Hey, you two jokers are highjacking my Clarus thread!
Good point, time to move back on to the tracks. We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Ric
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.
Double Bass The New Acoustic Image Clarus+ Series 4
- Thread starter Don Sibley
- Start date
Good point, time to move back on to the tracks. We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Ric
Just listened to the sound clips, the Ehrlund sounds like a bass. The Fishman has that distinctive midrange that I try to stay away from, not saying that's for everyone, but I've totally moved away from a piezo.
So this amp is called a Clarus+? When I saw the prototype at ISB it had a Flex logo on the front.
That's what AI's are known for. Rick is very conscious about tone quality and making sure the his amps are "dead quiet". Any artifacts that you hear from the Full Circle are coming from the pickup and it's tonal characteristics.
That's what I hoped for, and I think Rick realized that was missing on his amplifiers, dividing the midrange into to different bands, gives you the ability to focus on the lower mids, and dial back the upper midrange. Which is exactly the opposite on the electric bass where you want to emphasize those upper mids.
I would think that the low cut filter on the AI would take care of that problem without having to use the HPF. Interesting.
That's what we're all hoping for, glad you got it.
Interesting again. It's a little different with the EDB-2.
The DPA and the EAP are blending so well that they compliment each other, in a single channel EQ environment. The sum of the individual signals is better defined than either the pickup of the mic.
Sounds great to me, time to run it out on some gigs.
Ric
- Jul 19, 2000
- 2,014
- 2,224
- Disclosures
- Owner/President, Gollihur Music LLC
I can see where there would be confusion. All of the two-channel models of the existing products now feature the preamp (with the 4-band EQ) that was developed for the Flex System. It was always planned to streamline this new preamp into the existing line, but it happened sooner rather than later because Acoustic Image ran out of the components to make the "old" version and didn't want to invest in a bunch more parts for the legacy model.
Rather than calling the new version "Series 5," since only the preamp changed, Acoustic Image designates the newly updated models of the existing line "Series 4PLUS."
This could be a little confusing, as there were previously models in the Series III line that had a "+" designation (The Clarus+ and Coda+ models featured the higher-power 800w power amp previously in the model called the "Focus.")
So... to clarify, the CURRENT Lineup is this (all powered models feature the same 650w power amp except the tri-amped Flex Cab):
- FLEX Preamplifier (Preamp only) *new preamp
- FLEX Tri-amped Powered Cabinet
- Clarus 1-channel (Series 4) powered head
- Clarus 2-channel (Series 4PLUS) powered head *new preamp
- Coda 1-channel (Series 4) combo amp w/10" and 5" speakers
- Coda 2-channel (Series 4PLUS) combo amp w/10" and 5" speakers *new preamp
- Corus 1-channel (Series 4) combo amp w/10" and 5" speakers (best for non-bass instruments)
- Corus 2-channel (Series 4PLUS) combo amp w/10" and 5" speakers (best for non-bass instruments) *new preamp
- Ten2 1-channel (Series 4) combo amp (2x10" w/tweeter)
- Ten2 2-channel (Series 4PLUS) combo amp (2x10" w/tweeter) *new preamp
- Coda EX Speaker Cabinet
- Corus EX Speaker Cabinet
- Ten2 EX Speaker Cabinet
Hope that clears it up a bit. Or, at the very least, doesn't make it more confusing.
I am referring to the built-in filter on the Clarus+. I don't remember if it is designated as an HPF or low-cut (and I'm not sure this isn't a distinction without a difference
)At any rate, I'm going to play with it more in rehearsal tonight. I hope the director doesn't mind that I'm more concerned with the settings on my new amp than hitting all those unison lines with the bari
Makes perfect sense to me, since the redesign of the pre amp is a pretty significant upgrade with the change in EQ configuration.
Well, that's certainly just a way to bank on an already established brand name. Good business acumen on Rick's part, his customer bass is already familiar with the basic configuration of the different products in their line.
Interesting, any idea as why they decided not to build the 800 watt power amps anymore? Granted for most gigs the 650 watt power rating is more than adequate. Just curious.
