Tom, I'm curious about the Walkabout/ML112 stack. Have you tried to get what I'd call an "old-school" tone--low-mid push, easy on the high mids and treble--out of that combo? I'd imagine the WA's EQ section could get you there, just curious.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Baer Amplification Megathread!
- Thread starter KJung
- Start date
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,936
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
I couldn't agree more. Back in the late 70s and into the 80s I played a simple rig. Traynor tube head with Traynor cabs (2x15s) pulled out the OEM 15s in favor of JBLs and that was it. Always LOVED that tone....
Seems like I have been looking for that tone ever since...
Hell, I have a truckload of Ampeg gear and (don't get me wrong) it provides me with a great tone, but it ain't THAT tone...I sometimes think that the only logical answer is to go back to 15s, in spite of what the "experts" say....
It's in your hands, but it is also in your ability to deal with an amplification set up and make that musical: your hands, your ears and your understanding how of any bit of kit works to get your sound.
I rehearse with a 1X15 Fender combo I recently picked up at Cashconvertors whilst my rig was in transit, and still use it for convenience; I used to rehearse with a Clarus and a GK MBX aluminium 1X12 with mod (added a ribbon tweeter) but my comfort sound is still in my 4U rack or 8U rack, coupled with any of my 2 way or 3 way speakers. And yes, I still use an electronic crossover, between woofer and mid but I use a passive between tweeter and mid. I have used a 4 way electronic crossovered system but the sonic benefit of that was minimal over what I now use.
I can get any tone out my rack rig from dark to bright to suit the varied music and fairly quickly too, so don't blame a rack if you didn't get any results.
All the experimentation stuff is cool, man. Just hard to tell where to stop.
Also, really good speaker systems like this tend to have that thing where they throw all the sound out there for everybody to hear loud and clear...the bad parts as well as the good parts. It can tend to uncover or "expose" little flaws, be it in technique, or cheap equipment, or bad gain staging/eq, that might just get kind of "plowed under" by a regular thumper.
I myself have gotten more looking for stuff to just plug in--->play--->sounds good more and more. Pretty much devoid of racks, pedals, gadgets and gizmos. Still wanting to hear/feel that Valkyrie thingamajig though.
. I have a feeling I might not be able to afford the thing whenever it gets here, but having something of that caliber, especially with the "mini tube amp" mixed in there could possibly entice me to sell off enough things to get one. My old standbys would still remain, bit I could be convinced to let go some of the numerous other ones that are here "just because".
Also, really good speaker systems like this tend to have that thing where they throw all the sound out there for everybody to hear loud and clear...the bad parts as well as the good parts. It can tend to uncover or "expose" little flaws, be it in technique, or cheap equipment, or bad gain staging/eq, that might just get kind of "plowed under" by a regular thumper.
I myself have gotten more looking for stuff to just plug in--->play--->sounds good more and more. Pretty much devoid of racks, pedals, gadgets and gizmos. Still wanting to hear/feel that Valkyrie thingamajig though.
. I have a feeling I might not be able to afford the thing whenever it gets here, but having something of that caliber, especially with the "mini tube amp" mixed in there could possibly entice me to sell off enough things to get one. My old standbys would still remain, bit I could be convinced to let go some of the numerous other ones that are here "just because".Here's another one that just pulled the trigger, and I hold this thread personally responsible.
I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, resolutely trying to keep it simple.
I have been very happy for years with my TubeWorks RT3100 100W 10" combo for what I do. I don't usually play with a drummer, so for coffee house and choir gigs it has been just fine, to my ear clean but warm and musical, not sterile. And so much more portable than what I came from. But I start backing a new singer, a drummer joins in, and I get GAS. I found a bargain on a new Aguilar TH500. This should be a good match.
I know the ML112 will be more than I need, but I'm really looking forward to having an excellent rig at last.
Thanks to all who contributed for all the info.
Cheers.
I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, resolutely trying to keep it simple.
I have been very happy for years with my TubeWorks RT3100 100W 10" combo for what I do. I don't usually play with a drummer, so for coffee house and choir gigs it has been just fine, to my ear clean but warm and musical, not sterile. And so much more portable than what I came from. But I start backing a new singer, a drummer joins in, and I get GAS. I found a bargain on a new Aguilar TH500. This should be a good match.
I know the ML112 will be more than I need, but I'm really looking forward to having an excellent rig at last.
Thanks to all who contributed for all the info.
Cheers.
Have I ever thought of using a good quality bass amp? Uh .. gee Roger, no .. the thought never occurred to me.
