• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Peavey Sheffield T/S speaker specs

You are throwing your money away. I figure there is about 1.5 cubic feet per 10" driver. The Sheffield driver requires about 2.8 cubic feet per driver, so it is already in a too-small box.

The Eminence 10" Neos are somewhat close. S2010, CH2010, and Deltalite-II 2510, in ascending box volume order.
 
OK, here's a bump from waaaay back, but I have new question:

since this thread, has anyone managed to find a higher-quality, better low-end response driver that would be a suitable replacement for the Sheffields BUT STILL USING the 410TVX enclosure?

Help a brother out, I'm trying to improve my cheap rig!

You are throwing your money away. I figure there is about 1.5 cubic feet per 10" driver. The Sheffield driver requires about 2.8 cubic feet per driver, so it is already in a too-small box.

The Eminence 10" Neos are somewhat close. S2010, CH2010, and Deltalite-II 2510, in ascending box volume order.

Anyone tried this? If anything, my 410TVX is lacking mids in the 200-400Hz range, which I'd normally scoop. In comparison, it makes my Carvin neo-15woofer sound like a midbarking 6-incher tonewise!
 
I read somewhere...perhaps on TalkBass or maybe on The Bottom Line, that if you bypass the inductor designed to filter the highs out of the woofers (and let the woofers run full range like many other commercially available 4x10s), 410TXs sound much better.

You wouldn't think that mod would help the low mids, but you never know.
 
Great post at Harmony Central here. Looks like Carvin neo-10's also have a low xmax of only 2.5mm. I know there's some fudging tho cuz I had a 210cab with their older ps-10s, with rated xmax of 4, and the ported 210 cab could barely take 100watts of 100Hz. And their neo-15 with xmax of 3 can only take about twice that.

So yeah I'd love to jump-on an Eminence with a real xmax of 4 or even more, but I'd have to hear it to testify. {EDIT]To my naked ears, and from marketing/legal experience, I suspect[EDIT] the Carvin standards and neo's both actually have HALF or less the stated xmax, whereas the Peavey Sheffields have about TWICE their stated xmax. And that's factoring-in the official-matching cabs made by the companies. The Sheffield might even be a clone of the 6.2mm xmax Eminence Legend, with slightly less wattage.
Look at the Eminence chart for the Bp102. It has a huge mid dip at 500hz and falls off steeply above 2khz.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
(^More info in the original thread.)

CARVIN SPECS:
Yes, because a bunch of Carvin fanboys think it's good it's got to be. That's definitely going to stand up to scientific scrutiny better than looking at the physical capabilities of the woofers in the cabinet.

Eminence doesn't make woofers for Carvin...Carvin's woofers are here:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

You can see the NE-10 4 and 8's specs; worse than any Eminence neo available, worse than the Beta 10 OEM knockoffs that Ampeg uses. Lots of sensitivity, but an Fs so high and Xmax so low that there's literally no chance they outperform an Avatar like people have claimed (fanboys).

Please call Don and ask him for a quote for a 4x10 with Basslite S2010s in it; it'll be less than 800 bucks. Probably closer to 650. Well worth it for twice the excursion limited power handling and a half octave more low end extension. Now, it is possible that Carvin uses some different woofer....
 
OK, here's a bump from waaaay back, but I have new question: since this thread, has anyone managed to find a higher-quality, better low-end response driver that would be a suitable replacement for the Sheffields BUT STILL USING the 410TVX enclosure?

You are throwing your money away. I figure there is about 1.5 cubic feet per 10" driver. The Sheffield driver requires about 2.8 cubic feet per driver, so it is already in a too-small box.

The Eminence 10" Neos are somewhat close. S2010, CH2010, and Deltalite-II 2510, in ascending box volume order.

So the happy ending seems to be: Buy a 2nd, empty 410TVX cab, and put 2 Sheffield 10's per cab? (This will give bgavin's advised 3cu ft per driver, and also shave-off 15lbs. Advice on covering the speaker baffle holes?)
 
