| Author | Message | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2003 |
Has anyone had the opportunity to "hear" this huge speaker? I am considering the purchase of a super-sub like this one or one from Bag End to get the most out of the B string on my Series II. I am lucky enough to have a Crown Macro-Tech 2402 (750 watts per channel at 4 ohms, damping factor greater than 1000 from 10 to 400hz) which would get an iron grip on those 21 inch cones. Any thoughts or observations would be greatly appreciated. Jeff | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 382 Registered: 7-2003 |
Never heard one myself, but I'd be interested in hearing from you or anyone who has. Unfortunately, the price becomes a major consideration for me, but I'd love to hear what it could do for my sound, too. There was a Grande 21 used on Ebay several months ago - seller claimed t'was mint. The price (if memory serves) was somewhere around $16-1800. At least a few bucks off retail. Good down to 22hz and a not too extreme 87 lbs. - I'd love to hear one! Good luck, Bill | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2003 |
Bill, It is interesting that you should mention the weight of the cabinet - only 87 lbs. That is very light considering the size of the driver and the enormous stresses likely to be placed on the structure. By comparison, the Ampeg SVT-18 weighs 86 pounds and is good down to "only" 35hz at -3db. How is the Grande going to handle a mid-20hz. signal from a detuned B string? I have this vision of the Grande bouncing around on the stage. The Ampeg is also rated to handle 1000 watts, the Grande only 800. Then there is the price issue. $2160. retail for the Grande, $799. retail for the SVT-18. What is the justification for the whopping price differential? Does the 21" driver cost that much more than a 18" driver? It seems to me that the money wasn't spent on building a cabinet that can handle that driver. I know Ampeg is a much larger company and has higher volume sales and this fact undoubtedly requires Accugroove to charge more money. For those of you who haven't seen the Grande, here it is: http://www.accugroove.com/new_cabs.htm | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 386 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jeff, Great questions. I share the same concerns. If I'm not mistaken, though, doesn't the driver in the Grande have a much lighter neomydium magnet? If so, and assuming the Ampeg has a conventional ferrous mag, the weight of the Grande cab may actually be greater than the Ampeg cab weight. The cost issue is a bear, too. To expand the comparisons: The Bag End S21E-C goes down to 8hz (with the Infra integrator), weighs "only" 81 lbs. At a total cost (undiscounted retail) of $3,160 ($1,980 for the Cab, $1,180 for the Infra processor). I don't know what the best discount available would be for the Bag End, but it would have to retail for considerably less than the list price. In fact, until recently, BassCentral had 2 used Bag End Infra cabs (wish I could recall whether 15 or 18") with similar low end performance for $450 per cab. The Bag End S18E-D lists for $960, weighs a girlish 69 lbs and requires the Infra processor. I have to wonder, if the Bag End Infra system works well for bass, whether it could be lighter weight, less costly alternative to the Grande 21. I've only seen a few members sporting Infra processors in their racks. Do you know what Infra performance is like? Any others with experience? Bill (Message edited by bassman10096 on May 14, 2004) | ||
| adriaan
Advanced Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 233 Registered: 6-2002 |
Wasn't a guy named Ron (something) involved in BagEnd's processors? | ||
| bkbass
Junior Username: bkbass Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2003 |
There was another thread on this subject matter.I have for over 20 years enjoyed the sound of Bag End cabs and for one reason or another justified not getting into the whole ELF system because I felt if the company went out of business and the processor failed I'd be screwed as the ELF cabs will not work without the processor.I've tried,just to experiment,not using the processor and the speaker just sounded awful and broke up relatively easy.Last year I had the occasion to play through a brand new 18"ELF and a BagEnd 2x10 with a coaxial speaker so the system range was something like 8hz -18khz and the sound was very HIFI and studio like however,it is very much it's own sound.The highs are different in that the tweeter isn't constantly spitting with every note but rather comes in as an extention of the 10"s range around say 4khz refreshingly different and no l-pad to adjust(bummer).The lows are very clean and as far as my ear is concerned very flat.This sound is an acquired taste because most of us are used to hearing that particular growl or how a cab "grabs"the lows.In technical terms this is because the cab has a peak or resonant frequency that the harmonic group(other low freqs)tend to want to center around producing that all to familar "grab".So it takes some getting used to but it is unbelievable how much lows are commig out of this tiny cab.The box is only slightly larger than the speaker itself.As far as I know,the