Thinking about trading my Berg IP setup for a PJB rig, am I crazy?

[Bennet Pullen]

The title pretty much says it all. I run an IP112/HT112 stack (pre ER) with a Phil Jones P-1 as a pre and its an amazing little rig. However I find myself constantly fighting the bottom end these days messing with the high pass and stuff trying to get a tighter punchier tone. I've been thinking I should just go for a full Phil Jones rig because I already love the pre and it doesn't really get much tighter and punchier than that right?

Does anybody have much experience with both of these options? How much PJB stuff would I need to match the volume from the small but mighty bergs? Since I already have the P-1 are there any good power recommendations since I won't have the powered IP anymore? What about the Phil Jones piranha vs neopower?

[animal52]

How about adding a phil jones extension cabinet in place of your HT112?

[Bennet Pullen]

Yeah that's something to consider for sure, I've always been kind of weird about mis-matched stuff though... I should really just get over that haha.

[coyoteboy]

http://www.philjonespuresound.com/products/?id=125

[chadds]

I fought the low end battle with the IP. I frankly ignored the first line of the owners manual. Turn down the bass eq.
My passive G&L can make the IP sound bad if I boost to much bass eq on the instrument. Sure I've played traditional rigs where I could turn the bass's eq all the way up. What this meant though was that the rig had no intention of reproducing all that anyway.
I got with it and realized how little I needed. How on my pres my bass eq is at 8:30. I keep the bass eq on my basses at flat or below. Yes it's different but it sounds so good. Who cares what position your knobs are? Especially out front. Walk away and hear that sound.

Hope that helps.

[chadds]

Punchy is what this rig can really do. Lower the lows, the mids will show through. On a gig I don't need that low end I hear in practice. The punch gets you right there with the drummer and accentuates all parts of the music. Low mids will get you nice low end too.

I wondered why people were saying this rig was so loud. When I dropped those subwoofer lows I could play it really loud and it sounded great! Live! Outside! Four string too! Who knew?!

[BassmanPaul]

We're all a little crazy otherwise we wouldn't be out they playing for little thanks and short money!!!

However if the IPs are not taking you where you want to go, good as they may be, it's time to go down another avenue. If Phil's products get you closer to your goals, then that's the way you should go.

You're still a young player and, as time passes, the tone that's in your head will change. It happens to us all. It took me something like forty years to find my perfect set up. I wish you a speedier search.

Paul

[chadds]

Me too. 40++ years. Settled on the IPs

[babebambi]

Originally Posted by Zensunday

The title pretty much says it all. I run an IP112/HT112 stack (pre ER) with a Phil Jones P-1 as a pre and its an amazing little rig. However I find myself constantly fighting the bottom end these days messing with the high pass and stuff trying to get a tighter punchier tone. I've been thinking I should just go for a full Phil Jones rig because I already love the pre and it doesn't really get much tighter and punchier than that right?

Does anybody have much experience with both of these options? How much PJB stuff would I need to match the volume from the small but mighty bergs? Since I already have the P-1 are there any good power recommendations since I won't have the powered IP anymore? What about the Phil Jones piranha vs neopower?

Why can't you just cut the bass EQ?

If the PJB pre doesn't have the EQ at the frequency I need to cut, then I would look for another pre that let me shape the tone in ways that suits me better.

Yes, I think it's crazy to give up on the IP.

[Bennet Pullen]

I do cut the bass EQ for sure, and can certainly get great tones out of this rig, but it seems like every gig I have to spend a chunk time sitting there tweaking the bottom 5 bands or so on my graphic EQ and trying to find the sweet spot for my high-pass filter.

[bassplayarob]

Yes, you would be crazy if you got rid of the Berg.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Zensunday

I do cut the bass EQ for sure, and can certainly get great tones out of this rig, but it seems like every gig I have to spend a chunk time sitting there tweaking the bottom 5 bands or so on my graphic EQ and trying to find the sweet spot for my high-pass filter.

