#1
Hello Everyone!!
I have been planning to build an amp cab and have been stuck on the question of which one I want to built. I would really appreciate if somebody could offer their insight on which one I should build and why. (I'm a big fan of bright cleans so I thought Jensen speakers would be able to do that)
4x8 plans- JENSEN C8R 8” 25W 8ohm
Height: 18.74 in
Width: 18.77 in
Depth: 10.51 in

4x10 plans- JENSEN C10R 10" 25W 8ohm
Height: 23.5 in
Width: 23.5 in
Depth: 10.75 in

1x12 plans- JENSEN C12N 12" 8 OHM 50W
Height: 21.5 in
Width: 18 in
Depth: 11 in

Which one would you chose? Thanks in advance
Last edited by watertown16 at May 5, 2016,
#2
Build a 1x12 and get something from WGS speakers, IMO much better than modern Jensen's and they make some really good clones of Jensen, JBL and others

But build the cab to the optimum size the spec's call for to get the best from any speaker

www.wgs4.com
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#4
What kind of amp are you planning on using with the cab? Are you planning to go open back, closed back, or optional for both? Not sure how I feel about a 4x8 cab. Interesting, but you have a lot more speaker options in the 10" and 12" market. Another option worth considering would be a 1x15" cab.
Gear: Gibson Les Paul Studio, Gibson SG Special, Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Fender Jazzmaster, Gretsch Pro Jet, Carvin C350, Epiphone ES-339 P90, Epiphone ES-335 Pro. Peavey 6505, Sovtek MIG-100, Vox AC30, Peavey XXX.
#5
I'd say 2x12 or 1x12; a 4x12 would like give you too much bass than you want if you want super super sparkling cleans. To be honest a 'tall' 1x12 or even 1x15 as suggested above, would be killer.
You Dont Know Me

I have 10 Anarchy Points - I also have 8 Mythology points!

Peavey Generation EXP Custom White
Yamaha 120S Black
Korg AX5G
Digitech Whammy
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Boss OS2

Quote by mrfinkle213
This man has brains.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Banned for indirect reference.
#6
Im looking into a peavy classic 20 mini head, and a fender bassman15 because they got really good reviews on their cleans as well as distortion. I want to do a closed back so I can have the low end as well, but the goal is to achieve those sparkling cleans. The reason I put up a 4x8 is because ive never seen one and I think it would be kind of cool, but I thought I might be a little limited on the tones it could produce. I think 1x15 is a little big for my needs as i wont be gigging or anything like that just playing for the thrill of it. again thanks for the responses!!
#7
sparkling cleans makes me think of a Vox AC30 running through Celestion Blues or Golds.

Did you mean the bassbreaker 15? You might want to look into the AC15 also since the VK has a very fender-ish tone
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#8
ya bassbreaker 15 my bad, and I actually did look into that combo but i sound it very difficult to configure and finangle with so that steered me away. I had a blues jr tweed for a few weeks and loved the clean tone until it decided to die on me so back to the store it went. I decided I wanted to get something with a little bit of room to grow with an effects loop and footswitchable channels so here i am haha.
#9
Quote by watertown16
ya bassbreaker 15 my bad, and I actually did look into that combo but i sound it very difficult to configure and finangle with so that steered me away. I had a blues jr tweed for a few weeks and loved the clean tone until it decided to die on me so back to the store it went. I decided I wanted to get something with a little bit of room to grow with an effects loop and footswitchable channels so here i am haha.

They have an AC15 head now also, or splurge and just get the AC30 head
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#10
I had a 4x10 open back (with Jensens) until recently. Relatively lightweight and very pretty clean sounds from a 50W EL84 amplifier. Friend of mine stole it. Well, sorta. He borrowed it, fell madly in love with it, and told me he wasn't going to give it back and tossed about three times what it was worth at me (almost literally). He probably would have kept tossing money at me, and I was laughing so hard he nearly did it, but I managed to stop giggling long enough to wheeze out, "Stop, stop, it's yours!" I made him promise to let me borrow it when I needed it. Last time I did it, though, he looked like I'd asked to borrow his girlfriend for the night.
#11
I ended up ordering the 4x10 with the Jensen speakers and I'm in the process of building the box to house everything, I just love the size of the 4x10 it's not huge like a 4x12 and not too small like the 1x12, I'm really excited to see how it comes out, thanks for everyone's input!!!
#12
Quote by watertown16
Im looking into a peavy classic 20 mini head, and a fender bassman15 because they got really good reviews on their cleans as well as distortion. I want to do a closed back so I can have the low end as well, but the goal is to achieve those sparkling cleans. The reason I put up a 4x8 is because ive never seen one and I think it would be kind of cool, but I thought I might be a little limited on the tones it could produce. I think 1x15 is a little big for my needs as i wont be gigging or anything like that just playing for the thrill of it. again thanks for the responses!!

