AudioKinesis 1x12 Cab Part Two

[Thor]

This thread is continued from here:

AudioKinesis 112 Cab

[Kirkowitz]

still lurking...

[KJung]

Cool! How about a pretty picture to start things off on 'version 2'!

[KJung]

And a clip!

YouTube - AudioKinesis with LMII and Alleva-Coppolo LG5

[JxBass]

Still in .... and eagerly awaiting the Thunderchild 15 thread

[GRoberts]

I'm in! Totally tempted. Just a matter of time before I give one of these a try for myself. Although the upcoming Thunderchild 15 is of particular interest to me.

[IntrepidCellist]

Intrepid, the final version differs somewhat from what you and I had talked about. Shoot me an e-mail if you'd like details. Also, one will be at the New England GTG in late April. It can be modified to sound like the regular version in about a minute, so it can represent both.

Derek and Passinwind both played a role in the development of the acoustic-friendly version, the latter unknowingly.

Nice! I hope to be at the NE GTG, assuming exams let me do so, probably with my own cab. I'd ask about it directly, but I have no money for a cab right now and would merely be doing so out of curiosity.

[mrpackerguy]

I'm thinking for those of us who double, that the 15 might be the better option with the attenuated crossover as alluded to by Duke in Part I thread. That way, it would seem to be able to acheive the best of both worlds: defined big low end for double bass playing, but perhaps with the port plugs engaged, a more focused low end for bass guitar. Again, horn roll-off control would almost be a must me thinks. What am I missing?

[IntrepidCellist]

Also, here's mine:



Works great on electric cello too. I bet it'd be fine for doubling.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

I'm thinking for those of us who double, that the 15 might be the better option with the attenuated crossover as alluded to by Duke in Part I thread. That way, it would seem to be able to acheive the best of both worlds: defined big low end for double bass playing, but perhaps with the port plugs engaged, a more focused low end for bass guitar. Again, horn roll-off control would almost be a must me thinks. What am I missing?

I assume, similar to the 12/6 and 15/6 cabs, the primary difference betwee the Thunderchild15 and 12 will be sensitivity and absolute volume, with the 15 able to go louder with fewer watts, and also go a bit louder with big watts pumped in, versus the 112.

Both have that nice treble roll-off control.

The 112 is very full down low (not overly extended lke the Acme's, but full and fat in that 50-100hz 'meat of the tone' area), and unless you need massive volume, would be great for DB. When comparing this cab to the EA VL208 with TBer Rick Vice's DB, it was deeper down low and more even through the mids. Plenty of low end for virtually any DBist IMO.

[Passinwind]

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

I'm thinking for those of us who double, that the 15 might be the better option with the attenuated crossover as alluded to by Duke in Part I thread. That way, it would seem to be able to achieve the best of both worlds: defined big low end for double bass playing, but perhaps with the port plugs engaged, a more focused low end for bass guitar. Again, horn roll-off control would almost be a must me thinks. What am I missing?

Ask me in two weeks, once I've heard the new 112 cab design intended for doubling. If it follows the fEarful model, the 115 should handle more power but sound very similar. In general though, crossing from a 12 to a horn is a lot easier to achieve gracefully than doing so from a 15. So I would expect the 112 to be the better choice for acoustic instruments, in general. But until we hear Duke's 115 with his specific OEM driver, who knows?

[mrpackerguy]

Originally Posted by Passinwind

Ask me in two weeks, once I've heard the new 112 cab design intended for doubling. If it follows the fEarful model, the 115 should handle more power but sound very similar. In general though, crossing from a 12 to a horn is a lot easier to achieve gracefully than doing so from a 15. So I would expect the 112 to be the better choice for acoustic instruments, in general. But until we hear Duke's 115 with his specific OEM driver, who knows?

I await your assessment.

[mrpackerguy]

Originally Posted by KJung

I assume, similar to the 12/6 and 15/6 cabs, the primary difference betwee the Thunderchild15 and 12 will be sensitivity and absolute volume, with the 15 able to go louder with fewer watts, and also go a bit louder with big watts pumped in, versus the 112.

Both have that nice treble roll-off control.

The 112 is very full down low (not overly extended lke the Acme's, but full and fat in that 50-100hz 'meat of the tone' area), and unless you need massive volume, would be great for DB. When comparing this cab to the EA VL208 with TBer Rick Vice's DB, it was deeper down low and more even through the mids. Plenty of low end for virtually any DBist IMO.

Good to know.

[Passinwind]

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

I await your assessment.

Me too !

Just to be clear: I will be getting the acoustic-friendly 112, not the 115. Not sure just where Duke is in the development cycle of the 115...

Anyhow, the original TC 112 sounds very good for my EUB, and Duke tells me the new one should be even better. I'll try to get some clips of acoustic upright through the new cab posted ASAP, but that'll depend on getting one of my AUB playing friends over here.

[Derek Kiernan]

Originally Posted by Passinwind

Ask me in two weeks, once I've heard the new 112 cab design intended for doubling. If it follows the fEarful model, the 115 should handle more power but sound very similar. In general though, crossing from a 12 to a horn is a lot easier to achieve gracefully than doing so from a 15. So I would expect the 112 to be the better choice for acoustic instruments, in general. But until we hear Duke's 115 with his specific OEM driver, who knows?

