AudioKinesis Cabs V!!!!

[basscooker]

i kinda agree with everything you said, chef, but i'd rather not trust that i'd have ample table space to set my behemoth head on everywhere i'd be playing. it was a thought addressing a niche market. i wouldn't suggest trying to alter the trend for smaller stuff to satisfy a small segment. but it was a thought that duke had mentioned, and asked for some input in regards to. could it be wider, but not as deep, maintaining the internal volume, but allowing for wider heads? but realistically, it seems to me all of our resident designers and builders are kicking an awful lot of tail without feedback from a hack bassist like me! keep on keepin on, fellas, you got this. and the offer still stands, to any cincy tb'ers. you can hit my ampro if i can hit your thunderchild! haha!

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Saluki

Dang..I will be in Chesterfield on Saturday not Friday. Going to the Rams gme on Sunday with the kids. Maybe cathc you and Bob next time.

It would have been good to see you again. We need to do a hang sometime in Springfield or something when I'm passing through.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by anderbass

That's your prospective...

Here's mine:

I agree the Hathor is much more tame in the low end; because it's design just naturally rolls off those super deep-lows that simply end up cluttering the band-mix & competing with kick drum frequencies.

While I thought your TC115 sounded awesome, I did not like the way it got all boomy/MUCH-LOUDER while playing several of the lower register notes on my 4-string. I'd imagine I could have done some EQ-tweaking to help remedy this fault, but I've simply come to expect a cab to give a fairly even volume/heft/feel all the way from my open-E, on up to my upper register G-string notes. That's exactly what my Hathor and NV610 does, without the need to resort to radical EQ/tone knob changes for different rooms and stages. I dont want to constantly have to adjust my string attack or change my near-flat amp settings from room to room, I want plug and play gear. And If that comes with the side-effect of sacrificing super-deep lows, thats just an added bonus for me...

PS: And hey, until you've gigged a Bergantino NV610 with like 10 different rock bands, and on like 50 different stages, (like I have) dont be too quick to assume all sealed cabs handle power poorly...

If you are used to a sealed 10 cab, your comments make much sense. One of the things that kind of bums me out about this site over the last couple years is the core of TBers who mistake 'good specs on paper' for 'better tone' in an absolute sense. There are always trade-offs in any design of speaker cab.

I personally love my TC112 and 115, but I also still have my Berg AE210 around for those times when I want punch, definition and a bit of grind versus 'big, wide, extended and polite'. Both have their place in the market, and both 'executions' can sound fabulous, depending on a player's needs and tone goals.

Also, +1 that I MUCH prefer to find a rig that sounds good right out of the box for what I am trying to do, and matched with the bass and heads that I own, versus going through a bunch of hi pass, massive EQ drama.

So, +1 that there is a far distance between the Thunderchild TC115 and the Berg NV610. I think those bracket the category of bass backline cabs, and both are completely top of the heap, and IMO 'best in class'.

Edit: I'm curious to hear what RColie (Bob) thinks of the tone of the TH500/TC115 'out in the room' if he shows up on Friday. The TH500 is pretty big down low, and a bit polite up top (in a different way than the TC115). I typically use my much punchier, tighter F500 with the TC115/112 and a J bass, to get a bit better balance of the lows to upper mids and treble. Not sure if I'm going to get that with the TH500/TC115 pairing, but it sounds DARN good with the A-C 70's J at home, so I am giving it a shot. I typically use my P with that rig, and the J with the Glockenklang/AE212, and both sound wonderful. Doing a little 'mix and match' experimenting this weekend. Might be great, might be 'meh'. Only one way to find out!

[dukeorock]

There's a lot of words I'd use to describe a TC115AF (all of them good words), but 'boomy' aint one of them...Horses for course, I suppose

[KJung]

Originally Posted by dukeorock

There's a lot of words I'd use to describe a TC115AF (all of them good words), but 'boomy' aint one of them...Horses for course, I suppose

If you are used to a more vintage, sealed 10 vibe (the Berg AE 10's actually have a bit of that, of course, the NV610 has it in spades), the wide open low end with very little low mid bump would sound a bit flubby IMO, and it is hard to 'change that inherent voicing' with EQ. Of course, the fEARful cabs are even more extreme. The TC115 sits 'right in the middle' of that continuum for me and is perfect in most cases.

