• 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.

Genz-Benz Streamliner Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
#721
agedhorse said:
The problem with this is that Eublet IS showing multiple eq settings and +/-5dB will not accomodate the measurements that he has shown. For his graphs, +/-15dB to +/-20dB is the appropriate vertical display scale to avoid truncating data.
Click to expand...

His "all controls at noon" plot shows a bass peak of just under +10dB (wow! :eek:), and other than the bass rolloff, the other dips don't exceed -5dB. So his use of @ +/- 11dB seems to be about right. In other graphs, if he boosts/cuts the heck out of something, then maybe another scale may be needed to show the full range of boost/cut available.

My point and concern is that the more broad the vertical axis becomes, the more the response "curves" begin to look like "lines," and even very different sounding heads start to look very similar (thereby making such response plots much less useful, and potentially misleading, IMHO).

Tom.
 
#722
tombowlus said:
His "all controls at noon" plot shows a bass peak of just under +10dB (wow! :eek:), and other than the bass rolloff, the other dips don't exceed -5dB. So his use of @ +/- 11dB seems to be about right. In other graphs, if he boosts/cuts the heck out of something, then maybe another scale may be needed to show the full range of boost/cut available.

My point and concern is that the more broad the vertical axis becomes, the more the response "curves" begin to look like "lines," and even very different sounding heads start to look very similar (thereby making such response plots much less useful, and potentially misleading, IMHO).

Tom.
Click to expand...

This is the issue with all graphical representation of data. In this case, too wide makes it hard to see small differences.

Even more misleading is making the axis range so restricted that very small differences look huge.

The biggest point is that without measuring the entire system, it is all meaningless anyway IMO, since a system (player, bass, pickups, strings, cabinet, head) can result in a very even response even if many of the 'pieces' of the system are highly skewed. That is the whole concept behind the 'mix and match' that is so often experienced by players.

Much better to use your ears when evaluating these types of systems, since any single graph of any single measure on any single piece of equipment provides very little usable info, and totally ignores the hundreds of multi-way interactions that makes a bass system 'sound like it does'.

IMO.
 
#723
faulknersj said:
Hasbeen, I'm with Saluki on this one, turning the gain channel volume to 3 seems to effect the tone differently than increasing the master volume to the same degree.
Click to expand...

Big +1. I am not looking at a graph. I was listening to my ears and through my comparison up before the graphs hit. The graphs just add some creedence to what I was hearing. Jason has not graphed any influence on what the input gain or volume is doing in relation to the mids, but to my ear it sounds better. It seems to open up with the input volume above noon and there is not much added noise so that's how I am playing it. TURN THE INPUT VOLUME TO THREE. DO IT NOW.:bassist:
 
#724
Making the Y axis scale too big or too small were both concerns of mine when posting these graphs. I didn't want my graphs to appear to speak for the tone and feel of this head on their own. Honestly, if I had seen the bass response graphs on this head before trying it, I might have been less tempted to give it a try. The fact of it all however is that the bass cuts back very nicely, and becomes more than just "manageable", but rather an outright plus. Big and full, with lots of authority yet not boomy. Treble is all there with no attenuation that would make this head sound dark otherwise.

And agedhorse is right in that none of this even begins to show what this head feels like when you stand in front of it on a cab. I find myself using the clean tone and digging in on purpose, going for that burpy jazz bass thing, and it doesn't "choke" or "splat" like a weak head would. On the other hand, the notes also don't reach up and slap you upside the head like many solid state heads do (which can be cool for some). Rather, they tend to "develop" and thrust forward at your gut like only a tube amp seems to do. This feel and reaction can be so hard to describe. I know all the tube amp guys or folks who already own the Streamliner can probably read my comments and just nod their head along with me. The total experience of playing through this thing is much more than some EQ plot, especially one as thrown together as mine is.

This has been a learning experience for me. I haven't tried scoping anything in a long time. I spent some time last night doing these same tests with my RH450 and Tone Hammer just for fun. I was extremely surprised at what I saw there by contrast. Some settings on my Tone Hammer that sound WAY, WAY too boomy to be useable for me actually appeared to have less extreme curves than what the Streamliner did flat. Why does the Streamliner work then and the Tone Hammer wouldn't with those settings. Beats the crap out of me. I dunno.

Summary, the Streamliner EQ works, I think because everything else about the head feels so genuine, at least for me. I'm glad I didn't see some graph and get put off before listening to it first.

I think the next thing I'm going to do is record some tracks over a drum/comp loop using the various settings I posted in those graphs. That will give folks an idea of how those different curves will sound under a couple other instruments, and a chance to get a "feel" for the head a bit more.
 
#725
Saluki said:
Big +1. I am not looking at a graph. I was listening to my ears and through my comparison up before the graphs hit. The graphs just add some creedence to what I was hearing. Jason has not graphed any influence on what the input gain or volume is doing in relation to the mids, but to my ear it sounds better. It seems to open up with the input volume above noon and there is not much added noise so that's how I am playing it. TURN THE INPUT VOLUME TO THREE. DO IT NOW.:bassist:
Click to expand...
I might try scoping the difference between 11 and 3 on the channel volume, adjusting the input sensitivity for gain. Maybe the curve will shift a bit. To me, it seems to add a bit more punch on the attack of the note without really changing the EQ. I think this might be simply because it's clipping the power amp section just a bit, but in a good sounding way. Just guessing though.
 
