# Using REW Waterfall to calibrate sub instead of FR graph



## Guest

I was wondering if anyone actually tried to calibrate their sub using he waterfall decay instead of FR graph? What I meant was that looking at the waterfall, there are usually certain freq where the decay is much longer then the rest. And subjectively these decay seems to hang on in your room. So what can be done is find out the exact freq of the long decay and do a EQ setting to reduce it and remeasure till the decay at the level is close to the rest of your freq. 

Oliver


----------



## Sonnie

Hey Oliver.... you slipped in here on us man. Good to see ya again. Welcome to the Shack!

Whew... waterfall decay is way over my head. Hillbilly's can't go there. Hopefully JohnM will be around soon... or maybe one of other tech guys can help ya with this one.


----------



## Guest

Hee. Good you see this up and it looks great! I just need more traps in my room as 5 units of 2x4x4" bass traps hardly made a dent in my low bass decay. The room just seems to store and slowly release the bass notes. Thats why I was thinking of trying another way of EQing while I am waiting for quotes on redoing my room. 

Oliver


----------



## JohnM

oliverlim said:


> I was wondering if anyone actually tried to calibrate their sub using he waterfall decay instead of FR graph? What I meant was that looking at the waterfall, there are usually certain freq where the decay is much longer then the rest. And subjectively these decay seems to hang on in your room. So what can be done is find out the exact freq of the long decay and do a EQ setting to reduce it and remeasure till the decay at the level is close to the rest of your freq.


Ideally you should use both. Generally the peaks in the FR curve will have correspondingly long decay times in the waterfall, so fixing one fixes the other. However, the waterfall (or the spectral decay) curve can be better for identifying cases where what looks like one peak in the FR curve is actually due to two closely spaced modes, which become visible as separate peaks in the later slices of the waterfall or spectral decay.


----------



## Guest

I think I understand what you mean. Suppose for my case that means that I should be attaching with EQ the 4 long delay waterfall between 27hz to 40hz as shown here









instead of the 2 FR response from 37hz and 45hz shown here?









funny that for my case the waterfall problem areas and the Fr seems so different right? Or is this normal?

Oliver


----------



## Sonnie

Man that looks neat as grits... just wish I could understand it. :dontknow:


----------



## bricor

All of a sudden, I don't think my waterfall plot looks so bad...


----------



## Guest

bricor said:


> All of a sudden, I don't think my waterfall plot looks so bad...



****..... 

Good thing about concrete rooms is that it pressurise the room easily and you can get a tactile feel. But the room boom can really irritate you without any eqing.... Sigh. I would kill to get a waterfall and FR like yours..... :laugh: 

Oliver


----------



## Guest

Sonnie said:


> Man that looks neat as grits... just wish I could understand it. :dontknow:


And I thought you are suppose to teach me  

You know, not that I am picky, but that word just below your name on the left just does not seem right 

Oliver


----------



## jmprader

bricor said:


> All of a sudden, I don't think my waterfall plot looks so bad...


Is this with/without eq and/or bass traps?

How big is that room, what's the construction and what were your settings when you ran this?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Sonnie

Hey John... welcome to the Shack! Good to see ya.




oliverlim said:


> And I thought you are suppose to teach me
> 
> You know, not that I am picky, but that word just below your name on the left just does not seem right


Hey... I'm here to learn too! I can teach you how to learn... just follow my lead... lol.

And what's wrong with my title... JohnM has that same title. I suppose you think it should Shack Hillbilly? I can change it. Give me some ideas and don't be rude. :nono: I know what you are thinking... :devil:


----------



## Guest

Sonnie said:


> Hey... I'm here to learn too! I can teach you how to learn... just follow my lead... lol.
> 
> And what's wrong with my title... JohnM has that same title. I suppose you think it should Shack Hillbilly? I can change it. Give me some ideas and don't be rude. :nono: I know what you are thinking... :devil:



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: What am I thinking? :sn: 


And getting back on track, yes bricor is that waterfall with EQ already and after bass traps? Mine is with bass traps and after position optimizing but no EQ yet.

