bass guitar frequency range - Page 7 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Live Sound > Instruments and Amps

Instruments and Amps Everything that makes music, Especially including instrument amps.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th March 2008, 04:46 PM   #61
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default Re: Too much bass frequency

Quote:
Originally posted by deluxedoc
Next best thing to Brett flying from "Down Under" to show you!
Passport in hand..... PM me for where to send the tickets.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2008, 06:52 PM   #62
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default Re: Too much bass frequency

Quote:
Originally posted by deluxedoc
Hi,

Reviewing this thread I would offer the suggestion that the best bass response in an amp is often achieved with less deep bass frequency response. If you achieve true flat response to 30 or 40 hertz on stage, you will likely be displeased with the results.
Depends how you achieve it. Executed correctly, in some instances it may be too much, especially some suspended stages, but it's easier to roll off than boost, and almost always sounds better.

Quote:
Originally posted by deluxedoc
Most likely, you have heard the lowest octave on stage reproduced with any amplitude. The mighty SVT reproduces virtually _no_ fundamental frequencies, providing strong second harmonics for each bass string instead. Virtually everyone smiles big time when hearing an SVT in full cry for the first time. Of all the available bass rigs, only the old Acoustic 360/370 series reproduced deep bass with any amplitude--through the use of horn-loaded 18-inch speakers.
The SVT is not universally loved amongst bassists for it's tone or size. It's a 'classic' and fits with perceptions about what's good for many because that's what many have seen their fave players using: look at how many touring bands have stacks of stacks on stage to create the 'appearance', but many of which are empty boxes. I even saw one such setup recently where the band were using IEMs. Look at what the late, great JE was using before he died: he could have had anything fram any manufacturer in the world, most likely free, but there was no fridge.

Long ago there were few alternatives, and Ampeg had lots of endorsees so that's what we go used to seeing, but now there is better and smaller, especially if you want a wider bandwidth for other types of playing than dull P bass with flats type stuff, eg slapping, downtuning or ERBs.

FWIW, the fridge is about -3dB at 70Hz and the Acoustics didn't go any lower as the 'horn' is too short. Another case of loud 2H creating the impression of deep bass. You can do better in terms of real SPL over a wider bandwidth with no combing in a smaller form factor today.

Quote:
Originally posted by deluxedoc
DIY-ers can rest assured that the big amp companies all tried big speaker, big enclosure amps behind the scenes before abandoning them as impractical. They create more problems than solutions onstage.
Do you really belive that? Most LF designs are seriously compromised by practical considerations, such as size, manufacturing cost, public perception etc, far, far more than actual performance considerations. With the cost (commercial incl labour etc for a manufacturer) and perception aspects removed the DIYer can easily best what is commersially available, and probably for less money, outside the US and secondhand markets. Most commercial products revolve around the how small, how cheap elements of design. There are a few exceptions, but they're few, often expensive, and definitely outside of the average musos field of view.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2008, 06:40 AM   #63
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Getting by on the 2H

For what it's worth, I also play pipe organ. I've produced some serious low frequency energy into the listening room--down to the limit of hearing. On stage, playing with other instruments, the lowest octave of bass frequency energy can really kick up a fuss and produce all sorts of problems. After years and years of fooling around with different situations, "what I believe" is that you can really produce a _lot_ of useful, viable bass energy in a band situation with a solid, even presentation of the 2H, i.e., the standard output of "bass" instrument amplifiers/cabinets. For my upright and electric bass playing (4-string) I have over time moved to comparatively small 15" or 4X10" cabinets with satisfactory results.
__________________
The Tokyo Electric Instrument Supply Company Rocked!
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2008, 10:57 AM   #64
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default Re: Getting by on the 2H

See pt 1 in previous post.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2008, 06:53 AM   #65
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Easier to roll off than boost...

That's a point well taken. It's a comparatively expensive octave as octaves go.
__________________
The Tokyo Electric Instrument Supply Company Rocked!
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2008, 06:52 AM   #66
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Having played bass for 35 years (rock, pop, jazz, blues) I can tell you that 40-15Khz is about right for a 4 string bass and 29-15Khz for a low B tuned 5 string that thread about losing some high frequencies as you get older is true, however I can still percieve sounds up to about 16K-17Khz and I dont hear them coming from my bass check out www.philjonesbass.com
__________________
bassmeknik
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2008, 06:52 AM   #67
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
phil jones bass has a new perspective on bass responce. use lots of small (5 1/2") drivers in reflex boxes with full range capabilities. the stuff is very immpressive. The Amps are designed by G. Randy Sloan of Zus audio, a DIY guru and writer of several books on the subject.
__________________
bassmeknik
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2008, 10:23 AM   #68
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Personally I find the ubiquitous bass sound of today very fatigueing. The heavy use of compression (do the majority of these players know at all that a bass has attack and decay ?) combined with that exaggerated 60 to 120 Hz output is hurting my ears.