Very helpful, red is the new black
Ric
Ric, I believe that the following link points to the explanation that Rick provided at the time he introduced the reduced-power amps:
http://www.acousticimg.com/docs/How much power.pdf
That's a very detailed white paper. Duke LeJune based his Audiokinesis TC-112 much the same way, so two guys that smart, coming to basically the same conclusion, kind of says it all.
P.S. That said, I'm sticking with my Walter Woods Ultra, because, although I rarely use it, it's nice to have the available headroom it produces.
Ric
Used the Clarus+ and MAS45 rig in BB rehearsal tonight. I got several compliments on the sound. It took me a minute to dial in the EAP but once I removed enough of the low-mid, everything warmed up and I felt comfortable with the sound. On the DPA channel I pulled out ALL of the mids and highs but it still seemed a little bright to me. That mic delivers a gigantic range of frequencies.
I couldn't get enough gain out of the mic to use it on it's own but it was nice to augment the EAP with a touch of mic sound. I think the wide dispersion of the MAS45 could be a factor in limiting the feedback ceiling. I was surprised to find that adding the mic signal actually boosted the overall volume coming from the speaker. I've never experimented with a two channel amp before so this is all new to me.
On most tunes I felt like I had enough oomph to fit in the mix well but there were several where I needed just a bit more and I already had both sets of gain as high as I felt safe (master at 3 o'clock and pre at 1 or 2). I may be asking too much of that little MAS45.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Badong review without a recording so here goes. The drummer and guitarist stayed after rehearsal to play a tune. This is the EAP only. I could have turned up a little but by the time I realized it, we were already playing.
https://soundcloud.com/don-sibley/trio-recording
PS: I think I want to audition the Lifeline with this rig. After hearing how clear the Fishman sounded on my Kay bass (sounded like poo on my Pollmann), and having Mark Gollihur describe the Lifeline as sounding somewhere between a Full Circle and a realist, the sound I'm imagining in my head seems like it would be a clear, usable, loud yet still pleasing tone. Add a touch of mic, and, voila! Nirvana!
I couldn't get enough gain out of the mic to use it on it's own but it was nice to augment the EAP with a touch of mic sound. I think the wide dispersion of the MAS45 could be a factor in limiting the feedback ceiling. I was surprised to find that adding the mic signal actually boosted the overall volume coming from the speaker. I've never experimented with a two channel amp before so this is all new to me.
On most tunes I felt like I had enough oomph to fit in the mix well but there were several where I needed just a bit more and I already had both sets of gain as high as I felt safe (master at 3 o'clock and pre at 1 or 2). I may be asking too much of that little MAS45.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Badong review without a recording so here goes. The drummer and guitarist stayed after rehearsal to play a tune. This is the EAP only. I could have turned up a little but by the time I realized it, we were already playing.
https://soundcloud.com/don-sibley/trio-recording
PS: I think I want to audition the Lifeline with this rig. After hearing how clear the Fishman sounded on my Kay bass (sounded like poo on my Pollmann), and having Mark Gollihur describe the Lifeline as sounding somewhere between a Full Circle and a realist, the sound I'm imagining in my head seems like it would be a clear, usable, loud yet still pleasing tone. Add a touch of mic, and, voila! Nirvana!
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Thanks for sharing your recording. Great playing!
My perception of the MAS45 leads me to expect it to sound consistent near and far; warm, full, punchy; bass everywhere without being too loud; great note articulation without sounding strident; full and present sounding without becoming overbearing. What's your perception?
How similar is the sound on the recording to your perception of the sound on stage? Asked another way, what are the biggest differences you hear between the on-stage sound and the sound captured in your recording?
BONUS POINTS FOR ANYONE WILLING TO ANSWER:
Do you know what the slope of the HPF is in the new unit? I looked, but couldn't find a manual available for download anywhere.
My perception of the MAS45 leads me to expect it to sound consistent near and far; warm, full, punchy; bass everywhere without being too loud; great note articulation without sounding strident; full and present sounding without becoming overbearing. What's your perception?
How similar is the sound on the recording to your perception of the sound on stage? Asked another way, what are the biggest differences you hear between the on-stage sound and the sound captured in your recording?
BONUS POINTS FOR ANYONE WILLING TO ANSWER:
Do you know what the slope of the HPF is in the new unit? I looked, but couldn't find a manual available for download anywhere.
