What is this for?

[B-Bottom]

First let me say I'm not a drummer. I went to a concert the other night and I noticed that in front of the bass drum, the drummer had what looked like a really small bass drum in front of the hole in the bass drum. Anyone have any idea what this thing is?

[Snake]

Yamaha Subkick

[B-Bottom]

yup that's it. Thanks

[fastplant]

hmmm, I wonder if it captures any high end too.

[Fr!tz]

From what I understand it picks up low frequencies and adds some sub sonic boom to the kick. It does nothing to the high end.

I have never heard one in use but had asked some questions about it here not to long ago.

 

How did it sound?

I understand that you still need to use a kick mic with it.

[fastplant]

I wish it didn't look like a drum though, makes the kit look real weird.

[TheBoatCanDream]

http://www.music123.com/Yamaha-SKRM100-i116086.music?match=1

 

 

 

I wonder how much it would cost to make one of these at home.

[Skr4ped]

How many speakers out there have a range that goes down to 100Hz-2000Hz?

[Old Steve]

here's the deal with those things:

 

They're based on an old studio trick of using an old speaker as a microphone to pick up low end (i.e. kick drum) sounds. Basically, all a microphone is is a membrane that vibrates, the vibrations are picked up by a magnetic field, and turned into electrical impulses. A speaker does the opposite...the electrical impulses enter a magnetic field witch moves a membrane. So theoretically, you can use almost any microphone as speaker and any speaker as a microphone.

 

So instead of wiring an XLR cable to a speaker and rigging up some kind of stand, the good folks at Yammyha encased the same thing in a drum shell, put a head on it, and attached an XLR jack and stand mount to it. Oh yeah, and slapped a nice big pricetag on it.

 

The fact of the matter is, it works as advertised and picks up much lower frequency notes than typical kick mics. If a typical kick mic is just a 'large diaphragm' mic, this is 'really large diaphragm' mic.

 

Here's the downside (aside from the price)

1.) It's fairly big....so you need to find more room in Mom's station wagon to haul it around, and more room on stage to set it up.

2.) You still need a 'regular' kick mic....this thing is only picking up the resonant head sound, so you don't get any 'attack' of the beater side. You also don't get any of the high end 'click' sound that so many people want. The only feasible answer is to use it in conjunction with another kick mic...with another cable, using another channel of the mixer, etc.

3.) feedback/bleed: this is less of an issue with this thing, but still something to consider. Since the "subkick" is put outside the resonant head, and since a large diaprhagm like that is subject to picking up low end vibrations, if your bass player is set up near it or plays loudly, the subkick will be more apt to pick up bleed from the bass than a standard kick mic.

 

Anyway, that's the deal. If you're pretty advanced in running sound and/or recording, it might be your cup of tea. If you're just playing bars and have a somewhat limited PA and/or skill level at running it, it may be more hassle than it's worth.

[Old Steve]

 

Originally posted by Skr4ped How many speakers out there have a range that goes down to 100Hz-2000Hz?

 

 

Plenty:

If the "full range" of human hearing is 20hz to 20 khz, that means that a really good speaker system will try to deliver 20hz to 20,000 hz (aka 20hz to 20khz).

 

This thing picks up 100hz - 2000hz, OR (to do the translation) 100hz to 2khz, which is still pretty low.

 

It's the whole Hz to Khz thing that has you confused.

[TheBoatCanDream]

 

Originally posted by Skr4ped How many speakers out there have a range that goes down to 100Hz-2000Hz?

 

 

 

Plenty. With a bass drum however, you want to capture frequencies lower than 100hz. Many bass drums are tuned to peak at around 60hz with frequencies being heard lower than that.

[Skr4ped]

Originally posted by Old Steve Plenty: If the "full range" of human hearing is 20hz to 20 khz, that means that a really good speaker system will try to deliver 20hz to 20,000 hz (aka 20hz to 20 k hz). This thing picks up 100hz - 2000hz, OR (to do the translation) 100hz to 2khz, which is still pretty low. It's the whole Hz to Khz thing that has you confused.

I guess I wasn't thinking straight For som reason I was thinking that speakers usually went 20kHz 20,000kHz, which obviously isn't true. I actually know the 20Hz to 20kHz thing. I guess it must have been because I had just gotten home from school

[drummercafe]

 

Originally posted by fastplant hmmm, I wonder if it captures any high end too.

 

It's purpose is to catch the low-end frequencies missed by many Kick drum mics ... that's why it's called a SubKick.

 

 

 

Originally posted by fastplant I wish it didn't look like a drum though, makes the kit look real weird.

 

It's just a speaker diaphragm mounted inside a drum shell. You can do the same thing placing a guitar amp or the like in front of the Kick drum. The Beatles did this decades ago; nothing new really, but it's nice that it's packaged the way it is.

 

It's capturing frequencies that you feel ... not necessarily hear ... although you can hear the difference.

[fastplant]

 

Originally posted by drummercafe It's purpose is to catch the low-end frequencies missed by many Kick drum mics ... that's why it's called a SubKick.

