Talk:Bass amplifier

Assessment, start class for now

I assessed this article as start class today, because although long and detailed, there were few refs for most of the article. If anyone improves it and wants it reassessed, please drop me a line.Jacqke (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

other bass instruments?

Maybe we need a bit about amplifying other types of bas instrument like brass basses, bassoons, bass saxophones etc. THese could all go in one para under wind instrument amplification say. THe para would need to state the problems assiciated with amplifying these acoustic instruments.--Light current 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Amplifying DBs

Natmor, Perhaps an amended version of this para could be put in the DB article? What do you think? 8-|--Light current 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Amp size and gig size

I think that bit is a bit misleading. Most amplification at large venues comes from the PA, not the bass amp. A person at a large concert might use a relatively small rig for monitoring, while a person might use an 8x10 at a clubif they don't have a PA to plug into. The article should mention that the amp may or may not have to project bass into the whole venue. --Howdybob 13:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sealed vs. ported

I don't know that an attempt at explaining ports is appropriate here. It might be better to just mention it and link to bass reflex and other articles.. There are various tradeoffs and it's a bit much to explain them. Sealed cabs don't necessarily make "truer" bass if you include low distortion as a criterion. BR is by far the more common and I think it might be best to leave it at that. I might change later it but if I do I wanted to explain why I'd cut it out. --Howdybob 14:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Now it says:

The disadvantage of using tuned ports is that there is no air pressure difference to help 'spring' the driver back into place, so the low-frequency sound production may not be as precise.

That's not right. At the tuning frequency the ported cab has a lot more backpressure on the cone. Below tuning the sealed cab does. The issue of overexcursion and whatnot depends on the tuning frequency, the strength and pitch of the lower fundamentals coming from the bass, and other things. I think this should be left out as a proper explanation would be long and not really appropriate here, especially considering most bass cabs are BR anyway. I may cut this stuff out but I don't know if Natmor is done yet. --Howdybob 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of sealed enclosures and their operation is quite misleading at this date. It's seriously confusing. ww (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

DI's

Many bassists plug right into the mixer for recording or sound reinforcement, as opposed to guitarists who almost always use mic'd speakers as a part of their sound. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article. --Howdybob 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Last para of lede

What is this actually saying? Anything -- or nothing?--Light current 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Question on sealed cabs.

Article says:

When a bass speaker is built into a completely sealed cabinet, the cabinets use the trapped volume of air to act as a 'spring' or cushion for the bass speaker. These designs require more amplifier power to produce low-frequency sounds, because the speaker has to overcome the force of the air pressure in the cabinet and there is no reinforcement of the output of the speaker cones. This design is less common due to the need for very high output in live music venues.

Does anyone know roughly how much less efficient a sealed cab is than a refex of equivalent internal volume in the bottom couple of octaves? (Or how much more power is needed for same loudness)--Light current 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer depends on several factors. A poorly designed bass reflex cabinet is pretty useless, however efficient. One note boomy and all that. But comparing properly designed systems with approapriate drivers, the difference is quite large. Sealed boxes of this type (everyone else in the world calls them acoustic suspension) are inherently inefficient as result of the design objectives. And the smaller the box, essentailly, the greater the inefficiency. See Hoffman's Iron Laws. But this all somewhat evdes the real question which is, if you need loud at musically significant low frequencies, you can't seriously use an acoutic suspension box, shouldn't use a really large box (effectively infinite baffle) or an open backed box as either causes so many acoustic imedance matching problems as tlow frequencies as to be not worth attempting to work around. That leaves bass reflex, which are efficient but REQUIRE close matching between the driver used and the box and port (same for passive radiator variations) and "other" designs. Fiddling with the driver to improve the sound, or poor manufacturer quality control or abuse of the driver (too low frequencies to a bass reflex design will bottom out any driver) will change this adjustment, almost certainly in a bad direction. Horn designs (by which I do not mean short horns with or w/o reflex ports, like the Altec Voice of the Theatre variants) but actual horns are perhaps best, thoght limited to maybe 3 octaves or so for best performance. They are large and heavy, and if folded, heavier and very complex. If they can handle tones to 40hx and maybe a bit below. In all cases, one can use more (2, 4 , 6 , 8, ...) cabinets, but hten one is talking about an entire truck fo rthe bassist. There's no perfect solution, claims to the contrary not withstanding from advertising or from designers who really don't understand the issues involved. You should not have to use some special driver (with exotic diaphragm material, and you should not have to spend humongous amounts of money for magic enclosures. There aren't any. All rely on mundane physics, though not necessarily easy phsics to apply in practice. ww (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Break out Guitar-dedicated articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distortion#Proposed_Article_Titles_and_Changes

