I have had one of those for over a year and love it. Light, I like the tone and it's been loud enough for all but some outdoor gigs with too little PA. But I love it.
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.
TC Electronic BG250 Club (Part 2)
- Thread starter drpepper
- Start date
Just picked up the BG250 combo with the 15" speaker - I tested it out two or three times in-store, and then picked it up today at GC to take advantage of the Columbus Day Sale. It went right to a workout at band rehearsal.
I have to say, first impressions- this thing is great, nice range of tones. Found a good, warm, punchy tone - but it didn't sacrifice the low end. And the Toneprint feature - killer. Plus a tuner? I am gonna put it through the paces over the next few weeks while it is within the. 30-day return window for GC, but so far this puppy has keeper written all over it!
I do have a question for all of you that own one already - the Switch 3, from reading online it seems a little silly to me....
(1) Mute
(2) TubeDrive on/off
(3) TonePrint on/off
Does anyone know if this is set in stone? The Bg250 has 2 Toneprint channels, it would seem to make a lot more sense for it to be Mute/Toneprint 1/Toneprint 2 ... Anyone know if this is an option?
Also - out of curiosity, anybody using a switcher that isn't the Switch 3?
Thanks !!
I have to say, first impressions- this thing is great, nice range of tones. Found a good, warm, punchy tone - but it didn't sacrifice the low end. And the Toneprint feature - killer. Plus a tuner? I am gonna put it through the paces over the next few weeks while it is within the. 30-day return window for GC, but so far this puppy has keeper written all over it!
I do have a question for all of you that own one already - the Switch 3, from reading online it seems a little silly to me....
(1) Mute
(2) TubeDrive on/off
(3) TonePrint on/off
Does anyone know if this is set in stone? The Bg250 has 2 Toneprint channels, it would seem to make a lot more sense for it to be Mute/Toneprint 1/Toneprint 2 ... Anyone know if this is an option?
Also - out of curiosity, anybody using a switcher that isn't the Switch 3?
Thanks !!
Hello,
I'm back with my better Zoom B3 / BG250 115 tone quest !
I made several measurements on my BG250 (non perfectly scientific, but I guess they are not so bad).
What I figured out (and it fits to what I hear in front of my bg250) :
- there's a big HPF on the BG250 115 which rolls off every lows below something like 70/80 Hz. This HPf may be due to the cab or to the TC Electronic Power Management I don't know.
- there's some kind of low mids bump between 80/100 Hz -> which makes it sound boomy in certain rooms
- everything seems pretty flat then, up to 2 kHz where there's another bump up to 3kHz
After then I don't know since I made all my tests with my P bass, so it doesn't go very high.
This big HPF combined to the almost (again, artisanal measurements) flat mids and the cut after 3 or 4 kHz (I don't know how the tweeter reacts with active basses), explain the middy and clear tone of this combo.
It works very well if you use it on stage with a PA to push deeper lows.
You can always find a tone which will be well hearable and as a lot of lows are cut it's possible to push it hard.
What is interesting too is that the DI doesn't apply this HPF. So it's possible to send a deep signal to a PA or to record.
But, in the case of playing with no PA, I noticed sometimes that I struggled to get a good low end. I didn't find the good setting between too boomy or too thin.
For rehearsals, not a big deal, but when playing in front of people, it bothered me a bit.
So I tried something which, to my ears, gives a more full sound, while taming the boominess.
With my Zoom B3, I use 2 slots :
1- Para Eq :
Freq 1 : 50 hz - Q1 : 8 - Gain 1 : 6
Freq 2 : 63Hz - Q2 : 8 - Gain : 8
=> to push a bit more under 80Hz, but not too much
2- Para Eq :
Freq 1 : 100 Hz - Q1 : 8 - Gain : -8
=> to tame the boominess
As the BG250 is full of mids, the tone remains clear, and while using an amp sim in the remaining slot, I hear better results than without this eq trick.
It's still not a very deep tone, but I like it better.
And, yes I tried to get the same results with the BG250 eq only, and it didn't work.
The bass Knob is meant to cut at 80Hz. So when it's boomy, it can tame the boom, since when you push it down sufficiently, it lowers 100Hz too. But the low end appears to be very weak in that case.
