I always felt the Bose bass modules were not well matched to the arrays. They're bandpass, and while this isn't necessarily bad, the Bose are boomy. I recommend trying another sub.
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.
Double Bass Bose L1 and B1
- Thread starter Monte
- Start date
- May 6, 2003
- 5,272
- 160
- 64
- Disclosures
- Proprietor Fifth Avenue Fret Shop. Technical Editor Bass Gear Magazine
I'm not sure what "bandpass" means and why that would be bad. Can you elaborate?seamonkey said:
Different sub types are explained here better than I could:
http://www.diysubwoofers.org/
I understand Bose patented the 6th order bandpass. You typically see bandpass when maximum boom is wanted, like for DJ or extreme car audio.
They are very tricky to design well, so it doesn't make sense that Bose answer is just add more when you need them. It'd require a lot of EQ to get right. And I don't see how they could have the same "throw" as the array. Even though bass frequencies are suppose to be omni I don't think the design of the Bose array let's it go low enough that the sub only does the real low omni frequencies.
When somebody says turn down the bass they usually mean turn down the boom.
Just my opinion.
http://www.diysubwoofers.org/
I understand Bose patented the 6th order bandpass. You typically see bandpass when maximum boom is wanted, like for DJ or extreme car audio.
They are very tricky to design well, so it doesn't make sense that Bose answer is just add more when you need them. It'd require a lot of EQ to get right. And I don't see how they could have the same "throw" as the array. Even though bass frequencies are suppose to be omni I don't think the design of the Bose array let's it go low enough that the sub only does the real low omni frequencies.
When somebody says turn down the bass they usually mean turn down the boom.
Just my opinion.
When I put my ear close up to the sub while playing a CD through the Bose system, the sound coming from it is odd. The sub really does only reproduce the absolute bottom frequencies. Try it if you can, I was shocked at the way this system works. It gives the suggestion of a full low end by adding a tiny amount of boomyness. Clever!
The very lowest frequencies are the only ones not already being covered by the other 24 drivers.
When I bought my JBL 4682's (4x10) I got a lot of flack for not getting a decent 15" speaker like my buddies Voice of the Theaters, but when I started running my Carver PM 1.5 through them all the talk of those 10"s not being able to make bass went away.
Same concept here and I noticed a big difference, and in my case a good one, when I brought in one more B1.
When I bought my JBL 4682's (4x10) I got a lot of flack for not getting a decent 15" speaker like my buddies Voice of the Theaters, but when I started running my Carver PM 1.5 through them all the talk of those 10"s not being able to make bass went away.
Same concept here and I noticed a big difference, and in my case a good one, when I brought in one more B1.
Have not run the DB through our 2 sub system yet, but w/ the 2 subs, the vocals sure sound better than with just one.
One thing I don't fully understand is the short length of the cable for othe sub. It is a 4 wire speakon, so I will be looking for a longer one, like 16' to get the subs further from the main unit, and in to a "sweeter" spot.
One thing I don't fully understand is the short length of the cable for othe sub. It is a 4 wire speakon, so I will be looking for a longer one, like 16' to get the subs further from the main unit, and in to a "sweeter" spot.
Not sure how much of a difference it would make since all they're putting out is the very lowest frequencies. I've had no problem just stacking them next to the PAS, which is how they were intended to be used.
One thing I really like about the short cable is setup/teardown time.
One thing I really like about the short cable is setup/teardown time.
seamonkey brought out some good points. Bose' bass module is like a car subwoofer: Maximum boom, poor transient response, generally low-fi. Typically, below a certain frequency everything comes out as a single note. The design trades off a lot to get high efficiency and small size.
By way of comaprison, the small EA cabs get even higher efficiency and much better transient response in a small, highly damped cabinet by using massive magnets. This costs a lot more than using cheap speakers in a box with a lot of built in resonances.
By way of comaprison, the small EA cabs get even higher efficiency and much better transient response in a small, highly damped cabinet by using massive magnets. This costs a lot more than using cheap speakers in a box with a lot of built in resonances.
Subs are designed to be close to the tower - part of the directionality thing. I stack 4 sub units without a problem. Handles the low B with authority!!
fdeck, can you help me understand these remarks a little bit better please? How would we make our spherical radiators (our amps, no?) have much better off-axis performance?fdeck said:
Getting good off-axis tone & coverage out in the room sans PA is definitely something I'm interested in. Sorry I didn't get what you meant here exactly.
Hey, no problem.
My straw man for this issue is the traditional one-way speaker. Consider a 1x15 cabinet, just to be blunt. At low frequencies, the speaker is omnidirectional. Above a certain frequency, the sound starts to form a beam that keeps getting narrower. That's because the wavefronts from opposite edges of the cone arrive at your ear out of phase and cancel one another. That's pretty much how to define bad off-axis response, since it's the most frequent cause.
