Re: Too much bass frequency
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.
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.deluxedoc said:
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.deluxedoc said:
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.
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.deluxedoc said:
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
Re: highest freq.
But all of that is moot; most BG cabs on the market are not engineered flat anyway, they have a sound that they think is best or will differentiate them in the marketplace.
Finally, since I'm clearing up misconceptions,[/B][/QUOTE]No, you're ranting. You are not the only experienced bassist or engineer/tech to post here.
None of that was ever unclear.JohnEEADBL said:
This is clearly what I meant in earlier posts.JohnEEADBL said:
In a club or other enclosed venue, then the room will play a major part in the acoustics and there is nothing you can do but move the rig a bit, or EQ to make the best of it. Muddiness may also not simply be an FR issue.JohnEEADBL said:
But all of that is moot; most BG cabs on the market are not engineered flat anyway, they have a sound that they think is best or will differentiate them in the marketplace.
And since then outfits like Danley Sound, Meyer, Clair Bros Funktion One amongst others have taken it to a higher level than the WOS ever achieved.JohnEEADBL said:
Finally, since I'm clearing up misconceptions,[/B][/QUOTE]No, you're ranting. You are not the only experienced bassist or engineer/tech to post here.
Worth trying especially if you can borrow an xover and try it on the bench this way. If it works, use it, if not you can try other settings and see if they make an improvement.albertofrog said:
I've been looking at a few of the older 'vintage' bass combos/boxes to see if I can get something to match my old Maton Lute bass (like the Easybeats used to have - short neck so I don't need to go too low).
A lot of the 60's and early 70's cabinets made locally used to use one or more of the full-range Plessey (or Rola) 12" drivers (Fs ~40Hz and theoretical FR from 35-15kHz). Of course, mounting them in sealed boxes (or open back boxes) generally meant an f3 of ~70Hz or higher, but a fairly smooth rolloff below that.
Ally that to the fat sound of the Playmaster or Goldentone tube amps that were used for a lot of these units and you get a pretty good sound, even if the extension isn't that great.
The only hassle...trying to find any of them cheap. No way - I can't even find the drivers for cheap.
A lot of the 60's and early 70's cabinets made locally used to use one or more of the full-range Plessey (or Rola) 12" drivers (Fs ~40Hz and theoretical FR from 35-15kHz). Of course, mounting them in sealed boxes (or open back boxes) generally meant an f3 of ~70Hz or higher, but a fairly smooth rolloff below that.
Ally that to the fat sound of the Playmaster or Goldentone tube amps that were used for a lot of these units and you get a pretty good sound, even if the extension isn't that great.
The only hassle...trying to find any of them cheap. No way - I can't even find the drivers for cheap.
I'm building a custom guitar amp this month (hybrid tube per-amp with MOSFET output power stage).
ALL pro-level guitar amps, bass or whatever, pass 20 to 20k audio without "early or late" rolloff on either end = flat response +/- 1 or 2 db. Some bass only pre-amps and amps may extend this range down to 5 Hertz ... or not. Within the pre-amp section there may or may not be knobs for tone adjustment and "eq" for cut or boost. Lots of older tube amps and many highend tube amps have utilities for external "fx" plugin and pass through ... or not.
Most changes or adjustments to the basic freq response should be done either within the guitar pickup electronics or in the speaker box acoustics = In My Opinion and that of others.
"Hey, Charley. Can I borrow your amp for this next song? Mine doesn't hit the tweeters ..." ... = no adjustable mid or high boost or cut.
ALL pro-level guitar amps, bass or whatever, pass 20 to 20k audio without "early or late" rolloff on either end = flat response +/- 1 or 2 db. Some bass only pre-amps and amps may extend this range down to 5 Hertz ... or not. Within the pre-amp section there may or may not be knobs for tone adjustment and "eq" for cut or boost. Lots of older tube amps and many highend tube amps have utilities for external "fx" plugin and pass through ... or not.
Most changes or adjustments to the basic freq response should be done either within the guitar pickup electronics or in the speaker box acoustics = In My Opinion and that of others.
"Hey, Charley. Can I borrow your amp for this next song? Mine doesn't hit the tweeters ..." ... = no adjustable mid or high boost or cut.
I stumbled into this thread. I know I'm a year and a half late to the party.
The speaker is only part of the equation. With passive, high impedance pickups, the fundamental of the lowest note, can be poorly produced. The higher the impedance, the more this is the case. With a 5 string, it's even more the case, as with the lowest notes (below E) the fundamental is rarely produced.