You definitely need to get beyond this kind of nonsense if you expect to review gear responsibly.

Quotes easily forthcoming from experts here that "Hi xmax = best bet against distorted lows, cab size being a distant 2nd." (Witness a certain TINY 1x12 cab you praise as superior to even the Fearful. Yes I acknowledge your high standing here. :cool:)

RE: CARVIN
Anyhoo, I plug a mere--and heavily limited--50watts into a babied, tuned, and ported Carvin 210 and the thing woofs and flaps like it's gonna blow. What praytell besides 1) low xmax, and 2) improper cab size/tuning is the diagnosis then.

RE: PEAVEY
I can also quote evidence that the Sheffields are NOT a mere 2.5mm xmax, but are likely clones of the 6.2mm xmax Eminence Legend BP102's. (But that gets into sensitive legal areas I'd appreciate not being pushed into k???) My explanation as is is better than weakly griping many happy users here are merely "imagining" great, deep lows from their Peavey 410TVX's, including two of the loudest and most praised metal bands on the SLC circuit.

So it's you in turn I must chide for many recent, contradictory statements that lead me to believe a sale/stroke of your cab designs has higher priority than a fair exchange of info. (Wagging finger of shame.) IOW: more clear, quotable info and less bragging please so my paraphrases aren't snipped at as "nonsense." Tech-writing doesn't require a degree in every subject, more the ability to parse through contradictions and ninja-ego-blasts. :ninja: There's also more concerns in a review than engineering specs, like marketing and legal restrictions, plus actual performance on many, many typical stages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
Quotes easily forthcoming from experts here that "Hi xmax = best bet against distorted lows, cab size being a distant 2nd." (Witness a certain TINY 1x12 cab you praise as superior to even the Fearful. Yes I acknowledge your high standing here. :cool:)

RE: CARVIN
Anyhoo, I plug a mere--and heavily limited--50watts into a babied, tuned, and ported Carvin 210 and the thing woofs and flaps like it's gonna blow. What praytell besides 1) low xmax, and 2) improper cab size/tuning is the diagnosis then.

RE: PEAVEY
I can also quote evidence that the Sheffields are NOT a mere 2.5mm xmax, but are likely clones of the 6.2mm xmax Eminence Legend BP102's. (But that gets into sensitive legal areas I'd appreciate not being pushed into k???) My explanation as is is better than weakly griping many happy users here are merely "imagining" great, deep lows from their Peavey 410TVX's, including two of the loudest and most praised metal bands on the SLC circuit..
It's certainly not a matter of guesswork or subjective listening. Measure the cab responses, at increasing power levels. When the plot shows 10% distortion above the box tuning frequency the drivers have reached xmax.

From a subjective standpoint it's easy to fool the ear into thinking that the output of Cabinet A is significantly higher than that of Cabinet B, even though they're similar, if not identical.

The Sheffields appear to be Eminence OEM. If they had 6.2mm xmax I seriously doubt Peavey wouldn't say so. And none of the other specs are even close either. It appears closer to the Alpha 10 than anything else in the current Eminence catalog.
 
It's certainly not a matter of guesswork or subjective listening. Measure the cab responses, at increasing power levels. When the plot shows 10% distortion above the box tuning frequency the drivers have reached xmax.
Well-stated, but this isn't an engineering forum, but rather a commercial forum. So I'd love to solicit such a test, but fear I'd be asking for labor-overkill.

From a subjective standpoint it's easy to fool the ear into thinking that the output of Cabinet A is significantly higher than that of Cabinet B, even though they're similar, if not identical.
If this were completely true, than the converse would be false. "Converse" data: Dec 17 10pm, Band A plays a 450w Ampeg head thru half of an Ampeg 8x10 stack. I, a musician/producer of 28 years, observe the sound level from 3 places. At 11:30pm Band B plays a (cranked) 300w GK into a
Peavey 410TVX. I observe and note identical tone and sound levels. Thus, my "converse" theory agrees with reports here that 450w Ampegs tend to be overated while GK's wattage are more accurate: IOW, 450 Ampeg watts = more like 300. Your theory however suffers in that in a prior thread here you praise the specs of Ampeg 8x10 speakers as far superior to Peavey Sheffields, a technical theory not born-out by an empirical field test.

