Sunn 4x15 cab

[Redbrangus]

Nice to hear!
My thought process went as follows:
Lemmy used 4×12s, Cliff Burton used Sunn gear in the early days, Steve Harris has used a Trace Elliot GP12X almost his whole career and so did Jason Newstead during the Black Album-sessions.
A fair assumption would be that a mix of that gear (with my pedalbord that already gets me in the ballpark of what I'm after) would be perfect

I'm glad you finally got the validation you came here for.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Yes.

But consider that Jason and Cliff might have chosen to use DarkGlass and Genzler if they had been available back then.

Modern stuff is capable of all of the old classic tones, and then some.

I read an interview of John Paul Jones. I think they were talking about vintage equipment and asking him about the old gear LZ used. John said something to the effect that if he had any of this modern gear, he would have never used the gear he had back then, not even the Acoustic 360s. So much for revering vintage gear.

 

[DJ Bebop]

I'm glad you finally got the validation you came here for.

That is what TalkBass is here for!

 

[SoulReflection]

I read an interview of John Paul Jones. I think they were talking about vintage equipment and asking him about the old gear LZ used. John said something to the effect that if he had any of this modern gear, he would have never used the gear he had back then, not even the Acoustic 360s. So much for revering vintage gear.

Its all we had at the time and was great for us. It reminds us of good times...nothing wrong with that .

 

[The_Conqueror]

I'm glad you finally got the validation you came here for.

If I wanted validation, I'd ask for my parents' opinion.
It was nice seeing someone who seem to understand my point of view, that doesn't automatically mean that I will base my decision on that alone.
The more i read this thread, the more I wonder whether the cabinet was the problem, or rather the original drivers.

 

[Michedelic]

I doubt very seriously that this configuration was an attempt to "solve" anything. The old expression comes to mind, throw spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks. Conrad Sundholm was a mad genius. Some of his designs were completely off the wall. Some worked, some didn't. This one didn't. Let's not make this complicated: the Sunn 415M is a subpar speaker cabinet. If you disagree, god bless, but there you go. Whether a "cross-firing" design works or not, this one doesn't, there's not enough volume in the cabinet to allow good bass response.

You didn’t read an earlier post…Conrad had nothing to do with that design, as he had sold the company years before that was even issued.

 

[smoothbrain]

If I wanted validation, I'd ask for my parents' opinion.
It was nice seeing someone who seem to understand my point of view, that doesn't automatically mean that I will base my decision on that alone.
The more i read this thread, the more I wonder whether the cabinet was the problem, or rather the original drivers.

There are problems with the design itself, not the least of which is the metric volume of the cabinet.

The more I read this thread, the more I wonder whether humankind is doomed, or just their young.

 

[Redbrangus]

Many things are considered awful by lots of people, often without any real reason.

It's difficult for me to think of an example of this, but in this paticular case, 'lots of people' are right --it's a sub-par cab. IMHO, of course. I think most of us would go along with @DJ Bebop - if you like the sound of it and it works for you, that's great. If your infatuation with it is just about it being a 415 box, you'll find a lot of smaller, more modern cabs with half as many drivers that will eclipse the performance of this antique.

 

[The_Conqueror]

There are problems with the design itself, not the least of which is the metric volume of the cabinet.

The more I read this thread, the more I wonder whether humankind is doomed, or just their young.

Would you please be so kind as to explain those problems? An earlier comment spoke of a loss of low end, wouldn't that be a lesser problem if you adjusted the EQ of the amplifier and swapped the drivers for modern ones with more bottom end?

 

[The_Conqueror]

It's just no one you named ever to my knowledge, used that particular cabinet to create their sound. But it will be your sound.

I hope this works for you!

That's the thing, this cab is a complete mystery to me. The Marshall 4x15s Lemmy used would be impossible to reach around (I already have a problem lifting my brothers 4x12 down and flight of stairs due to the width) and by extension and living hell to carry by myself. That's why this particular cabinets grabbed my attention in the first place; it's slim, relative to the drivers.
The question is whether the sonic cons outweigh the practical pros..?

