cabinet frequency response

[seamonkey]

There are very few "bass" cab manufacturers that you can get actual measurements that their products are actually capable of producing the low fundamentals.

That's a shame. All the other manufacturers who have no intent on giving measurements are instead selling by marketing fluff. i.e. Shove more drivers in smaller boxes, pedal some new "technology" that can't be measured or modeled conventionally. Fools a lot of people and they fanboy these cabinets to no end.

It's absolutely terrible that consumers don't demand more.

When I want the fundamental, I'm glad it's there for me.

 

[acmebass]

Typical TB dogma, eh? How would someone whose bass rig keep his sound separate from the floor tom(s) and kick drum, organ bass pedals or low notes from a synth? Having three instruments fighting for bandwidth gets ugly, fast.

So you suggest that low bass is for for the other players, and you need to stay out of their way? Does a tight rhythm section become less tight if your instrument is properly reproduced?

Piano players and bass players traditionally butt heads when they have different ideas about which notes to add to a chord down low. "Hey I love your sus4, but get out of my yard. I was playing a third right there, which you ruined."

That kind of thing. It's not about "fighting for bandwidth." There's plenty of room for both drums and low bass. But you have to know how to play together. And if the piano player, or organ player doesn't know how to work with a bassist, that's another issue, as well. But it's not about bandwidth.

Again, with all due respect, if you don't need or want low bass, as a matter of taste, I can accept that. But your explanation about "fighting for bandwidth" is one of the more imaginative justifications I've heard. Musicians are supposed to hear each other, and play together.

You might be fighting, but it's not for bandwidth. There's something else going on there.

Thanks,
Andy

 

[acmebass]

It all comes down to personal preference. When we were early beta testing the ML112's we initially had a 3012LF it tuned much lower as I wanted the low B to really sound deep. Every one of our beta testers came back at us with "I would gladly give up some of those really deep lows, for some more punch up higher". Most of the players simply preferred a leaner, tighter low end to one that extended very deep and low. We ended up with a different driver altogether and a higher tuning before our testers felt we hit a good balance of solid low end with plenty of definition. Almost identical experience with our initial testing of the ML115.

I'm not debating the need to reproduce the fundamentals for whatever tuning may be involved, but simply noting my experience with players not necessarily finding that ability for a cab to go super deep all that useful in a club setting.

Well said, Baer.

A simple personal preference is really all that is required. "I like this sound," is all the justification that is needed.

I would only add that many of the anti-low bass posts seem to contradict your last paragraph, because they insist that it is in larger venues, not club settings where bass is bad, because the house systems can't or won't reproduce those fundamentals anyway.

But as I said, the explanations tend to be all over the map, and mostly don't make sense, with some exceptions.

Thanks,
Andy

 

[AlexanderB]

I agree with you - the nay sayers in these discussions often seem more opinionated (?) and passionated about convincing others, even if they have never played through a "hifi" bass rig. I think one needs to gig such a rig in real life, with their music, in their band before they make any statement.

 

[acmebass]

you also have this 100kg monster that is said to reproduce a low f# fundamental (20Hz)
http://www.philjonespuresound.com/products/?id=25

Can any of the experts comment this cab? 108dB of sensitivity seems surreal for some reason...

1958Bassman said it best: "How large: a bass horn flat to 27 Hz requires a mouth perimeter of 41 Feet."

True. People throw around the words "horn" and "transmission line" in the most cavalier of fashions.

Here's some stuff you can read, if you want:

http://www.acmebass.com/andysworld/8inwoofer.html

http://www.acmebass.com/andysworld/horns.html

Back to work...

Thanks,
Andy

 

[JimmyM]

Um, yes, that's exactly what I was saying. It has nothing to do with your musical ability, or your value as a human being. You are letting your audience down by denying them the experience of a legitimate bottom end. Sorry if it seems like a "shot." You're probably right- I could have found a better way to say it.

