STOLEN Phil Jones Bass SIX PAK combo…
Question:
> There is no such thing as 190 LOUD watts, and 190 quiet Watts. > In what book did you find this bit of information!!!!!! > In the world of measuring power from an amplifier, the voltage that appears across a known resistive > load without clip, yields an accurate unit of measure. That measured R.M.S. voltage squared divided > by the load value, yields the power output in Watts R.M.S.
Rich, I am very happy to see you write this. I keep reading the urban folklore about "British watts" and "tube watts" as somehow being louder and it is nice to see a tube man like yourself point out the truth, a watt is a watt. — Brian Rost Stargen, Inc.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Have you actually bought a combo (or even looked at the promotional > > material) from almost any manufacturer recently? Many many combos state > > the full wattage of the built in amplifier rather than the configuration > > with the internal speaker alone. > Yes. Most manufacturers specify both. > > I have to say that’s pretty clear to me. No better or worse than > > Gallien Kruger, SWR, Acoustic Image, Peavey, or any number of other > > manufacturers of Combo amplifiers. > Gallien Krueger clearly states the output power of their MB150 combo > amps, for both internal and external speakers. Acoustic Image does so > too IIRC. It seems to be the norm, actually. Most amps give power > ratings for different speaker impedances. > Gallien Krueger call the combo MB150, that’s setting up an expectation > of 150 watts, they state on the web page "Both versions feature > adjustable limiting and 150 Watts (90W into internal speaker)." they > are definitely pushing the 150 as the selling feature, you have to look > fairly close to notice the 90 watt thing. > Check out the Acoustic Image page > http://www.acousticimg.com/contrar-1.html > They barely even hint that an extension speaker is required for that > power. It is stated elsewhere and in the manual. > It is the norm to mention the full power of the amp first and then > mention the combo configuration. > I think the only major manufacturer who’s products I’ve bought or > considered buying who gets it right is SWR. Check out the descriptions > of the super readhead or workingman’s combos. They state the > configuration power rating first and bury the fact that you can get more > power with extra speakers in the specs. It will be interesting to see > if this policy changes with new ownership. > Note that I’m not accusing Phil Jones of doing anything shady. But I > would argue that the power rating for a combo amp by itself is the > most critical rating, since this is how people typically use combo > amps. > I would tend to agree with this, however this isn’t what most > manufacturers do. > If you have to start > hooking up extension speakers routinely, you’ve given up the reason > for having a combo amp. If you can’t make it work as a combo amp, you > shouldn’t try to market a combo amp. > I disagree with this though. I much prefer combo amplifiers which can > be used with additional cabinets to ones (like my old Peavey TNT) which > couldn’t. I can take the combo on its own to rehearsals and smaller > gigs and just schlep the heavy extension cab to larger gigs. Admittedly > I thought differently before I obtained an extension cab. > Also, with a combo as heavy as the six-pak I’d generally expect to be > able to use it on its own. Still, until I actually get to try one out > I’ll never know whether it is 190 ‘quiet’ watts or 190 ‘loud’ watts – > after all ‘watts’ is only a very approximate measure of the actual > volume perceived on stage.
There is no such thing as 190 LOUD watts, and 190 quiet Watts. In what book did you find this bit of information!!!!!! In the world of measuring power from an amplifier, the voltage that appears across a known resistive load without clip, yields an accurate unit of measure. That measured R.M.S. voltage squared divided by the load value, yields the power output in Watts R.M.S. What determines the actual SPL (Sound Pressure Level) that is actually produced by the speakers, depends totally by the actual sensitivity rating of the speaker/s involved. The standard for that is a 1 Hz sine wave, of 1 watt of input, measured at 1 meter. An optional sensitivity measurement would be for the SAME test to be followed, at the low frequency 3 db down point of the speaker. That figure, would be very useful to selecting a speaker for bass guitar applications. Then, knowing the sensitive of the high frequency 3 db down point, would also let you know if this speaker would be good for slap bass applications. Why don’t you visit the AGA FAQ, and give it a read. This subject is covered quite well. You can find it I’m sure. http://aga.rru.com/FAQs/general.html Read number 46. http://aga.rru.com/FAQs/general.html#powerloud1 Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <sigh> > Sigh yourself… > Let’s take this a step at a time. > OK. > OK, Here is the link you posted. > http://www.philjonesbass.com/PRODUCTS/SPEAKERS/SIX-PAK.htm > So from reading that page, as a first time visitor,…… > But you’re *not* looking at a combo amplifier for the first time, few if > any of the people reading are complete combo neophytes. > NO WHERE on THAT PAGE, does it SAY, that in THAT configuration, the > SIX-PAK ONLY yields 200 WATTS!!! > Have you actually bought a combo (or even looked at the promotional > material) from almost any manufacturer recently? Many many combos state > the full wattage of the built in amplifier rather than the configuration > with the internal speaker alone.
