Low Down Sound 15/6.5 Cab

[peterpalmieri]

Wow. I can get virtually any tone I can even think of with hand placement and technique, given enough watts.

PA logic is VERY different from actually playing the instrument

Also, the idea that a 'flat response cab' can generate any response with enough EQ is hilarious. Different components have different timbre's, and a 7 or 70 band EQ is not going to make them sound the same IMO and IME.

Ken while the fire is burning I have a question......

The original assertion was that the 15/6 can go louder then a 810 cabinet and will grind like a 4x10 cabinet with no problem. Now I know the one you've auditioned was not the original fEarful design but what say you?

All in good fun folks

 

[Chef]

Can the 15/6 go louder than an 810?
Seriously?

Grind like a 410? I think so. That 18Sound mid-driver is a mutha.

 

[KJung]

Ken while the fire is burning I have a question......

The original assertion was that the 15/6 can go louder then a 810 cabinet and will grind like a 4x10 cabinet with no problem. Now I know the one you've auditioned was not the original fEarful design but what say you?

All in good fun folks

Given that I use those little wussy micro heads that don't really put out much power into an 8ohm cab, I can't comment. I will say that my AE410 spanked this cab in total volume with the Puma and F500, but the AE410 is 4ohms, and a bigger box.

I got the 'sense' that the 15/6.5 could take a LOT of power though, but I didn't have an amp available that would put out 500-700 watts into 8ohms to check it out.

So, the simple answer is, with a moderately powered head designed to put out its full power (450-600 watts) into 4ohms, the 8ohm 15/6.5 with that deeply voiced subwoofer would (IMO) in no way keep up with a high SPL 410. With equal wattage applied to both... maybe.

Regarding grind, it depends on your definition. That 6.5 did a WONDERFUL job doing the kind of 'nickel wound 60's J sort of thing, but not so much with a more aggressive, modern 'ash/maple 70's sort of thing' (like my ash/maple Sadowsky with singles'.)

I again think the Joe Osborn/Bob Glaub tone fans would really be served well by this cab. The Victor Wooten/Marcus Miller/Alain Caron set would probably be better served by a more traditional two way 410-type design.

Pure IMO and limited IME!

 

[greenboy]

Can the 15/6 go louder than an 810?
Seriously?

In some areas of the spectrum, it can probably. That's if you can drive it to full excursion. If you have a tonal footprint that's different, perhaps not. But it's real close.

* * *

As far as the EQ argument that seems to be brewing, an enclosure or stack that has "driver headroom" and is fairly flat both on- and off-axis has a lot more ability to transform whatever EQ is applied - subtle or radical - into acoustic output that accurately reflects what's been done. It doesn't hide subtle moves in valleys, nor does it exaggerate them in resonant spots or peaks found in cabs that are less flat.

I don't know why anybody has trouble with this concept. It's why studio engineers in tracking, mixing, and mastering don't go looking for monitors with extreme coloration, why SR people continue to upgrade what has improved while holding on to better examples of past R&D, and why R&D continues to be exerted in both fields while the ability to make exacting measurements of more audio and acoustic phenomena continues to be explored.

This does not mean everybody should share common goals for musical instrument amplification, but neither should they be in denial of what is practical and possible.

 

[bassplayer7770]

I got the 'sense' that the 15/6.5 could take a LOT of power though, but I didn't have an amp available that would put out 500-700 watts into 8ohms to check it out.

In some areas of the spectrum, it can probably. That's if you can drive it to full excursion. If you have a tonal footprint that's different, perhaps not. But it's real close.

Personally, I'm considering a more powerful amp so that I can push more clean watts into the cab when needed. My ProBass 500 will become my backup.

As for amps, I'm currently leaning toward a GK 1001RB-II, but I can't ignore the Mesa M9...

 

[greenboy]

Given that I use those little wussy micro heads that don't really put out much power into an 8ohm cab, I can't comment.

Yep. When it comes to micros/minis, there aren't any examples of them that can even come close to fully driving a 15/6. I often mention this in the fEarful thread - that the full potential SPL-wise cannot be explored with current-generation minis/micros. A lot of SPL and tone-types can be had, but not many of us are going to hear it drivcen to max unless we go for non-minis. I'm projecting that will improve, but for now to really take the cab to its limits you need big gun power. Fortunately watts are cheap and easy to carry these days, and are only going to continue on this trend (which is partly why I see this also happening in minis/micros).

I will say that my AE410 spanked this cab in total volume with the Puma and F500, but the AE410 is 4ohms, and a bigger box.

Where it really gets interesting is if you have a lot of watts on hand, and can really drive the 15/6 components fully. The woofer itself is actually around 1 dB less sensitive than some 410 cabs... while the best 410 are probably at least 2 and 3 dB more sensitive. But if you tried to hit these 410 with the same wattage the 15/6 can take they'd be blowing drivers left and right unless they had the bass rolled off. It's still be sounding clean and could be both upper-mid agressive yet deep if desired.