First off, a 4 x 8", (IMHO, of course), is the worst speaker idea I've heard for the guitar in quite a while. E-6 on the guitar is about 81 Hz, and the average 8" speaker starts crapping out, at or before that frequency. Such an enclosure would be mid-rangey as all hell. That said, it that's what you're seeking, that a good way to get yourself there. Again, IMHO, a 12" speaker is the ideal size to reproduce guitar. All of Fender's tube amps with twelves, (single or twin), in them have as much sparkle as one could hope for. So obviously, the amp's tone stack has a lot to do with it.

Strictly from an enclosure standpoint, and speaking from more of an audiophile's perspective, "closed back" speakers, which are known as "acoustic suspension", sound like crap. (Again in the context of home hi-fi). They're sort of pinched sounding, (like talking while holding your nose, (although obviously not that extreme), and they suck power like crazy, (Inefficient), especially while trying to extract sufficient bass from them.

If we're talking about acoustic guitar amps, which are sort of usually designed as a portable PA. (one channel acts as a vocal input), they normally have a high frequency driver, when equipped with a single 12". That's most likely not necessary with a pure electric guitar rig.

When you talk in terms of "only playing at home", (and using tube amps), keep in mind you're going to want to look at some type of power limiting amp. (You know like 1, 5, 20 watt switching), and if not, some kind of either modeling, or a good old fashioned power soak to give you that sweet tube breakup, without blowing the windows out in the house.

A 2 x 12" is way, way, way, overkill for the home. I think I read a Fender Twin will output at about 122Db, which is well into the pain threshhold
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 7, 2016,
#13
Quote by Captaincranky
First off, a 4 x 8", (IMHO, of course), is the worst speaker idea I've heard for the guitar in quite a while. E-6 on the guitar is about 81 Hz, and the average 8" speaker starts crapping out, at or before that frequency. Such an enclosure would be mid-rangey as all hell.


You could be right, or dead wrong, depending on the speaker and the cabinet design.

Most 12" guitar speakers crap out at or above that frequency as well. In fact, most have frequency responses that start heading for the basement at around 100-110Hz. Here's the frequency response chart for a Celestion Rocket 50:



And, on the other hand, I'd like to introduce you to a bass enclosure that features (you guessed it) one or more 8" speakers -- the Crazy 8 and the Crazy 88.

Here's some reading for you: https://www.talkbass.com/threads/crazy8-and-crazy88.868215/

These are 200W (8 ohm) and 400W (4 ohm) cabinets that are 10.5"w x13"h x 11.25"d (Crazy 8) and 10.75"w x 21.5"h x 13"d (Crazy 88) respectively. These cabinets are a collaborative effort by Mike Arnopol and David Green ("greenboy") and are capable of reproducing a low B (that's a low B on a 5-string BASS, not the one on a 7-string guitar) without qualms. They use a Faital Pro 8PR200 8 inch driver with an xmax of 8.15 as the LF driver. Not only do these little boxes go well below what any 12" guitar speaker will handle, but they go well above it as well (to 18Khz and, I believe, beyond).

The Crazy 88:



And the Crazy 8:

Last edited by dspellman at May 7, 2016,
#14
Quote by dspellman
Last time I did it, though, he looked like I'd asked to borrow his girlfriend for the night.


So no problem then...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#15
Quote by Arby911
So no problem then...


"Since when did you start asking permission?"

...as long as I teach her something new.
#16
Quote by dspellman
You could be right, or dead wrong, depending on the speaker and the cabinet design.

Most 12" guitar speakers crap out at or above that frequency as well. In fact, most have frequency responses that start heading for the basement at around 100-110Hz. Here's the frequency response chart for a Celestion Rocket 50:

Well, I could be "dead right AND dead wrong" also. As could you, depending on context.

The frequency trace you posted, shows the Celestion only 10db down @ 80hz. !0db down is half volume. The tone controls on an average amp, probably range from - 12 to -16db to +12 to +16db. Accordingly, 10db down, should be fairly easy to overcome.