The low end control has always seemed to be an issue with the IP rigs (even the original small HT112). Running a preamp into basically another preamp (the DSP circuitry in the IP) can really cause some issues, and if your EQ shelving start points and mid center points don't line up well, then some nasty things can happen.

There is something to letting an expert bass amp design engineer pair a preamp to a power amp (i.e., a more traditional bass head), and I would HIGHLY recommend that you listen to a few 'traditional' bass rigs prior to jumping to the PJB stuff (nice, but you need lots of those little 5's to get up to your IP stack volume). It actually might be that preamp that you don't dig as much as the IP... hard to know since all this stuff interacts so much.

That wide, deep, pure tone that sounds so good at home can actually sound boomy and mushy in a mix in a live setting (as you seem to be experiencing).

If you have a chance to check out either the AE212 or the new HT112ER with a variety of micro heads, I would HIGHLY recommend that. The AE212 is deep, but VERY controlled down low, and has plenty of mid oomph for articulation. It is also quite high SPL, so a 500 watt amp drives the heck out of it.

I was also impressed with a single HT112ER... much nicer low end and smoother mids than the original HT112, and no need for the goosing, etc. that the IP has built in.

I have a few clips of both these cabs with a variety of heads on my YouTube channel FYI.

That all being said, one other option is to send your IP module back to Jim and get the voicing tweaked. I know a few guys who greatly prefer the 'two cab voicing' (i.e., less low end if I remember right) with the single cab. Jim could easily tweak out some of the deep bass for you (or, like the IP310, change one of the settings to a 'no DSP' setting) and assign that to one of the two setting you don't use much. Just an idea.

[chadds]

Great suggestions. Why the hi-pass action anyway? Perhaps you are doing to much eqing? Try everything flat and then reduce a little at a time. When using, the Kern and the Glock my settings stay the same at almost every gig. This includes outside. I may slightly turn down some highs or reduce some mids but it's only slightly. Just because your pre is designed to do everything doesn't mean you should.

The IPs sound so good without a pre that there was that prototype that never really came out that had a hi-pass and gain. You may as I think KJung is alluding to be fighting the DSP with all the eqing.

Meet my friend, Les. Les Izmore.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by chadds

Great suggestions. Why the hi-pass action anyway? Perhaps you are doing to much eqing? Try everything flat and then reduce a little at a time. When using, the Kern and the Glock my settings stay the same at almost every gig. This includes outside. I may slightly turn down some highs or reduce some mids but it's only slightly. Just because your pre is designed to do everything doesn't mean you should.

The IPs sound so good without a pre that there was that prototype that never really came out that had a hi-pass and gain. You may as I think KJung is alluding to be fighting the DSP with all the eqing.

Meet my friend, Les. Les Izmore.

+1 I'm thinking that, if I remember correctly, the IP112 has a one cab and two cab setting, both of which have a bit of bass boost engaged. If he sends the IP module back and has Jim change the 'one cab' setting, which I believe has the deepest EQ setting, to a 'dry setting', which I think is the DSP off but compression still engaged, that might end up being a beautiful thing for him.

[chadds]

Less bass boost in 2 cab selection. Tom and I like the 1 cab setting for 1 or two cabs. I haven't heard his set up but think he's thinking in a traditional fashion about this eqing. Dialing in stuff with his pre that would work with a pwr amp and passive cab. I think the eqing is fighting with the DSP. I think if he starts with nothing just gain he will hear the beauty inherent in the DSP that allows such a small box to do so much. Then he can add or subtract lightly.

[Bennet Pullen]

Yeah I have ran the rig with a few different pre-amps and just direct in over the years that I've had it, and have had similar results for the most part, though I didn't get to use all of them in a gig setting. I do try to start every gig with the pre-amp set flat and tweak from there, but I tend to end up making fairly dramatic changes before I can get rid of the boom.