However, I can TOTALLY see how some would not dig it, and no amount of knob turning really changes these cabs from how they are inherently voiced (at least with the typical EQ on most all-in-one bass heads).

[nostatic]

I only did one gig with my TC112 and TH500. It was a jazz hit so not high volume but a tough room. Compared with my AE210 it was very different and I found the TC112 too polite in the mids for my taste. But I also was able to fiddle with the ports and dial in a "better" sound in the room than the AE210 (boomy low F resonance). I was so used to the AE210 (old vertical style) that my ears expected more upper mid gank. The Tecamp cabs sit in-between those sonically, and since I switched to the Puma head and have evolved (or devolved depending on your opinion ) my playing studying with Ant, I've migrated to wanting more low end and a bit more hi-fi, at least for some of the bands I play with. Hence my ordering up a TC212. I know it'll have the low end (which I think can play nice with kick drum for at least two of the drummers I normally work with), and I think it'll edge me more towards the balanced/hi-fi side of things, with the Puma providing some mid punch. If it goes well maybe I'll give the Blue Soul another try for an even more full-range/AJ type tone.

It's always an experiment. At least I've settled on my basses. For now

[DukeLeJeune]

Thank you all very much for your encouragement and broadening of the online information about my cabs. Rpsands and anderbass, thanks for your perspectives on the Hathor cab, in response to Kringle77's inquiry. Your experienced ears-on evaluations are more reliable than me eyeballing response curves.

Originally Posted by PDGood

Update on my experience with the TC115AF wide:
After extended use, the best compliment I can give this cabinet is that it is no longer part of a rotation. It is the cabinet. Period. Everything else in the signal chain is subject to change. This is going nowhere (unless I can afford the lighter weight composite version some day).

Thank you! Very happy that my cab has earned such a place in your system!

Originally Posted by KJung

What an absolute perfect spec. Small footprint on stage, tall enough to get some sound a bit closer to your ear, stock drivers (no drama with repairs/replacement ever) and still 4ohms, and the amazing 'Duke horn/crossover' system that results in the nicest top end I've ever heard on a bass cab (maybe any cab). Under 50 pounds in the wood version... perfect. I assume Arnopol takes 10 pounds off of that for those who want a really lightweight monster.

Please don't tell anybody, but here's the secret behind my brilliant small-footprint tallboy format: Not much alternative as to where the drivers go, and I wanted the cab to fit in a certain sized Uline shipping box, and that's the biggest dimensions I could shoehorn into the shipping box with adequate foam. I wouldn't want that to get out because it would ruin my reputation as a fancy designer.

Originally Posted by Mike Arnopol

The mids on the 212 are different than the 15. Not agressive but a bit more pronounced. I like a darker sound but the TC115 in some situations needed a bit more mids for me. The 212 has got 'em. But still smooth like a Thunderchild. Punchier than the 15.

Ask Duke about the midrange switch.

Plugging one port actually lowers the tuning frequency but gives a little lowering of the curve in the low end. But it goes a bit lower with more control. You just have to boost the bass a notch.

The switch on the TC212 is actually just the same sort of "gentle top-end rolloff" that I use on the 112 and 115.

Also, I wanted to make sure the people are aware that the porting on the TC212 is Mike Arnopol's idea. It has three 3" diameter flared ports, and I was just going to use two 4" diameter ports. Mike's format offers more flexibility and sounds better, so that's what's in the production version.

Originally Posted by basscooker

slightly off, but as i read through here, i see brainstorming ideas being bouced about, so i wanted to throw out some thoughts.

RE: gillcloth; using a flat-rolled expanded metal grill may allow for adhesive to be sufficient for fabric, so there's no messing with building a frame to stretch it on.

RE: multi-use; i see from reading the various threads that these new designs take about everything you put into them well. have the new designs and drivers brought us to the point where the application no longer matters? what i mean is, are we to the point where having a handful of one of these newer boxes can cover all the instruments, monitoring and mains, without having to buy specifically mi cabs, pa cabs, monitors, etc...

RE: cabs for heads with huge dimensions; would it be so bad to have a little more bulk, considering the gains being made in weight? it works a litte backwards, yes, but i think it'll be worth prototyping. some guys are just plain and simply not giving up their big tube heads, but would also love to have one of these cabs. would a diagonally aligned 2x12 allow for the extra width, but help keep the bulky-factor in check? maybe even a 2x15 square? there's other stuff in play with alignments like that, i'm sure. that was just a thought.

