Heads-up: SpaceStation keyboard amp is apparently back

[elif]

Whether it is because of "higher" or "cleaner" gain is not really important to me (though I admit to a bit of intellectual curiosity). I just was checking to see whether I was correct that the volume may at least seem louder when using a mixer (even with just one keyboard).

 

I think that there is agreement on this point, right, even if there is a debate whether this is due to a "higher" or "cleaner" gain?

If that is the case then it could be that when the gain is turned up on the SS to accomodate a low-ish level drive signal then it clips at an early stage before the output stage does. Whereas if a larger drive signal is provided and the SS is run at a lower gain it would clip the output stage first (and be louder thereby). This is pure speculation.

 

Regarding the mixer thing, as b3plyr said, if you follow a source with an amplifier you cannot improve the overall SNR over that of the source, only degrade it. Hence, using a mixer between the source and the SS does not produce a "cleaner" signal into the SS than the source by itself. However, when b3plyr conceded a point to MathOfInsects he introduced a wrinkle; he was referring to the SNR at the output of the SS whereas MathOfInsects was referring to the input. The output SNR is what you really care about anyway - what it sounds like. In this case of cascaded amplifiers (mixer and SS), the overall noise figure is set by the characteristics of each cascaded stage. So depending on noise figure and gain settings of the mixer and of the SS, the overall noise figure could be better or it could be worse than the SS alone.

[MotiDave]

We shared the stage with a Deep Purple tribute last night. Hangin' with the keys player at load-in, pre sound check, etc ... things draggin due to the usual non-keyboardist rock slowdown reasons (generally drummers and guitarists, am I right?).

 

anyway, we're back stage in the green room where some are gathering some elements of gear to keep the stage clear for first band to check. we've been joking around awhile, turns out we know alot of mutual guys ... and he says "check this out, ... you're gonna dig this ..."

 

and he opens his rolling case and pulls out a ss3.

 

I responded "huh, never heard of it". (lol, then I told him I have heard just a bit about it).

 

he sounded great. i heard alot more FOH than ss3 so not really sure what total influence there was. i suspect its just the timeless kickass licks of Sir Lord ... dang i dig that stuff still!

[b3plyr]

Whether it is because of "higher" or "cleaner" gain is not really important to me (though I admit to a bit of intellectual curiosity). I just was checking to see whether I was correct that the volume may at least seem louder when using a mixer (even with just one keyboard).

 

I think that there is agreement on this point, right, even if there is a debate whether this is due to a "higher" or "cleaner" gain?

If that is the case then it could be that when the gain is turned up on the SS to accomodate a low-ish level drive signal then it clips at an early stage before the output stage does. Whereas if a larger drive signal is provided and the SS is run at a lower gain it would clip the output stage first (and be louder thereby). This is pure speculation.

 

Regarding the mixer thing, as b3plyr said, if you follow a source with an amplifier you cannot improve the overall SNR over that of the source, only degrade it. Hence, using a mixer between the source and the SS does not produce a "cleaner" signal into the SS than the source by itself. However, when b3plyr conceded a point to MathOfInsects he introduced a wrinkle; he was referring to the SNR at the output of the SS whereas MathOfInsects was referring to the input. The output SNR is what you really care about anyway - what it sounds like. In this case of cascaded amplifiers (mixer and SS), the overall noise figure is set by the characteristics of each cascaded stage. So depending on noise figure and gain settings of the mixer and of the SS, the overall noise figure could be better or it could be worse than the SS alone.

 

Agree, and well put, elseif! Much clearer than my post. NF is the right way to think about it.

[MotiDave]

i think the point is that few-to-no electronic devices operate perfectly linear and devices are generally not optimized for the furthest max extreme - they are optimized for the intended more middle-ish operating range. if the input signal is so low that you have to crank to 11 to get the decibels you desire, you're likely not in the sweet spot of that device.

 

unless you're in Spinal Tap.

[RandyFF]

So, with no clip light on the SS, how do we know when we're overloading the input? I'm using a little Behringer mixer for mic and keys. I've got the mixer set conservatively as far as I can tell, the signal light at -20 barely comes on, and as far as I know this is a -10, not a +4 board.

 

I finally just brought the master mixer fader down and turned the SS volume up to compensate to about 3:00. A lot of folks here talk about never needing to go past about 12:00' and of course the higher I turn up the SS the more noise I'm introducing, esp since without a clip light on the input stage of the SS I have no idea how to set the incoming level short of hearing distortion.