Do You Know What The Letters FTC stand for!!!!!!! They have started to pay attention to this sort of thing. > Most of them state clearly that extension speaker cabinets are required > to get the full output of the amplifier. One can argue whether or not > this a little bit of sneaky marketting or perfectly legitimate statement > of specification until the cows come home but the fact is that > *everyone* states it that way.
<snip of a non issue> > Yet, it proudly mentions 700 watts in the text for what is pictured there. > Well, it’s a 700 watt amp, I’d be pretty proud of that.
Boy, I’m so glad you are so proud of something you can’t use, till you spend more. It’s still a 190 watt amp, without the extra expense of the additional speakers. Sounds like flood insurance, for a rainy day, when you live where it never floods. > 700 watts.
Good,… plug it in, *AS IS*, and let’s hear all 700 watts of it!!!!!!! Go for it. > It should be CLEARLY stated, that what is pictured on that page is ONLY > 200 watts in that configuration. > It say, in letters the same size as all the others, "Hook up an > extension Piranha 9B cabinet or 2 and be ready to rock with up to 700 > watts of pure power". > I have to say that’s pretty clear to me. No better or worse than > Gallien Kruger, SWR, Acoustic Image, Peavey, or any number of other > manufacturers of Combo amplifiers.
OK, why did the FTC get on the power amp builders for the manner in which they rated the power of their products. Check out the NEW FTC-Watts, method of rating power amps. Industry standards are one thing. Marketing standards is another. Maybe the FTC should take a look at instrument amps too. <snip of tit for tat stuff> > So, having done that,…. > OK, so now you have a 200 watt 83 lb box the does how much SPL at what > frequency now, for how much money. > Well, actually, it’s quite a reasonable price when compared with similar > ‘200 watt’ combos, few of which can power anything like as many > extension cabs.
Give me a breaking break. First, any SS amp will load up with higher output in the lower numbers, PEAVEY and others have been doing that for years. There is nothing new or special about a SS amp doing that, no matter who builds it. What good is it, when the configured basic amp package is less than a 1/3 of the total power potential. Which you paid for in the purchase price. But, to realize it, you have the further investment in the additional speakers. This, is practical???? <snip of already been covered stuff> > > But still thats only part of it, the clarity and dynamics of these rigs > > clean up the whole sound of the stage and make the band sound better. You > > can’t get that out of specs and graphs. > If they are that useless, why have them!!!!! > I’ve often wondered. Personally I think they’re are so people can have > pointless arguments about them.
Right, like the point less arguments you are handing me, that don’t stand up in the world of science and physics. Musicians have their own brand of pick and choose science, to suit their world of tone. Yes, those pointless things that gave use space flight, and cell phones. It’s only in the world of music, that the usage of technology has not advanced the final product, in direct proportions to what the rest of the world has seen, as advancements from applied technology in other fields that improve the quality of life. The quality of the music today, sure isn’t keeping pace with the rest of the world’s advancements through technology. That’s for shit sure. > In the end, with any piece of musical gear, the specifications only tell > part of the story. If someone brings out a piece of gear that is heavy, > inefficient, technically gutless but incredibly funky sounding people > will buy it *for the sound*. The one thing the specifications can never > tell you is how the thing sounds.
