• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Ultimate DB Cab (or amp) Shootout, Anyone?

More mass needs more force to get to the final speed in the same time than less mass. It's not instantaneous, there is always a delay until the membrane catches on with the driving signal.
Unless this is not compensated by a speed sensor on the membrane coupled with a compensating power amp, which gets too expensive and needs higher power drivers than usual, higher mass accelerates slower.
 
More mass needs more force to get to the final speed in the same time than less mass. It's not instantaneous, there is always a delay until the membrane catches on with the driving signal.
Unless this is not compensated by a speed sensor on the membrane coupled with a compensating power amp, which gets too expensive and needs higher power drivers than usual, higher mass accelerates slower.
I might believe this if a larger speaker weighed 1000 lbs more than a smaller speaker.
 
Didn't mean to start a science debate with any of that. It's just my impression of the sound of speakers with smaller drivers and always has been. Before I started playing speakers with 5" drivers, the previous obsession was for 8" drivers. Whatever the reason, whether it's scientifically supported or not, I hear more weight on the front of the note and less flab on the back with the specific gear I've tried with smaller drivers. The PJB combos manage to have more flab on the back in their natural state than I like because of the deep ported cabinet design, but a simple HPF fixes that. The MAS speaker I tried had even more weight on the front end. I'm sure there's some explanation, but the why isn't really that important as long as they sound good!
 
To try to get back to the OP, the Berg CN112 is really sweet, deep low end and very clean and responsive mids.
Can you compare/contrast that with the MAS 45 ? Though I haven't yet played or heard one, my impression is that it is the current DB benchmark. I'm looking for natural acoustic reproduction with great projection. Thanks!
 
Here's an excellent article on why the whole fast/slow stuff means nothing:

SoundStage! Max dB - Fast Bass, Slow Bass - Myth vs. Fact (06/1999)

Both you and DoubleMidi are correct. From the point of view of physics, he is absolutely correct that a larger mass does require more force to accelerate. It is the case, however, that with a larger driver, there is more force available from the larger magnet and voice coil. Still, the larger force that's available may not compensate and a larger cone might take longer to get up to speed. The article to which you linked recounts a decades-old discussion. It points out correctly that, although some woofers take more time to get going, it is of no practical consequence when one considers the frequencies they are are called upon to reproduce. The fact is that the low-pass nature of what they are fed is well within their time-constant for acceleration. Translated to English: They can only move slowly but the low frequencies that they are asked to reproduce are well within their ability to follow them. If the highest rate at which you are capable of accelerating is 5 MPH/s^2 and I only ask you to accelerate at 2 MPH/s^2, then you will do just fine and you will do just as well as someone else who is capable of accelerating at 20 MPH/s^2.

So, what is this about "fast bass?" Well, consider what it takes for a bass note to be turned on and off quickly. From Invalid Link Removed, we can think of the waveform as being composed of a series of frequencies from low to high. Turning on and off quickly requires that there be substantial high-frequency content! Yes, that's right. The waveform of a bass note turned on and off quickly contains substantial high-frequency content that arises from the "turning on and off quickly." The woofer in a typical multi-driver system does not produce those frequencies at the level that would be required. In a typical system, it is the mid-range and high-frequency drivers that do that. When all is designed correctly, the addition of all of the content from the woofer, mid-range, and tweeter combines in the correct time-alignment to produce a bass note that turns on and off quickly. What if we only looked at the woofer output for such a note? Well, you'd find that it would start slowly and would "ring" (continue to produce output) well after the "end" of the note. That ringing is cancelled by the combination of frequencies from the whole system. The woofer isn't ringing because it is inherently slow physically. It is ringing because that's the nature of the low-pass signal it's being fed.

What all of this means is that really "fast bass" will only occur via a system that is capable of reproducing accurately a fairly wide range of frequencies. Most of us use low-frequency cabs with what are, essentially, woofers. To the extent that they sound acceptable to us means that their higher-frequency output is "good enough" to capture the transient (on and off) response of the notes we play. Still, we all would do well to keep in mind that accurate reproduction of the sound of the instrument requires a system that can transduce frequencies above those "low notes."
 
Last edited:
Didn't mean to start a science debate with any of that. It's just my impression of the sound of speakers with smaller drivers and always has been. Before I started playing speakers with 5" drivers, the previous obsession was for 8" drivers. Whatever the reason, whether it's scientifically supported or not, I hear more weight on the front of the note and less flab on the back with the specific gear I've tried with smaller drivers. The PJB combos manage to have more flab on the back in their natural state than I like because of the deep ported cabinet design, but a simple HPF fixes that. The MAS speaker I tried had even more weight on the front end. I'm sure there's some explanation, but the why isn't really that important as long as they sound good!
I would never argue against that position :D But I do find that the more you know about the science behind it, the more you can make informed decisions, and more importantly, you can diagnose problems you might be having with your current setup.

drurb, great post!
 
