• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Bandmates love my...B15N?!?!

Doug Ring said:
25 watts doesn't sound like much power UNLESS you feed it to a high efficiency speaker.

Some older speakers were astonishingly good because the magnets were really powerful. The magnets used to be made from AlNiCo - aluminium/nickel/cobalt - which could hold a tremendous amount of magnetism. Then there was a world shortage of either nickel or cobalt (can't remember which) in the 60's and no one could afford to make these magnets any more. It wasn't until around the 80's that they invented neodymium, which still isn't as good as AlNiCo, but coupled with other advances like edge-winding the coil wire and ferro-fluid damping has finally made the modern speaker better than its older counterpart.

So the old Ampeg rig may well be as loud as a modern one because the speaker converts more of the amp power into sound. Here's some maths:

Speakers are assessed for the sound power they produce by feeding them with 1 watt and measuring the output at 1 metre. 97dB/w/m is common. They can get as high as 106db/w/m however. An increase of 3dB is a doubling of sound as well as amplifier power. So... Take a 25W amp driving a 106dB/w/m speaker. To generate the same sound power into a 97dB/w/m speaker, you've dropped 9dB of speaker sensitivity, so it's 8 times less efficient. In other words, you need 200 watts to match the first combination!

Hope this helps.

Great Stuff. I Think the original speakers were traditional
magnets (iron ferrite ...is that correct?) but, Ampeg offered
JBL 's and Altec Lansings that were AlNiCo's as a upgrade.
So it would depend on which one you have. I don't know what
the specs were on the original Jensens.
Aditionally, A lot of players, myself included replaced
the orignal speakers with better ones that were AlNiCo's
So you have really hit on something. The cabinet configuration
was unique as well, there is a thread on that in one of the
Euphonic Audio VL 208 discussions. As I remember (I'm a baby boomer here in the US), Cobalt was the rare element
that was scarce in the late 60's because it came from either
Vietnam or Cambodia, when that happened 15" JBL D140's
started using these huge ceramic composite magnets.
Thank goodness for Neo's. How efficent are they?

Ric
 
I don't think Neos are any more efficient speakers. It's that the magnetism is so much stronger that you only need a few ounces of it, thereby lowering the driver's weight. (Though some of the ceramics used 10 oz. too--the 12" guitar ones). The big 15s used 20-56 oz. Also, when JBLs changed magnet material, they changed the model number, either to E or K series. I'll try to research this history a little...
 
my understanding is that efficiency is not a product of the magnet, it's a product of the voice coil--the gap and the heat dispersion. My understanding is that the history of magnets looks sort of like this

Alnico--developed before WWII, in common use in the 50s and 60s
Ceramic--strontium ferrite--magents were developed in the 50s and came into general use in the 60s. They were more stable than alnico (see link below) and produced greater magnetic force at the same size and weight
Neodymium mags came into use in the 60s, but it only recently became feasible to mass produce them. They have much greater magnetic force per ounce than other kinds of magnetic materials

Again I don't think efficiency in a speaker is a function of magnet material

Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
 
There's some here, including:

"...Alnico had been the magnetic material of choice for JBL from its very inception until the late 1970’s. In 1978, a civil war in Zaire resulted in the temporary embargo of the commercial supply of cobalt that was a primary ingredient in Alnico. Over a one year period, virtually every loudspeaker manufacturer was forced to switch to more readily available ferrite magnets.

Initially, this magnetic material presented problems compared to Alnico. It was less powerful by weight, requiring much more magnetic material than an equivalent Alnico. It was more susceptible to flux modulation caused by voice coil currents and more susceptible to flux loss due to heating. None of these constraints were absolute. Through innovative engineering (eg. SFG, VGC and SVG motors), JBL was able to develop ferrite magnet drivers that exceeded the performance of the previous Alnico versions. ... "​
 
Ampeg "the Story Behind the Sound" a great book.
by Greg Hopkins and Bill Moore lists two speakers for the blue check
B-15, A Jensen C15 N ( could this have been custom designed for Ampeg?)
or the JBL D130 F as a custom option. Later models had either a CTS 15 or
a Altec Lansing 421A. I used that speaker in my B15 and distinctly remember that it was AlNiCo. So that's a start. I hope this is helpful
to the discussion.