 

With so many folks using mixer there has to be a solution for this!

[MathOfInsects]

If that is the case then it could be that when the gain is turned up on the SS to accomodate a low-ish level drive signal then it clips at an early stage before the output stage does. Whereas if a larger drive signal is provided and the SS is run at a lower gain it would clip the output stage first (and be louder thereby). This is pure speculation.

 

^^^^^ This one.

 

Sorry to have been so terse last week. I did not mean SNR, though I certainly didn't help things with my shorthand.

 

I simply meant that signal straight from the keyboard tends to clip more easily with the SS3 than does keyboard>mixer>SS3, with lower volume at the source but gained to the same apparent volume at the mixer stage.

[MathOfInsects]

We shared the stage with a Deep Purple tribute last night. Hangin' with the keys player at load-in, pre sound check, etc ... things draggin due to the usual non-keyboardist rock slowdown reasons (generally drummers and guitarists, am I right?).

 

anyway, we're back stage in the green room where some are gathering some elements of gear to keep the stage clear for first band to check. we've been joking around awhile, turns out we know alot of mutual guys ... and he says "check this out, ... you're gonna dig this ..."

 

and he opens his rolling case and pulls out a ss3.

 

I responded "huh, never heard of it". (lol, then I told him I have heard just a bit about it).

 

he sounded great. i heard alot more FOH than ss3 so not really sure what total influence there was. i suspect its just the timeless kickass licks of Sir Lord ... dang i dig that stuff still!

 

It's an established fact that Jon Lord used an SS3 on the 1974 Burn tour. He preferred it vertical. He added the Vent II the following year.

[SteveCA]

I took the plunge and picked up a Behringer B1200D-Pro sub. It's a great "companion" piece for the SS3. Here's a recording of a rehearsal for a performance of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue where I performed on a Steinway B and my accompanist, Kay Hooper, played the orchestra part on a Roland A-88, running Ivory II Steinway D through a SS3 and the B1200D sub.

 

 

 

[Gregory Roig]

Is there anything in the works for owners of earlier Spacestations and SFX 100s? Or will these new upgrades work with them as well as SS Mark 2 units? Suggestions?

[Gregory Roig]

Any updates available (or suggestions) for improving older models like the SFX 100?

[MotiDave]

We shared the stage with a Deep Purple tribute last night. Hangin' with the keys player at load-in, pre sound check, etc ... things draggin due to the usual non-keyboardist rock slowdown reasons (generally drummers and guitarists, am I right?).

 

anyway, we're back stage in the green room where some are gathering some elements of gear to keep the stage clear for first band to check. we've been joking around awhile, turns out we know alot of mutual guys ... and he says "check this out, ... you're gonna dig this ..."

 

and he opens his rolling case and pulls out a ss3.

 

I responded "huh, never heard of it". (lol, then I told him I have heard just a bit about it).

 

he sounded great. i heard alot more FOH than ss3 so not really sure what total influence there was. i suspect its just the timeless kickass licks of Sir Lord ... dang i dig that stuff still!

 

It's an established fact that Jon Lord used an SS3 on the 1974 Burn tour. He preferred it vertical. He added the Vent II the following year.

 

Jon Jr placed it horizontal on the floor, tilted back against the legs of my amp stand that held my mono ELX112P high and proud above its ss3 head. er, torso. er, whatever.

 

fun gig. Both solutions sounded great imo

[MathOfInsects]

How did Jon Jr do? That's a tough gig to get right.

[Aspen]

I took the plunge and picked up a Behringer B1200D-Pro sub. It's a great "companion" piece for the SS3. Here's a recording of a rehearsal for a performance of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue where I performed on a Steinway B and my accompanist, Kay Hooper, played the orchestra part on a Roland A-88, running Ivory II Steinway D through a SS3 and the B1200D sub.

 

 

 

Great performance, and an interesting pairing of the old and our (very) new Spacestation...wish I could have heard it live! Amazingly, the recording was pretty good and they blended well together when heard thru headphones (not laptop speakers) Thanks for sharing Steve!

[zaphod betamax]

Has anyone ran a hardware compressor post mixing board and pre Centre Point Stereo (Canadian spelling) for live work.