The cab was about 3' directly behind my head on a pole mount. Still, I could tell I needed to adjust the gain up a bit as soon we started playing.
I believe the HPF is a 12db/octave slope but it is not engaged in the recording. That is what is so remarkable about the Big E cabs, the low end naturally sounds that clear and defined.
I think that "bass everywhere" element is why I can't get much out of the mic. Oh well, Mike did warn me about that.
I believe the HPF is a 12db/octave slope but it is not engaged in the recording. That is what is so remarkable about the Big E cabs, the low end naturally sounds that clear and defined.
I think that "bass everywhere" element is why I can't get much out of the mic. Oh well, Mike did warn me about that.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Not being able to leave well enough alone I decided to order a DG Lifeline for trial. I had a nice talk with Mark G. about the pickup and he did a great job talking through it with me. Based on what I have read here on TB and my experience with the EAP and the Fishman, I have a really good feeling about this.
Don,
As always, looking forward to your insightful review (and likely a sound clip). I am curious about what kind of gas attack led you to the Lifeline, as it seemed you were so happy with the EAP - 4099 combo.
I think it goes back to treading that fine line between having a high-fidelity acoustic tone and having a focused tone that fits in the mix well. I needed just a little more push to be heard clearly in that rehearsal Monday. I think I'm moving back in the direction of having a tight, focused tone that sounds good with a large ensemble. My thinking is that the EAP does a really good job imitating a microphone without offering that absolute fidelity that a microphone delivers. It's a really great compromise between a mic and a conventional piezo pickup.
The Fishman Full Circle was a little too direct for me on the Pollmann. I'm hoping that since the Lifeline is a little warmer it might come out just perfect on my bass with this amp and cab.
Now that I have the Clarus+ I can add in a little mic or depend on it entirely when I'm playing in a quiet setting.
Now, I'm derailing the Clarus thread
. Oh well, these things are all linked since they reside in the same single chain.
.
That certainly is a important consideration. I look at it in two ways. You can either try to cut a space in the mix with a brighter timbre, or blend with the other instruments and loose some of that edge. Blending is easier to accomplish with a guitar, or vibraphone as the chordal accompaniment, since you have the bottom end to yourself. Working with a piano trio you can still blend, somewhat, provided the pianist knows how to get out of the way. As soon as you move into quartets and quintets, it helps to have an edge. Big Band is, at least for me, a EUB only affair. I can certainly play a Double Bass in those ensembles, but it's going to be a challenge.
My educated guess is that it will do just that, but you have that trial period from Gollihur to discover it that's really the case.
After last weekend gigs, I found that the DPA and Ehrlund in combination into the EDB-2 played really well together, the EAP providing a warm but well defined core sound, while the DPA 4099B added definition and character. Until now, I was not a great advocate of blending, but last weekend proved to be a real eye opener.
Now, I'm derailing the Clarus thread
In the word of Buckaroo Banzi, "no mater where you go, there you are".
Ric
I'm a little dubious over power ratings of amps. Especially digital ones. The digital amps seem to have the most disparity between rated watts and functional volume. I can't say about the new AI's because I don't know.That speaker (the MAS45) is 8 ohms and about 96 or 97db efficient. Pretty efficient but there are some higher. And many lower.
Some of the digital amps don't really function like their wattage ratings. The EA Doubler is rated at lower power but uses the same output section. It's rated at 550 into 4 and 300 into 8. Sure doesn't feel like it to me. The Tonehammer (not so good for upright) is rated at 500 into 4 and sounds TONS louder than the Doubler.
The 45 has been fine in big bands and I think goes loud enough. The only problem you may run into is that when you elevate it like that you have to (usually) goose the bass up pretty much, so you use more power and are pushing the speaker more to its limits.That's the disadvantage of elevating speakers. You can hear yourself better but you wind up using a lot of amp/speaker headroom to get enough bass. That's why I came up with the 110 sub to combine with the 45. You can elevate to your hearts content because the sub on the floor is (very efficiently) giving you your low end.