Regarding grind, it depends on your definition. That 6.5 did a WONDERFUL job doing the kind of 'nickel wound 60's J sort of thing, but not so much with a more aggressive, modern 'ash/maple 70's sort of thing' (like my ash/maple Sadowsky with singles'.)

The 6.5" midrange driver has more on tap at frequencies where the 10" drivers have lost the plot. Nothing in the 70s wne that high - especially OFF-AXIS. If you need/desire higher top yet, then it's obviously time to add a good high-frequency section. Which I did maybe 4 months ago.

 

[tombowlus]

Yep. When it comes to micros/minis, there aren't any examples of them that can even come close to fully driving a 15/6.

What about the TecAmp Puma 1000? It puts out 1,000 watts into an 8-ohm load.

Tom.

 

[KJung]

What about the TecAmp Puma 1000? It puts out 1,000 watts into an 8-ohm load.

Tom.

That would do it! The Puma500 sounded absolutely beautiful with this cab, but it just didn't have the wump into 8ohms. I would guess the MB LM800 would do pretty well also.

 

[rpsands]

+1 I guess I'm lucky in that I have the opportunity to try a lot of stuff and purchase quite a bit also. The only heads that tend to stay around are ones where I virtually never touch the EQ

I've never been a fan of using massive EQ to make a cab or bass (or head) sound like 'what it's not'. It never seems to work IME.

I reckon all my amps are pathetic then.

I'll endeavor to persevere.

Lots of people don't need it. So limited is not a problem for you. Stop being hypersensitive - your amp's feelings don't get hurt.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

PA logic is VERY different from actually playing the instrument

I was playing gigs when you were still in second grade .
And I never recommend anything that I have not confirmed through personal experience.

 

[KJung]

I was playing gigs when you were still in second grade .
And I never recommend anything that I have not confirmed through personal experience.

I'm older than you think!

Obviously, I was being just a touch tongue in cheek with my comment. However, even high end studio monitors all sound a bit different, no matter what the EQ IME. The point I was trying to make is that (again IMO and IME), there will never be one cab that will serve every tone goal, regardless of the sophistication of the EQ.

 

[KJung]

Lots of people don't need it. So limited is not a problem for you. Stop being hypersensitive - your amp's feelings don't get hurt.

 

[greenboy]

However, even high end studio monitors all sound a bit different, no matter what the EQ IME.

And yet a good engineer can usually do a good tracking, mixing, or mastering session on quite a few of his/her the suitable candidates because they all have very similar and revealing responses, and he/she knows that any EQ performed has good correspondence between that which is heard at the session, and that which makes it to the recording.

Because the monitors are not all exactly the same does not mean that they are not really good at reflecting what has been done in engineering/production. It also does not mean that you could track, mix, or master through an old Magnovox home console speaker set or a guitar cab and expect pleasing and consistently satisfying results ; }

 

[greenboy]

What about the TecAmp Puma 1000? It puts out 1,000 watts into an 8-ohm load.

<thwacks brow in self exasperation>

Still, I think we are just beginning to see candidates in a higher power lightweight class. There is so much market force from both sides of the equation at a time when technology allows.

 

[Chef]

Then you sir, are Really, Seriously Olde; cause I've met Ken, and he ain't No Young-ster.

I was playing gigs when you were still in second grade .
And I never recommend anything that I have not confirmed through personal experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KJung View Post
PA logic is VERY different from actually playing the instrument

 

[burk48237]

I'm older than you think!

Obviously, I was being just a touch tongue in cheek with my comment. However, even high end studio monitors all sound a bit different, no matter what the EQ IME. The point I was trying to make is that (again IMO and IME), there will never be one cab that will serve every tone goal, regardless of the sophistication of the EQ.

I'l vouch for that first part!


I tend to be with Ken on this one. Also most of us don't have pink noise generators and frequency analyzers to use when we do the sound check up at the local tavern. Remember "flat" is relative to the room or field (outdoors). And until you've compensated for the room acoustics your not even starting with a neutral canvas to EQ for tone. I would much rather have a rig that gets the live tone I want with very little knob tweaking so I can use the EQ for the room. In other words I would rather START with my tone, then spend twenty minutes trying to find it during set up.

 

[greenboy]

I tend to be with Ken on this one. Also most of us don't have pink noise generators and frequency analyzers to use when we do the sound check up at the local tavern.

I love the way some people play the pocket protector card in these threads ; } ...As if those things were always needed by some people in the first place. If the system is understood at a deep level and there is some acoustic knowledge one can do just fine without those tools in most cases until the venues become very large.

Anyway. What is this side thing? You and Ken are on WHAT side? The side that says "this is good, that is only all right?" I'm not getting you.

Remember "flat" is relative to the room or field (outdoors).

Nope. Flat is relative to the part of the signal chain in question, and those who value it do so for a very good reason. If the variables in the enclosure are better controlled and minimized, then dealing with the earlier part of the signal chain is less prone to subjectivity, but more importantly in this case, one isn't mistaking variables from the acoustic environment for variables within the signal chain - and vice versa. Also, it's easier to deal with acoustic anomolies if the enclosure is not prone to exaggeration in the same key frequency areas.

