I am an Acme fan. I own B2's and one B1, Class A/B driven with my Crest CA-9 through a Millennia STT-1 pre. Gotta open them up a bit for the mids and highs to come forward, but a very satisfying, natural, mid detailed and complete sound with tight, articulate bass and great transient response. I got to this point through a variety of ownerships including a Sadowsky SA-200 (smokin tube amp goodness but could not afford to keep it as as a secondary rig, as tight non-forgiving solid state is my primary), Markbass, two WW Ultra's and a few Berg's including some of the IP's (nice, but for me there is nothing like a 3-way cab for proper mids).
The Woods Ultra (m.y. 2002) into the Acme's was great until I started bypassing it's power section and using the Crest. After a while I just could not go back to the Woods class D power section, so I sold the Woods, got a used Millennia STT-1 and kept the change. What a pre THAT is...class A slam...wow!
Anyway, I have always been concerned that under certain live situations that the Acme's might not have enough cut. You can certainly boost the mids and highs a bit with excellent results and I cut from 50 Hz down just like everyone else, but I'm talking about that occasional extreme departure from near flat when required. I did try the rare Berg 3 way, which actually IMO was tonally quite similar to the Acme with the STT-1 (you'd be surprised...says a lot for Andy's passive design against a DSP) and certainly had the ability for greater extreme EQ response with that fine 6 inch mid driver and large bullet tweeter...but alas those class D amps...better, IMO than the Woods amp section but still no CA-9. You can hear the lows, but not feel them with the same weighty foundational anchor of the CA-9. A bit hollow by comparison (odd that even with cutting the lows significantly for tightness, class D vs class A/B is still quite apparent).
Enter the Meyer sound UPA-1P. Built like a brick. About the size of one Acme but tapered on the sides resulting in a much more compact box that you can actually throw over your shoulder (even at 77lbs.. amazing what cab dimension changes can do for apparent weight). 1-12 inch driver and a horn with built in DSP and 550 watts of class A/B. I had the opportunity to use one for a couple of days so I set out to buy a crossover and relegate my Acmes to sub woofers and give it a shot.
What a rig! The Meyer on top of two side by side B2's, 1000 dedicated watts below and 550 up top. Lotsa watts. Unbelievable bass using the Acme's as pure subs. And the blend with the Meyer was fantastic.And talk about projection. I have always been aware (on paper so to speak) of what a load low frequencies are to an amp and drivers. In this setup, all the Acme's were handling was 40 to 80 Hz, which didn't seem like much to me, but wow, what a change when you do that (somewhere out there Bill F. is rolling his eyes and saying NO S**T Sherlock). This rig offered substantial improvements in nmany areas over my straight Acme rig, as well it should have. More watts, division of labor, a horn for better focus and projection and Meyer Sound labs DSP work on the UPA-1P/amp integration. ...Not an overwhelming physical footprint either, weight aside (which was quite modular).
A bit about the bi-amping. I crossed over at 80 Hz.Listening to just the lows or just the low mids/highs it was hard to wrap my brain around the end result of the two together. Definitly a case where the sum is greater than the parts. It's really difficult to appreciate without doing it for yourself, but the result was a tight, focused, articulate, full, weighty, slammin sound. And did I say articulate?
In the end, I could not get past the horn and that bit it took away from the mids. Lost a bit of burp and gained a bit of grind. Since I am a big Fender Jazz fan this was a tough trade off to accept. If I were doing large venue gigs with big stages (where this aspect of mid character might be buried anyway) this set up would be a keeper.
But for my gig venues, I will stick with the Acmes. What a tremendous learning experience though.
As always, all of the above is strictly I.M.O.
Next up, I will use my B1 crossed over at 80 Hz (to free it up from all that bass load) along with the 2 B2's full range and see what that yields for versatility....
Update1: The B1 experiment definitly has legs. When run full range it just sounds like more of the same(not too shabby), but crossed over at 80 Hz the sound gets more rounwound string presence, a bit more grind, has more pop and allows you to play with a lighter touch, while still retaining that Acme sound. Just takes some of the 'felt' off. And this is with just cutting the lows below 50 Hz as usual. More to follow here especially after experimenting with a touch of mid/high boost. Could become the ultimate 'verticle stack'.