 

[InkCow]

Would you please be so kind as to explain those problems? An earlier comment spoke of a loss of low end, wouldn't that be a lesser problem if you adjusted the EQ of the amplifier and swapped the drivers for modern ones with more bottom end?

No. The physics of the enclosure prevent the low end. You are unlikely to find a driver that works in the constraints of the cabinet and EQ is just going to make it fart out and destroy the speakers you’ve put in there faster.

None of the players you referenced used this cab: just having 4 of the same diameter speakers is not going to get you the same sound.

 

[daveman50]

You didn’t read an earlier post…Conrad had nothing to do with that design, as he had sold the company years before that was even issued.

Interesting. I stand corrected. Doesn't change my opinion about the cabinet, but everyone seems to have their minds made up already, so I will STFU.

 

[Aussie Player]

Actually, I played a Mesa D180 back in 1981 in a Canberra store but I never saw another one on the road or in the Sydney market so they wern't common.

Aussie bands played Aussie amps mostly back then Lenard, Wasp, Phoenix, a couple of others to a lesser extent and Marshall of course. But the amps these cobtributors are promoting as better options were not there or didn't exist. For bass players, most used WASP.

We started to see other brands like Peavey in the 80's but the matket was moving towards rack systems by then with Etone speaker cabs.

Main point is that all the Eden/Gensler/Ampeg type promo's are silly. It was the 70's snd they weren't there.

 

[Michedelic]

Interesting. I stand corrected. Doesn't change my opinion about the cabinet, but everyone seems to have their minds made up already, so I will STFU.

My point being, while yes, the 415 was an epic fail, don’t blame Conrad. The 200s/2000s, quirky as they were, certainly worked well.

 

[InkCow]

Main point is that all the Eden/Gensler/Ampeg type promo's are silly. It was the 70's snd they weren't there.

Right, but our point here is that it’s not the 70’s anymore. Recommending this cab, in 2024, to sound like Steve Harris, is… nuts.

 

[Marko 1]

If your infatuation with it is just about it being a 415 box, you'll find a lot of smaller, more modern cabs with half as many drivers that will eclipse the performance of this antique.

As a person who likes big cabs, it had better at least perform better than a smaller/lighter cab.

If I were lugging around some old 175# cab, and there's a 75# 2x15 that would perform better, I'd feel like a dang fool.

 

[agedhorse]

The more i read this thread, the more I wonder whether the cabinet was the problem, or rather the original drivers.

Both were significant limiting factors.

As a person who likes big cabs, it had better at least perform better than a smaller/lighter cab.

If I were lugging around some old 175# cab, and there's a 75# 2x15 that would perform better, I'd feel like a dang fool.

There are modern 215 cabinets that are 1/2 the size and weight that easily outperform that cabinet.

 

[kesslari]

Would you please be so kind as to explain those problems? An earlier comment spoke of a loss of low end, wouldn't that be a lesser problem if you adjusted the EQ of the amplifier and swapped the drivers for modern ones with more bottom end?

The main problem has been explained.
There is not enough volume in the cab for the drivers to perform well. Volume was sacrificed in this design. It's not a matter of the cross-firing - much more a matter of "too small a cab for the drivers".
Could you EQ it? Maybe. Could you find drivers that were a better match for it? Maybe. Could you build a larger version with sufficient volume and try the principle out? Sure.
Could you get a better performing, lighter weight, equally loud or louder cabinet today? Absolutely. Including many other vintage cabs.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Would you please be so kind as to explain those problems? An earlier comment spoke of a loss of low end, wouldn't that be a lesser problem if you adjusted the EQ of the amplifier and swapped the drivers for modern ones with more bottom end?

No new driver won't help because most drivers will need more space behind them to work property.

 

[agedhorse]

The compliance of the air mass behind the drivers work with the driver’s electro-mechanical parameters to determine performance. In that cabinet, this will be a big limiting factor, most modern drivers will really suffer in that cabinet. The old drivers were already a huge compromise at the bottom end and favored mid bass that it didn’t really matter, that’s what I was getting at when I mentioned tradeoffs.