But as I read the posts from the anti-bass crowd, I sense a real emotional investment is believing things which aren't true, and your post was loaded with that stuff.

Name one thing I said that isn't true. And then come to one of my gigs where thousands of people show up specifically to see my band and ask anyone in that crowd if they feel let down. And then you can ask my fellow bandmates and see if they feel let down by me.

Now, if you simply say, "I don't like low end, but prefer a rig with a higher cutoff, because, as a matter of taste, I don't like fundamentals," I can buy it. But the bizarre explanations I hear, as a means of justifying that opinion get really tiresome.

In fact, as I said, matters of taste don't have to be justified. If that's what you like, God bless you. But as a matter of physics, "I haven't gotten any complaints" doesn't do it for me.

I don't care. Like you said, I don't have to justify anything, especially opinions. And since anything I typed in this thread was either opinion or fact, I have no idea what's pissing you off so bad.

So, anyway, my issue isn't as much that you don't care for low bass, which is strange to me,

I think folks wanting that low bass is strange to me. Guess we'll both have to learn to deal. Oh wait...I already have dealt with it. I wish them well. I might volunteer my opinion why I don't need those lows, but I sure as hell don't tell them they're letting the audience down by having them. Glad you think it's OK to do so, though.

but that those who have that opinion as a matter or taste tie themselves in knots trying to justify that view, and coming up with some really strange explanations in the process. It doesn't nave to make sense to me, and doesn't need to be justified. But if you say things which don't make sense, be ready to be called on it, by me, or hopefully, somebody else.

You're calling me out on my OPINION. I never said a single thing in this thread that's untrue or doesn't make sense.

Also, in reply to another post you made about frequencies stepping on each other, if they don't, then how come so much hoo-ha is made by producers and engineers about proper frequency slotting in recordings and mixing live shows? Are they all wrong, too? My ears tell me they're not.

Bummer. I know a lot of cab designers and customers of yours who really like and respect your work, and like you as a person. As for me, well let's just say you only get one chance to make a first impression, and while first impressions aren't everything, they matter. Had I come to your shop and you said this to me, I can guarantee you that I would be walking out of your shop empty handed, and I'd probably just turn my back on you and hit the road while you were in mid-sentence. Not telling you how to run your business but there are plenty of companies out there who don't need to insult people to sell them a cab.

 

[RockNRollAl]

That is not correct. It's not a question of hearing. It's a question of sound generation. The human ear can hear down to approximately 20Hz but the second harmonic on a bass is produced stronger than the fundamental. About Invalid Link Removed.

That was for a "slapped" note (see article). Slapped notes sound tinny as all hell to me.

As to the bass guitar myth:
I have Link Removed that show the fundamental and 2nd harmonic having the same amplitude at low E / 41 Hz.

Unlike the "I read it on the Internet" crowd, I do all my own measurements so I understand the method and the results.
This chart shows the amplitude of 41 Hz and 82 Hz are nearly identical, not some -11db as shown in the link above.

And I'll bet that was not slapped.

 

[carldogs]

Ok, this can't be just me. I play a 5-string bass, and sometimes it's in Dropped A tuning, which is 27.5Hz. I have not found a SINGLE cabinet that goes below 28Hz at -10dB. I want 27.5Hz FLAT!!! I know it can be done. Does anyone know of a cab that does this already, or do I have to make one?

BJ

If you really want to experiment with extended low frequency reproduction and want to try out your ideas then you could look at stuff like the older EV TL18-1, TL 3512 or TL606DW, even these cabs used a step down mode with EQ to produce (28Hz f3) they were used in applications like cinema and symphony orchestra. This is big heavy stuff to give an example a TL 3512 is H= 100.3 cm, W= 57.2 cm, D= 55.9 cm. Internal volume is 255 liters. The TL 18 is a bit smaller, if you dig around on the net and on the EV web site there are builders plans and info for some of these products. It is not only about the cab it is also using the the correct driver or drivers.
A power amp for this type of reproduction will need to have a good power band width down to 20 Hz then usually a infrasonic filter for below 18 Hz, this is to cut out big unwanted low signals that do nothing but over extrude the drivers.
I cant say how well it will work out but this is what info I have, you may be lucky enough to find one of these products second hand.