As to whether or not leaving the LF roll off as it stands is a good idea, you might want to discuss it with the bass player, (biased opinion), or the guy at the mixing console, (unbiased opinion).

I also believe your "Crazy 8's" aren't entirely suitable for all contexts requiring very low bass, despite the fact their response extends that low.

It's not unknown to me, smaller drivers can be optimized for very low frequencies. Still, physics and the inverse square law factor in, to limit volume of air capable of being moved, and we're right back at twin 15"s for the PA.

EDIT: Never mind about this I did have a question about those speakers, is that a reflex port I see in the photo, or a cone tweeter? (Sorry, the question sounds stupid to me also. (The photo of the twin model didn't open up when I first loaded the page... )

As for the extended HF response of those "Crazy 8's", I'd like to see the dispersion patterns as well. They also tell a necessary part of the story.

BTW, you are comparing the response curves of a multiple driver system, to the single Celestion 12" driver. Do you think That's entirely fair?
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 9, 2016,
#17
Quote by Captaincranky


The frequency trace you posted, shows the Celestion only 10db down @ 80hz. !0db down is half volume. The tone controls on an average amp, probably range from - 12 to -16db to +12 to +16db. Accordingly, 10db down, should be fairly easy to overcome.


"Only" 10dB down is usually more than that, particularly since most amps really don't have the power to reproduce bass at the same (gigging) volume levels as midrange and the speakers don't have the power handling (or the Xmax) to support it, either. As mentioned, the proof of the pudding is in a Real Time Analyzer, which will usually illustrate that your amp/cabinet isn't producing those fundamentals with any reasonable volume. This isn't news to anyone whose worked with a Marshall stack or half-stack. The old adage (going back to the sixties, I believe) is that the louder the Marshall is run, the less bass there is.

Quote by Captaincranky

I also believe your "Crazy 8's" aren't entirely suitable for all contexts requiring very low bass, despite the fact their response extends that low.

It's not unknown to me, smaller drivers can be optimized for very low frequencies. Still, physics and the inverse square law factor in, to limit volume of air capable of being moved, and we're right back at twin 15"s for the PA.


I don't think anyone suggested that those cabinets were entirely suitable for all contexts requiring very low bass. They're designed for a purpose (and used mostly for a double bass in a gigging context). But your suggestion was that 8" speakers were entirely unsuitable for guitar and that they'd produce nasal sounds lacking in bottom end is obviously dependent on the speaker and the cabinet. I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about regarding inverse square laws and limiting the volume of air capable of being moved, but I'm absolutely sure that you're aware that we're talking about a *volume* of air being moved. That means that we're talking not ONLY about cone area, but also about Xmax, the total excursion of the voice coil. These speakers feature a very large Xmax and produce a LOT of volume.

Quote by Captaincranky
EDIT: Never mind about this I did have a question about those speakers, is that a reflex port I see in the photo, or a cone tweeter? (Sorry, the question sounds stupid to me also. (The photo of the twin model didn't open up when I first loaded the page... )

As for the extended HF response of those "Crazy 8's", I'd like to see the dispersion patterns as well. They also tell a necessary part of the story.


There's a large tubular port in the back of the Crazy 88s. At one point in the design phase there were ports arranged around the speakers themselves, but the designers found another 3dB of bottom end output by putting a single port in the back.

As you know, dispersion of a single speaker is based on the diameter of the actual cone area. The formula for determining at what frequency a speaker will begin to noticeably beam is 13,500 (the speed of sound in inches) divided by the diameter of the speaker cone. A 12" speaker, which has an actual cone diameter of around 10.3", will begin beaming at around 1300Hz. A 15" speaker, which has about a 13.3" cone diameter, will generally be beaming at around 1000Hz. The larger the speaker cone diameter, the lower the frequency at which it will begin beaming. A 4x12 acts like one big 30" (give or take) speaker, so we would expect beaming at 500Hz or below, and that turns out to be on the money. A 1" tweeter will have excellent dispersion past about 13,500Hz. And though we really haven't talked about them, vertical columns of speakers (line arrays, etc.) will usually have a wide horizontal dispersion and a limited vertical dispersion.

Quote by Captaincranky
BTW, you are comparing the response curves of a multiple driver system, to the single Celestion 12" driver. Do you think That's entirely fair?


