Post Number: 84
|Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 8:51 am: |
Hi everyone, I just picked up a Bass 400+ and it sounds just awesome. But I'd really like to split my signal and use a solid state amp to drive my 1x18 and just drive my 4x10 with the 400+. Question is what would you recommend for a preamp with built in crossover? So far all I can find is the Eden WP-100 which is a bit overkill for my needs, though probably sounds really nice. Or the Behringer CX3400, which I'm afraid doesn't have the quality I'm liiking for.
Any thoughts or other options?
Ok, also there's the Line6 Bass Pod Pro, this could be it...
(Message edited by son_of_magni on August 17, 2004)
Post Number: 30
|Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 12:54 pm: |
I would think an Alembic F-1X might suit your needs quite nicely.
Post Number: 85
|Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:16 pm: |
Wow, thanks, I didn't realise the F1X had a crossover. Definately needs to be considered.
Post Number: 212
|Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:51 pm: |
I have to say that I am not sure I would bi-amp with that rig. The Bass 400+ has great lows, and so should a 4x10 cabinet. I might consider splitting the signal out of the bass, or running stereo if I had a Series instrument. Maybe you could put a low-pass filter in front of whatever powers the 18 so it wouldn't have to handle highs.
Also, how many preamp stages do you want? There's hot electronics in the bass, then an F-1X, then the boogie's preamp. Is that too much pre-amplification?
I don't know, but how about an SF-2 for this application? You can use one side as a high-pass and deliver to the boogie, and the other side as low-pass to deliver to the 18's power amp. This would give you a lot more control of the "mid-range" overlap between the two sides than the typical crossover would. Can the SF-2 take a mono input and provide separate outputs for the two filters, or do you need to split the signal before it gets there?
Post Number: 308
|Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:18 pm: |
Brother David T (the LOUD one)...... I'm certain you can help with this one....
(Message edited by hollis on August 17, 2004)
Post Number: 294
|Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:32 pm: |
Regarding the SF-2, I know that you can put mono into the front panel instrument jack, set the switch on the back to stereo, and use the two filters on separate output channels. I've been using mine that way for some time now.
The manual indicates that you can do the same thing after a preamp, running a mono input to the back panel Ch. A input only, again with the mode switch set to stereo, and get two separate outputs.
It's amazingly flexible.
Post Number: 328
|Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:48 am: |
if it were me, I would just try to get the 400+ down to 2 OHMs and crank it up. that will be more bass than most PAs can get above . as I'm a fan of the warmth and the natural compresstion that tubes give you I see no need for all that fancy stuff, besides, to many knob and you can dial yourself right out of a good sound, and that's a hard demon to chase.
David T (TLO)
Post Number: 20
|Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:34 am: |
Karl..Congrats on the amp. I also use a 400+ into 4x10 and 2 1x12". After getting the Mesa I started messing around and resurrected my Furman PQ3 and Crown pwr amp. I took a low tech approach, picked up a Morley A/B switch, the bass into that and each output to a seperate amp. I ran the PQ3 into the 12's and the 400 into the 10's,turned the horns way down on the 12's and bumped up the low
end. The solid state stuff added some nice thump.
After reading the above posts it sounds like the SF-2 may fit your needs..it's something I've been wanting to try.
Post Number: 240
|Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:06 pm: |
I'm with David TLO. Sweet sweet tube warmth and compression is what makes the world go 'round...
Post Number: 86
|Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:51 pm: |
Well guys, I really appreciate all your thoughts. I hope my decision doesn't disapoint all of you. Here's my thinking (for now).
The F1X would suit my needs but doesn't have the versitility of the SF2.
The SF2 has some powerful capabilities but doesn't have the ability of acting as a true crossover.
So I sprung for the Eden. It has the crossover plus a really nice tone section, the tube control, stereo aux in, multiple effects loops, and more. I hope you don't think I'm a traitor for not going with Alembic but it just seemed like it had features I'd like to have.
There are a lot of ways I can patch together all the boxes I'll have, so it'll take me a while to decide on a setup. But I should have plenty of choices!
Oh I forgot to mention, the 400+ (used) has about half the tubes glowing blue. So maybe I should have waited for new tubes before I decided to do anything. But nothing's really permanent when it comes to a rig, right?
(Message edited by son_of_magni on August 18, 2004)
Post Number: 43
|Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 2:12 pm: |
I had my world rearranged last night. Let me preface by saying I have always had solid state amps for live, and recording went direct to the board. Also, this was the first time I recorded with my Alembic. Recorded at MARS studio in Aptos, CA, and ran my Rogue thru a Summit tube pre. The sound on the recording was what I have wanted all my life! Did a tube pre really make that big a difference in warmth with clarity and punch, or is it inherent to the excellent Alembic sound? Is it worth chasing this sound live, given that a recording is a tightly controlled environment, and live sound is probably up to the sound tech anyway? What do I do with my Peavey BAM (get an
F1-X to front it?)? How do I explain this to my wife? Where am I going to sleep tonight? Help!
Post Number: 787
|Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:13 am: |
Larry; in my opinion, yes, generally speaking, there is a significant difference between a tube preamp and a solid state preamp. Is it worth it on stage? For me, definitely.
Post Number: 606
|Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:57 am: |
Larry: I'm with Dave. Your choice of preamp is one of the few aspects of live sound through a board that really depends (and varies significantly) by your rig. If the tube sound works for you, then a tube preamp with an XLR (like an F1-X or other good tube pre) will definitely get that sound into the PA. The sound tech may be responsible for the EQ and levels, but the fundamental tube signal will likely remain.