Update2: My favorite biamped combo is one B2 for the lows crossed at 80Hz, and one B2 for the mid/highs. I like this much better than two full range B2's and the one B1 crossed for 80Hz and above. can't explain it, it's less efficient (got to turn up for equivilant SPL to the straight sound,and maybe drop back the bass cut 1 click if you EQ that way) but sounds REALLY good. I do suspect that a more ideal crossover point can be realized, however the one I have is fixed at 80 hz. I plan to get the DBX and experiment with this further.
I've got to imagine that there are a lot of B2 users out there using a CA-9 or some other stereo amp. If you fit that description, you owe it to yourself to pick up a cheap crossover (DBX $180 new) and try this. What a great alternative setup for really short money. Cleans everything up a notch and adds tighter authority to the sound, improves the burp and projection. The nice thing here is that you can bypass the crossover at anytme on the fly for the straight sound.
Update3:
MY ERROR. MEYER CONCLUSION INCOMPLETE. ROOKIE BIAMPING MISTAKE.
After further biamp experimentation with my Acmes, I discovered that I inadvertently created a 'saddle' dip in the high bass by over cutting the lows instead of backing off the dedicated bass amp. Trying to follow the E.Q. rule of cut over boost I spent my time trying to cut the higher end frequencies to balance the perceived grind over burp, when it turns out that the bass imbalance that I created was the culprit. The above Meyer conclusion is rendered inaccurate. Fortunately I have my own used Meyer UPA-1P on the way that I got real cheap (no rental time constraints), so more to follow there.
Final Update:
While it's true that I had created a saddle in the E.Q. via subs/midhigh balancing, after correcting for this mistake I find that I have only reduced, but not eliminated the perceived grind over burp with the Meyer, so I still stand by my original observations. Also, I find that I am losing some mid-range complexity.
As far as the Meyer goes, this does not work for me. It’s a great sound for sure, but not as a near field monitor. Certain tonal aspects seem to be sacrificed for projection (which the Meyer does very well). For me, just can't get away from that horn. I guess my stages aren't big enough...:>).
The Woods Ultra (m.y. 2002) into the Acme's was great until I started bypassing it's power section and using the Crest. After a while I just could not go back to the Woods class D power section, so I sold the Woods, got a used Millennia STT-1 and kept the change. What a pre THAT is...class A slam...wow!
Anyway, I have always been concerned that under certain live situations that the Acme's might not have enough cut. You can certainly boost the mids and highs a bit with excellent results and I cut from 50 Hz down just like everyone else, but I'm talking about that occasional extreme departure from near flat when required. I did try the rare Berg 3 way, which actually IMO was tonally quite similar to the Acme with the STT-1 (you'd be surprised...says a lot for Andy's passive design against a DSP) and certainly had the ability for greater extreme EQ response with that fine 6 inch mid driver and large bullet tweeter...but alas those class D amps...better, IMO than the Woods amp section but still no CA-9. You can hear the lows, but not feel them with the same weighty foundational anchor of the CA-9. A bit hollow by comparison (odd that even with cutting the lows significantly for tightness, class D vs class A/B is still quite apparent).
Enter the Meyer sound UPA-1P. Built like a brick. About the size of one Acme but tapered on the sides resulting in a much more compact box that you can actually throw over your shoulder (even at 77lbs.. amazing what cab dimension changes can do for apparent weight). 1-12 inch driver and a horn with built in DSP and 550 watts of class A/B. I had the opportunity to use one for a couple of days so I set out to buy a crossover and relegate my Acmes to sub woofers and give it a shot.
