• 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 Class D "digital" amps. DB player Opinions on performance

#21
The GK MBX is the metal extension which is virtually identical to the speaker in the MB150, so theoretically, comparing my MB200/MBX to my MB150 should be a pretty good way of comparing the heads.
I used the 400RB and MB200 into my MBX, Acme B1 and DIY 12" I no longer own. In each case, the 400RB sounded more powerful. This is not to say that the MB200 isn't a good amp. I really like the tone but it doesn't sound like 140 watts into 8 ohms to me.
 
#22
clink said:
The GK MBX is the metal extension which is virtually identical to the speaker in the MB150, so theoretically, comparing my MB200/MBX to my MB150 should be a pretty good way of comparing the heads.
I used the 400RB and MB200 into my MBX, Acme B1 and DIY 12" I no longer own. In each case, the 400RB sounded more powerful. This is not to say that the MB200 isn't a good amp. I really like the tone but it doesn't sound like 140 watts into 8 ohms to me.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of exaggeration with specs. Speakers and amps. I would love to write about this. I've collected up a lot of data. The problem partially arises from the importance people put on them too.

BTW. the 150 basically has frequencies shifted upward, and the specs of the old and new speakers are not the same.
 
#27
My Yamaha BBT500 has been putting a smile on my face since 2005. It does everything I want it to. My weak link is in my cabinet/speaker config and even then that 110 combo speaker works just fine for me 95% of the time. I've only played out a handful of times in the past few years that I've needed more than that and I've been able to use a different rig - namely an SVT4-Pro through an SWR Henry.

Maybe THAT rig needs some work done on it, but with the right cab I think my little amp could eat that for dinner, at least for my needs anyhow.

That's really the biggest reason I'm planning a tweeterless BFM Jack 210 (or 2x110) build and also considering some kind of fEarful build for my next couple of cabs.
 
#28
How different are the old and new MB speakers? The MB150 speaker has a stiff, heavy cone and foam surround. These things together dictate the "gross anatomy" of the response curve when the driver is stuffed into a small sealed box. What was the old 200MB cone like? I have never seen one up close.
 
#29
fdeck said:
How different are the old and new MB speakers? The MB150 speaker has a stiff, heavy cone and foam surround. These things together dictate the "gross anatomy" of the response curve when the driver is stuffed into a small sealed box. What was the old 200MB cone like? I have never seen one up close.
Click to expand...

Not significantly different. Both quite compliant and with rolled foam surrounds. The cab is the same internal volume, though the old cab was less resonant. a bit stiffer. Especially compared to the 150's without the support behind the magnet.
The newer speaker measured a higher in box Q. , but that was only one example.
 
#31
newbold said:
My Yamaha BBT500 has been putting a smile on my face since 2005. It does everything I want it to. My weak link is in my cabinet/speaker config and even then that 110 combo speaker works just fine for me 95% of the time. I've only played out a handful of times in the past few years that I've needed more than that and I've been able to use a different rig - namely an SVT4-Pro through an SWR Henry.

Maybe THAT rig needs some work done on it, but with the right cab I think my little amp could eat that for dinner, at least for my needs anyhow.

That's really the biggest reason I'm planning a tweeterless BFM Jack 210 (or 2x110) build and also considering some kind of fEarful build for my next couple of cabs.
Click to expand...


Well 100watts into a 100dB SPL cab at 1watt/meter is percieved as the same volume as a 1000 watts int a 90dB cab. But don't rely too much on published specs. It depends on what frequencies they are rated at and of course the frequency curve of the preferred or needed response. A 4 ohm load as opposed to 8 might give you about 20-30% more percieved volume.
__________________
 
#33
bryanspkr said:
Not significantly different. Both quite compliant and with rolled foam surrounds. The cab is the same internal volume, though the old cab was less resonant. a bit stiffer. Especially compared to the 150's without the support behind the magnet.
The newer speaker measured a higher Q. , but that was only one example.
Click to expand...

