Benefits of adding additional drivers.

NickyBass · #1 06-09-2010, 06:52 PM

I read through some old threads about getting more volume by adding more drivers. I get the general idea. I was planning on moving from a 310 to a 610, and the impedance would be the same. I'm not too concerned about volume, because I have plenty of power to spare. My concern has more to do with the lows.

I was wondering if adding more drivers would give me more clean low end before breaking up. I'm running an Azola Bug Bass into an GK 1001RBII into an Epifani UL310. This is for a salsa band, so super loud and clean lows are important. I have enough power and enough low end for the gig, but....it would be nice to have more.

I am thinking that a UL610 might be a good choice. I tried other heads including the EA iAmp Pro, the Markbass LMIII, and a few others. So far, I like the GK best for both EB and EUB.

BurningSkies · #2 06-09-2010, 07:06 PM

All things being equal, the answer is yes (all things are never REALLY equal). But what you have is more drivers getting the same wattage, so the speakers aren't as close to maxing out as they would be with fewer speakers. Basically, you're not pushing the speakers as hard given an equivalent SPL.

NickyBass · #3 06-09-2010, 07:26 PM

That was my thinking---each speaker wouldn't max out, allowing just a bit more. Normally, one would gain 3db by doubling the number of drivers, (the UL310 and UL610 are the same impedance), but if I keep the volume the same, I wonder what I would really gain in terms of low end.

I hear you, though, about things never being 'equal.'

billfitzmaurice · #4 06-09-2010, 08:05 PM

Even maintaining the same impedance doubling the driver count will get you an additional 3dB of sensitivity, plus 3dB of additional power handling, so it is a worthwhile move.

NickyBass · #5 06-10-2010, 05:54 AM

Thanks for the reply Bill. You're always helpful.

It seems like a good move. Plus, the extra height would put the speakers closer to my ears....which would allow me to turn down the volume, and turn up the lows.

I think the UL310 is a great cab with a nice low end. I'm leaning towards the UL610, but I'm not too sure which way I will go. Time to look around.....

craig.p · #6 06-10-2010, 08:50 AM

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't associate "super loud and clean lows" with a 6x10 cab. I would associate "super loud and clean lows" with a pair of side-stacked 2x15 cabs mated to an amp with lots of current capacity down at the fundamentals -- at the impedance offered by the pair of 2x15 cabs.

BurningSkies · #7 06-10-2010, 08:54 AM

I feel like we've just stepped back into the 1970's.

billfitzmaurice · #8 06-10-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurningSkies

I feel like we've just stepped back into the 1970's.

+1. In the 70s and earlier one had to use a pair of 215s or Fridges to get clean high output down low because of the limitations of the amps and drivers being used, and because high quality PA didn't exist. Those problems disappeared around the same time as the Mullet.

craig.p · #9 06-10-2010, 11:43 AM

Ah. So that explains why tens have taken over low-end duty from fifteens and eighteens in the FOH domain.

May I remind everyone that the primary requirement is lows that are...

Quote:

super loud and clean

mcapote · #10 06-10-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billfitzmaurice

+1. In the 70s and earlier one had to use a pair of 215s or Fridges to get clean high output down low because of the limitations of the amps and drivers being used, and because high quality PA didn't exist. Those problems disappeared around the same time as the Mullet.

havent been to the south lately huh? mullets still live hahaha.
I dont know I still like the 3015LF over the 3012LF to my ears its alot better on the lows.

M0ses · #11 06-10-2010, 12:13 PM

You could say that 15s have more low end, but only because they are generally louder/more efficient overall. This ties in, because it's the same with extra drivers. You get more low end in the sense that you can simply turn it up more.

billfitzmaurice · #12 06-10-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig.p

Ah. So that explains why tens have taken over low-end duty from fifteens and eighteens in the FOH domain.
.

They could, but it wouldn't be cost effective, as tens, fifteens and eighteens with similar characteristics are pretty close in price, but you'd need to use quite a few more tens to get the same displacement. In any event the fifteens and eighteens used in pro-touring subs bear no resemblance to those used in electric bass cabs.

BurningSkies · #13 06-10-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig.p

Ah. So that explains why tens have taken over low-end duty from fifteens and eighteens in the FOH domain.

May I remind everyone that the primary requirement is lows that are...

Well, everyone finds Phil Jones rigs loud and low and clean, and his speakers are all 4". The reality is that the size of a speaker doesn't have much to do with the usable frequency range, nor the capacity to handle power. 4 side by side 15's sounds like your off axis sound will suffer greatly. With speakers on the market of the calibre of the 3012 and 3015 series, why bother with carrying 1970's style oversized bins? It was also an era where you'd need more speakers to make up for the lack of horsepower in most amplifiers.