Thanks for the suggestions, basscooker!

Re grillcloth, must admit I'm resistant to things that would require me to do more work with sticky glue, and then there's how to attach the metal grill once the cloth is covering it up... sorry but aesthetics just are not my thing, and I probably lose a few sales because of it but still have plenty of orders to keep me going. I'd much rather work on pushing into new territory performance-wise rather than aesthetics-wise.

Re multiuse, yup!! I'd probably change things around a little bit if the cab was going to be aimed more at a different market, like for guitar modellers I'd probably shrink the enclosure size a bit. Speaking of which, I'm working on something for guitar modellers.

Re big tube heads, is the 21" width of my 115 "widebody" adequate? I'm under the impression that it's just barely wide enough for the feet of an SVT. If not, what's the minimum? I kinda balk at the idea of doing diagonal placement of two 12" woofers. Not that it would necessarily sound bad, but I've done a lot of hand-waving about the importance of fairly wide, even dispersion, and that would be a step in the other direction. Gotta stick with my program!

That being said, one of the products I've developed but haven't launched yet is 22" wide by 23" tall and probably louder than the 115 (while retaining good horizontal dispersion)... would that extra inch of width make a difference?

[Chef]

OMG!
There goes the neighborhood

I was actually wondering just today how you managed to always get your cabs to all fit so perfectly in their boxes..............

Originally Posted by DukeLeJeune

Please don't tell anybody, but here's the secret behind my brilliant small-footprint tallboy format: I wanted the cab to fit in a certain sized Uline shipping box.......I wouldn't want that to get out because it would ruin my reputation as a fancy designer.

[DukeLeJeune]

Originally Posted by Chef

OMG!
There goes the neighborhood

I was actually wondering just today how you managed to always get your cabs to all fit so perfectly in their boxes..............

Actually some of my cabinets were designed with sound quality higher up on the list than shipping box compatibility, but not by much. (I'm only partially joking... the ideal ratio of internal dimensions is impractical for a bass cab.)

Love your new company.

[Chef]

Thanks!

[RColie]

Originally Posted by KJung

If you are used to a sealed 10 cab, your comments make much sense. One of the things that kind of bums me out about this site over the last couple years is the core of TBers who mistake 'good specs on paper' for 'better tone' in an absolute sense. There are always trade-offs in any design of speaker cab.

I personally love my TC112 and 115, but I also still have my Berg AE210 around for those times when I want punch, definition and a bit of grind versus 'big, wide, extended and polite'. Both have their place in the market, and both 'executions' can sound fabulous, depending on a player's needs and tone goals.

Also, +1 that I MUCH prefer to find a rig that sounds good right out of the box for what I am trying to do, and matched with the bass and heads that I own, versus going through a bunch of hi pass, massive EQ drama.

So, +1 that there is a far distance between the Thunderchild TC115 and the Berg NV610. I think those bracket the category of bass backline cabs, and both are completely top of the heap, and IMO 'best in class'.

Edit: I'm curious to hear what RColie (Bob) thinks of the tone of the TH500/TC115 'out in the room' if he shows up on Friday. The TH500 is pretty big down low, and a bit polite up top (in a different way than the TC115). I typically use my much punchier, tighter F500 with the TC115/112 and a J bass, to get a bit better balance of the lows to upper mids and treble. Not sure if I'm going to get that with the TH500/TC115 pairing, but it sounds DARN good with the A-C 70's J at home, so I am giving it a shot. I typically use my P with that rig, and the J with the Glockenklang/AE212, and both sound wonderful. Doing a little 'mix and match' experimenting this weekend. Might be great, might be 'meh'. Only one way to find out!

I'm a bit curious to hear the TH500 through the TC115...I use a ShuttleMAX 12.2, and usually like a really clean tone, but maybe I'll expand my tone pallet a bit.

Bob

[KJung]

Originally Posted by RColie

I'm a bit curious to hear the TH500 through the TC115...I use a ShuttleMAX 12.2, and usually like a really clean tone, but maybe I'll expand my tone pallet a bit.

Bob

Or not

The F500 has much of the same vibe as the Max heads, and that 'clean, precise, bright' thing really matches up well with the TC115. I run the Aguilar clean, but it is much fatter down low, and I guess a bit 'rougher/organic' up top. Sounds great with the P. The J sounds FAT with it at home, but as we all know 'fat' at home can mean tubby/flubby on the gig. I like trying all this stuff, and as you know, nothing these days sounds 'bad', so never really worried. Some combinations 'speak to me' more than others though.