It's not much of a problem, as our ears/brains, hear the 2nd and 4th harmonics and fill in the missing bass.
So is a bass rig that can produce the fundamental of the low E or even the low B necessary? Maybe not.
When Ampeg first produced the SVT, the ad copy bragged that a selling point of the SVT was that it did NOT produce the fundamental of the low E. This improved the sound, as the sound stage was not cluttered with those low fundamentals, making the bass more easily heard and enjoyed.
With active pickups, the actual windings are usually lower impedance, relying on the internal preamp to provide the desired volume level. These pickups CAN produce the fundamental. A bass with piezo bridges, the same. The limits here are the low end of the preamps used.
I have used active pickup basses for 20+ years. I do notice the difference, and often the main difference is the stress on the speakers I use. The sub frequencies can be felt more than heard, and sometimes the speaker excursion shows high output, but the actual volume heard is not that great.
I play 5 string, have piezo pickups on my main bass, and active, low impedance pickups in my other basses. I often use a sub generator, but even then, use a highpass filter on my amp to take out the sub freq's that are inaudible...mostly for the sake of the speakers.
The speaker is only part of the equation. With passive, high impedance pickups, the fundamental of the lowest note, can be poorly produced. The higher the impedance, the more this is the case. With a 5 string, it's even more the case, as with the lowest notes (below E) the fundamental is rarely produced.
It's not much of a problem, as our ears/brains, hear the 2nd and 4th harmonics and fill in the missing bass.
So is a bass rig that can produce the fundamental of the low E or even the low B necessary? Maybe not.
When Ampeg first produced the SVT, the ad copy bragged that a selling point of the SVT was that it did NOT produce the fundamental of the low E. This improved the sound, as the sound stage was not cluttered with those low fundamentals, making the bass more easily heard and enjoyed.
With active pickups, the actual windings are usually lower impedance, relying on the internal preamp to provide the desired volume level. These pickups CAN produce the fundamental. A bass with piezo bridges, the same. The limits here are the low end of the preamps used.
I have used active pickup basses for 20+ years. I do notice the difference, and often the main difference is the stress on the speakers I use. The sub frequencies can be felt more than heard, and sometimes the speaker excursion shows high output, but the actual volume heard is not that great.
I play 5 string, have piezo pickups on my main bass, and active, low impedance pickups in my other basses. I often use a sub generator, but even then, use a highpass filter on my amp to take out the sub freq's that are inaudible...mostly for the sake of the speakers.
Surprisingly , no dedicated bass amp combo ever sounded as well
as an amplifier head connected to a 3 way PA cabinet , namely ,
a Zeck PA 15/3 Mini Proline , mounted with an Electrovoice 400W speaker,
a medium from Audax , the tweeter being variable , with a ribbon version.
as an amplifier head connected to a 3 way PA cabinet , namely ,
a Zeck PA 15/3 Mini Proline , mounted with an Electrovoice 400W speaker,
a medium from Audax , the tweeter being variable , with a ribbon version.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Turn all the knobs to zero
I'm almost always smiling through reading from the first post on. I would think the frequency range of tones, overtones, and all their harmonics is wider, probably for any instrument, than we would initially credit them. I'm thinking of a fingernail scratching over a wound string and I think that's very rich sound. I think it's nearly impossible to talk about 'the tone of' any amplified musical instrument because so much of the tone is in the amplification chain rather than what the instrument 'sounds' (without amplification) like. I never liked trying to judge the quality of a stereo system by listening to amplified musical instruments. Even the 'input' chain of amplification to get it recorded to some media is troublesome enough and colors the sound. That's bad enough, leave the 'output' side out of the equation! So, if you asked me, I'd say you want to 'hear' flat from 20 to 20k Hz. You get to go pick whatever you want to emphasize about it with your amplifiers. Nobody's taste is right or wrong, it's nothing but their own. Me? I'll take the big old stand up bass with no amp in a reasonably small, warm, quiet room, played by someone who can pluck, strum and bow, with 'handmade' dynamics, and just sit back and continue to smile! (Hmm...I wonder if, in essence, "DIY" doesn't mean without an amplifier.)
