- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,952
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
You keep saying that, but yet I keep reading posts from you over heard on the double bass side of the aisle....
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 Giant Heavy Great Sounding DB amp?
- Thread starter peterpalmieri
- Start date
You keep saying that, but yet I keep reading posts from you over heard on the double bass side of the aisle....
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,952
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
To counter, my thoughts are that as more upright players hear the IP cabs, we will see more upright players using them. But I will say that yes, at least in my experience, the IP112 and IP153 seem to be more apt at capturing the midrange magic of a double bass, though the IP212 is no slouch either. The IP310 would probably sound a lot better than you'd expect on upright, but I think the other cabs have at least a slight advantage with regard to DB.
Tom.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,952
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,952
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Having read your comments and Tom's, and considering the digital wizardry used in the IP units, I can't help but wonder how challenging it would be for Mr. Bergantino to add a switch that would enable the user to select electric or upright optimization.
Actually, this functionality is already there. The IP amps have two program banks, so you could have Jim program one for EB and one for DB.
A second program would be awesome!
I've heard of a few guys using the IP112 with good success and I can't imagine many people feeling the size and weight is an issue, but some of us DB guys seem to be real whimps!
You keep saying that, but yet I keep reading posts from you over heard on the double bass side of the aisle....
Ha! It's because these guys use all the gear that I love, not all that heavy junk over on the EB side
It's more fun over here!This doesn't really make sense to me. Is there really a 'DB' setting that would exist in general terms.... you would have to take into account the specific nature of each given instrument (given the huge variability in tone and response), the pickup used (again, huge variability), etc. To me, the DSP's function is to 'fix' the various peaks and humps inherent in all cabs, and, even though I hate this term, to 'start with a blank slate'. Everything else (voicing the amp to a specific tone, playing style or instrument) would be handled by the tone controls on the preamp of your choice
This doesn't really make sense to me. Is there really a 'DB' setting that would exist in general terms.... you would have to take into account the specific nature of each given instrument (given the huge variability in tone and response), the pickup used (again, huge variability), etc. To me, the DSP's function is to 'fix' the various peaks and humps inherent in all cabs, and, even though I hate this term, to 'start with a blank slate'. Everything else (voicing the amp to a specific tone, playing style or instrument) would be handled by the tone controls on the preamp of your choice
I see your point, but this "totally flat" concept seems to be a little bit of an unknown. If that was the case I'm not sure how bass cabinets would differ in any way from a PA cab. I would think the DSP is subjective to Jim's ears and not just a computer program that levels out each frequency. If it's the later then a DBX auto EQ could produce the same results from any amp/cab combo...Am I totally wrong?
I'm with you on totally flat.. since something would only be totally flat in the exact context where it was tuned to 'flat'. However, the logic of the DSP is, from my understanding, a tool to even out the response of the cab, and provide compression.
I'm sure you could do anything you want with it, but again, I'm trying to think what a 'P Bass' setting or 'J Bass' setting would be... and that seems much simpler and conceptual easier that a 'DB' setting.
However, I could see a setting that would reduce the deep low end response of the 310 or 212, and soften the treble response to provide a more organic type tone for DB.
Again... I'm no expert... I just love this stuff and enjoy discussing all these different issues!
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,952
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
This doesn't really make sense to me. Is there really a 'DB' setting that would exist in general terms.... you would have to take into account the specific nature of each given instrument (given the huge variability in tone and response), the pickup used (again, huge variability), etc. To me, the DSP's function is to 'fix' the various peaks and humps inherent in all cabs, and, even though I hate this term, to 'start with a blank slate'. Everything else (voicing the amp to a specific tone, playing style or instrument) would be handled by the tone controls on the preamp of your choice
Unless you told Jim your particular instrument's response, and your pickup's response (which, in theory, you could do), I would see this as a general approach of having one program for EB which is this 'basically flat' program (and yes, this is a use of powerful EQ and compression/limiting to derive a more 'flat' response for the given cab, using specific measurements of that cab), and another program that takes into account the more common characteristics of a double bass (frequency range, sensitivity to feedback, high pass filtering, etc.). It would not be customized for your given instrument (unless, of course, you were able to measure such variables and get Jim to include them), but I think that it could be a very viable approach to get even more usability out an IP cab for someone who doubles on both EB and DB.
Tom.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Fascinating. I can imagine a compact Bergantino IP10 or IP2x8equipped with such such a switch for the bassist who wants to optimize the performance of both upright and electric basses with a single cabinet.
Hey Tom, do you think Jim would actually do that?
I asked him about 6 months ago if he would do a custom program for me on my IP112, but he said he wasn't willing to do custom programming as it would create a "logistical nightmare," especially in terms of the used market. Once these things start getting passed around a little more, no one's going to know what program is programmed for what and whether the sound they're getting is what Jim intended for the IP line or someone else's creative project.
What I was inquiring about at the time was an IP amp with a program for the 112 and one for the 310, so I could buy separate cabs and rig up a mounting system to easily swap the amp to/from each cab (maybe via the locking mechanisms found on SKB cases...?) for EB and doubling gigs. It seems to be redundant to have to buy another $1300+ amp when I already have one sitting in the back of the 310 and all I really need is another 12" cab.
Aside: Maybe I could just use the "dry" program of the 310 amp with my Summit pre and find a way to wire the amp into the back of an HT... It could save me more than a grand in the end! Maybe I should get in touch with Jim about this...
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,952
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Probably not, though I think he could.
What I was inquiring about at the time was an IP amp with a program for the 112 and one for the 310, so I could buy separate cabs and rig up a mounting system to easily swap the amp to/from each cab (maybe via the locking mechanisms found on SKB cases...?) for EB and doubling gigs. It seems to be redundant to have to buy another $1300+ amp when I already have one sitting in the back of the 310 and all I really need is another 12" cab.
While I understand your desire, I just don't think that this jives with Jim's initial goals for these products.
Tom.
Just like yourself, I have had great results with the LMII. I use EA cabs (CXL112 & Wizzy110) I use a K&K Bassmax for the URB w/ either Supernils or Eurosonics or I'll use a Musicman SUB 4 string. I don't use any pedals or preamps or effects. There for a short while I did use a Platinum EQ, but found I didn't need it with these set ups. If I don't need it, I leave it home. My head,cables,tuner all fit into one Basspro Shops Lure bag (about 10 bucks). The heaviest thing I lift is the URB. My wife can carry my equipment with one hand. I had a monster rig, GK1001RBII w/SBX410 & BLX115. Honestly, the LMII sounds better and is louder and cleaner for my URB. When I use the EB, all I have to do is add a little more VLE & VPF and it sounds perfect. So far all I have needed with EB is the wizzy 110.
You're right. It would actually be worth spending the extra money just to support such a great guy who has brought us such a wonderful product!
FWIW i've been using a IP112 for about 6 months and had great success, (well within reason some rooms you just can't help). French flatback with a realist.
I've been using it with a Millenia TD1 ( on 10Mega ohm impedance setting)and also a sansamp pedal for smaller gigs. Have done doubling gigs with the extra 112 sub and had sound guys flip out at the sound.
I've been using it with a Millenia TD1 ( on 10Mega ohm impedance setting)and also a sansamp pedal for smaller gigs. Have done doubling gigs with the extra 112 sub and had sound guys flip out at the sound.
