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.
Just opened up my 210MBE...
- Thread starter miner49er11
- Start date
I can't help noticing that all your arguments seem to come from the standpoint that bass cabs should be flat and accurate, and anything less is a poor design.
Aren't all "bass cabs" except for the "flat" ones that aren't really bass cabs really about coloring the sound? Imparting a tone?
You clearly do not have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Please look at the designs on Bill's websites and their associated FR charts...he clearly does not advocate flat as the ideal.
What he continually advocates is not doing things that are more likely to hurt your tone than help it. Things like not lining your cab, making leaky cabinets, not bracing your cab, using drivers with insufficient xmax to put forth the SPL you require, etc.
I'm not an expert on this topic so I'm not presuming to instruct anyone on what to do to their cab; however, I want to paraphrase what I've understood so far because I see some arguing of science vs opinion going on.
The way I see it. If you were playing music inside of a stone castle (like Led Zeppelin did once) or singing in the shower, for example, and had all that reverb on your tone, you could say, "I like the way it sounds so it's not wrong". Perhaps that effect works for your sound in what you're trying to do. Even so, in that castle hall, you would not have much control over the reverb. You'd be at the mercy of the space. You wouldn't have as much control in that "live" room as you would have in a "dead" room where you could add the reverb effect afterward.
Seems we're really talking about the same thing inside of a wooden box. The issue seems to be not that the tone is wrong, but the science behind the theory is that in an undampened box, you don't have the control over the tone as you do in a dampened box. In other words, if you like that tone, you should use your EQ to get that tone from a (dampened) box that you have control over; not from a (UNdampened) box that you don't have total control over.
As BF said, it's the industry standard based on science. It's not a matter of opinion or a point to debate. It's not the tone that is "incorrect" is the WAY the tone is aquired that is right or wrong (by industry standards). Sounds to me like there is a proper, accepted way to get that sound and an improper way to get that sound.
So it's not so much that we're arguing the axiom "if it sounds good it is good"; it's more a matter of "the end does not justify the means".
The way I see it. If you were playing music inside of a stone castle (like Led Zeppelin did once) or singing in the shower, for example, and had all that reverb on your tone, you could say, "I like the way it sounds so it's not wrong". Perhaps that effect works for your sound in what you're trying to do. Even so, in that castle hall, you would not have much control over the reverb. You'd be at the mercy of the space. You wouldn't have as much control in that "live" room as you would have in a "dead" room where you could add the reverb effect afterward.
Seems we're really talking about the same thing inside of a wooden box. The issue seems to be not that the tone is wrong, but the science behind the theory is that in an undampened box, you don't have the control over the tone as you do in a dampened box. In other words, if you like that tone, you should use your EQ to get that tone from a (dampened) box that you have control over; not from a (UNdampened) box that you don't have total control over.
As BF said, it's the industry standard based on science. It's not a matter of opinion or a point to debate. It's not the tone that is "incorrect" is the WAY the tone is aquired that is right or wrong (by industry standards). Sounds to me like there is a proper, accepted way to get that sound and an improper way to get that sound.
So it's not so much that we're arguing the axiom "if it sounds good it is good"; it's more a matter of "the end does not justify the means".
I'll thank you for a non-jabbing post that wasn't conceived in efforts to defend your idol who does all your thinking for you (he he, irony).
I do have at least a rather foggy idea of what I'm talking about in regards to acoustics (as even Mr. Fitz may acknowledge), but for some reason I tend to argue with the "If it works" school of thought.
You can be sure that I'd have acoustic dampening in my 210MBE in a jiffy, and I wouldn't pair it with a 15'', or worse, a 2x12", but that's just my opinion. If that phase-response mess works for you, it works.
yup, my MB 210 sounds better now that I put my old eggcrate foam mattress topper into it. My wife and I slept on it for 7 years, and my daughter is almost 3; do the math.
Maybe the extra stank helps keep the mids in line even more than expected.
