Cabinet advice please...please...please.

[jungleheat]

The OP doesn't mention an SWR cab being available to him, so its a moot point arguing for its purchase. Just for giggles though, on what basis do you claim a see 410 will be louder than an Ampeg 810?

Similar power handling and much higher sensitivity. Not to mention ported cab vs sealed, so the low end will be more "flat".

And if he can find an Eden, he can probably find an SWR as those are a lot more common. At any rate, he said he played one. They are also readily available online.

and that is the ballgame. are there objective absolutes concerning tone? No.

And FWIW, objectively, there is no physical possibility that any 4x10 can move as much air as an 8x10. the 8x10 simply has more speaker area to use as a pump. Having said that, how each SOUNDS while pumping that air is also the ballgame. My money goes to the Ampeg (and generally I don't like Ampeg stuff, but the SVT is something of a "gold standard").

True. IF you leave out displacement, which is an important factor. Add in sensitivity, cab type, etc... and there are a lot of ways a 4x10 can approach or surpass an 8x10 in terms of volume.

I also disagree about the "gold standard" thing. They are ubiquitous, sure, and pretty cool overall. But I think a lot of their "popularity" is sort of a self perpetuating myth. Guy A tells Guy B that the SVT is the "standard", Guy B believes him, and even if he hasn't tried it for himself, tells Guy C, who tells Guy D, etc....

And some of it has to do with the very limited viable options in the 70s, and Ampeg just had the market share and a good enough product to muscle through to the current era.

Anyway, I don't have any vested interest in if someone uses SWR or any other brand. As I said, I used the GIII as an example. Actually, the SWR and the Eden cab should be pretty similar in most ways (similar specs, similar designs, etc...). It does kind of make me wonder if there isn't an aspect of "oh, this one costs a lot more, it must be that much better" going on. Maybe not, but that's more common than you'd think (just look at all the TCE threads). Did the OP compare all these cabs side by side? Or at least with the same bass/head/settings? Did he try adjusting the tweeter control on the cabs where applicable? What other cabs did he try and what did he like/not like about them?

 

[CL400Peavey]

Similar power handling and much higher sensitivity. Not to mention ported cab vs sealed, so the low end will be more "flat".

And if he can find an Eden, he can probably find an SWR as those are a lot more common. At any rate, he said he played one. They are also readily available online.

So there are SPL charts to substantiate your claim that a 410 will have a higher SPL than an 810? Those power handling numbers dont tell you much. More on this below in reference to displacement.

True. IF you leave out displacement, which is an important factor. Add in sensitivity, cab type, etc... and there are a lot of ways a 4x10 can approach or surpass an 8x10 in terms of volume.

Yes on low end a high displacement 410 may outperform an 810, but what about the rest of the spectrum? For the 410 to outperform an 810 those four drivers have to have a HUGE xMax. What are they sacrificing tonally in order to have that xMax? Will the 410 still be present in the mids and highs?

This all comes down to the fact that you cant substantiate your claim of a commercial 410 out performing an 810 because those companies dont publish the right specs to make that claim. If there are measurements for those cabs then I would love to see them. If the xMax of the drivers im the 410 are 50% better than the 810 you end up with something like this.

810:

8 * xMax * 50.27 sqin = 402 sqin * xMax

410:

4 * (1.5 * xMax) * 50.27 sqin = 302 sqin * xMax

Unless those four drivers are close to double the xMax of the drivers in the 810 you wont have the same displacement. Even if you did, what are you sacrificing tonally to accomplish that?

 

[bdplaid]

cool. I didn't know you were coming from Peavey... that stuff is WAY heavy for what it does. hell, it's just way heavy (100lbs for a 4x10!!!); I can't believe I used to move 2 of them. yeah, the 8x10 will be better for a much bigger payoff. good luck, keep us posted.

 

[Mr. Foxen]

So there are SPL charts to substantiate your claim that a 410 will have a higher SPL than an 810? Those power handling numbers dont tell you much. More on this below in reference to displacement.



Yes on low end a high displacement 410 may outperform an 810, but what about the rest of the spectrum? For the 410 to outperform an 810 those four drivers have to have a HUGE xMax. What are they sacrificing tonally in order to have that xMax? Will the 410 still be present in the mids and highs?