And until you've compensated for the room acoustics your not even starting with a neutral canvas to EQ for tone. I would much rather have a rig that gets the live tone I want with very little knob tweaking so I can use the EQ for the room. In other words I would rather START with my tone, then spend twenty minutes trying to find it during set up.

Uh. When I say the EQ for this cab or this is very revealing even when subtle changes are made, that doesn't necessarily mean I always use EQ. It means that I prefer a rig that when I either want a change of tone that's not a technique/hand thing (if I want to play a different character for awhile I might not only want the voice but I may also want the costume and stage props) - or I want to correct for the localized environment (I don't always presume that I can compensate for room acoustics - only the areas of the room I have heard, maybe) - I have something that'll be more likely to do my bidding without giving false positives or negatives.

 

[KJung]

I love the way some people play the pocket protector card in these threads ; } ...As if those things were always needed by some people in the first place. If the system is understood at a deep level and there is some acoustic knowledge one can do just fine without those tools in most cases until the venues become very large.

Anyway. What is this side thing? You and Ken are on WHAT side? The side that says "this is good, that is only all right?" I'm not getting you.



Nope. Flat is relative to the part of the signal chain in question, and those who value it do so for a very good reason. If the variables in the enclosure are better controlled and minimized, then dealing with the earlier part of the signal chain is less prone to subjectivity, but more importantly in this case, one isn't mistaking variables from the acoustic environment for variables within the signal chain - and vice versa. Also, it's easier to deal with acoustic anomolies if the enclosure is not prone to exaggeration in the same key frequency areas.



Uh. When I say the EQ for this cab or this is very revealing even when subtle changes are made, that doesn't necessarily mean I always use EQ. It means that I prefer a rig that when I either want a change of tone that's not a technique/hand thing (if I want to play a different character for awhile I might not only want the voice but I may also want the costume and stage props) - or I want to correct for the localized environment (I don't always presume that I can compensate for room acoustics - only the areas of the room I have heard, maybe) - I have something that'll be more likely to do my bidding without giving false positives or negatives.

I think what Steve is saying is that some cabs sound great for certain tone goals and some don't. And, then when you mix in the fact that no cab is truly, perfectly flat, and each amp head has a bit of (or a lot of) inherent voicing, and each bass has its own peaks and valleys, it's hard to even think about a neutral starting point for bass guitar backline amplification. When you then roll in room acoustics along with the interaction of all these things, things rapidly get complex (as you know).

Again, what I and most of my peers do is plug it all in and pound it. If it gets that 'sound' out of the box with minor or no EQ in a variety of venues (which of course varies by a player's tone goal), then it is typically a 'keeper' if it achieves the volume necessary for the player's context.

Put another way, a flat frequency response in a controlled environment when reproducing programmed material is obviously a good thing. A 'flat' frequency response in amplifying a bass guitar is just one of an infinite number of frequency distributions that may or may not match up with the instrument, technique and other components in the signal chain to result in a pleasing tone for the player and/or listener.

IMO and IME!

 

[greenboy]

I think what Steve is saying is that some cabs sound great for certain tone goals and some don't.

Sure. And most of us have our preferences once we've put in some time...

And, then when you mix in the fact that no cab is truly, perfectly flat, and each amp head has a bit of (or a lot of) inherent voicing,

What you've seemed unwilling to acknowledge though, is that there are many identifiable shades, some closer to the idea of "flat", some not so close - and a lot of diversity across that span and pocketed in every area along it, in these rough categories. This is not so much a perceptual, subjective idea, "flat", either, where "flat" for one person is not for another. It's an objective term, and not a subjective one - and not even a value judgement in my case as regards backline which can be part of the voice, and not merely the means to project the voice...

and each bass has its own peaks and valleys

And that's why I mentioned Voice just above. No human being has a "flat" voice {unless you go out of context to those who never sing in tune;}. Voices have their unique traits and amplification may be used to highlight some, minimize others, and some may even choose to use them mainly just to amplify them without re-shaping them.

Again, what I and most of my peers do is plug it all in and pound it. If it gets that 'sound' out of the box with minor or no EQ in a variety of venues (which of course varies by a player's tone goal), then it is typically a 'keeper' if it achieves the volume necessary for the players context.

I can dig it. I fly that way a lot myself.

 

[KJung]

What you've seemed unwilling to acknowledge though, is that there are many identifiable shades, some closer to the idea of "flat", some not so close - and a lot of diversity across that span and pocketed in every area along it, in these rough categories. This is not so much a perceptual, subjective idea, "flat", either, where "flat" for one person is not for another. It's an objective term, and not a subjective one - and not even a value judgement in my case as regards backline which can be part of the voice, and not merely the means to project the voice...

+1. I agree and I think we are saying the same thing. While 'flat' is relatively objective (from my limited understanding, the test context can impact the measurement), what is subjective is if the various voicing of different parts of the signal chain (preamp, amp, instrument, cab, etc.), subtle or not, come together in a pleasing manner for both the individual player and his/her audience and bandmates. This is why much of this stuff is intellectually interesting to me but not particularly useful when it comes to either choosing gear for myself or recommending to others, for what that's worth