First, read Invalid Link Removed starting about the seventh paragraph. It explains that the first harmonic of a bass is actually a much louder tone than the fundamental. Almost 12dB louder in fact. This is why response down to 40Hz, or 30Hz with a 5-string, is not absolutely necessary. A solid 60Hz can be more effective.
I think you should try tweaking your existing setup a bit first. As mentioned before, try it unbridged. The suggestion to roll off the very low end is a good one. Other options include using a high-pass filter (HPF) like fdeck's.
If you want to try other cabinets, the Hartke 4.5XL can be found used at pretty good prices.
Good luck !
I came to different conclusions than you did, after reading the Stereophile article.
In terms of the methodology, the experiment is performed using a four-string bass, presumably with passive pickups, using the signal from the Fender Bassman's output, on which the tone controls had been tweaked "to add a degree of treble bite to the sound and boosting the level of the instrument's bottom octave but not otherwise significantly changing its fundamental character."
The article shows a 2nd harmonic being reproduced at a much higher level than the fundamental. It doesn't address why this is happening, nor does it give us any reason to believe that this is a characteristic of all basses or all amps, nor does it suggest that a bass guitar reproduction system doesn't need full low-end extension.
Quite the opposite.
1) There is no reason to believe that this is characteristic of all basses. Many modern instruments use active pickups, many of which would exhibit much flatter response down low, and would therefore not show the apparent attenuation of the fundamental with respect to the 2nd Harmonic that the article suggests the Fender in question exhibits.
2) The Fender Bassman has a transformer output, and could easily have a similar rolloff. This concern is not addressed. A vastly more accurate picture of the harmonic content of the instrument would be measured directly at the output of the instrument. Would such a result be similar to that of other basses, or would it look like what we see here? Well, we don't know, do we?
3) The characteristics of the tone control are not described. It could easily provide greater boost at the frequency of the 2nd harmonic than at the frequency of the fundamental. There are all kinds of "tone controls" out there.
4) The Fender Precision in question is a four-string. Many, if not most bassists use a five-string these days anyway, with, as I said, active pickups, and any similarity to this Fender on the E string would be entirely coincidental, and an extrapolation to include the Low B note would be a wild guess, at best.
5) Setting aside all these questions pertaining to imprecise methodology, we can still give the experiment the benefit of the doubt, if we wish. What then?
If was assume that this is "global" characteristic, which applies to all basses (a very specious assumption at best), is it an argument that we don't need an extended low end from a bass cab? Absolutely not!
If the level of the fundamental is already attenuated by the instrument pickup and/or the amplifier, it in no way makes the case that the loudspeaker should also have a wimpy low-end. In fact, it bolsters the argument that the cab SHOULD be capable of accurate, extended bass, BECAUSE of the very characteristics the article points to.
I mean, geez- why have any low notes on the bass at all? See what I mean?
In short, I see sloppy, unfocused, unspecified methodology being used in the experiment itself, and I disagree violently with the conclusions you draw from it.
Don't get me wrong, I say this with love, and I in no way fault you for coming away from the article believing what you believe, but a closer look reveals that there's no reason to believe it!
A four-string bass needs extension to E, and a five-string bass needs extension to B.
Period. And the article offers nothing to dispute this.
Thanks,
Andy