(what's that all about?).I am using a good quality bass amp. However it would seem our definitions of what ~that~ is differ.
Stepping away from your remark (I can't really tell, it could be taken a couple of ways, some ok, some not so ok, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) ... Well, I sorta been there done all that. I've been doing this since 1992. I've had experience with synths and audio electronics since 1978. I sortoa have an idea what I can get away with given certain types of electronics. I've had Ampegs, GKs, SWRs, modulars, digitals, tube, solid state, DIs-to-PA, rotaries, .. man, I have to sit here and think trying to remember them all. Your cab is part of a new direction, something I feel like I owe myself. There's a reason we all keep buying new gear - year after year. Because the "old stuff" no longer suits us. Why is that?
I'm done with "settling" for stuff that manufacturers tell us they've decided what is good for us. It's time I create my own setup, something that will flex and bend. Clean colorless amplification, backed up with flexible (VERY flexible) preamplification and tone shaping. Instead of following the "cool" trends and "in" equipment. Aren't we glad that Chris Squire didn't "just use good quality (whatever) designed specifically for his instrument (of that era). Had he not done what he thought was good, we'd not have Roundabout tone.
Or Freewill tone.
Or Tarkus organs sounds.
Or ... well, point made.
Your cab is part of a rig that doesn't decide for me "what is good" but instead lets me decide what is good. Your remark is proof of that. Who's to say "what is specifically for my instrument"? Bass guitar is nothing more than another sound. Synth filters are designed to create and mold many of the sounds that the bass guitar attempts to emulate. "Synth bass" is a coveted tone in and of itself. Have you ever tried synth filters? Good ones? How about three ... for standard 3-band EQ? I have, and it sounds wonderful, and I can make it sound a ton of different ways. Easily. And they are easily repairable, moddable, tweakable, and replaceable by the "each".
So again, I put it to you - who's to say what is specifically for my instrument?
I think there may be a possiblity that you've never tried high quality synth filters. All they are is just way better versions of "amps made specifically for my instrument" -- with far more flexibilty and far more choices.
Or --- I could settle for what someone else says would be good for me.
Y'know, Ampeg, or pick one. All they are is different combinations of filters and gain structure. Who's to say they know what's best for me? And then go buy more of it next year - the year after .. and so on. (Wait .. already done that .. dang! Nearly started down that same road again!).Yea - I could do that. But why? You didn't. Your ML112 is certainly not the same-old-same-old ... why didn't you just settle? Your ML115 isn't the same old same old either. It's different, so different some poeple here have questioned your choices of drivers. Yet you keep moving ahead with your vision. Why shouldn't I? (I can already hear what the replies to that by others might possibly be ... "because you don't know what you're doing and Roger does". Zat so? Interesting).
In the end, I'm using what is designed specifically for my instrument, except this time I'm doing the designing. I'm just not afraid to try something different. And so far it is working out gloriously. I'm quite happy with it. I'm not quite sure I understand why you said what you said to be honest.
Let me put that same question to you ... (paraphrasing your comment here) ...why don't you just offer a cab already proven to be specifically made for my instrument? Why did you step out of the box and design something "different" and experimental? Did you ever think of just offering a standard 4x10?
See my point?
Potato - potahato. The last explanation (just to get it "right") .....
My rig does one main thing that no off the shelf amp can do for me. It allows me to sweep between pickups with my foot. Forever and a day I've been torn in two with every bass I've ever had (27 of them) and every bass rig I've ever had (lost count). I love the D and G strings on the neck pickup, and the E and A strings on both pickups full-on. THAT combination is what I like to hear. No technique can provide that. I use technique with it, I play the D/G strings near the neck, and the E/A strings closer to the bridge. I play with a pick and fingerstyle (I curl the pick into my palm when playing fingerstyle, sortof like Chris Squire did). But that's only half of the tonal balance that I prefer. The other half involves the D/G through the neck pickup, and the E/A through the bridge pickup, and at times an adjustable mix of the two sounds. That is what provides the ~sound~ I like to hear. No EQ tweaking gets it right, no modern bass-wundergear does it right. I keep fiddling with EQs trying to get the sound that switching pickups does in combination with changing picking/plucking positions does (I can't change the pickup mix in the middle of a phrase - I'm not that good). I can only get anywhere close to that by using gear that allows me to sweep the pickups with my foot. Hence, synth gear and a 2-channel bass. Once the basic EQ is set, I almost never change the filter settings, other than sweeping the pickups. That ability alone negates the need to "contantly fiddle with the EQs". It's an excellent way to get tonal changes mid-song in a smooth manner. So I'm not trapped in racks full of gear. That's a misconception. My experimental rig is designed to constantly whittle away at the amount of gear as I figure out what I truly need, until it's at it's minimum configuration. I'm getting there.
