cabinet frequency response

[David Jayne]

The third erroneous narrative which seems to have taken hold is that, since the fundamental is, in many cases, relatively quiet compared to the 2nd harmonic, that the fundamental, for some reason, need not be reproduced at all. Why? That makes no sense at all.

Not sure what you're driving at but it's true-the brain fills in the blanks just fine, which I'm sure you know. Unless the 'tactile experience' is very highly worth it to someone, producing those low fundamentals at reasonable levels takes a lot of effort for little return. That would be my take, and opinion.
I don't think anyone said they CAN'T be heard by humans. Just that they're at such a low relative volume as to be rendered virtually inaudible, so why concern yourself with it.

 

[playswhatpays]

Hope you get over it soon Jimmy!

 

[Bowe]

... I don't think anyone said they CAN'T be heard. Just that they're at such a low relative volume as to be rendered virtually inaudible, so why concern yourself with it.

Not to be too over the top - but the "virtually inaudible so why reproduce it" concept is what makes mp3s sound so good ;-)



My BB 404 with MM-45 fat-beams has the 2nd at -4dB from the fundamental E on the neck pup and my Ashbory (tuned BEAD) well ...

That being said, my PA systems were generally cut off above the low-B fundamental (between 35hz and 40hz sometimes even higher) so I purposely prevented the reproduction of what would be only felt by the audience since the incredibly low frequencies just took too much power and provided little to the content.

IMHO there can be plenty of low impact above 45hz.

(edit) In the interest of full disclosure I am in the market for a cab that the usable low is 'in the neighbourhood' but I don't think I'll be pushing it much.

 

[Arjank]

producing those low fundamentals at reasonable levels takes a lot of effort for little return

I agree.

But when it's done right, the results can be awesome.
If I would want that fundamental produced by my rig I would add an active 18"sub and build it with this guy Invalid Link Removed
No 10's for me when reproducing these extreme lows, you need an 18" driver like e.g. the Oberton to keep the 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion low, else you will still be hearing more 2nd harmonic then fundamental (when cranked).

 

[KJung]

Nice thread for the most part, and cool that Andy is taking part, since his cabs are the only 'production cabs' that I know of that extend pretty close to the fundamental of an open B string.

My view has always been 'be careful what you wish for' when considering a cab that is voiced to produce the fundamental of the lowest notes on a B string. As long as you realize that you are going to need significantly more power, and also (IMO and IME) double the speakers to achieve the same volume as a more traditionally voiced cab (rolling off at the more typical 50hz or so, versus the mid 30's), then all is good. You will get a much fatter, deeper tone (even on your higher notes, since there are 'harmonics' going on there also), at the expense of sensitivity, and in some cases, articulation (talked about more below).

Power is cheap these days, so the primary 'negative' with this sort of voicing (for me) is that you just need more boxes to push that uber low voicing through a mix and into the audience.

A player should also be aware of 'the tone in his/her head' when considering these issues. That sounds obvious, but it is surprisingly not obvious to many players. If you like digging in at the bridge, and enjoy what I call 'hearing the windings on the B string'... a super punchy, growly, articulate tone, a lot of fundamental content can mask that.

The other trade-off, for me, that a buyer should be aware of is the fact that if you have a driver designed to produce powerful low end, like the Acme custom drivers or the various 'PA subwoofer' type drivers like the 3015LF that some designers are using, you need (for most players' needs) a mid driver with a relatively low crossover to reproduce the upper frequencies adequately and 'musically'. There is no free lunch. However, for the most part, upper midrange coming from a mid driver sounds quite different from midrange coming from the top of a more traditional bass speaker. Yes, you get a bit better spread of the upper midrange on stage, but for some, there is a cost in warmth and tonality, depending on the particular driver and crossover. No free lunch. EVERY speaker is a compromise in one way or the other.

IMO!