The refactoring is in-progress. MichaelSHoffman 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The refactoring is done. MichaelSHoffman 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Small bass cabs or combos

Anyone know of a small (prefereably lightweight) cab or combo (< 1 cu ft) that can reproduce the bottom string (E) on a bass with less than 3 dB loss? Im not particularly interested in very loud cabs. (90 dBA @ 1m would be ok)--Light current 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd doubt there can be such a beast. That's small, and that's moderately loud at that low a frequncy, and imply huge inefficieny. Not clear any maker would make such an inefficient box as the market would react badly (you mean I have to use a mega $ amp just for this littel box??!!!!! All that said, I think your best bet might be a large driver in a small acoustic suspension box. Will need a large amp though. ww (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

Merge

The Bass effects article appears to overlap with Bass instrument amplification, and perhps really ought to be merged into the effects section. -- Whpq 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge suggested, for the reasons stated above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with a merge...bass amplification is about the power and physics side of things (getting big speaker cone to move, dealing with air moving in big wooden box, etc.). Bass effects is about the electronic signal side, where you are changing the signal with transistors and computer chips...Nazamo 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

--Warren-pa 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I disagree with merging this article. Bass effects involve signal processing not signal amplification. As I am a bass player who uses some FX I would be happy to help maintain the FX topic.

Disagree with the merge. Amplification and effects, while both being forms of signal manipulation, are completely different in their execution. Nobody would call an amplifier an effect (though there are amplifier simulation effects). Likewise, it would be difficult to call an effect amplification, even if amplification is achieved with use of the effect (ie. boost or EQ pedal).Brady Clarke 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturers of bass amplifiers or loudspeakers list

Harmony Central lists about 150 manufacturers, so this list has the potential to become unwieldy. Could we take another approach? / edgarde 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research unacceptable

In the current article, there are two extensive tracts in which an editor speaks of his personal experience building and using bass speakers. This is Original Research, forbidden in WP artilce.s I suggest that these parts be changed to examples of common bass speaker designs of the time rather than personal experiences. Since both sections contain useful information (if only that Sunn and EV did it this way and successfully) I don't think the material should be just left out.

With some improvements, and some corrections as to the effect of enclosure design (the physics is important, more ao than for other instrument amps) I think this could be an excellent article.

Comment? ww (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Still lots of origianl research and urban legend reasoning as for instance in the wholly confused account of feedback. Still needs lots of work to clean out the cobwebs. ww (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can do it, I will applaud. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed some of what I consider to be original research and unencyclopedic content. --Kvng (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Size

The introduction contained the following statement "This is due mainly to the fact that loudspeakers become less efficient at lower frequencies (depending on the size of the driver) and because the human ear requires greater sound pressure levels at lower frequency to hear equal loudness". It was recently edited to remove the bit about efficiency. I don't think there is any dispute that bass amps are bigger. I find both original explanations plausible and I can come up with a few others of my own too if you like. I've removed the entire statement. Let's find something citable, please --Kvng (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The "loudspeakers become less efficient at lower frequencies" statement is not generally true, unless you're talking about frequencies below the resonant frequency. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But I believe a large cabinet is required to achieve a low resonant frequency so it is potentially a legit explanation for the larger size that was the context for the statement. Removing it was the right thing to do. The F-M discussion was also tenuous and so it had to go. IMO the article reads fine without the removed statements. --Kvng (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. A larger driver will tend to have a lower free-air resonant frequency than a small one, simply because it has a larger mass (let's see if Thiele-Small parameters is a bluelink). Of course you're correct that the cabinet has a large effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Thiele/Small --Kvng (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

E1 or E2 for 41Hz?