 

 

Seems like a waste of time to use two mics, one of which being cumbersome, to do the job of one mic eq'd with alot more lower frequencies. I'd have to hear it to decide if I thought the lower freqencies provided by this thing were worth it.

[rca]

The typical 15" PA speaker only goes down to 50 hz, about the same range as a Shure SM57. For more bottom, you have to have subs. And then if you have subs, a harmonizer/enhancer (whatever they call them these days) or a 31-band graphic eq can add all the bottom you could ever want to the kick using up less money, time, and space than the subkick.

[drummercafe]

 

Originally posted by fastplant Seems like a waste of time to use two mics, one of which being cumbersome, to do the job of one mic eq'd with alot more lower frequencies. I'd have to hear it to decide if I thought the lower freqencies provided by this thing were worth it.

 

 

Seems like a waste? How can you say that when you also admit you haven't even heard it?

 

There IS a HUGE difference in the sound. I've used them SubKick before, and I've also seen Russ Miller, the creator of the SubKick, demo the device. His entire kit was micked up, and they had the engineer mute the Kick mic, then mute the SubKick. They did an A/B test and you can hear and feel the difference.

 

Sure, it may not be something for everyone to use on every gig, but to say it's a "waste of time" is ... well, foolish. It's impossible for a Kick mic to do the same thing as the SubKick because of the diaphragm size. Do a little research and educate yourself with the physics of music.

 

I wouldn't use the SubKick for every gig I do ... for many reasons. But it certainly isn't a waste of time setting it up ... it's easy. What would be a waste is to own the SubKick and not have any subs in your PA system. You'd be capturing sub frequencies while being unable to produce the sound through the PA.

 

Furthermore, a good engineer ALWAYS tries to cut rather than boost. Boosting a frequency is a last resort. The ideal situation is to capture the sound naturally, not simulate or produce artificially. Sure you can do that, but with the SubKick, it's all natural ... the real deal.

 

Whatever they call them? Like I said, do some research, study music technology and the physics of sound & music. You'll see how things actually work and will have a much better place from which to debate or comment. Remember, an opinion without experience is just foolishness.

[AtillaTheHungry]

 

Originally posted by fastplant Seems like a waste of time to use two mics, one of which being cumbersome, to do the job of one mic eq'd with alot more lower frequencies.

 

 

There's no way to boost what isn't there.

 

I've heard them in a situation where three bands played without them, and then two more bands played with them. The difference is huge. They pick up a massive blast of low, low, low end.

[drummercafe]

Here's a review I did on the Yamaha SubKick almost 2 years ago. I included some video footage of a demostration I witnessed at Summer NAMM 2003 ... for what it's worth.

 

To check out my review over at my drum forum, the Drummer Cafe, click HERE.

[rca]

"Seems like a waste? How can you say that when you also admit you haven't even heard it?" Not referring to my post, but I am skeptical too.

 

I have heard and had explained to me by an engineer running sound for a drum clinic I was at about five years ago what he was doing with a 31 band eq, harmonizer and one Shure beta 52. When I heard the huge deep kick sound he got from a 20 inch drum, I made a point of checking out what he was doing differently than everybody else. We discussed drum micing for about 30 minutes. It always amazes me how helpful most musicians are. (He was a drummer of course.)

 

I agree that in theory, you could get even more lows using a transducer that will pick up lower freqs than the usual kick mics. But in recreating the sound, we are limited by the freqency range of the subs, so there is a limit on what is useful. I agree that sound below the audible threshold influences our perception of audible sound (I don't understand it, but I accept it). And I admit I don't know if the harmonizers will create sounds below 40 hz, so I don't know if they can synthesize the same lower freqs that the superkick is designed to get. I also admit that the digitally created sounds will not be as clean as a signal at the source.

 

I would be very interested in hearing an A/B type demonstration on a pro quality sub to hear how much of a difference the superkick would actually make compared to some less expensive eq and digital magic.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by drummercafe Seems like a waste? How can you say that when you also admit you haven't even heard it?

 

Um, that's why I said "seems."

[Old Steve]

 

Originally posted by fastplant Seems like a waste of time to use two mics, one of which being cumbersome, to do the job of one mic eq'd with alot more lower frequencies. I'd have to hear it to decide if I thought the lower freqencies provided by this thing were worth it.

 

 

That was my feeling too, but before anybody gets offended by that statement, let me elaborate.

 

Unless you are playing though a good PA with good subs, AND have a soundguy who knows how to work with it properly, AND aren't getting the sound you want out of your non-subkick setup, AND feel it's worth the extra hassle and expense purchase and use the thing, it's probably not worth it.

 

In other words, if you're in a typical bar band (as is my case) and you end up playing in less than perfect rooms, with less than perfect PA gear, and a less than perfect soundguy, the benefit of using one probably doesn't outweigh the hassle/complication factor.

 

For people in similar situations (probably the majority of people out there) it's practicality is somewhat limited. That doesn't mean that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do; it just probably isn't worth it for a lot of bands, and kids with serious Gear Aquisition Syndrome are probably better off spending the $300 on something else.

 

To ME, and for people in similar situations, it's probably unnecessary.