 

[12bass]

Recently I converted my fEARful 15/6/1 to a true 3-way crossover. Now the tweeter takes over from the midrange around 3 kHz which eliminates the somewhat ragged response in the lower treble, resulting in relatively flat, extended, response. Still, it doesn't quite get down to the fundamentals of the low-B.

From the above, I get the impression that people are aware of the challenges of reproducing those low fundamentals with authority - mostly the matter of hauling around a lot of bulky enclosures - however, I've yet to encounter much in the way of explanation for why that lowest octave is a problem otherwise in terms of the mix. What I'm suggesting is that it seems to be more of a practical issue, where reproduction of the lowest fundamentals is a matter of diminishing returns given the equipment requirements, than an issue with those fundamental frequencies causing any real problems.

 

[Arjank]

I've yet to encounter much in the way of explanation for why that lowest octave is a problem otherwise in terms of the mix. ....... where reproduction of the lowest fundamentals is a matter of diminishing returns given the equipment requirements, than an issue with those fundamental frequencies causing any real problems.

Well, if you play solo bass there ain't no problem if you(the bassplayer) produce these sub tones. But, if the band has a drummer and the PA decides to let the bassdrum kick some butt then most of the time they will give that bassdrum a bump between 35 and 50hz (the domain of the bassguitars fundamentals). So, if the bassguitar also produces these fundamentals(with authority) you'll probably get a mix that'll sound like mud in the low-end.....

 

[bgavin]

I think far too much consideration is given to "the mix" and "mud."
Here in my area, every club is played by musicians in the general age group of the TB majority.
These clubs run at least 105 SPL and closer to 115 SPL in the area where the audience stands and plays with their phones.

There are multiple big subs, all emphasizing the kick drum as noted above.
It appears every soundman is a frustrated drummer, or behaves like one.
The bass is often a frantically strummed P-bass that generates merde all by itself, boost not required.

The combination of strummed merde and 32nd note double kicks, EQ'ed to the Moon, is not a mix. It is mud, personified.
All the talk about "my tone" is completely wasted, because only the bass roar of a 767 is heard on the floor.
Reproducing low B will only add chest discomfort to the deep roar of mud.

I am all for a full range cab that produces my instrument range.
But only when it can be heard.
It cannot be heard in the above conditions so "why bother"?

 

[acmebass]

No, but instead of worrying about all that, I'll just forget you as a bass cab maker. No worries!

My impression was that you already had made your choice, or you probably would not have opted to start our relationship with a hostile post here, and with aggressive reprimands of other posters who refer to the Acme products on that other thread.

In other words, if you're not interested in Acme products, why do you think about them so much? Why don't you tell us about the equipment you love, why you love it, and try to make the world a better place by enlightening those who might benefit from your insight, instead of spending your time bashing others with no possibility of constructive outcome?

Interesting to hear that your father plays bass too, loves his Acme unit, and that your equipment choices are resoundingly different than his. This subtext suggests to me that your hostility toward me is misplaced (I've never done anything to you), and that the angry, personal nature of your posts is more about your relationship with your father than about equipment.

Just a wild guess.

Thanks,
Andy

 

[acmebass]

Not sure what you're driving at but it's true-the brain fills in the blanks just fine, which I'm sure you know. Unless the 'tactile experience' is very highly worth it to someone, producing those low fundamentals at reasonable levels takes a lot of effort for little return. That would be my take, and opinion.
I don't think anyone said they CAN'T be heard by humans. Just that they're at such a low relative volume as to be rendered virtually inaudible, so why concern yourself with it.

Actually, one poster declared definitively that 30 Hz can't be heard, but no matter.

All matters of personal taste are equally legitimate, and you don't need to justify yours.

My concern is to accurately reproduce an electrical signal, and convert the amplifier power into a sound in a room which will be a reasonable representation. It has nothing to do with the nature of that electrical signal per se. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with bass guitar, or the harmonic content thereof.

I have compared it to a copy machine, in a way. Does your Xerox machine make an accurate copy, regardless of that's on the piece of paper?