There are in fact two things, Science and Opinion; the Former Begets KNOWLEDGE, the latter IGNORANCE!!!!! -Hippocrates > The specifications can help get one into the ball park (will it compete > with the drummer, who uses broomhandles as sticks, the guitarist with > the 4 marshal stacks and the phalanx of bagpipers, oh and will it fit in > my car), but beyond that the only way to tell if it will do what you > want of it is to listen to the thing.
REAL Data Specs, from measurement which follows accepted convention founded by the laws of physics, are accurate, and represent the measurement of the reality in the REAL world, you live in. > To be quite honest, when reading specs I’m far more interested in the > dimensions and weight than speaker efficiency, watts and total harmonic > distortion.
To the bass player, it’s all about putting energy into the air at low frequency, the best way possible. For those with the weak backs, weight becomes an issue. Which, in turn, makes other non issues, now an issue. Hey, for a small paint shaker, my PEAVEY Data Bass does real fine with over *400* watts. Which, holds up with the loudest drummers too. I’ve backed guitar players down with it on Twin Reverbs. What more HEADROOM does anyone need in a *small* package, for the *small* stage. But then, I’m sure you’ve had the experience of using one of those amps. Right. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Have you actually bought a combo (or even looked at the promotional > material) from almost any manufacturer recently? Many many combos state > the full wattage of the built in amplifier rather than the configuration > with the internal speaker alone. > Yes. Most manufacturers specify both. > I have to say that’s pretty clear to me. No better or worse than > Gallien Kruger, SWR, Acoustic Image, Peavey, or any number of other > manufacturers of Combo amplifiers. > Gallien Krueger clearly states the output power of their MB150 combo > amps, for both internal and external speakers. Acoustic Image does so > too IIRC. It seems to be the norm, actually. Most amps give power > ratings for different speaker impedances.
Gallien Krueger call the combo MB150, that’s setting up an expectation of 150 watts, they state on the web page "Both versions feature adjustable limiting and 150 Watts (90W into internal speaker)." they are definitely pushing the 150 as the selling feature, you have to look fairly close to notice the 90 watt thing. Check out the Acoustic Image page http://www.acousticimg.com/contrar-1.html They barely even hint that an extension speaker is required for that power. It is stated elsewhere and in the manual. It is the norm to mention the full power of the amp first and then mention the combo configuration. I think the only major manufacturer who’s products I’ve bought or considered buying who gets it right is SWR. Check out the descriptions of the super readhead or workingman’s combos. They state the configuration power rating first and bury the fact that you can get more power with extra speakers in the specs. It will be interesting to see if this policy changes with new ownership. > Note that I’m not accusing Phil Jones of doing anything shady. But I > would argue that the power rating for a combo amp by itself is the > most critical rating, since this is how people typically use combo > amps.
I would tend to agree with this, however this isn’t what most manufacturers do. > If you have to start > hooking up extension speakers routinely, you’ve given up the reason > for having a combo amp. If you can’t make it work as a combo amp, you > shouldn’t try to market a combo amp.
I disagree with this though. I much prefer combo amplifiers which can be used with additional cabinets to ones (like my old Peavey TNT) which couldn’t. I can take the combo on its own to rehearsals and smaller gigs and just schlep the heavy extension cab to larger gigs. Admittedly I thought differently before I obtained an extension cab. Also, with a combo as heavy as the six-pak I’d generally expect to be able to use it on its own. Still, until I actually get to try one out I’ll never know whether it is 190 ‘quiet’ watts or 190 ‘loud’ watts – after all ‘watts’ is only a very approximate measure of the actual volume perceived on stage. — Derek — Many Hands – Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand http://www.manyhands.co.nz/
Response:
> Have you actually bought a combo (or even looked at the promotional > material) from almost any manufacturer recently? Many many combos state > the full wattage of the built in amplifier rather than the configuration > with the internal speaker alone.
Yes. Most manufacturers specify both. > I have to say that’s pretty clear to me. No better or worse than > Gallien Kruger, SWR, Acoustic Image, Peavey, or any number of other > manufacturers of Combo amplifiers.