Again, I made my own procedures of measurements, and I use my own ears as final judge. So, feel free to totally disagree with me
Finally, I tried to push the volume to see if this increase of the lows could mess with the speaker, and when the volume is at 6 (which is pretty loud) I still don't see the speaker moving. So it should be safe.
I'm back with my better Zoom B3 / BG250 115 tone quest !
I made several measurements on my BG250 (non perfectly scientific, but I guess they are not so bad).
What I figured out (and it fits to what I hear in front of my bg250) :
- there's a big HPF on the BG250 115 which rolls off every lows below something like 70/80 Hz. This HPf may be due to the cab or to the TC Electronic Power Management I don't know.
- there's some kind of low mids bump between 80/100 Hz -> which makes it sound boomy in certain rooms
- everything seems pretty flat then, up to 2 kHz where there's another bump up to 3kHz
After then I don't know since I made all my tests with my P bass, so it doesn't go very high.
This big HPF combined to the almost (again, artisanal measurements) flat mids and the cut after 3 or 4 kHz (I don't know how the tweeter reacts with active basses), explain the middy and clear tone of this combo.
It works very well if you use it on stage with a PA to push deeper lows.
You can always find a tone which will be well hearable and as a lot of lows are cut it's possible to push it hard.
What is interesting too is that the DI doesn't apply this HPF. So it's possible to send a deep signal to a PA or to record.
But, in the case of playing with no PA, I noticed sometimes that I struggled to get a good low end. I didn't find the good setting between too boomy or too thin.
For rehearsals, not a big deal, but when playing in front of people, it bothered me a bit.
So I tried something which, to my ears, gives a more full sound, while taming the boominess.
With my Zoom B3, I use 2 slots :
1- Para Eq :
Freq 1 : 50 hz - Q1 : 8 - Gain 1 : 6
Freq 2 : 63Hz - Q2 : 8 - Gain : 8
=> to push a bit more under 80Hz, but not too much
2- Para Eq :
Freq 1 : 100 Hz - Q1 : 8 - Gain : -8
=> to tame the boominess
As the BG250 is full of mids, the tone remains clear, and while using an amp sim in the remaining slot, I hear better results than without this eq trick.
It's still not a very deep tone, but I like it better.
And, yes I tried to get the same results with the BG250 eq only, and it didn't work.
The bass Knob is meant to cut at 80Hz. So when it's boomy, it can tame the boom, since when you push it down sufficiently, it lowers 100Hz too. But the low end appears to be very weak in that case.
Again, I made my own procedures of measurements, and I use my own ears as final judge. So, feel free to totally disagree with me
Finally, I tried to push the volume to see if this increase of the lows could mess with the speaker, and when the volume is at 6 (which is pretty loud) I still don't see the speaker moving. So it should be safe.
^^^^ Good stuff.
You can get rid of the boomy tendencies by putting the amp on a stand or isolation riser. Made a big difference for me.
You can get rid of the boomy tendencies by putting the amp on a stand or isolation riser. Made a big difference for me.
I tried the stand stuff too.
It works well to tame the boominess, but if you listen carefully, it's mainly because you have the amp more pointed to your ears, and then you hear the mids better.
What gave me a clue was by recording with a mic in front of my amp. There was no real low end.
It's not problematic if the sound is only for you or your bandmates. But for additionnal listeners it may lack something in the lows.
All that said regarding my own tastes of course.
I like bass tones that you can hear well but I like it when you have some power that you can feel too. Not overwhelming power of course, but just the good amount.
It works well to tame the boominess, but if you listen carefully, it's mainly because you have the amp more pointed to your ears, and then you hear the mids better.
What gave me a clue was by recording with a mic in front of my amp. There was no real low end.
It's not problematic if the sound is only for you or your bandmates. But for additionnal listeners it may lack something in the lows.
All that said regarding my own tastes of course.
I like bass tones that you can hear well but I like it when you have some power that you can feel too. Not overwhelming power of course, but just the good amount.
