GK Backline 600

[Drop1]

The amp is in the title of the thread. It almost doubles rated power when the load is reduced from 8 ohms to 4 ohms.

But yes I'm aware, cutting resistance in half generally = double wattage or more. I've seen quite a few amps do a good bit more than double power when reducing the load by half.

 

[newfuture]

I think more of the liking comes from the 410 being on top of the 15 closer to your ears and the two running the amp at a 4-ohm load than any sound coming from the 15. A 410 is going to be louder than a 15, more so if the 410 is on top. The 18 might give a little more, in the midrange to poke through than a 15. If one is to do that, a better pairing would be two 15s or 18s with one 410.

I’ve been here before…

Elevation had a lot to do with it for sure. That said, apples to oranges, really. My 18/410 setup was all old school Peavey, that got replaced by a single 15 from Trace Elliott and that sounded better. Putting four tens on top of that sounded better still, as did running bi-amped

What sounds better now, is not grunting loading a single 210 into my hatchback!

 

[DJ Bebop]

Elevation had a lot to do with it for sure. That said, apples to oranges, really. My 18/410 setup was all old school Peavey, that got replaced by a single 15 from Trace Elliott and that sounded better. Putting four tens on top of that sounded better still, as did running bi-amped

What sounds better now, is not grunting loading a single 210 into my hatchback!

Now that bi-amp thing is different if you are doing true frequency split bi-amping. That works well with two different cabinets. I used to do that. Now I have a nice full-range-sounding 15.

 

[newfuture]

Now that bi-amp thing is different if you are doing true frequency split bi-amping. That works well with two different cabinets. I used to do that. Now I have a nice full-range-sounding 15.

Have done both, but at the end I was bi-amping via the built in electronic xover on a trace AH500 stereo head.

 

[Al Kraft]

Now that bi-amp thing is different if you are doing true frequency split bi-amping. That works well with two different cabinets. I used to do that. Now I have a nice full-range-sounding 15.

...and IMO it really works best you also have a two cabs that are not both full range, where one is focussed on/designed for low bass and the other on mids and highs.

I knew people who used to biamp into their 115 full range bass cab for lows and a 210 full range bass cab for mids and highs. That may be an improvement for two cabs that don't pair well when both are used as g full range, but with cabs that do pair well, I think bi-amping can end up giving you less, not more.

GK's biamp approach (horn management system was the name IIRC) with their heads and cabs was probably one of the best biamp implementations I've seen/used.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Have done both, but at the end I was bi-amping via the built in electronic xover on a trace AH500 stereo head.

The last head I used and still have is a Carvin BX 1500 dual monoblock bi-ampable head with electronic xover. I was able to set aside my two-rack system.

I was using an 18 for lows, and a 12 or sometimes a 10 to go with the 12 for highs.

Now its just a Mesa WD and a SW 115.

 

[Lowbassist]

Great info in this thread. Thanks all.
I ended up selling off the 115 and got another 410 for $75 less. I read the low freq response is the same for the 115 and 410.
I wouldn’t mind discussing what kind of difference there would be with the 115 instead of the 410 when the freq response is the same??
For now the rig is the Backline 600 and 2x410 MBX.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Great info in this thread. Thanks all.
I ended up selling off the 115 and got another 410 for $75 less. I read the low freq response is the same for the 115 and 410.
I wouldn’t mind discussing what kind of difference there would be with the 115 instead of the 410 when the freq response is the same??
For now the rig is the Backline 600 and 2x410 MBX.

The frequency response may be the same but I would think the 4-10s would have more cone area to put more of the sound in the room vs the single 15 driver.

As an example, after you have the two 4x10s now. Do you think two 4x10s would be deeper or louder than two 1x15s like the one you had?

Others might have a better explanation or disagree completely. This is TalkBass after all.

 

[B-string]

I agree completely and disagree completely.

 

[Al Kraft]

I agree completely and disagree completely.

This certainly doesn't leave much to argue with you!

 

[Lowbassist]

So I got the second 410 cab and it rocks! Loving the punch and the bottom end drives nicely. I swear I’m at a lower volume but it seems louder if that makes any sense…
I guess it’s all the air I’m moving.

 

[S-Bigbottom]

It really doesn't. Adding a second cab on the same power removes 3db from each cab.
Say you have 400w and 2 cabs able to take 400w each.

Say 1 cab does 120db at 400w.

You add a second cab , it still would only do 120db with each cab seeing 200w each unless you add more power. More cone alone does not equal more sound.

That's not what I was saying. I was explaining using 2 cabs "on the same power" is kinda pointless. Double cone area but half power to each cab.
If you're gonna follow me around trying to insult me, at least read everything in context.

I dont even know what amp he has but using 2 8ohm cabs on 4 ohm capable amp of course gives you more power (if the amp is designed that way, on some amps. there new Amps out there that deliver equal power across multiple loads, but you know that).
Don't take cheap shots lol. You can do better.

Read the OP's real world experience they just posted.
The most important part in bold.

So I got the second 410 cab and it rocks! Loving the punch and the bottom end drives nicely. I swear I’m at a lower volume but it seems louder if that makes any sense…
I guess it’s all the air I’m moving.

 

[B-string]

Speaker area beats wattage nearly every time.