Thanks,
Andy

Thanks,
Andy

 

[acmebass]

Nice thread for the most part, and cool that Andy is taking part, since his cabs are the only 'production cabs' that I know of that extend pretty close to the fundamental of an open B string.

My view has always been 'be careful what you wish for' when considering a cab that is voiced to produce the fundamental of the lowest notes on a B string. As long as you realize that you are going to need significantly more power, and also (IMO and IME) double the speakers to achieve the same volume as a more traditionally voiced cab (rolling off at the more typical 50hz or so, versus the mid 30's), then all is good. You will get a much fatter, deeper tone (even on your higher notes, since there are 'harmonics' going on there also), at the expense of sensitivity, and in some cases, articulation (talked about more below).

Power is cheap these days, so the primary 'negative' with this sort of voicing (for me) is that you just need more boxes to push that uber low voicing through a mix and into the audience.

A player should also be aware of 'the tone in his/her head' when considering these issues. That sounds obvious, but it is surprisingly not obvious to many players. If you like digging in at the bridge, and enjoy what I call 'hearing the windings on the B string'... a super punchy, growly, articulate tone, a lot of fundamental content can mask that.

The other trade-off, for me, that a buyer should be aware of is the fact that if you have a driver designed to produce powerful low end, like the Acme custom drivers or the various 'PA subwoofer' type drivers like the 3015LF that some designers are using, you need (for most players' needs) a mid driver with a relatively low crossover to reproduce the upper frequencies adequately and 'musically'. There is no free lunch. However, for the most part, upper midrange coming from a mid driver sounds quite different from midrange coming from the top of a more traditional bass speaker. Yes, you get a bit better spread of the upper midrange on stage, but for some, there is a cost in warmth and tonality, depending on the particular driver and crossover. No free lunch. EVERY speaker is a compromise in one way or the other.

IMO!

Well said, Ken.

I'm still hoping for a free lunch, though. Haha.

A

 

[David Jayne]

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with bass guitar, or the harmonic content thereof.

Interesting view. I don't share it but that's OK. Different strokes and all.

 

[Mike Arnopol]

first of all---I am not trying to hawk my own stuff so a note to the mods---please yank this if you feel it's inappropriate

I was of the camp that felt that anything under 50 hz just muddied up the bandstand and whatever was gained by having frequencies below that---the negatives outweighed the positives by a great deal. A buddy of mine ( an amateur bassist and a brilliant engineer) about 25 years ago--built a transmission line using an 18" subwoofer driver in concentric heavy walled cardboard tubes in an ingenious fashion.(it was published in a DIY audio magazine) The enclosure was about 26" in diameter by about 48" tall. He biamped to a satellite above. I tried it on some gigs. It was the only time that I had that insane low end extension and it didn't load up the stage in weird ways. I know that you can accomplish the same feat with reflex or sealed cabs but as stated before--the compromises with size and efficiency would make it impractical. And as I stated before---you don't want to get those lows under the frequency tuning of a reflex cab---THAT'S what loads the stage in weird ways---not the lows.

The cabs that I'm working with do go uber low without unloading the drivers. This isn't an advertisement--it's just that I realized that the uber lows are functional and very musical and don't load the stage in weird ways.The funny thing is that those low frequencies--when controlled and not a cone flapping wildly--don't have overhang and don't obscure your stage sound. Overhang in the 50 to 100hz range does. True low-lows aren't boomy at all--if done right---I would describe at as a solidity under the notes. Anything "boomy" or "enveloping" ain't the bottom octave---it just doesn't sound like that. There's no way the kick drum is nearly that low (let's say the 35hz to 50hz range).The lowest octave is more subtle in sound I think. If it sounds "huge and thick" it ain't the low-lows. It's the speaker behaving poorly in the octave above. I do agree that almost all of the best bass sounds we hear are 50 hz and up---the low--lows aren't necessary for a functional bass sound---but if you can have them---they're pretty cool.And again---it's not the uber lows that screw up a stage sound.

