The Sound Chain

jerry wallace · Post by **jerry wallace** » 5 May 2001 10:27 am

I was wondering if anyone esle has considered
the fact that with our psg's the sound/tone starts out with the vibration of a steel string in the magnetic field of a magnet surrounded by a coil of wire.
This induces a very small voltage into the coil that is then amplified, effects added etc.And then the final step in the "chain" the SPEAKER..
The speaker also uses a coil of wire in a magnetic field to reproduce the note..
My point is we start with a coil of wire in a magnetic field and finish with the same thing..
I feel the speaker and its ability to reproduce the string vibrations is a very important part of the finished sound of any amplified instrument..
It seems in todays speaker construction,high wattage capibility is the primary consideration rather that the closest reproduction of the original note.
In recent discussions with others we compared notes on how the old Jensen's and JBL's of thr 1960's and 70's seemed to have much more voice coil movement and also better reproduction of the original note..
Has today speaker design went to tougher paper and voice coils at the expense of the best reproduction of notes??..Its my understanding that the destruction of a speaker can come from the voice coil "jumping out of the magnet gap{too much movement}.So I know there are limitations...I also know you cant "have your cake and eat it too" But could there be an option on wattage handleing capibilities and better reproduction of notes {sound}..
Any other thoughs fellows or am I off in LALA land!!

------------------
Jerry Wallace- "98 Zum: D-10,8+8, "96 Zum: D-10,8+5,Nashville 1000,Session 500 ,Tubefex,ProfexII, Artesia, New Mexico

[This message was edited by jerry wallace on 05 May 2001 at 11:51 AM.]

Al Marcus · Post by **Al Marcus** » 5 May 2001 4:19 pm

Jerry, I for one, don't think you are off on this thought.I have always like the Bell like tone from a JBL D-130, better than others I have tried. Back in the old days, I had a Twin Reverb with 2 D-120 JBL's and a Showman with 1 15 Inch D-130 JBL.

I never blew a speaker. Some might say the Fender Amps did it all, but I have Peavey LTD 400 with a 15 inch D-130 JBL and to me the tone is sweeter and more bell like than my Nashville 400 with the Black Widow in it. So go figure,,,,as they say.....al

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 5 May 2001 4:33 pm

I think it's what sound you want.

When I first got a rack power amp (a MosValve 500) I didn't have my 12" speakers built yet so I used my stereo system speakers with the JBL D120-F's. The sound I got out of them reminded me of the sound I got out of them when they were in a Twin Reverb. And it made my Franklin sound a little like my old Fender 2000. That may be great for some but I would rather my Franklin sound like a Franklin not a Fender 2000.

When I finally got my speaker cabinets done (clones of the Peavey Nashville 112E cabinets) with BW 1203 speakers in them, I had a much better tone to my ears. More bass and the mids and highs didn't seem as "brittle". But, in the ported enclosures I built for my stereo system the D120-F's sound better than almost any stereo system speakers I've heard.

Again, this is my ears and what I want or percieve I want to hear.

As far as the "whole chain", first you have decide what sound you want and then the system is only as good as the weakest link. You can have the best speakers in the world but if you have a crappy amplifier system or the sound from the guitar is not too good the great speakers are not going to compensate for the other components shortcomings. Same with any other link in the system.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 5 May 2001 5:08 pm

There's no question that the speaker is still the weakest link in the "chain". But speakers today are much better made than they used to be. High wattage amps now are the standard. Time was when a Twin Reverb with 60-80 watts was a big amp. Nowadays, 150-250 watts and more are the rule. This places tremendous demands on a speaker...especially with open cabinets.

Basically, in speaker design, we have five characteristics to worry about...

1. Power handling capability
2. Price
3. Size and weight
4. Efficiency
5. Frequency curves

In modern speakers, new voice-coil designs, and magnet structures have made the biggest advances. True, the cones are tougher today, but that's necessitated by the demands we place on a speaker. The suspension rings are usually doped (that rubbery stuff on the outside edge) to prevent tearing. This changes the response, but it's considered an acceptable trade-off due to the cost of reconing, or buying new speakers.