cabs run a single or double 10"s,12"s or 18"s and ofcourse the newer 21".No 15"s have ever been used.The 21" is the same Beyma used in the Accugroove and is not modified in any way.On that other thread someone mentioned the cost of the 21"as being around $1,200.00 raw.After the discount the ELF and processor should be slightly less (perhaps $200.00)than the Grande go lower without distortion,have a smoother bass in about one half the size.This little system is nothing short of amazing and came up to barely my kneecap!When I tried it I was lamenting that I didn't bring my extended low 6 string which is tuned f#(22hz)b(32hz)e,a,d,g.Then I thought I'll just detune the low B on the 5 string I was playing at the time and,as I detuned the string in exact proportion to my jaw hitting the floor,the system took everything I gave it and did not breakup or have a drop in relative volume!I had that string flapping on the board and there is actually a note down there that was reproduced cleanly!Last factoid,the 21"BagEnd produces just as much output as two of their single 18"s.If you want to have the same volume,one less trip to the car and save roughly $400.00 buy the 21" over the two 18"s.The 21" box isn't that much bigger than a single 18".Can I get a Amen? | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 389 Registered: 7-2003 |
But what did you think of the Bag End? | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 390 Registered: 7-2003 |
Seriously, though...Now you've gone and done it!! Up till now, I have asked for opinions from anyone with first-hand experience on the ELF (INFRA?) subs. No one ever came across with a first hand account of what I was asking (not too many people have first hand experience). That is..until you did just now! Now, I'm REALLY intrigued! I'm gonna have to rethink whether ELF is a direction I want to (can afford to) take. I think I could end up saving my shekels to see how it works out. Thanks for the info. Particularly the tip on the ELF 21 output vs the ELF 18's. Adriaan: The Bag End website contains the following trademark attribution: "ELF™ is a trademark of Long/Wickersham Labs. Not affiliated with Modular Sound Systems, Inc." Somewhere there is a very technical but informative article that goes into what led to the development of the ELF technology. If I recall correctly, Ron W. authored or co-authored the piece. Bill | ||
| bob
Advanced Member Username: bob Post Number: 216 Registered: 11-2002 |
Bill, I know a few tidbits related to this area... In addition to the ELF trademark, there is also a patent on the technology (US Patent 4,481,662) which lists as inventors both Edward Long and our dear friend Ron. I don't know anything further about Long, or why his name appears first on the patent, but I have a sense that Ron did more of the real work here (but maybe Long is an equally brilliant guy, I don't know). Bag End was licensed to use the ELF trademark for selling integrators (the crossover) and cabinets, until sometime last year. I happen to be aware of this because last summer I placed an order through my local dealer for an ELF-M and an S18E-D, and the integrator I actually received 3 or 4 weeks later was silkscreened with the name 'Infra-M', rather than ELF. The explanation from my dealer was that the unit was physically identical, and would continue to be manufactured and supported, but that Bag End was no longer entitled to use the ELF trademark. Clearly, rights had expired or been revoked, but I don't wish to encourage speculation on that subject. As I recall, there used to be three integrators, one or two of which went down to 8 Hz and the other(s) "only" to 18 Hz; since last summer it appears they only offer the Infra-M. But that's fine - if you read the literature that used to be available, there were strong recommendations that for bass amplification, you really didn't want to go lower than 18, and in fact it was suggested you use a filter to limit to 18 or 20. The other models had more flexibility, including a 3-way crossover in at least one of them, but if you're just looking for some real lows you can still get them just fine. For technical and practical reasons, the ELF approach dictates a sealed cabinet design, of relatively small volume (and yes, it will sound lousy if used without the integrator). So as part of the deal, you get a fairly compact and reasonably lightweight cabinet. And though my S18E-D is quite nice in that regard, the thing is built like a rock. It also happens to be an 8 Ohm cabinet, and it really sucks power. It was enough to motivate me to trade in my Crown K1 for a K2; I now use one channel to send 500 watts to the 18, and the other sends 800 to a (4 ohm) D10B-D. The improvement going from 350 to 500 on the 18 was quite satisfying. As long as I'm on the subject, before I got the 18 I was running the K1 bridged, sending 1500 to the D10B-D. Using test tones, I measured the output of this thing, and it really was flat to 40 Hz. If I didn't have a B string, I might never have gone for the ELF - the sound was glorious. Recently, I've been running the D10 full range (bypassing the crossover for that signal), and this seems to work quite nicely along with the 18 :-) To anyone looking at Bag End, I