Low Down Sound Cab Club started!

[rpsands]

Is your B4 4 ohm or 8 ohm?

The LMII is a LOT louder @ 4 ohms IIRC. I wouldn't expect an SD800/LM800 to be terribly much louder than an LMII (maybe +3db tops). So you'd probably want a much louder head if you were gonna go 2x12/6. Or a pre/power setup or something.

Definitely talk to Don, but I think an LMII with the pair of 15's might be the ticket for you if you don't want to change amps. To get a sensitivity idea, try this-- Go play your LMII through something rated at 103db or so @ 4 ohms, and see if it works.

Some examples:
Ampeg 8x10
Mesa 6x10 should be around there
Aguilar 4x12 should be close too

If you do wind up going with a pair of 15s, have them built tall and shallow so they get as high as possible. I'd suggest around 25" tall by 20.5" wide or thereabouts. Shelf ported at the bottom.

Edit: sorry for waffling so much! It all depends so much on whether you want to change amps or not and so many variables it's hard to decide.

 

[Jared Lash]

Edit: sorry for waffling so much! It all depends so much on whether you want to change amps or not and so many variables it's hard to decide.

I know. I felt ridiculous telling Don about my three different rigs (I also have a GK 1001RB-II & Neo 212 that I use for a Red Hot Chili Peppers cover band to make extra money) but I'm hoping to trim down my gear.

As I told Don, I dig all three heads in their own (I actually sold my Jeff Berlin combo with the LMII so technically I only have two heads now) but I'm not above parting with any of them. In fact, I'm happy with going "backwards" - finding the right cabs first and then getting the right head to use with them.

My B4 is 4 ohms. And trying my buddy's LMII with the Acme it seemed underpowered. Andy Lewis suggests 800-1000 W for the B4. And considering I was comparing it to the volume of the B1500 (1250 W into 4 ohms) it isn't surprising that the difference was pretty big.

I can try the LMII with an Aggie 412 here in town so maybe I'll give that a go.

I'm curious to see what Don comes back to me with.

 

[Jared Lash]

I'm curious to see what Don comes back to me with.

I didn't have to wait long. My first thought was a pair of 1x15s such that I could use one for small gigs and two when I need the extra volume. I had even thought that perhaps I'd buy a LMII for when I used one and use the Carvin for when I used two.

But here's what Don came back to me with. Some interesting ideas:

Two ideas come to mind---both neo:

(1) 1x15 ( 450 watt ) 1--10" mid---compression tweeter. Triad style design---total power---750 watts

(2) A high excussion 12" neo at 450 watts---2--10" neo ---1--compression tweeter ---900 watts

Both of these designs are in one 4x10 sized box with both cabs tuned to 42 hz. Either one will get any of your gigs done and will weigh in at approx. 60lbs. I have built many of each design for players like yourself who wanted to drop the stack and go to one light cab. Interested ?

Thoughts?

 

[rpsands]

The 10" mid is really unnecessary. The 6.5" 18 sound driver is louder through the midrange than most 10s and has better dispersion characteristics and takes up less baffle space. There's an 8" martinsound neo driver that they use that is pretty solid as well. Either one would be better than a 10 IMHO. If you're going to do a midrange cabinet, a 15/6.5/1 makes a lot more sense.

The second one might work but I question the ability for a 3012Lf to keep up with two 10's in sensitivity so the lows it adds probably would not beef up the sound that much (unless you were biamping and ran more juice to it). It sounds a lot like a Berg HT322 though which a lot of people like.

I'm not bagging on the designs as I'm sure they sound great, but I think you can do what you want more efficiently. A single 15/6 would probably be enough for almost all of your needs (either driven by the LMII for small gigs or the B1500 for big ones).

 

[Jared Lash]

Hmm.

I'm wondering if maybe what I want is a pair of 1x15's similar to the one Ryan Mohr got but in a slightly bigger box and tuned lower. One with a tweeter that I would take to smaller gigs and one without that I would add when I need that extra volume and bass.