 

My Blofelds and JX-3Ps can have some wild transients and I may delve into experimenting with this.

[Aspen]

Is there anything in the works for owners of earlier Spacestations and SFX 100s? Or will these new upgrades work with them as well as SS Mark 2 units? Suggestions?

 

Any updates available (or suggestions) for improving older models like the SFX 100?

 

Gregor, I do believe the component change out alone would be a welcome improvement, no doubt.

 

FYI, the SFX100 and Spacestation were "rushed" into production for the customer in time to meet the Christmas push (Guitar Center), so my regret was that we didn't have the time to do the computer modeling and "shaping" required to really get the most balanced FR out of the small format cabinet...sadly. So the sound was a bit too "midrangy" for me, and many who use AP for example (still, the CPS effect sold many of these for the B3 clone guys).

(NOTE: the amp and speakers were the same in both the SFX100 and Spacestation, only the SFX100 had a vocal mic pre w/ the Alesis Hall reverb chip)

That said, the addition of the newer USA Eminence coax, the improved Side speaker, and the 2 L-pads to dial back the mid horn (especially) should allow the user some shaping in of itself...and should improve the overall sound noticeably.

I have to confess, I have not tried it myself...I just have no time in my life right now with several new product projects in hand, and also running my recording studio whose business has picked up lately (thank God!).

But the components should fit right in, and the basic DIY Guide I published for the "MK2.3" upgrade kits should still apply as the cabs are fairly similar.

 

Frankly this is not the first time somebody has asked me about this, and while my "suspicion" is that it may be well worth the effort and expense, I'd hate to recommend this based solely on "my educated guess". So I'd love to hear from somebody (like you Greg) as to how much improvement can be achieved in the early "V.1" series.

 

In fact as I think about this (again), I'll make you an offer Greg..."a Keyboard Corner first"; I'll ship you one "C" kit free (the full upgrade kit w/ all 3 speaker components + 2 L-pads)...and you can be our "Beta Tester"...on the sole condition that you report back here and send me a report, maybe take a few pictures as you go so we can post that up on the CPS site. That will let us all know how it worked out! Deal?

[RandyFF]

Still no suggestions for the question posed at the top of this page?

 

Any way to confidently set mix levels from my mixer going to SS? I'm not showing clipping on my mixer and the SS is only turned up to 12-1:00 and I'm hearing distortion. No clip lights on input stage on the SS which is where I imagine the distortion is taking place.

[Raymb1]

So, with no clip light on the SS, how do we know when we're overloading the input? I'm using a little Behringer mixer for mic and keys. I've got the mixer set conservatively as far as I can tell, the signal light at -20 barely comes on, and as far as I know this is a -10, not a +4 board.

 

I finally just brought the master mixer fader down and turned the SS volume up to compensate to about 3:00. A lot of folks here talk about never needing to go past about 12:00' and of course the higher I turn up the SS the more noise I'm introducing, esp since without a clip light on the input stage of the SS I have no idea how to set the incoming level short of hearing distortion.

 

 

 

With so many folks using mixer there has to be a solution for this!

 

Have you already tried turning down the Gain (Attenuator)? If that is too high you'll get distortion.

[Aspen]

Still no suggestions for the question posed at the top of this page?

 

Any way to confidently set mix levels from my mixer going to SS? I'm not showing clipping on my mixer and the SS is only turned up to 12-1:00 and I'm hearing distortion. No clip lights on input stage on the SS which is where I imagine the distortion is taking place.

 

OK, I think I'd like to chime in here at this point. I think a lot of good advice has been distributed here on this issue, and I do not take issue with any of it...you all have made some good points.

 

But Randelph still feels the question has not been fully answered...and I agree...this can be a confusing discussion for those with a limited technical background. There are many facets to this gain management issue, including the "missing link"; loading, or impedance matching (or mis matching!).

 

So perhaps I can clear up the muddy waters a bit, and promote a fuller understanding of gain management re: noise, distortion and impedance matching...aka "loading", and elaborate on the benefit of using a mixer b/w the KB and the SS3.

 

First off, as Randelph describes his various gain settings I believe he is degrading his S/N ratios, and not maximizing his "tone". When using a mixer the LAST Volume to be raised (to need) should be the SS3 Level.