Uhm... measured bass is not only a result of the amplifier and cabinet, but even more so how it interacts with the room. Furthermore, the placement of the microphone, the physical capabilities of that microphone and the signal chain of the measurement system is equally important. For instance, vocal/voice microphones may have a built in HPF, the same way a mixer may have a switchable HPF filter for each microphone input.
Ticol07: I don't know enough to disagree with you, but I am very curious about the equipment you used for measurements and how you set up the room (the properties of the room itself and the placement of both amplifier and microphone in that room.)
Did you use software to analyse that frequency response?
Ticol07: I don't know enough to disagree with you, but I am very curious about the equipment you used for measurements and how you set up the room (the properties of the room itself and the placement of both amplifier and microphone in that room.)
Did you use software to analyse that frequency response?
Last edited:
Could be, but since my isolation riser sits level and only lifts the a few inches off the floor, I tend to think it is the light cabinet that is the real issue. There's no more transfer of sympathetic frequencies to the floor from the cab.
The riser is like this one...
http://www.amazon.com/Auralex-GRAMMA-Amplifier-Acoustic-Isolation/dp/B0002D0B4U
http://www.amazon.com/Auralex-GRAMMA-Amplifier-Acoustic-Isolation/dp/B0002D0B4U
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
I totally agree with you. My measurements are very far from perfect.
I have a scientific background and worked on projects where I had to figure out my own measurements tools because the physics of the phenomenons were too theorical, and only empirical methods could be applied . So I'm always aware that what I measure can be totally wrong.
This is why I talk about "artisanal measurements" to be sure that nobody takes that as real truth.
I'm just trying to find clues to understand better what I hear.
So, how did I proceed ?
To record, I used a Zoom H2N. I'm aware that this kind of microphone can have a built in HPF, even if there's a dedicated one that can be activated (which I didn't do of course).
To check how it reacts, I made some recordings of music played on a system with satellites and a subwoofer.
I checked that with a frequency analyzer and saw big bumps in the 50 / 60 Hz area. So I figured out that if there was a built in HPF it wasn't set too high and that the Zoom H2N could help me to see the response in the lows of the BG250.
Not the low lows of course, but some part.
Then, I recorded a sequence with my P Bass, playing a tune with 8th notes repeated, directly in mly sound card -> flat and dry tone (no mic or amp involved).
I watched the dry recording of the bass with a frequency analyzer.
Then I struggled to find a way to record the same sequence with the mic and avoid all the room, mic placement problems.
So I played this sequence through my amp and recorded it several times with :
- moving the amp in the room, the in different rooms
- putting the amp on the ground, a stand, with a tilt,...
- moving the mic
I choosed a placement where I could hear the less variation between notes, figuring that if for exemple my A was way stronger than my E, it meant that I was having a problem of fquency incresase dure to the placement of the amp and the mic.
What I saw on the various recording is that, yes the curves weren't exactly the sames due to the different placements or rooms, but I always had common points :
- drastic HPF below around 80 Hz (I say around, as I'm not completly sure of the value)
- a bump in the 2KHz/3kHz area (I'd say around 3dB, but again, really not sure of the value)
- a response in the mids which is kind of flat : by that I only mean no big scoop or no big hump. But then there are modulations. The mids between 600 and 1 khZ seem to be emphasied a bit.
And it fits to what I hear.
For the HPF, it's pretty visible : you can barely see anything in the frequency corresponding to the fundamentals up to C on my A string. The on a D, the fundamental is there but reduced.
This is why I tend to think that the low cut begins just below 80Hz.
Feel free to correct me, because, I made a lot of thinking to try to understand that
Regarding the 100Hz bump, I'm less sure if it's a room problem or a bg250 thing. I supposed that if there was some kind of HPF, probably due to the 15" speaker set in a not very large box, there should be this kind of hump.
I can see it a bit on the frequency analyses but not as important as I think i hear it. Why ? I don't know.
So, yes I think I may have missed a lot of things in this pseudo-study.
But I think that I'm not too far from truth.
I'd like to understand better the mids curve, but I think that with my tools it will be completely false.
And then, I made other comparison measurements by playing with the eq of the BG250 and my Zoom B3 and still sending the same bass line, that I compared to direct measurements made on a pink noise sent to the same eq.