I'm almost always smiling through reading from the first post on. I would think the frequency range of tones, overtones, and all their harmonics is wider, probably for any instrument, than we would initially credit them. I'm thinking of a fingernail scratching over a wound string and I think that's very rich sound. I think it's nearly impossible to talk about 'the tone of' any amplified musical instrument because so much of the tone is in the amplification chain rather than what the instrument 'sounds' (without amplification) like. I never liked trying to judge the quality of a stereo system by listening to amplified musical instruments. Even the 'input' chain of amplification to get it recorded to some media is troublesome enough and colors the sound. That's bad enough, leave the 'output' side out of the equation! So, if you asked me, I'd say you want to 'hear' flat from 20 to 20k Hz. You get to go pick whatever you want to emphasize about it with your amplifiers. Nobody's taste is right or wrong, it's nothing but their own. Me? I'll take the big old stand up bass with no amp in a reasonably small, warm, quiet room, played by someone who can pluck, strum and bow, with 'handmade' dynamics, and just sit back and continue to smile! (Hmm...I wonder if, in essence, "DIY" doesn't mean without an amplifier.)
It really is. We create very low frequency signals when we pluck the strings, and very high frequency signals if we scratch them (I'm a bassist, and I do this a lot, not to mention the effects of my overdrive stomp box). But I see the topic as a "which frequencies are relevant", rather than "all frequencies there are". Or even "relevant enough to double the size, weight, cost and power consumption of your system".
Tone is a different thing. It carries a lot from the instrument, a lot from the electronics and speaker, and also from the player. But the thread is about the whole range of frequencies which should be reproduced, so this would include all "tones".
Interesting thought, but you can DIY amplifers and tones...
Best regards,
Emerson
My laughter was caused by how far the topic went astray. From what is the 'frequency range' to page after page of 'what amps, instruments, speakers, cabinets'!
I agree with your reply. Mostly. I won't quibble. I apologize for any misuse of verbiage, but you seem to have gotten my point. My point could be restated as "there is no 'reference' from which you can compare an amplified instrument". Strictly, I don't think that's true but we'll touch on that after I spew some more.
Example: The components: A violinist, a violin and bow, in a room, a 'perfect' microphone, and a listener in the room, ears at the microphone point, some distance away from the violinist. The listener hears the sound, stores a large amount of information. A 'perfect' recording device records it from the 'perfect microphone'. That information the listener gathers is based on all of the components above. The reference is based on the combination of all of those component. This is about a simple an acoustic 'reference' as I could think of. No amplifiers in the production of the sound experience.
Listener then goes to a superb, 'perfect', stereo system, in a perfect room, from the 'perfect' spot, and listens to the recording made as a reference. Compares that information with what he already had gotten. I contend that most of us would hear differences. There are no 'perfect' devices as listed in the example. But, the 'reference' as an information experience, not recording, has been established. The 'reference' sound and the recorded sound in this example are about as simple as I can think of.
Yet the violin 'reference' is really only what only 'that' one violin sounded like in 'that' room, played by only 'that' violinist, to 'that' listener (along with 'that' microphone in the room). It really can't be used as a reference for any other set of components. I really ought not judge anything else by it.
'Very well,I contradict myself. I contain multitudes'. (Walt Whitman)
So, to that end, I could turn it around and say that a bassist, with a bass, amplified, in a room with a listener and a device constitute the 'reference'. That seems true enough, but much less simple than the unamplified scenario. Much harder to make comparisons from.
This intellectual cr_p I'm spouting is just that though. I love going to hear a hard driving bass line under a bunch of tastefully played electrified instruments and singer pounding on me. I know I love it. That's an experience for which there need not be a reference. I should get a life, get a stereo.
'It took me twenty years to learn all the notes on the piano, and another twenty to learn which ones I could leave out'. (Duke Ellington)
I agree with your reply. Mostly. I won't quibble. I apologize for any misuse of verbiage, but you seem to have gotten my point. My point could be restated as "there is no 'reference' from which you can compare an amplified instrument". Strictly, I don't think that's true but we'll touch on that after I spew some more.
Example: The components: A violinist, a violin and bow, in a room, a 'perfect' microphone, and a listener in the room, ears at the microphone point, some distance away from the violinist. The listener hears the sound, stores a large amount of information. A 'perfect' recording device records it from the 'perfect microphone'. That information the listener gathers is based on all of the components above. The reference is based on the combination of all of those component. This is about a simple an acoustic 'reference' as I could think of. No amplifiers in the production of the sound experience.
Listener then goes to a superb, 'perfect', stereo system, in a perfect room, from the 'perfect' spot, and listens to the recording made as a reference. Compares that information with what he already had gotten. I contend that most of us would hear differences. There are no 'perfect' devices as listed in the example. But, the 'reference' as an information experience, not recording, has been established. The 'reference' sound and the recorded sound in this example are about as simple as I can think of.
