Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by greenboy, Jan 27, 2009.
Believe me, I am reminded of it most often!
This is a great question. If your church has good acoustics, you may well benefit from a hi-fi (low-fi? ) bass cabinet. Another factor is where your bass will sit in the mix: maybe you'll want to produce that low bass, but maybe mid bass or low mids would be preferable.
Some will argue that it's better to have those low lows and trim them when necessary with EQ or HPF. I've had better results with sealed cabs than using ported+sculpting, but it's a fair point.
P.S. Forgot to mention: for 2/3 of my gigs I get no FOH support. I still prefer the tight lows of my NV610.
Helpful, thanks! We normally do not have a drum set - usually just a cajon and sometimes not even that. I do have a Broughton HPF/LPF and typically highpass my DI signal.
Back in the 70's when I experimented with cabs for home audio I remember the concept of an "infinite baffle" where at some point, if the cab is big enough (or practically infinite), there is so little back pressure to damp cone movement that you can get the best of both worlds. With a 6x10 or 8x10 and even a 4x10 you probably approach that to some extent. I wonder though about a 3x10 in a tiny box. Of course if the drivers are custom made to compensate for the high amount of damping from the small box then maybe it all works out.
Finally read the whole thread. Now I need a nap.
I fell asleep halfway through...
The most interesting part of this (to me at least) is how the human ear can be tricked into hearing the fundamental even if it isn't there. Reference:
Missing fundamental - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the new Peavey MiniMega exploits this idea.
So the amount of fundamental required to "hear" the fundamental seems to depend. Sorry if this point was made earlier, I haven't read all the posts.
At one point I had some sound clips posted in this thread with the fundamental present on one and carefully removed in the other. I'm pretty sure they went missing during the TB software upgrade a while back, and the computer I did them on is long gone. It's an interesting thing to experiment with, or at least it was for me.
I haven't yet read this whole thread, I did read the first 6 pages and the last couple... so far...
A thing about single mic'ing any acoustic instrument, is that it's only picking up the sound from one (usually very unlikely) listening position, one very singular perspective, and from a very small one at that. It's also usually very close to the instrument and not necessarily getting the balance of the natural tonal sound spectrum that the instrument makes, and receiving a spectrum that is likely biased towards the higher frequency content, or whatever is predominant in the space where the mic is. The lower frequencies tend to require some room to develop, whereas the higher freqs tend to attenuate at those same distances, so the tone changes.
The audience and conductor are much farther from the microphone than the usual mic'ing position of a DB, so the response picked up by the mic is very biased from what a normal listener would expect to hear. This is also particularly true of pianos. Stand 15' away from a 10' Bosendorfer or Steinway and listen and you'll hear a much different balance than anywhere up close where mics are often placed. Even a specially designed pickup for the instrument will still be a less than natural representation. A Howitzer Cannon or a Harley Davidson sounds better and bassier mic'd from a bit of a distance than right up close too. I think if you re-evaluate the mic'ing of the DB that the waterfall may show considerably different spectral balance.
Having said all that, I also don't find too much relevance for myself in trying to make my Ibanez 4 string with springy round wounds sound like a bull bass. To me, the speakers, FX, tube preamp and BF power amp are as much a part of my instrument as the axe itself. A DB is not the kind of sound I'm looking for...
I do have a pair of pretty healthy but smaller servo driven (positive feedback) type subs (not belt drive, conventional speakers with extra coils for feedback info), but haven't yet tried them on my 5 string bass system, as I'm not to that point yet where I want to tear up my 1500 watt HT system to experiment with it. Other things are first in line, and they're pretty well built into the room they're in. I did get to play with the ServoDrive BassTech 7s and 5s back in the 80s when we had them at a sound company I worked for, they were a trip, and ahead of their time and usefulness I think.
Yes, well while it's nigh impossible to make the amplified sound of an acoustic instrument a dead nuts match to its unamplified tone, that usually is the goal. Most of us hear these sounds on recordings after they're amplified, anyway, and the only way to be able to do any sort of frequency reading on them is to amplify them. So while they may not be perfect amplified renditions, it's what we've got to work with.
There is amplifying, and there is reproducing, not necessarily the same goals. If you're going to do scientific analysis on the acoustic signatures of instruments, I should think the methodology needs to be somewhat precise. Mic technique and the recording environment make a big difference, and some of that could easily be in how much of the fundamental is actually being picked up. Just sayin...
Also, if one thinks that it's OK to not have the fundamental, make a serious recording with it, then filter it out and hear the difference. I'm more of a 16Hz proponent. Servo subs make sounds that are more felt than heard, but it's still sound IMO.