Not exactly a Super Twin, but I have a Big Baby 2 and a Super Midget that pair very well with my GK MB fusion 800 so I would imagine that the Super Twin does as well.
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.
Official Barefaced Bass Cab Club
- Thread starter Stumbo
- Start date
Not exactly a Super Twin, but I have a Big Baby 2 and a Super Midget that pair very well with my GK MB fusion 800 so I would imagine that the Super Twin does as well.
I think it depends on the type of slap tone that you're after.
Chris' bass guitar is fairly bright-sounding as well.
Based on reports from users, the Genzler MG800 should be another amp that would synergize well with the ST & yeah, probably any of the GK amps.
I have the MBF800 and it is a match made in heaven with the SuperTwin!!
Can you discuss this a little more ? I'm really torn between a SC and a SM. I have to do some slap and pop occaisionally also, and thought the SM might be a good one cab solution. I play a passive, 4 string Fender Jazz into a Shuttle 6.2, no effects. I've read mixed reviews on the SM as a stand alone cab, but the SC seems to better reviews as a stand alone, I guess for the extended low end as compared to the SM. But I always thought that the SC would be a darker sounding cab, without the tweeter. Since they all use the same 12" driver, would the SC be brite enough for the occasional slapper ? I typically use that style to accent certain parts of songs, not a guy who slaps his way through the entire piece. More concerned with the tone of the pop notes. I like a kind of brite, stinging tone on those pops on the G string. Do you think the SC would cover that ? Any other thoughts welcome.
@monsterthompson has owned both those cabs, so he might be better at answering that question. It's a very subjective question - for some it should work, others not. Personally, I don't need much above 4k Hz.
I've owned both, and at the same time. The SM as a stand alone cab can work if your band isn't "loud" (everybody has a different definition). I found the SM coming up short with a Shuttle 9.0 in my full band setting, but we were ear-plug loud. The SC hangs just fine in that same setting. Maybe I could've pushed the SM harder, but I took it as far as I was comfortable.
As far as being a slapper, that's nothing I'm into. The SC is plenty bright for my style, but like lo-freq, I don't care for much over 4k in most applications. I don't mind it with some clean tones, but I tend to have some overdrive going on, which isn't great for going into higher frequencies. The SC isn't "dark" but it can present as a little middy until it breaks in, and/or you get your EQ sorted. My initial impression was that the mids felt a little weird, but over time, it broke in, and I've changed EQ and amps, and It was never an issue. I think my ears were acclimating to the lack of a mid-driver or tweeter (I came from a greenly cab).
Depending on what you are using now, the SM could be a one cab solution. You mentioned your amp and bass, but not your current cab. If you're running that head with a 4ohm 410, then an 8ohm SM might not handle the same gig.
I'm using a BB2 now, but I still toy with the idea of a pair of SM cabs. I liked the slightly tighter, puncher feel of the SM (smaller box cuts the low end relative to the big boxes, even with the same driver). That said, each of the cabs have their pros and cons.
Thanks for the replies! Good info. Granted you'll never get a slap tone with that boosted high end sizzle without a horn but more like the Larry Graham or Freddie Washington tone would be nice. I always use the passive tone controls on my Dingwall SPJ5 and Clement 5 string with Nordie Big Splits to take a bit of edge off the highs, so I figured if the bass and amp have plenty of highs on tap they wouldn't sound too dark with this cab. I have a Magellan 800 as well and would agree that can cover a similar tonal area. There is something compelling to me about the simplicity of a vertically aligned 212 that can handle a kilowatt and only weighs 40 lbs.
I did a search and found posts #1967/1968 addressed the question "Will I miss the 4-7k range?":
Tallboybass: The SuperTwin DOES have highs, they just don't extend past about 4k...you have to boost the EQ up there to get highs, also it helps to roll off the lows a bit. The lows on my ST are big, bold, tight and beautiful! This cab responds beautifully to EQ!!
The SuperTwin DOES have highs, they just don't extend past about 4k...
Alex: Actually they do. The output from the cones stops at about 4kHz but the quieter output from the central domes runs to about 10kHz. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's like sticking a 3" mid in with a couple of more woofery* 12"s but it's probably about halfway between that and having two woofery 12"s on their own.
So it sounds like boosting the highs might give enough of a boost around 5-6 kHz to be heard even if it beams. Perhaps that's enough. If the mids are well-voiced and present I don't find I need that much treble for a good bass sound.
I did a search and found posts #1967/1968 addressed the question "Will I miss the 4-7k range?":
Tallboybass: The SuperTwin DOES have highs, they just don't extend past about 4k...you have to boost the EQ up there to get highs, also it helps to roll off the lows a bit. The lows on my ST are big, bold, tight and beautiful! This cab responds beautifully to EQ!!