Gallien Krueger clearly states the output power of their MB150 combo amps, for both internal and external speakers. Acoustic Image does so too IIRC. It seems to be the norm, actually. Most amps give power ratings for different speaker impedances. Note that I’m not accusing Phil Jones of doing anything shady. But I would argue that the power rating for a combo amp by itself is the most critical rating, since this is how people typically use combo amps. A competent engineer can design a switching power amplifier with any power rating you want. It takes considerably more knowledge and judgement to design a combo amp as a system. If you have to start hooking up extension speakers routinely, you’ve given up the reason for having a combo amp. If you can’t make it work as a combo amp, you shouldn’t try to market a combo amp. The problem with the Phil Jones amp is not the amplifier, but the fact that you have a relatively inefficient speaker with modest power handling capability in a large, cumbersome, and expensive package. The weight of the thing is especially surprising considering that switching amplifiers don’t weigh a lot themselves. To be fair, this may be a case where a "boutique" amplifier sounds very good despite not making very much sense from an engineering standpoint. The same thing could be said about a 400-Watt tube head.
Response:
> <sigh>
Sigh yourself… > Let’s take this a step at a time.
OK. > OK, Here is the link you posted. > http://www.philjonesbass.com/PRODUCTS/SPEAKERS/SIX-PAK.htm > So from reading that page, as a first time visitor,……
But you’re *not* looking at a combo amplifier for the first time, few if any of the people reading are complete combo neophytes. > NO WHERE on THAT PAGE, does it SAY, that in THAT configuration, the
SIX-PAK ONLY yields 200 WATTS!!!
Have you actually bought a combo (or even looked at the promotional material) from almost any manufacturer recently? Many many combos state the full wattage of the built in amplifier rather than the configuration with the internal speaker alone. Most of them state clearly that extension speaker cabinets are required to get the full output of the amplifier. One can argue whether or not this a little bit of sneaky marketting or perfectly legitimate statement of specification until the cows come home but the fact is that *everyone* states it that way. In fact, I was quite dissapointed to discover that a tiny combo amp I looked into the other day was exactly that, 100 watts into two tiny 6 inch speakers with no possibility of using an additional cab – that combo was, hmm, a Phil Jones briefcase. It sounded very full, good tone with all my disparate instruments and the battery is liberating. > Yet, it proudly mentions 700 watts in the text for what is pictured there.
Well, it’s a 700 watt amp, I’d be pretty proud of that.
700 watts. > It should be CLEARLY stated, that what is pictured on that page is ONLY > 200 watts in that configuration.
It say, in letters the same size as all the others, "Hook up an extension Piranha 9B cabinet or 2 and be ready to rock with up to 700 watts of pure power". I have to say that’s pretty clear to me. No better or worse than Gallien Kruger, SWR, Acoustic Image, Peavey, or any number of other manufacturers of Combo amplifiers. > But the only HINT of this SIX-PACK being LESS than the 700 watts mention > in the text about the SIX-PACK,… happens to be the little number 12, > hidden at the bottom of the page in the lower left hand box.
It’s only hidden for the people who didn’t read the rest of the text properly. It was pretty obvious to me that "the 700 watt amplifier isn’t even cruising" meant that total power wasn’t delivered into the 6 speakers. > Then, if you happen to notice this, it is expected for the first time > visitor, like me, to go look up the meaning of that number 12 on the > chart, which happens to be found on another page all together.
Or the downloadable users manual. Always a good thing to check out if available. Someone series about checking out this combo who had got to the website would surely download the PDF before running to the local dealer. The second paragraph explains that the six-pak configuration is ~190 watts. It’s really quite clear. > So, having done that,…. > OK, so now you have a 200 watt 83 lb box the does how much SPL at what > frequency now, for how much money.
Well, actually, it’s quite a reasonable price when compared with similar ‘200 watt’ combos, few of which can power anything like as many extension cabs. > <sigh> > This is clearly not getting better. > Before all this, I was impressed with the mistaken 700 watts applied to > the six speakers in the SIX-PAK. > Now, the situation is quite different.