Oliver


----------



## jmprader

oliverlim said:


> ...yes bricor is that waterfall with EQ already and after bass traps? Mine is with bass traps and after position optimizing but no EQ yet.
> 
> Oliver


Bricor:

And are we close-miked or seating position? What's the gate on your plot, default or something else (hey, I am a few steps past my technical limits here, so be gentle if the question is phrased improperly)?


----------



## bricor

Hey Guys, 
Sorry for not replying sooner, been out of town the past 2 days.
My room is rougly 16x17.5x10. 2 of the walls meet the ceiling at 90 degree angles and the other 2 are vaulted into the ceiling. There's also a hallway off the front right corner of the room. Sub is an infinite baffle with 4 15" ascendant audio aresenal's mounted in the ceiling out in front of the screen a little bit. 
Measurements were taken with a behringer ecm-8000 at the seating position (my seating position). I'm also using an SMS-1 to smooth the response. It was pretty good before but the SMS allowed me to get it even better. And I still have some tweaking to do.
I have 8 1" acoustic panels around the screen and 3 on one side wall. The other side wall has 3 windows which are covered with drapes. I also have 4 4" thick panels that I made (2'x4' with 6lb density fiberglass). One straddles the back corner and the other 3 are hung flat in other spots. 
Here's a full range sweep of the sub and left front and some pics of the room.


----------



## Sonnie

Holy snootin' goots Brian... did you do that sub design yourself? DIY IB?

You oughta share that with us in the Gallery | Installation area... tell us all about how ya designed it and such.


----------



## media2368

oliverlim said:


> Hee. Good you see this up and it looks great! I just need more traps in my room as 5 units of 2x4x4" bass traps hardly made a dent in my low bass decay. The room just seems to store and slowly release the bass notes. Thats why I was thinking of trying another way of EQing while I am waiting for quotes on redoing my room.
> 
> Oliver


Hi Oliver,

Nice to meet you here! You have post a interesting topic.  

Mine showing us how/where you place your bass trap?

Will re-EQ your both SUB solve the decay problem?


----------



## bricor

Sonnie,
I'll start a new thread and post more info and pics of the construction. I got "hooked" into it reading the cult of the infinitely baffled forum and decided to give it a try. I love it.
I've done 4 others for people since I did mine as well. Terrific performance for the money.


----------



## Guest

media2368 said:


> Hi Oliver,
> 
> Nice to meet you here! You have post a interesting topic.
> 
> Mine showing us how/where you place your bass trap?
> 
> Will re-EQ your both SUB solve the decay problem?



Here there  Good to see you on this forum.

I have 5 traps, 2'x4'x4". 2 in the front corners, 2 on each side beside the front speakers and 1 in the back corner wall. 

EQ cannot solve room deacy. It can help with FR by playing with phase and reducing/adding on each sub to balance it out. But waterfall, sadly no. Yes you can reduce the FR and the waterfall looks to be lower, but the moment the volume reaches back to that same level, the waterfall will be back to that same decay level. At least thats what I found out.

Oliver


----------



## JohnM

Oliver, that would be because your correction filters are not well matched to the modes they are correcting. When the match is good the decay is fixed also. Try putting a filter in for your 45Hz peak, for example (at whatever the exact frequecy is) with a small amount of cut (say -3dB) and try varying the BW setting and observing the effect on the waterfall. You probably need a bit more range vertically, with the bottom of the graph around 45dB or so. Also use a longer gate time for your FR graph, 600ms or more, for better frequency resolution.


----------



## Guest

JohnM said:


> Oliver, that would be because your correction filters are not well matched to the modes they are correcting. When the match is good the decay is fixed also. Try putting a filter in for your 45Hz peak, for example (at whatever the exact frequecy is) with a small amount of cut (say -3dB) and try varying the BW setting and observing the effect on the waterfall. You probably need a bit more range vertically, with the bottom of the graph around 45dB or so. Also use a longer gate time for your FR graph, 600ms or more, for better frequency resolution.