Bryan,
When you say "say without support behind the magnet" I assume that you're talking about the internal construction of the speaker cabinet. I do know that the original speakers were built by Pyle, who had a lot of experience building drivers for automobile enclosures where the woofer would have to work in the limited air space found inside car doors. When they moved to the MBE's, I believe they changed to an Eminence.

Ric
 
#34
Ric Vice said:
Bryan,
When you say "say without support behind the magnet" I assume that you're talking about the internal construction of the speaker cabinet. I do know that the original speakers were built by Pyle, who had a lot of experience building drivers for automobile enclosures where the woofer would have to work in the limited air space found inside car doors. When they moved to the MBE's, I believe they changed to an Eminence.

Ric
Click to expand...

I think eminence actually bought Pyle.
Eminence will make anything thats possible by the way.
By support I mean first a rubber "bar" squeezed between the magnet and the back of the cab. The least stiff wall.
Later versions had a different "dampener".
 
#37
bryanspkr said:
There is a lot of exaggeration with specs. Speakers and amps. I would love to write about this. I've collected up a lot of data. The problem partially arises from the importance people put on them too.

BTW. the 150 basically has frequencies shifted upward, and the specs of the old and new speakers are not the same.
Click to expand...

I had an old Pyle-made driver from a GK 200MB and a new Eminence-made replacement driver from GK for their MB150. Both were mounted in identical cabinets, and in practice they sounded essentially the same. No one could tell the difference between them. (I also owned a 200MB with the original driver and one with a newer replacement driver from GK. They also sounded essentially the same.)

I wouldn't get too caught up in specs. In the end its how things sound that really matters most.
 
#38
robgrow said:
I had an old Pyle-made driver from a GK 200MB and a new Eminence-made replacement driver from GK for their MB150. Both were mounted in identical cabinets, and in practice they sounded essentially the same. No one could tell the difference between them. (I also owned a 200MB with the original driver and one with a newer replacement driver from GK. They also sounded essentially the same.)

I wouldn't get too caught up in specs. In the end its how things sound that really matters most.
Click to expand...

Bassically the same. The difference in end result is close. I liked the shape of the old 200MB cab because it was a bit stiffer. And the grill was stiffer. I wonder if the aluminum was too. There was a period without the back rubber support (some 112? Maybe not 150.) and those of course were less stiff. Lots of vibration. The old one was a pain in the neck to change the speaker though. The old and new cabs actually have the same internal volume.

For me it was the e.q. that I liked on the old ones (and the 400RB) +/- 15dB: 60, 250, 1K, 4K. and later, the variable contour came in, a great front end for acoustic upright. Bass guitar O.K. too. Especially with a bigger speaker. Thats why I liked the 400RB head.

The new MB head seems to have these freqs. No variable contour though.

If I remember right. The later freqs. were 80, 500, (not sure of the higher ones-maybe 2K, 5K) and so on. Shifted up. Probably to compensate for the 12 without tweeter for bass guitarists and to get more output at the lower freqs. Of course now they have the model with semi-para mids.
 
#39
The MB200 has an inherently contoured (scooped) response curve when the EQ knobs are centered. I found that it can be dialed reasonably flat with these settings:

Contour = Off
Treble = 10:00
Hi-Mid = 2:00
Lo-Mid = 1:00
Bass = 10:00

I marked these settings on my MB200 with a Sharpie. While I don't worship at the altar of flat response, my speaker was designed to sound good with a flat amp, and it's handy to know the flat settings of each amp when comparing between them or for non-bass uses.
 
#40
fdeck said:
The MB200 has an inherently contoured (scooped) response curve when the EQ knobs are centered. I found that it can be dialed reasonably flat with these settings:

Contour = Off
Treble = 10:00
Hi-Mid = 2:00
Lo-Mid = 1:00
Bass = 10:00

I marked these settings on my MB200 with a Sharpie. While I don't worship at the altar of flat response, my speaker was designed to sound good with a flat amp, and it's handy to know the flat settings of each amp when comparing between them or for non-bass uses.
Click to expand...


Thanks!. I thought the voicing was not a problem but I really appreciate that you took the time to find the flat settings. Very helpful.

Any thought on our volume knob conversation?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back