• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

410Neo vs 410 RBH

#4
Hope this helps and response to your inquiry – after nearly 20 years as a bassist performing live and studio work, my honest opinion is that it depends on the sound you are going for; be that live or studio, effects driven or not. After many trials and lessons learned from blowing speakers I have come to a conclusion, yet even sometimes I still have trouble with sound my sound. Remember this is all opinion.

Non- Neo (neodymium) Speakers:
In the studio I use Ampeg B-15-N Portaflex circa 1967 because it is a great work horse, they built it right then and it still kicks ass today. The paper cone is great for recording it and gives you that deep warm tone; this being a non-neo speaker. Also being a low 100w and not much else to it you can crank it up and you get a nice loud virgin tone that’s clean and crisp without blowing the speaker because the paper cone is rated to match perfectly to the amp, later you can add effects while editing, I wouldn’t push any effects but a Rat Distortion pedal while tracking if that’s what ya need. (I use the all tube preamp direct to the mixing board for the true clean 2nd track which my effects go on for final cut) Non-neo is great for the warm deep tones of classic rock bass and if you listen closely you can even hear the small “HISS” that comes with a paper cone. Classic 810s I love for the bigger all around sound like a good band practice when you want to just surround yourself with a wall of bass driven air, I have tried these in the past live and always blow a speaker or three, but maybe it’s just my playing style. So non-neo is great for recording, crappy for live.

Neo Speakers:
Live I use the Ampeg Neo 2x410s – 1700w or Hartke HyDrive of 410 / 115 – 1500w pushed by a Carvin B1500 with lots of power and the reason is this, Live I can immolate any sound from the studio with a Neo speaker, also the lighter yet stronger cone gives you more room to mess around in without the worry of blowing the speakers. The rating of 1500+ watts at 4ohms (from using two or more cabs at 8ohms ea) leaves plenty on top from a 1200 w amp, (split this for right and left so about 500w per side to each stack, which is not a lot when you break it down) so when I add affects and such (each to which could add 50 - 75w depending on the pedal) the higher rating of Neo’s can handle anything you throw at em. I do find the Neo’s are more costly but it’s worth it since I have never blown a speaker since making the change. They are better for mixing a live sound since they are much clearer than paper cones, which can still have that plastic bag sucking sound if pushed to loud and not running a big wattage amp; and on bigger venues you need to go more than a few 100 watts. (Yes I know some bass gods only use the Ampeg 300w all tube amps, but ya ever notice how they use three chained together? Do you have $1200 per amp?)

So there ya go I was bored at work and that’s my opinion – I like the Neo’s for live and the old classic paper cones from recording.
 
#5
Yhym interesting.

I'm personaly thinking about the GK 1001rb-II head and a 410rbh at 8 ohms and maybe buy one more to it in the future or a 115. This set will cost me bout 1630 euro.

That's some interesting stuff you're sayin I must say about the neodynium speakers and that they sound better live. I've only tried neodynium cabs in shops and my felling was that they are a bit to clean, cold..."emotion less" if I can put it that way.

I don't really have the money for tube amps...or I have it now but I know that the cost of changing tubes can be a problem for me in the future. That is why I qiuet sure about choosing the GK 1001rb-II head 'caus it's a SS amp and it's also warm and based on Fleas and Duffs or Tools bass it's a flexible amp.

I just have the dilema about which 8 ohm 410 cab should I choose. Both Duff and Flea uses it so it can't be so bad :P

I also thought about GK cab so I could use the bi amping system.

But thanks once gain for the reply you gave me something to think about ;P
 
#6
No problem and after reading your post allow me to give some insight - again just opinion but may help you with more research in making your choice -

Never worry about the sound of Flea or Duff as most of the time the amps and cabs you see on stage are not in use or just for show - I know alot of pro bassist such as John DeServio from Black Label Society uses Marshal bass amps and cabs on stage but then if you look behind is rig you see one amp being used and then thru a Ampeg SVTDI Tube Driven Direct Box which gives him that kiler tubed deep warm sound direct thru the PA - and never using the cabs but only for show. When it comes time for my band to be on that par of touring yes I will be using one of these.. so there is one idea if you can afford it is to just go direct thru the PA with that Ampeg DI Box

Also when you record it is best to use tubed amps and since you only use it once in a while the tubes dont wear down as fast and cost less in long run.

Or just splurge and get all the kick ass cabs and have a huge wall behind you while the guitarist plays thru a small Fender kickback LOL

but seriously if it helps... determind your needs over cost first.. then once you figure that out try finding the best cost to your budget.. and of course dont forget being happy with the sound you want.. and somewhere in the middle you may find it.

remember high cost recording sound is just that.. recording and you can replicate that live for half if not cheaper.. just toy around alot.. its all about what makes you happy
 
#7
Flea does use the GK gear live, and I'm pretty sure Duff does too. Bob Gallien (rag here on TB) even mentioned once that Flea's gear is miced and goes through DI, but he wasn't sure what the ratio of DI/mic was for the PA.
 