#726
As long as the graph is labeled correctly and a person knows how to read it, any range that encapsulates the whole curve works.
Changing to multiple dB ranges for multiple charts might throw someone off, but if I know that the response is down x dB at m Hz relative to the level at n Hz, what else do you need to know?
 
#727
KJung said:
This is the issue with all graphical representation of data.
...
Much better to use your ears...
Click to expand...
True, but given there's a large constituency of folks that don't have this opportunity without at least spending return shipment money, it is nice to have some test data available, as long as it's qualified properly with supporting commentary. Sometimes it's simply helpful to know if an eval even makes sense.

In short, ears are best, but I definitely believe in the "responsible" usefulness of published data.
 
#728
Vic said:
True, but given there's a large constituency of folks that don't have this opportunity without at least spending return shipment money, it is nice to have some test data available, as long as it's qualified properly with supporting commentary. Sometimes it's simply helpful to know if an eval even makes sense.

In short, ears are best, but I definitely believe in the "responsible" usefulness of published data.
Click to expand...

It is the definition of 'responsible' that is the issue.... often being problematic through ignorance and lack of experience rather than malice.

Commentary in areas of massive non-linear effects and complex systems is much better supported by other commentary (i.e., in this case, other ears, posts, clips, etc.) versus limited 'linear' data.

IMO, and a lifetime of IME!
 
#729
KJung said:
It is the definition of 'responsible' that is the issue.... often being problematic through ignorance and lack of experience rather than malice.

Commentary in areas of massive non-linear effects and complex systems is much better supported by other commentary (i.e., in this case, other ears, posts, clips, etc.) versus limited 'linear' data.

IMO, and a lifetime of IME!
Click to expand...
Yes, but elimination of information is not the answer to the misuse of it. That's my point.

Just sayin'... :)
 
#730
Count me in on the high channel volume. I have settled with gain switch out, gain dimed and channel volume around 3. Nice sound with my rig and style.
 
#731
Vic said:
True, but given there's a large constituency of folks that don't have this opportunity without at least spending return shipment money, it is nice to have some test data available, as long as it's qualified properly with supporting commentary. Sometimes it's simply helpful to know if an eval even makes sense.

In short, ears are best, but I definitely believe in the "responsible" usefulness of published data.
Click to expand...

KJung said:
It is the definition of 'responsible' that is the issue.... often being problematic through ignorance and lack of experience rather than malice.

Commentary in areas of massive non-linear effects and complex systems is much better supported by other commentary (i.e., in this case, other ears, posts, clips, etc.) versus limited 'linear' data.

IMO, and a lifetime of IME!
Click to expand...

No one told me I would need a law degree to participate in this forum...:ninja::hiding::p
 
#736
Vic said:
Dude, I'm seriously honored. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...
There are two good contrasts between your comment and Ed's I think. I don't want to feed speculation myself either, and ultimately I do believe one should try something, use their ears, and gauge reality for themselves as Ed suggests. While I believe in that completely, I also think that information itself is never a bad thing as long as the counterpoints are included, and if someone takes well-rounded info and misuses it, then it is at their own peril. The two ideas will server as a reminder for me for now.

For my part, I've readily admitted that the information I gave is amateurish at best, and could be used to mislead folks unintentionally into forming opinions that aren't valid. I've strongly urged everyone to look at the graphs, then put them aside in favor of their ears. My real intent in the graphs are for folks who already have these heads, so that they can see what making some EQ adjustments might do to help them get where they want to be. Anyone who already has a Streamliner understands it's "feel" I would hope, so the graphs are just another way to view what they are already hearing.
 
#737
Eublet said:
There are two good contrasts...
Click to expand...
+1

For my part...
Click to expand...
IMHO, you already qualified your input enough. At some point, the consumer has to be at least somewhat responsible for what they consume and how they consume it. If they really want to understand, they'll ask until they do. If not, well, you can't save everybody. You just have to do your best to have valuable input, and I think you've done just fine in this area.

FWIW.
 
#738
KJung said:
This is the issue with all graphical representation of data. In this case, too wide makes it hard to see small differences.

Even more misleading is making the axis range so restricted that very small differences look huge.

The biggest point is that without measuring the entire system, it is all meaningless anyway IMO, since a system (player, bass, pickups, strings, cabinet, head) can result in a very even response even if many of the 'pieces' of the system are highly skewed. That is the whole concept behind the 'mix and match' that is so often experienced by players.

Much better to use your ears when evaluating these types of systems, since any single graph of any single measure on any single piece of equipment provides very little usable info, and totally ignores the hundreds of multi-way interactions that makes a bass system 'sound like it does'.

IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree with this general assessment, allthough I wouldn't go so far as to say it is useless in the absolute, but totally agree that the data must be assessed relative to the instruments you are playing and the cab you are using. After all, the tone goal has to be achieved by the overall system response, not just the response of one part of the system.

Put another way, the graph can tell you what type of cab and what type of bass (and what type of settings to use on that bass) you would likely need to use to achieve the overall system response you desire.
 
#739
Vic said:
Yes, but elimination of information is not the answer to the misuse of it. That's my point.

Just sayin'... :)
Click to expand...

You kind of missed my point, but way off topic. No big deal.:)

Back to the Steamliner. Literally everyone who has been through my house and tried it either has purchased one or wants one! I like this box more and more every day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back