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.
what is a good 10" driver?
- Thread starter tgovan
- Start date
Yeah,like I said previously I used the bp102s in a 4x10 cab I built,they sound great!
Well, I have no first hand knowledge of this, but it does appear (from the posted diagram) that the section allotted to the bass player included at least 2 different driver sizes. Given their desire for a loud, but undistorted sound, it may have sounded quite good, in spite of mixed driver sizes. Reports on their sound quality (with that rig) were generally quite favorable. Of course, if you remembered, you weren't really there.
I actually worked a bit on a cabinet using one of those drivers with a 5" mid and tweeter. It works in smaller cabs than the Emi's, which tend to need a lot of breathing room. With that said though...
If you absolutely love the bp102's, why not stick with them? A new driver is going to sound different - which can be great for its own sake, but can also be unpredictable. The 3010, on its own, would probably sound similar to the bp102's, but generally people don't recommend it without mids as it's more of a subwoofer (which can also be said about the bp102s).
Also, can we see some photos/general info on this 410?
Last edited:
Where do you see that? I see only two stacks of 18 cabinets, with each cabinet having just a single 15" driver in it.
Phil played bass guitar, not bass drum.
Where do you see that? I see only two stacks of 18 cabinets, with each cabinet having just a single 15" driver in it.
Phil played bass guitar, not bass drum.
In the bass section there is an equipment rack on the left, a column of large enclosures (15's?), and a column of smaller cabs (12's or 10's). This is between the vocal array on the left and the piano section on the right. That's the way it's diagramed.
Is there anyone here who does not know what phil played?
It's no big deal. What difference does it make if he mixed driver sizes? My original comment was only in gest.
Do you mean the stacks that say under them:
Top 5 - Drums
Bottom 3 - Vocals
just to the right of the stack of 18 1-15 cabinets?
Just checking that my eyes are still okay, it's a b-i-t-c-h, getting old!
Top 5 - Drums
Bottom 3 - Vocals
just to the right of the stack of 18 1-15 cabinets?
Just checking that my eyes are still okay, it's a b-i-t-c-h, getting old!
Do you mean the stacks that say under them:
Top 5 - Drums
Bottom 3 - Vocals
just to the right of the stack of 18 1-15 cabinets?
Just checking that my eyes are still okay, it's a b-i-t-c-h, getting old!
It seems to me that there may be some inconsistency in the diagram, in as much as the box says 'bass' on the left and 'top 5-drums, bottom 3-vocals', and both seemingly apply to the rack on the left. So does the top 5 and bot 3 refer only to the column directly above them, (but not to the rack on the left) or to both speaker columns? I dunno... Anyway, wish I had heard that setup. I think that the 'no-mix' rule is of relatively recent origin, and while well intended and based reasonable concerns, is taken too literally (oversimplified).
Last edited:
I'd disregard the racks for the moment, as the designations seem to only apply to the various stacks and what they are designated to. The WOS was a totally cool concept and of its time really, experimenting with splayed and line array concepts for various applications.
My take: Whoever drew up the diagram did not disregard the racks. They were shown as equipment belonging to the different sections (bass, drums vocals, etc.). It would seem that the designations apply both to the cab stacks, and to the cab stacks and associated racks.
In the bass section there is an equipment rack on the left, a column of large enclosures (15's?), and a column of smaller cabs (12's or 10's). This is between the vocal array on the left and the piano section on the right. That's the way it's diagramed.
Is there anyone here who does not know what phil played?
It's no big deal. What difference does it make if he mixed driver sizes? My original comment was only in gest.
I'm not too familiar with this rig.
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,044
- 45,901
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
There's a complete explanation of what was what here. The Dead Heads fan club members all got this cut sheet (or at least something pretty similar) mailed to them just before the Wall hit the road. I saw the Wall in action a few times, and it was never in the exact same configuration at any two shows I saw. Sound quality ranged from sublime to maximum suck, much like the Dead's playing. The vocals could be especially problematic, again, not unlike...Link Removed
I did catch one show where Phil used the whole quadraphonic schmear, which seems to have been fairly rare. The power of chords done that way was pretty mind blowing.
Last edited:
- Feb 12, 2006
- 60,958
- 5
- 220,613
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
I'm pretty familiar with the concepts of this rig, bass is through an SR & SL stack of 15" cabinets (D or K 130's and/or 140's) only.
What made this system so significant (other than it's sheer size) is the separated acoustic paths for each input and the very limited dedicated monitoring. A unique aspect of the day was that each acoustic source (other than vocals and keys) were line array configuration with a long array giving decent low & mid pattern control without the need for horn loaded boxes, this also made the levels on the stage more reasonable relative to the levels at say 300 feet or more. Sound quality was leaps and bounds better than what was typically heard back in the day, but kind of mediocre compared with today's systems and plagued with technical glitches and failures.
Ultimately, the system was not so practical because it was large, heavy, cumbersome and very labor intensive. A lot was learned from this however that carried forward into products by Meyer, McCune, Alembic, Furman, Harbinger (Mark Wayne), Gamble (later part of Crest) and others.
Being that I am from near this area, I was lucky to meet many of these folks over the years and work with some of them on various projects. Very cool times indeed.
What made this system so significant (other than it's sheer size) is the separated acoustic paths for each input and the very limited dedicated monitoring. A unique aspect of the day was that each acoustic source (other than vocals and keys) were line array configuration with a long array giving decent low & mid pattern control without the need for horn loaded boxes, this also made the levels on the stage more reasonable relative to the levels at say 300 feet or more. Sound quality was leaps and bounds better than what was typically heard back in the day, but kind of mediocre compared with today's systems and plagued with technical glitches and failures.
Ultimately, the system was not so practical because it was large, heavy, cumbersome and very labor intensive. A lot was learned from this however that carried forward into products by Meyer, McCune, Alembic, Furman, Harbinger (Mark Wayne), Gamble (later part of Crest) and others.
Being that I am from near this area, I was lucky to meet many of these folks over the years and work with some of them on various projects. Very cool times indeed.
Last edited:
HEY! You're avatar's eating a candy cane!
Indeed extraordinary times. Wished I had realized it back then!
The Faital 10FE200-8 ohm is a fine sounding performer. In a sealed cabinet of around 1.1 cubic foot volume per driver, it has a response very much like that of the SVT 810. A 2x10 configuration of them gives you a lightweight cab at 4-ohms that will reach +120dB, IIRC.
Astrosonic, did you ever get a chance to try this driver?
Astrosonic, did you ever get a chance to try this driver?
