|
|
Post by percyjacobs on Mar 20, 2015 9:58:13 GMT -6
2x12" or 1x15" ? Which would you choose and why?
I like to play alt. rock, blues, and jazz.
|
|
|
|
Cabs
Mar 20, 2015 10:21:29 GMT -6
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 20, 2015 10:21:29 GMT -6
bass?
|
|
|
|
Cabs
Mar 20, 2015 12:05:11 GMT -6
donr likes this
Post by svart on Mar 20, 2015 12:05:11 GMT -6
If for bass I'd go 2x10. Bass guitar that sits well in a mix is a lot more low-mids than low-lows usually. 2x10 seems to balance the mids with lows pretty well for me. I have a 1x15 cab that never gets used on bass because the low end is absolutely unruly and hard to mix. A 1x15 could work well if you only play shows and not record with it.
If for guitar I'd go 2x12, one a green/creamback and the other a V30. This gives great versatility in how you can mic it up.
I do have a friend with a vintage fender 2x15 guitar cab, but the speakers have tiny little magnets so they don't move very much. They sound a lot like more modern jensen 12" speakers.
|
|
|
|
Cabs
Mar 21, 2015 19:13:28 GMT -6
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 21, 2015 19:13:28 GMT -6
I've never liked 2 X 12's. To me a Fender Twin is the harshest sound ever, only the great spring reverb saves it. The Fender Super reverb always sounds better, and that's 4 X 10's.
I prefer either 1 X 12" or 4 X 12.
As for bass, it depends. If you're a jazz guy, you might like the old B15 sound, but I kind of agree with Svart that 2 X 10 would track better most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Cabs
Mar 23, 2015 8:29:09 GMT -6
Post by swurveman on Mar 23, 2015 8:29:09 GMT -6
If for bass I'd go 2x10. Bass guitar that sits well in a mix is a lot more low-mids than low-lows usually. 2x10 seems to balance the mids with lows pretty well for me. Would you mind elaborating on this svart? Presumably, both speakers are designed the same way in a 2x12. So, why is having a cabinet with two speakers better for translating frequencies of an instrument than a cabinet with one speaker? Is it the resonances due to the cabinet size? How the speakers get miced? Both? I'm considering going from a 4x12 cabinet two two other speaker cabinets. So, I'm curious. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 23, 2015 9:26:06 GMT -6
If for bass I'd go 2x10. Bass guitar that sits well in a mix is a lot more low-mids than low-lows usually. 2x10 seems to balance the mids with lows pretty well for me. Would you mind elaborating on this svart? Presumably, both speakers are designed the same way in a 2x12. So, why is having a cabinet with two speakers better for translating frequencies of an instrument than a cabinet with one speaker? Is it the resonances due to the cabinet size? How the speakers get miced? Both? I'm considering going from a 4x12 cabinet two two other speaker cabinets. So, I'm curious. Sure. As far as speakers go, you already know that the surface area of a cone directly translates to the low end frequency range that the driver can produce. Having multiple smaller drivers can equal the same as a single larger driver when you consider all of the surface area of the smaller drivers combined as one. Smaller cones naturally have a higher frequency cutoff than a larger cone does, so when adding multiple smaller drivers, you retain the higher cutoff but extend the lower cutoff, resulting in a wider range altogether. This is the same principle behind "line source" speakers, where they'll have upwards of 20+ small speakers that sound and act like one big full range speaker. This is the idea behind situations like Ampeg having an 4x10/8x10 cab with the same low end range as a 1x15/2x15, etc. However, larger single-coned drivers have a much harder time reproducing higher frequencies than multiple smaller drivers have reproducing lower frequencies. However, those measurements have to be taken at a distance equal or greater than 1/4 the wavelength of the lowest frequency in order to actually be able to hear/measure. When folks talk about micing further away to "allow the sound to develop" this is what they are actually speaking of. Now, what happens is that a lot of bass guitar low end isn't used in modern music, at least not like we hear the bass from a cabinet in a room. A lot of it is high passed so that we get definition and articulation rather than just BOOM BOOM BOOM. For me that means micing more closely and micing the cones towards the dust caps to get more highs and mids rather than just lows. Micing a smaller speaker means that I get closer to the mid-frequency articulation and definition that I desire, without resorting to crazy amounts of EQ, etc. A 2x10 works well for me in this case because I mic a single speaker and essentially use the other one as loading for the amp and the cabinet. it seems that the extra speaker adds a little compression to the sound, probably from doubling up the pressure in the box, but that's just a big guess on my part. Also, when you take into account the size of a large cone, it's weight, and the power/speed of the amp, you have some inertia that you need to overcome in order to recreate the higher frequency transients. Multiple smaller cones can do this much more gracefully than a single larger cone can, when you consider the same amp power driving them. All this, to me, adds up to using multiple smaller coned drivers rather than a single larger one. Line source speaker: 2.bp.blogspot.com/-vPXZ5Bm6Ivc/UJ3_EyuLz2I/AAAAAAAAK1U/n7UqO82IJSs/s1600/impetus.jpg |
|