Bass for grown-ups has dynamics and is felt with your stomach and your flapping pants but definitely not with your chest alone.

Therefore I also belong to the camp that likes wide-range bass but still knowing that economics sometimes demand otherwise.

Regards

Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2009, 06:16 PM   #69
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Second and higher harmonics--you get that for which you pay--dynamic range.

I'd like to clear up one point regarding harmonics. If you have a 5-string bass playing a low-B at fundamental frequency of 30 Hz you are generating even and odd harmonics at even and odd multiples of that fundamental; e.g. 2nd harmonic (in terms of "pure" theory, the fundamental is the 1st harmonic!) at 60 Hz, 3rd harmonic at 90, 4th harmonic at 120, etc. When you play a B an octave up, with the fundamental frequency at 60 Hz, then the 2nd harmonic is at (roughly--strings don't necessarily vibrate at true integer-multiple harmonics) 120 Hz, the 3rd at 180, the 4th at 240, etc.

You cannot "roll off" or "turn down", "reduce", "dampen", etc., the fundamental of various notes without some sophisticated real-time- or other-digital processing, not a low B, not the highest A, nor any other note! If you roll off your low frequency response, whether through use of an electronic-filter (active-crossover), an electro-magnetic filter (passive-crossover made of resistors, capacitors, or inductors), or an acoustical-filter (reads "cabinet response"; investigate Thiele-Small parameters) with a -3 dB point set at 70 Hz, then any fundamental or harmonic at 70 Hz or lower will be reduced 3 dB or more. The 60 Hz, 2nd harmonic, of a low-B (with fundamental at approx. 30 Hz) will be reduced at least 3 dB (with the fundamental being reduce even more depending on the slope of the filter, i. e. an additional 12 dB with a 12 dB/octave filter). The fundamental of a B-note one octave higher, at 60 Hz, will be reduced an identical amount as the 2nd harmonic of the B-note that is one octave lower, regardless of the fact that one is a fundamental frequency and the other is the first (but we write it "2nd") harmonic of that fundamental frequency which an octave lower.

You can't change that. Those are laws of physics/acoustics/electronics!!

If your cabinet's deep bass response gives you a "muddy response", then your cabinet's deep-bass response is NOT FLAT!!

FLAT RESPONSE, from 20 Hz to 20,000 kHz, is the holy grail of speaker design. Audiophile/home equipment, more easily designed to approach such utopia, such as +/- 0.5 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz which can be found in very high-end equipment, is simply too heavy, too costly, and most importantly not powerful enough at the cost in dollars and pounds (of mass, not English monetary units) to be built with 4" thick oak cabinets lined with lead sheeting and $500-$1500 speakers mounted inside separate internal boxes with crossovers mounted so the magnetic fields propagate in different planes from those produced by the various speakers. Modern bass cabinets are made to be light-weight, easily moved, and have reasonable response.

What is reasonable? Depends on the person. I recently did "Mercedes Benz", a cappella (as Janis recorded it, "in one take", shortly before her death--I practiced it for about 9 years, however), though a Carvin system that was set up so badly that I couldn't hear anything useful out of the monitors, so I listened to the main stage-right speaker (on my left) as my left ear is my good ear. I stopped belting "Benz" out as loudly as had initially when I started hearing popping noises coming from the speaker and thought that I may have been bottoming out the woofer (I'm a bass, I do it a bit lower than Janis did!), backing of the mike a bit. Later, having asked others, they heard no indication that I was bottoming out the woofers (which weren't turned up anywhere near max anyway).

As it turns out, having spent an additional 4 hours (in 2 2-hour marathon sets performed by the singer/rhythm-guitar-player and "proud new" owner of the Carvin equipment) listening to this equipment, I have formed the opinion that those who use light-weight "virgin" polypropylene encased speakers, in small enclosed settings, may have to relearn some of their on-stage-self-monitoring-/listening-skills or they'll be afraid to utilize the equipment at appropriately loud levels due to the noises coming from the sides and backs of the cabs. Those noises are there; they will not go away (short of stuffing the cabs with filing, reinforcing the interior walls, etc., which defeats the purpose of the light-weight cabs).

Conversely, in large indoor venues and most any outdoor venue, the sound coming from the sides, tops, and backs of the cabinets simply will not be a problem because it will not bounce off of any surface close enough to be heard on stage (nor in the audience, as was the case in the small restaurant where I did Benz).

I am an audiophile (audio-junky) that can't hear over 10 kHz. (13 some-odd years ago, a customer brought a speaker, suspecting a blown tweeter, into a stereo store where I then had a repair shop in the back--we tested his speaker using a sine-wave generator and an amp. When we got above 10 kHz, I couldn't hear anything coming out of the tweeter, though my sound level meter told me that the response was not significantly rolled off up to 15 kHz--pretty good high frequency response.) As such, my goal is to design and build a sound-system to support my one-man act (where, using canned vocals I've made and processed previously, I need several light-weight speakers on stage to present several "characters") that will be flat within 1-3 dB throughout the 16-25,000 kHz band-width (the lower-bottom- and higher-top-end requirements are to make more reliable speakers).
As an audiophile, ideally, I'd opt for heavy cabs made out of 3/4" composite board covered with carpet, lined with a lead/gypsum-board internal damper as opposed to virgin polypropylene.