JohnM,

What I dont understand is how Eqing for a freq can reduce the waterfall. What EQ does is to reduce the level of that freq right? So if you play it back to that same level after the EQ, the decay should look the same as it was? I will play around with this again to see if I can optimise it better and report again.

Thanks
Oliver


----------



## JohnM

oliverlim said:


> What I dont understand is how Eqing for a freq can reduce the waterfall. What EQ does is to reduce the level of that freq right? So if you play it back to that same level after the EQ, the decay should look the same as it was?


Yes, and no 

It is often thought that an equaliser only affects frequency response and does not affect the time domain. This is completely wrong, everything you do that affects the frequency response will have a corresponding time domain effect, the two are inextricably linked. Parametric EQ filters have a resonant tail similar to the resonant tails of room modes, except that (when they have loss rather than gain) they decay much faster. Both the room mode and the EQ filter are second order systems, when the loss and bandwidth of the filter match the gain and bandwidth of the mode the mode's resonance is cancelled out, with an effect that can be clearly seen on the waterfall. The matching needs to be good however, with centre frequency within 1/60th of an octave of the mode's resonant frequency and bandwidth within about 1/30th of an octave of the mode's bandwidth.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Sonnie said:


> Man that looks neat as grits... just wish I could understand it. :dontknow:


It’s not that hard, Sonnie – let me ‘splain it to you. 

The “waterfall” term might be what’s getting you. Actually what waterfall charts show is *signal decay*. They call them “waterfall” charts merely because that’s what it resembles. To get a handle on it, let’s take a look at a chart that might be a little easier to read than the ones posted above:












Notice that there are some similarities between this chart and the regular one-dimensional charts we’re more used to looking at. For instance, you see a graph for *dB level* (vertical markings), and *frequency* (horizontal markings - although this one could use finer resolution). If you focus on just the _top line_ of the plot, you can see that it reads just like a regular one-dimensional response chart. For instance, we see a couple of peaks between 128 and 164 Hz. And a deep valley between 92 and 128 Hz. Make sense so far? 

Now – that top-line plot is the *baseline* for the rest of the “waterfall” readings, which are the ones that look like they’re “moving towards you.” The readings that “move towards you” are showing how long it takes that particular frequency to fade away. This is known as “decay.” Decay is caused by reverberation – i.e, the signal bouncing back and forth off the walls and around the room. Decay is also caused by room modes (a.k.a “standing waves”), which are a build up of energy at certain frequencies, caused by the room’s dimensions reacting to the wavelengths of those frequencies. 

Now, to be entirely meaningful, the “moving towards you” part of the graph showing signal decay _should_ have some graduated markings in milliseconds (i.e., all the horizontal lines really close together). This one just says “800 ms,” so I guess that means 800 ms is the line that’s furthest “forward.” (However, that seems at bit ridiculous. Keeping in mind that sound travels roughly a foot per millisecond, 800 milliseconds would be essentially 800 feet. I have a hard time believing that decay times in even the _worse_ residential rooms is almost the time/distance of a football field! Maybe it’s supposed to be 80 ms, not 800.)

Also, notice that (for the most part) there is a distinct correlation between *signal amplitude* and decay time. In other words, the peaks generally take a long time to fade away, while the valleys fade out pretty quickly. 

It has much to do with a measurement standard known as “RT60,” where “RT” is “reverberation time” and “60” is “60 dB.” Basically, RT60 is the time it takes for a signal to reduce to 1/1000 of its original level after the signal source stops. A 1/1000 reduction in signal level is 60 dB. 

