• 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.

are 4 ohm cabs technically "better" than 8 ohm cabs?

#121
TOOL460002 said:
I assume the bulk of the weight is lead shielding, because there is clearly a small nuclear reactor inside. No other reason to be so huge.
Click to expand...
It's huge because there's a lot of electronics and cooling inside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Korladis and TOOL460002
#122
agedhorse said:
It's huge because there's a lot of electronics and cooling inside.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. I'm sure the transformer weighs a ton. If it's anything like home component stereos, heavier is better. Just for some stuff. If I could I'd for sure have one of those. If I could lift it, it looks friggin sweet and I could power some truly amazing cabs (like a Schroeder 6×10 or some crazy 2x8, 2x10, 1x15 cabs). I can sound how I want with my rig and that's all that should matter to anyone. But certain combinations just have their quirks and perks. Would love a glockenklang 4x10 double stack. Could've gotten one, but it would never leave the house.

Some options cost less and do very similar thinga. And if you're running effects anyway, there are better ways to process your signal (parallel looper [2 or 3ch]). Sometimes it's great but some players wouldn't notice anything but the lack of weight the next gig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Korladis
#123
TOOL460002 said:
Oh I know. I'm sure the transformer weighs a ton. If it's anything like home component stereos, heavier is better. Just for some stuff. If I could I'd for sure have one of those. If I could lift it, it looks friggin sweet and I could power some truly amazing cabs (like a Schroeder 6×10 or some crazy 2x8, 2x10, 1x15 cabs). I can sound how I want with my rig and that's all that should matter to anyone. But certain combinations just have their quirks and perks. Would love a glockenklang 4x10 double stack. Could've gotten one, but it would never leave the house.

Some options cost less and do very similar thinga. And if you're running effects anyway, there are better ways to process your signal (parallel looper [2 or 3ch]). Sometimes it's great but some players wouldn't notice anything but the lack of weight the next gig.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think lighter is better (based on my experience designing both).

This amp would fairly easily destroy most of what the bass speaker market has to offer, it's just too much power (about 2500 watts RMS at 4 ohms and 4500 watts RMS at 2 ohms). It's also 125 pounds, 6 rack units tall, about 20" deep and requires 120/208V, 3 phase (20 amp) power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Lee (QSC) and TOOL460002
#124
agedhorse said:
Oh, I think lighter is better (based on my experience designing both).

This amp would fairly easily destroy most of what the bass speaker market has to offer, it's just too much power (about 2500 watts RMS at 4 ohms and 4500 watts RMS at 2 ohms). It's also 125 pounds, 6 rack units tall, about 20" deep and requires 120/208V, 3 phase (20 amp) power.
Click to expand...

The heaviest I ever hauled was a 6U SOB with a Furman tuner and power, a dbx160a, a navigator, and a massive 1U Stewart 1000watt ss amp. It was heavy.

My current 4U is one Furman power, a dbx160a, and a 2U qsc ss amp. So it's super light. And it's perfect for the 750-1000watt range at 4ohm, which is the sweet spot for so many cab manufacturers from what I've checked out.

At 2500watts you're talking custom and simply massive cabs. I mean the kinda thing with a wall of 18s and 8x10s and seriously a ton of power. There are only a handful of people who would use that and I bet all of them use front of house for most of their time and volume. Just a guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Korladis
#125
TOOL460002 said:
The heaviest I ever hauled was a 6U SOB with a Furman tuner and power, a dbx160a, a navigator, and a massive 1U Stewart 1000watt ss amp. It was heavy.

My current 4U is one Furman power, a dbx160a, and a 2U qsc ss amp. So it's super light. And it's perfect for the 750-1000watt range at 4ohm, which is the sweet spot for so many cab manufacturers from what I've checked out.