 

[JimmyM]

Pretty sure Greenboy wasn't slapping when he did it and he got the same results as that link.

 

[acmebass]

Not telling you how to run your business but there are plenty of companies out there who don't need to insult people to sell them a cab.

Sorry- no insult intended. I went back and read your posts, too, and you're right. You do seem a little emotionally invested in your point of view (I guess we all are...), but you didn't say anything unhinged. I shouldn't have attributed someone else's comments to you.

That as a matter of personal taste, you prefer a limited bottom end is perfectly acceptable to me, and needn't be justified. But most of the explanations here are convoluted and nonsensical.

It's also true that you never responded to my point that the bottom, more tactile notes are part of the musical experience. It's OK, you don't have to. I'm just trying to figure out what you guys are thinking, and like I said, as a matter of taste, and nothing else, I can "get it."

I would still like to hear someone explain the limitations of your view. As I said, this is not an E thing or a B thing. If all you want or need is harmonics, what is the acceptable cutoff frequency, in your view, and why? Is a speaker which rolls off at 100 Hz just fine? How about 200 Hz? I would think the same rules apply.

Thanks,
Andy

 

[B-string]

acmebass, while I agree with what you are saying for better part I have found VERY few rooms in over 40 years of playing in the "average" bassists venues that can use fundamental frequencies without major room problems. Professionally you of course can have some balanced well designed rooms but still may cause illness, headaches to listeners. Outside well, today we have the available amp power but still require an exponential number of drivers and increased noise ordinances. So practicality?
I read your link on "horns" and agree. I purchased BFM plans many years ago when they were first offered on FleaBay, they were ad copied as "New and Revolutionary". I was quite disappointed to receive hashed over folded horn designs. Built two anyway as I had time and disposable income. One later became a book case and the second bonfire fuel. They sounded as I expected and were plagued with the problems in your link.
I expect ICBM's from the BFM crowd but those were my personal experiences.

By the way my lower audible range is 18Hz, my upper range has degraded to 19.5 KHz professionally verified last year.

 

[acmebass]

acmebass, while I agree with what you are saying for better part I have found VERY few rooms in over 40 years of playing in the "average" bassists venues that can use fundamental frequencies without major room problems. Professionally you of course can have some balanced well designed rooms but still may cause illness, headaches to listeners. Outside well, today we have the available amp power but still require an exponential number of drivers and increased noise ordinances. So practicality?
I read your link on "horns" and agree. I purchased BFM plans many years ago when they were first offered on FleaBay, they were ad copied as "New and Revolutionary". I was quite disappointed to receive hashed over folded horn designs. Built two anyway as I had time and disposable income. One later became a book case and the second bonfire fuel. They sounded as I expected and were plagued with the problems in your link.
I expect ICBM's from the BFM crowd but those were my personal experiences.

By the way my lower audible range is 18Hz, my upper range has degraded to 19.5 KHz professionally verified last year.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I'm not sure what you mean by "major room problems," though.

I just realized that I'm in the strange position of having, on one hand, people arguing that a loudspeaker doesn't need to reproduce the fundamentals, because they're essentially non-existent in the signal coming from the instrument itself, and people such as you and another intelligent poster, 1958Bassman, who argue that the problem is precisely the opposite- that there's too much low-end content.

It would seem that the two main arguments I'm hearing from the anti-low-bass crowd are mutually exclusive. Both can't be true.

I am left to conclude, again, that in some cases, this is a discussion driven by emotion, not facts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you guys seem to have explanations which can't all be true.