strongly advise you read the fine print - their "Deep" series is generally spec'ed to 40 Hz, but many of the other cabinets are only rated flat to 50. And as an editorial aside, unless you want the option of using the cabinet for keyboards or (maybe) guitar, I don't understand why you would pay extra for the tweeter in the 'X' versions, given that you may very well have a filter built into your Alembic that rolls off at 6 kHz, which is already well above any useful harmonics you could play on even a 6 string bass... Just to complete the picture, I use an SF-2 as my preamp. I changed the internal jumper to give me 20 dB of gain (instead of the factory setting of 10), and that seems to be plenty. I paid about $900US for the integraor, and a little over $700 for the 18 (both new). I can't make any useful comparisons to other equipment (well, okay, this stuff blows away my old SWR Baby Blue II, but you would sort of expect that). I also haven't heard any of it outside of my living room - but it's a good thing I don't share any walls with a neighbor... Yeah, I admit it's a bit extravagant, but music is important to me, and I hadn't purchased any musical gear in over ten years. I also took the advice mentioned elsewhere here recently, and did the rig upgrade while waiting for my custom to be built. It took longer than expected, and that money had already been budgeted ages ago, so why not. But I only own one Alembic... -Bob | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 396 Registered: 7-2003 |
Bob: Thanks. Good perspective - from the ELF's power demands to the historical pieces. I noticed the change for using "ELF" to "INFRA", too, but had no point of reference to understand this. I share your thought on the extravagence of this approach - I'm in the process (right now) of upgrading (therapy for waiting for a new Alembic - It sure beats the medication they give you!!). I really need to find one and try it for my own ears to make the ultimate decision. But your perspective and the others on this thread are exactly what I was unable to tap into, until now. Thanks for taking time to send your thoughts. Bill | ||
| davehouck
Senior Member Username: davehouck Post Number: 554 Registered: 5-2002 |
Bob; as usual, a great post. Two questions: When you are playing in your living room, is it just you or are other musicians playing too? In the above post you state "I don't understand why you would pay extra for the tweeter in the 'X' versions, given that you may very well have a filter built into your Alembic that rolls off at 6 kHz, which is already well above any useful harmonics you could play on even a 6 string bass". I don't know what the crossover setting is for the "X" cabs (and I can't seem to get to the Bag End web site right now), but given my experiment last night, your statement has caused me to become a bit confused. In my post, (http://alembic.com/club/messages/393/10171.html?1084609094) I reported that I put a 30 band graphic EQ (Rane ME60) in my signal path and pulled out the slider at 12.5kHz (12db reduction). This made a significant difference to my tone. I just went and looked at one of your previous posts (http://alembic.com/club/messages/393/7213.html) in which you state "instead of totally eliminating any sound above the filter frequency, the output is gradually reduced, so that one octave higher it will be 12 dB lower, two octaves higher will be 24 dB quieter, and by then you can't really tell anyway". So I take this to mean that with the filter set all the way up (6k), there would still be some useful signal being passed an octave higher at 12k, which would be why I notice the change in tone when I pull the slider at 12.5k down 12db. However, the second overtone of the highest fretted note on a 4 string bass is not going to be much beyond 6k; so why am I hearing the difference at 12k? I'm hearing the difference when playing not only at the top of the neck but in the middle as well. This would seem to indicate that the third, fourth and maybe even fifth overtones are a significant part of my tone. I'm confused. | ||
| bob
Advanced Member Username: bob Post Number: 217 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dear Confused, I don't have much time right now, maybe I'll put my foot in my mouth a bit further tonight... Okay, I should not have made the crack about tweeters for bass players. I've successfully resisted several times in the past, but I was in an expansive mood last night and my fingers got ahead of me. Sorry. I have to agree (grumble grumble...) that there may be some value in being able to reproduce tones above 6 kHz, particularly for slap style. However, I suggest that most of this is for fret/finger noise, and the contribution of actual string vibration in this range is considerably less than most people think. Judge for yourself. Run your entire signal through the SF-2, with no other EQ. Use max filter gain and *no* direct gain (both channels if appropriate), and set it to a high pass filter at 6k. Go ahead and crank on some Q if you like, just to help emphasize that point. Now play a little, trying both fingerstyle plucking and aggresive popping - but be very careful to distinguish how much of what you hear is actually coming out of the speaker, versus directly from the strings. Gradually lower the frequency setting down to around 5 and then 4 kHz, and you should get a pretty good idea of where the useful components begin. Let me know what you learn. -Bob | ||
