1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Who has run or would like to run speaker loads under 4 ohms?

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by tallboybass, Jul 24, 2007.


  1. I have never and WON'T NEED TO run speaker loads under 4 ohms.

    31 vote(s)
    24.2%
  2. I have never, but WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO run speaker loads under 4 ohms.

    38 vote(s)
    29.7%
  3. I HAVE, and WILL CONTINUE TO run speaker loads under 4 ohms.

    59 vote(s)
    46.1%
  1. tallboybass

    tallboybass Supporting Member

    Feb 25, 2003
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    This thing has been batted around here for a while on many threads. Are 'under 4 ohmers' a small freaky minority or more normal than we thought?
     
  2. ibz

    ibz

    Apr 14, 2005
    Columbus, OH
    I think this thread would be much more validated with a poll.
     
  3. tallboybass

    tallboybass Supporting Member

    Feb 25, 2003
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Sorry, I was working too slowly, now there is one.
     
  4. I run under a 4 Ohm load, but with a tube amp so it doesn't really get any more wattage...
     
  5. ibz

    ibz

    Apr 14, 2005
    Columbus, OH
    Thanks, and to answer I chose no. Mainly because the situation for me to need one has never arisen... Partially due to "cab planning", and situations I've playing in.
     
  6. tallboybass

    tallboybass Supporting Member

    Feb 25, 2003
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    I think my problem is "lack of cab planning"!
     
  7. Mr_Dave

    Mr_Dave

    Mar 11, 2005
    Melbourne, Australia
    Employee - Basscentre Melbourne
    I voted 1

    I have never and WON'T NEED TO run speaker loads under 4 ohms

    however, if i ever needed too, i can't seeing it being very frequent. I reckon i would would keep using my normal head with a lead sled power amp (CA9) for some serious head room and beef..
     
  8. joelb79

    joelb79

    Mar 22, 2006
    Lansing, Michigan
    I have two approaches at bass guitar amplification. One cabinet at 4 ohms for a single cabinet solution, and two 8 ohm cabs for a two cabinet solution.

    so. 1) 410 or 310. or 2)112s or 115s. Those are the cabinet configs I'm happy with, so why mess around. All are 4 ohm loads when used like I want them. I just make sure I can get enough watts at 8 and 4 ohms. At some point I'd like to pick up head that does 2 4 ohm loads. :D
     
  9. My Fender 300PRO is all tube & switchable 8/4/2 ohms. I've run it at 2 ohms a few times with NO probs. Berg NV610( 4ohm) EVTL115 & Aggie GS112(both 8 ohm). run the NV610 outta main spkr out & daisy chain the 115 & 112 outta the ext.spkr out :) Sounds HUUUUGE !!!!!! BTW!! Only do it when we have a BIG outdoor type show...& even then only when I can be bothered! ;-)
     
  10. Hi.

    Voted "I have never and WON'T NEED TO run speaker loads under 4 ohms"

    Anything less than 4 Ohms is too close to a short for me to feel comfortable about the well-being of any amp regardless what the manufacturer says/claims/believes.

    On SS amps the reliability curve also usually dives when the nominal impedance goes down so I really see no point.

    On tube (or transformer coupled SS) amps it's a slightly different thing as the different number of turns in the secondary (with the load) affect slightly the behaviour of the transformer, changing the characteristics of the sound, dynamics and response. The same goes with the digital amp DA LC conversion.

    The key IMO is the claim, is the amp designed to run with a certain load OR can it handle a certain load. I'd stick with the designed load, but that's just me I guess.

    Just my 0.02€
    Sam
     
  11. Rota

    Rota

    Jun 11, 2007
    Mesa, Arizona
    I'll stick with 4 ohms. I can turn up to 3 or 4 and drown out the band without PA support, so I think I'm fine.
     