I was thinking the Little Mark 800 would be a good head for a rig like that with 500W into 8 ohms and 800W into 4 ohms.

I'm certainly not opposed to a 15/6/1 design but I like the idea of having a modular rig so I'm only taking what I need each time.

 

[rpsands]

His are tuned pretty low already. *higher* tuning is what you want to get more bass/midbass thud most likely. I'd tune to 55hz for a 3015 with a 4 string.

Lower tuning makes your low end roll off slower and increases how low it goes, but it also rolls off earlier which you definitely don't want.

His do not need to be bigger either, 3.2 is on the high side of what you'd want. To make more low mids, you want it to be smaller again. I'd consider something like 2.8 cf with a 55hz tuning, possibly.

I forget what type of bass you use but as long as it's a 4-banger I am pretty sure you'd be fine with that setup. But you might regret not having the beef of a 3015LF.

A modular setup with a 3015LF/6/1 cab would be fine too. Nothing prevents you from having two of them. They only weigh around 45lbs.

 

[Chef]

I believe the Mesa Diesels that I loaded with 3015's were tuned to ~60 hz with the middle port open, and ~80hz with it closed.
While they weren't dubby, they would kick well.

 

[bassplace]

what if you use a 4 and a 5? I like the 15/6 idea but think my Thunderfunk 420 would be at it's limit. Could add a single 15 when needed or go the 2 single 15 route. Thoughts on how that would work with a low-B?

 

[rpsands]

The 3015s will handle the low B better than all but the best standard bass cabs. The TFunk would definitely be suited to a 2x3015 stack but with its power you would probably be served just as well with Deltalite 2515IIs.

 

[Ryan Mohr]

I finally got around to recording some soundclips today; I hope these are helpful. The bass I used to record was my SX SJB-62 (alder/RW passive J bass with '70s pickup spacing) which is stock except a Bayou Audio wiring harness. The bass is strung with really old, played in DR hi-beams. In all the clips, I play the bass over the neck pickup with all knobs on full.

I ran the bass into my BBE Opto Stomp (set with Comp at 12 o'clock and Volume at 3 o'clock (unity)) and into either head.

For recording, I used a cheap but decent sounding Nady SP1 dynamic mic. From there, into my Behringer mixer and finally into my Behringer interface. Cheap recording set-up, but it works. All the cables are Lava.

For reference, this is my Fender combo: http://bass-guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Fender-Bassman-150-Bass-Combo-Amp?sku=480872

The first clip is my SX from the DI on the Hartke (pre-EQ) for a reference tone: 1

The second clip is my SX into the LH500 set to 6-8-4 on the Fender tonestack and into the LDS 115: 2

The third clip is my SX into the Fender set flat and into the LDS 115: 3

The fourth clip is my SX into the Fender with a 6 dB boost at 150 Hz and a 6 dB cut at 800 Hz and into the LDS 115: 4

The last clip is my SX into the Fender combo set flat, just to give a reference of the tone I'm used to: 5

 

[rpsands]

Man your normal tone is seriously boomy

Things to try:
1) Roll your tone knob half way off and half your bridge pickup off as well.
2) Roll some mids off the hartke. Get it down to around 4-6. So, 6/4-6/0.

What I hear is:
1) lack of boominess in the lows
2) more treble than the Fender by a lot. I expect that is because the Fender's "flat" treble is 2 and the Hartke's flat treble is 0. That's just a guess though.

No surprise I like the Hartke Di and the 6/8/4/Hartke->LDS clips the best and think that clip will sit in the mix the absolute best of any of the tones I hear.

Rolling off your tone knob and cutting some bridge pickup should make the sound beefier though.

 

[Ryan Mohr]

Man your normal tone is seriously boomy

Normal meaning the last clip with just the Fender combo? That combo is considered articulate, transparent, and punchy.

So, coming from what I thought was "articulate, transparent, and punchy" and thinking of going to what I thought was going to be "fat, thick, warm, organic, and old school" I was naturally disappointed when there were less lows and low mids.