The aim was to see if when I make a 3 dB cut at 800Hz I saw it on the recorded measurements made with the amp and the mic. And it almost fits.
With the Para Eq paramaters I tested (boosting in the 50/60Hz area, with narrow bands, and just a few dB) it changes the HPF thing. I don't think it acts a lot on the beginning of the lows cut, but it changes the curve and the lows are reduced more smoothly, up to a lower frequency where they're cut more quickly.
By the way, I tried the simple pink noise method : send a pink noise in my amp and then record it with a mic, but the results were very erratic, and I had almost no response in the low end. So I figured that I had missed something, but I couldn't explain it. This is why I thought about comparing notes played with my bass.
I hope my explanations are clear. It took me time to find some kind of method that could help me to understand what I heard without needing a lot of complitated tools. But if I'm totally wrong don't hesitate to tell me. I like to learn new stuffs
I have a scientific background and worked on projects where I had to figure out my own measurements tools because the physics of the phenomenons were too theorical, and only empirical methods could be applied . So I'm always aware that what I measure can be totally wrong.
This is why I talk about "artisanal measurements" to be sure that nobody takes that as real truth.
I'm just trying to find clues to understand better what I hear.
So, how did I proceed ?
To record, I used a Zoom H2N. I'm aware that this kind of microphone can have a built in HPF, even if there's a dedicated one that can be activated (which I didn't do of course).
To check how it reacts, I made some recordings of music played on a system with satellites and a subwoofer.
I checked that with a frequency analyzer and saw big bumps in the 50 / 60 Hz area. So I figured out that if there was a built in HPF it wasn't set too high and that the Zoom H2N could help me to see the response in the lows of the BG250.
Not the low lows of course, but some part.
Then, I recorded a sequence with my P Bass, playing a tune with 8th notes repeated, directly in mly sound card -> flat and dry tone (no mic or amp involved).
I watched the dry recording of the bass with a frequency analyzer.
Then I struggled to find a way to record the same sequence with the mic and avoid all the room, mic placement problems.
So I played this sequence through my amp and recorded it several times with :
- moving the amp in the room, the in different rooms
- putting the amp on the ground, a stand, with a tilt,...
- moving the mic
I choosed a placement where I could hear the less variation between notes, figuring that if for exemple my A was way stronger than my E, it meant that I was having a problem of fquency incresase dure to the placement of the amp and the mic.
What I saw on the various recording is that, yes the curves weren't exactly the sames due to the different placements or rooms, but I always had common points :
- drastic HPF below around 80 Hz (I say around, as I'm not completly sure of the value)
- a bump in the 2KHz/3kHz area (I'd say around 3dB, but again, really not sure of the value)
- a response in the mids which is kind of flat : by that I only mean no big scoop or no big hump. But then there are modulations. The mids between 600 and 1 khZ seem to be emphasied a bit.
And it fits to what I hear.
For the HPF, it's pretty visible : you can barely see anything in the frequency corresponding to the fundamentals up to C on my A string. The on a D, the fundamental is there but reduced.
This is why I tend to think that the low cut begins just below 80Hz.
Feel free to correct me, because, I made a lot of thinking to try to understand that
Regarding the 100Hz bump, I'm less sure if it's a room problem or a bg250 thing. I supposed that if there was some kind of HPF, probably due to the 15" speaker set in a not very large box, there should be this kind of hump.
I can see it a bit on the frequency analyses but not as important as I think i hear it. Why ? I don't know.
So, yes I think I may have missed a lot of things in this pseudo-study.
But I think that I'm not too far from truth.
I'd like to understand better the mids curve, but I think that with my tools it will be completely false.
And then, I made other comparison measurements by playing with the eq of the BG250 and my Zoom B3 and still sending the same bass line, that I compared to direct measurements made on a pink noise sent to the same eq.
The aim was to see if when I make a 3 dB cut at 800Hz I saw it on the recorded measurements made with the amp and the mic. And it almost fits.
With the Para Eq paramaters I tested (boosting in the 50/60Hz area, with narrow bands, and just a few dB) it changes the HPF thing. I don't think it acts a lot on the beginning of the lows cut, but it changes the curve and the lows are reduced more smoothly, up to a lower frequency where they're cut more quickly.