 

Think of the gain management of any signal path as "bigger in front, and lower in rear". So you would always want to maximize the signal level (short of distorting it) at every stage or decision point. So this allows you to keep the last stage of the gain chain (SS3 level) as LOW as possible as you reach the desired playing (or recording) volume. This a "true rule" for any mixing situation.

 

So for Randelph; drive your KB level well up, saving a bit of headroom for those solos as you may want to do occasionally to rightly show off after a guitar solo. So then set your mixer channel 1st trim for input "gain" so that it's Red LED Clip light is just below it's "peak" (when you're cranking out that show off solo).

 

The next "gain" stage is the mixer's individual channel volume, which should also be set well up. Usually mixers will have a "00" Unity gain setting about two thirds up the channel fader (or rotary) pot and show "+1db" above that point, and "-1db" below it.

 

Now if all signals being mixed were 1st set to the same "clip" point, then had their channel levels set to unity...then in theory they would all have the same volume. But of course, this mix balance may change a bit if you need one channel lower or higher than the others (usually the band member who brings the PA and/or mixes will sound the loudest).

 

But in this way you are using your pre fader "gain control" to balance you various instruments (and vocals) so they all should have about the same "volume" when their channels are set for "00" unity....and you can "mix to taste" from there.

 

Next; raise the "Master" output level of your mixer. If you have a VU meter or a more modern LED metering system, you'd want to get that well up there too, perhaps just below "clipping" when your various sources are really "cooking" (or near their max playing levels).

 

Now at least know your KB and then your mixer is not distorting, while delivering the most amount of signal and the lowest signal to noise ratio possible to the SS3 inputs.

 

OK, so now the LAST thing you do in your "gain chain" is set the Master Level on the SS3 amp. My guess is this will usually be around 12 o'clock, not 3 o' clock...unless you need ALL of the 107dB the SS3 can deliver (which happens...I fully understand about Marshall stacks and deaf drummers)!

 

So in this way, if you begin to hear distortion you KNOW it is the SS3 hitting the ceiling of it's ability. (and every amp has it's limits...the SS3 is no exception). But it can get VERY loud and stay clean if you follow the above "true rules" of gain management.

 

But there is another, often misunderstood, benefit of using a mixer b/w your KB and SS3; impedance management. Matching the "impedance" of your source to the next gain stage is key to getting good clean tone from any instrument and amp combination.

 

Many toss around that word "impedance", explaining that is a measurement in "Ohms" (true enough), and yet do not have practical or full understanding of it's possible negative impact (if mismatched), and how important it is to signal processing and keeping a good sound as you manage your "gain" chain.

 

I like to use a layman's approach of explaining impedance with a simple anaolgy of a water pump and a garden hose. You guys who are more technical, please forgive my over simplification that follows...bite your tongue please.

 

So imagine the pump is your amp (or signal source, in Randelph case his KB)) and this pump is designed to delivering 100 pounds of water pressure into an 1" garden hose. So, in this case study, the "pipe size" (or impedance") for the "flow" is like 1 Ohm of impedance. As long as you flow stays in that 1" pipe, 100 pounds of water pressure (signal) is delivered to the next input stage (IE; the input impedance..AKA "Load"...of your amp or mixer input stage). Matching the pipe size b/w source and input stage keeps the water (signal) flowing easily...and nothing is "lost" in transmission. Life is good.

 

However what of if the next stage has a larger pipe size "input", or "load impedance? Lets say it's got an opening of 2" pipe...or otherwise a higher impedance...well, then you'd have a reduction water pressure (gain), cut down by 1/2...now you'd have 50 pounds of water pressure. So then, the next pump stage has to "make up" that loss (amplify more) to get your water pressure back up to 100 pounds. And there's the 1st problem; in so doing it MUST contribute some artifacts (IE: adds NOISE), and also might degrade some character of the flow as it "adds gain" (loss of frequencies). Not good.

 

The next stage (IE: your mixer, or SS3 amplifiers) can make up that pressure (gain) loss...but it can not make up loss of the source's sonics and/or get back your noise floor (FYI, each gain stage adds noise...so this "noise floor" accumulates when ever you add amplification!).