| davehouck
Senior Member Username: davehouck Post Number: 559 Registered: 5-2002 |
At least I'm getting a lot of practice in! Ok, I set the F-1X flat; and I set the SF-2 up with no low pass and no direct gain, and set the high pass at 6k. I had the volume set high and had my ear at speaker level. I could hear every note from open E all the way up, finger style and slap. (This is an interesting way to practice!) I then lowered the threshold about a third of the way toward the next hashmark and got a little more tone; and another third got still a little more tone. At the hashmark (I'm guessing this is maybe 3k) the tone started opening up. Then with the high pass set back at 6k I went to the graphic EQ and started pulling out the sliders. Pulling out the 10k (-12db) had a very discernable effect, both on tone and finger noise. So, it seems to me that even if everything above 6k is being rolled off at -12db per octave, it's still a part of my tone that I miss when it's not there. Granted I normally play with the filter on the bass all the way up and with a lot of gain on the high pass filter in the SF-2 (and with a lot of gain on the SF-2's low pass filter too). Looking at the two filters on the SF-2, I would say the "scooped" part of my curve is from maybe 100 to maybe 600 (it's hard to tell, I wish I had a better idea how to calculate the settings on the SF-2's frequency knobs). The high stuff is what gives my tone it's detail. Well I could say more but I have to cut this post short <g> and head out the door. Thanks. | ||
| bob
Advanced Member Username: bob Post Number: 220 Registered: 11-2002 |
Okay (oh dear?) I'm back... Dave, practice is good, and unusual positions can also be educational. A couple of times, I've knelt down next to my bass sitting in its stand, and played it as a miniature upright. Quite interesting (but I suppose you have to be in the proper frame of mind). Glad to hear you're getting a better handle on your sound. But now I'm confused, so let's look at the math. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the vast majority of notes that you play are no higher than the 12th fret on the G string. The open G has a frequency of 98 Hz, the 12th fret an octave up is 196, and therefore the first 8 partials (starting with the fundamental) are 196, 392, 588, 784, 980, 1176, 1372, and 1568. Hmm... the 8th partial is only up around 1.6 kHz? Okay, let's go wild and assume our signature tone is based on the sound of the 24th fret on a high C. Open string is 130.8, 24th fret fundamental is 523.2, and the 8th partial is now all the way up to 4185 - still well shy of 6 kHz. Let's go back to the 12th fret on the G, and figure out what partial would get us up in the 6 kHz range. Partials of vibrating strings are integer multiples of the fundamental (e.g. 1x, 2x, 3x, etc.). So given a fundamental of 196 at the 12th fret on the G, the 30th (!) partial would get you up to 5.88 kHz. Conventional wisdom says that the first four or five partials are most significant; you probably get some additional character up to around the eighth, but after that the contribution is negligible. I don't mean to be the least bit sarcastic or in any way critical here, this just happens to be an interesting topic to me. Maybe my math or theory is wrong, but I'm just not clear on what it is you're hearing up there. I suppose I should also go back and repeat the experiment I tried a few months ago: run my bass through my stereo, with and without a 6 kHz high pass filter. As I recall, I did hear a very subtle difference - perhaps even pleasing - when I allowed the higher frequencies to go through. But it was very slight at best, and I have no conceptual understanding of why it should be audible at all. -Bob (By the way, I interpolated the hash marks on the SF-2 freq dial at some point, and came up with 45, 60, 80, 110, 190, 340, 680, 1350, 2800, 6000. The lower few weren't quite a linear fit, on a log scale, but I think they're all pretty close.) | ||
| palembic
Senior Member Username: palembic Post Number: 1347 Registered: 9-2002 |
Brother Bob, "Dave, practice is good, and unusual positions can also be educational..." ??????????????????????? Admit that this sound weird out of context! For a moment I was thinking you jumped into some "Kama Sutra"thing but ....well ...this is rather complicated for me too! LOL Paul TBO | ||
| dadabass2001
Intermediate Member Username: dadabass2001 Post Number: 139 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hi Guys, Point of Query: I thought the 14th fret on the G is "A 440 htz"? Last time I tried to use a tuning fork (Admittedly a cople of years ago) this seemed to be the case. Or maybe my ears are fried? Perhaps it's the middle of May. Look, there goes a robin!  Mike (The foggy one) | ||
| davehouck
Senior Member Username: davehouck Post Number: 563 Registered: 5-2002 |