[Chef]

tracking for the TC212 show delivery as having moved from Friday, to Monday...so no word on what that's like til next week sometime

[staccatogrowl]

Originally Posted by Chef

. . . delivery . . . moved from Friday to Monday. .

Maybe somebody at UPS needs it for their weekend gig. . .

[Chef]

makes perfect sense

[kringle77]

Im glad that Duke is using off the shelf drivers for the new cabs. I am always nervous about buying cabs with custom drivers that may not be available a few years down the road. This is something that all builders should be doing, in my opinion.

About the Hathor, Im betting that if you run an fdeck hp3 with them at 80hz, cut alittle around 800hz, boost around 2.5khz and roll off the super high stuff, you may get very close to the traditional sealed cab sound, but with some modern improvements and more tonal options.

[steve_rolfeca]

Originally Posted by kringle77

About the Hathor, Im betting that if you run an fdeck hp3 with them at 80hz, cut alittle around 800hz, boost around 2.5khz and roll off the super high stuff, you may get very close to the traditional sealed cab sound, but with some modern improvements and more tonal options.

While I totally agree with the purist POV that the new super 12's and 15's are not automatic tonal nirvana, this is one of the things that I like so much about Duke's cabs.

With almost zero acoustic artifacts or major dispersion problems, and with the baked-in tone colour so much milder than conventional cabs, these cabs are tremendously flexible.

My Thunderchild can cop so many different clean tones with a little push one way or the other from my amp, and works so well in bad rooms, that it's mind-boggling.

From all reports, it sounds like the Hathor fills the same sort of slot for people who want a little more "roughness" up top.

And after all that is said and done, there's still the fact that having this kind of tone and volume in a small, lightweight box, allows those of us with back trouble or disabilities to extend our careers. In my case at least, I wouldn't still be gigging if my choices were limited to conventional cabs...

[Mr. Pickles]

I've only been in this thread casually and have not been active on TB at all of late, so forgive me if this has already been covered...

Duke - It seems like the Thunderchildren would be excellent and capable for FRFR applications for the modeling folks who use the Kemper, Axe FX, POD series, etc. That may be an area to target to generate some interest/business if you haven't explored it already.

[Ric Vice]

Originally Posted by kringle77

Im glad that Duke is using off the shelf drivers for the new cabs. I am always nervous about buying cabs with custom drivers that may not be available a few years down the road. This is something that all builders should be doing, in my opinion.

While much of this is certainly true, for some time builders have been using custom drivers, to help reduce the weight and improve the sonic footprint of their cabinets. Duke's TC 112 does this amazingly well. Just as an aside, years ago, even Ampeg changed out the speaker in the B-15N a couple of times, starting with a Jensen, moving to a CTS, and finally an Eminence (when CTS changed hands) and offering either a JBL D140F or Altec 421 A as an upgrade. Unfortunately, the whole debacle with Neodymium has created a monster for cabinet builders, but this has happened before with Alnico Magnets in the 1980's. I'm just not sure what drivers will be around from year to year anymore. Hard to say.

Ric

[anderbass]

Originally Posted by rpsands

When you port a box you gain some power handling down low by magic

Yes, that 'magic' is the problem I've had with most all ported cabs I've gigged, (except the Hathor) they tend to get a big volume boost at certain lower frequencies, (like your TC115 did...) requiring me to use a much lighter touch on just those notes.

Its kinda like playing a bass with dead-spots on the fretboard: I can memorise those notes locations, and play them with a stronger attack, but I'd much rather play basses and cabs that give a more even volume level on all the notes, without having to resort to any additional EQ, devices or playing-attack/techniques.

I immediately noticed that same defect in my Hathor when I was first Beta-tested it. Even my band mates noticed several of my lower register notes suddenly got way too loud. Of course they told me to turn down, then I wasn't loud enough when playing mid & upper register notes... When I told Duke about this flaw, he did some further mods that totally fixed it.

I realise I'm not all that great of a bassist, and better playing technique/attack could definetly be used to compensate for this issue, but I've just come to expect my cabs to give a more even volume/feel/heft to ALL the notes, all the way up and down the fretboard, like my Hathor and NV610 both do a very good job of achieving.