Ric
 
I bought new a later design B15N(early 70's) with the Altec speaker option. Sounded OK with the old P-bass but with the upright, I never could get a satisfactory sound from it. Too hollow, not tight enough. I always wondered if it would have worked better with the other speaker.
 
Terrific stuff, y'all - I didn't know there were so many speaker experts on this board. Educational for this Brit as well since there are all sorts of US brands that we never get to see over here.

PB+J, I agree that a speaker's performance isn't entirely down to the magnet strength, however, all other factors being equal it has to play a large part. It's what supplies the opposing force to the driving current, after all. But for sure you then have to know how to get the most out of that by designing accurate coil gaps, wire-winding techniques and so on.

Yes, perhaps 106dB/w/m is pushing the envelope. But I've seen 103 quoted, and if you put that against a 94 the 25 watts / 200 watts comparison still holds up.
 
That Altec 421A was something. As I remember, it had an Alnico magnet structure weight of 21 lbs.! (Not bare magnet weight, but the entire magnetized assembly.) JBL F-series were 11 lbs. I remember a friend bought one of the original Ampeg V-4B amps which consisted of essentially a 100W version of an SVT head driving a huge folded horn cabinet utilizing two 421As. In that enclosure, they were extremely efficient (probably well above 100dB/W) and this rig thundered deep bass like no bass amp I've ever heard before or since!
 
Ike Harris said:
I bought new a later design B15N(early 70's) with the Altec speaker option. Sounded OK with the old P-bass but with the upright, I never could get a satisfactory sound from it. Too hollow, not tight enough. I always wondered if it would have worked better with the other speaker.

Well. I'm not sure ,but I think that what you were hearing, was the difference in the cabinets of those two models. When Ampeg went from
the blue checked amps to the black ones with the "helmet head" logo, they changed the cabinet to a "Thiele design (not TL....thanks, Ken) with two rectangular ports at the bottom of the cabinet. The blue check ones had
a "double baffle system" with a "3/8" space between the inner and
outer baffles. "The rear wave of the speaker inside the cabinet , traveled through oblong ports and into the the 3/8" space between, it and out the large opening in the outer baffle. To my knowledge no other bass
speaker cab has ever been constructed that way.

Ric Vice
"Ampeg"
The Story Behind the Sound
by Grer Hopkins and Bill Moore

PS They also changed the preamp
 
Aleph5 said:
That Altec 421A was something. As I remember, it had an Alnico magnet structure weight of 21 lbs.! (Not bare magnet weight, but the entire magnetized assembly.) JBL F-series were 11 lbs. I remember a friend bought one of the original Ampeg V-4B amps which consisted of essentially a 100W version of an SVT head driving a huge folded horn cabinet utilizing two 421As. In that enclosure, they were extremely efficient (probably well above 100dB/W) and this rig thundered deep bass like no bass amp I've ever heard before or since!

I played through a V4 B one at a concert. Lots of bottom and projection the only other amp configured like that at the time was the Acoustic 360. But I think I liked the V4 better. Mind you, these monsters were not suited
for upright. The B-15 really didn't have any competition at that time.
Still a very nice amp for upright. Until Walter Woods started building
amps in the 1970s Ampeg was the deal. I used to have a rig where
took the heads of of two B-15's with the 421 in one cabinet and a Gauss
15" in another and a 100 watt Walter Woods. Sounded pretty good actually!

Ric
 
Me: "As I remember, it had an Alnico magnet structure weight of 21 lbs.!"

On second thought, 17.5 lbs. sounds closer. Whatever. Yes, Ampeg copied the Acoustic, but used their preferred 15s. Another classic, the 360 and 370 with their big Cerwin-Vega 18 incher, but now we're REALLY getting off topic!
 