To me, "the trap" is compromising and saying "that's good enough" and convincing myself that I can obtain the sound I want with technique, when deep inside me I know it isn't true.
My ideas don't fit in with those of most people. They rarely have. And I'm ok with that by now. One person's trap is another's comfort zone.
What I've been attempting to offer to readers of this thread was the notion that Roger's cab can be adopted for use other than the sortof niche of users that seem to gravitate to his equipment. I've been trying to convey my trials and efforts to show that his cab is versatile and able to provide sound that works for players that don't necessarily fit the player profile that seems to be the mainstay of this thread. But I think my observations are making Roger uncomfortable. So it is most likely best that I reduce my reports and become more of a reader than a poster. Some things are just better kept to one's self.
So with a polite and genuine smile and a lighthearted wave, I say "thanks, and be well everyone".
The last explanation (just to get it "right") .....My rig does one main thing that no off the shelf amp can do for me. It allows me to sweep between pickups with my foot. Forever and a day I've been torn in two with every bass I've ever had (27 of them) and every bass rig I've ever had (lost count). I love the D and G strings on the neck pickup, and the E and A strings on both pickups full-on. THAT combination is what I like to hear. No technique can provide that. I use technique with it, I play the D/G strings near the neck, and the E/A strings closer to the bridge. I play with a pick and fingerstyle (I curl the pick into my palm when playing fingerstyle, sortof like Chris Squire did). But that's only half of the tonal balance that I prefer. The other half involves the D/G through the neck pickup, and the E/A through the bridge pickup, and at times an adjustable mix of the two sounds. That is what provides the ~sound~ I like to hear. No EQ tweaking gets it right, no modern bass-wundergear does it right. I keep fiddling with EQs trying to get the sound that switching pickups does in combination with changing picking/plucking positions does (I can't change the pickup mix in the middle of a phrase - I'm not that good). I can only get anywhere close to that by using gear that allows me to sweep the pickups with my foot. Hence, synth gear and a 2-channel bass. Once the basic EQ is set, I almost never change the filter settings, other than sweeping the pickups. That ability alone negates the need to "contantly fiddle with the EQs". It's an excellent way to get tonal changes mid-song in a smooth manner. So I'm not trapped in racks full of gear. That's a misconception. My experimental rig is designed to constantly whittle away at the amount of gear as I figure out what I truly need, until it's at it's minimum configuration. I'm getting there.
To me, "the trap" is compromising and saying "that's good enough" and convincing myself that I can obtain the sound I want with technique, when deep inside me I know it isn't true.
My ideas don't fit in with those of most people. They rarely have. And I'm ok with that by now. One person's trap is another's comfort zone.
What I've been attempting to offer to readers of this thread was the notion that Roger's cab can be adopted for use other than the sortof niche of users that seem to gravitate to his equipment. I've been trying to convey my trials and efforts to show that his cab is versatile and able to provide sound that works for players that don't necessarily fit the player profile that seems to be the mainstay of this thread. But I think my observations are making Roger uncomfortable. So it is most likely best that I reduce my reports and become more of a reader than a poster. Some things are just better kept to one's self.
So with a polite and genuine smile and a lighthearted wave, I say "thanks, and be well everyone".
Have I ever thought of using a good quality bass amp? Uh .. gee Roger, no .. the thought never occurred to me.
I am using a good quality bass amp. However it would seem our definitions of what ~that~ is differ.
Stepping away from your remark (I can't really tell, it could be taken a couple of ways, some ok, some not so ok, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) ...
No disrespect intended at all. I have no idea what this whole "Synth module" thing is about, but I get that you are trying to find a certain sound in your head, that is out of the norm. Squire used to split his signal from each pick up and run through different amps, so it's a concept that makes perfect sense to me. Actually, I think it's very cool that our customers use our products in a myriad of different ways. My other comment was purely my own personal experience, in that the longer I'm a player, the simpler I want my rig to be. I used to carry around an 8 space rack full of gear until I simply got tired of hauling that much gear around and going crazy trying to pin down the source of a problem when the "rig" would act up on stage. I was simply making the suggestion (not knowing what you have, or have not tried) that you may just want to try a simple setup for your main amplification, as those filters may be affecting your signal in an unknown way and might be creating part of a problem in themselves that you are trying to fix with EQ or certain cabinet combinations.