Things to try:
1) Roll your tone knob half way off and half your bridge pickup off as well.
2) Roll some mids off the hartke. Get it down to around 4-6. So, 6/4-6/0.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of rolling of the tone knob. I do like a darker, mellower tone but I like to get that sound without having to roll off tone.

I did try those settings with the Hartke and they were far to scooped for me. 8 is as low as I will go ont the mid control.

What I hear is:
1) lack of boominess in the lows
2) more treble than the Fender by a lot. I expect that is because the Fender's "flat" treble is 2 and the Hartke's flat treble is 0. That's just a guess though.

Definitely not boomy lows, but I'm hearing anemic and thin moreso than tight and even.

FWIW, the preamp on the Fender Bassman 150 is a standard modern preamp with semi-parametric mids and whatnot, so the flat setting is with all the knobs at noon and the contour off. It is not by any means a Fender tonestack.

No surprise I like the Hartke Di and the 6/8/4/Hartke->LDS clips the best and think that clip will sit in the mix the absolute best of any of the tones I hear.

Thanks, that Hartke DI definitely sounds sweet. I know it is pre-EQ, but I wonder if it is still getting some tube coloration.
Rolling off your tone knob and cutting some bridge pickup should make the sound beefier though.

I may just end up putting flats on my J bass for a darker tone and more "oomph" or fatness around 150 Hz because a J bass with all knobs on full is "my sound" and I'm not going to compromise that.

 

[rpsands]

I think what you're used to is boomy and you're going to tight and even and are missing the old boominess The Fender combo clip was super low mid heavy to my ears. There is nothing wrong with liking a lot of low mids so I'm not judging, just noting.

Rolling off the tone knob is basically the same as putting flat wounds on - you're removing top end. If you like the sound with knobs on your bass a certain way then do it, and don't get stuck on some "my bass knobs have to be full on" for no particular reason. That's why the knobs are there

Can you try recording a clip with the settings 6/8/0? I am a/bing the DI and the 3015 clip and the only difference I can hear is more high mids/treble (presumably from the upper mid/treble bump of the 3015).

 

[Ryan Mohr]

I think what you're used to is boomy and you're going to tight and even and are missing the old boominess The Fender combo clip was super low mid heavy to my ears. There is nothing wrong with liking a lot of low mids so I'm not judging, just noting.

I see what you are saying, I just never thought of the Fender as low mid heavy. I usually boosted 150 Hz 3-6 dBs anyways. I was looking for MORE fatness, thickness, and warmth when I got my new rig, in addition to the volume and headroom I need.

Rolling off the tone knob is basically the same as putting flat wounds on - you're removing top end. If you like the sound with knobs on your bass a certain way then do it, and don't get stuck on some "my bass knobs have to be full on" for no particular reason. That's why the knobs are there

On this point, I have to disagree with you. Flats aren't all about removing the high end. They have a much stronger low mid and upper bass response in that area we are talking about. Also, the attack is shorter and distinctly different.

Can you try recording a clip with the settings 6/8/0? I am a/bing the DI and the 3015 clip and the only difference I can hear is more high mids/treble (presumably from the upper mid/treble bump of the 3015).

Yeah, I could probably record another clip tomorrow. If you didn't already know, the treble control on the Fender tonestack acts as a blend control between bass/mid section and treble section. So, when I back off the treble knob, I am going to get even more bass and mids.

 

[rpsands]

Flats without a doubt remove high end. They might do other stuff, but they are definitely not as bright as rounds.

With regards to the "more fatness, thickness and warmth," I am positive the cabinet is capable of it. It's just not voiced that way (the way a smaller, higher tuned cab would be) and the Hartke is stubborn. It sounds pretty "fat" in the sense that you're talking about it when you run the eq'd Fender through it.

The Fender combo itself is likely highly low mid voiced by the cabinet design not the amp design.