Yet the violin 'reference' is really only what only 'that' one violin sounded like in 'that' room, played by only 'that' violinist, to 'that' listener (along with 'that' microphone in the room). It really can't be used as a reference for any other set of components. I really ought not judge anything else by it.
'Very well,I contradict myself. I contain multitudes'. (Walt Whitman)
So, to that end, I could turn it around and say that a bassist, with a bass, amplified, in a room with a listener and a device constitute the 'reference'. That seems true enough, but much less simple than the unamplified scenario. Much harder to make comparisons from.
This intellectual cr_p I'm spouting is just that though. I love going to hear a hard driving bass line under a bunch of tastefully played electrified instruments and singer pounding on me. I know I love it. That's an experience for which there need not be a reference. I should get a life, get a stereo.
'It took me twenty years to learn all the notes on the piano, and another twenty to learn which ones I could leave out'. (Duke Ellington)
Hmmm . . . ranting? Mwah?
Well, maybe . . . [chuckle]
I [re-]stumbled across this thread looking for [again--I take poor notes when I'm ranting] the frequency range of bass-guitars as I'm contemplating building a box for a bass player [I gave it up many years ago, when I came home, drunk, and Pete-Townshend--ed my last bass; I was frustrated at the fact that my brain and my fingers are just never going to get together, as my brain runs several times faster than my fingers, especially now that I haven't had a drink for half my life--now 56].
But, I digress . . .
. . .
If you really think the brains' ability to "supply" the missing fundamental, missing 1st harmonic (which is really 2 X fundamental-frequency, hereinafter "f"), and missing 2nd harmonic (3 x f!) of a low bass-guitar note with as much "gusto", as much "presence", as much "emphasis", giving you as much perceived aesthetic enjoyment of a full-freqency-range-performance, get an old table radio (not a Bose WaveRadio or whatever they call it; they play "psychological/acoustical" "tricks" with it), your laptop computer (sans external speakers), etc. and listen to Geddy Lee play bass (I just did that the other night on Palladia, using a good, but old pair of RadioShack (award-winning, partially for flat-frequency response from approx' 20Hz to 20KHz). You can turn that old table radio, laptop, etc. up as loud as you want, you're not going to hear the deep bass--even though your brain's saying you are--like you hear it with a good amp/PA combination, with the PA adding the bottom-end the bass-amp doesn't have! It just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Again, sans the parenthetical comments: . . .
If you really think the brains' ability to "supply" the missing fundamental, missing 1st harmonic, and missing 2nd harmonic of a low bass-guitar note with as much [deleted] enjoyment of a full-freqency-range-performance, get an old table radio [deleted] and listen to Geddy Lee play bass . . . You can turn that old table radio . . . up as loud as you want, you're not going to hear the deep bass--even though your brain's saying you are--like you hear it with a good amp/PA combination, with the PA adding the bottom-end the bass-amp doesn't have! It just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Now, that's (repeating one's self, shouting--USING ALL CAPS INAPPROPRIATELY, etc.) ranting.
Often times people read stuff online and think that the incomplete information they've been given by people who seem to know what they are talking about is complete. Completing (or attempting to) that information, clearing up misconceptions and falsehoods, etc. is not ranting. It's completing (or attempting to) that information, clearing up misconceptions and falsehoods, etc. I.e. the first harmonic of any fundamental is twice the frequency of the fundamental frequency. As incorrectly used above, 2H is actually three times the fundamental frequency as it is the second harmonic.
Now, about mush on stage: if you don't know what you're doing (aside from having a speaker with non-flat frequency response), you can make anything mush up (including professionally produced, #1 hits) anywhere by simply playing something back too loud through a system that is not capable of playing [whatever--Geddy Lee's bass, Philip Auberg's organ, etc. Who's Auberg, you say? Google it!].
Or, simply stated: improperly reproduced sound, low-frequency or hi-, tends to mush up.
Try listening--if you can--to a 5-string bass just through a good, properly setup PA sometime! Try listening to it by itself, no rhythm or lead guitars, no keys, no vox (You'll notice I left out drums--Marshall Tucker/Bears Stadium/1974-->10 minute drum solo and additional 15+minutes of drum/bass duet)! If you can't marvel at the deep bass beauty, either the player is playing wrong, the bass guitar is messed up (not tuned properly, controls set badly, etc.), the DI/pedal is messed up, or the amp-speaker/PA is messed up. Or, your head is: ??
