• 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.

8" Drivers

#45
OP, why would you need 8" drivers for a song? Couldn't you eq your way to whatever tonal needs you have? This seems like a silly goal if I understand you correctly. Just go get a nice flat and loud cab that's capable of getting you to all of the many places you want to go. And try tackling less goals so you can achieve one of them. My .02...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Scott
#46
No hate for 8s here, I just wouldn't buy 9 that needed reconing unless I already knew that it would be worthwhile.

My first bass cab was a DIY 2x8. 2 mismatched 8s stuffed into a sealed box, powered by a 12w tube amp. I was 15/16 and broke at the time and used it for a lot of practices and 2 gigs before I got something better. I really must dig it out one day and see what it really sounds like.
 
#47
wisconsindead said:
OP, why would you need 8" drivers for a song? Couldn't you eq your way to whatever tonal needs you have? This seems like a silly goal if I understand you correctly. Just go get a nice flat and loud cab that's capable of getting you to all of the many places you want to go. And try tackling less goals so you can achieve one of them. My .02...
Click to expand...

It's not literal. "Going for a song" = available cheaply.
 
#50
Woodstockz said:
This is one bizarre thread.
Click to expand...

Well, let's back-track on the highlights:

8" drivers > electrocuting elephants > "Riis" as a cryptic sig > history of Rolling Rock beer

Hmmm...overall, I'd say this is fairly normal progression for any number of TalkBass threads.

Riis (god....there it is again!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saetia, Jeff Scott, Fat Steve and 1 other person
#52
I made a cute and thumpy 2x8 with the last pair of 4 ohm beta 8's u.s. speaker had in stock. it would hang with a respectable drummer and considerate guitarist in a 3 pc.
100_3467.jpg

it's my daughter's rig. that amp is 5 watts per channel, stereo, at 4 ohm. I've had my shuttle 3.0 run into one of those drivers in that cab, and if I had a way to push both drivers with a bass amp, it would be a sweet little grab-and-go. no hate for the eight from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReidK, flameworker and S-Bigbottom
#53
sacreddog717 said:
Random stupid beer thoughts.....................................................

In common with any bit of lore worth theorizing about over a brew, a number of "explanations" for that mysterious '33' have sprung up over the years, including:
  • It refers to 1933, the year Prohibition was repealed. (The 21st Amendment abolished Prohibition on 5 December 1933.)

  • It took 33 steps to get from the brewmaster's office to the brewing floor.

  • The number of words in the brewing pledge on the back of the bottle total 33 words. ("Rolling Rock, from the glass lined tanks of Old Latrobe we tender this premium beer for your enjoyment as a tribute to your good taste. It comes from the mountain springs to you.")

  • It's the number of the racing horse pictured on the label.

  • The owner bet $33 on a horse (#33, of course) and bought the brewery with the proceeds in 1933.

  • There are 33 streams feeding into the reservoir from which the brewery draws its water.

  • Groundhog Day is the 33rd day of the year, and they make a big fuss over that holiday in Pennsylvania.

  • The number of letters in Rolling Rock's ingredients - water, malt, rice, hops, corn, brewer's yeast - adds up to 33.

  • Beer tastes best at 33 degrees. (It's just above the freezing point of water.)

  • 33 is journalism jargon for "end of copy." (Actually 30 is the term for this, not 33.)

  • Rolling Rock was brewed at 33 degrees.

  • It's related to the highest level status (33rd degree) attained by Freemasons.

  • The workers at the brewery belonged to union local number 33.
(Many of these same reasons have been offered to explain why Walt Disney's private club at Disneyland was named Club 33.)

Though the Prohibition explanation does at first blush appear the most likely, it's possible the 33 sneaked onto the label purely by happenstance.

The family of James Tito, one-time chief executive officer of Latrobe Brewing (makers of Rolling Rock beer) owned the brewery from the end of Prohibition until the company was sold in 1987. Based on notes and discussions with family members now dead, James Tito believes the mysterious '33' got there by accident when family members couldn't agree on the wording of a slogan to be printed on the bottle, or even whether the slogan should be long or short. Someone eventually came up with the 33-word pledge now in use, and to emphasize its brevity, he drew a large '33' on the paper. The printer to whom this wording was sent mistakenly thought the '33' was part of the copy and included it on the labels. By the time the mistake was discovered, so many labels had been printed and affixed to bottles that it would have been prohibitively expensive to scrap and replace them, therefore the mistake was retained as a permanent feature of the label. Thus every Rolling Rock bottle now sports the following pledge:
Rolling Rock. From the glass lined tanks of Old Latrobe we tender this premium beer for your enjoyment, as a tribute to your good taste. It comes from the mountain springs to you. "33"
The "mistake" explanation doesn't sound terribly convincing since the printer who sets and runs off thousands of labels before providing the customer with a proof copy to approve does so at his own risk. And even if someone from Rolling Rock had mistakenly approved the label design, error and all, there was no good reason why the errant '33' couldn't have been removed from the copy before the next printing.

So, the only real answer here is that no one knows the real answer. And perhaps that is the answer — after all, nothing helps sell a product like a little mystery.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/rolling.asp#l3ASYWfHx08mv8RS.99
Click to expand...