Aleph5 said:
Me: "As I remember, it had an Alnico magnet structure weight of 21 lbs.!"

On second thought, 17.5 lbs. sounds closer. Whatever. Yes, Ampeg copied the Acoustic, but used their preferred 15s. Another classic, the 360 and 370 with their big Cerwin-Vega 18 incher, but now we're REALLY getting off topic!

Boy are we, so with that in mind, could you build a version of the
B-15 cabinet with a neo speaker that was as efficent as the original, and considerably lighter in weight? I'm sensing from your posts that neo's are lighter but not nearly as efficent as AlNiCo's, so it's just not possible. If we could, then the head wouldn't have
to be as large either to drive it.

Ric

PS I forgot about Cerwin-Vega, another of the "AlNiCo" giants.
 
Ric Vice said:
Boy are we, so with that in mind, could you build a version of the
B-15 cabinet with a neo speaker that was as efficent as the original, and considerably lighter in weight? I'm sensing from your posts that neo's are lighter but not nearly as efficent as AlNiCo's, so it's just not possible. If we could, then the head wouldn't have
to be as large either to drive it.

I'll bet [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] absolutley could build an Ampeg clone cab w/ neos that would be substantially lighter than the originals, and sound killer good (see the 6x10 Ampeg clone on his site)! Whether it would be less efficient enough to matter, I doubt it. Maybe you couldn't drive 'em w/ 25W, but you wouldn't need hundreds of watts either. I just got one of his 1x8 cabinets and it's wonderful. :hyper: I hope to have more comments on it here soon.

If you want said Ampeg clone, call Don!
 
An interesting thread indeed!

While there is a lot to be said for the old Ampeg B-15's and vacuum tube equipment in general, I vividly remember the realities of owning and using those amps. A friend, who was already a very accomplished jazz player when I was just starting out, used to play his beautiful Prescott through a B-15, and it often sounded pretty bad -- real boomy and rumbly. I heard him playing last week through a rather modest modern solid state amp, and he sounded absolutely amazing. (OTOH I also remember seeing the Lemon Pipers in 1967, before the bubblegum days, and their bass player was using 2 Ampeg B-18N's! What an incredible sound.)

Another thing was the high maintenance, which is something that I don't think most bass players today would be willing to put up with. B-15's, like most other tube gear, were not nearly as reliable and trouble free as amps today are overall. When Polytones and other new solid state amps came along, many bass players were glad to give up their old Ampegs for something that was lighter and easier to move, had far fewer maintenance issues, and, in many cases, sounded better.

I have owned several B-15's over the years and kept the best one for many years. However I sold it a few years ago, since I just wasn't using it and it was just collecting dust. Although I have some very fond memories of those days, I don't miss the amp at all.

I also found the speaker magnet info in this thread interesting... Before the mid-to-late 40's almost all speakers were electrodynamic types (AKA field coil speakers). These had no permanent magnets, but instead had an electromagnet that required an external DC power source. In practice, the field coil was often a part of the associated amplifier's power supply.

A little info from the Audio Heritage web site: "...Since the mid 1940's, almost all loudspeakers have utilized permanent magnets to energize loudspeaker motors. This technology was the result of the war effort, during WWII, that saw the development of new permanent magnets with sufficient strength to generate high flux densities. Prior to this, the only practical way of generating the high magnetic energies needed for loudspeakers was with field coils. These required an external power source to keep the field coil energized which posed cost, operational and maintenance problems. For these reasons, field coils speakers were quickly supplanted with permanent magnet loudspeakers when the new magnet technologies became available."

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the very first Ampeg amps used electrodynamic speakers. Maybe someone else will know for sure.

Electrodynamic speakers were replaced by permanent magnet speakers almost exclusively with ALNICO magnets. Ceramic magnets came into common use later on OEM speakers, since they were less expensive to manufacture.

BTW the Altec 421A had a ceramic magnet. See: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/specs/components/421a/page2.jpg
The earlier versions of the Altec 418 15-inch MI speakers employed an ALNICO magnet, but the 418 usually was not used for bass applications.