Bow chicka bow bow.
I know, I'm sooo inappropriate.
Seriously, it really does sound better, but to my ear, it was pretty good to start. Thanks Bill!
B.
Maybe the extra stank helps keep the mids in line even more than expected.
Bow chicka bow bow.
I know, I'm sooo inappropriate.
Seriously, it really does sound better, but to my ear, it was pretty good to start. Thanks Bill!
B.
While the poster posed his challenge to your intelligence in the form of a hypothetical, you were just outright insulting. In fact, despite sharing some well documented knowledge of cab design and sound dispersal, you still still feel the need to one up anyone in this thread that even hints at questioning your stance. At least that's how it looks from an outsiders perspective. There are ways to be helpfull and there are ways to rub salt in the wounds. For the record, this thread and your input has me considering NOT buying an MB series combo or cab.
He didn't challenge my opinion or intelligence, he accused Bill of a stance which he clearly does not have, and I called him on it.
I would recommend not buying one unless you try it out and like it, or are willing to line it and brace it or return it.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my posting style. Thanks for the input though.
The poster in question was being respectfull in his assessment of Bill's stance. You however, were just being rude. You can mask it any way you see fit (as "posting style") but it only comes off as arrogance. I guess we can agree to disagree about that. But thank you for your well informed advice in the MB series
The poster in question was being respectfull in his assessment of Bill's stance. You however, were just being rude. You can mask it any way you see fit (as "posting style") but it only comes off as arrogance. I guess we can agree to disagree about that. But thank you for your well informed advice in the MB series
I don't know that you can respectfully misrepresent someone's position to that degree; kind of an inherent disrespect built into not bothering to read any of his posts or the thread, and then making a thoughtless assertion -- that's what I take exception to. Especially when the particular thoughtless comment contains an extremely loaded issue that has turned countless threads to crap.
If you want to agree to disagree about interpretations of behavior, fine.
I think the only thing any poster is obligated to respond to is an original post. As far as this being a loaded issue, your argument (the one I happen to agree with) is thrown to the dogs by the fact that GK is moving serious units of this particular line. What I want to know is, where does sharing knowledge respectfully and rig bashing begin to look like the same thing?
rp, bill is a big boy and can take care of himself. telling someone they have no clue what they're talking about IS rude. sure, i've done it, we've all done it. it's still rude.
however, it's not entirely inaccurate. not that bill needs me to defend him, but bill's always saying to turn eq knobs if you're not happy with the sound of your amp. also, there is not a cab on earth that is dead flat, bill's included, and he'll be the first to tell you. does he try to minimize obnoxious peaks and valleys? seems to me like he does. but they're still going to have some peaks and valleys...it's the nature of the beast.
however, it's not entirely inaccurate. not that bill needs me to defend him, but bill's always saying to turn eq knobs if you're not happy with the sound of your amp. also, there is not a cab on earth that is dead flat, bill's included, and he'll be the first to tell you. does he try to minimize obnoxious peaks and valleys? seems to me like he does. but they're still going to have some peaks and valleys...it's the nature of the beast.
They sold a lot of Backline cabs too. People like what is cheap, and they especially like what is cheap and pretty high quality.
The argument is not that the MB cabs are crappy, it's that they are high quality with a couple design shortcuts that prevent them from being all they could be.
Regarding your comment about the only thing they have to respond to is the initial post...well, please read the post that you are so adamantly defending. The guy is:
1) Talking about a pattern of posts
2) Quoting a post that says nothing about what he claims
Are you reading the thread or did you just see me make a comment that seemed rude? Well yes, it was a little rude...but context matters. I apologize for you taking it as rude, but let me give you this food for thought:
Is there any way you can tell someone on a forum that they are completely mistaken in every way without him being offended?
The answer to that is not really. People get offended when they're told they are wrong. So, I get to use the word foggiest and someone gets offended -- or someone just gets offended.
