Playing bass through a guitar amp?

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Way back around 1982 when I had a TNT-130 with a single 15", I remember that you had to pay extra to get a "Black Widow equipped" amp.  I did not pay extra.  Was mine a Scorpion?  Or were there other driver models?

Peavey's 'standard' speaker for that era was the Scorpion. The Black Widow was an upgrade, that for bass, was a worse speaker anyway unless you were putting them in high powered PA subwoofer cabs and feeding them big power. The Scorpion speakers with their lower power handling and lighter suspension had better low frequency response and were more efficient. The whole 'Black Widow Upsell' was just a marketing move. To this day, I know people that swear by Peavey Black Widows for everything because they've been hearing that pitch for years. The best sounding Fender Twin I've ever heard had a pair of Peavey Scorpions in it.

You know how they ( home theatre salesmen/installers/manufacturers etc.) tell you that bass is non-directional (so having a single sub anywhere in the room in a stereo/surround system will work just fine)? ... but then they never tell you at what point exactly this happens.

You're confusing/conflating proximity reinforcement and directivity. While they are related, your mess of an explanation is just technobabble and actual science all mixed up. There is no such thing as "Baffle Step Effect." I do not dispute the science of proximity reinforcement or wave directivity, but your understanding and explanation are pure BS.

As far as guitar amps for bass, I'm currently using a Fender Super Twin. I know that they were never a very good guitar amp, but 180w RMS is perfect for bass. It doesn't sound very Fender-y to me, thankfully. I've never been a big fan of the Fender tone stack for bass. It sounds more like a Sunn to my ears.

The Fender Super Twin and the Studio Bass are pretty much the same amp. The Studio Bass was only available as a combo with an EVM 15, an utterly stupid idea on the part of Fender.

[Granny Gremlin]

You're confusing/conflating proximity reinforcement and directivity. While they are related, your mess of an explanation is just technobabble and actual science all mixed up. There is no such thing as "Baffle Step Effect." I do not dispute the science of proximity reinforcement or wave directivity, but your understanding and explanation are pure BS.

.

Did you try googling it?*  Don't confuse my attempt to explain something without getting too mathy or technical-jargonny (one of your vices) with BS.

I will admit that I did mix in some boundary reinforcement talk in there, but that was as a method of compensating for baffle step  - anyone with decent English comprehension skills not rushing through it could understand that.  

I'm not  gonna argue with you about it (and not only because you've fallen into a habit of starting with some sort of ad hominem, but because any time I make a point you pull some cop out about how you are above this sort of thing - like last time when you confused bandpass and transmission line enclosure types and I called you on it; just logical fallacies with you).  Everyone here knows how to use google and can check for themselves.*  Plenty of pages with the math around.  

* sometimes known as Baffle Diffraction Step; not to be confused with Baffle Edge Diffraction, which is something else entirely (and  is one reason I skip the 'diffraction' part of the phrase, as some people do)

/peace out

[nofi]

you guys want to meet in the parking lot after school and settle this thing once and for all. 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

you guys want to meet in the parking lot after school and settle this thing once and for all.  

Here's the thing: I'm the engineer here with two degrees and decades of experience. GG is a wannabe armed with a bunch of internet "wisdom" and doublespeak. When a question as simple as "What's baffle step effect" produces an answer as convoluted and nonsensical as it did, it's just a bit of a clue that there's some BS going on. This isn't about opinion; it's about hard science, which is why I'm such a hardass about it. I know that to many 'folks in the stands' this looks like well-informed people arguing minutiae, but it's not and only ONE of us is actually well-informed. When I get asked a simple straightforward question like that about something I've said, I provide a simple straightforward answer. Quite frankly, I'm so brusque because Jake should know better by now; when you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't impress anyone to bullshit like you do, and when you get called out for it, stop acting like a child. Hell, just look as his "reply:"  more obfuscation and conflation. IOW-



That's why I'm here and not at other places where science and fact are open popularity contests.