The SuperTwin DOES have highs, they just don't extend past about 4k...
Alex: Actually they do. The output from the cones stops at about 4kHz but the quieter output from the central domes runs to about 10kHz. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's like sticking a 3" mid in with a couple of more woofery* 12"s but it's probably about halfway between that and having two woofery 12"s on their own.
So it sounds like boosting the highs might give enough of a boost around 5-6 kHz to be heard even if it beams. Perhaps that's enough. If the mids are well-voiced and present I don't find I need that much treble for a good bass sound.
Last edited:
I was on the same fence. I just got my Super Compact yesterday (WOW, fast shipping, guys! and the internet didn't prepare me for how nice and sparkly it is). My previous main cab was a 15 with a 5" that I kept blowing. So far, this seems to have plenty of high end but the real test will be in a high volume band situation, which I won't get to do until next week.
EDIT: I will report back.
EDIT: I will report back.
Last edited:
Right now, for the majority of my gigs, I'm using a Greenboy Bassic 15., with the Faital woofer. The Faital is a wonderful, full range driver, yet , every time I go to the slap and pop, I wish I had just a little bit more sizzle or high end available. The frequency range is 35 - 4000, with a sensitivity of 99db. Thus, I was looking at the SM.
Shoot. I'm not familiar with that cab's performance in the real world. My guess is that a SC is the better fit, in terms of output. It might be better in terms of high end, but it might be on par. Anyone else know that Bassic 15 well enough to chime in?
The frequency range of the Faital is 35 -4000 hz, so pretty similar to the SC. The Faital is 99db sensitivity, while the SC is 95 db.
Probably not exactly apples-to-apples to compare sensitivity of a speaker vs. a loaded cab. The cab design plays a pretty important role in the listeners perception.
From everything I have read on the Bassic 15 with the Faital, those are the specs for the cab. Dave Green has often said that he designs his cabs to get the best performance out of the drivers he chooses to build a cab for.
Since the domes project the high frequencies & I'd guess the domes are probably 2 1/2 to 3 inches in diameter, maybe they don't beam that much, not exactly sure how that works.
It's the best technical information we've got, so let's go with that. Real world performance is always tough to tell from paper, on these issues.
Here are the specs for the SM, SC, and BB:
SM - 97Db - Freq - 37 hz - 20Khz, SC - 97Db - Freq - 37hz -4Khz, BB - 97Db Freq - 30hz - 20Khz
All 3 have the same " Max Continuous Broadband SPL of 127Db ( which I don't pretend to even know what that means )
So, with exception of the BB going lower at 30 hz, all three have other similar specs somewhat. The SM and the SC both have a low of 37 hz. I guess I don't get why the SC goes lower ? All three have the same sensitivity at 97Db. The SM and the BB both have a high of 20Khz, yet they have different tweeters, as I understand it. And then it states in the " Which One To Get " section of the SM : " This cab still has the output to perform effectively in a rock band but needs more power to produce a lot of bottom and still can't match the SC let alone the BB2 when it comes to depth." Why does it need more power to produce a lot of bottom, but still has the same low frequency as the SC ? Is it because it is smaller than the SC ? Trying to understand why these cabs have such different reviews by owners , when their specs aren't all that far apart ?
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty familiar with this type of armchair analysis on TB. You need to look at the cab and the driver as a combined system. Looking at the driver, alone, gives you limited understanding of how the porting and cab volume come into play. Efficiency and sensitivity are related but not identical. In general, bigger boxes will produce bigger lows, given the same input. So the SM being the smallest, can still produce those lows, but you need to push more watts into it because the nature of the design is less efficient in the low end.
It helps to break the frequency bands apart. If you've ever looked at a mix frequency analysis, you'll see a "balanced" sounding mix has emphasis on the low end, and tapers off in the highs. This is because human perception requires lows to be louder in a measurable dB sense, for them to sound as loud as mids and highs. It's the way out ears and brains are tuned.
Couple that with the physics of how sound is produced and measured. You get a single numeric value of say 100db. That is representative of all the frequencies going on when a pitch is produced, and doesn't tell you the frequency that measurement was focused on. There's no free lunch, so if you want a cabinet to produce more low dbs with the same wattage, you've got to take away dbs from another frequency band. You may still end up with a 100db volume measurement, but it won't sound the same. Schroeder cabs are reportedly loud, as they pull emphasis from the lows and push that energy into the mids. The same wattage produces more perceived volume, but at the cost of lows. Acme cabs are the opposite, and known as inefficient, because their goal is to produce bigger lows. The cost for doing that is taking energy away from producing measurably loud sound in the mids, and directing that energy to the lows.