On the other hand, if I had to pack a bunch of stuff around like this guy does, doing one 2 hour show each, on every other Fri. and Sat., I'd opt for lightweight stuff just like he did (28 lb. per 12" woofer/horn unit), and learn to adapt to the cabinet noise instead of packing around 400-600 lb. cabs that are quiet as a grave-yard.

You get what you pay for. When you pay for lighter-weight, more powerful, more transportable equipment, you sacrifice sound quality. If you buy something with a cheap set of speakers (even if it's just bass-instrument speakers/woofers) where you have a lot of peaks in the response curve set into a cabinet that too small to handle them without being stuffed with more fiberglass or rock-wool than is practical, you'll get bass that is alternately boomy or muddy.

If you want audiophile quality in a bass amp/speaker, follow audiophile guidelines for building equipment. If you want to be able to move it around without a bunch of roadies, semis, etc., buy something lightweight. They won't sound alike. They can't. Those laws, mentioned above, are immutable.

Think I'm just ranting . . .

. . . these people (known as "The Grateful Dead") have "been there and done that." --> The Wall of Sound .

Finally, since I'm clearing up misconceptions, the point of sampling and reproduction at rates higher than the 44.1 (or whatever--I'm prematurely old and I forget this stuff--look it up) kHz "CD standard" is not for increased frequency response so much (as we can't hear that anyway, though our dogs might, as mentioned above), like 98 kHz (or whatever, look it up!) as it is for noise-reduction. Anytime you put one mike with one speaker, you make one path for feedback. All other things being equal (or being ignored), at some level of amplification, that combo will feed back--due to those immutable laws! If you add a second microphone, you reduce that absolute point by 3 dB (again, all other things like mike placement being equal). Double those to 4 mikes, and you lose another 3 dB. The same thing happens with recording.

If your noise-floor (look it up!) is -68 dB (utilizing an ultra-quiet studio, the best performance you can get from analog tape, used to make LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes, etc.), you have a maximum dynamic range of 68 dB (when we can hear a range of approx. 200, though not without pain and eventual deafness). If you add a total of 32 microphones (not unusual for recording an orchestra), then you raise your noise floor 3 decibels for each power of 2 required to get 32, or 5 x 3 = 15 dB. So, now your noise floor is -53 dB. That means, the maximum dynamic range you can now fit into your recording is 53 dB. With 16 bit digital recording, the noise floor is reduced (made lower, increased) to approx. (I don't know, I forget, I haven't formally studied this stuff for 15 years--LOOK IT UP!!!) 89 dB. 21 dB is significant! So significant in fact that when people first listened to CDs they were so quiet that a phenomenon called "ghosting" occurred--people simply were so used to that 21 dB of additional noise that it sounded unnatural to them when it was taken away. With 32 bit recording at 196 kB rates, the noise-floor is lowered an additional 70-80 some-odd decibels so that you now have a noise-floor at -160 dB approx., which means you can fit 160 dB of dynamic range into your recording. That means if you had a really, really good hi-fi system, 10 Hz to 100,000 kHz, you could listen to a pin drop at close to 0 dB (10 dB--I'm old, I forget--LOOK IT UP!!), then alternately (at least once), physically inflict pain (feel it in your chest, making your heart beat faster, or slower) on yourself by exceeding rock-n-roll concert levels (110-130 dB) at near 160 dB with true fidelity, so. . .

So what? . . .

What, what? What you say? I've broken too wrong? Oh, I've spoken too long! (Another 366 characters and the site would have made me say "Bye bye!")

Bye, bye.

John
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2009, 10:14 PM   #70
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default highest freq.

heres my take on this..

Highest fundamental on a 4 string is G string at 24th fret.

This is G5= 783.99Hz = MIDI#79

Anything above the 7th Harmonic is so small in amplitude that an audience wont hear it. (remember were talking about bass guitar here, played in bars and other noisy places, not necessarily listented to by audiophiles...)

So: 783.99 X 7 = 5487Hz.

I need to built a low pass filter to remove some hiss from my wireless transmitter, so i'm going to aim for 5.5 as a 3db freq

any thoughts?
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
guitar speaker frequency range voivodata Multi-Way 19 30th September 2011 11:15 AM
Optimum frequency response curves in the bass range The golden mean Subwoofers 8 30th June 2008 05:22 PM
Frequency range of the human voice & full range center channel speakers jwmbro Multi-Way 31 20th January 2008 03:07 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2