?? [chuckle] J/K
Much of the "top-end" of the bass-guitar is intentionally cut to keep it from "swamping" the lead vox and all guitars, higher keys' parts, etc.
Much of the "mud" that occurs on stage is because you've got open drum mics (kick, snare, toms primarily, but all overheads/cymbals also), open vox mics, and they're all picking up the bass (which is very non-directional, which flows everywhere in a hemispherical pattern from the ground/stage up). Thus, you're getting phase-addition and phase-cancellation problems up the wazoo (properly called "massive 'comb-filtering'") which creates the 'mud'.
I watched someone (can't remember the year, whether it was Boston's sound man, Pure Prairie Leagues'--nope, wasn't them: the front man was screaming "turn up the [deleted] fiddler" at one point when the fiddle player was soloing at almost unheard levels) engineer a big-name rock show, in the last 3 years. While he could have done it differently (he was the "guest-engineer" on a PA hired for that one event), he had four-faders, one under each of the four fingers on his right-hand (why he didn't group and mute/unmute? old-school?), and every time they stopped singing on stage, whoooooosh!, those faders got cut to -infinity. Then, just a fraction of a second before they'd start singing, whoooooosh!, up the faders would go. Whoooooosh! up and whoooooooosh! down. Every vocal! EVERY VOCAL.
(Sanitized) I watched someone engineer a big-name rock show, in the last 3 years. [Deleted] [H]e had four-faders, [deleted] and every time they stopped singing on stage, those faders [immediately] got cut to -infinity. Then, just a fraction of a second before they'd start singing [the faders--in unison, when all 4 vocalists were going to sing, or 1, 2, or 3 faders for 1, 2, or 3 vocalists--would go up!]
Guess what? NO mud. Very deep bass when appropriate (as long as one wasn't sitting in a 'power-valley'--go ask Dave Rat; it's his term; but, that's another story). Very clear vocals (well, except for the crackling in the PA, but, that's another story). Very good guitar and keyboard solos. Very good instrumental harmonies. All because someone knew what they were doing, did it properly, etc.
My guess is they learned, like I did (learn what I've learned; I ain't learned it all), by not trusting incomplete or incorrect information. If that's ranting, then, it's a required rant!
Thanks.
Sincerely,
John
PS Have a nice day.
PPS Fundamental: f, 1st Harmonic: 2 * f, 2nd Harmonic: 3 * f, 3rd Harmonic: 4 * f, etc 
!!!NOT!!!---><---!!!NOT!!!
PPPS Who knows? Maybe in another year or two, having [probably] re-forgotten that bass-guitar frequency range, I may re-read this thread and re-read what I re-re-wrote! chuckle
pppps guffaw
Well, maybe . . . [chuckle]
I [re-]stumbled across this thread looking for [again--I take poor notes when I'm ranting] the frequency range of bass-guitars as I'm contemplating building a box for a bass player [I gave it up many years ago, when I came home, drunk, and Pete-Townshend--ed my last bass; I was frustrated at the fact that my brain and my fingers are just never going to get together, as my brain runs several times faster than my fingers, especially now that I haven't had a drink for half my life--now 56].
But, I digress . . .
. . .
If you really think the brains' ability to "supply" the missing fundamental, missing 1st harmonic (which is really 2 X fundamental-frequency, hereinafter "f"), and missing 2nd harmonic (3 x f!) of a low bass-guitar note with as much "gusto", as much "presence", as much "emphasis", giving you as much perceived aesthetic enjoyment of a full-freqency-range-performance, get an old table radio (not a Bose WaveRadio or whatever they call it; they play "psychological/acoustical" "tricks" with it), your laptop computer (sans external speakers), etc. and listen to Geddy Lee play bass (I just did that the other night on Palladia, using a good, but old pair of RadioShack (award-winning, partially for flat-frequency response from approx' 20Hz to 20KHz). You can turn that old table radio, laptop, etc. up as loud as you want, you're not going to hear the deep bass--even though your brain's saying you are--like you hear it with a good amp/PA combination, with the PA adding the bottom-end the bass-amp doesn't have! It just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Again, sans the parenthetical comments: . . .