I do. Guitar players have, for years, been bolted to 12" speakers in groups of 1, 2 and 4. That's just laziness and greed on the part of manufacturers and blind acceptance on the part of guitar players. Back in the very early '70s, when it looked like tube amps were going the way of dodos, we saw Vox putting out SuperBeatles for guitar with four 12" speakers and two mids/hi tweeters. Acoustic and others built ported cabinets with serious 15" speakers and a tweeter. I have a Carvin cabinet from 1971 that has two 15" Altec Lansing 418-8A's in a 48" x 30" x 14" ported cabinet with a mids/high horn, and the amp head runs 275W. Plug your electric guitar into that and it's a bit of a revelation. Those things have much wider frequency response than most current guitar cabinets featuring ordinary 12" guitar speakers.

Acoustic guitar amps acknowledge the wide range of a basic guitar as well. The Carvin AG300 acoustic amp has 200W, a 12" woofer in a "horn loaded" cabinet design along with a 6" mids driver and a 1" HF driver. http://carvinaudio.com/products/ag300 Acoustic guitars don't have a wider frequency range than electrics, but their amps certainly do. We're using amp designs that were done in the late '50's and early '60's, over half a century ago. For some reason manufacturers have decided for us and promoted to us that this was the pinnacle of amp design.

Modern players are aware of the extreme loss of bottom end on most amps. Steve Lukather helped ISP Technologies design the Vector SL, what amounts to a 15" powered subwoofer in a ported cabinet with an additional 600W power amp to go under his 4x12. It's an effort to match a 100W tube amp to enough power and speaker design to reproduce his 7-string accurately. The electronics on this beast peel off the lows and feed them to the sub, while leaving the 100W of the tube amp to handle the mids and highs.

Line 6 has a series of small bedroom amps out that feature five speakers of different sizes. I think this is probably the future of amps, honestly. Bass speakers have routinely had 4x10" speakers plus a tweeter for years, but modern bass cabinets have more than one size of speaker and feature LF drivers with a TON of Xmax to provide maximum volume without "farting out" and handle large amounts of power (1500-2000W is pretty normal).
Last edited by dspellman at May 9, 2016,
#18
Quote by dspellman
"Only" 10dB down is usually more than that, particularly since most amps really don't have the power to reproduce bass at the same (gigging) volume levels as midrange and the speakers don't have the power handling (or the Xmax) to support it, either. As mentioned, the proof of the pudding is in a Real Time Analyzer, which will usually illustrate that your amp/cabinet isn't producing those fundamentals with any reasonable volume. This isn't news to anyone whose worked with a Marshall stack or half-stack. The old adage (going back to the sixties, I believe) is that the louder the Marshall is run, the less bass there is.
Part of that is psycho acoustics as well as Fletcher Munson realities.

But most importantly, pretty much all of the harmonics being generated are going into the mid and high frequencies as the amp clips. Thus, along with the amp losing power in the bottom end, those frequencies are being masked by the mid range, where, as I'm sure you're aware, the human ear is most sensitive. I think Jimi Hendrix was the greatest purveyor of mid range mud on the planet, but I'm not going to say that, because I assume it would be deemed "blasphemy".

It takes about 30x the power to reproduce 30hz bass, at the same relative volume to the human ear as 1000hz mid range. So, even under the best circumstance of available amp power, the LF driver would have to be optimized for extreme bass.


Quote by dspellman
I don't think anyone suggested that those cabinets were entirely suitable for all contexts requiring very low bass. They're designed for a purpose (and used mostly for a double bass in a gigging context). But your suggestion was that 8" speakers were entirely unsuitable for guitar and that they'd produce nasal sounds lacking in bottom end is obviously dependent on the speaker and the cabinet. I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about regarding inverse square laws and limiting the volume of air capable of being moved, but I'm absolutely sure that you're aware that we're talking about a *volume* of air being moved. That means that we're talking not ONLY about cone area, but also about Xmax, the total excursion of the voice coil. These speakers feature a very large Xmax and produce a LOT of volume.
Yes well, I should have stated "the inverse cube law". My bad.


Quote by dspellman
There's a large tubular port in the back of the Crazy 88s. At one point in the design phase there were ports arranged around the speakers themselves, but the designers found another 3dB of bottom end output by putting a single port in the back.