Neglecting horn systems, to get better off-axis response, you need drivers that are much smaller than the wavelength of the sound. But a smaller driver has less frontal area, thus it loses the ability to reproduce the lower frequencies with sufficient sensitivity. Compromise #1 is the multi-way system. Big wavelength -- big woofer. Small wavelength -- small tweeter. Midrange in between if you really want excellent off axis response. At least one expert on the electric bass forum -- Bill Fitzmaurice -- says that for a two way bass speaker, a midrange is more important than a tweeter.
Compromise #2 is to stretch out the driver so it has a large area but is narrow. Now you get good off-axis response but plenty of cone area. Ribbon tweeters work this way. So do array systems like the Bose.
Thus, a well designed traditional speaker, and the Bose system, both solve the off-axis coverage problem. What Bose claims is that their array also solves another problem, namely the rapid loss of volume with distance. With a traditional speaker, you lose 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the speaker. To reach the rear seats, you have to blast everybody out of the front seats. This is the spherical radiator, because the acoustical power is inversely proportional to the area of a sphere.
The tall array loses only 3 dB for every doubling of distance. This is only possible when the long axis of the speaker is larger than the wavelength of sound. Below about 200 Hz (where the Bose array cuts off), it reverts to a spherical radiator, because acoustical power is inversely proportional to the area of a cylinder.
Now it's decision time. What problem are you trying to solve? Left-to-right coverage, front-to-back coverage, or both? A good traditional speaker solves the left-to-right coverage problem. The Bose array also solves the front-to-back coverage problem.
But for some of us, the front-to-back coverage problem is a good thing, because it is what lets us hear ourselves above the band. Therein lies the dilemma. Another dilemma is that a spherical radiator can be much smaller than a cylindrical radiator, thus you have to decide if solving the front-to-back problem is worth the extra amount of gear.
It's also worth noting that the Bose system does not solve the front-to-back coverage problem at the lowest frequencies. But at the really low end, a lot of your sound comes from bouncing off the flooor, walls, etc., which probably improves your distance coverage.
In my opinion, Bose mixes up these two problems a bit in their marketing literature. The Bose array should have better off-axis characteristics than a 1x12, but not better than a really good multi-way traditional speaker. The balancing of front-to-back coverage has its pro's and con's, and I think the issue is complicated by the fact that acoustical instruments are all spherical radiators.
Hope this helps!
My straw man for this issue is the traditional one-way speaker. Consider a 1x15 cabinet, just to be blunt. At low frequencies, the speaker is omnidirectional. Above a certain frequency, the sound starts to form a beam that keeps getting narrower. That's because the wavefronts from opposite edges of the cone arrive at your ear out of phase and cancel one another. That's pretty much how to define bad off-axis response, since it's the most frequent cause.
Neglecting horn systems, to get better off-axis response, you need drivers that are much smaller than the wavelength of the sound. But a smaller driver has less frontal area, thus it loses the ability to reproduce the lower frequencies with sufficient sensitivity. Compromise #1 is the multi-way system. Big wavelength -- big woofer. Small wavelength -- small tweeter. Midrange in between if you really want excellent off axis response. At least one expert on the electric bass forum -- Bill Fitzmaurice -- says that for a two way bass speaker, a midrange is more important than a tweeter.
Compromise #2 is to stretch out the driver so it has a large area but is narrow. Now you get good off-axis response but plenty of cone area. Ribbon tweeters work this way. So do array systems like the Bose.
Thus, a well designed traditional speaker, and the Bose system, both solve the off-axis coverage problem. What Bose claims is that their array also solves another problem, namely the rapid loss of volume with distance. With a traditional speaker, you lose 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the speaker. To reach the rear seats, you have to blast everybody out of the front seats. This is the spherical radiator, because the acoustical power is inversely proportional to the area of a sphere.
The tall array loses only 3 dB for every doubling of distance. This is only possible when the long axis of the speaker is larger than the wavelength of sound. Below about 200 Hz (where the Bose array cuts off), it reverts to a spherical radiator, because acoustical power is inversely proportional to the area of a cylinder.
Now it's decision time. What problem are you trying to solve? Left-to-right coverage, front-to-back coverage, or both? A good traditional speaker solves the left-to-right coverage problem. The Bose array also solves the front-to-back coverage problem.
But for some of us, the front-to-back coverage problem is a good thing, because it is what lets us hear ourselves above the band. Therein lies the dilemma. Another dilemma is that a spherical radiator can be much smaller than a cylindrical radiator, thus you have to decide if solving the front-to-back problem is worth the extra amount of gear.
It's also worth noting that the Bose system does not solve the front-to-back coverage problem at the lowest frequencies. But at the really low end, a lot of your sound comes from bouncing off the flooor, walls, etc., which probably improves your distance coverage.
