Cabs---Less power, more tone?

[rodl2005]

IMHO........ The old spkrs in my old 100w 15"&12" cab from 1973 did sound rounder & 'flubbier' & I liked it- still do, BUT I can see that this sound IS actually a type of distortion that actually sounds nice....I don't unnerstan' it, But I know wot I like!!
"I like big B... " Oh so Sorry! :-]

 

[Bassmec]

Of course. I wouldn't solicit answers and not read them. A lot of it goes over my head, though. It's pretty interesting to see the scientific logic behind my completely non-scientific preferences, even if it it flies right by my head. So what are the most important factors or measurements we're looking at when analyzing why we prefer some drivers over others?

Here is a handy little device I thought up to make handling large old
fashioned loudspeakers just as easy as new small ones:

Very simple method involving a specially reinforced pair of pants fitted with a modified enema kit adapted for high pressure gas.
Depending on which cabinet you own a special diet can be arranged
to suit each application. Just enough being far far better than too much in this particular instance.
Keep experimenting Chaps!

 

[KJung]

No because most of my cabs are vintage or made vintage, with the exception of my Markbass combo and my Tube Works 410T, which actually gets a good sound despite its 400w handling rating. But I think that companies should make new cabs where the concern is tone over power handling rather than me having to commission it. I guess I'll have to commission it in the future, though.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Have you actually played more modern high power cabs that are voiced to sound more vintage (like the Berg NV's, etc.).

You are attributing 'power handling' of the speakers as the main cause of the tone of a particular cab. This again makes zero sense to me. Of course, with the cabs you site as example, I totally understand what you are saying with regards to those specific cabs, but that has NOTHING to do with 'power handling' in general, or 'newer versus older' cabs, etc.

Have you played the Accugroove cabs? Have you played the Bergantino NV's? These are examples of 'high wattage capable' cabs that 1) are easily pushed to high volumes with relatively low wattage due to high SPL and 2) have a very warm, paper cone, relatively vintage response.

The Bergantino HS series and the Epifani PS series also have a very warm mid-present response and a tighter low end in their voicing.

Comparing a couple of newer cabs to an older one, and then coming to your broad conclusion regarding 'power handling' impact on tone is unfortunately pretty far off the mark IMO. At this point in speaker design, you can pretty much find any voicing you want IMO and IME.

 

[nastycasanova]

bass players bass players! lets think about what we are up against the majority of the time. guitar players! i've been in bands with 2 marshall stacks and 200 watts of guitar power and tone i gotta cut thru. from a dummied physics approach, it takes way less power to amplify higher frequencies to skull splitting volumes than it does lower frequencies. i've heard some 15 watt matchless guitar combos that will go toe to toe with any 800 watt bass rig. a rule of thumb for me is for every 1 watt of guitar power i gotta have at least 5-8 watts of bass power! and to have good quality gear doesnt hurt. there is alot of good quality high power gear out there. but than again, all of what im saying depends alot on what kind of music you play and what venues you play in. the rule of thumb i mentioned earlier relates to rock music played in venues with bad sound equipment.

 

[Kindness]

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I won't be as harsh, but it is clearly an example of a lot of thought put into developing a hypothesis and no critical thought put into investigating/supporting it. That isn't an attack, it is not meant pejoratively, I just mean that while it may appear to be a good working hypothesis from a brainstorming perspective, it quickly falls apart under analysis.

The answers are there and relatively easy to quantify Jimmy. There are already a good number of posts explaining why you might like the particular designs you do and why it may not be a matter of power handling. As fdeck points out, it is either frequency response or distortion - and others point out that frequency response is just another form of distortion.

At this point in speaker design, you can pretty much find any voicing you want IMO and IME.

Truth.

 

[seamonkey]

Going even further, I think it would be beneficial to archive some measurement data from classic amps as well, including waveforms below and above the clipping threshold.

+1
I think a lot of this has been done, but by commercial endeavors creating new amps, or modelers. It'd be good to archive this for public benefit.

 

[JimmyM]

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Have you actually played more modern high power cabs that are voiced to sound more vintage (like the Berg NV's, etc.).

You are attributing 'power handling' of the speakers as the main cause of the tone of a particular cab. This again makes zero sense to me. Of course, with the cabs you site as example, I totally understand what you are saying with regards to those specific cabs, but that has NOTHING to do with 'power handling' in general, or 'newer versus older' cabs, etc.

Have you played the Accugroove cabs? Have you played the Bergantino NV's? These are examples of 'high wattage capable' cabs that 1) are easily pushed to high volumes with relatively low wattage due to high SPL and 2) have a very warm, paper cone, relatively vintage response.

The Bergantino HS series and the Epifani PS series also have a very warm mid-present response and a tighter low end in their voicing.

