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.
Pre-amps with Bergantino IP's
- Thread starter Bassflute
- Start date
So, if I'm reading these replies correctly, so far, there are no cases at all of folks who have "post-initial-love-affair disappointment" when actually gigging with these things?
This is really what I'm trying to establish.
Someday, I hope to have an IP/EX stack, or maybe even something else depending on what might follow in this line as it matures, so I'm very interested in the "ok, now I've actually really used these things" type opinions.
This is really what I'm trying to establish.
Someday, I hope to have an IP/EX stack, or maybe even something else depending on what might follow in this line as it matures, so I'm very interested in the "ok, now I've actually really used these things" type opinions.
IMO, the IP cabs put out 99% or better of the signal put in.
I've posted several times that my Demeter 201s was not really pleasing me that much using it via the IP310. The low end was not to my liking. Now everyone knows that this pre is an excellent unit. True, not everyone may prefer it, but it IS a very nice well built supa' mighty fine preamp. I've been quite satisfied for a few years using this pre with my 'regular' gear. Some how, IMO, the DSP actually helped to translate that the Dem was sorta over compensating in the low-end department, which was pleasing to me in the non-DSP gear I've been using, that is with the tubes that were in it. It's still all good. Someone else may have loved the low-end with this combo as it was very clear and very endless wide sounding if that makes sense to ya. I preceived this as "spongy."
Upon 'rolling' some preamp tubes through my two current preamps (DB659-Dem201s) I've found a huge difference and improvment. I rolled my NOS Telefunken Smooth Black Plates from my Dem to the 659 and it sounds very very good (via the IP310) best so far. Its very tight, good-fat, completely even across the board, clean and at the same time cutting with a vintagey growl that is present and controllable. No more "spongy" low end here.
The Demeter is still under construction....
I've rolled the Sovtek 12ax7wa (came in 659, sounded like crap) into the 201s and it actually sounds very good. Pretty muched fixed the "spongy" low end too. I've got some RCA tubes coming for the Dem this week to try out.
I also tried a set of matched NOS Amperex Bugle Boys in the Dem, not much improvement. They sounded pretty good in the 659 but not as good as the Tele's. Nice tubes though.
Anyhoo, the IP310 does a fantastic job of putting out what you put in. I also think my IP310 might have taken a little break-in time as it sounds better to me everytime.
I do need more gigging time with all this gear and if anyone is interested will report as I use it more. I'm having fun too.
I've posted several times that my Demeter 201s was not really pleasing me that much using it via the IP310. The low end was not to my liking. Now everyone knows that this pre is an excellent unit. True, not everyone may prefer it, but it IS a very nice well built supa' mighty fine preamp. I've been quite satisfied for a few years using this pre with my 'regular' gear. Some how, IMO, the DSP actually helped to translate that the Dem was sorta over compensating in the low-end department, which was pleasing to me in the non-DSP gear I've been using, that is with the tubes that were in it. It's still all good. Someone else may have loved the low-end with this combo as it was very clear and very endless wide sounding if that makes sense to ya. I preceived this as "spongy."
Upon 'rolling' some preamp tubes through my two current preamps (DB659-Dem201s) I've found a huge difference and improvment. I rolled my NOS Telefunken Smooth Black Plates from my Dem to the 659 and it sounds very very good (via the IP310) best so far. Its very tight, good-fat, completely even across the board, clean and at the same time cutting with a vintagey growl that is present and controllable. No more "spongy" low end here.
The Demeter is still under construction....
I've rolled the Sovtek 12ax7wa (came in 659, sounded like crap) into the 201s and it actually sounds very good. Pretty muched fixed the "spongy" low end too. I've got some RCA tubes coming for the Dem this week to try out.
I also tried a set of matched NOS Amperex Bugle Boys in the Dem, not much improvement. They sounded pretty good in the 659 but not as good as the Tele's. Nice tubes though.
Anyhoo, the IP310 does a fantastic job of putting out what you put in. I also think my IP310 might have taken a little break-in time as it sounds better to me everytime.
I do need more gigging time with all this gear and if anyone is interested will report as I use it more. I'm having fun too.
My take on these things is you've got a powered cab that puts out loud, clean, flat response. What's probably lacking is some degree of tube color and or EQ. How hard can that be to find?
GreyBeard said:
But doesn't the DSP "color" the tone? I know the cab is supposed to be "flat" but the DSP processing is what makes it flat by processing the signal, right? I guess how the cab gets a "flat" signal doesn't matter, I'm just trying to understand all the confusing descriptions.
The more I read the more I seem to get confused. I think I'll sit on my old fashioned Eden 550/Bergie HT112 rig for a while until the smoke clears a bit.