This all comes down to the fact that you cant substantiate your claim of a commercial 410 out performing an 810 because those companies dont publish the right specs to make that claim. If there are measurements for those cabs then I would love to see them. If the xMax of the drivers im the 410 are 50% better than the 810 you end up with something like this.

810:

8 * xMax * 50.27 sqin = 402 sqin * xMax

410:

4 * (1.5 * xMax) * 50.27 sqin = 302 sqin * xMax

Unless those four drivers are close to double the xMax of the drivers in the 810 you wont have the same displacement. Even if you did, what are you sacrificing tonally to accomplish that?

"A correctly tuned port can almost double the Vd. A port that is tuned too high or a cab that is oversized will sound boomy and slow but will more than double Vd but not in a good way. A lower tuned port or undersized cab will still increase Vd substantially but not by as much. " http://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/Volume-displacement.htm

So a ported cab can get close to the volume displacement of an 8x10 with the same excursion limit on the speakers, and there are loads better drivers than those used in Ampeg's sealed 8x10s. So pretty cheerfully outdo them.

 

[bdplaid]

I also disagree about the "gold standard" thing. They are ubiquitous, sure, and pretty cool overall. But I think a lot of their "popularity" is sort of a self perpetuating myth. Guy A tells Guy B that the SVT is the "standard", Guy B believes him, and even if he hasn't tried it for himself, tells Guy C, who tells Guy D, etc....?

So if they're only promoted by word of mouth, why are they so ubiquitous? At some point, all those guys who have them onstage had to hear them and make the decision that an SVT was for them.

And some of it has to do with the very limited viable options in the 70s, and Ampeg just had the market share and a good enough product to muscle through to the current era.

Yes, there were limited options available in the 1970s, but 40-some years later that same SVT is still being used. If you've never stood in front of one while you play in a band, you'll never understand why it's a standard. On paper it might not have the best specs, but it delivers the goods in spades.

 

[bdplaid]

Foxen: you can go all technical on my ass (), and I'm happy to be wrong, but IME I've never stood in front of a cab that punches like an SVT.

 

[CL400Peavey]

"A correctly tuned port can almost double the Vd. A port that is tuned too high or a cab that is oversized will sound boomy and slow but will more than double Vd but not in a good way. A lower tuned port or undersized cab will still increase Vd substantially but not by as much. " http://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/Volume-displacement.htm

So a ported cab can get close to the volume displacement of an 8x10 with the same excursion limit on the speakers, and there are loads better drivers than those used in Ampeg's sealed 8x10s. So pretty cheerfully outdo them.

As I read that section, yes for low end a properly tuned port does increase the low end whereas a sealed cab has a lot of roll off. What about the mids and highs that let you sit in a mix? I love the lows, I used a ported cab, but with out that mid presence you are lost. I still have yet to see a SPL chart from a ported 410 and a sealed 810 that show the 410 providing more SPL across the spectrum.

 

[walterw]

not to mention projecting that SPL at your ears instead of your knees.

 

[bdplaid]

walter: it's all about the cojones. ;-)

 

[Matthijs]

walter: it's all about the cojones. ;-)

No it's about the math and common sense

You ampeg guys are sure sensitive about volume. Hey those vst 810 sound really good to most of us, isn't that enough? Plain and simple a 410 with high efficiency speakers will be louder than a 810 with low efficiency speakers, like in the ampeg. There might even be 210's out there that will be as loud or louder. If you want the sound at ear level, put the 410 on a chair.

Coming back to the spec's I quoted on the eden and the ampeg. Those figures won't tell you the whole story, but they do tell you something. Assuming the efficiency specs are in both cases for 1khz at 1watt, 1m. Assuming the worst case scenario and the for the eden 1khz is a peak and for the ampeg it's a low. The average sensitivity for the eden will propably be somewhere inbetween 103 and 104 db over the whole range of 50 to 15k and absolutely not below 102 db. For the ampeg the absolutely highest possibility for the average sensitivity over 58 to 5k will be 103 db. At best they are about equall in volume. The Ampeg probably outdoes the eden in real world power handling, but in the case of the op that was not relevant as he "only" has the wt550. Get used to the idea: the ampeg 810 is not the loudest thing out there. But loud is not all you need.