Piano key frequencies says 41Hz which I'm fairly sure is the open string E on a standard bass guitar is E1. The reference (4) also says that so I'm changing it. PeterGrecian (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias against combo amps.

Reading through this article there is a strong bias against combo amplifiers. Much of which is clearly subjective and counts as personal opinion rather than the unbiassed commentary one would hope from a Wikipedia article.

The opinions expressed in this article, such as "move up to a bass stack", imply that bass stacks are inherently 'better' than combos. This is not objective fact or opinion, as both the designs of combos, and of component systems vary so much. To suggest that one approach is always (or even usually) better is hard to justify given the vast array of options available.

Some of the statements are simply incorrect. "The limitation of combo amps is that they cannot produce enough volume for large venue performances". Large venue performances will inevitably use a PA system for most of the sound reinforcement, so combo amps can be, and are, perfectly adequate for these situations. Some bass players do not have backline amplifiers on stage at all for such concerts, so this argument is flawed in this regard also. Furthermore, there are combo amplifiers which can deliver in excess of 700 watts of power, across a full frequency range (eg. Phil Jones roadcase, Acoustic Image Ten2 and others). The days of filling a large venue with sound from the on-stage backline are long gone, as are the days of combo amps being low powered, with inadequate speaker/cabinet design.

This entire article reads as though it is a justification for the use of seperate bass amplifiers and speaker cabinets "Another reason that some bassists prefer the "bass stack" approach is that it is much easier to customize a separate preamp/amp/speaker cabinet setup with a bass stack than it is to customize a combo amp." This is a reason why *some* bass players choose seperates, however it is far from universally accepted as being true, or of being a good idea.

"As well, it is much easier to "troubleshoot" a bass rig that is producing poor sound or so sound than a combo amp." Again, this is simply not true. For example, a situation where cabinets are out of phase with each other, or the impedance is not matched, is not going to happen at all with a Combo (unless an extension speaker is used, at which point the combo is essentially part of a component system). The issue of cables and connections is, again, far simpler with most combos as the cables are often permanently connected internally. Put simply, there is generally *less* reason to need to troubleshoot bad sound with a combo than with seperates. This is especially true when the seperates are from different manufacturers, utilising different design specifications.

One of the biggest advantages of combo amplifiers over seperates is that the designer has total control over the specifications and can match components which they know will work well together.

There are pros and cons to combos vs separates, both in general terms, and on a case by case basis. This article really should be re-written without this antediluvian bias.

Hi Dinobass, I will look at correcting these issues. : )OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but only up to a point.

It comes down to that Bass needs more power for an equivalent volume, which means a higher output power *and* more speakers to move a larger volume of air.

At the larger gigs, where the amp is connected via DI to to the house PA and everyone has monitors, your point is obviously valid. Somewhat ironically, it's the smaller gigs that are the problem where we're providing the sound direct to the audience (as well as ourselves and other band members). I've also found that open-air gigs without sufficient number of monitors will also require plenty of volume and speakers to hear myself (and for the other band members to hear me).

In situations where my guitarists can still get away using their combis (stacked on beer crates), at least a 4x10 (or equivalent) is required for the bass. Given that one of the main advantages of combis is portability, this becomes a moot point and a negated advantage when a large cabinet is required.

Combis, *generally speaking* , also have lower power output than heads.

Music style is also a factor, specifically how loud the drummer is. Certain styles, e.g. metal, hardcore punk, are loud and require the bass to be loud, due to the frequency overlap (and that the bassist traditionally stands near the drums so they can lock-in together). Real life example: even in the practice room, the 150W Peavy combi with single 15" speaker isn't sufficiently loud enough with my drummer.