By the way, I tried the simple pink noise method : send a pink noise in my amp and then record it with a mic, but the results were very erratic, and I had almost no response in the low end. So I figured that I had missed something, but I couldn't explain it. This is why I thought about comparing notes played with my bass.
I hope my explanations are clear. It took me time to find some kind of method that could help me to understand what I heard without needing a lot of complitated tools. But if I'm totally wrong don't hesitate to tell me. I like to learn new stuffs
Thank you for your elaborate description. I am a bit baffled by your findings, and can not from the description say that you do anything wrong. Did you try to record the amplifier near field? As far as I can recall from my loudspeaker construction days, that is supposed to be the most accurate for the bass frequency response.
I have only tried BG250 115 in shops, but can't recall lack of deep end. I own a BH250 that usually power an Eden EX112 cab, and I suddenly got curious about how that measures.
Again, thank you. If I decide to measure my BH250, I'll post my findings. BTW: Can the BG250 take an external cabinet? If so, measuring the response of another cab could be interesting, or measuring that output via a dummy load or something.
I have only tried BG250 115 in shops, but can't recall lack of deep end. I own a BH250 that usually power an Eden EX112 cab, and I suddenly got curious about how that measures.
Again, thank you. If I decide to measure my BH250, I'll post my findings. BTW: Can the BG250 take an external cabinet? If so, measuring the response of another cab could be interesting, or measuring that output via a dummy load or something.
Ah, OK.
In my case I rarely had floor issues. Only when playing on wood stages.
But, using a stand really helped me to hear me better.
I'm not completly sure of my assumptions. But on my BG250 I don't really hear big low end.
And I noticed that too when we record our rehearsals. But I can be easily boomy
But to me at the beginning, I felt that combo as being very bassy. Maybe those low mids slithly boosted confused me.
To answer your questions, no there is no plug for an external cab. And unplugging the cab means unscrewing the amp and open it. There's no apparent plug.
I read several threads regarding the TC Electronic RH450 and RH750, and as I understood it the signal sent to the DI is not the same than the one sent to the speaker.
When I analyze the preamp section only with the DI, the BG250 head leaves the signal really flat. I assume it should be the same for the BH250.
But there may be some signal treatment linked to the power section if it works as the other TC Electronics heads : some HPF + some compression. I don't know how much and what are the values.
So, yes if you can do some measurements on the signal sent by the power section of the BH250 I should be interested.
My guess is that the biggest responsible for the low cut is the cab design. I've read numerous threads regarding cab design, and it seems that the BG250 is in the category "large speaker in a too small box". Again, asumptions. I'm really not a specialist.
But it seems that many cabs are designed like that. Less low end, but higher volumes since the speaker is less sollicitated, and a small cab to carry.
Just to be clear, I just try to understand. I don't try to say that the design is bad or good.
But as I feel that the BG250 doesn't get me what I want in some situations, I look if I can get it produce something that will fit all my needs.
As I understand it, I'm not looking for a massive low end in my tone. I like to have some mids too. But some more low end is interesting sometime.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
Actually, what you describe as a large speaker in a too small box makes a lot of sense. It will then get a bump before its natural rolloff, which is also pushed higher in frequency as the box gets smaller.
Is the box ported or sealed?
Is the box ported or sealed?
Last edited:
Yes. I didn't make the calculations since I didn't want to unscrew all my combo to make the internal measurements. And I don't know the speaker specifications.
My aim behind that is to be able to know what kind of cab will be the best option regarding my tonal goals for the time I'll get more funds to enlarge a bit my rig.
Shops in my area don't carry a lot of bass rigs, especially the ones designed to give some volume. And it's not easy to know how a good sounding rig in a shop will react in gig situation. So if I'm able to understand which specs may be good it should be easier to shop on the internet.
And I'm convinced that the BG250 is a pretty good deal. It works well, has power and is very easy to carry. So if only some tone shaping makes me feel better I'll be happy.
My aim behind that is to be able to know what kind of cab will be the best option regarding my tonal goals for the time I'll get more funds to enlarge a bit my rig.
