sensitivity or frequency response for cabs?

[KJung]

You can't know the degree of bass response possible, you can't know the inherent boost in the upper bass, ou can't know how high the 10s really extend on-axis, and all sorts of things.

There is a lot more to the character of a two way cabinet than the tweeter crossover and how loud it is at 1khz. Sheesh. Talk about oversimplifying.

Also, off-axis performance can vary hugely between even drivers of the same size (based on driver design elements like dustcap shape.size) and so on. The 'source width' doesn't tell the entire story.

Of course... my point is that there are hundreds of interactions that result in the tone of a bass backline system. Adding another three pages of charts, graphs and specs involving only one component of the system to the manual gets you from 2% to 4% of the tonal variance in a bass backline system.

Again, the point is all these components work together in a VERY complex way... prediction the sound of a bass system is similar to prediction the weather.... SO many inputs, and especailly interactions (assuming you understand the non-linear impact of individual variables combining in hundreds if not thousands of different ways) that it gets quickly overwhelming.

Amazing though, how much info that simple little 1K SPL spec can give you in a one way or two way cab.

 

[synaesthesia]

You can't know the degree of bass response possible, you can't know the inherent boost in the upper bass, ou can't know how high the 10s really extend on-axis, and all sorts of things.

There is a lot more to the character of a one way cabinet than the tweeter crossover and how loud it is at 1khz. Sheesh. Talk about oversimplifying.

Also, off-axis performance can vary hugely between even drivers of the same size (based on driver design elements like dustcap shape.size) and so on. The 'source width' doesn't tell the entire story.

You plug it in and you test it with your ear not your eyes. That's how you know. Specs are useful for those really in the know, and then again there is a territory of people who play trumps with specs like kids. Even Greenboy when he started looking into speakers on TB was talking up higher X Max for mid range drivers whilst talking about crossing the mid driver at 700Hz and he basically talking up his Axxx on that.

If you could quantify the world, you could numerically describe why one type of music is better than another.

At the end of the day, an electromechanical device is only part of the sonic chain, you can measure all you want if you have the experience to tell what the sonorous quality is out of sonic measurements.

Some people though want to play trumps to appear intelligent.

 

[tombowlus]

Nope.... just extends up top more (and now you have a true 3 way cab)... inherent sound of the cab is identical (i.e., the specs wouldn't change at all below 4K or whever the tweeter is crossed over. Rules really do change with those mid driver cabs... nice stuff if the tone fits your goals!

I know, I'm just giving you a hard time.

And I have measured enough cabs and looked at enough FR charts that I don't put anywhere near as much faith in the 1kHz measurement.

Tom.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

If you see a high 1K SPL and a very low -3db bass roll-off point, then believe the 1K SPL.... I've found that is relatively accurate with most manufacturers (i.e., I've found a relatively high correlation between the nature of the low end and the brightness in the upper mids between actual cab tone and published 1K SPL)... the -3db is the one that tends to be fantasy

Unless it's seen on an SPL chart a 1kHz SPL figure should not be present at all. It only serves to befuddle. When a base SPL is quoted for a cab it's properly done with two criteria: where the driver is operating as a pure piston and where the effect of the cabinet is minimal. For the most part that works out to the average output between 100 and 200 Hz. Above 200 Hz driver sensitivity rises as the cone goes into break-up mode, just below 100 Hz the cab can be tuned to give higher SPL at the expense of the low end, along with boomy response to boot.
It's quoting the base SPL outside of the average within the 100-200 Hz bandwidth that leads to phony SPL, -3dB and -10dB figures. In the context of being present on an SPL chart the 1kHz SPL is beneficial, as is the entire chart. But when there's no measured chart and an SPL figure is quoted it should only be for that 100-200Hz octave.

 

[rpsands]

You plug it in and you test it with your ear not your eyes. That's how you know. Specs are useful for those really in the know, and then again there is a territory of people who play trumps with specs like kids.

Some people though want to play trumps to appear intelligent.

Yes, like you constantly say, the only way to know anything is through empirical observation. Absurd. Absurd beyond belief.

You ever read a scientific paper? Yeah, me too. I let other people do the empirical observation for me and then read about it. That's what looking at specs is all about.

 

[R Baer]

...Also, if I want to dip the mids again, I could do that with EQ. It's just that I will have made the decision... not a company that put out a product with bu$ine$$ in mind...

Over the last year, I have had a chance to meet many others in the bass community and I can tell you that everyone I have met is in this business because, above all they have a true passion for the music, the instrument and the work they do. The money (if it comes) is not the driving motivation for these people.