Price is an important consideration, too. Wanna buy nice Standel speakers to go in your cabinet? They're made to new improved designs while maintaing the old "vintage" JBL-type sound. They'll only handle 50 watts, though, and two of them (at about $425 each) will cost more than a Nashville 1000!

Size and weight come into play because we need compact and portable units to carry around. Most steelers have settled on two twelves, or one fifteen as being the maximum they want to lug around. Sure, two fifteens, or four twelves in a big cabinet sound a lot better, but unless you got roadies and a truck, no one wants to bother with that much stuff. The only speaker development that has yet to hit the mass market is neodymium magnets. These promise to save a lot of weight, but they're still too expensive for us.

Efficiency isn't as important as it used to be. We now have humongous amps that will drive even inefficient speakers very handily. The neodymium magnets would help here, as they are much stronger than presently used designs. Strong magnets=better efficiency.

The frequency curves are quite critical at determining how a speaker sounds. In the same way a guitar of pickup "colors" the sound, a speaker "colors" it too. Some speakers sound harsh, some smooth. Some are bright, while others are mellow. Some "break up" easily, and others very slowly. But, everyone doesn't want the same sound, so there's a lot of types to chose from.

If you're not happy with what you have, try something different. Remember your playing style has a big effect on your speaker choice. If you're playing Chalker-type sounds, you're going to need a tough speaker. Playing like Ralph Mooney? Almost anything will do here as the highs are much easier to reproduce at high levels than lows.

Whatever you're looking for is out there. But, as with anything else, there are always tradeoffs. Happy hunting!

Sage · Post by **Sage** » 5 May 2001 8:57 pm

I have two questions-
1) I know that there is a difference between what makes for good Hi-Fi stereo speakers, and for good instrument amp speakers. But what is the difference, and why?
2) I have seen tweeters used in conjunction with 12's in both acoustic guitar amps, and also in a new Fender BASS amp. I added a horn tweeter next to the 15" Altec in my Vibrosonic, and it is incredible the range I get with it. Why hasn't this concept been tried for steel much?

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 6 May 2001 8:13 am

The real question is, how do you define the "best reproduction of the note"?

When I worked at Mesa/Boogie, we subscribed to the theory that the amplifier (including the speaker) is in fact a musical instrument. Your guitar is only one part of the instument. The entire "sound chain" defines the instrument.

So, do you want to use electronics to simply reproduce the sound of your strings and pickup at a louder volume? I don't! I expect the amplifier and speaker to contribute to the tone, to color it in ways that I find desirable.

Today's musical instrument speaker manufacturers respond to the taste of musicians. Guitar players want volume and well-defined, tight midrange. Bass players want earth-shaking low end. Keyboard players want the crisp highs and headroom that you hear on CDs. Nobody wants "reproduction of the original note".

People realize that the whole system is the instrument, and they use every component of it to get the sound they want to hear. Guitar pickups don't have flat response, so why would you want the other elements in the "sound chain" to have flat response? Part of the musician's job today is to coax the right sounds out of his gear. Accurate reproduction of the pickup's response curve is rarely the sound that people want to hear.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (E9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6)

jerry wallace · Post by **jerry wallace** » 6 May 2001 10:16 am

Bobby,I had not looked at this from the point of view that,, is the exact reproduction of the the original string vibration what we want to hear from the speaker..You maybe right that I really wouldnt like it if thats what I heard..

Several of us were comparing the old 60's and 70's speakers to the current ones.I and others noticed that the old speakers cone seemed to move much more in responce to the notes played on the instruments..In fact,on a old Showman 12 I had ,with just the tremelo on and no playing I could see the cone moving to the speed set on the tremelo knob..This amp was the best sounding one I ever owned..I was wondering if part of the reason todays amps dont seem to sound as "good" is due to different, stiffer speaker design..
I did blow a couple of theses speakers so I know there is a trade off on the movement of the cone and destruction of the voice coil..