I'm calling it a net win!
Let's talk about this one.
Say you sell a million gizmos at 100 dollars each.
These gizmos have a performance coefficient of .7.
There are lots of other gizmos on the market for 50 dollars and some for 1000 dollars. The gizmos of 50 dollars have a coefficient of .5, and gizmos of 1000 dollars have a coefficient of .9.
How, you realize through product testing that if you raised the price of your gizmos 5 dollars and added some extremely easy to add features, you could raise your coefficient to .9.
So now you have four options:
50 dollar gizmos with performance .5
100 dollar gizmos with performance .7
105 dollar gizmos with performance .9
1000 dollar gizmos with performance .9
That's basically what I'm trying to point out. The numbers are pretty arbitrary but the idea is the there -- the mid quality mid priced gizmos are still a pretty good value! They get you a lot of the way there and they don't cost an arm and a leg.
So you keep selling the mid priced mid quality gizmos, and you sell a lot of them, but that has no bearing on whether they are the best they can be. If you put the 105 dollar gizmos on the market, then you could draw a comparison
What's your problem?
Who cares if I make a long post. It's not required reading for you. In fact, I'll take this opportunity to let you (and everyone else for that matter) know that I never monitor the lengths of my posts. You'll noticed that I never apologize for the lengths of my posts either. If I want to say something, I say it and I have no regard for how lengthy it is; neither will I in the future.
Secondly, if you don't like my point of view, good. You don't need to attack me about it. I'm not even sure what you're talking about regarding idols. I live THOUSANDS of miles away from any of you! I've never met any of you. I don't have any idols on TB.
Finally, in your anger (over God knows what), you seem to have competely missed my point. My post wasn't written to defend anyone. It was written to clarify and paraphrase (which I made plain in my post). I agree with you on one thing, you do have "a rather foggy idea" of what you're talking about. Now go take a nap or a pill or whatever you need to do to start being civil again.
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
I believe that I didn't use the words 'flat' or 'accurate' once in this thread, nor do I advocate that bass cabs should be flat or accurate. IMO a cab with inadequate bracing, inadequate damping, and for that matter drivers horizontally placed, is a poor design. But that's got nothing to do with flat or accurate. Only quality.
True, I definitely worded my initial post too strongly, but wouldn't, say, 2 4x10 cabs be more flat and accurate than a fifteen and a 4x10? Or a well damped and braced cab more flat and accurate than a resonant undamped one?
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
Perhaps. But that's not the question here. The question is whether this particular cab sounds better after being braced and/or damped. Those who have done so say that it does, and that's all that matters.
That is why I wanted to find some cheap/free software where I could find out the response of the cab before and after. Not looking for a flat response but to say - "oh look, that mid-low spike is mellowed out and I can hear it boom less when I play a loud X note using my neck pup"...
From my hovercraft construction days I remember a guy who built a measuring rig that was a large (15 feet) ring of mics all going to A2Ds into a laptop. He produced this incredible 3D sound map of the noise coming from the propellers, driveshafts, pulleys, belts etc. Just amazing to see how fluid dynamics work. He could pinpoint reflections and interferences - so folks could fix them and quieten their craft. He wrote all the software himself. Fantastic....
From my hovercraft construction days I remember a guy who built a measuring rig that was a large (15 feet) ring of mics all going to A2Ds into a laptop. He produced this incredible 3D sound map of the noise coming from the propellers, driveshafts, pulleys, belts etc. Just amazing to see how fluid dynamics work. He could pinpoint reflections and interferences - so folks could fix them and quieten their craft. He wrote all the software himself. Fantastic....
Would one of you very knowledgable gentlemen care to offer any ideas on why, in the MB combo line, the MB115 is the least "boomy" and has the most mids, followed by the slightly boomier MB212 and then "king-boom" MB210? I know none of them is lined or braced....any thoughts would be welcome! Thanks.