Yes, it means you’ve been making some quite interesting assumptions about the type and efficiency of the speakers based on their having to deliver far more power than they actually do. > But still thats only part of it, the clarity and dynamics of these rigs > clean up the whole sound of the stage and make the band sound better. You > can’t get that out of specs and graphs. > If they are that useless, why have them!!!!!
I’ve often wondered. Personally I think they’re are so people can have pointless arguments about them. In the end, with any piece of musical gear, the specifications only tell part of the story. If someone brings out a piece of gear that is heavy, inefficient, technically gutless but incredibly funky sounding people will buy it *for the sound*. The one thing the specifications can never tell you is how the thing sounds. The specifications can help get one into the ball park (will it compete with the drummer, who uses broomhandles as sticks, the guitarist with the 4 marshal stacks and the phalanx of bagpipers, oh and will it fit in my car), but beyond that the only way to tell if it will do what you want of it is to listen to the thing. To be quite honest, when reading specs I’m far more interested in the dimensions and weight than speaker efficiency, watts and total harmonic distortion. > <thinking> > We all have our concepts of reality. Don’t we.
Clearly. > You have to hear it. > When one walks up in front of me, I will give it a listen. > Remember, even a 200 watt Peavey can be a good bass amp too.
I’ve owned Peavey gear, it’s usually good value and reliable. If that’s what you need in an amp then it’s a good choice. — Derek — Many Hands – Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand http://www.manyhands.co.nz/
Response:
> Rich, > I’m not quite sure of your agenda. This post was to ask for help from folks > to locate a stolen amplifier – not to engage in a debate on the validity of > Phil’s design. > You are not even making fair comparisons in your attacks. The six pak is a > small portable combo that is intended for the player who plays different > sized venues, on occasions having higher power requirements. > Do your homework for before making your claims. Look at the specs of the > M-500 with the SPL/Frequency graphs of his various combinations of cabinets.
<sigh> Let’s take this a step at a time. OK, Here is the link you posted. http://www.philjonesbass.com/PRODUCTS/SPEAKERS/SIX-PAK.htm So from reading that page, as a first time visitor,…… NO WHERE on THAT PAGE, does it SAY, that in THAT configuration, the SIX-PAK ONLY yields 200 WATTS!!! Yet, it proudly mentions 700 watts in the text for what is pictured there. It should be CLEARLY stated, that what is pictured on that page is ONLY 200 watts in that configuration. Besides, if you take the 700 watts, and divide it among the six speakers seen in the picture, you have each handling 117 watts. Which, is in the realms of reality today. Given the existence of the 600 watt Gauss 10" speakers from years past. But the only HINT of this SIX-PACK being LESS than the 700 watts mention in the text about the SIX-PACK,… happens to be the little number 12, hidden at the bottom of the page in the lower left hand box. Then, if you happen to notice this, it is expected for the first time visitor, like me, to go look up the meaning of that number 12 on the chart, which happens to be found on another page all together. and then go back, and connect the dots, to the SIX-PAK. So, having done that,…. OK, so now you have a 200 watt 83 lb box the does how much SPL at what frequency now, for how much money. <sigh> This is clearly not getting better. Before all this, I was impressed with the mistaken 700 watts applied to the six speakers in the SIX-PAK. Now, the situation is quite different. You know, I’m really sorry you posted my mistake, and told me that it was only 200 watts. You really were, ahead till then. But, I really appreciate you correcting me. > But still thats only part of it, the clarity and dynamics of these rigs > clean up the whole sound of the stage and make the band sound better. You > can’t get that out of specs and graphs.
If they are that useless, why have them!!!!! <thinking> We all have our concepts of reality. Don’t we. > You have to hear it.