Now, note on the chart I posted, and the ones Oliver and Brian posted earlier, that the lowest SPL reading is 55-60 dB. This is the point where audio is essentially reduced to ambient levels – i.e., the room’s noise floor. This is highly relevant. Obviously we don’t really care about the _actual_ RT60 of signal that is only 70 dB to begin with. We’re not worried about how long it takes to get down to 10dB! Once it drops below the ambient noise floor, its essentially “outta there,” for audio playback purposes. So, the time it takes a signal to drop to 55-60 dB is what we’re primarily concerned with.

In case you haven’t already figured it out, it’s important to establish that waterfall charts and the delay times they show _are entirely amplitude driven_. On other words, _all delay times across the board will rise and fall as you raise or lower the volume level_, in relation to the 55-60 dB ambient level. Make sense? In other words - turn the level up high enough, and when that valley between 92-128 Hz hits 95 dB, its decay time will look as bad as the peaks on both sides of it do now (unless of course it's a true null). Make sense?

I’m sure you’ve followed some of those threads on some of the other Forums debating whether or not an equalizer can reduce the long decay times you see with those response peaks. The answer is “yes and no.” 

We all know an equalizer will reduce those peaks by reducing the *amplitude* (level) of the signal at the frequency where the peak is. And as we’ve established, when amplitude is reduced, delay time reduces, too (i.e., relative to our 55-60 dB ambient level).

However, as we know, once we’ve reduced all the peaks by equalizing, the sub’s level is too low, so we’ll have to turn it up to compensate. What happens then? Well, you’ll see the decay times rise as well, across the board. But the difference now is that since response is relatively smooth, the decay times will also be fairly uniform as well. 

So yes, the equalizer reduces the decay times of peaking frequencies, essentially by robbing room modes of energy. However it can’t reduce the decay time the room exhibits as a whole – i.e., its natural reverberation. Fortunately, with the low frequencies this doesn’t seem to be a problem in most cases – at least not a serious one. The overwhelming majority of people who smooth sub response with an equalizer are highly satisfied with the results.

If your waterfall charts show excessive low frequency decay even after equalization, you might want to address it. An audible clue might be if your sub still sounds muddy and undefined (although you have to take care here - some subs are just muddy and undefined!). This can be difficult, however, both expensive and intrusive. The problem is that low frequency reverberation can’t be addressed by the same methods that work for upper frequency reverberation – soft floor coverings, overstuffed furniture, etc. It requires treatments specifically designed for low frequencies, like bass traps and Helmholtz resonators.

Sorry to be long-winded – maybe it’s not so simple after all! But hopefully this helps. 

So – to answer Oliver’s original question...


> I was wondering if anyone actually tried to calibrate their sub using he waterfall decay instead of FR graph?


...there’s no good reason to, since the goal of equalization is to fix your response, not decay problems.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Sonnie

utstanding:

Excellent explanations Wayne... thank you! Yeah :yes: ... even this hillbilly can understand what you've so well written. :kiss: 

It really doesn't seem all that complicated after all. I'll have to tinker with this some once I get my measuring stuff back out and take some more readings.


----------



## Guest

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> So – to answer Oliver’s original question......there’s no good reason to, since the goal of equalization is to fix your response, not decay problems.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne



This is a keeper. Good explanation of what a waterfall is. Sonnie, perhaps you could have a stickie FAQ on what audio terms means with waterfall as the first one  

Perhaps I should explain why I am trying other ways of EQing rather then relying on FR charts only. I have noticed more then once that my room seems to store certain bass energy and releases it slowly. you can hear this esp if you are playing a drums album loud. Certain low bass freq tends of hang there and cause sort of a bass echo. Also many parts of the room is so loaded with bass that its not a pleasant place to be in other then in and around my listening position. I know the most important area is still your LP. But all that bass energy will still be bouncing around and if it is over 50-60db, you will still get to hear it and that cant be good.