Post Number: 272
|Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:29 pm: |
I would no more add a solid-state amp and crossover under a 400+ that I'd mix Crown Royal with Pepsi.
I realize we're in a 10" world, but believe me: Try the 400+ with Mesa's 215 cabinet and spend your money on another ALEMBIC. I'm old enough to remember that so many of the players who got the tone so many of you talk about got 'that sound' using original Acoustic amps with folded 18s, original SVTs with 8 or even 16 10s (NOT 2 or 4), and LOTS of amps with 15s.
I've read eight zillion posts here and elsewhere that all say the same thing: You all love your (fill in the manufacturer's name here) 410 cab . . . and slowly bring up WHICH 15 or sub you now need to go with it! I see bands all the time with no BASS on the bottom of the mix, but I do hear a lot of nice midrange?
I never understood where this disconnect between big meat bottom and tone occurred. Oh well . . .
J o e y
Post Number: 17
|Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 9:42 am: |
I'm a died-in-the-wool tubehead. Been building them for decades, and I use an old Yamaha PB1* because it sounds so good, especially with a bit of cleaning up in the powersupply and the front end. It has the xover built in already. The only thing it doesn't do like my tube preamp is overdrive nicely, but I don't use that often.
I really don't see the point in getting too uptight about using opamps in my pre when my Alembics are packed full of them onboard. In the end my only question is, does it sound good?
Another option is to buy a preamp you like and use an outboard xover like a Rane, dbx or Behringer, all of which can be had cheaply (new or ebay) and would give you all the flexibility in 1RU you'll need to tune the response between the different poweramps and speaker sensitivities etc. If you really want an all tube system, buy a Marchand tube xover. All the tube preamps I've ever seen have an opamp based active xover.
* I'm building a new tube based pre (and small poweramp) for myself, but it will be big and heavy as there'll be no compromise in what I see as important for sonics. It'll also have a powersupply built in for my Alembics and my customs. It'll stay at home or be used in my mate's small studio.
Post Number: 26
|Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:37 pm: |
Well said. In 'the old days', manufacturers didn't use tweeters and mid-range speakers, you only had the frequency response of the speaker, whats a 15" 2500 hz ? But alot of the vintage sounds required pushing alot of air..the 8 x10's,the 15's and 18's.
How many classic recordings were made from the Beach Boys to Motown using just the flip top Ampeg with a single 15 tho?
I used to use a couple Sunn cabinets, sounded good, but I'm glad I don't have to lug them around any more.
But, fast forward 30 years..with the advances in technology, the size of the cabinets is appreciated, and the fidelity of the speakers is far superior. The response of alot of speakers is also wider.
I've never been a big fan of tweeters, they sound a little to squeaky clean to my ear, I usually turn them way down or off. I do like the sound of a speaker with just a bit of distortion that a driven speaker gives.
With a 400+ you could always run the direct out to another power amp for additional cabinets or effects.
Ok,I'm going to go listen to A Whiter Shade of Pale a few more times
Pepsi and Crown Royal ? Arrrrgh !
Post Number: 93
|Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:55 pm: |
Maybe I just don't get it but...
I'd go for the sound of a 4x10 over a 2x15 any day. The only reason I added the 1x18 to my rig was to fill in the very bottom. If I was running a 2x15 I'd probably be adding a big midrange horn or a 2x8 to fill in the top.
As far as biamping when I already have the 400+, I don't believe that under 250 hz you can really hear the difference between tubes and solid state unless you're really going to overdrive the system (I don't play thrash...). I just want to take the load off the 400+, let it give me the sound and add some warmth to the bottom.
The other thing I like about this setup is I can run reverb on just the high side. It sounds much tighter this way. I think reverb just adds mush to the bottom.
Post Number: 27
|Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 3:16 pm: |
I hope I havent offended you or anyone else with my babbling. My point was achieving some vintage sounds requires a low tech approach. I agree that 4x10's doesnt provide quite enough bottom. I've used 2 4x10 ,nice full sound but still lacked bottom.
In the past I've used several 2 amp setups,which I prefer over bi-amping..but thats just me.
Have you checked out re-tubing the Mesa ? Ouch!
Post Number: 95
|Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 3:49 pm: |
Hi Gary, no apology needed, when it somes to your sound there is no right or wrong, just what you like. Vintage sounds, hmmm. Actually I'm just trying to achieve the sound I want, not anything I've necessarily ever heard before. And what I have now is really really close. The crossover lets me dial in the bottom with great precision.
Tubes and blue glow. I did some reading on the Svetlanta website, very interesting. Turns out the blue glow in my tubes is normal. It goes something like this: A dark blue glow that stays near surfaces is ok. A lighter blue glow that is more like a cloud inside the tube is bad.
When you say 2 amp setups do you mean 1 amp for each pickup? I used to do that with my old Fender P-P bass and it was pretty cool. I liked playing with the phasing on that setup.
Post Number: 28
|Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:18 am: |
When I checked out re-tubing the Mesa (just in case) it was about 280$..there's alot of tubes in there.
2 amps..when I used nothing but the Rickenbacker I ran each pickup into a seperate amp. On other instruments I've also split the signal from the bass and ran that into seperate amps,then eq'd each differently.
Recently I've been messing around splitting the signal into 2 amps,then taking the direct out of the Mesa and running that into effects (chorus/delay/etc) using just the wet sound then into pwr amp and a seperate cabinet. 3 channels..interesting.
I'm something of a pack rat,never seem to get rid of things, so now and then I have to put on the lab coat,mess up the hair and resurrect things ito a new monster.