, full low end, as that driver starts rolling off above what I would consider and extended low. Having the meat of the bass tone a little higher up, the bass control on your amp should be to dial a little out if necessary. Typically though, I don't about many of our customers rolling off the low end much with these cabs. I haven't heard one yet, but I would imagine that Fdeck HPF would also be a great thing for controlling the stuff way down low, without affecting the meat and potatoes of your sound much. You may also want to try the vertical stack, as you loose a touch of deep lows with the cab oriented that way.

I'll be rehearsing twice this week with the band so I'll be able to try different eq settings.

[gillento]

Originally Posted by Eublet

When I first receive my ML112, I think I posted that it was more extended in the low end than I was expecting based on reports. It's not a big round bottom, but it seems to have more going on down there than your average cab, especially a 112 cabinet. It has a big cab feel in a smaller footprint. The 12" driver is capable of quite a lot. ....

This is definitely a bettwer way to put it into words than I did when saying/writing "extended low end".

Thanks Eublet!

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Eublet

When I first receive my ML112, I think I posted that it was more extended in the low end than I was expecting based on reports. It's not a big round bottom, but it seems to have more going on down there than your average cab, especially a 112 cabinet. It has a big cab feel in a smaller footprint. The 12" driver is capable of quite a lot. Since the upper-mid is so aggressive, I think many people will wind up boosting the lows in an effort to compensate, and that driver will just take that boost such that it winds up making the bottom feel biggrer and not as tight as some people might have it. As I've mentioned here, I think the ML112 needs a little bit of low end and low-mid boost to even out the upper-mid, that is if you are trying to make it sound like a more typical cabinet. I realise that is not the design goal of this cabinet, but it is likely a starting point for many people who will naturally want to "un-tip" the scale in the other direction when they first test the cabinet.

If you have a head that doesn't let you boost low mids (150-250hz) then you could wind up dialing up the bass knob (40-80 hz on most heads) excessively which, with that very capable driver, will result in anything but a tight bass response. IME/YMMV

+1 in that if you try to EQ out the relative brightness in the upper mids by 'masking it' with bass boosting, the cab will react to that EQ and put out a more forceful and deep low end than your typical Guitar Center 112. A much better way to do this (as you know) is to make sure you have an upper midrange control that can soften the response of the cab near the crossover point (roughly 2K or so). While the mid driver that the ML112 uses is much more organic and less spikey than other executions, for some tone goals, it is still nice to roll back a bit of the lower treble/upper midrange in that 1K-2K area to get a more 'traditional' two way cab tone.

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by KJung

+1 in that if you try to EQ out the relatively brightness in the upper mids by 'masking it' with bass boosting, the cab will react to that EQ and put out a more forceful and deep low end than your typical Guitar Center 112. A much better way to do this (as you know) is to make sure you have an upper midrange control that can soften the response of the cab near the crossover point (roughly 2K or so). While the mid driver that the ML112 uses is much more organic and less spikey than other executions, for some tone goals, it is still nice to roll back a bit of the lower treble/upper midrange in that 1K-2K area to get a more 'traditional' two way cab tone.

+1 Tis better to cut than to boost! I've also found that rolling back the vintage tone control works amazingly good if your bass is so equipped. My Nordy VJ5 is the first bass I've ever owed with a VTC and I would never buy another bass again without one. Just had a Nordstrand pre with the VTC put in my Ken Lawrence and the difference is huge. The VTC tames the brightness of that bass than anything I've encountered yet. Remember, when in doubt WWLD (what would Leo do).

[Chef]

Yessir: VTC on an active bass is the cat's meow, for sure.

I would not call the Baer ML112's I have "bottom heavy," to me they feel much more even and controlled than the 12/6/1+12sub I have.
They're a little fatter than the GK Neo 112's, but, they certainly never have felt to me "over bassy, " or "hard to control down there."

[Addison]

Originally Posted by Chef

"hard to control down there"

[kobass]

^^^^^

LOL!

[BrentSimons]

Originally Posted by Chef

Yessir: VTC on an active bass is the cat's meow, for sure.

I would not call the Baer ML112's I have "bottom heavy," to me they feel much more even and controlled than the 12/6/1+12sub I have.
They're a little fatter than the GK Neo 112's, but, they certainly never have felt to me "over bassy, " or "hard to control down there."

Chef,
I really enjoyed your review in the latest Bass Gear Mag. I'm on the fence about one of these puppies and my good old GK Neo 112's. Twice the price though. Hmmm.
Brent

[scotch]

Originally Posted by BrentSimons

Chef,
I really enjoyed your review in the latest Bass Gear Mag. I'm on the fence about one of these puppies and my good old GK Neo 112's. Twice the price though. Hmmm.
Brent

Yeah, that Bass Gear review keeps me coming back to considering the Baer.

[CTC564]

To anyone who is "on the fence"...I bought my pair of ML-112's back in April based on nothing more than KJung's solid review and a fellow TB'er who recommended that I order one to try...if I didn't like it, it's returnable for 10 days (double check the website to see if this is still true) and after the fourth day, I ordered my second ML-112

I can honestly say that I've never been happier with any cabinet and every time I play them, I love them just a little more :-)

[nostatic]

I briefly had the GK 112 neo series 2. Nice cab for the money, but imho it isn't in the same league as the Baer. The ML112 can get edgy in the upper mids if you push it, while the GK under the same conditions would get harsh. I know that words are in-exact for tone, but there is a difference between the paper cone and the tweeter.

I've now got a number of gigs in different rooms under my belt and at this point the cabs aren't going anywhere. The ML112 gives me more low end than I had with the Tecamp XS112 (even a pair of them), is more articulate down low than the S212. As Ken has said, the tone is reminiscent of the Berg AE210, but with a richer low end and less extended highs. I just plugged my Rob Allen into the Monique running through the ML112. It is freakin' heaven. That bass can be tough on amps and cabinets - a ton of low end and a tweeter cab will often accentuate the piezo highs. Since the ML112 doesn't have those extended highs, that isn't an issue. And the lows are really well controlled - no wool/boom.

If you play rock, I can't think of a better cab. I tend to play more jazz and soul/funk/pop, and this cab still kills. You do have to reset your expectations if you've been playing a tweeter loaded cabinet. You're not going to get that über high stuff. But it turns out at least in my case, I don't need them. And in fact when I'm comping chords up high on the 5-string (E-C), things end up sounding sweeter without that sometimes annoying shrill quality.

[PWV]

Originally Posted by scotch

Yeah, that Bass Gear review keeps me coming back to considering the Baer.

+1

[greenrositti]

Have any of you pushed your ML 112s with a Glock Blue Soul? Having never played one, it seems to me my pair of MLs would be a great match.

[kringle77]

These are on my radar for sure but, Im going to wait until the 2x12 comes out first.

[Chef]

Personally, I prefer the 2x112 setup:
-it's more flexible because you can use one cab if you want to
-the vertical stack totally suits me
-I think two smaller boxes are easier to move

ymmv.......