 

On the other hand, what if the next stage has a SMALLER pipe size opening (load impedance)? Let's say it hits a pipe size of just 1/2". Could you can expect 200 pounds of water pressure out the other end? Or, can you imagine that smaller "load" might cause your water pump to "back up" and work a lot harder. Well, you'd be right about both scenarios...to some extent mismatching these pipe sizes (impedances) can have some negative effect on your "flow". Also, your pump could possibly "overload" and that could easily cause distortion.. In the common case of a power amp designed to deliver 100 watts into 8 Ohms...loading it down with a bunch of speakers (parallel wiring DIVIDES the load each time you add another cab) down to 2 Ohms can actually cause your "water pump" to blow!

 

Also. imagine in this scenario your pump, even if it doesn't "blow", your "source" is having to push harder because it is not well matched to the next stage...and this can degrade signal...even cause distortion.

 

OK, now let me bring this all home, and get back to our "design challenges" when designing the SS3's input sensitivity and loading impedance.

 

Well, we understood our SS3 could be "looking at" signals from either a (relatively) high impedance (relatively) low gain -10dB Keyboard signal OR a (relatively) low impedance (relatively) high gain +4db mixer signal. So we had to set out SS3 "input sensitivity" somewhere in the middle to accommodate either. And also so either "source" could drive the SS3 to maximum SPL Levels...and stay fairly clean in the process...not easy!

 

Now a typical mono combo KB amp would have a input sensitivity set to optimize a typical -10dB (or slightly higher) KB signal, while a typical mono powered PA speaker has an input sensitivity optimized for a +4db Low Z mixer signal (although some do offer a switch to -10db).

 

But for the SS3 we had to find a "happy middle" ground. That said, using a mixer and turning the SS3 down will usually give you a slight improvement in sonics, and also a slightly lower S/N ratio too.

 

So while the SS3 can deliver excellent sonics and low noise while reaching 107dB + with just a KB plugged directly in (and does for many on this forum), a mixer can possibly improve your results in some situations. And of course, those extra channels and possible builtin stereo FX can really expand your performance options and also provide more flexibility for gain management and better impedance matching.

 

In some situations, adding a mixer b/w a KB and the SS3 did "the trick" when a user complained about noise, distortion, or a thinning of tone. A mixer can optimize both the gain and loading b/w a KB and the SS3 input stage....which is a almost always a good thing.

[Markay]

Aspen, thank you for you for insights on maximising the signal. Just spent the past hour crudely doing exactly what you have explained into my mono speaker to tweak things in preparation for a gig tomorrow night with a loud guitar player.

 

While I don't own an SSv3 yet, I feel obliged to buy one in recompense for the practical knowledge you have so generously shared in this thread. Have to wait though till China starts buying more of our rocks again and our dollar recovers from its current peso status.

[TimA]

Aspen, originally I was doing pretty much the opposite to what you are saying and was getting "disappointing" levels of noise and hiss, thinking it was the SS3. When I attempted what you suggested, I was amazed how the signal cleaned up and how LOUD it could get!!

[zaphod betamax]

In regards to gain structure, I use the guideline of 70% gain in the synth itself. So for the JX-3P I set master volume to 7/10 and adjust the PG-200 programmer to taste per patch.

 

On the Blofeld I set Master Volume to 90/127 (about 70%), and on most patches I set patch volume to 90/127.

 

My Mackie mixer is set to Unity on both input and output per track faders, and the masters as set to unity. (see later)

 

By the time it hits the CPS, I have all sorts of volume, and I adjust set the CPS master at 12 o'clock and will adjust the rom volume with a tweek of the masters out of the Mackie.

 

Repeat after me: gain structure, gain structure, gain structure. lol

 

[Aspen]

In regards to gain structure, I use the guideline of 70% gain in the synth itself. So for the JX-3P I set master volume to 7/10 and adjust the PG-200 programmer to taste per patch.

 

On the Blofeld I set Master Volume to 90/127 (about 70%), and on most patches I set patch volume to 90/127.

 

My Mackie mixer is set to Unity on both input and output per track faders, and the masters as set to unity. (see later)

 

By the time it hits the CPS, I have all sorts of volume, and I adjust set the CPS master at 12 o'clock and will adjust the room volume with a tweak of the masters out of the Mackie.

 

Repeat after me: gain structure, gain structure, gain structure. lol

 

Excellent Zaphod, you are on the right "path"!

[cedar]

So I went ahead and bought a used Behringer B1200D pro - my first sub ever - and realize I have a few basic questions:

 

Mostly, is there a particular "default" setting I should begin with on the "high cut" dial?