Some of the digital amps don't really function like their wattage ratings. The EA Doubler is rated at lower power but uses the same output section. It's rated at 550 into 4 and 300 into 8. Sure doesn't feel like it to me. The Tonehammer (not so good for upright) is rated at 500 into 4 and sounds TONS louder than the Doubler.
The 45 has been fine in big bands and I think goes loud enough. The only problem you may run into is that when you elevate it like that you have to (usually) goose the bass up pretty much, so you use more power and are pushing the speaker more to its limits.That's the disadvantage of elevating speakers. You can hear yourself better but you wind up using a lot of amp/speaker headroom to get enough bass. That's why I came up with the 110 sub to combine with the 45. You can elevate to your hearts content because the sub on the floor is (very efficiently) giving you your low end.
I think were of a same mind here Mike. Both of my amps (built by Walter Woods) are rated into 8 ohm loads, rather than 4 ohms, like all the new compact digital amps, currently on the market. So in a pinch, both my 400 and 600 watt amps have more headroom than Acoustic Image, Aguilar, and Euphonic Audio amps do. Since your using a Puma 900, you have more available headroom as well. Mind you, I'm not telling folks that they have to run out and by a Puma or a Walter Woods, but there is a difference. Duke's TC 112 was designed to work with 500 watt 4 ohm amps, hence that combo is a good match.
Here again, I totally agree. I can't say what the reason for that is but, there was quite a difference in oomph between
the older AI Focus, and a Walter Woods Ultra, when Ken Jung and I A/B them. Of the ones, I've tried the Markbass Big Bang has the most apparent power, when I play through it.
I just gave up using a Double Bass in a live 16 piece big band many moons ago. I have a Clevenger EUB for the occasional times I have to be a judge at jury duty.
Makes perfect sense. The only other system I've seen with a similar design is the Schertler Pub/Sub system that's ridiculously expensive and heavy. I like your new designs because to me they make sense. Most of the new digital P.A. systems from Mackie, EV, and QSC are built the same way, but the subs weigh 80 lbs.
I agree with you about the EA stuff. I also own the iAmp Pro 1200, "600 watts @ 8 ohms" and the Clarus+ goes WAY louder than that thing. I had the master on the Clarus at 3 o'clock and the pre-gain at 2 into the MAS45 and there was no sign of stress. It still sounded pristine.
I never had to move the bass knob past flat, later in the evening, I cut it to 11 o'clock. There was no problem with low end presence. When I mentioned needing more oompf earlier I was referring to punch and impact. I think that has more to do with the EAP than with the 45.
Mike, I know you have spoken about the quality of the low frequencies on your Puma. I would be curious to hear what you think about the new Clarus. I know it's the same power amp as the last series but I would think a total redesign of the preamp could radically change things.
I'm really impressed with this amp. Once I get a solid sound from a pickup I like, I'm going to start experimenting with different mics, possibly the Troll with the Fethead. We'll see . . .
- Jul 19, 2000
- 2,014
- 2,224
- Disclosures
- Owner/President, Gollihur Music LLC
Not saying that any of your impressions are wrong, but do keep in mind that there is more to the loudness perceptions of an amp then just the wattage rating.
For instance, the amount of gain produced by the preamp that is then sent to the power section can have a substantial effect on the amp's volume potential; with a mere 5% reduction in output from the front end of the amp, the diminishing effect will be multiplied many times by the amplifier. A fairer comparison test of power amp capabilities would be to bypass the internal preamps and use the same external preamp for A-B testing, plugged into an effects return or other means of accessing the power amp directly.
For instance, the amount of gain produced by the preamp that is then sent to the power section can have a substantial effect on the amp's volume potential; with a mere 5% reduction in output from the front end of the amp, the diminishing effect will be multiplied many times by the amplifier. A fairer comparison test of power amp capabilities would be to bypass the internal preamps and use the same external preamp for A-B testing, plugged into an effects return or other means of accessing the power amp directly.
Very true Mark,
I think that's why a B-15N can "sound" louder at 25 watts then some of the newer more powerful solid states.
Interestingly enough, I've done that with a Headway EDB-1, driving either of the power amp sections of my Walter Woods amps which proved to be something of an eye opener. Walter's pre amp sectionsm will produce more volume from his amps than the EDB-1 can, even though it works very well.
Ric
