15" or 18" cab?

[KAP]

Hi and thanks to Ed Friedland for his books, articles and this forum! Your book Building Walking Bass Lines has really put me in the right direction. I appreciate the positive attitude of the forum. It's amazing what people will say on the web in other arenas when they don't have to say it to your face!

 

I have a Carvin RC 210 cabinet. It's great on its own but I'd like to get a bigger cabinet to bi-amp it with. The Carvin 18" cab is 6 inches taller and 6 pounds heavier and $100+ more than the 15" cab. I use an EBS Octabass pedal to provide a little depth (it's great, I just turn the pedal's volume knob way up and turn the octave knob just a hair above zero for some serious thunder!) Is there appreciable difference between the two cabs in terms of sound in the low (<41.2 Hz) end ? The frequency curves for the two cabs don't appear that different, so is there another factor? BTW, I play a Carvin LB 70 4-string thru this rig.

 

Also, any comments on experiences and settings on the EBS Octabass?

[rumpelstiltskin.]

an 18" driver has more surface area, so will naturally push a little more air. that means it will be slightly louder. i'm not certain how much louder it should be.

 

check the sensitivity of the two drivers. it could be that the 18" is far less efficient, thereby cancelling any loudness improvements made by its size.

[Ed Friedland]

KAP,

Well thanks so much for the kind words! It means alot to me to hear from people that have benefitted from my work. I'm also very happy with how this forum is going, it's a great group of people contributing, and it has been very civilized with minimal restrictions from me as moderator. I think given the chance, most people want to interact intelligently and respectfully.

 

So, about your cab search. My personal preference would go to the 15". I was never a fan of 18" cabs. Too big and woofy. If I was playing in a Reggae band all the time, I'd probably have 2 of them! But, I don't think it will give you great definition in the low end. Also, a 15" can be used effectively on it's own for gigs where high-end definition isn't needed (blues, reggae, etc).

 

 

 

------------------

www.edfriedland.com

[KAP]

Thanks Ed!

 

My RC 210 weighs 82 lb, I don't want another backbreaker if it won't provide any additional benefit.

 

KAP

[g.]

The 18 is much more efficient below 120 Hz. The graphic response curve actually looks quite a bit different -- and so is the sound. So if you are looking for low end extension in a bi-amp situation, you can get more deep lows without applying EQ which sucks up headroom. Cross over at 200 Hz which I believe is the lowest the R600 allows and you won't lose the 210 cab's quick transient response. In addition the 210 will sound clearer when not asked to reproduce in its weak area.

 

It all depends on the sound you are looking for; I use the Carvin 210 alone when I don't want the extra baggage, and bi-amp with either an 18 or 15 when it is worth it to me to have a TRUE low end. That is especially apparent when I kick in my sub-octave pedal. But even without it, the B string sounds like Anthony Jackson on recordings.

 

If you have things set right bi-amping this way is not boomy -- indeed, it can be LESS boomy because one doesn't need to use EQ to try and get something that isn't easily had. So no peaky EQ response is added. I think Ed is comparing the use of an 18 in full range, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

[CraigLeyhFrameBand.com]

I am using a 4*10 and an 18. I also think the 18 is woofy. I want to

get a 15 and a 2*10. We play R-n-R.

 

------------------

Thank you,

Craig S. Leyh

CraigLeyh@FrameBand.com

[Ed Friedland]

Greenboy,

thanks for your educated response, you're right, I was thinking full range. I was never a bi-amp guy. Though I have noticed the Carvin amps sound better when bi-amped.

 

------------------

www.edfriedland.com

[KAP]

Thanks for the replies.

 

Are there situations where using each speaker in full range is preferable to biamping, or is it simply a matter of personal choice? How does this compare to bridging the amps?

[g.]

KAP:

Are there situations where using each speaker in full range is preferable to biamping, or is it simply a matter of personal choice? How does this compare to bridging the amps?

 

As an example: I have used another player's Carvin R1000/4-10/1-18 rig at extended outdoor gigs. When he uses it he runs both full range. Outdoor gigs typically soak up sub frequencies because walls and floor don't act as extended horns to reinforce those wavelengths. He ends up running the amp harder to get lows and as a result also adds more mids.

 

And his tone is to my ears a little teeny bit smeared, but naturally also a little closer to recorded classic rock recorded sounds -- less true _{lows, more peaks in low and upper mid response, highs more concealed by phase cancellation. Indoors, he tends to sound boomy at times.}

 

_{He sounds good usually for his style, but the flexibility of tone is not as available for various material. And when it *really* gets out of hand I hear the attacks breaking up, mini farts.}

 

_{When I use the same rig, I cross over at 200 Hz. The tens and horn sound much crisper without being mixed with the 18's slower response -- and there's not another point source reproducing the same frequencies causing more phase anomalies (the above-mentioned minor smear and peakiness being the result).}

 

_{I can also get deeper smoother lows and lower mids, and keep them clean even if I run the amp as high as he does. To get the more classic sound I step in and out of my graphic EQ settings, and I have the wider repsonse modern sound the cabs are capable of which he really throws away. And I use the tube when I want grunge or breakup. To me, it is the best of both worlds.}

 

_{So. Actually taste does enter into it. But. Check out PA/SR. People that do it well professionally go for the best fidelity they can get to reproduce a variety of sources including playback of recorded stuff. They don't mix different cab specs in the same area, they try to minimize multiple point sources by using [modified] trapezoid arrays, etc. They use *crossovers* and let each type of cabinet/trancducer operate in the range it is best at, and can get more volume/power handling without distortion, have less speaker failure.}

 

_{It wasn't always so, and some of us can remember how much better concerts CAN sound today if the mixers are sensitive to actual music ; }}

 

_{This is not to say that single instrument methodology SHOULD be the same (the cabinets for electric instruments really are part of the instrument after all). But it does give a clue about fidelity and power handling... Choices are wider for bassists today.}

 

_{As far as BRIDGING: that really doesn't have much to do with this. Bridging allows one to have the proper amount of power and headroom for whatever one is driving. It allows a power amp to match up with a greater amount of speaker situations. It basically allows a power amp to be better matched to what is available in terms of speakers.}

 

_{I've seen guys throw away half of a power amp by bridging, driving loads that were suited to one side of the amp, and than not even using the bridged power available. In fact if they had they would have been burning speakers. And I've seen the opposite, when a little more delivered RMS would have prevented amp clipping as the operator was overdriving the imput and clipping the amp.}

 

_{So bridging is really a separate issue.}

[thabassplayer]

This topic just goes to show you that everybody has different ideas and opinions on what sounds good. I have a Carvin R1000, 4x10t cab, and 1x15 cab. I like the way the 15 sounds. I think that 18s tend to be a bit boomy and not as tight sounding. I do like the rumble of the bigger speakers but only to a certain extent. I don't run my Carvin bi-amped, it is run full range all the time. I find that sounds a lot better full-range. My suggestion is to try out some 15s and some 18s and decide what *you* like best. Good luck.

[KAP]

Thanks for the technical - and non-technical - responses!