Shops in my area don't carry a lot of bass rigs, especially the ones designed to give some volume. And it's not easy to know how a good sounding rig in a shop will react in gig situation. So if I'm able to understand which specs may be good it should be easier to shop on the internet.
And I'm convinced that the BG250 is a pretty good deal. It works well, has power and is very easy to carry. So if only some tone shaping makes me feel better I'll be happy.
I made some assumptions (reasonably priced, good sensitivity, good upper frequency extension, intended for bass guitar application), and then did a quick box simulation. I also assumed an internal box size of about 75l, based on the outer measurements.
I chose the Eminence Legend CA15-4 speaker as a candidate that pretty much satisfied those criteria. Here is a very quick frequency response sim (yellow is closed cab 75l, while the green is ported cab 75l with a 60Hz tuned port):
I suspect that the rolloff is not an amplifier property, but rather a speaker property. To me it makes no sense to make a bass amplifier with a 80Hz HPF on the speaker output.
Of course, this is also based on educated guesses, but I didn't try several simulations before I came up with the one above. It was the first I tried, its from a good brand, and probably representative for what is out there.
When you move from the electical to the physical domain things get ugly pretty quickly. The above is just a sim, and the real thing in a room looks much less tidy.
I chose the Eminence Legend CA15-4 speaker as a candidate that pretty much satisfied those criteria. Here is a very quick frequency response sim (yellow is closed cab 75l, while the green is ported cab 75l with a 60Hz tuned port):
I suspect that the rolloff is not an amplifier property, but rather a speaker property. To me it makes no sense to make a bass amplifier with a 80Hz HPF on the speaker output.
Of course, this is also based on educated guesses, but I didn't try several simulations before I came up with the one above. It was the first I tried, its from a good brand, and probably representative for what is out there.
When you move from the electical to the physical domain things get ugly pretty quickly. The above is just a sim, and the real thing in a room looks much less tidy.
Last edited:
It seems to match well the kind of things I measured. Very interesting. Thanks for the sharing.
And by cutting a bit at 100 Hz and boosting a bit below, I'm trying to give my combo more of a sealed cab feeling I guess.
One day I'll try to make my own cab. It's a very interesting science.
And yes, the profile may change a lot depending to the room. Good sound is very complicated to achieve if the room is not designed to.
But I found that by playing different notes and trying to give them the same volume by moving the amp or playing with the eq helps a lot to understand.
It gives serious clues to the frequencies action.
Reading some papers about boundaries and cancellation effects is pretty interesting too.
Playing low notes is quite a challenge
And by cutting a bit at 100 Hz and boosting a bit below, I'm trying to give my combo more of a sealed cab feeling I guess.
One day I'll try to make my own cab. It's a very interesting science.
And yes, the profile may change a lot depending to the room. Good sound is very complicated to achieve if the room is not designed to.
But I found that by playing different notes and trying to give them the same volume by moving the amp or playing with the eq helps a lot to understand.
It gives serious clues to the frequencies action.
Reading some papers about boundaries and cancellation effects is pretty interesting too.
Playing low notes is quite a challenge
This is why I'm still only a bass player and not a sound guy !
It took me more than a year to understand that while your guy just had to take a listen during a gig
I don't mean this hump is a bad thing but it bothered me a lot.
With my new settings I really have the feeling to have a fuller tone. But maybe that's only me.
It took me more than a year to understand that while your guy just had to take a listen during a gig
I don't mean this hump is a bad thing but it bothered me a lot.
With my new settings I really have the feeling to have a fuller tone. But maybe that's only me.
It's not a good thing either, but it is a normal thing.
The bump you mentioned from 2kHz and upwards may be caused by either breakup distortion in the bass speaker or that the tweeter starts to kick in.
The bump you mentioned from 2kHz and upwards may be caused by either breakup distortion in the bass speaker or that the tweeter starts to kick in.
Oh... BTW. If that BG250 115 has a bass reflex port/vent, do you have access to it? It would be interesting to hear what happens if you plug that port with foam or similar. The initial impression will probably be less SPL and less punch, but since the response will probably be smoother (without the hump between 80 and 100Hz), it should also be easier to correct with eq.