I use two of the current 15" speakers and I never see the cone move at all even at high volume levels..Is there a connection between this and why in my opinion todays amps dont sound as good??
Maybe part of it is I had 19 year old ears then and 54 year old ears now!!

But then ,I know I saw those cones moving with each note on the old 59 Strat..

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 6 May 2001 4:42 pm

Donny; With regard to your five qualifications for speakers, I wonder how you would consider this system:

1. Power: 400 watts RMS, 800 watts peak @ 4
ohms

2. Between $295 and $350 per cabinet

3. 11"Dx18"Wx17.5"H. 35 pounds per cab

4. 8.85 pounds magnet weight total per cab

5. Freq Response: 10 Hz to 15kHz no tweeter
and no cross over elements. Curve is
exceptionally flat.

These are the cabinets you see in pictures from Bobbe's Steel Guitar Heaven where only good guitars are allowed to come. A DJ in Baltimore used to say that about used cars
and I can't get it out of my head.

I made 50 for research and delevopement and
they went nowhere. Everyone who has used them has liked them but you couldn't sell them for 50 bucks if push came to pull !

These are service replacement speakers for Bose, Legend and Bull Frog equipment. Never mind that there are eight speakers in the box
because they all work togeather as a single entity. They are flat because no two speakers are the same and where one may fall off a bit at some frequency, several of the others won't and the result in no loss ie: flat.

Eight speaker systems are very common. Curly
Chalker used two Fender Bassman amps with 4-10s in each for a total of 8 to get his original sound.

No 15 or 12 inch speaker I have ever read about can exceed 8kHz for a high end, none.
I really don't like crossover networks for instrumentation. Something there just doesn't
cut it. That's why no one uses it. But if a
speaker's inherent high end is 15kHz, well
that's another story. One guy even told me
that you can go too high for steel guitar.
But Paul Franklin does it all the time. Listen to those chimes he can deliver.(not to imply that he uses these speakers, he doesn't but he may go direct to the board and bypass any speaker for the same result.)

And last but not least: It is commonly said you can't make a speaker go lower than it's low end rating. That's true. But at some point in front of these cabinets, where all the waves meet and blend; it does !! I think
Bob Knight said it best: "You will not believe the low response of these speakers."

Regards, Paul

[This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 06 May 2001 at 05:45 PM.][This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 06 May 2001 at 05:56 PM.][This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 06 May 2001 at 06:00 PM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 9 May 2001 7:27 pm

Well Paul, here's my take on those speakers. Although you didn't quote the efficiency, I consider that an important factor, and can't really give an opinion without it. It's an old idea to use a bunch of smaller speakers for the size, economy, and weight aspects, as well as raising the high end, and flattening the response. This seems quite logical. Many, many years ago, I built a project called the "Sweet Sixteen" which was in a Popular Electronics magazine. It had sixteen small speakers. It did get over some of the obvious deficiencies of HI-FI speakers back then. It was cheap, relatively small, and easy to build. It had good presence, and decent bass, too. But it wasn't very efficient, and it didn't work well in large areas. The problem you often have with small multiple speakers is that, while they move a lot of air, they don't move it a lot. This usually causes projection problems...the sound is great up close, but falls off rapidly with distance. In other words, they don't "throw" well. I have no doubt the speakers you made sounded quite good up close, but maybe they didn't "project" well. There had to be some reason they wouldn't sell, and the price doesn't seem high, for "good sounding" speakers.

Also, when you said no 12' or 15' speaker can exceed 8khz on the high end, I am inclined to disagree. Large speakers are anything but flat, response wise, but the highs are still there...only reduced. Take the EVM-12L, for instance. Though they have an irregular curve, the response is only down about 20db at 8khz. It goes down 30db at 10khz...but then it starts going back up! At 20khz, it's only 20db down again, and still rising! Single, or paired large speakers always have response shortcomings, but a good amp can overcome most of them.