 

[alexclaber]

...a J bass with all knobs on full is "my sound" and I'm not going to compromise that.

It sounds like "your sound" isn't what you thought it was! Do whatever is necessary with the knobs to get the tone you want, who cares if that involves rolling off the tone or cutting the bridge pickup.

Alex

 

[Ryan Mohr]

Flats without a doubt remove high end. They might do other stuff, but they are definitely not as bright as rounds.

With regards to the "more fatness, thickness and warmth," I am positive the cabinet is capable of it. It's just not voiced that way (the way a smaller, higher tuned cab would be) and the Hartke is stubborn. It sounds pretty "fat" in the sense that you're talking about it when you run the eq'd Fender through it.

The Fender combo itself is likely highly low mid voiced by the cabinet design not the amp design.

+1, no doubt about that I was just stating that flats also bring out the low mids.

I know it's capable of it, that's why I was kinda bummed out when I heard that it was tuned to 45 Hz and with 3.2 cu ft of internal volume.

It sounds like "your sound" isn't what you thought it was! Do whatever is necessary with the knobs to get the tone you want, who cares if that involves rolling off the tone or cutting the bridge pickup.

Alex

There's no doubt in my mind that a passive J bass with all knobs on full is my sound. When you cut the bridge pickup, you are going to get hum and a much different sound, similar to a P bass. That's not what I'm going for. I play alder/RW J bass with well broken in nickels and steels so I don't have to roll of the tone. I know it's there, I installed it in case I want a raggae sound or need to tame the high end on new strings.

 

[KJung]

Clips all sounded good to me Ryan! I'm not sure that tuning in the low end is that big of a deal. However, as is the case with most stuff, some mixes and matches work great to immediately give you the tone you are looking for, and others don't, given the way the inherent voicing of each piece of gear is set, and also the frequency centers and especially the Q of the EQ on the head, combined with the voicing of the bass.

Quite frankly, that's why, even though I love Don's work and have loved MANY of his cabs, I'm still playing the 'off the rack stuff'. From playing many of these 'custom cabs' through the years (and a lot of them recently!), all these little tweaks and size changes and crossover changes and driver changes give each cab its own personality that can move the tone the 'right or wrong' direction for any given player. I wouldn't really know where to begin to 'design a cab', so I personally don't go this route.

However, with a relatively evenly voiced head with powerful EQ (like the F500 I've been using as a test head for these cabs), I'm able to get the low end sounding pretty much the same on all these cabs. It's the top end that is tricky. There is no way you can 'dial the grind in' if it isn't there (yeah, you can use pedals and such, but that's not my thing, and never seems to really give you the real deal). And, it is very difficult to sculpt a different top end (i.e., grindy versus smooth and clean versus sizzly versus bright) even with a couple bands of EQ up there, if the cab is voiced a certain way.

Also, it's interesting how different these various mid drivers sound, and also the VERY different tone you get between running a speaker like the 3015 full range, versus cutting off that upper mid response and shunting it to a mid driver.

I guarantee the 'sound in your head' can be delivered by both that cab and that head. I have no idea if you will be able to easily get there with that exact combination, since literally no one on the planet has heard it but you... that's the magic and also the risk of 'custom' designs and also 'mix and matching' heads with cabs.

Edit: While all your clips were more similar than different, and given my Sadowsky with newer SS rounds is more bright and aggressive and grindy than your bass, clip 5 to me sounded the closest to the clip I posted of your cab.... interesting that was the Fender combo flat!

 

[alexclaber]

There's no doubt in my mind that a passive J bass with all knobs on full is my sound. When you cut the bridge pickup, you are going to get hum and a much different sound, similar to a P bass.

Depends how much you cut the bridge pickup by!

You keep complaining of a lack of low midrange but one of the distinctive things about a P vs a J is the increase thump in the lower midrange. That's why I'm pointing out that as you prefer your tone through a more coloured cab (the Fender) then maybe you need to change the tone at source if using something that's a bit more transparent.

Alex

 

[greenboy]