 

[alexclaber]

I'm sure I've said this already but I don't see these plots as hugely useful indicators of tone. But when combined with accurate excursion limited and thermally limited power handling data they can tell you how loud a cab can play, so at least you know if you're looking at viable gear, or indeed if it's way overkill.

Regarding tone, frequency response is pretty easy to change with EQ whilst all the other colourations as agedhorse describes are much more built into the sound of the cab.

For bass guitar I see almost no benefit to accurate sensitivity data if it isn't combined with accurate excursion limited power handling data - there's no advantage having big LF sensitivity if the cab farts out way before it gets loud enough. There are plenty of big old hi-fi speakers that would look awesome on the LF sensitivity front but you wouldn't want to take them out for a gig because they'd go all nasty once you push more than a handful of watts into them.

I don't think the alleged 1kHz spec means anything - it's almost completely random and I suspect Ken's having a bit of a placebo moment with it!

 

[R Baer]

...Regarding tone, frequency response is pretty easy to change with EQ whilst all the other colourations as agedhorse describes are much more built into the sound of the cab...

But don't forget Alex, that there seems to be an overwhelming consensus here on TB that EQs are inherently evil and that a high quality amplifier should sound great with all the controls set flat.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

But don't forget Alex, that there seems to be an overwhelming consensus here on TB that EQs are inherently evil and that a high quality amplifier should sound great with all the controls set flat.

A far cry from when I started playing in the '60s. Then the rule was on bass you turned the bass up all the way, flipped the 'Deep' switch and maybe put the treble at 1/2. On guitar: everything pegged. What's the point of a knob that isn't dimed? Volume included.

 

[kurotenshi]

I don't think there is much to add here but I feel the need to go back to the flat response here.
The arguments presented here against flat don't make any sense to me. Yes, its true no one knows exactly how their instruments sounds like but the whole reason Hi-Fi systems and recording gear, and DI's for that matter, are designed the way they are is to come as close as possible to the pure sound. As far as I can tell most bass players want simplicity and, IMO, all that mix and match goes completely against my concept of simplicity.
What I would like it to have the same sound in out of the DI and the cab, if the sound guy does his work fine and just correct the PA sound to the room then I'll have the same sound on stage and FOH.
Not gonna nag any more on this, it's MO and maybe one day I'll see I'm wrong. Or not.

 

[muddycreek]

Got it.

Seriously wondering as I've been considering building a fEarful and your comments expressing dislike for the smooth, non-grindy sound has stayed my hand .. I still might try one out, but I appreciate your lone voice of dissent amongst the din of fEarful raves..

Good point that this is an example of a characteristic ("smooth", "grindy" etc) that may not even show up in charts and specs. I assume they can only be known from direct experience or knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of various drivers, driver combination's and crossovers...

If you want a reasonable preview of what a fEarful might do for you, play through the best quality largeish 3 way PA cabinet with at least a 15 on the bottom you can find in a music store. Do it at moderate volume if the cab doesn't have great lows, and bring the lows up a bit, but not enough for mud.

It won't be perfect, and it won't be AS suited for bass as a fEarful just due to design, but comparing it to some 'regular' bass cabs should give you a little bit of insight on 'flat-ish' vs 'regular bass cab voiced.'

 

[JimmyM]

I don't think there is much to add here but I feel the need to go back to the flat response here.
The arguments presented here against flat don't make any sense to me. Yes, its true no one knows exactly how their instruments sounds like but the whole reason Hi-Fi systems and recording gear, and DI's for that matter, are designed the way they are is to come as close as possible to the pure sound. As far as I can tell most bass players want simplicity and, IMO, all that mix and match goes completely against my concept of simplicity.
What I would like it to have the same sound in out of the DI and the cab, if the sound guy does his work fine and just correct the PA sound to the room then I'll have the same sound on stage and FOH.
Not gonna nag any more on this, it's MO and maybe one day I'll see I'm wrong. Or not.

hi fi systems are made to reproduce music. amps are made to produce music. big difference. however, even though "pure sound" is a very nebulous concept, you are free to pursue your tonal goals any way you want. so am i. and that's why it's not important for it to make sense to you that some bassists don't want dead flat tone.

 

[muddycreek]

I still think polar plots at various frequencies have to come in at a close second to FR charts as far as useful goes. And they're not that hard to understand- I haven't written THAT much training material, and I think I could come up with a simple graphic that led to a decent understanding of polar patterns to stick in a manual. Third, probably some indication of max spl.