I also go loud low and clean, and can carry several thousand watts through 2 stacked 15" cabinets that each weigh in at sub-50lbs. I've played outdoors and in large rooms (gymnasiums) without PA behind me and not had any trouble getting my sound across.

craig.p · #14 06-10-2010, 05:42 PM

What the HECK is this fixation with attempting to impugn a solution to a problem by slapping "from the 1970s" on it? You want to slap the same label on tube amps, discrete components, linear power supplies, class A/B power sections, and folded horns while you're at it? Sheesh.

The laws of physics have not changed and never will change. Given similar technology (cab design and driver selection), four fifteens will utterly destroy a 6x10 cab when it comes to super loud and clean lows. How many times does lows that are super loud and clean have to be repeated to get that requirement across? Tell you what: You go tell a sound man he has two choices to accomplish "super loud and clean lows": a 6x10 cab or a pair of 2x15 cabs, and you see what he picks.

If there are haul-in or transportation constraints, then it's a different matter, but those constraints were not part of the initial problem statement.

I stand by my recommendation.

will33 · #15 06-10-2010, 06:00 PM

The size of the drivers has little to do with their performance. This stuff is just more advance, refined and higher performance now. It's like saying a '70's computer that filled an entire room is better than this one sitting on my desk, which by the way is old tech, laptops can do what this thing does.

Edit: Because of this improved technology, we can now get loud clean lows without requiring multiple boxes the size of a twin bed.....each.

silky smoove · #16 06-10-2010, 06:10 PM

craig.p: Please read Bill Fitzmaurice's posts again.

BurningSkies · #17 06-10-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig.p

What the HECK is this fixation with attempting to impugn a solution to a problem by slapping "from the 1970s" on it? You want to slap the same label on tube amps, discrete components, linear power supplies, class A/B power sections, and folded horns while you're at it? Sheesh.

The laws of physics have not changed and never will change. Given similar technology (cab design and driver selection), four fifteens will utterly destroy a 6x10 cab when it comes to super loud and clean lows. How many times does lows that are super loud and clean have to be repeated to get that requirement across? Tell you what: You go tell a sound man he has two choices to accomplish "super loud and clean lows": a 6x10 cab or a pair of 2x15 cabs, and you see what he picks.

If there are haul-in or transportation constraints, then it's a different matter, but those constraints were not part of the initial problem statement.

I stand by my recommendation.

Apparently you've put a whole bunch of words in my mouth. Which is OK, I guess, but as a guy who owns 3 tube amps (2 from the 70's

), I have no problem with old technology if there haven't been advances.

I know plenty about loud clean lows. 99% of the music I play is reggae, and I've played similar Jamaican music for years. No one is saying that a huge pile of huge boxes of huge speakers won't get you loud and low. Just that it's not necessary these days to have a mountain of speakers to get there.

Speakers and cabs are more efficient, the designers have a better grasp on the physics and engineering of speakers than they used to. The materials and construction has also advanced. The benefit for the player? Big and good sound, but without needing a truck to move it.

craig.p · #18 06-10-2010, 06:21 PM

I do not dispute what you're saying, Will, but again the requirement is SUPER loud and clean. "Super" means nothing on the upside of it performance-wise. A pair of 2x15 cabs is unquestionably on the upside of a 6x10 cab.

I think the root cause of this disagreement is different interpretations of the problem statement. He didn't say he wanted louder and cleaner. He didn't say he wanted more lows. He said he wanted lows that are super loud and clean.

By the way, interesting hyperbole about the twin beds, which as everyone knows is a total misrepresentation of a proper 2x15 cab.

Also, where your (and others') arguments about new technology relative to smaller driver sizes falls flat on its face with respect to the relative merits of different driver sizes is that the same technology has come to the larger driver sizes as well. All driver sizes have benefited. And so, O Lovers Of Little Drivers, fifteens have gotten just as better through the years as your tens, and when it comes to lows that are super loud and clean, you guys are chasing something you'll never, ever catch.

NickyBass · #19 06-10-2010, 06:42 PM

The reason that I was thinking about a 610 was because my UL310 delivers fantastic lows. It seemed like the obvious option to look into the UL610. I think what they're saying is that it is totally possible to get nice low end out of 10s--which wasn't always the case.

NickyBass · #20 06-10-2010, 06:45 PM

btw, I was also considering a fearful cab---so 2 15's is an option.