Comparing a couple of newer cabs to an older one, and then coming to your broad conclusion regarding 'power handling' impact on tone is unfortunately pretty far off the mark IMO. At this point in speaker design, you can pretty much find any voicing you want IMO and IME.

OK, well I came to that conclusion by playing a lot of cabs that sounded boxy to me including most of the widely available cabs in stores or supplied in backline (Eden, SWR, GK, Ampeg, etc.), but I do admit to not playing any Accugroove or Bergantino cabs. And since you know a lot, I will take your word for it until I go to BC and try for myself. But I do find most available speaker cabs to sound boxy compared to their lower powered counterparts.

 

[KJung]

OK, well I came to that conclusion by playing a lot of cabs that sounded boxy to me including most of the widely available cabs in stores or supplied in backline (Eden, SWR, GK, Ampeg, etc.), but I do admit to not playing any Accugroove or Bergantino cabs. And since you know a lot, I will take your word for it until I go to BC and try for myself. But I do find most available speaker cabs to sound boxy compared to their lower powered counterparts.

+1... I'm not really disagreeing with your impressions of the cabs you played... I know what you are saying. I'm just saying that there is a LOT of stuff out now that we all couldn't even dream of 3-5 years ago. Three way boxes that sound huge and fat and even but also extend the treble far beyond the old cab designs, sealed 2x15 cabs with mid drivers that sound only like we dreamed our 2x15 cabs would sound back in the day, even after dumping the old Jensen speakers for JBL's, and then dumping thosefor EV's, and them dumping those for Gauss or Altecs, etc., etc. (you remember that I'm sure!!!!).

Lot's of very differently voiced cabs..from super hi fi and wide to 'upgrades' of old school fav's like 810's and 215's, etc.

However, I'm not sure power rating is the driving force in what you are hearing. Some is just the cab designers finally having the components available to go super deep, super sizzly, hi fi, or whatever, so that's the 'sound in their head', etc.

 

[pedro]

I wonder whether cabinet design also plays into what you're hearing Jimmy. It seems to me that speaker cabinets are generally smaller these days.

 

[JimmyM]

However, I'm not sure power rating is the driving force in what you are hearing. Some is just the cab designers finally having the components available to go super deep, super sizzly, hi fi, or whatever, so that's the 'sound in their head', etc.

So you don't think that cone thickness and bigger magnets have anything to do with boxy tone? And nowadays you can make any driver do what you want by manipulating the TS parameters regardless of its cone thickness and magnet? Well that's good news if it's true.

 

[JimmyM]

I wonder whether cabinet design also plays into what you're hearing Jimmy. It seems to me that speaker cabinets are generally smaller these days.

Definitely I favor larger cabs over smaller cabs. And I'm sure that has something to do with it as well. But a modern SVT cab isn't that much smaller than an old one, and the old one is actually shallower than the new one.

 

[srxplayer]

I thought BFM would dropping his .02 by now. I would be interested in his take on this.

 

[KJung]

So you don't think that cone thickness and bigger magnets have anything to do with boxy tone? And nowadays you can make any driver do what you want by manipulating the TS parameters regardless of its cone thickness and magnet? Well that's good news if it's true.

I'm not an EE, so that's over my head. I'm not sure cone thickness is even correlated with power handling, but I could be wrong there. And a lot of the deep low extension has to do with the xmax and stiffness of the surrounds I think.

I just know that, being old enough to remember the old days, that there are so many cabs out there now that sound SO much better in a mix and out front than the 'back in the day' stuff.

Also, your SVT example is probably more of a quality thing than any sort of 'new versus old' technology. My guess is they are using pretty crummy quality drivers in the new Ampeg stuff, and lower quality wood, etc., etc. So, that's kind of confounded.

Many of us think the new stuff sounds SO much better than anything 'back in the day' that I have a feeling lots of cab designers don't spend a lot of time thinking about voicing a cab with that more midrange breakup characteristic that I heard in so many cabs from the 70's/80's. And, those that do go there, like Jim Bergantino with his 'new vintage.. NV designs) has kept the old school sealed vibe, but made them sound, to many of us, better... smoother, more even, louder, and in smaller boxes.. without sounding 'boxy'!

Just IMO. I guess what I was mainly pushing you back on was the implied correlation between power handling and 'tone'....

 

[pedro]

Definitely I favor larger cabs over smaller cabs. And I'm sure that has something to do with it as well. But a modern SVT cab isn't that much smaller than an old one, and the old one is actually shallower than the new one.

Again I'm totally ignorant about such things but maybe its one of those things where even a small change makes a big difference.

 

[JimmyM]

Again I'm totally ignorant about such things but maybe its one of those things where even a small change makes a big difference.

Yeah, small changes do make differences, definitely. But I'd like to think that by now, I can tell if it's the cab making the difference or the drivers. Who knows, though? Maybe I can't.

In the long run, it's all immaterial. You can't use the equipment as an excuse for bad tone.