 

The "quick start" menu says to begin with this dial set all the way to the right (at 160), and then rotate it gradually until one hears the best sound balance. But I'm curious if there is a general rule of thumb where the best balance usually is (in conjunction with the SS). I imagine this might depend a lot on the room, among other things, but it would be useful to know what people generally do.

 

My primary use for this right now is playing a Mojo in a trio (guitar and drums) in relatively small clubs.

 

Edit: guess I'll add that I am also curious if those of you using a B1200 with the SS generally turn the "boost" switch on, and if so, what level you set that dial to.

[esfusion]

Aspen, I think SS owners are single-handedly responsible for purchasing 80% of the Behringer B1200D production. Rather than share the wealth with Behringer, perhaps you ought to build a Center Point sub in the same form factor as the SS. I'm sure you can find an 8" single purpose driver that will go down to 40hz, and I would expect 200 watts would be enough to complement the volume of the SS. If more cab sq inches are required to support the low end, then you could simply build the sub cab higher. Finally, a single-purpose crossover would ensure that the SS is seamless all the way down to 40 hz. What do you think?

[Al Coda]

Aspen, I think SS owners are single-handedly responsible for purchasing 80% of the Behringer B1200D production.

 

There´s another one @Thomann,- RCF Ayra 10.

Could be an alternative to the B.

Resize pics and have a look at the connector plate,- it comes w/ parallel x-over (freely adjustable !) XLR-outputs.

Those go to SSv3 line inputs then.

 

Eventually, this sub won´t introduce the gain loss like the B-sub does (?) ...

 

RCF 10 Sub

 

A.C.

[HammondDave]

Aspen, I think SS owners are single-handedly responsible for purchasing 80% of the Behringer B1200D production. Rather than share the wealth with Behringer, perhaps you ought to build a Center Point sub in the same form factor as the SS. I'm sure you can find an 8" single purpose driver that will go down to 40hz, and I would expect 200 watts would be enough to complement the volume of the SS. If more cab sq inches are required to support the low end, then you could simply build the sub cab higher. Finally, a single-purpose crossover would ensure that the SS is seamless all the way down to 40 hz. What do you think?

 

How about just making a model of the SS that covers these frequencies? Seems to be the logical answer to the sub issue.

[16251]

Aspen, I think SS owners are single-handedly responsible for purchasing 80% of the Behringer B1200D production. Rather than share the wealth with Behringer, perhaps you ought to build a Center Point sub in the same form factor as the SS. I'm sure you can find an 8" single purpose driver that will go down to 40hz, and I would expect 200 watts would be enough to complement the volume of the SS. If more cab sq inches are required to support the low end, then you could simply build the sub cab higher. Finally, a single-purpose crossover would ensure that the SS is seamless all the way down to 40 hz. What do you think?

 

How about just making a model of the SS that covers these frequencies? Seems to be the logical answer to the sub issue.

 

I believe Aspen already answered this on page 85

 

He didn't want to make the SSv3 any heavier or bigger than what is the current version. The full out gave buyers the option of added the sub.

[zaphod betamax]

I just noticed the Behringer 1200 is XLR input and the CPS is 1/4" for the SUB OUT.

Does this cause any issues?

[MotiDave]

Aspen, I think SS owners are single-handedly responsible for purchasing 80% of the Behringer B1200D production. Rather than share the wealth with Behringer, perhaps you ought to build a Center Point sub in the same form factor as the SS. I'm sure you can find an 8" single purpose driver that will go down to 40hz, and I would expect 200 watts would be enough to complement the volume of the SS. If more cab sq inches are required to support the low end, then you could simply build the sub cab higher. Finally, a single-purpose crossover would ensure that the SS is seamless all the way down to 40 hz. What do you think?

 

How about just making a model of the SS that covers these frequencies? Seems to be the logical answer to the sub issue.

 

I believe Aspen already answered this on page 85

 

He didn't want to make the SSv3 any heavier or bigger than what is the current version. The full out gave buyers the option of added the sub.

i believe the recommendation is to make another larger model, those that want ss3 would still have that option.

 

ss3 fans are devoted, thats awesome. you can still be an ss3 fan when ss4 sits next to it in the catalog.

[MathOfInsects]

I think the more helpful question/poll might be: of those who previously ordered a sub solely to pair with their SS3, who still uses it regularly.

 

(I don't.)