What a rig! The Meyer on top of two side by side B2's, 1000 dedicated watts below and 550 up top. Lotsa watts. Unbelievable bass using the Acme's as pure subs. And the blend with the Meyer was fantastic.And talk about projection. I have always been aware (on paper so to speak) of what a load low frequencies are to an amp and drivers. In this setup, all the Acme's were handling was 40 to 80 Hz, which didn't seem like much to me, but wow, what a change when you do that (somewhere out there Bill F. is rolling his eyes and saying NO S**T Sherlock). This rig offered substantial improvements in nmany areas over my straight Acme rig, as well it should have. More watts, division of labor, a horn for better focus and projection and Meyer Sound labs DSP work on the UPA-1P/amp integration. ...Not an overwhelming physical footprint either, weight aside (which was quite modular).
A bit about the bi-amping. I crossed over at 80 Hz.Listening to just the lows or just the low mids/highs it was hard to wrap my brain around the end result of the two together. Definitly a case where the sum is greater than the parts. It's really difficult to appreciate without doing it for yourself, but the result was a tight, focused, articulate, full, weighty, slammin sound. And did I say articulate?
In the end, I could not get past the horn and that bit it took away from the mids. Lost a bit of burp and gained a bit of grind. Since I am a big Fender Jazz fan this was a tough trade off to accept. If I were doing large venue gigs with big stages (where this aspect of mid character might be buried anyway) this set up would be a keeper.
But for my gig venues, I will stick with the Acmes. What a tremendous learning experience though.
As always, all of the above is strictly I.M.O.
Next up, I will use my B1 crossed over at 80 Hz (to free it up from all that bass load) along with the 2 B2's full range and see what that yields for versatility....
Update1: The B1 experiment definitly has legs. When run full range it just sounds like more of the same(not too shabby), but crossed over at 80 Hz the sound gets more rounwound string presence, a bit more grind, has more pop and allows you to play with a lighter touch, while still retaining that Acme sound. Just takes some of the 'felt' off. And this is with just cutting the lows below 50 Hz as usual. More to follow here especially after experimenting with a touch of mid/high boost. Could become the ultimate 'verticle stack'.
Update2: My favorite biamped combo is one B2 for the lows crossed at 80Hz, and one B2 for the mid/highs. I like this much better than two full range B2's and the one B1 crossed for 80Hz and above. can't explain it, it's less efficient (got to turn up for equivilant SPL to the straight sound,and maybe drop back the bass cut 1 click if you EQ that way) but sounds REALLY good. I do suspect that a more ideal crossover point can be realized, however the one I have is fixed at 80 hz. I plan to get the DBX and experiment with this further.
I've got to imagine that there are a lot of B2 users out there using a CA-9 or some other stereo amp. If you fit that description, you owe it to yourself to pick up a cheap crossover (DBX $180 new) and try this. What a great alternative setup for really short money. Cleans everything up a notch and adds tighter authority to the sound, improves the burp and projection. The nice thing here is that you can bypass the crossover at anytme on the fly for the straight sound.
Update3:
MY ERROR. MEYER CONCLUSION INCOMPLETE. ROOKIE BIAMPING MISTAKE. After further biamp experimentation with my Acmes, I discovered that I inadvertently created a 'saddle' dip in the high bass by over cutting the lows instead of backing off the dedicated bass amp. Trying to follow the E.Q. rule of cut over boost I spent my time trying to cut the higher end frequencies to balance the perceived grind over burp, when it turns out that the bass imbalance that I created was the culprit. The above Meyer conclusion is rendered inaccurate. Fortunately I have my own used Meyer UPA-1P on the way that I got real cheap (no rental time constraints), so more to follow there.
Final Update:
While it's true that I had created a saddle in the E.Q. via subs/midhigh balancing, after correcting for this mistake I find that I have only reduced, but not eliminated the perceived grind over burp with the Meyer, so I still stand by my original observations. Also, I find that I am losing some mid-range complexity.
As far as the Meyer goes, this does not work for me. It’s a great sound for sure, but not as a near field monitor. Certain tonal aspects seem to be sacrificed for projection (which the Meyer does very well). For me, just can't get away from that horn. I guess my stages aren't big enough...:>).
That's the sub designed to be used with the UPA so all the processing matches up. The Meyer stuff is class AB but it all uses SMPS, which is typically where people's complaints about lightweight amps reside.