When one walks up in front of me, I will give it a listen. Remember, even a 200 watt Peavey can be a good bass amp too. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
Rich, I’m not quite sure of your agenda. This post was to ask for help from folks to locate a stolen amplifier – not to engage in a debate on the validity of Phil’s design. You are not even making fair comparisons in your attacks. The six pak is a small portable combo that is intended for the player who plays different sized venues, on occasions having higher power requirements. The six pak uses the M-500 as it’s amplifier and you need to read it’s capabilities before making comparisons. As a standalone, the six pak runs at about 12 ohms and produces only around 200W, which is perfect for my needs 60% of the time. When I add my 4 Ohm 4×10 cabinet, I’m pumping out about 500W. An M-500 with the correct extension cabinets (2 Ohm load) produce over 700W…last I heard, he has it over 800W with some recent tweaks. Do your homework for before making your claims. Look at the specs of the M-500 with the SPL/Frequency graphs of his various combinations of cabinets. But still thats only part of it, the clarity and dynamics of these rigs clean up the whole sound of the stage and make the band sound better. You can’t get that out of specs and graphs. You have to hear it. Dan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Man, I knew I was risking it by including alt.g**tar.amps in the original > post. =) > You’re pushing!! > Oh well…the PJB can stand up to any of the underinformed folks who don’t > get it. Unfortunately, reading the claims on the website only seem to fuel > the fire for some. You really need to hear them to be convinced. > I saw the picture, and saw power pistons. > Since, I’ve now read the claims. > Which, changed NOTHING!!!! > Now, let’s see what you didn’t get. > 1. 600 watts on stage with six 2-15" cabs was what was required in the Fillmore East for a > performance by Jimi Hendrix, as seen in the picture I supplied in my post. > 700 watts is the rated power for the Six PAK. > So now the QUESTION is,… if the Six Pack was to be used by Cox in the
Filmore,… would the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Six-Pak EQUAL the SAME performance as the ORIGINAL bass rig in the picture. > 2. For an 83 lb box, with wheels and a handle to roll it around with. > So now the question is,… can that female in the picture lift it into the trunk of her car. > And,… why is it so much weight. > 3. Witness a direct claim. > "At the heart of this machine are four Svetlana 813 "beam power
transmitter tetrodes", unleashing > power equivalent to at least twelve 6550 conventional power tubes". > Ed Jahns unleashed over 600 watts with just six 6550A’s in the Fender
400-PS. The same amount of – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> tubes in an Ampeg SVT. > This says one thing, when compared to the Fender 400-PS. > The claim is in error. > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Time Electronics. > http://www.timeelect.com > Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, > Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Now, let’s see what you didn’t get. > 1. 600 watts on stage with six 2-15" cabs was what was required in the > Fillmore East for a > performance by Jimi Hendrix, as seen in the picture I supplied in my post. > 700 watts is the rated power for the Six PAK. > So now the QUESTION is,… if the Six Pack was to be used by Cox in the > Filmore,… would the > Six-Pak EQUAL the SAME performance as the ORIGINAL bass rig in the > picture. > It’s been a long time since you and you exclamation marks have shown up in > alt.guitar.bass, Rich! Where ya been?
Well Brian, I’ve been on the road, and in the shop. Trying to do as much playing as I can at the Jam Club. http://oannies.tripod.com/ http://oannies.tripod.com/sunday_jam.html http://timeelect.com/Book17.htm Gee, I don’t know where to start. Here are some interesting things from my site, since I was last here,… I think. http://timeelect.com/ws-99.htm http://timeelect.com/Book18.htm http://timeelect.com/Book20.htm http://timeelect.com/Book22.htm http://timeelect.com/Book23.htm http://timeelect.com/kabass.htm http://timeelect.com/fmb.htm http://timeelect.com/jbtr.htm http://timeelect.com/jbflm.htm http://timeelect.com/ampeg815.htm http://timeelect.com/370custvy.htm http://timeelect.com/stuff60bass.htm Then, I’m starting a CD project in a few weeks I hope. Looking to take the music OUT THERE, in a NEW mass appeal way.!!!!!! A really *outside* of the box, kind a thing. Anyway, It terrific you grabbed my feet, and pulled me down to AGB again. <thinking> LOL,… In that case, just fasten your seat belts, and enjoy the ride when the music gets HOT. 
Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> Look at the SPL levels on the output graph supplied on the page. > It tells the story too.
