marshall 1960 cab with bass speakers

thrashcomics · #1 09-30-2010, 04:09 AM

Looking for advice from someone with cab design knowledge, if i replace the vintage 30s with 300 watt carvin bass speakers will the cab sound decent? Is the cab big enough? Should i just give up and buy a bass cab?

username1 · #2 09-30-2010, 07:19 AM

I would try email carvin and see if those speakers are suitable for a sealed enclosure. If you havn't purchased the speakers yet i would recommend eminence deltalite 2512 speakers as they are designed to be used in smaller sealed cabs also and should work well in there. I'm assuming that is a sealed non ported cab.

BassmanPaul · #3 09-30-2010, 11:12 AM

The cabinet is too small to get a decent response for bass. Cabinet design entails much much more than putting a speaker in a box especially for bass.

Adlerburg · #4 09-30-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassmanPaul

The cabinet is too small to get a decent response for bass. Cabinet design entails much much more than putting a speaker in a box especially for bass.

+1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The 1960 cab is a sealed cab designed for guitar and it's most common frequency range. I own 4 of them, and they do sound great for guitar, if you enjoy the english Marshall sound (I do!). I would say it's a waste of time/$$ to try and retrofit some 12" bass drivers in there. The cab was not engineered for it.

username1 · #5 09-30-2010, 12:49 PM

For a cabinet that is supossedly not tuned for bass alot of bassists used them in the 60's including myself. A sealed cab is alot more forgiving tuning wise than a ported one and if you like the sound of a sealed cab i would say go for it. Just make shure to use speakers such as the deltalite that are designed for sealed cabs that size, and mabe line the cab with some insulation. Alot of people still use v4 cabs for bass with good bass speakers installed and with good results.

rpsands · #6 09-30-2010, 12:56 PM

The only woofer I would consider stuffing into those old cabs is the Basslite S2012. Most of the modern woofers do not behave well enough in a small sealed box to work well.

billfitzmaurice · #7 09-30-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by username1

For a cabinet that is supossedly not tuned for bass alot of bassists used them in the 60's including myself.

That's because it originally was a bass cab. Keep in mind that in those days there was precious little difference between many bass and guitar cabs, if any, and the raison d'etre for the Stack was to have something that could keep up with a 2x12 guitar cab. That notion lasted perhaps a week, until the first guitar player tried one.
Nowadays a pair of well engineered 2x10s would have it all over that Marshall.

BassmanPaul · #8 09-30-2010, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billfitzmaurice

That's because it originally was a bass cab. Keep in mind that in those days there was precious little difference between many bass and guitar cabs, if any, and the raison d'etre for the Stack was to have something that could keep up with a 2x12 guitar cab. That notion lasted perhaps a week, until the first guitar player tried one.
Nowadays a pair of well engineered 2x10s would have it all over that Marshall.

Hadn't heard that Bill, but it makes complete sense. When I bought my Marshall cabinet there were four versions available. One rated at 80W and the other 100W each available in straight and slant front. I bought the slant front 100W version.

Zitch · #9 09-30-2010, 03:34 PM

This might be a bad idea but if it being sealed is a problem why not port it yourself, would this expand your options? Just curious.

Adlerburg · #10 09-30-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zitch

This might be a bad idea but if it being sealed is a problem why not port it yourself, would this expand your options? Just curious.

One would assume that there is a ton of designing, placement, and math that goes into porting... not just getting your holesaw out.

username1 · #11 09-30-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billfitzmaurice

That's because it originally was a bass cab. Keep in mind that in those days there was precious little difference between many bass and guitar cabs, if any, and the raison d'etre for the Stack was to have something that could keep up with a 2x12 guitar cab. That notion lasted perhaps a week, until the first guitar player tried one.
Nowadays a pair of well engineered 2x10s would have it all over that Marshall.

I agree with that, but for the time and for what else was available back then i thought they were good other than the crappy speakers they came with. I later upgraded the speakers to altecs which made a huge improvement. They defenetly wont have the bottom end of todays ported cabs and will probably start to roll off at 100hz, just like an ampeg 810, but i still love that tight bottom end for my 4 strings and still love my sealed 810's. Dont mean to argue with anyone but just figured that cab would sound tight and punchy with the deltalites. I use a small sealed 410 for smaller jobs which i put avatar deltalites in and just love the sound and figured the marshall would sound similar with a more beefy sound.