I'm not slamming Jim at all as he has helped me get the most out of my current rig with EQ suggestions and I appreciate his willingness to help out little guys like myself.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,945
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
SteveC said:
Not the way I think of it, it doesn't. In fact, I think of it as removing "coloration" to the greatest extent possible.
I don't know what all the parameters of the DSP are but I'm sure it is more than just simple EQ. What you have is (I think) a small computer that is programmed to compensate for deficiencies or anomalies is the power-amp/speaker system. The compensation may be different at different power levels. This is much like the electronic systems on modern car engines. I think that in the future youll see amp heads that can be programmed to work with more than one speaker system.SteveC said:
Vic said:
I have not experienced a "post-initial-love-affair disappointment" yet and don't anticipate to. I've gigged more with the IP112+EX112 then I've had a chance to practice with it. I love every minute of it. The only thing I didn't like about it last night was the snar *buzzzzzzz* I was getting every time I hit a note. The drummer and I were pretty close and I normally play on the other side to compensate my lefty guitar player. But yeah, I love it!
GreyBeard said:
Drove me nuts! I have all this wonderful tone......to be accompanied by that snar buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... It was horrible. If it continues to be a problem...the guitar player will just to switch back to the other side, that's all there is to it. It was like a cheap muff fuzz pedal. Not really the kind of sound I'm going for in a three piece blues/rock band. 
alexclaber
Commercial User
GreyBeard said:
Looking at the various systems on the market, I suspect it consists of a very precise 28 or 31 band graphic EQ, a number of bands of fully parametric EQ, compression and limiting. I haven't seen any systems that allow automated variation of EQ dependant upon signal level but that's certainly possible. It could also have multi-band compression/limiting, which would be particularly effective at getting max output without pushing the woofers too hard.
I'd love to see a frequency response chart for one of these cabs - I suspect Jim has used the DSP to fill out the the bass from where the cabs naturally start to roll off, down to the tuning frequency, and then the DSP provides a sharp cutoff at that point (probably around 40-50Hz) which protects the speakers from over-excursion, keeps the bottom end really tight, and gives you loads of bottom without the muddy rumble that the very lowest frequencies can cause.
Also, as Tom said, the DSP's biggest function is to compensate for the cab's natural colouration by reverse EQing it. One thing that hasn't been discussed is how the polar response was considered. Obviously both the horn tweeter and the woofers have varying dispersion patterns at different frequencies, so if you EQ the cab so it's flat on axis, it will not be flat at 45 degrees off-axis. Likewise, if you EQ it flat at 45 degrees off-axis then it will not be flat on-axis. I presume this EQing has been done to provide near flat response a certain number of degrees off-axis (maybe 20-30 deg?) to provide the most balanced tone possible at all positions in the room.
Alex
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,945
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Pako said:
I presume that this is a "non-IP112" related issue?
tombowlus said:I presume that this is a "non-IP112" related issue?
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone. The *buzz* was coming from the bottom of the snar drum. Not directly related to the IP112, but I never had that problem before in a live gig situation. Happens all the time in the studio/practice room when I don't have the snar disengaged.
THe buzz of the snare against the bottom head with every note you play because your bass rig is close enough to the snare drum to vibrate it that much.jokerjkny said:
alexclaber said:
Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but how do we know it's not just a compensating eq/Linkwitz filter? If we haven't seen any frequency charts, how do we know it's flat at all?
There's a ton of speculation on the operations of the DSP in the IPs, but I dunno, I'm suspecting that it's not nearly as crazy as all that.
Not that I know...
Edit: Ok, apparently it is an eq/compressor/limit combo. Straight from the website Custom factory EQ curve with compression/limiting. Ok, so now the question... is this really a DSP? The reason I ask is this, DSPs work on digital signals (thus the "D"). Does the IP use ADCs and DACs to turn the input digital for the DSP, and then convert it back for the amp section? Are we now taking our oh so precious analog tone and reducing it to binary? I mean, that's kind of a no-no, isn't it?
P.
Interesting question.... All I know is that it sounds great. I really didn't get the IP112 for all the technology or "magic", I got it for it's sound. It could be hard wired to a transformer for all I care, as long as it sounds the way it does, the architecture behind it means very little to me, that's just me of course.
As I understand the architecture of the IPs, yes.Pneuma said:
IMHO, no. Shouldn't be a problem at all.
That's only a problem if you're using sub-standard components, which I seriously doubt these do. AFAIK, all the top studios do a LOT of digital work, and may even be exclusively digital these days with pure analog only as an option if for no other reason than the target media (CD/DVD) is pure digital.
Jim Carr
Dr. Jim
- Jan 21, 2006
- 16,223
- 7,613
- 76
- Disclosures
- fEARful Kool-Aid dispensing liberal academic card-carrying union member Musicians Local 72-147