Having owned and used all the classic premium 15-inch speakers (Altec, JBL, Gauss, etc.) over the years, my personal favorite is the EVM-15B Series II. I still have one mounted in a Bag End cabinet. (It even sounds amazingly good for DB.) That cabinet combined with an older GK 400RB is my modern version of a B-15 , and, to me, sounds far better than an old B-15 ever could. Not to mention it is almost entirely trouble free.

Only my opinion of course. :)
 
robgrow said:
An interesting thread indeed!

While there is a lot to be said for the old Ampeg B-15's and vacuum tube equipment in general, I vividly remember the realities of owning and using those amps. A friend, who was already a very accomplished jazz player when I was just starting out, used to play his beautiful Prescott through a B-15, and it often sounded pretty bad -- real boomy and rumbly. I heard him playing last week through a rather modest modern solid state amp, and he sounded absolutely amazing. (OTOH I also remember seeing the Lemon Pipers in 1967, before the bubblegum days, and their bass player was using 2 Ampeg B-18N's! What an incredible sound.)


Only my opinion of course. :)

Wasn't it Illegal in some states to connect two B18's in tandem!!!!

Well, I certainly bring up some good points. They were very heavy
compared to Walter Woods, Acoustic Image, and GK's. I was wondering
what kind of pickup your friend was using at the time? There weren't
many choices in those days. When I began playing professionally in the late
60's the only pickups around were those De Armond contact mikes or the
Ampeg mike on a stick. We got really excited when Polytones and Barcus Berry's came along and those babys sounded terrible!!!
I recently used a B-15 in a concert with a Realist. It sounded pretty
good and that's a pretty "bass heavy combination.
I can't remember every personally having any serious repair problems with my B-15. But at the time I was using one,you could go to the drug store and replace the tubes.
That said, my B-15 is sitting in the garage (waiting on a transformer..
can't get one from Walgreens ). I am lucky enough to have been able to
afford a Walter Woods and some EA cabinets. My back feels better these
days.

Ric

PS The B-15 once fell 6 ft of a stage and the only damage was a bent
tube cage and a loosened fliptop brace on the top of the cabinet.
Saved by industrial design and coil cords. :D
 
Ceramic, huh? Dang, my memory IS going. Well, without me looking first, I'll guess that the 418's magnet was 10.5 lbs. Do I win anything if I'm right?

BTW, not to hijack, but I will be posting my B-15R reissue for sale soon. Let me know if there's any interest. I bought it for its looks and to play EBG through, before going upright. It sounds pretty good for upright, but that bad negative feedback can occur that I've spoken of before. The sound of the amp comes back and damps out sustain. Better amps seem to avoid doing that better. Otherwise the tone is pretty good. The other problem is that I'd like to be able to transport, and as has been noted, the Ampegs are HEAVY. Lots of power from this new model, though. Clean too. I never owned an original to compare the tone.
 
fwiw, I have an early B15 (like around '63) and a later one around '66. I have a '67 B18 and two 70 or 71 SVT 810's. All are stock and original. All have square magnet alnico speakers. The modern drivers by eminence are ceramic.
 
Those amps are all so cool! Here we go again, though: Are you sure they're alnico? I thought square is ceramic. All the old garden variety CTS and Eminence 15" bass drivers used to be square/ceramic, I thought, including those in my old Sunn Concert. (I THINK!) The Ampeg book says the B15 used Jensen P15N (alnico), and most standard "N" versions were C15N (ceramic) or CTS. WJJ Hoge would know. Maybe I'll email him...
 
A few days ago I was at my bass teacher's house and we were just sort of messing with head/cabinet combinations. Near the end he pulled out the head from his old B15 and hooked it up to an 8ohm Bag End 1x12. It sounded very nice and warm. The only thing is, I like the solid state sound better. My AI Clarus just seemed to respond more quickly, it was almost like there was a delay with the tube amp.