Now layer in cab design. The cab volume plays a role in the volume game. Bigger cabs are more beneficial for producing bigger lows, given the same input, with the same driver. The little SM has to use watts to produce extra lows that the SC and BB2 already have a tendency to produce because of the cab volume. The driver can take the extra watts, but you've got to feed them into the system. That's part of why the SC and SM are "equally loud" in a measurable sense, but don't necessarily sound that way. The SM sacrifices lows to create more total volume that competes with the SC, but it sounds less full doing it.
As for the tweeter, the 20khz rating is a measurement of what frequencies can be produced, not a measure of how good they sound, nor the dispersion characteristics. The SM tweeter is nice, but the BB2 compression driver is nicer. They both produce the same range, but the BB2 does it better.
I'm sure I've oversimplified something here, or crossed up some ideas, so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone will, since this is TB. I know Alex watches this thread, and is certain to put me in line. He's done it before, but I don't mind, as I appreciate the education
Edit
I almost for got to tie it back to these three boxes. There is a decent difference in physical volume for each cab, explaining why they each behave differently. Additionally, you've got two cabs with tweeters and crossovers. If you split the job of frequency reproduction into two sections, with one section routed to a woofer (optimized for producing lows) and one section going to a tweeter (optimized for producing highs) then you aren't fighting with trying to make one driver produce the entire spectrum, and the woofer and tweeter should be more efficient at their jobs, making the overall output louder. The SM and BB2 have that advantage. The BB2 woofer gets freed up to produce more extended lows (aided by the bigger cab size), or the SM is capable of getting as loud as the SC (though not necessarily sounding the same).
Last edited:
I've gotta stop following this thread... or I'm gonna end up with a new cab 
Thanks. BTW, what exactly is " Max Continuous Broadband SPL ", and why is it the same for all three ?I'm no expert, but I'm pretty familiar with this type of armchair analysis on TB. You need to look at the cab and the driver as a combined system. Looking at the driver, alone, gives you limited understanding of how the porting and cab volume come into play. Efficiency and sensitivity are related but not identical. In general, bigger boxes will produce bigger lows, given the same input. So the SM being the smallest, can still produce those lows, but you need to push more watts into it because the nature of the design is less efficient in the low end.
It helps to break the frequency bands apart. If you've ever looked at a mix frequency analysis, you'll see a "balanced" sounding mix has emphasis on the low end, and tapers off in the highs. This is because human perception requires lows to be louder in a measurable dB sense, for them to sound as loud as mids and highs. It's the way out ears and brains are tuned.
Couple that with the physics of how sound is produced and measured. You get a single numeric value of say 100db. That is representative of all the frequencies going on when a pitch is produced, and doesn't tell you the frequency that measurement was focused on. There's no free lunch, so if you want a cabinet to produce more low dbs with the same wattage, you've got to take away dbs from another frequency band. You may still end up with a 100db volume measurement, but it won't sound the same. Schroeder cabs are reportedly loud, as they pull emphasis from the lows and push that energy into the mids. The same wattage produces more perceived volume, but at the cost of lows. Acme cabs are the opposite, and known as inefficient, because their goal is to produce bigger lows. The cost for doing that is taking energy away from producing measurably loud sound in the mids, and directing that energy to the lows.
Now layer in cab design. The cab volume plays a role in the volume game. Bigger cabs are more beneficial for producing bigger lows, given the same input, with the same driver. The little SM has to use watts to produce extra lows that the SC and BB2 already have a tendency to produce because of the cab volume. The driver can take the extra watts, but you've got to feed them into the system. That's part of why the SC and SM are "equally loud" in a measurable sense, but don't necessarily sound that way. The SM sacrifices lows to create more total volume that competes with the SC, but it sounds less full doing it.
As for the tweeter, the 20khz rating is a measurement of what frequencies can be produced, not a measure of how good they sound, nor the dispersion characteristics. The SM tweeter is nice, but the BB2 compression driver is nicer. They both produce the same range, but the BB2 does it better.
I'm sure I've oversimplified something here, or crossed up some ideas, so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone will, since this is TB. I know Alex watches this thread, and is certain to put me in line. He's done it before, but I don't mind, as I appreciate the education
Edit
I almost for got to tie it back to these three boxes. There is a decent difference in physical volume for each cab, explaining why they each behave differently. Additionally, you've got two cabs with tweeters and crossovers. If you split the job of frequency reproduction into two sections, with one section routed to a woofer (optimized for producing lows) and one section going to a tweeter (optimized for producing highs) then you aren't fighting with trying to make one driver produce the entire spectrum, and the woofer and tweeter should be more efficient at their jobs, making the overall output louder. The SM and BB2 have that advantage. The BB2 woofer gets freed up to produce more extended lows (aided by the bigger cab size), or the SM is capable of getting as loud as the SC (though not necessarily sounding the same).