The Sheffields appear to be Eminence OEM. If they had 6.2mm xmax I seriously doubt Peavey wouldn't say so. And none of the other specs are even close either. It appears closer to the Alpha 10 than anything else in the current Eminence catalog.
Good point I pondered for a while. But if you cloned a competitor's speaker, and didn't want a court-hassle over how much knowledge was public domain, wouldn't it be easier just to throw some random specs on the specsheet? Even such detailed investigations as mine can't get thru half the fog, so who would really know or care that much? In a similar vein, if you worked for Eminence and were cutting a HUGE co. a HUGE discount on your mid-level speakers, would you want it known in every instance? What then would be the motivation for a person to buy 3 $100 speakers from Joe's if they knew for close to the same price they could get 4 of those exact speakers, plus a new cab, from Peavey or whomever? These are sensitive marketing and legal issues! I went thru all kinds of similar ethical turmoils when designing for videogames 20 years ago. Sure P________ would love to brag they're bringing you Speaker_______ for far less than anybody else, but only the good economic-ethics of someone at SpeakerMaker_______ forbidding such disclosure as bad for moms & pops prevents P_________ from becoming the WalMart of retail music gear. P________ benefits enough from the good reputation of a cab that sounds damn good for the money. (Also note that SpeakerMaker_______ no longer offers their OEM product to wholesaler C_______.)
 
I put a Peavey Sheffield 10" 4 ohm in my Peavey MINX 110. Since the MINX had an external speaker jack wired in parallel with the internal 8 ohm speaker, I then had a 50 watt, 4 ohm combo instead of the stock 35 watt, 8 ohm combo. I tried lining the cab and porting, which did alleviate a bit of the farting, but it was an all-around failure.

Having been a TB member for nearly a year, I've learned much about speaker specs and cab size/volume. The Sheffield has such a low SPL that I was probably doing more harm than good. I replaced the speaker with an Eminence Neo-mag S2010 (I believe) based on the recommendation of a fellow TBer who also has some love for the MINX.

I've also learned that adding a speaker is more beneficial to increasing volume, compared to just increasing watts. I customized a LopoLine cab, dubbed MX 112, and now have a nice little stack for small jams.

Did I use any "science" in doing any of this? No, but I had help from the knowledge-base of TalkBass!

My point to all of this is I've learned a lot over the past year by reading TB. I've read the points and counter-points, absorbed the info, and have made my own conclusions.

It's the Holidays! (I can't say Christmas-time because I need to be politically correct these days.) Let's just all get along, especially after resurrecting such an an old thread!

Peace On Earth,

X8
 
Well-stated, but this isn't an engineering forum, but rather a commercial forum. So I'd love to solicit such a test, but fear I'd be asking for labor-overkill.
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to subjectively review then you have to keep your comments subjective. If you're going to make objective comments then you need to back them up with hard data. Not to be rude, but this is a case where the old adage 'put up or shut up' applies.
 
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to subjectively review then you have to keep your comments subjective. If you're going to make objective comments then you need to back them up with hard data. Not to be rude, but this is a case where the old adage 'put up or shut up' applies.

But nobody but yourself or gb are asking for the stringent proof-levels you demand, smearing 99% of readers here how far above them you are.

You've also violated scientific protocol yourself by providing a counter-argument but no proof. It is now on your shoulders to provide your stated measurement-test of a Peavey 410TBX cab with first Sheffields, then at least one Eminence (Alpha, Legend, whatever.)