I have also been through many different EQ settings and I find that even though the Graph I am trying to aim at be it flat or with a house curve, ends to sound or feel different even if they look the same on the FR chart. Even though the EQ settings can be totally different from each other. That got be thinking that there are other things then FR to EQing a sub. Perhaps as JohnM has mentioned, if you get the EQ setting to be withing a certain accuracy of the Room mode, the EQ will also get rid of the mode ringing resonance and that should help subjectively with sound quality? However the 1/60 accuracy thats required would almost be impossible with the SMS-1 which I am using now right? Its only accurate to 1hz so I might have to bring out my BFD again to test this out.

Oliver


----------



## RollsRoyce

Sonnie said:


> utstanding:
> 
> Excellent explanations Wayne... thank you! Yeah :yes: ... even this hillbilly can understand what you've so well written. :kiss:
> 
> It really doesn't seem all that complicated after all. I'll have to tinker with this some once I get my measuring stuff back out and take some more readings.


Sonnie, REW will let you build waterfall displays from any measured data sets you have saved. That way, you can play around to find the best settings without the added pressure of also trying to finish a measuring session before the neighbors or SO call the cops... 

Royce


----------



## brucek

> What I dont understand is how Eqing for a freq can reduce the waterfall.


I read an article on this a little while ago where the company RealTraps tested whether equalization (using a BFD) can reduce modal ringing or is using a trap the only solution.

Many believe that by reducing the offending frequency resonance that you effectively mask the problem and so EQ is a good solution.

The comments by the tester Terry Montlick are quite interesting and certainly back what John has said here.
i.e. "_A second order filter is a second order filter, whether it is being generated by an equalizer or by a room. This is what gives parametric equalizers their amazing power to cancel room modes._


Perhaps John M can comment on this article.

Can a parametric equalizer really replace bass traps?

In part:
_On October 1, 2005 RealTraps partnered with acoustics expert Terry Montlick to settle an age-old question among audiophiles and home theater enthusiasts: How useful is equalization as a way to improve room acoustics? Room treatment, and especially bass traps, are by necessity large and visually intrusive. Many people would like very much to believe that a small electronic device can replace acoustic panels, or at least reduce the need for them......_

brucek


----------



## JohnM

The intent of that test was good, but the execution (on both sides, room treatments and EQ) was not what it could have been. There is a very lengthy thread discussing the results, which I posted on here.


----------



## Ayreonaut

It looks very much like the RealTraps do almost nothing for subwoofer frequencies. The equalizer actually smoothed out the waterfall plot even if it was partly by _lengthening_ some of the shorter decay times. Is it better to have a more uniform "long" decay rather than some truncated ones and some long ones?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I fully agree with John, the execution on both the treatment and equalization ends were problematic. There were over 100 charts presented, so it’s pretty exhausting to study and analyze all of them. Here’s a link to my review of the test (posts #247-250), although it’s not nearly as scholarly as John’s. 

One huge gaffe, Ethan used traps optimized primarily for upper bass, not the lower bass frequencies a subwoofer generates. His over-enthusiastic endorsement of bass traps virtually eliminates any objectivity. For instance, with one chart he presented Ethan criticizes the equalizer for adding a new, practically insignificant dip in response, while totally ignoring a more significant response dip the equalizer eliminated.

For his part, Terry made really poor use of the equalizer. Fully half of his twelve filters were completely wasted, as I fully detail in post #249.

At the end of the day, neither of them seem to “get it” that an equalizer’s effects on time-domain issues are directly related to manipulating the amplitude of response deviations. It should be a given that time domain issues are inherent to the room (accounting for its acoustical treatments and/or furnishings). The EQ isn’t going to add or eliminate the decay levels that would be there if frequency response were somehow perfect to begin with. Despite this, Ethan believes that the EQ increases decay (which he quasi-correctly calls “modal ringing”) when boosting, yet somehow does not decrease it when cutting. Terry’s practically the opposite – he knows the EQ can reduce decay (or ringing) when cutting, but believes when boosting it will create decay that would not otherwise be there. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Oliver,


> Perhaps I should explain why I am trying other ways of EQing rather then relying on FR charts only. I have noticed more then once that my room seems to store certain bass energy and releases it slowly. you can hear this esp if you are playing a drums album loud. Certain low bass freq tends of hang there and cause sort of a bass echo. Also many parts of the room is so loaded with bass that its not a pleasant place to be in other then in and around my listening position. I know the most important area is still your LP. But all that bass energy will still be bouncing around and if it is over 50-60db, you will still get to hear it and that cant be good.