One thing Duke mentioned to me is that the 115 has to use a more expensive compression driver so he can cross over at a lower frequency with the 15 to keep his design approach consistent. It seems like the primary difference for acoustic instruments would be having more of the upper mids coming from the compression driver?

I would expect that it'd be extremely similar tonally, even with the compression driver change, because Duke felt that the higher end compression drivers he was testing out for the acoustic design didn't make much (or enough) of a difference over the Thunderchild to justify choosing another.

Originally Posted by Passinwind

You're getting the new 'acoustic-friendly' version, right? Sounds like that one's pretty close -- Duke plans on bringing one along to the Boise TB GTG in a couple of weeks. And I'm hoping to leave with it if all goes well...

Yup, it's coming sometime this week. I'll be recording a friend playing guitar through it, and Duke has been more than a gentleman in how much effort he has put in to get it here in time for that session. There couldn't be a nicer guy.

[Passinwind]

Originally Posted by Derek Kiernan

One thing Duke mentioned to me is that the 115 has to use a more expensive compression driver so he can cross over at a lower frequency with the 15 to keep his design approach consistent. It seems like the primary difference for acoustic instruments would be having more of the upper mids coming from the compression driver?

I would expect that it'd be extremely similar tonally, even with the compression driver change, because Duke felt that the higher end compression drivers he was testing out for the acoustic design didn't make much (or enough) of a difference over the Thunderchild to justify choosing another.

Yep. Bigger, more expensive...two things that I can do without.

I'm sure Duke won't release the 115 cab until it sounds great though, and obviously the demand is very real. Various 112s have proven to be enough for 95% of my gigs over the last five years, so naturally that's the sweet spot for me.

[thudfromafar]

I'm eagerly awaiting the acoustic-child. I just have to sell a few things first.

[4StringTheorist]

My Thunderchild arrives this week, or early next. *excited*

[DukeLeJeune]

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

I'm thinking for those of us who double, that the 15 might be the better option... defined big low end for double bass playing, but perhaps with the port plugs engaged, a more focused low end for bass guitar.

Mrpackerguy, the low end response of the 115 will be similar to that of the 112. If it does indeed turn out to be "bigger", it'll only be a "little bit bigger". I think the 112 was lucky enough to sort of hit a "sweet spot" as far as low-end response, efficiency, and box size goes, so with the 115 I'm mainly bumping up the efficiency (and maximum SPL) at the expense of box size, but keeping the same general response shape.

Frankly I had expected the plugged port mode to be more applicable to double bass, as my browsing of the double bass forum led me to believe that feedback was often an issue. Seems like a lot of double-bass players are using cabs that inherently don't have a lot of low end, but have nice midrange. Of course musicians know better than I do; my hope is add to the choices they have.

One of the first threads I started on TalkBass many moons ago was an inquiry into what makes a good double-bass cab.

The tone-target I aspire to with the acoustic-friendly 112 might be described as "au natural". Now I am not suggesting this is somehow "better" than a cab with deliberate voicing; rather, this just happens to be where I think I have something to offer.

[mrpackerguy]

Originally Posted by DukeLeJeune

Mrpackerguy, the low end response of the 115 will be similar to that of the 112. If it does indeed turn out to be "bigger", it'll only be a "little bit bigger". I think the 112 was lucky enough to sort of hit a "sweet spot" as far as low-end response, efficiency, and box size goes, so with the 115 I'm mainly bumping up the efficiency (and maximum SPL) at the expense of box size, but keeping the same general response shape.

Frankly I had expected the plugged port mode to be more applicable to double bass, as my browsing of the double bass forum led me to believe that feedback was often an issue. Seems like a lot of double-bass players are using cabs that inherently don't have a lot of low end, but have nice midrange. Of course musicians know better than I do; my hope is add to the choices they have.

One of the first threads I started on TalkBass many moons ago was an inquiry into what makes a good double-bass cab.

The tone-target I aspire to with the acoustic-friendly 112 might be described as "au natural". Now I am not suggesting this is somehow "better" than a cab with deliberate voicing; rather, this just happens to be where I think I have something to offer.

Fair enough. Good information. I play an electric upright, so I already know full well I'm not going to get that pure doghouse sound and that's fine with me. At this point, portability, tone approximation, and quite frankly "the look" is what's most important to me when doubling on EUB. So when I look for a box to mate with the couple heads I have when playing the EUB, I look for that "au naturale" sound as you put it Duke, and haven't really found it yet. The Wizzy 10 is pretty good. The Walkabout Scout is good, but not because it gets that "au naturale" sound, but more from a convenience perspective, and I know how to dial it in for my needs. The EA Micro head I've been using has worked great both with the Wizzy and with my Schroeder 1212BMF, though admittedly, the mid-present Schroeder lacks that fullness at the bottom end I need for doubling. So your 12" box really intrigues me, expecially the one with the different corssover. Will that also be an option on the new 15?