Didn't mean to start a science debate with any of that. It's just my impression of the sound of speakers with smaller drivers and always has been. Before I started playing speakers with 5" drivers, the previous obsession was for 8" drivers. Whatever the reason, whether it's scientifically supported or not, I hear more weight on the front of the note and less flab on the back with the specific gear I've tried with smaller drivers. The PJB combos manage to have more flab on the back in their natural state than I like because of the deep ported cabinet design, but a simple HPF fixes that. The MAS speaker I tried had even more weight on the front end. I'm sure there's some explanation, but the why isn't really that important as long as they sound good!

In my experience with the MAS 46 that front end thing that you are talking about just sounds to me (especially during the job of playing bass with other people) like the bass in my imagination should sound more or less, and it applies when using a mic too (although with the wider dispersion cabs placement is everything). It feels like it has more dimension and impact where it counts in the sound field (including the other instruments).
I don't know nuthin about the science of it I get lost in the whole jargon excursion almost immediately, and maybe it is only a sonic peculiarity that happens in the musicians ear on the bandstand, but I agree littler well cab'd speakers sound better.
 
Last edited:
I keep talking about the Baer ML112 for upright. I really would like hear other opinions on this box for upright. I've always been a fan of multiples of small speakers for upright, so I didn't even try the Baer on my upright till one day I needed a louder box for a gig. The ML112 blew me away. The six in driver gave me all the articulate presence I was looking for, even at a low volume. The twelve gave me the bigness. The big thing for me was how much volume I could get before feedback with my old carved German bass using a Full Circle, LifeLine, or Rev Solo. Can someone else talk about the Baer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Groove Doctor
drurb - What a great post!! First explanation I have ever heard about why modern bass cabs sound so much better than the old vintage cabs. Never understood why you need a full-range cab to play bass but you really do.
Thanks for the kind words. Just a clarification. I'm not sure how "full-range" a cab would have to be. For example, I think response out to 20 kHz or even 10 kHz would be a waste. Given how successful many cabs are that have little to no high-end response, you likely don't have to go too high. My educated guess is that 2-4 kHz will get you there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris Fitzgerald
I prefer a cab to have at least 4k, and I usually like to top out at 5k. Now I don't mind higher than that using an upright, but I don't find it imperative to do so, and I hate using anything higher than that with electric. But that's just me, and I'm behind whatever anyone feels they need to use to get their sound...but for me, 5k is plenty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR PC
Agreed, I have a Berg NV115 that goes to 4k (I think) and a Berg CN112 that goes much higher. But I like to use my LPF a tad on the CN112 to take some of the extraneous piezo high end out.

(Jimmy, thanks for the earlier thread about using a variable LPF!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyM
One thing that is more important to me is how controlled the "stop" of the note is. That's my criticism of reflex designs. Note overhang. That's what obscures the note envelope. This is more a matter of cabinet design than driver. That's the appeal of sealed boxes. The notes stop really well. But it's tough to get them to go low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR PC
One thing that is more important to me is how controlled the "stop" of the note is. That's my criticism of reflex designs. Note overhang. That's what obscures the note envelope. This is more a matter of cabinet design than driver. That's the appeal of sealed boxes. The notes stop really well. But it's tough to get them to go low.
Getting a bass note to stop quickly is not a matter of the low-frequencies, per se, as I explained above. As for sealed boxes, they are, of course, among the most inefficient designs and aren't generally amenable to instrument amplification. It's interesting that systems known to have the "fastest," most natural transient reproduction of bass notes are not sealed boxes.

It is true that a woofer in a sealed enclosure will stop more quickly than will one in a reflex enclosure. That does not necessarily mean, despite what one reads on the internet, that the sealed enclosure will have better transient response. It's important to keep in mind that the woofer in a reflex enclosure will never be called upon to stop quickly. That's because the crossover will be feeding it only low frequencies. Stopping quickly requires the combination of the woofer's response with higher frequencies. It's the response of the system as a whole that determines that. The woofer in a reflex enclosure reproduces the low-pass response which naturally rings. The observation that a woofer in a sealed closure stops faster reflects the necessary physical fact that that woofer is responding to higher frequencies. As you pointed out, many do not respond well at the lowest frequencies. In addition, I believe that the woofers in such systems typically do have higher crossover points. It all makes sense.

It may very well be the case that the reflex systems you've heard had poorer transient response than sealed enclosures. If they were not multi-driver systems, then your experience was likely directly related to the sealed enclosures having a more extended frequency response.

Invalid Link Removed a bass-reflex system that, I suspect, you'd find rather stunning in terms of its reproduction and "control" of low-frequency content.
 
Last edited:
I've seen arguments on both sides of this ported vs sealed argument that are pretty compelling. And it's gotten to the point to where I don't even try to generalize them anymore. I now just take each cab as it comes on its own merits.