I've read enough of Bill's stuff to know he's a really smart guy, who knows a lot. I think he designs the best folded horns, probably in the world- certainly that I've ever seen. I would add that some of the discussion here about the desirability, or lack of same, of reproducing the fundamentals has given me a new perspective on how and why designs of that type can appeal to a lot of people. So, hey- I'm old, but I can still learn!

BTW, if you can still hear 19.5 kHz, you're ahead of me. My ears are still remarkably good, but not that good. I think I could hear a frequency that high, barely, when I was a teenager, but not now. I think I top out around 15, but haven't checked in a while.

Thanks,
Andy

 

[seamonkey]

If someone were to compare acoustic instruments like a Double Bass,
the body is not big enough to reproduce the fundamental as strong as the second harmonic for the low notes.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8yQ_XHh53HUC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272#v=onepage&q&f=false
(And this has nothing to do with string length)

A speaker cabinet can be made the same internal volume as a DB and actually reproduce the fundamental as strong as the 2nd harmonics. All physics are still balanced. The speaker cabinet trades efficiency for size.

Orchestra's are full of instruments that don't produce the fundamental. Tympani are a prime example as they fool everybody into sounding lower.

When you get to electric bass, the signal coming off the pickups is a lot different than a double bass. The electric probably has a strong fundamental. (recording show this) And a double bass with a pickup probably has a stronger fundamental than a pure acoustic db.

This seems to go along with "Familiar". If you're familiar hearing a weak fundamental then this may be your preference. If you're familiar with electric bass then you may prefer a strong fundamental.

When I play DB with a pickup I'm fine with it, I can turn down the bass. If I play slab then it's usually to get a "slab tone" which mostly includes more bass, but not always. I'd rather have a cabinet that can do fundamental, I can always turn it down when I don't want it.

 

[acmebass]

If someone were to compare acoustic instruments like a Double Bass,
the body is not big enough to reproduce the fundamental as strong as the second harmonic for the low notes.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8yQ_XHh53HUC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272#v=onepage&q&f=false
(And this has nothing to do with string length)

A speaker cabinet can be made the same internal volume as a DB and actually reproduce the fundamental as strong as the 2nd harmonics. All physics are still balanced. The speaker cabinet trades efficiency for size.

Orchestra's are full of instruments that don't produce the fundamental. Tympani are a prime example as they fool everybody into sounding lower.

When you get to electric bass, the signal coming off the pickups is a lot different than a double bass. The electric probably has a strong fundamental. (recording show this) And a double bass with a pickup probably has a stronger fundamental than a pure acoustic db.

This seems to go along with "Familiar". If you're familiar hearing a weak fundamental then this may be your preference. If you're familiar with electric bass then you may prefer a strong fundamental.

When I play DB with a pickup I'm fine with it, I can turn down the bass. If I play slab then it's usually to get a "slab tone" which mostly includes more bass, but not always. I'd rather have a cabinet that can do fundamental, I can always turn it down when I don't want it.

I agree with you almost entirely.

The comparison of the body of an instrument such as a DB, to a loudspeaker enclosure isn't very good, though. A loudspeaker can be designed to be in phase with itself. This is impossible to do with a stringed instrument. They are totally different critters, even if your larger point is spot-on!

Thanks,
Andy

 

[Steve Dallman]

When I started playing in 1967, I was enthralled with the bass lines of songs. But where did I hear them? Our car had an AM Radio with one 6X9 speaker. Our home stereo had speakers made of 1/4" masonite with 5X7" speakers. Yet I heard them.

I heard the harmonics and my brain filled in the fundamentals.

I don't think I used speakers in my bass rig, or PA from the 60's until just recently that could produce much of anything below 60Hz. Yet I've played 5 string since the late 80's and I clearly hear the low notes. And a couple of my basses (one with EMG's and one with piezos) produce the fundamentals of low E down to B quite well.

My current speakers are quite capable of getting close to 30Hz, and I don't much care for what happens down there. I'm building an adjustable highpass to take out what I don't want, like an FDeck.