You in fact are "trying to have it both ways" by shirking your own burden of proof as a formal arguer. And I already pointed-out neither this forum nor similar commercial-review-column demand a formal, peer-reviewed essay with a graph-supported study, etc. It is only a few engineers trying to show-off and belittle others who are demanding that which they know full well it is their ethical duty to provide. So enough with the cat-and-mouse games: you and gb have much to do to regain my trust in both your scientific and business ethics. You've also ignored my legal/marketing points as having no consequence, furthering my distrust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
if you bypass the inductor designed to filter the highs out of the woofers (and let the woofers run full range like many other commercially available 4x10s), 410TXs sound much better.


You mean they actually have a lowpass inductor?????????:D

Great post at Harmony Central here. Looks like Carvin neo-10's also have a low xmax of only 2.5mm. I know there's some fudging tho cuz I had a 210cab with their older ps-10s, with rated xmax of 4, and the ported 210 cab could barely take 100watts of 100Hz. And their neo-15 with xmax of 3 can only take about twice that.

So yeah I'd love to jump-on an Eminence with a real xmax of 4 or even more, but I'd have to hear it to testify. From my experience, the Carvin standards and neo's both actually have HALF or less the stated xmax, whereas the Peavey Sheffields have about TWICE their stated xmax. And that's factoring-in the official-matching cabs made by the companies. The Sheffield might even be a clone of the 6.2mm xmax Eminence Legend, with slightly less wattage.
(^More info in the original thread.)

CARVIN SPECS:

So the happy ending seems to be: Buy a 2nd, empty 410TVX cab, and put 2 Sheffield 10's per cab? (This will give bgavin's advised 3cu ft per driver, and also shave-off 15lbs. Advice on covering the speaker baffle holes?)

Quotes easily forthcoming from experts here that "Hi xmax = best bet against distorted lows, cab size being a distant 2nd." (Witness a certain TINY 1x12 cab you praise as superior to even the Fearful. Yes I acknowledge your high standing here. :cool:)

RE: CARVIN
Anyhoo, I plug a mere--and heavily limited--50watts into a babied, tuned, and ported Carvin 210 and the thing woofs and flaps like it's gonna blow. What praytell besides 1) low xmax, and 2) improper cab size/tuning is the diagnosis then.

RE: PEAVEY
I can also quote evidence that the Sheffields are NOT a mere 2.5mm xmax, but are likely clones of the 6.2mm xmax Eminence Legend BP102's. (But that gets into sensitive legal areas I'd appreciate not being pushed into k???) My explanation as is is better than weakly griping many happy users here are merely "imagining" great, deep lows from their Peavey 410TVX's, including two of the loudest and most praised metal bands on the SLC circuit.

So it's you in turn I must chide for many recent, contradictory statements that lead me to believe a sale/stroke of your cab designs has higher priority than a fair exchange of info. (Wagging finger of shame.) IOW: more clear, quotable info and less bragging please so my paraphrases aren't snipped at as "nonsense." Tech-writing doesn't require a degree in every subject, more the ability to parse through contradictions and ninja-ego-blasts. :ninja: There's also more concerns in a review than engineering specs, like marketing and legal restrictions, plus actual performance on many, many typical stages.

Well-stated, but this isn't an engineering forum, but rather a commercial forum. So I'd love to solicit such a test, but fear I'd be asking for labor-overkill.

If this were completely true, than the converse would be false. "Converse" data: Dec 17 10pm, Band A plays a 450w Ampeg head thru half of an Ampeg 8x10 stack. I, a musician/producer of 28 years, observe the sound level from 3 places. At 11:30pm Band B plays a (cranked) 300w GK into a
Peavey 410TVX. I observe and note identical tone and sound levels. Thus, my "converse" theory agrees with reports here that 450w Ampegs tend to be overated while GK's wattage are more accurate: IOW, 450 Ampeg watts = more like 300. Your theory however suffers in that in a prior thread here you praise the specs of Ampeg 8x10 speakers as far superior to Peavey Sheffields, a technical theory not born-out by an empirical field test.