One chart each for frequency response, dispersion, and max spl. Too much to ask?

 

[muddycreek]

hi fi systems are made to reproduce music. amps are made to produce music. big difference. however, even though "pure sound" is a very nebulous concept, you are free to pursue your tonal goals any way you want. so am i. and that's why it's not important for it to make sense to you that some bassists don't want dead flat tone.

I do agree with Jimmy, though. There's no argument AGAINST flat response needed, aside from 'it sounds like I want it to.'

And since there's no such thing as dead flat, even in a $450 a square foot mastering room with $80,000 worth of Kinoshita monitors, we're all left determining WHICH type and level of coloration we want.

It's just that some of us feel like we can infer things from charts, and we'd like to be able to do so.

If I knew I LOVED a Boogie 215, but I couldn't hear myself off axis, it'd be fantastic to go compare the FR and polar response charts and find something in a similar tone family with better dispersion. Is it going to sound the same? Absolutely not. Is it going to be closer than something with a radically DIFFERENT FR chart? Probably. It's just a data point some of us find useful.

 

[seamonkey]

Some manufacturers are touting EQ, but EQ does nothing for dispersion.
It's obvious that some manufacturers are just not going to provide measurements for their cabinets. They're just going to supply minimal marketing info - check box items.
And there's going to be 1/10% of players who won't buy them because there are no true measurements.

Sad truth is, it's scientifically proven that people believe popular opinion over science any day. (A scientific study was done that proves this - ironic)

Kind of nuts you can find out more information about a washing machine than you can about a bass cabinet claiming to be pro quality gear. Consumers are the only ones who can affect this.

 

[KJung]

I know, I'm just giving you a hard time.

And I have measured enough cabs and looked at enough FR charts that I don't put anywhere near as much faith in the 1kHz measurement.

Tom.

Of all people, given your experience, you should know how arbitrary 'measurement' is regarding bass gear....

 

[Calaverasgrande]

honestly a frequency plot, logarithmic mind you, is pretty darn intuitive. the bass freqs are on the left, the treble on the right. The mids are in .... the middle. The spiky aberations from flat response may be scary to the consumer, as well as the marketer though. I would just like to know how one companies 40-16k cab stacks up against another companies 45-6k cabinet. The one that cites a higher cutoff may actually have more meat in the mid bass and sound lower, while the first one may be -10 db at 40hz.
Some cabs have enormous tolerance for severe EQ abuse, while others that claim extended frequency bandwidth just run out of steam at very moderate levels. Way before they would be thermalling.

 

[KJung]

Some manufacturers are touting EQ, but EQ does nothing for dispersion.
It's obvious that some manufacturers are just not going to provide measurements for their cabinets. They're just going to supply minimal marketing info - check box items.
And there's going to be 1/10% of players who won't buy them because there are no true measurements.

Sad truth is, it's scientifically proven that people believe popular opinion over science any day. (A scientific study was done that proves this - ironic)

Kind of nuts you can find out more information about a washing machine than you can about a bass cabinet claiming to be pro quality gear. Consumers are the only ones who can affect this.

Totally disagree again. I am a scientist... with probably the most pure scientific training there is... experimental design and statistical analysis.

The problem is those who don't understand complex systems and component interactions who are touting simple, minimal, restricted linear measurement in a non-representative situation as somehow defining a complex system

That is why I continue to play 'devil's advocate' here. It's not as simple as the few 'amateur EE's' on this site make it sound.

 

[KJung]

Lat post in the thread I'm just having a little fun here. The idea of modeling a complex system with limited measurement of one component makes me giggle a bit. Of course, a little more information is always (well, not always) a little better than a little less.

However, the complex nature of guitar and electric bass amplification results in strange and wonderful combinations that often look horrible on paper and sound wonderful in the real world in a mix.

 

[agedhorse]

To add to Ken's comments and observations, the more you know about specifications and how many variables they depend upon, the more you realize how difficult it is to simplify in a meaningful and accurate manner. Variables that are ignored can, in certain combinations, interact to give unrealistic results (either positive or negative), and this is something that has plagued pro audio for years.

For instance, nobody has mentioned time offset or phase plots... something that (especially in the case of a 3 way cab) can have a significant impact on clarity in the midrange and at the crossover point. It's standard stuff in high end PA but I've not heard it mentioned here yet.

Some specifications can be made more realistic and informative in a 3 dimensional plot (like a waterfall plot) by incorprating the most dominent variables, but they are difficult for the average person to interpret and frankly they are difficult and time consuming to construct.