Potato - potahato.
My rig does one main thing that no off the shelf amp can do for me. It allows me to sweep between pickups with my foot. Forever and a day I've been torn in two with every bass I've ever had (27 of them) and every bass rig I've ever had (lost count). I love the D and G strings on the neck pickup, and the E and A strings on both pickups full-on. THAT combination is what I like to hear. No technique can provide that. I use technique with it, I play the D/G strings near the neck, and the E/A strings closer to the bridge. I play with a pick and fingerstyle (I curl the pick into my palm when playing fingerstyle, sortof like Chris Squire did). But that's only half of the tonal balance that I prefer. The other half involves the D/G through the neck pickup, and the E/A through the bridge pickup, and at times an adjustable mix of the two sounds. That is what provides the ~sound~ I like to hear. No EQ tweaking gets it right, no modern bass-wundergear does it right. I keep fiddling with EQs trying to get the sound that switching pickups does in combination with changing picking/plucking positions does (I can't change the pickup mix in the middle of a phrase - I'm not that good). I can only get anywhere close to that by using gear that allows me to sweep the pickups with my foot. Hence, synth gear and a 2-channel bass. Once the basic EQ is set, I almost never change the filter settings, other than sweeping the pickups. That ability alone negates the need to "contantly fiddle with the EQs". It's an excellent way to get tonal changes mid-song in a smooth manner. So I'm not trapped in racks full of gear. That's a misconception. My experimental rig is designed to constantly whittle away at the amount of gear as I figure out what I truly need, until it's at it's minimum configuration. I'm getting there.
To me, "the trap" is compromising and saying "that's good enough" and convincing myself that I can obtain the sound I want with technique, when deep inside me I know it isn't true.
My ideas don't fit in with those of most people. They rarely have. And I'm ok with that by now. One person's trap is another's comfort zone.
What I've been attempting to offer to readers of this thread was the notion that Roger's cab can be adopted for use other than the sortof niche of users that seem to gravitate to his equipment. I've been trying to convey my trials and efforts to show that his cab is versatile and able to provide sound that works for players that don't necessarily fit the player profile that seems to be the mainstay of this thread. But I think my observations are making Roger uncomfortable. So it is most likely best that I reduce my reports and become more of a reader than a poster. Some things are just better kept to one's self.
So with a polite and genuine smile and a lighthearted wave, I say "thanks, and be well everyone".
Seems like Bartolini makes some quad-coil pickups.
I would think that with some creative wiring, a person could run the D&G sides of the pups through a separate channel than the other coils and control the balance that you have in your head.
Not sure, just attempting to think outside of the box.
Potato - potahato.
My rig does one main thing that no off the shelf amp can do for me. It allows me to sweep between pickups with my foot. Forever and a day I've been torn in two with every bass I've ever had (27 of them) and every bass rig I've ever had (lost count). I love the D and G strings on the neck pickup, and the E and A strings on both pickups full-on. THAT combination is what I like to hear. No technique can provide that. I use technique with it, I play the D/G strings near the neck, and the E/A strings closer to the bridge. I play with a pick and fingerstyle (I curl the pick into my palm when playing fingerstyle, sortof like Chris Squire did). But that's only half of the tonal balance that I prefer. The other half involves the D/G through the neck pickup, and the E/A through the bridge pickup, and at times an adjustable mix of the two sounds. That is what provides the ~sound~ I like to hear. No EQ tweaking gets it right, no modern bass-wundergear does it right. I keep fiddling with EQs trying to get the sound that switching pickups does in combination with changing picking/plucking positions does (I can't change the pickup mix in the middle of a phrase - I'm not that good). I can only get anywhere close to that by using gear that allows me to sweep the pickups with my foot. Hence, synth gear and a 2-channel bass. Once the basic EQ is set, I almost never change the filter settings, other than sweeping the pickups. That ability alone negates the need to "contantly fiddle with the EQs". It's an excellent way to get tonal changes mid-song in a smooth manner. So I'm not trapped in racks full of gear. That's a misconception. My experimental rig is designed to constantly whittle away at the amount of gear as I figure out what I truly need, until it's at it's minimum configuration. I'm getting there.
To me, "the trap" is compromising and saying "that's good enough" and convincing myself that I can obtain the sound I want with technique, when deep inside me I know it isn't true.
My ideas don't fit in with those of most people. They rarely have. And I'm ok with that by now. One person's trap is another's comfort zone.