Good point I pondered for a while. But if you cloned a competitor's speaker, and didn't want a court-hassle over how much knowledge was public domain, wouldn't it be easier just to throw some random specs on the specsheet? Even such detailed investigations as mine can't get thru half the fog, so who would really know or care that much? In a similar vein, if you worked for Eminence and were cutting a HUGE co. a HUGE discount on your mid-level speakers, would you want it known in every instance? What then would be the motivation for a person to buy 3 $100 speakers from Joe's if they knew for close to the same price they could get 4 of those exact speakers, plus a new cab, from Peavey or whomever? These are sensitive marketing and legal issues! I went thru all kinds of similar ethical turmoils when designing for videogames 20 years ago. Sure P________ would love to brag they're bringing you Speaker_______ for far less than anybody else, but only the good economic-ethics of someone at SpeakerMaker_______ forbidding such disclosure as bad for moms & pops prevents P_________ from becoming the WalMart of retail music gear. P________ benefits enough from the good reputation of a cab that sounds damn good for the money. (Also note that SpeakerMaker_______ no longer offers their OEM product to wholesaler C_______.)

But nobody but yourself or gb are asking for the stringent proof-levels you demand, smearing 99% of readers here how far above them you are.

You've also violated scientific protocol yourself by providing a counter-argument but no proof. It is now on your shoulders to provide your stated measurement-test of a Peavey 410TBX cab with first Sheffields, then at least one Eminence (Alpha, Legend, whatever.)

You in fact are "trying to have it both ways" by shirking your own burden of proof as a formal arguer. And I already pointed-out neither this forum nor similar commercial-review-column demand a formal, peer-reviewed essay with a graph-supported study, etc. It is only a few engineers trying to show-off and belittle others who are demanding that which they know full well it is their ethical duty to provide. So enough with the cat-and-mouse games: you and gb have much to do to regain my trust in both your scientific and business ethics. You've also ignored my legal/marketing points as having no consequence, furthering my distrust.


Lighten up Lady blah blah, it's Christmas for Christ's sake.
 
blah blah
So true. You ever notice that those with the least to say tend to go on forever trying to say it? :rollno:
Anyhow, since he's bound and determined to eat his cake and have it too I'll not waste any more time either replying to him or for that matter reading his diatribes. Got to love the Ignore List! :hyper:
 
Since it is my original thread he decided to revive, I'll respond by saying this....

It was not that long ago that I too was completely ignorant of the facts about sound reinforcment. I was so damned sure my of my opinions, that I was willing to let my delusional subjective wishes point me completely into the wrong direction.

Having owned and used both Peavey Sheffields and Eminence BP102 speakers in my own cab designs, even based on my own opinion (much less the factual data of each speaker) the Sheffields blow...literally, in comparison.

To argue with Bill or Greenboy (decidedly and unequivocal speaker gurus who have my utmost respect, with boatloads of thanks for sharing their knowledge with me and the rest of Talkbass) is doing nothing but showing one's ignorance in the loudest manner possible.

...and to borrow a response from Bill that applies to tocs100 in the most appropo way...

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
But with such a low xmax, why do they handle the low end so well then?

They don't. If you were to hear the difference between them and a true low frequency speaker cabinet you'd be amazed.

Bingo.

"Tight" low end in the listeners ear is often "highly rolled off low end" with the harmonics that fall in the midrange emphasized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
Fix'd. Was all the name-calling necessary??? :hmm:
[EDIT]To my naked ears, and from marketing/legal experience, I suspect [EDIT] the Carvin standards and neo's both actually have HALF or less the stated xmax, whereas the Peavey Sheffields have about TWICE their stated xmax. And that's factoring-in the official-matching cabs made by the....
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
To argue with Bill or Greenboy (decidedly and unequivocal speaker gurus who have my utmost respect, with boatloads of thanks for sharing their knowledge with me and the rest of Talkbass) is doing nothing but showing one's ignorance in the loudest manner possible.

But for the last time this is TALKBASS and not ENGINEERINGCENTRAL, and when you resort to namecalling you LOSE your argument, no matter how deep your well of hidden knowledge both selfishly refuse to share over the last months I've repeatedly asked them for specifics. The antagonism and sophmoric subject-derailing from them has also carried-over from 3 other threads and I'm thankful Bill finally hit the ignore button, as he's displaying self-product-propaganda precisely stated as ban-worthy.