I noticed the same thing. That graph used some strange test conditions. Recalculating (boring day at the office), it looked like the efficiency of the system was around 93 dB (1 Watt, 1 meter, 1 kHz), with the rather disturbing looking low end rolloff. If I recall correctly, that would be respectable performance for a single 10 inch driver in a small box. Piston size is not the only issue. Long throw drivers sacrifice efficiency because a smaller fraction of the voice coil is inside the magnetic field at any given time. OTOH nowadays you can construct a switching amp of arbitrary output power. It may be possible that the combination of a switching amp and a relatively inefficient speaker equals a loud but portable rig. The Acoustic Image combo comes to mind.
Response:
> I’ve got to stop in with the bottom end boys again!!!!!! > Hell, with the static I caused, I’m surprised I’d be missed.
Doh! I apologize to the entire a.g.b. audience. /begins frantically digging large hole to dive into — O> /() ^^ Slidell, LA
Response:
Fixed it for ya. Brad – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got to stop in with the bottom end boys again!!!!!! > Hell, with the static I caused, I’m surprised I’d be missed. >Doh! >I apologize to the entire a.g.b. audience.
<begins frantically digging large hole to dive into> !!!!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->– > O> >/() > ^^ Slidell, LA
Response:
> > <thinking> > Wow, I’d almost forgotten about the <tags> Rich uses. Classic a.g.b.
Boy, you just brought it back, I’ve not been around in AGB. I’ve got to stop in with the bottom end boys again!!!!!! Hell, with the static I caused, I’m surprised I’d be missed. > Been a looooooong time. Seeing that one brought it all back. > Cheers Rich!
Hey, Slidell, thanks for the get back and the heads up!!!!!! I’m still crazy after all these years, and enjoying every second of it too. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
<snip> > I didn’t have any pictures taken, but one of the rigs I take out is TWO Marshall Sidewinder 1520 > cabs with the two Marshall heads on this page. http://timeelect.com/RichAmps.htm
I just remembered I had this picture on the site. http://timeelect.com/73spk-11.jpg The black stack on the left in the background, are the two 1520 cabs I had mentioned. LOL, Yeah….. I know what you’re thinking. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The low end will shake your guts, and the mids and highs from slap playing, will tear your head off > with the 400 watts from those two Marshall heads. > Playing the Cream tunes through that rig, nails Jack’s sound to the wall. > Yeah, I know about today’s bass player attitude towards Jack’s FUZZ BASS sound. > Output tranny’s don’t blow up speakers with hang-time, the way solid state amps do for bass players. > <thinking> > combination of instrument, amplifier, and player mindset. It’s those who don’t follow TRENDS, who > WILL discover where the MAGIC is to be found. > Marching in a parade is not my thing. > <after thought> > The one thing I can’t stand about today’s bass players,… > is the obnoxious manner they make their more than four string basses sound, in the sound of the > music when the bass is no longer in the context, of being in the rhythm section of the band. > I have yet to hear a bass player do that well, in a platinum selling record. > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Time Electronics. > http://www.timeelect.com > Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, > Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
– Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> <thinking>
Wow, I’d almost forgotten about the <tags> Rich uses. Classic a.g.b. Been a looooooong time. Seeing that one brought it all back. Cheers Rich! — O> /() ^^ Slidell, LA
Response:
> I just read on TalkBass that Phil Jones is requesting help in locating a > stolen PJB Six Pak (thought to be in the Detroit area). [snip]
It’s a good idea to include a police file number and a contact phone number for the appropriate PD when posting stuff like this, makes it much easier to people to help if they do see the stolen items. If I can call my local PD and say I just saw a stolen item and give them the file number, they might actually roll a car and check it out, otherwise….
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Now, let’s see what you didn’t get. > 1. 600 watts on stage with six 2-15" cabs was what was required in the > Fillmore East for a > performance by Jimi Hendrix, as seen in the picture I supplied in my post. > 700 watts is the rated power for the Six PAK. > So now the QUESTION is,… if the Six Pack was to be used by Cox in the > Filmore,… would the > Six-Pak EQUAL the SAME performance as the ORIGINAL bass rig in the > picture. > It’s been a long time since you and you exclamation marks have shown up in > alt.guitar.bass, Rich! Where ya been?