  12. backwater

    backwater

    Jul 17, 2007
    Edinburgh, UK
    I voted for 3 as I run a superfly (which is 2x250W at 4ohm) so technically I am running one head at 2 ohms but is really 2 amps at 4ohms each.

    Andy :meh:
     
  13. I think what you meant to ask concerns only SS heads, which is what all the discussion is about. On all tube heads, 2ohms is typical and, from what I understand, actually a positive.

    Edit: Per the post below... I'm clueless on tube heads... so my 'all' statement above is obviously incorrect. However, the general point stands that 2ohm tube amp operation is very different from the issue with SS amps. As posted above, there are some SS amps designed for 2ohm operation, like the GB stuff, and others that are rated 'safe' for 2ohm operation, which seems like a different thing.
     
  14. not ALL tube heads. My V4BH has switch for 8 & 4 ohms.
    Why is it a positive??? I don't know meself!
     
  15. When I purchased my Acme cabinets I did a poll of my gear in order to determine whether to get the 8ohm or 4ohm versions. The Trace Elliot heads I had were all 2/4ohms capable and the Aggie DB728 was good at 2/4/8ohms so I went with 4ohm cabinets in order to work with all of the tube amps I was using at the time.

    All was good, but needs change. For my current gig I use either a solid state or hybrid amp. While there is the advantage of more power into a 2ohm load (versus 4 or 8) from the SS amps, the downside is that I am not able to use some of the newer more popular heads (Markbass, Thunderfunk to name two) to drive my "small rig" which is a pair of Acmes. Unfortunately in this scenario, I am stuck dragging something that weighs as much as one cabinet if not more, or limited to my EBS Fafner (which is happy at 2ohms and quite flexible actually).

    In other words, even the best laid plans can go astray.
     
  16. Lia_G

    Lia_G

    Oct 27, 2005
    I voted for the under 4 ohm option. As I've stated elsewhere, my rig consists of a 4 ohm 212 (Genz Benz Neox212t) and an 8 ohm 112 (Neox112t). To me, this is a supremely flexible rig. The 112 is great for small gigs. The 212 is great for medium to large-ish gigs. Combining the two cabs, for 3x12 at 2.67 ohms, with equal wattage going to each of the 3 speakers, is more of a good thing. I *really* like the flexibility of this setup. Before buying these cabs, I did the same thing with an Eden D212XLT and D112XLT cabs.

    Another thing I used to do is run three 8 ohm 112 cabs for the same 2.67 ohm load. I've seen others who do this also.

    Liam
     

  17. As I've posted before, I really like the idea of a small 8ohm cab and a larger, similarly configured 4 ohm cab of the same basic design (like a 4ohm 410 and 8ohm 210). That makes for a wonderfully modular rig, and gives you three options...small, medium, and large. It also results in the lowest total nominal impedance being 2.67 ohms, which won't push the '2ohm safe' amps to their limit.

    I think my first thread ever on Talkbass a few years ago actually recommended this option. Pretty cool. Again, I can't imagine needing more than a large 4ohm single cab for even the huge Arena type gigs I do, with front of house... but hey... some of you guys must play REALLY loud.

    This is a really nice set-up, and does seem kind of 'the best of all worlds'!:bassist:
     
  18. spectorbass83

    spectorbass83

    Jun 6, 2005
    canada
    I ran my Peavey at 2 ohms several times - it was powering an Ampeg 4x10HLF and a Schroeder 1212R.
    No problems, it ran at 2 ohms for 3-4 hours.
     
  19. Eublet

    Eublet

    Jul 28, 2006
    Count me in the below 4 ohms group. Same reasons as Liam posted. I also feel it is supremely flexible for me. The 4 ohm 212 is big and loud on it's own, but if I need 410-loud, I add the 8 ohm 112 on top to get three 12's. This provides just a bit more surface area than a 410, but it's as tall as an 810, thanks to the vertical design of the GB cabs!!! Makes it very easy to hear, and it looks like very cool!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.