I'm really not an expert, and I'm no audio design engineer. I only experiment, and read a lot. Also, there is a way to lower a speaker's lower frequency response, or bottom resonance called "ring porting". I did this to a few speakers, but it reduces the reliability and power handling capability. There's a lot of things you can do with, and to, speakers. But, if you look at what most people use for certain applications, you probably won't go wrong.

Summing up, to really evaluate a speaker, your ears should be the final judge. But, a set of SPL curves can tell you a lot, too. Remember, capacity is nothing without efficiency. I once talked to a neighbor who bought a new 12" speaker for $59. He said..."It'll handle 600 watts! RMS" I told him it was junk, and he got torqued. Three months later, he fried it with a 200 watt amp!

I guess some people just don't want good advice.

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 10 May 2001 10:33 am

Donny; Thanks for the comeback. It makes for good solid reading. And like you I'm no engineer or any sort of expert. I like to read and experiment with speakers. I also built two of the sweet sixteens per Popular Electronics and found the same flaws as you did. No good for musical instrumentation until I found these small, powerful 5 inchers many many years later. About 4 different varieties I have experimented with now. Mostly diferences in cone structures and properties.

If Efficiency relates to sensitivity than that specification for one of the types is:
SPL 1W/1meter:91dB and another is 87+or-2dB/W/M,2.83V. If it isn't sensitivity, can you say what parameter I should be looking at ?

I did have one comment on projection; a guy was using them outside with a Stewart 1000
and a Pro-Fex and some friends told him: "We could hear you two counties over !" I have asked someone else who has used them for his comments but no e-mail yet from him. He would be someone you would recognize as a pro
in music.

Thanks for your time and again, I recognize and appreciate your knowledge in this area.
Best Regards, Paul

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 10 May 2001 4:35 pm

Those parameters will do, Paul. As I had suspected, they're kinda low (anything below 93 is low to me!). But, it's all in the ear. If you have something that makes you happy...use it. Fact is, though, some people are always looking for more. I used to do that. But then I realized that a change is no substitute for refinement. Some times it takes quite a while to get the best out of a piece of equipment, because like they said...it's a whole long chain of things that makes your sound.

By the way...did you do the "Sweeter with a tweeter?" And, do you miss "Carl and Jerry" as much as I do?

Take care

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 10 May 2001 at 05:38 PM.]

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 10 May 2001 5:46 pm

Donny; Yes, I did the Tweeter thing on one of the two systems I built. Still I was never satisfied with them even though I liked the principle and the theory behind it.

And you have completely stumped me on "Carl
and Jerry." I won't even hazard a guess there so give me a clue or two. Now I'm sounding poetic like Bobbe, maybe it's contagious !!

Regards Paul

Sage · Post by **Sage** » 10 May 2001 6:51 pm

It was mentioned earlier that a crossover takes away from the sound of an instrument amp. I don't doubt that. I had a piezo horn put into my baffle board next to my 15, and it doesn't have a crossover. The man who did it said that because of the natural rolloff of the response curve, they basicly do the same thing without the circuit. I like mine a lot, and went from never getting a satisfying sparkle from my altec to having to turn down the treble (but having a good range of adjustability). Quite a change. Any more thoughts on this? T. Sage Harmos

jerry wallace · Post by **jerry wallace** » 10 May 2001 7:01 pm

It seems that maybe I need to re-think my conseption of what the sound chain should do..I always had it in my head that the amp and speaker system in any amplifing situation should reproduce the input signal as close to the original as possible..
Like when a sine wave is introduced to the input,the same sinewave with no clipping or distortion but with increased amptitude {i.e. stronger,louder},was the desired goal at the output stage.
But maybe as Bobby said ,if I heard just that with no "color" added , I probably would not like it..So I am re-thinking my thinking on this..Like the old memorex commerial with Ella Fitzgerald breaking the glass with her voice on tape, maybe what I want and what I think I want are not the samethings..
But I dont think anyone has replyed to my question of more cone movement,more air moved,= better sound/tone? Or in other words the stiffer design of the speaker paper and suspension system,the more wattage capacity,but poorer sound/tone??