And to the OP: congrats on your choice, aren't you happy you can tell your band the 810 won't drown them out anything more than a 410?

 

[CL400Peavey]

No it's about the math and common sense

You ampeg guys are sure sensitive about volume. Hey those vst 810 sound really good to most of us, isn't that enough? Plain and simple a 410 with high efficiency speakers will be louder than a 810 with low efficiency speakers, like in the ampeg. There might even be 210's out there that will be as loud or louder. If you want the sound at ear level, put the 410 on a chair.

Coming back to the spec's I quoted on the eden and the ampeg. Those figures won't tell you the whole story, but they do tell you something. Assuming the efficiency specs are in both cases for 1khz at 1watt, 1m. Assuming the worst case scenario and the for the eden 1khz is a peak and for the ampeg it's a low. The average sensitivity for the eden will propably be somewhere inbetween 103 and 104 db over the whole range of 50 to 15k and absolutely not below 102 db. For the ampeg the absolutely highest possibility for the average sensitivity over 58 to 5k will be 103 db. At best they are about equall in volume. The Ampeg probably outdoes the eden in real world power handling, but in the case of the op that was not relevant as he "only" has the wt550. Get used to the idea: the ampeg 810 is not the loudest thing out there. But loud is not all you need.

And to the OP: congrats on your choice, aren't you happy you can tell your band the 810 won't drown them out anything more than a 410?

I think you miss my point. There are no published specs that will really tell you how loud either the ampeg or any commercial 410 will go. They dont exist as documents from the manufacturer, and I uave not seen those measurements done by anyone else.

In fact I don't like ampeg, or Eden cabs. Ampeg isn't my sound, and Eden and especially DNA cabs have crazy over rated power handling specs.

 

[Mr. Foxen]

Foxen: you can go all technical on my ass (), and I'm happy to be wrong, but IME I've never stood in front of a cab that punches like an SVT.

I have. There's nothing complicated about them that can't be done under any other badge. Its a whole bunch of speaker distortion adding midrange and a whole bunch of low end roll off because they have really limited SPL in the lower ranges. Its also why they don't sound right till pushed a bit. Plus that whole period where they made them with really dark speakers and they sounded rubbish but people still bought them undermines them quite a lot.

As I read that section, yes for low end a properly tuned port does increase the low end whereas a sealed cab has a lot of roll off. What about the mids and highs that let you sit in a mix? I love the lows, I used a ported cab, but with out that mid presence you are lost. I still have yet to see a SPL chart from a ported 410 and a sealed 810 that show the 410 providing more SPL across the spectrum.

You don't see SPL charts for most cabs. There's nothing stopping them having plenty of mids though, if they are designed as such. Or a mid driver. The Acme 4x10 is hugely more broadband than pretty much any other cab, but its sensitivity overall is quite low. 4x10 are old hat now anyway, time is passed, should be consigned to being relics like the W horn 18 is.

 

[Matthijs]

I think you miss my point. There are no published specs that will really tell you how loud either the ampeg or any commercial 410 will go. They dont exist as documents from the manufacturer, and I uave not seen those measurements done by anyone else.

In fact I don't like ampeg, or Eden cabs. Ampeg isn't my sound, and Eden and especially DNA cabs have crazy over rated power handling specs.

I think I get and agree with your point, only not in as far that absolutely nothing can be said on how loud they will go. Both manufacturers have published limited specs on their website that tell us something, assuming those specs are not blatant lies. And math and common sense tell us it is perfectly possible for a 410 to be louder than a 810, depending on speakers and design.

 

[CL400Peavey]

I have. There's nothing complicated about them that can't be done under any other badge. Its a whole bunch of speaker distortion adding midrange and a whole bunch of low end roll off because they have really limited SPL in the lower ranges. Its also why they don't sound right till pushed a bit. Plus that whole period where they made them with really dark speakers and they sounded rubbish but people still bought them undermines them quite a lot.