Looking at your chart, I can see what you’re saying:












Hmm - for some reason it won't let me re-post your image. Oh well...

Anyway, the decay in the lowest region looks like it diminishes, then starts to build up again – scary! I don’t think you said if this is a “Before EQ” or “After EQ” chart, but if it’s a “before” chart, the decay is way out of proportion compared to the other frequencies, to the point that cutting with the equalizer may not bring it down to the decay times of everything else. Hopefully that makes sense...

It might help to know something about your room – shape, dimensions, etc. One thing you might do, if there are any doorways or openings that you are keeping closed during these measurements, try opening them. You’d be surprised what a difference that can make.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Guest

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Oliver,
> Looking at your chart, I can see what you’re saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm - for some reason it won't let me re-post your image. Oh well...
> 
> Anyway, the decay in the lowest region looks like it diminishes, then starts to build up again – scary! I don’t think you said if this is a “Before EQ” or “After EQ” chart, but if it’s a “before” chart, the decay is way out of proportion compared to the other frequencies, to the point that cutting with the equalizer may not bring it down to the decay times of everything else. Hopefully that makes sense...
> 
> It might help to know something about your room – shape, dimensions, etc. One thing you might do, if there are any doorways or openings that you are keeping closed during these measurements, try opening them. You’d be surprised what a difference that can make.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne



That chart is the before EQ. Here is the after one EQ for as flat as possible. This is not my latest one which I believe is better but I forgot to save it.









As you can see the decay is still quite bad. I should have 4 more traps ready next week which I hope will help bring things down further. 

I have tried measurements with doors open and it shows more differences in the are above 200hz. Measurements wise nothing much below 150hz seems to change. But on listening when one of my doors is open slightly, the bass seems more airy. 

Oliver


----------



## JohnM

What are your filter settings?


----------



## Guest

JohnM said:


> What are your filter settings?


What do you mean filter settings? the resolution? Its at its default at 3hz. The time is at 600ms. Could you add the time on the right side of the graph in future versions?

Thanks
Oliver


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

He means EQ filters, Oliver.


----------



## JohnM

Yes, the EQ filters.

There isn't really a place to add time axis labels, the total span is shown in the "Time Range" spinner bottom right and the graph label top right shows the time corresponding to the slice at the front of the graph (e.g. "Left at 300ms"), to see the time at which a particualr feature is occurring use the slice selector to move the graph forward to the point of interest and read the time from the graph label.


----------



## Guest

JohnM said:


> Yes, the EQ filters.
> 
> There isn't really a place to add time axis labels, the total span is shown in the "Time Range" spinner bottom right and the graph label top right shows the time corresponding to the slice at the front of the graph (e.g. "Left at 300ms"), to see the time at which a particualr feature is occurring use the slice selector to move the graph forward to the point of interest and read the time from the graph label.



Ok here goes for both subs. Using the SMS-1 

Vol Freq Q
-6 80 7.8
-5 44 7.7
-6 42 7.6
-6.5 38 7.5
-8 36 7.7
-3 34 8
-3 30 8


Vol Freq Q
-2.5 66 8
-3 47 3
-12.5 44 6
-6.5 38 10.2
-5.5 35 2.1
-12 28 2.3
-2 21 7


Perhaps I should explain a little and some of my observations. As the graph I showed is a combined sub graph. I EQed them more base on their idividual graph output then the combined one. But the main point was to get both to output a flatter combined graph. The SMS-1 Q setting seems to have to be lower then what was shown in the REW to get the desired result. 