Bass combis are less useful, and therefore less prevalent, than their guitar counterparts for these reasons. This isn't bias, it's down to uniqueness of bass and bass playing.

(Disclaimer: I'm a bass player in band (that gigs). I have a 550W head with a 2x10 and a 1x15 cabs. My guitarists use 100W combis, no problem.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.87.219 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bass amplifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185847/http://www.boss.info/global/gear/261/155 to http://www.boss.info/global/gear/261/155
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727093743/http://www.bassamplifier.org:80/ to http://www.bassamplifier.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bass amplifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171316/http://ldsg.snippets.org/appdx-a.php to http://ldsg.snippets.org/appdx-a.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185847/http://www.boss.info/global/gear/261/155 to http://www.boss.info/global/gear/261/155
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bassamplifier.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

notable gap: Ampeg

The foundation of Ampeg is inextricably tied to the evolution of the electrified bass. Their foundational product was in fact a pickup intended specifically for upright bass that the designers called the "Amplified Peg." A few years later, the company was renamed The Ampeg Bassamp Company.

Any company can push out amplifiers. Any amp can be branded "a bass amp." In the context of this article, companies (such as Ampeg or Eden Electronics) that began from a focus on the specific real-world needs of the electrified bass ought to be featured prominently in this article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

needs cutting

There is entirely too much derivative comment jammed into the lede (opening) paragraphs, and I suspect that significant portions of it are not substantiated in the article proper, therefore deserve removal.

Amplifier technology is largely unsourced, and overwhelmed with techspeak beyond the Wikipedia target audience. The entire massive Power in watts and volume is the most egregious example, though Impedance is little better and Solid state amplification is jargon-fascinated.

Loudspeakers >> Cabinet design must be substantially cut, seeing as the article Loudspeaker enclosure covers it. And how is it there's been no attempt to let Loudspeaker and/or Speaker driver do most of the general-info lifting here?

Seeing as W'pedia is not a magazine and not a collector guide and not a user manual, most of the Controls, jacks and indicator LEDS section could likely disappear to good effect.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is terribly repetitive, especially when talking about stack configurations and some of the detail is ill informed and contradictory. It also makes very little mention of the use of 1x12 and 1x12 cabs which have become much more common since the millennium. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Example of a very strange statement in the article:

"Another issue that can develop with bass players who have very high onstage volume is that it can be hard for the audio engineer to produce a clean sound through the PA/sound reinforcement system. For example, if a bassist was driving her bass amp speaker stacks into clipping to create a fuzz bass tone, if the audio engineer wished to have a "clean" bass sound, this could pose a challenge." Basically it's saying keep the bass volume down so the sound engineer can give the audience a sound completely different from the one you are working so hard to achieve... also rather sinister that in the example it's a female bassist who is having her sound subverted. A case of Mr Sound Engineer knows best, dear? Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That is also completely unsourced. I think it should be removed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yah, go for it. As in Bass effects, it seems like nonfactual trivia keeps getting pasted in by editors who've never actually played.

Here's some OR, though there's probably sources available online: IRL, a bass (or any other source, including vocals) would readily be split, then possibly preamp buffered if desired, with one out going to the board and the other to the stack. The engineer then has all the "clean" tone in the world to work with.

And while I'm here, I totally agree that many bassists use small-cone rigs, especially for recording, and these ain't "practice amps." I often use a Line 6 LowDown Studio 110 combo which (as implied) has one 10-inch speaker, and a low-Z XLR out intended for direct-to-board. Offhand, Roland has a 4x4 and MarkBass a 1x12. The amplifier circuit only needs be powerful enough to act as a monitor.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

due for major pruning

The entire overlong Bass amplifier#Types has only three references, with most subsections entirely unsupported. I will be hacking away at this, not least being distractions such as price comparisons and who-used-what trivia.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)