As you know, dispersion of a single speaker is based on the diameter of the actual cone area. The formula for determining at what frequency a speaker will begin to noticeably beam is 13,500 (the speed of sound in inches) divided by the diameter of the speaker cone. A 12" speaker, which has an actual cone diameter of around 10.3", will begin beaming at around 1300Hz. A 15" speaker, which has about a 13.3" cone diameter, will generally be beaming at around 1000Hz. The larger the speaker cone diameter, the lower the frequency at which it will begin beaming. A 4x12 acts like one big 30" (give or take) speaker, so we would expect beaming at 500Hz or below, and that turns out to be on the money. A 1" tweeter will have excellent dispersion past about 13,500Hz. And though we really haven't talked about them, vertical columns of speakers (line arrays, etc.) will usually have a wide horizontal dispersion and a limited vertical dispersion.


I do. Guitar players have, for years, been bolted to 12" speakers in groups of 1, 2 and 4. That's just laziness and greed on the part of manufacturers and blind acceptance on the part of guitar players. Back in the very early '70s, when it looked like tube amps were going the way of dodos, we saw Vox putting out SuperBeatles for guitar with four 12" speakers and two mids/hi tweeters. Acoustic and others built ported cabinets with serious 15" speakers and a tweeter. I have a Carvin cabinet from 1971 that has two 15" Altec Lansing 418-8A's in a 48" x 30" x 14" ported cabinet with a mids/high horn, and the amp head runs 275W. Plug your electric guitar into that and it's a bit of a revelation. Those things have much wider frequency response than most current guitar cabinets featuring ordinary 12" guitar speakers.

Acoustic guitar amps acknowledge the wide range of a basic guitar as well. The Carvin AG300 acoustic amp has 200W, a 12" woofer in a "horn loaded" cabinet design along with a 6" mids driver and a 1" HF driver. http://carvinaudio.com/products/ag300 Acoustic guitars don't have a wider frequency range than electrics, but their amps certainly do. We're using amp designs that were done in the late '50's and early '60's, over half a century ago. For some reason manufacturers have decided for us and promoted to us that this was the pinnacle of amp design.

Modern players are aware of the extreme loss of bottom end on most amps. Steve Lukather helped ISP Technologies design the Vector SL, what amounts to a 15" powered subwoofer in a ported cabinet with an additional 600W power amp to go under his 4x12. It's an effort to match a 100W tube amp to enough power and speaker design to reproduce his 7-string accurately. The electronics on this beast peel off the lows and feed them to the sub, while leaving the 100W of the tube amp to handle the mids and highs.

Line 6 has a series of small bedroom amps out that feature five speakers of different sizes. I think this is probably the future of amps, honestly. Bass speakers have routinely had 4x10" speakers plus a tweeter for years, but modern bass cabinets have more than one size of speaker and feature LF drivers with a TON of Xmax to provide maximum volume without "farting out" and handle large amounts of power (1500-2000W is pretty normal).
Here's the thing, in your initial response to my post, you stated I was wrong about "4 x 8" speakers being a horrible "solution".

And believe me, I enjoy playing the, "but I thought you said", entirely literal quote game as much as the next person.

Unfortunately, the topic of the thread was, "should I build a 4 x 8", a 4 x 10", etc. cabinet'. So, this tells me, the TS is on a budget.

In the context and spirit of the OP, I'm entirely right. Four $35.00 Jensens and a couple of 4 x8' sheets of plywood as a rough budget, would be the least favorable.

All of a sudden you come prancing in with, "Crazy 8s", at $500.00 a pop for the single driver system, and $750.00 a pop for the twin woofer cab. Do you mind if I ask why? To prove me wrong by extreme circumstance, or to introduce me to the wonders of the modern technological world?

As far as manufacturers selling guitarists stuff, I think they sell it to themselves by listening to other people use it. Good or bad.

Now clean sound is one thing, but I strenuously doubt if you're going to sell today's wannbe power players entirely on transistor amps, and speakers which "don't break up".

It's one thing for a bass player, (read that to include 7 string player), to want to push out to lows his instrument is capable of, and quite another for a guy with an array of horn tweeters, to be blasting away on the 24th fret with a tube screamer kicked in. So, mid range mud is what many loud players go for, to avoid the chalk on a blackboard screech a "true high fidelity sound system" is capable of. Um, jus' sayin'.

Does the speed of sound figure anywhere into that equation? In any event, the old JBL D-130 /D-131 speakers had those tin voice coil covers, allegedly to assist with causing high frequencies "to fly away in freedom". The D-130 pair I had, got a pair of 075 ring radiators hooked up anyway, just to be sure.


