Baer Amplification; Part 2!!

[CTC564]

Originally Posted by Eublet

So every time I think I'm ready just to give this cab a try and put in an order, I start seeing you guys use the "bright" term in describing it. I don't like bright...

I came from 4x10 and 2x10 cabs with tweeters in each

I definitely would NOT call the ML-112 "bright" compared to that sizzly bright sound that I was used to...they are IMO the most musically BALANCED cabs I've owned or heard...very natural and earthy

PS...there are a few that have paired them with the TH500 and LOVE them

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by tombowlus

Do you like upper mids?

Do you have a passive tone control?

Musically present and please upper mids is what I'm looking for, something akin to that GK-style aggression without the tweeter harshness and constant pinging. More Larry Graham, Chris Squier, John Entwistle, Geddy Lee, and not Marcus Miller or Mark King.

I play passive instruments with a VTC, but seldom turn them down more than 25%. This is largely because I use a Tone Hammer with the AGC on that pretty much yanks everything over 5khz out anyway. I usually cut upper mids around 800 hz by about 2db just to soften that area of clankiness, which adds a little upper mid bark to stand out by contrast, combined with the lower mids for body. Nothing as drastic as an Ampeg kind of contour, but just enough to have a vintage warmth with some aggression on top.

Most tweeter-loaded conventional cabinets haven't done well at getting that across. With the typical 4k crossover into the tweeter, it's hard to get the right treble presence without pingy harshness, and the woofers don't properly speak in the critical 2.5khz to 3khz range that give a jazz bass it's grindy presence. IME at least.

[GRoberts]

Originally Posted by CTC564

I came from 4x10 and 2x10 cabs with tweeters in each

I definitely would NOT call the ML-112 "bright" compared to that sizzly bright sound that I was used to...they are IMO the most musically BALANCED cabs I've owned or heard...very natural and earthy

Describing sound in words; That's the tricky part. "Round and pillowy" is another mans "boomy." Chewy mids are too much for some people, but Organic midrange is awesome. Ya know?

[tombowlus]

Originally Posted by Eublet

Musically present and please upper mids is what I'm looking for, something akin to that GK-style aggression without the tweeter harshness and constant pinging. More Larry Graham, Chris Squier, John Entwistle, Geddy Lee, and not Marcus Miller or Mark King.

I play passive instruments with a VTC, but seldom turn them down more than 25%. This is largely because I use a Tone Hammer with the AGC on that pretty much yanks everything over 5khz out anyway. I usually cut upper mids around 800 hz by about 2db just to soften that area of clankiness, which adds a little upper mid bark to stand out by contrast, combined with the lower mids for body. Nothing as drastic as an Ampeg kind of contour, but just enough to have a vintage warmth with some aggression on top.

Most tweeter-loaded conventional cabinets haven't done well at getting that across. With the typical 4k crossover into the tweeter, it's hard to get the right treble presence without pingy harshness, and the woofers don't properly speak in the critical 2.5khz to 3khz range that give a jazz bass it's grindy presence. IME at least.

Based upon that, I think that you would be quite happy with the ML-112. It has plenty of "high end information" without much of the "high end noise," if that makes any sense.

And don't forget about the armadillos you know where...

[CTC564]

Originally Posted by GRoberts

Describing sound in words; That's the tricky part. "Round and pillowy" is another mans "boomy." Chewy mids are too much for some people, but Organic midrange is awesome. Ya know?

Very true...

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Eublet

Musically present and please upper mids is what I'm looking for, something akin to that GK-style aggression without the tweeter harshness and constant pinging. More Larry Graham, Chris Squier, John Entwistle, Geddy Lee, and not Marcus Miller or Mark King.

This is the cab for you! One thing that gets confusing on this site is that quite a few people talk about 'midrange loaded cabs' as a general class of cab. While I guess that is true in a limited sense, depending on the mid driver, these cabs all sound VERY different.

The ML112, using that wonderful Faital mid driver, and a slightly higher cross over point than, for example, the fEARful cabs, results in a totally NOT PA like response up top. The ML112 is bright, of course, meaning it has some nice presence in the upper midrange (i.e., that 'just below the tweeter' type tone), but it is very papercone sounding (versus, for example, the 18Sound mid driver crossed over low with the fEARfuls), which sounds more like the top of a PA cab (which is NOT my thing at all). When pushed up top, that mid driver can break up slightly for a very 'natural' top of the driver sound, with a bit better dispersion of the upper midrange, and of course, allowing Roger to use a more heavy duty driver to pound more in the mid bass region.