Bmorefoozler · #12 10-01-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerburg

One would assume that there is a ton of designing, placement, and math that goes into porting... not just getting your holesaw out.

Just the tip of the iceberg is that it is a continuous battle of shrinking cabinet volume as ports grow, so a cabinet that was already way too small, gets impossibly smaller. If it's gotta be small it's best to be sealed.

billfitzmaurice · #13 10-01-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmorefoozler

Just the tip of the iceberg is that it is a continuous battle of shrinking cabinet volume as ports grow, so a cabinet that was already way too small, gets impossibly smaller. If it's gotta be small it's best to be sealed.

Cabinet size has nothing to do with whether the cab is ported or not. It's totally up to the driver specs and the design goals. In most cases the best results with smaller cab sizes will be realized with ports, but it's still driver dependent.
As to the size of the original Marshall it was arrived at as being the most efficient use of a 5x5 foot sheet of plywood, the standard size for Baltic Birch.

T-Bird · #14 10-02-2010, 10:56 PM

Hi.

Back in the day I had a JCM800 4*12 bass cab, and paired with a JMP1959 it produced a great vintage bass tone. And plenty enough volume.

That cab was dimensionally the same as the guitar cab, but had G12H100 speakers IIRC.

If I was considering a sealed 4*12 now, I'd spend some time with a cab modelling software, not limiting my choices with Eminence only.

Regards
Sam

billfitzmaurice · #15 10-03-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Bird

Hi.

Back in the day I had a JCM800 4*12 bass cab, and paired with a JMP1959 it produced a great vintage bass tone.

Of course, but it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. 'Vintage' tone was purely a matter of what the gear was capable of giving. You can get vintage tone today from cabs half the size of the originals.

taurus1 · #16 10-03-2010, 08:24 PM

1960 cabs are incredibly good for bass, Steve Harris, J.J. Burnel, Lemmy, Rob Wright, all use them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cWWW96L8U

T-Bird · #17 10-03-2010, 10:38 PM

Hi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by billfitzmaurice

Of course, but it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. 'Vintage' tone was purely a matter of what the gear was capable of giving. You can get vintage tone today from cabs half the size of the originals.

What You say is obviously true.
The way I see it, a person who wants either a Marshall cab or a Marshall head (or both

), aims for that "vintage tone". And he/she aims also for that vintage "rock" appearance. If that's not the case, threads like this may make them wake up.

The gear inadequasies we have grown to accept and even to like, make up the major portion of the gear- and tone preferences we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taurus1

1960 cabs are incredibly good for bass, Steve Harris, J.J. Burnel, Lemmy, Rob Wright, all use them.

IME they're decent, but I wouldn't call 'em incredibly good. Those players have engineers and PA systems that I would call incredibly good.

Regards
Sam

taurus1 · #18 10-04-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Bird

Hi.

What You say is obviously true.
The way I see it, a person who wants either a Marshall cab or a Marshall head (or both

), aims for that "vintage tone". And he/she aims also for that vintage "rock" appearance. If that's not the case, threads like this may make them wake up.

The gear inadequasies we have grown to accept and even to like, make up the major portion of the gear- and tone preferences we have.

IME they're decent, but I wouldn't call 'em incredibly good. Those players have engineers and PA systems that I would call incredibly good.

Regards
Sam

oh I see, it's the engineers that sound good. right, why didn't I think of that.

Son of Bovril · #19 10-04-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taurus1

oh I see, it's the engineers that sound good. right, why didn't I think of that.

I'd imagine that at a live show the majority of the time you are hearing the DI line and possibly mixed with a mic'd cab and on the albums i seriously doubt they are mic'ing 1960's cabs in the studio...but hey i could be wrong

Strychnine · #20 10-04-2010, 02:12 PM

I've recorded bass tracks through a Mesa dual rec into a 1960AX, mic'd into ProTools. My rig at the time was an SWR Bass 350/Goliath III, and we had a Mesa 400+ and two Ampeg BXT410XL's. The guitar rig actually delivered the best tone for recording, although it didn't sound great listening to it in the room. Not much volume, and sounded thin. I didn't understand it, and still don't.