Anyway, anecdotally, I bought a close out Berhinger, (I know right ) 60 watt 1 x 12" electric guitar amp, to play my Taylor 115e 12 string through, only in the home. It has a glorious clean channel. My Peavey "Ecoustic" (2 x8') is so ungodly nasal with any 12 string, I had to do something.

That self same Berhinger amp gets reviews as, "the worst guitar amp ever made", in the context of pushing an electric guitar through the crunch channel.

Point being, I'm well aware of the difference between an amp designed for acoustic guitar and the distortion prone deviant spectrum amps designed for electric guitars. And trying to make an unbiased comparison between the 2, is as futile as comparing oranges to a**holes, or something along those lines.

At the end of the day, the acoustic guy, is going to want clean, bordering on pristine sound. The electric guy, is going to want that breakup and sustain of the traditional electric amp, and the bass guy is going to want pretty clean, but with a healthy dose of "crunch" when the mood strikes. And I think that's pretty much whether the sound is modeled, or gotten the old fashioned way, through a Hi-Watt stack.
Last edited by Captaincranky at May 9, 2016,
#19
Quote by Captaincranky


Now clean sound is one thing, but I strenuously doubt if you're going to sell today's wannbe power players entirely on transistor amps, and speakers which "don't break up".

It's one thing for a bass player, (read that to include 7 string player), to want to push out to lows his instrument is capable of, and quite another for a guy with an array of horn tweeters, to be blasting away on the 24th fret with a tube screamer kicked in. So, mid range mud is what many loud players go for, to avoid the chalk on a blackboard screech a "true high fidelity sound system" is capable of. Um, jus' sayin'.

Does the speed of sound figure anywhere into that equation? In any event, the old JBL D-130 /D-131 speakers had those tin voice coil covers, allegedly to assist with causing high frequencies "to fly away in freedom". The D-130 pair I had, got a pair of 075 ring radiators hooked up anyway, just to be sure.

Point being, I'm well aware of the difference between an amp designed for acoustic guitar and the distortion prone deviant spectrum amps designed for electric guitars. And trying to make an unbiased comparison between the 2, is as futile as comparing oranges to a**holes, or something along those lines.

At the end of the day, the acoustic guy, is going to want clean, bordering on pristine sound. The electric guy, is going to want that breakup and sustain of the traditional electric amp, and the bass guy is going to want pretty clean, but with a healthy dose of "crunch" when the mood strikes. And I think that's pretty much whether the sound is modeled, or gotten the old fashioned way, through a Hi-Watt stack.


None of this is really particularly helpful to the TS, of course.

You stated that "a 4 x 8", (IMHO, of course), is the worst speaker idea I've heard for the guitar in quite a while." I think that with a bit of coaching toward 8" speakers that could do the job, you can have a pretty good cabinet, and I think we've now established that cone size really doesn't matter. Go take a look at the specs for an Eminence Delta ProA 8" speaker.

There's another misconception in the quoted text, and that's that horn tweeters are going to produce screeching highs. They will, if that's what was in your signal to start with, but no one who's ever used a good PA system nor any bass player who has them in his speakers will agree that's what they're used for.

You could toss one of those tweeters (with a crossover) into the center of a 4x12 and *eliminate* the on-axis treble beaming we have now, without affecting the total treble output. Until Nixon opened trade relations with the Soviet bloc back in 1972, we'd pretty much lost our sources of tubes and most new amps were transistor-based and a lot of them had wider ranges than today's amps (I have one example in my bin that has 15" speakers in a ported cabinet with a mid-range tweeter, but Acoustic and others were shipping similar setups).

Almost no current power players want their speakers to "break up." Most have never experienced power tube distortion to any degree, for that matter. Most of whatever is going on happens within the preamp. Most don't really care whether their sound is coming from solid state or tubes any more; modeling/IRs give you the half-century-old sounds of both amps and cabinets, if that's what you're after. Even the big boys have been using Palmer or Two-Notes Torpedo load boxes with speaker simulators run direct to the house system.

Most new players buy modeling amps to begin, these days. The options available have new players venturing further from the presumptive noises you've mentioned. Bass players don't always play clean, acoustic guys don't always have to have cleans, electric players don't always want to gain up. And that's a good thing. Because "traditional" guitar bands have all but disappeared from popular music's top ten (unless you're talking geriatric acts like the Stones or Aerosmith). Unless guitar players break away from traditional noises, we'll become like accordion players (once the most popular instrument in the US) or mandolin players (mandolin orchestras were popular in the very early 1900s): anachronistic curiosities.
Last edited by dspellman at May 12, 2016,