------------------
Jerry Wallace- "98 Zum: D-10,8+8, "96 Zum: D-10,8+5,Nashville 1000,Session 500 ,Tubefex,ProfexII, Artesia, New Mexico

[This message was edited by jerry wallace on 10 May 2001 at 08:28 PM.]

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 11 May 2001 5:20 am

Jerry; I went back to my bible, Loudspeakers For Musicians by Vivian Capel
to see if I could get a definitive answer for your question but I couldn't. There are just too many papameters and considerations
that weigh in on the subject to simply take a few and base a conclusion on them.

You are right in knowing there is a compromise between stiffness of the paper, power and the ability to move quickly both in response to the signal and recovery. That
involves the mass of the cone and the coil
which were designed to do certain things at certain frequencies.

Perhaps the best path is the one Donny and I have taken in just experimenting with the
items; speakers, enclousures, amplifiers and pickups until you find what you need and like. And that is also the most rewarding solution because you did it yourself. After
forty years I find I am still learning new things. I found out just a year ago that
walnut wood used in a cabinet adds a certain voicing that wasn't there with plywood or pine. At first I didn't believe it and even called Mike Brown at Peavey (The man will help anyone with any subject no matter how far fetched it may seem, if he can !) who verified what others were telling me from the field. Regards, Paul[This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 11 May 2001 at 06:25 AM.]

jerry wallace · Post by **jerry wallace** » 11 May 2001 9:33 am

Donny and Paul,you guys are knowledgeable on this subject.So tell me something.I keep harping about the movement of the cone in my old 1960's showman 12..I just realized that was the last closed back amp I owned..since then it has been twins,and then a Session 500,Nashville 1000 etc.

Is part of this "movement" due to the closed back?? It seems reasonable to me that it was..I can see where the speaker would act very differently in a closed back as apposed to an open..Duh!! I should have thought about that

I guess its true,your mind is the second thing to go with age!!

------------------
Jerry Wallace- "98 Zum: D-10,8+8, "96 Zum: D-10,8+5,Nashville 1000,Session 500 ,Tubefex,ProfexII, Artesia, New Mexico

[This message was edited by jerry wallace on 11 May 2001 at 10:53 AM.]

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 11 May 2001 11:20 am

Jerry; The book I mentioned describes a sealed speaker system sometimes called an Acoustic Suspension. It uses a weaker or more compliant suspension since it relies on the trapped air to act as a spring cushion on the speaker. Because of that, these speakers may never be used in an open back configuration since with out that cushion, they would fail.

You may have seen that sort of system in your sealed 12. If there was any residual
hum, and there usually is, that combined with the Tremelo effect would cause the speaker to move in the manner you described.
It is that loose and fluid. This is usually
an objective for Bass enclousures but would react in a simliar manner for steel or regular guitar as well.

And never worry about old age; has nothing to do with it. Sort of like riding a bike. I like this sort of a discussion because it calls up as much of your past learning experiences as playing does and in a similar manner too. I only hope Jody Carver doesn't catch us talking about old age. He'd never let us forget it !!

Regards, Paul

jerry wallace · Post by **jerry wallace** » 11 May 2001 11:42 am

[This message was edited by jerry wallace on 13 May 2001 at 06:57 PM.]

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » 11 May 2001 11:52 am

I've been reading this post since day one and it has been somewhat interesting. But, Bob has the same opinion that I seem to have, ie; "how do you define the best reproduction of a note". It's in the ear of the beholder, however it doesn't hurt to have many "pro" ears hear it and give their judgements since these are their "tools of the trade" and they use these products as part of their livelyhood, plus the pro players influence everyone's playing in one way or another. I've said many times that we use dealer, consumer and artist input, as well as our 35 plus years of experience with sound, to assist us in the developement of products that "make sense" for roadworthy performance use.