In my opinion, Bose mixes up these two problems a bit in their marketing literature. The Bose array should have better off-axis characteristics than a 1x12, but not better than a really good multi-way traditional speaker. The balancing of front-to-back coverage has its pro's and con's, and I think the issue is complicated by the fact that acoustical instruments are all spherical radiators.
Hope this helps!
How many of you guys are using additional monitoring with these? I've been considering getting something small for a little more direct sound since at the volumes I play I've been keeping them off to the side a bit to prevent feedback.
Akami said:
My band uses three of these set-ups and nothing else. No additional speakers, amps, PAs or monitors. I hear all other band members well and our sound is very balanced. No bleeding eardrums after gigs!!!
I'm a singer and bass player for a trio. We play rock/metal. I run vocals/bass/guitar in one 2bass module unit. It makes us sound better than ever. I've sang over many pa systems and always had a problem getting loud enough or competing with the guitar beam which was blasting me from my left.
I convinced my guitar player to give up her marshall half and just go straight in to the pas with pedals. The pas sounds better than her tube amp mashall ever did.
Vocals sound like they were professionaly recorded.
I'm running a bongo bass straight in and I think it's the best bass sound I've ever heard, over any bass player that's ever played with us. Keep in mind that I just recently learned bass a year or so ago so we could keep the band as a trio. So, I might not be as biased as some far as how big rigs compare to this.
For me it was worth it because it was both a pa and my first bass rig in one.
We set it up just to the left of the drummer. It delivers everything it says it does on the site.
It is plenty loud and will make your ears ring if you want to push it that far, though you won't need too.
The only problem I can see with this if if you are playing with a band with half stacks, already playing ungodly loud.
I also noticed a difference in bass loudness between my first bass a cheap ibanez and my bongo. The ibanez has to go a full three lines more on the remote to get the same ouput, but still doesn't have the same thunk. so, the instrument is a big consideration here.
The best thing you can do in this situation is like I did and convince your bandmates to plug in straight, or mic a small tube amp if they are in love with their amp sound.
In the future I will be buying one or even two more systems. In fact I won't play anywhere that insists I use house sound and won't let me use my pas. Thats how good these things are.
Expensive if your buying it just for one instrument, and not sure if others will have one. I reconciled it with the fact that it was both for vocals and bass, and guitar, and I'd be able to bring a great sound with me whereever I go and not get the F knobs from soundmen.
I convinced my guitar player to give up her marshall half and just go straight in to the pas with pedals. The pas sounds better than her tube amp mashall ever did.
Vocals sound like they were professionaly recorded.
I'm running a bongo bass straight in and I think it's the best bass sound I've ever heard, over any bass player that's ever played with us. Keep in mind that I just recently learned bass a year or so ago so we could keep the band as a trio. So, I might not be as biased as some far as how big rigs compare to this.
For me it was worth it because it was both a pa and my first bass rig in one.
We set it up just to the left of the drummer. It delivers everything it says it does on the site.
It is plenty loud and will make your ears ring if you want to push it that far, though you won't need too.
The only problem I can see with this if if you are playing with a band with half stacks, already playing ungodly loud.
I also noticed a difference in bass loudness between my first bass a cheap ibanez and my bongo. The ibanez has to go a full three lines more on the remote to get the same ouput, but still doesn't have the same thunk. so, the instrument is a big consideration here.
The best thing you can do in this situation is like I did and convince your bandmates to plug in straight, or mic a small tube amp if they are in love with their amp sound.
In the future I will be buying one or even two more systems. In fact I won't play anywhere that insists I use house sound and won't let me use my pas. Thats how good these things are.
Expensive if your buying it just for one instrument, and not sure if others will have one. I reconciled it with the fact that it was both for vocals and bass, and guitar, and I'd be able to bring a great sound with me whereever I go and not get the F knobs from soundmen.
To be fair I think that the Bose would sound phenomenal if everyone in the group could go through it. The problem there is the sheer expense of it.... Mostly blend issues (especially vs. guitar and drums) caused me to decide that the system is not right for me.
We used our system (2 subs) for rehearsal for a 3 piece, urb, guitar 2 vocals w/ 1 mic covering hand percussion.
The sound was great! Had more fun sounding good!
Did the gig with an old ,no ancient Peavy system, and it was difficult to get the sound good enough to be fun.
Ca't haul both the urb and P.A. in the same SUV.
Talking to our frontman about trading in his giant Peavy speakers for something at least easier to carry. Would be nice to have 2 systems available.
The sound was great! Had more fun sounding good!
Did the gig with an old ,no ancient Peavy system, and it was difficult to get the sound good enough to be fun.
Ca't haul both the urb and P.A. in the same SUV.
Talking to our frontman about trading in his giant Peavy speakers for something at least easier to carry. Would be nice to have 2 systems available.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Thinking about finally buying a Ric...not a bad price at Walmart.- Latest: birminghambass
-