Lighten up...it's Christmas.....
Since it is my original thread he decided to revive, I'll respond by saying this....
Having owned and used both Peavey Sheffields and Eminence BP102 speakers in my own cab designs, even based on my own opinion (much less the factual data of each speaker) the Sheffields blow...literally, in comparison.
:cool::cool::cool: Cool, there's some nonbiased testimony we can all use in our holiday purchasing decisions, minus all the teeth-pulling, lol. Example: I scored my Peavey 410TVX for $115, and I know a guy selling a Peavey cab with 4 Eminence s2010's for $280. So you're saying it's worth the extra $150 for sure, even if I have to sell both the TVX and a back-up amp I'd really like to keep?

(I'd love to start the thread over with just this question, but you know the rules/attitudes about starting a new thread when the topic has been broached before....plus whereas I'm openly asking for new info to learn from, my sharing of new info is like sunlight to certain vampires, and that's very much part of the Christmas spirit as well!) Merry Christmas!:
SarahMichelleGellar1.jpg
 
have a TVX 410 ohm with the model 121 (eminence looking speakers I rekon) also have an ampeg pr410 these cabs are both a bit heavy but sound decent, (play in drop c sharp sometimes and also have a Michael Kelly 5 string I rarely use live) am interested in maybe some better speakers for the TVX, have not checked to see what is in the PR410 Yet) but it is a little boomy... may be interested in building one of these trick Bill Fitzmaurice bass cabs, my most powerful amp is a Fender TB1200.. PP

I'm still going to build the cab from the plans I got from you...but it will have to wait until I get enough cash for a different speaker as I want to put my speakers back in the 410TVX if I decide to sell it in the future, or I'll keep them in my new custoim built cabs.

It is a very interesting design to say the least.



I've been playing bass professionally and semi-pro since 1979. I've played through most every piece of gear to come out. I have played through and heard quite a variety of speakers and speaker cab setups in the past 25 years.

I seriously doubt I'd be amazed. However, while I know my cab/speakers are not the best, they sound great to me. I've played through professional cabs loaded with JBL's, Eminence, EV, etc, etc., etc. Having said that, the speakers in my Peavey cab do not distort, the lows are quite clean, even at a fairly loud volume. And in side by side comparisons, my 410TVX has bested the likes of SWR, Eden, GK and others. And of course, I know how to EQ and work a system to get any sound a cab can deliver. But that is my subjective opinion...and, of course, how they sound to me, is all that really matters to me.

My current gear is more of a reflection of my income and the fact that I have three kids and another on the way, than it is about not wanting to have the "best" gear. If I had the money I'd probably go a different route. And at some point, I'm going to get to those plans of yours, because it seems a very worthwhile pursuit to have that small of a cab deliver that big of a sound. Though I'll have to actually hear it to know how much I'll like it.

Perhaps my speakers do distort, perhaps they don't handle the low end very well...perhaps they are just junk speakers. Apparently the specs tell me, and everyone else, that my speakers are cheapos that can't handle the low end. My ears hear otherwise. In fact, I only expected this cabinet to be adequate for me. What amazed me was how good it actually sounds.

Aside from the weight and size, I like it. But I need something easier to haul around. I ain't getting any younger. :)

Interestingly enough, the guitar player in my band uses 4 Peavey SP2's for the PA. He's tried every PA cab there is (he used to work at a music store and still has connections and access to everything out there). He's one of the most respected musicians around Wisconsin and he's friends with top notch musicians all over the country. Every single gig we play, musicians ask what he's got loaded in those Peaveys, because they all say we have an awesome sound. They are just plain old Peavey's...nothing special about them. But he does know how to work them.

And maybe that's what it all boils down to. Put cheap speakers in the hands of someone who knows how to actually use equipment and they might sound great. Conversely, put top of the line equipment in the hands of a novice and that gear might sound like crap.