You don't see SPL charts for most cabs. There's nothing stopping them having plenty of mids though, if they are designed as such. Or a mid driver. The Acme 4x10 is hugely more broadband than pretty much any other cab, but its sensitivity overall is quite low. 4x10 are old hat now anyway, time is passed, should be consigned to being relics like the W horn 18 is.

+1 100%

My point wasnt so much that some cabs have more or less mids/low end roll off, but that published specs on commercial cabs are few and far between. Combine that with the fact that some sacrifices have to be made regardless of design. As you point out the Acme is very broad band, but looses sensitivity. Tie in power handling and you end up with max SPL. Doesnt mean it will be louder than some other cab in a smaller range of frequency. As that range narrows slightly the SPL can go up.

As an example on high xMax drivers:

It has been stated that modern 410's with high xMax drivers, high sensitivity, will be louder full range cabinets that an (here specifically an Ampeg) 810. I dont buy it and here is why.

Lets look at two well known high xMax drivers, the Kappalite 3012LF and the Kappalite 3015LF. 9.1mm and 9.6mm xMax respectively, also 95.5 and 98.4 dB at 1w/m. So in similar designs, as you go to a smaller driver you are loosing a bit of xMax and sensitivity. There is no 3010LF yet so we can only extrapolate values that might be close, lets call it 9mm of xmax and 94 dB at 1w/m (these values have no real world bearing). So now you pair 4 of them up in a properly designed ported 410 and in the range those drivers are working you may have around 100 dB at 1w/m. Guess what in the low end that 410 will kick the crap out of an Ampeg 810, no questions asked. But looking at both the 12" and 15" LF drivers, there is a huge roll off in mids. This is a sacrifice that was made to gain a high sensitivity in the low frequency range. So the 410 may have a bigger low end, but with out the addition of a mid driver its all boom and no zing. In a band situation the 810 may sound louder as the mids will be more present, and the cab will have better full range response.

 

[Matthijs]

+1 100%

My point wasnt so much that some cabs have more or less mids/low end roll off, but that published specs on commercial cabs are few and far between. Combine that with the fact that some sacrifices have to be made regardless of design. As you point out the Acme is very broad band, but looses sensitivity. Tie in power handling and you end up with max SPL. Doesnt mean it will be louder than some other cab in a smaller range of frequency. As that range narrows slightly the SPL can go up.

As an example on high xMax drivers:

It has been stated that modern 410's with high xMax drivers, high sensitivity, will be louder full range cabinets that an (here specifically an Ampeg) 810. I dont buy it and here is why.

Lets look at two well known high xMax drivers, the Kappalite 3012LF and the Kappalite 3015LF. 9.1mm and 9.6mm xMax respectively, also 95.5 and 98.4 dB at 1w/m. So in similar designs, as you go to a smaller driver you are loosing a bit of xMax and sensitivity. There is no 3010LF yet so we can only extrapolate values that might be close, lets call it 9mm of xmax and 94 dB at 1w/m (these values have no real world bearing). So now you pair 4 of them up in a properly designed ported 410 and in the range those drivers are working you may have around 100 dB at 1w/m. Guess what in the low end that 410 will kick the crap out of an Ampeg 810, no questions asked. But looking at both the 12" and 15" LF drivers, there is a huge roll off in mids. This is a sacrifice that was made to gain a high sensitivity in the low frequency range. So the 410 may have a bigger low end, but with out the addition of a mid driver its all boom and no zing. In a band situation the 810 may sound louder as the mids will be more present, and the cab will have better full range response.

I think you picked the wrong speakers for this. Do the same comparison between 8 eminence legend b810's and 4 delta 10's and there's a very different result.

 

[bdplaid]

Hey, I'm not an Ampeg guy either, just very respectful of what the SVT cab does. And you want math? Tell me the equation for why a 410 - any 410 - at the same height as the top of an SVT won't FEEL as good. I know why - because half of the cab isn't on the floor. And sure, we can make a 4x10 ungodly loud. Guitarists do it all the time. but what does it sound like with a bass going through it?

Something to really get this thread divergent is the trick the 2x10 guys use - stacking two 2x10s on top of each other, but on their side, to create something an 8x10 half stack/4x10 line array - it does work. I've tried it and it had good sound and feel. Not and SVT mind you, but was nice...