At 2500watts you're talking custom and simply massive cabs. I mean the kinda thing with a wall of 18s and 8x10s and seriously a ton of power. There are only a handful of people who would use that and I bet all of them use front of house for most of their time and volume. Just a guess.
Click to expand...
Dead%2BWall%2B2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOOL460002
#130
bearfoot said:
That was indeed, Owsley "Bear" Stanley.
From what I have gleaned, part of the mad genius with the ridiculously tall stacks was to create standing waves, and all the way down to deep bass frequencies meant the tallest stacks had to be 32'
Click to expand...
No, the height was to improve vertical dispersion control at lower frequencies while placing the players in only a small portion of the near field SPL, which is why they were able to function in front (with the help of active mic pattern control).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bearfoot and StatesideRambler
#132
StatesideRambler said:
It was Bear who, for vocals, mounted two identical microphones a few inches apart vertically and connected out of phase. You see that in a lot of GD videos of that era and people usually think it's just a GD "thing." It had a purpose and worked well. Things have improved since then.
Click to expand...
This was an electronic form of directional pattern control, versus the acoustic form used in modern cardioid mics. Different ways to achieve a similar thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Lee (QSC) and Al Kraft
#133
agedhorse said:
This was an electronic form of directional pattern control, versus the acoustic form used in modern cardioid mics. Different ways to achieve a similar thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying the reason for the tall stacks. I have also heard, from band interviews, that the two-mic solution, although effective, had an undesirable tonal effect on the vocals, making them tinny-sounding, at least to the performers.

I wish the GD had been able to set up their own venue, and use "The Beast" sound system as the house rig. Talk about a backline!
 
#134
agedhorse said:
This was an electronic form of directional pattern control, versus the acoustic form used in modern cardioid mics. Different ways to achieve a similar thing.
Click to expand...
You've lost me. I thought the twin mic thing was set up so feedback from both mics cancelled out acoustically by virtue of one mic cable having +- switched over. The singer sings right into one mic and the relative little cancellation from the other mic was liveable when the backline was the PA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kartiste
#135
Downunderwonder said:
You've lost me. I thought the twin mic thing was set up so feedback from both mics cancelled out acoustically by virtue of one mic cable having +- switched over. The singer sings right into one mic and the relative little cancellation from the other mic was liveable when the backline was the PA.
Click to expand...
I believe (at least initially) there was active electronics involved, and the gains precisely matched to improve the common mode rejection.

It would work passively if the mics were identical (which requires VERY tight and thus expensive selection parameters), which I believe the later approaches used But, the mic preamps themselves had to have excellent CMMR along with tightly controlled linearity. I don't know if they used transformer inputs, which for condenser mics allows for full floating of phantom power from the mic pre electronics input.

Ultimately, this proved to be WAY more hassle than it was worth, especially as directional mic design evolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downunderwonder
#136
agedhorse said:
I believe (at least initially) there was active electronics involved, and the gains precisely matched to improve the common mode rejection.

It would work passively if the mics were identical (which requires VERY tight and thus expensive selection parameters), which I believe the later approaches used But, the mic preamps themselves had to have excellent CMMR along with tightly controlled linearity. I don't know if they used transformer inputs, which for condenser mics allows for full floating of phantom power from the mic pre electronics input.

Ultimately, this proved to be WAY more hassle than it was worth, especially as directional mic design evolved.
Click to expand...
I always thought there were some active electronic processing type things going on there too based on an article I read many years ago that seemed credible. Doing this without some signal processing and hoping the acoustic levels off both mics were close enough to cancel out perfectly might have been tough with the technology at the time. It was a cool idea IMO though!
 
Last edited:
#137
My view is that I value headroom or extensibility. From that stance alone I prefer an 8ohm cab over a 4ohm cab for the simple fact that I can add another cab if I choose and still keep that load within the tolerances of most every amp that exists. I also believe the 8ohm to have more appeal for resale for that same reason.

There will always be people who read spec sheets and opine that a 4ohm cab will be louder with the same amp. That's not necessarily true if you happen to know where the volume knob is located. Most mainstream amps have sufficient power to wreck any single cab, so it doesn't really matter if you wreck it at 4 or 8 ohms. The goal is to use the volume knob until it is sufficiently loud but to stop well short of destruction.

In the end, the solution with the greatest potential for physical displacement will also have the greatest potential for volume, assuming we are talking about typical, commercially available bass gear, and not some weird corner case science project.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back