Bob, thanks again for a detailed and educational post. Your discussion of partials makes sense; in the little bit of web searching I did yesterday, none of the discussions I found was as clear as the one you have presented. And your interpolated hash marks will be very helpful! But. Given what you have written above, it would seem logical to conclude that the result of the 6k high pass filter experiment should be that no notes below an open G should pass. But as previously reported, when I ran the experiment, a very high pitched version of every note from open E to 24th fret G did pass. At this point, it might be helpful if others in the group were to try the experiment. And when you do, the speaker does need to be at ear level; if it's on the floor and your standing above it, it's harder to hear. Oh and I don't take you to be sarcastic or critical, I also find this quite interesting and very helpful. I'm always working on my tone; it seems everytime I plug in to practice, I'm tweeking my tone settings, and paying attention to how the fingers strike the strings and to the resultant effect on tone and noise. So this can only be helpful. And I do very much appreciate your taking the time do craft your responses. Thanks. | ||
| davehouck
Senior Member Username: davehouck Post Number: 564 Registered: 5-2002 |
Mike; if you can see birds flying out of your speaker cabinet when you are playing, then you must have a really really nice tone! Bob is right; the open G is 98Hz and the 12th fret octave is 196Hz. The 14th fret A should therefore be 220 rather than 440. | ||
| adriaan
Advanced Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 236 Registered: 6-2002 |
Perhaps I'm running into some funny sort of mental limitation, but I have problems believing the correct pitch for bass guitar to be such that 440 Hz is the A above the octave on the regular G string. Ever played along with a real piano? They go down an octave and more below the regular E string, or at least that's my perception of things (not talking about a cheap upright). Double basses also sound as if tuned an octave lower than a bass guitar. | ||
| dnburgess
Advanced Member Username: dnburgess Post Number: 263 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm with the other Dave - 14th fret on the G string is 220Hz. A440 would therefore be 26th fret on the G string or on a six string bass 21st fret on the C string. David B. | ||
| bsee
Member Username: bsee Post Number: 61 Registered: 3-2004 |
Adriaan, A full-sized piano with 88 keys has just over seven full octaves of range. It starts on an A note (27.5Hz) and goes up to a C (4186Hz). A four string bass has just over three octaves of range. Each additional string with a standard tuning gets you one note short of half an octave, so a six string bass (or guitar) has almost exactly four octaves of range. These numbers leave plenty of room for a piano to go a bit lower, and significantly higher, than the range of any standard issue guitar or bass. That A440 is just above the middle of a piano, so a bass guitar with a low B just about matches the lower half of the piano's range. | ||
| davehouck
Senior Member Username: davehouck Post Number: 568 Registered: 5-2002 |
But Adriann has a point about the "sound" of the 14th fret A. The fundamental is 220, but as Bob pointed out, the first partial after 220 is going to be 440. If you roll the filter all the way down, the 220 becomes much more pronounced; roll the filter all the way up and the 440 becomes more evident. The open E on an upright bass emphasizes the fundamental much more than the open E on an electric bass, unless you roll off the filter trying to get that upright tone. | ||
| adriaan
Advanced Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 239 Registered: 6-2002 |
Dave, I'm going to try turning down the filter, see if that zooms in on the fundamental. Ah, to dream of ebony neck lams! | ||
| bigredbass
Advanced Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 247 Registered: 9-2002 |
I'm staying out of the math, except to wonder what is a bass doing out to 15 or 16khz . . . My impressions of ELF/BagEnd: --I totally agree that the concentric high drivers are MUCH smoother than the typical horn in most bins, which I routinely dislike. I did like the 410 Hartke bin with the 5" in the middle, as it was smoother than a horn (and I'm no Hartke fan, but I do like that bin). --The ELF bottom pass is very smooth: You don't really hear it at first, since we're usually used to ports, folded horns, transmission lines, all designs with a lump in their sonic signature. It really plays with your head that this is a sealed cabinet, just big enough to hold the speaker. The double cabinet 18 with the 210/highdriver cab on top would be my dream rig. Just as going from a head/cab to a component rig is a big jump in fidelity, from a regular component rig to the ELF/Bag End rig is that big a jump again. But remember, it's like the tone in a good recording studio. With the right power, it just gets louder and will not break up . . . which is a revelation for a lot of us. There are lots of people who will not like it, it just won't be grainy and lumpy enough. If you need lots of skank and sturm and drang, keep the SVT or your SWR rig. It's like going from Jack Daniels to Crown Royal. Jack will sure get the job done, but Crown is just sooooo smoooooooooth . . . J o e y |