If you really think the brains' ability to "supply" the missing fundamental, missing 1st harmonic, and missing 2nd harmonic of a low bass-guitar note with as much [deleted] enjoyment of a full-freqency-range-performance, get an old table radio [deleted] and listen to Geddy Lee play bass . . . You can turn that old table radio . . . up as loud as you want, you're not going to hear the deep bass--even though your brain's saying you are--like you hear it with a good amp/PA combination, with the PA adding the bottom-end the bass-amp doesn't have! It just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Now, that's (repeating one's self, shouting--USING ALL CAPS INAPPROPRIATELY, etc.) ranting.
Often times people read stuff online and think that the incomplete information they've been given by people who seem to know what they are talking about is complete. Completing (or attempting to) that information, clearing up misconceptions and falsehoods, etc. is not ranting. It's completing (or attempting to) that information, clearing up misconceptions and falsehoods, etc. I.e. the first harmonic of any fundamental is twice the frequency of the fundamental frequency. As incorrectly used above, 2H is actually three times the fundamental frequency as it is the second harmonic.
Now, about mush on stage: if you don't know what you're doing (aside from having a speaker with non-flat frequency response), you can make anything mush up (including professionally produced, #1 hits) anywhere by simply playing something back too loud through a system that is not capable of playing [whatever--Geddy Lee's bass, Philip Auberg's organ, etc. Who's Auberg, you say? Google it!
].Or, simply stated: improperly reproduced sound, low-frequency or hi-, tends to mush up.
Try listening--if you can--to a 5-string bass just through a good, properly setup PA sometime! Try listening to it by itself, no rhythm or lead guitars, no keys, no vox (You'll notice I left out drums--Marshall Tucker/Bears Stadium/1974-->10 minute drum solo and additional 15+minutes of drum/bass duet
)! If you can't marvel at the deep bass beauty, either the player is playing wrong, the bass guitar is messed up (not tuned properly, controls set badly, etc.), the DI/pedal is messed up, or the amp-speaker/PA is messed up. Or, your head is: ???? [chuckle] J/KMuch of the "top-end" of the bass-guitar is intentionally cut to keep it from "swamping" the lead vox and all guitars, higher keys' parts, etc.
Much of the "mud" that occurs on stage is because you've got open drum mics (kick, snare, toms primarily, but all overheads/cymbals also), open vox mics, and they're all picking up the bass (which is very non-directional, which flows everywhere in a hemispherical pattern from the ground/stage up). Thus, you're getting phase-addition and phase-cancellation problems up the wazoo (properly called "massive 'comb-filtering'") which creates the 'mud'.
I watched someone (can't remember the year, whether it was Boston's sound man, Pure Prairie Leagues'--nope, wasn't them: the front man was screaming "turn up the [deleted] fiddler" at one point when the fiddle player was soloing at almost unheard levels) engineer a big-name rock show, in the last 3 years. While he could have done it differently (he was the "guest-engineer" on a PA hired for that one event), he had four-faders, one under each of the four fingers on his right-hand (why he didn't group and mute/unmute? old-school?), and every time they stopped singing on stage, whoooooosh!, those faders got cut to -infinity. Then, just a fraction of a second before they'd start singing, whoooooosh!, up the faders would go. Whoooooosh! up and whoooooooosh! down. Every vocal! EVERY VOCAL.
(Sanitized) I watched someone engineer a big-name rock show, in the last 3 years. [Deleted] [H]e had four-faders, [deleted] and every time they stopped singing on stage, those faders [immediately] got cut to -infinity. Then, just a fraction of a second before they'd start singing [the faders--in unison, when all 4 vocalists were going to sing, or 1, 2, or 3 faders for 1, 2, or 3 vocalists--would go up!]
Guess what? NO mud. Very deep bass when appropriate (as long as one wasn't sitting in a 'power-valley'--go ask Dave Rat; it's his term; but, that's another story). Very clear vocals (well, except for the crackling in the PA, but, that's another story). Very good guitar and keyboard solos. Very good instrumental harmonies. All because someone knew what they were doing, did it properly, etc.
My guess is they learned, like I did (learn what I've learned; I ain't learned it all
), by not trusting incomplete or incorrect information. If that's ranting, then, it's a required rant!Thanks.
Sincerely,
John
PS Have a nice day.
PPS
Fundamental: f, 1st Harmonic: 2 * f, 2nd Harmonic: 3 * f, 3rd Harmonic: 4 * f, etc !!!NOT!!!--->
<---!!!NOT!!!PPPS Who knows? Maybe in another year or two, having [probably] re-forgotten that bass-guitar frequency range, I may re-read this thread and re-read what I re-re-wrote! chuckle
pppps guffaw
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.