At any rate, I did consult with one of our transducer engineers with whom I have worked on steel projects(speakers, mod kits, etc.)about this discussion and attached his comments below;

Response to THE SOUND CHAIN - The Steel Guitar Forum

(In very simple layman's terms) Low frequency compliance of a speaker affects the balance between the lows and the highs, and can be counter-balanced by the size of the magnet to some extent. This LF compliance does not directly affect the middle and higher frequency reproduction. Bass notes require a lot of movement, while mid and HF's do not.

Designing for higher power handling DOES affect the speaker's response, and making the cones stiffer and the adhesives more durable, and the voice coil less prone to failure all affect the sound in some manner. However, it is likely that these measures also made the speakers reproduction of the input signal more accurate, not less.

Accurate sound reproduction is the goal of sound reinforcement, but it is often NOT what a musician likes or wants in a musical instrument amplifier or speaker.

Another point to keep in mind is that many of the earlier speakers that were favored by musicians were 12" sizes, and 15" speakers are going to have a different overall sound, due to less HF extension, and how they do the bass range compared to the 12" speakers. For the musical instrument aspects of sound production, you can not compare a 12" directly to a 15", and expect the same overall sound to occur.

********************************************

At any rate, since "sound reinforcement"(including steel guitar) is part of our livlihood, I thought that we might get a view from one who designs speakers.

In the past, we have designed two way speaker enclosures for permanent install situations such as the CL-1 and CL-2. These employed six 6" speakers and our 22A high compression horn. So, we do have the experience that it takes to design such a cabinet. However, there are drawbacks to this design in which we have learned from. Frequency cancellation is one major problem and the fact that you can't accurately measure just what the SPL of the cabinet is. The main intent of the design of a guitar/steel guitar amp is to please the person who is playing through it. This type of cabinet is also considered a "short throw" style of cabinet.

I hope that this post answers some questions.

Mike Brown
Peavey Electronics Corporation
[This message was edited by Mike Brown on 11 May 2001 at 12:53 PM.]

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 12 May 2001 4:48 am

To Mike and the Good Folks at Peavey: Your high regard and genuine concern for Steel Guitars and their players does not go unnoticed. It's as if you all were family members, always there for some advice or just a simple good word needing to be heard.
While the others in your line of work are conspicuous by their absense, it is always a comfort to realize your personnel and staff
are right in there with us. The work you have done even way back with Curly Chalker and things like adding to this post are good indicators of your sincerity and genuine regard for all of us. Someone had to tell you it is surely appreciated !!

Best Regards to Peavey and Mike !! Paul[This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 12 May 2001 at 05:49 AM.][This message was edited by Paul Graupp on 12 May 2001 at 05:50 AM.]

jerry wallace · Post by **jerry wallace** » 13 May 2001 3:38 pm

Hi MIke,I was wondering where you were!!
Thanks a million for adding yours and all of the Peavey People's contributions to this topic..
This is one of the reasons all three of my amps are PEAVEY

Jerry Wallace

------------------
Jerry Wallace- "98 Zum: D-10,8+8, "96 Zum: D-10,8+5,Nashville 1000,Session 500 ,Tubefex,ProfexII, Artesia, New Mexico

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 13 May 2001 4:10 pm

Jerry, to get back to your question about "cone movement", the old Jensens and JBL's did have thinner, more flexible cones than are used nowadays. Also remember that age (use) adds to a speaker's cone flexibility somewhat. The stiffness of a cone is caused by a number of factors, but when a speaker is used for a long time, it loses some of its inherent stiffness due to the breakdown of the bond between the fibers that makeup the cone. The more a speaker has been used, the more flexible the cone becomes. Normally, it may take a couple of week's playing to break-in a new speaker. (They often sound better after they're "limbered up.")