Oliver


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Oliver,

Sorry, but there’s no way for us to correlate a _combined_ chart to two-sub filter settings. You’ll need to post separate charts for us, along with the separate filter settings.

That said, the top set of EQ filters: _Four_ filters between 30-40 Hz? I can’t imagine where that many filters in such a narrow (third-octave) spacing would _ever_ be needed. 

And I noticed that all filters are cutting, none boosting. This is seldom the best way to do things, and it may account for why you’re needing so many filters.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Guest

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Oliver,
> 
> Sorry, but there’s no way for us to correlate a _combined_ chart to two-sub filter settings. You’ll need to post separate charts for us, along with the separate filter settings.
> 
> That said, the top set of EQ filters: _Four_ filters between 30-40 Hz? I can’t imagine where that many filters in such a narrow (third-octave) spacing would _ever_ be needed.
> 
> And I noticed that all filters are cutting, none boosting. This is seldom the best way to do things, and it may account for why you’re needing so many filters.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


I have a very big boost between 30-45hz which 12db is not enough to even bring it within the ballpark of the rest of the freq. Also it seems that that area does not cut as what the EQ is doing. That means a EQ of 10db cut may only cut it down by 8db. I will try to post each each sub on its own. But the last time I EQed each sub to the curve I wanted then combine them, It did not quite came out good. So now I genereally do a little EQ on each sub, combine with the best phase that makes the smoothest curve for both. Then EQ each again to get it right.

Oliver


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

My Stage and FOH-Friendly Bass Rig


*Instruments*
Allen Breaux Boogie Man custom hand-made 4-string.
MV Pedulla Thunderbass ET5 5-string.
MV Pedulla Thunderbuzz ET5 fretless 5-string.
Tobias Classic 5-string.
*Main Equipment Rack*

Furman PL-Tuner power director/tuner (modified for rear signal input).
Ashly BP-41 pre amp.
dbx 160X compressor.
Ashly SRA-2150 stereo amplifier (80 watts per channel @ 8 ohms, 150 watts @ 4 ohms (for at-home practicing or other on-stage uses as needed).
The main rack is used for gigs where no stage rig is needed due to full PA support with subwoofers, supplying a balanced line out to the house system. If there is no in-ear monitor system I’ll use the EV speaker listed below to hear myself, powered by the Ashly amplifier. A patch panel on the back of the rack also allows me to also utilize the Ashly amp for specialized needs, such as a dedicated monitor to better hear the primary vocalist, guitar or keyboard player.

*Secondary Equipment Rack*

Yamaha YDP2006 stereo digital 6-band parametric equalizer (as crossover and EQ).
Crest Audio Pro7200 stereo amplifier (590 watts @ 8 ohms,1000 watts per channel @ 4 ohms).
For gigs with minimal PA support and my stage rig needs to carry the house, I add a secondary rack for a full-range bi-amped rig. Used with the Genzler and EAW speakers listed below.

*Speakers*

Electro Voice ZX 1 – 8” two-way speaker (as bass monitor if needed).
Genzler BA12-3 – 12” two-way cabinet.
Eastern Acoustics Works SB-150 15" subwoofer.
*Accessories*

Custom-made guitar cables with Canare L-2T2S cable and Switchcraft 226 90° plugs.

*Instruments Pictures*








*MV Pedulla Thunderbuzz ET-5 fretless*
(2006) Bubinga top plate









*MV Pedulla Thunderbass ET-5*
(2005) Cocobolo top plate









*Tobias Classic*
(1999) AAAAA quilted maple top with wenge tone plate and walnut back









*Allen Breaux Boogie Man (custom hand-made)*
(1994) Flame maple wings (top and bottom) with wenge tone plate; bubinga center with purpleheart stringers; rock maple bolt-on neck with wenge stringers​
*Equipment Pictures*







*Full Stage Rig*








*Rear View*








*Main Rack Rear Panel*








*Rear Panel Detail*








*Previous Rack Compliment, with Separate EQs for House and Stage*​


----------