I'm not a math guy. I'm a professional bass player. My ears don't need a pencil to figure out what works and what doesn't. But this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Peace.

 

[Matthijs]

Something to really get this thread divergent is the trick the 2x10 guys use - stacking two 2x10s on top of each other, but on their side, to create something an 8x10 half stack/4x10 line array - it does work. I've tried it and it had good sound and feel. Not and SVT mind you, but was nice...

Well there's your answer, and guess what: the math check's out too

 

[Bass Unique]

Lets look at two well known high xMax drivers, the Kappalite 3012LF and the Kappalite 3015LF. 9.1mm and 9.6mm xMax respectively, also 95.5 and 98.4 dB at 1w/m. So in similar designs, as you go to a smaller driver you are loosing a bit of xMax and sensitivity. There is no 3010LF yet so we can only extrapolate values that might be close, lets call it 9mm of xmax and 94 dB at 1w/m (these values have no real world bearing). So now you pair 4 of them up in a properly designed ported 410 and in the range those drivers are working you may have around 100 dB at 1w/m. Guess what in the low end that 410 will kick the crap out of an Ampeg 810, no questions asked. But looking at both the 12" and 15" LF drivers, there is a huge roll off in mids. This is a sacrifice that was made to gain a high sensitivity in the low frequency range. So the 410 may have a bigger low end, but with out the addition of a mid driver its all boom and no zing. In a band situation the 810 may sound louder as the mids will be more present, and the cab will have better full range response.

Don't forget the other important factors. It may be higher than 100 dB/W with 4 drivers working together. My guess would be 101 to 102 dB/W with the 3010LF if closely grouped. Part of the reason for this is it is likely that a 10" will extend slightly further into the mids than the 12 and 15 speakers due to its physical size, and it would most likely be a higher frequency before the cone breaks up (as this is often based on diameter but also on cone flare and angle and material....).

So, it may extend high enough and also it may be sensitive enough to compete with an 810.

Each speaker is also likely to be at least 350W up to 400W so it would be a 1300 to 1600W cabinet. That is comparable to a good current 810 (or two markbass 410s for example).

Drivers like this with 9mm X-max are likely to be at least twice what most of the 810 competition use (due to driver cost probably) so it would be capable of at least the same swept volume (Vd) as the 810 even when sealed, delivering the low end. With a good port this is likely to add another 6 dB (or equivalent of two sealed 810s in the bass).

So, designed well, it would be as capable as an 810 in many ways. It could be lifted on a small stand if you want it higher for more audibility or angled back a bit. The major advantage is you only need half of the boxes to do this so fits in a hatchback rather than a van and saves your back.

If high mid output matters to you, use a horn. However a small horn is unlikely to offer a significant bass advantage at the bottom end - the mouth must be physically large to gain sensitivity and the path long to gain depth.

The only advantages I can see of the 810 is that distortion may be lower in the midband as less excursion is required for a given output and given the choice of drivers out there, most 810's would be 4 ohm not 8.

 

[Mr. Foxen]

I know why - because half of the cab isn't on the floor.

One thing the SVT cab isn't is so flimsy that standing on the floor makes any difference.

 

[jmpiwonka]

some of you guys are arguing that a 410 will be as loud as an 810 based on the manufacturers sensitivity rating, you can't really take those ratings very seriously unless you know how the manufacturer came up with that rating.

i can tell you this, i had an ampeg svt410he (sealed 98db) and an eden d410t (ported 105db) and with the v4b i had at the time the eden wasn't noticeably louder than the ampeg. it did sound different, but it wasn't significantly louder. based on the sensitivity rating you'd assume it would've been way louder.

also i have an ampeg 810 cabinet, and it works just fine for me on the low end. i actually have the bass on my head rolled off to about 10-11oclock with my pbass.
i have the darker ampeg speakers in my cabinet and i just bump the treble up a bit, doesn't sound like rubbish. response if pretty even all across the range of my 4 string bass actually...and i don't even have to have a tweeter to make everything sound harsh and zingy, that's not my thing.