What you guys are saying about fighting with the DSP makes perfect sense, and really seems to explain what I'm feeling. I feel like the cab sounds great, but its fighting me when I try to tweak anything. On my next gig I'll try setting it in 2 cab mode with 1 cab and see if I like that.

You know it's funny you should mention that, I tried the AE212 with a few micro heads last week. I liked it with the MB500 quite a bit, not so much with the RH450 or MB Fusion, I guess I'm used to the solid state immediacy now. I was in the store and I'm not super familiar with that room so I'm planning on going back with my rig with me so I can A/B some stuff. I will try to check out the HT112ER though.

I guess the problem is that despite these issues the IP is still the best setup I've ever played through. It sounds great, especially for such a small package, I just want better haha. I want a sound that manages to be deep and full but still has a ton of punch and articulation. Maybe that combo can't be done and still be controllable? Anyway thanks for all the input, I appreciate it.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Zensunday

Yeah I have ran the rig with a few different pre-amps and just direct in over the years that I've had it, and have had similar results for the most part, though I didn't get to use all of them in a gig setting. I do try to start every gig with the pre-amp set flat and tweak from there, but I tend to end up making fairly dramatic changes before I can get rid of the boom.

What you guys are saying about fighting with the DSP makes perfect sense, and really seems to explain what I'm feeling. I feel like the cab sounds great, but its fighting me when I try to tweak anything. On my next gig I'll try setting it in 2 cab mode with 1 cab and see if I like that.

You know it's funny you should mention that, I tried the AE212 with a few micro heads last week. I liked it with the MB500 quite a bit, not so much with the RH450 or MB Fusion, I guess I'm used to the solid state immediacy now. I was in the store and I'm not super familiar with that room so I'm planning on going back with my rig with me so I can A/B some stuff. I will try to check out the HT112ER though.

I guess the problem is that despite these issues the IP is still the best setup I've ever played through. It sounds great, especially for such a small package, I just want better haha. I want a sound that manages to be deep and full but still has a ton of punch and articulation. Maybe that combo can't be done and still be controllable? Anyway thanks for all the input, I appreciate it.

+1 on the AE212 with the RH450... not impressive, even though I like that head with some other cabs quite a bit. The GK micro's are too 'boomy/sizzly' for me.. don't dig them at all, and the quality seems a bit lower than most of the other micro's. The Markbass stuff KILLS with the AE212 if you like it warm, clean and punchy

Don't forget about the option of sending your IP module or entire cab back to Jim to get an alternative DSP setting (either off or less low end extension). If you haven't talked to Jim, he is VERY helpful with these types of things, and if you are basically happy with the performance of that stack, that might be a VERY low cost way to just tighten it up a bit. I would recommend changing the current setting you like least to a 'DSP off but compression still on' setting. That would go a long way to tightening up the low end.

Good luck!

[Joelc73]

Originally Posted by KJung

Don't forget about the option of sending your IP module or entire cab back to Jim to get an alternative DSP setting (either off or less low end extension). If you haven't talked to Jim, he is VERY helpful with these types of things, and if you are basically happy with the performance of that stack, that might be a VERY low cost way to just tighten it up a bit. I would recommend changing the current setting you like least to a 'DSP off but compression still on' setting. That would go a long way to tightening up the low end.

Good luck!

Jim did this on one of my IP310's a few years ago. He tweaked it so the second setting had less uber low extension. It really helped in a band setting.

[Joshua]

First and foremost; yes, you'd be crazy to trade away the IP.



I've used the IP112/EX112 stack (with a TD100 pre) for almost 3 years now. Silly question, but if you have an active pre on your bass(es), do you start with them flat as well as the P1?

[ric stave]

That's what I'm curious about too - what bass(es), and how do you have your on-board EQ set? (Active or not....)

I'm in the Pro - IP camp - best thing I ever bought (old version IP112 w/EX112 extension) - I've used it with my active basses straight in, an ADA MB-1 pre, an MXR-M80 and a Samsamp PBDDI..... never had any problem like you describe.