All those other 33's are coincidence, strange and accurate, but still coincidence. They were being charged by the word for printing, the proof had a notation at the bottom of the word count"33".

Using the beta-8's because I was able to get 9 of them for 50$, with a 2 hours drive.

I looked into those Faital 8's, but too expensive, they would probably be perfect tho, I'm using the 12"version in my 112.

Edison said he discovered 99 ways how not to make a light bulb. All set out trying to do was copy a BB2m, but now I want a 2x8 with as much low end as a 210, or a 115. I hit it dead on with magnat drivers, but they failed at high *(really high) volume.

I know there are a lot of variables, but something I haven't seen is a very very deep driver. That is, one with an elongated cone. With more surface area and a large motor it seems to me like it would be the same as a 10 or 12. Or does the sound need more space to propagate.
I have no idea how to test that.
 
#54
flameworker said:
Using the beta-8's because I was able to get 9 of them for 50$, with a 2 hours drive.
Click to expand...

9 blown up drivers should have been your first clue that perhaps they are not the ideal driver for bass. The guy who sold them to you got the better end of the deal IMO.

flameworker said:
I looked into those Faital 8's, but too expensive, they would probably be perfect tho, I'm using the 12"version in my 112.
Click to expand...

In the end they would have been both cheaper AND better (depending on the cabinet design)

flameworker said:
All set out trying to do was copy a BB2m, but now I want a 2x8 with as much low end as a 210, or a 115. I hit it dead on with magnat drivers, but they failed at high *(really high) volume.
Click to expand...

You THINK you achieved this, but in practice it didn't work. The sensitivity just isn't there.

flameworker said:
I know there are a lot of variables, but something I haven't seen is a very very deep driver. That is, one with an elongated cone. With more surface area and a large motor it seems to me like it would be the same as a 10 or 12. Or does the sound need more space to propagate.
I have no idea how to test that.
Click to expand...

Theory is all wrong here. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2k5 and ddnidd1
#55
agedhorse said:
IME, the cost of reconing a beta 8 exceeds the value of the speaker. At least the cost to do it right, with factory parts.
Click to expand...

basscooker said:
I made a cute and thumpy 2x8 with the last pair of 4 ohm beta 8's u.s. speaker had in stock. it would hang with a respectable drummer and considerate guitarist in a 3 pc.
100_3467.jpg

it's my daughter's rig. that amp is 5 watts per channel, stereo, at 4 ohm. I've had my shuttle 3.0 run into one of those drivers in that cab, and if I had a way to push both drivers with a bass amp, it would be a sweet little grab-and-go. no hate for the eight from me.
Click to expand...

That's funny, speaking of coincidence, my 21 yo daughter is getting a 2x8 cab from me to play her strat and acoustic thru!

I'm not using factory parts on these ones, these are mostly for experiments. I found the same parts Simply Speakers sells as aftermarket reconing kits for 30 from a different distributor for $11.75 (I had to get 10 "kits" to get the deal). Factory cost almost as much as new on the 8's, and no 7 year warranty.

I figured by using a speaker I was most familiar with (eminence) it will help with the learning curve.

So many failed experiments I haven't posted, I made a 1x8 a cabinet shaped like a Djimbe drum, not even worth explaining. Boomy was an understatement. Tried using some 50 watts as isobaric, fail. Isobaric tubes *(using concrete mold tubes) with movable interior driver ..fail... 20 1" Philips drives as line array. ..fail. I only ask about stuff that has a goldfish' s chance at a country fair. (He's still doing good, living in my aquarium with 4 crayfish I got from the livery bait vending machine and a bunch of now giant feeder goldies!)
 
#56
Driver (speaker) design is always a compromise as you run into the limits of the variables. Case in point a cone with very, very deep depth cone can't remain linear in operation without excessive weight (to provide stuffness) that raises other serious problems.
 
Last edited:
#57
Your aftermarket recone kits are unlikely to result in a driver that even remotely resembles the original driver's performance. It's no longer a Beta 8.

How do you propose to design a cabinet around a driver with unknown TS parameters?
 
#58
The sensitivity was 95, I don't remember what the spl on the bag end, eminence or celestion drivers the bbm used stock, couldn't find published numbers quickly. The last stock drivers used in them were eminence, an oem model with similar spec to beta.

A really good 8" that I found is the "long throw" 8 available from LDS speaker for about $85, lots of people have swap ed aging speakers from a bb2 or bbm for those. They have been described as "pants flappers" but I don't like the idea of relying on such a small company for them tho. They have been in business for a while, but a warrantee is a good thing.
 
#60
agedhorse said:
Your aftermarket recone kits are unlikely to result in a driver that even remotely resembles the original driver's performance. It's no longer a Beta 8.

How do you propose to design a cabinet around a driver with unknown TS parameters?
Click to expand...
Painful trial and error. Estimate, then build oversize with a detachable section, then add and subtract 1/4 cu foot blocks til it sounds right. Takes forever.

If you send an eminence speaker to be reconed to simply speakers (hot link on eminence site) those are what they use if it's not one of 10 or so popular models. I'm sure they will be close.

And these are practice cabinets primarily, bedroom cabinets. No big deal.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back