 

[xk49w]

... however, I've yet to encounter much in the way of explanation for why that lowest octave is a problem otherwise in terms of the mix. What I'm suggesting is that it seems to be more of a practical issue, where reproduction of the lowest fundamentals is a matter of diminishing returns given the equipment requirements, than an issue with those fundamental frequencies causing any real problems.

IME the mud and wooliness is an indoor phenomenon where room resonance modes cause large gain at certain frequencies and locations. I don't know that I have ever heard it in a nonreflective environment. I think it is the level of lows in general, not really multiple instruments duplicating the spectrum. Perhaps an acoustical engineer could explain why it seems more a problem with lows, reflection with less loss or something.

 

[JimmyM]

Hope you get over it soon Jimmy!

Thx pal! It's breaking up today.

 

[B-string]

I am a little surprised this thread is still on going.
Personally I don't see the need for a cab design that is approached as "a copy machine". I can't remember a time when my recorded signal was not "manipulated" in the booth either before, during or at mixdown. Live it to me is more important to present a balanced range as it applies to all instruments and the room's acoustics. Prefer to play outside in the open as I can utilize lower fundamentals more. But MOST gigs are......inside somewhere.

 

[will33]

IME the mud and wooliness is an indoor phenomenon where room resonance modes cause large gain at certain frequencies and locations. I don't know that I have ever heard it in a nonreflective environment. I think it is the level of lows in general, not really multiple instruments duplicating the spectrum. Perhaps an acoustical engineer could explain why it seems more a problem with lows, reflection with less loss or something.

Well, I'm no acoustic engineer, but....in the lowest frequencies, the wavelengths are long enough to interact with common room boundry distances, like a typical 8-10 ft. ceiling or having the band setup a few feet out from a back wall, so you get reflections/cancellations. This makes some areas sound really bassy, where the reflections end up meeting in a way as to enhance those frequencies, and other areas where bass can sort of "disappear", where the reflections meet in a way as to cancel. Move up a little in frequency, the wavelengths get shorter, less cancellation and more just room reverberant sound.

Set up outside and those problems go away along with the boundries, but you also loose the ability to use those boundries to help "load" the listening area with LF sound. I'm sure everybody's heard their nice, fat sounding rig get thin when playing outside. You can eq some of that back in if your speakers can handle it, though a good rule of thumb is to double your woofer count to get you back to the same place you were indoors.

Lots of good reading out there on boundry cancellation and subwoofer placement. The same rules apply to bass rigs or anything that makes LF.


As far as sub-low response in bass rigs...I don't really need it to make a sound I enjoy, others like it and that's fine too. It helps though to know a bit how things operate down there so you can make it work for you rather than against you. Helps also for people to know what they're listening to. Live sound concert subs will shake hell out of everything but tjey're often still highpassed around 40hz or so, sometimes maybe a little higher even, well above a low B fundamental.

 

[JimmyM]

I am a little surprised this thread is still on going.
Personally I don't see the need for a cab design that is approached as "a copy machine". I can't remember a time when my recorded signal was not "manipulated" in the booth either before, during or at mixdown.

This is a very good point. When I play bass, or any instrument for that matter, I am CREATING a sound, not merely trying to reproduce a sound.

 

[AlexanderB]

It certainly carries much more weight (and generates far less arrogant comments) when Mike and Andy say things I said in earlier threads like this - deep lows do not necessarily muddy things up, can be done, add value to the music etc. And no, the fEarful stuff is not the last word in the deep bass debate - far from.

A lot of PA rigs go much deeper than 40Hz, so do good Theatre sound systems etc.

Mud is IMO/IME caused mainly by bad implementation, sub-par gear, incompetent mixing etc and is not inherent to the existence of deep bass.

 

[BurningSkies]

Sorry- we don't do custom work. Have you tried Dr. Bass?

A

LOL.