 

[fdeck]

I've measured the response curves of cabs that I've owned, and also formed impressions of their tone quality. For better or worse, my typical experience is in rooms with really bad acoustics. What I notice is that "too much low end" makes me sound like I'm being drowned out by my own echo. That's the best I can do to describe it. I find it to be fatiguing to my ears.

Naturally, playing through a speaker with a somewhat higher cutoff is a different sound, but one that I'm perfectly happy with, and that produces the incidental benefit of allowing me to carry a much smaller speaker.

Based on this experience, I prefer to put the -3 dB point somewhere in the ballpark of 80 Hz, but with a port tuning down around 40 Hz.

For the music that I play -- mostly jazz -- I don't think in terms of the typical "layer cake" band voicing, i.e., I'm not trying to fill a particular frequency range. I just want my own instrument to sound good.

 

[JimmyM]

Sorry- no insult intended. I went back and read your posts, too, and you're right. You do seem a little emotionally invested in your point of view (I guess we all are...), but you didn't say anything unhinged. I shouldn't have attributed someone else's comments to you.

Very nice. OK, forgotten, let's move on with a clean slate. But "emotionally invested" is the wrong way to put it. A better way to put it would be "tried a lot of stuff and this is what works for me." I'm not going to say I like it when I don't, either. Only thing I'm emotionally invested in is factual info. Anything else, hey, go have fun and play bass...that's my motto.

That as a matter of personal taste, you prefer a limited bottom end is perfectly acceptable to me, and needn't be justified. But most of the explanations here are convoluted and nonsensical.

It's also true that you never responded to my point that the bottom, more tactile notes are part of the musical experience. It's OK, you don't have to. I'm just trying to figure out what you guys are thinking, and like I said, as a matter of taste, and nothing else, I can "get it."

I just find low tuned cabinets often clash with the bass drum, the low end energy I most like in bass tone lives at 100-200, and for the most part I'm not playing music that requires 30hz at -3db. As for the tactile experience, that's in the eye of the beholder.

I would still like to hear someone explain the limitations of your view. As I said, this is not an E thing or a B thing. If all you want or need is harmonics, what is the acceptable cutoff frequency, in your view, and why? Is a speaker which rolls off at 100 Hz just fine? How about 200 Hz? I would think the same rules apply.

For me, 50-60hz seems to be the magic number to start putting the brakes on the low end. Varies with venues of course, but that's what I like. I can take a little bit higher, but not much higher.

 

[acmebass]

Very nice. OK, forgotten, let's move on with a clean slate. But "emotionally invested" is the wrong way to put it. A better way to put it would be "tried a lot of stuff and this is what works for me." I'm not going to say I like it when I don't, either. Only thing I'm emotionally invested in is factual info. Anything else, hey, go have fun and play bass...that's my motto.


I just find low tuned cabinets often clash with the bass drum, the low end energy I most like in bass tone lives at 100-200, and for the most part I'm not playing music that requires 30hz at -3db. As for the tactile experience, that's in the eye of the beholder.


For me, 50-60hz seems to be the magic number to start putting the brakes on the low end. Varies with venues of course, but that's what I like. I can take a little bit higher, but not much higher.

Good enough for me, Jimmy. Different strokes, eh?

Thanks,
Andy

 

[12bass]

Great discussion!

Personally, I really enjoy hearing the fundamental of a low B string; it has a certain satisfying "purr" to it that you cannot get from the harmonic overtones. Yes, the overtones still sound like a low B, but it does not provide the same experience. A lot of others here (perhaps most bassists) seem to prefer less fundamental and more of the upper harmonics.

What I'm getting from some of the posters above is that many venues seem to have acoustic problems with frequencies below, say, 50 Hz, and that bass rigs with healthy extended response tend to exacerbate these problems. I do not know enough about the physics of acoustics to assess such claims.

 

[subbasshz]

I love silly low tuned cabs and horns.

I however don't love lugging around a 24 cubic foot horn that's

48 in x 48 in x 20 in.

but its worth it.