LOL,…. been OK. I’ve been shaking the walls at the club from time to time with some different rigs. http://timeelect.com/400gig-c.jpg > The fact that Hendrix used 600 Watts at the Fillmore has got nothing at all
Well, Cox is more the subject. > to do with the fact that the PJB cab can handle up to 700 Watts. What is > the link between these two facts?
Whether it can handle 700 watts or not is not the issue. For the same power delievery, will it EQUAL the rig Cox has, in sonic performance. The answer is no. Also, it illustrates the energy waste of the power piston concept. Look at the SPL levels on the output graph supplied on the page. It tells the story too. Look at the low end roll off, and the overall SPL. Don’t take my posting the wrong way. I’m just trying to make a point about the power piston concept. There is NOTHING personal against Phil. As a matter of fact, we talked on the phone for more than an hour. He’s a nice guy doing his thing, and that’s cool. But, that still doesn’t change the laws of physics in play, with today’s power piston concept bass amps. With a highly efficient 18" speaker in a *W* bin, 200 watts was enough to shake walls. The Acoustic 360 was only 200 watts on a two ohm speaker. Two of those, with the collective 400 watts full up, would make most of the people in a small club, visit the rest rooms. I didn’t have any pictures taken, but one of the rigs I take out is TWO Marshall Sidewinder 1520 cabs with the two Marshall heads on this page. http://timeelect.com/RichAmps.htm The low end will shake your guts, and the mids and highs from slap playing, will tear your head off with the 400 watts from those two Marshall heads. Playing the Cream tunes through that rig, nails Jack’s sound to the wall. Yeah, I know about today’s bass player attitude towards Jack’s FUZZ BASS sound. Output tranny’s don’t blow up speakers with hang-time, the way solid state amps do for bass players. <thinking> combination of instrument, amplifier, and player mindset. It’s those who don’t follow TRENDS, who WILL discover where the MAGIC is to be found. Marching in a parade is not my thing. <after thought> The one thing I can’t stand about today’s bass players,… is the obnoxious manner they make their more than four string basses sound, in the sound of the music when the bass is no longer in the context, of being in the rhythm section of the band. I have yet to hear a bass player do that well, in a platinum selling record. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> Now, let’s see what you didn’t get. > 1. 600 watts on stage with six 2-15" cabs was what was required in the Fillmore East for a > performance by Jimi Hendrix, as seen in the picture I supplied in my post. > 700 watts is the rated power for the Six PAK. > So now the QUESTION is,… if the Six Pack was to be used by Cox in the
Filmore,… would the > Six-Pak EQUAL the SAME performance as the ORIGINAL bass rig in the
picture. It’s been a long time since you and you exclamation marks have shown up in alt.guitar.bass, Rich! Where ya been? The fact that Hendrix used 600 Watts at the Fillmore has got nothing at all to do with the fact that the PJB cab can handle up to 700 Watts. What is the link between these two facts?
Response:
> Man, I knew I was risking it by including alt.g**tar.amps in the original > post. =)
You’re pushing!! > Oh well…the PJB can stand up to any of the underinformed folks who don’t > get it. Unfortunately, reading the claims on the website only seem to fuel > the fire for some. You really need to hear them to be convinced.
I saw the picture, and saw power pistons. Since, I’ve now read the claims. Which, changed NOTHING!!!! Now, let’s see what you didn’t get. 1. 600 watts on stage with six 2-15" cabs was what was required in the Fillmore East for a performance by Jimi Hendrix, as seen in the picture I supplied in my post. 700 watts is the rated power for the Six PAK. So now the QUESTION is,… if the Six Pack was to be used by Cox in the Filmore,… would the Six-Pak EQUAL the SAME performance as the ORIGINAL bass rig in the picture. 2. For an 83 lb box, with wheels and a handle to roll it around with. So now the question is,… can that female in the picture lift it into the trunk of her car. And,… why is it so much weight. 3. Witness a direct claim. "At the heart of this machine are four Svetlana 813
Related Posts