I think your tonal concept might be helped by altering the instrument, or specifically, the pickups.
Maybe getting a hold of someone like Carey Nordstrand who can do ridiculous custom stuff like separate parts of pickups and place them on different areas on the bass. You could even have each pickup part going to a different jack, then mix the tone and output of each.
I could be wrong with what your musical goals are but it seems you could get closer doing it on the bass first, then mixing it the way you need from there. Just a thought
Chef
In Memoriam
If Sadowsky PJ (now with flats! Me, with flats, can you imagine?)
to
GK 1001>two ML112's is as glorious on the job as it is at home, well...it seems really great at home. Dang!
to
GK 1001>two ML112's is as glorious on the job as it is at home, well...it seems really great at home. Dang!
Some things you might not expect just work. I'm not a flats guy in general either but flats on my Valenti PJ5 -> GenzBenz SM9.2 -> two ML112's is a righteous combination. It's not dull as one might expect and has a super solid punch. 
I just put flats on my Nordy VJ5 that sound awesome through my GB SM 9.2 and a pair of ML-112's
I'm still amazed by how perfect these cabs are...I play a fretless SR5, a 55-94 (nickel rounds) and my Nordy (flats) and can get ANY sound I want vintage to modern
I've never been happier with my rig!!!
I'm still amazed by how perfect these cabs are...I play a fretless SR5, a 55-94 (nickel rounds) and my Nordy (flats) and can get ANY sound I want vintage to modern
I've never been happier with my rig!!!
Chef
In Memoriam
gig report:
OK: I found one downside to these:
the handle is tall enough that, when I use them stacked horizontal, neither the MBFusion, nor 1001 clear it. The MBF has substantive feet, the 1001 not so much so, The M9, in it's skb rack won't either.
The good:
Sadowsky>1001>2xML112 was great. Dial in a little hair from the GK and roll. The ML's make that hair sound great.
The horizontal stack is fatter than the vertical stack; I dialed bass on the 1001 back to 9.5 oclock.
The MV5PJ with flats was crushingly fat and clear.
The RV5JJ with rounds was knarly vintage J with some kewl ragged yet musical edge to it.
OK: I found one downside to these:
the handle is tall enough that, when I use them stacked horizontal, neither the MBFusion, nor 1001 clear it. The MBF has substantive feet, the 1001 not so much so, The M9, in it's skb rack won't either.
The good:
Sadowsky>1001>2xML112 was great. Dial in a little hair from the GK and roll. The ML's make that hair sound great.
The horizontal stack is fatter than the vertical stack; I dialed bass on the 1001 back to 9.5 oclock.
The MV5PJ with flats was crushingly fat and clear.
The RV5JJ with rounds was knarly vintage J with some kewl ragged yet musical edge to it.
I had the same complaint regarding the handles and my ShuttleMax 9.2
I picked up a set of Auralex MoPad isolation wedges that I use to clear the handle and angle the amp up a little...a Baer stack laid horizontally isn't all that tall and I'm 6'4" so that angle helps a bit
Happy to hear that you've had a good experience with your new ML-112's
I picked up a set of Auralex MoPad isolation wedges that I use to clear the handle and angle the amp up a little...a Baer stack laid horizontally isn't all that tall and I'm 6'4" so that angle helps a bit
Happy to hear that you've had a good experience with your new ML-112's
Cabs (edit: ML112) are designed to be set up on end with micro heads, and horizontal for full size heads (which, for the most part, have taller rubber feet). Just stack them on their sides with the smaller heads, and you are good to go!
Chef
In Memoriam
Hmmmm....maybe?
That seems to be a bit of a generalization to me, but I'm willing to listen to cab designers about the whys on that. You could be right.
That seems to be a bit of a generalization to me, but I'm willing to listen to cab designers about the whys on that. You could be right.
I wasn't clear. I was talking about the ML112 specifically. Roger put the rubber feet on both the bottom and one side of the cab in order to use them vertical or horizontal. The logic was (in talking with Roger a while back) that the horizontal was perfect for full size heads due to the width of the cab (no 'hang over' issue with a full size head), and also most full size heads don't have any issue with their feet overcoming the strap handle sites.
Flip it on its side, and no handle, rubber feet for protection, and a form factor that works fine with the small micro's.
The only minor downside in stacking the cabs in their vertical orientation is that the mid drivers are a bit farther apart, which is not considered 'optimum' on paper, but the impact is trivial regarding off axis midrange response in the typical bass backline situation.