#8
The GK 410RBH is a very solid, deep sounding professional cab but it’s HEAVY and somewhat outdated. Combining it with a 115 cabinet will not yield the results you might expect either as the cabs will not put an out equal amount of sound, plus the sound from each won’t be as good as if it were running standalone or paired with an identical cab.
The new GK NEO series cabs are not only lighter but will sound better in a live situation where more low-mid emphasis is desirable over low-end thump. That’s opinion on my part, because some people like a heavier sound.
Personally I think your best bet is to go for a pair of GK NEO 212’s and stack them vertical. When your moving around a stage, a 410’s sound seem to disappear a bit due to cancellation effect (although they do project sound out nicely). This effect may seem less pronounced with an aluminum cone 410 like the Hartke, which project more mids than a cab like the RBH410.
Now stacking a pair of 212’s gets the cabs up higher (more sound in your face) and the side-to-side dispersion is also better. Sound levels from each cab will be equal and when using only one cab, you won’t have to mess around with your EQ as much. If it’s an option, you might want to try out a pair of GK 212 NEOs.
:bassist:
 
#13
I used one (or two) GK 410RBH cabinets early into my bass-playing career, and I absolutely love them!! They're fantastic workhouses with an extremely warm sound. To me, they're the quintessential 4x10: punchy, clear, and deep. My opinion, however, is that they excel in the low/low-mids... and are more or less stuck there. For a traditional rock band, they're perfect, but I wanted something with a more full-range sound as I pursued music that was more eccentric. With the price of these puppies going down, they're phenomenal value, too.

I played through 410 Neo cabinets a few times as I was shopping for a new set up, and while they sound great all I was really able to get was the traditional "GK growly tone". Take that how you will, but I wasn't impressed enough with the cabinet's versatility.

I currently played through two 212 Neo cabinets, and it's a set up that is absolutely perfect for me. Preserves the low notes's clarity as a 410 should, with (imo, of course) more tonal diversity to make my sound really stand out.

In closing, they're two phenomenally different cabinets from two phenomenally different designs in bass cabinetry... but they're still both phenomenal cabinets. I'd try both out and gauge what you need the big rig status for. I think that if you try them all out you'll easily be able to decide with your ear.

(also, I used a GK 1001RB-II head for the above set ups, with more or less identical EQing)
 
#14
MBFrog said:
^ ya learn something new every day - I was under the impression it was the cone and magnet - good to know!
Click to expand...

All part of the friendly courteous service here on TB! :D

Also, B-15N's were never more than 50 watts RMS. Originally they were either 40 or 45 and in the mid to later 60's they grew to a whopping 45 or 50. My first bass amp was a new '64 which I later stupidly traded for something bigger, and I now own a mid 70's version. I may be fuzzy on some of the details here, but I did live in the 60's so I don't remember it. ;)
Al

/derail
 
#15
yeah its a great amp for recording bass at just the right tone.. un fortunately its not enough for my bands live performances.. but we got one and and I am glad we do for our studio - 80's kid here so all know is hair metal and settled into southern country rock for a living.. cant complain!

Love 60's music and the techniques we still use today from their recording genius ideas of trying new things.. the beatles taught me a lot when we disected their recordings to try an learn how they did it back then, would have been awesome to be there and witness it.
 
#16
The only problem is that none of my local shops in Oslo do have excatly those cabs. So I'm a bit wondering in the dark :P
It's going to be one of my biggest gear purcheses while I don't really have the posibility to try this stuff out :P

@Alecduncan so you use the 1001rb-II. I was just wondering if this head combined with the 410rbh will give me a warm tube kind of sound or not?

Also about the GK neo series I haven't tried it but I've the Hartke hx 410 and some Markbass 410. I relly hated the Hartke sound and the Markbass stuff was missing something in my opinion. My question is does the GK neo cabs sound a bit like Hartke hx/Markbass cabs which both uses neodynium...if yes then I'm sure that that's not my thing :P
 
#17
Filip Burdon said:
@Alecduncan so you use the 1001rb-II. I was just wondering if this head combined with the 410rbh will give me a warm tube kind of sound or not?

:P
Click to expand...

I don't know the 410rbh, and I don't know the 1001rbII personally, either. But I do know G-K cabs and heads, and it ain't about tubey warmth!!!

That's for D*** sure ... G-K stuff is about clarity and punch and not in a discrete way
 
#19
The RBH is an awkward animal. Its super heavy (heavy enough to bend the spring hinged handles), and has sloped sides allowing it to be tilted back if you put it on it's side, but you probably wouldn't do that and put a rack on top of it. Those sides just makes it a bigger box than it needs to be. If I found it for a few hundred, then maybe, but that is a really expensive cab new.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back