I think people call the ML112's 'bright' due to the nice 'top of the driver' type of response in the upper midrange (versus, for example, the lack of those frequencies in the Epifani line of cabs).

The top end of these cabs is the best 'grind' producer I think I've heard.... very warm, very present, but no harsh gank like in some other mid driver loaded cabs that I've played.

IMO and IME!

Edit: So, if I like it so much, why don't I have one? Well, in my detailed A/Bing of the ML112 with my Bergantino AE210 Vertical (with the smoother crossover), the overlap in tone was about 80%, and the 20% difference (a little tighter low end and a little sweeter, more extended top end with the Berg) was in the 'favoring the AE210' direction for me. I'd be darn happy with either, but already owned the Berg, and really like that form factor.

[Eublet]

Thanks, guys. That's kind of what I'm thinking will be the case for me. A lot of cabs give me the response I want in a solo setting, but when you get them in a mix they just kind of lose their aggressive edge so to speak. So I wind up boosting the tweeter which doesn't bring that sound back in, and if you compensate by trying to boost those grind frequencies, it can sound artificial and not natural. Worst case, I don't think flipping an ML112 would be that hard if I decided it wasn't working me, even if I had to take a little hit just for a chance at trying it out for a few months.

[Hollow Man]

Let me assure you, the ML112 excels at not losing its aggressive edge in a mix. I play in a 7-piece band with horns and multiple vocalists, and the ML112 keeps me right in the middle of things. It grinds with the best of them, but it's not 'bright' an unsettling kind of way (I, too, fear cabs that are described as bright).

[GRoberts]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

Let me assure you, the ML112 excels at not losing its aggressive edge in a mix. I play in a 7-piece band with horns and multiple vocalists, and the ML112 keeps me right in the middle of things. It grinds with the best of them, but it's not 'bright' an unsettling kind of way (I, too, fear cabs that are described as bright).

Do you use one ML112 or a pair?

[Hollow Man]

Originally Posted by GRoberts

Do you use one ML112 or a pair?

Just one. It keeps up in my very loud, very dense mix, although I think I work it pretty hard. I imagine that another ML112 would turn my rig into a outright cannon.

[GRoberts]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

Just one. It keeps up in my very loud, very dense mix, although I think I work it pretty hard. I imagine that another ML112 would turn my rig into a outright cannon.

That is awesome. What kind of amp are you using to drive your ML112? and What kind of bass?

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

Just one. It keeps up in my very loud, very dense mix, although I think I work it pretty hard. I imagine that another ML112 would turn my rig into a outright cannon.

Definitely paying attention here.......

[Tugboat]

So, the question for me is 2 M112's or 1 ML212? Where's Confucious when you need him?

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

Just one. It keeps up in my very loud, very dense mix, although I think I work it pretty hard. I imagine that another ML112 would turn my rig into a outright cannon.

So you use the ML112 for that versus your AE212? What are the differences in your words between those two cabs?

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by Tugboat

So, the question for me is 2 M112's or 1 ML212? Where's Confucious when you need him?

I feel you there. I've considered just getting the ML212 and calling it a day. In the past I have always preferred to use a bigger cab that just kind of cruises versus using a smaller cab pushed hard. If the ML112 can really push the same volume as a typical 112 without any of the typical low end compression that starts happening, then I'd be more apt to use it over a larger cabinet. I seldom need 212 volume, but I prefer 212 feel.

[R Baer]

I always recommend using your cabs within their respective comfort zones. I think having a pair of ML112's is really the ideal situation if you tend to play a wide variety of gigs. For smaller, quieter gigs, you bring one cab and for medium to loud, you bring both. And while a single ML112 is usually fine for a medium sized venue, I prefer to have some extra headroom on tap for when it's needed, rather than counting on one cab to cover the gig by pushing it hard.

The ML212 does have some advantages of its own though. Buying the one single cabinet and cover does save you a couple hundred bucks over buying two ML112's. Also, in the ML212 the drivers are in a more optimal orientation which gives you a bit better performance, especially when it comes to the midrange dispersion. On the negative side, the ML212 may be a bit overkill for a quiet acoustic gig where you need to keep your volume very low. I think that cab really sounds it best with a little power behind it.

[CElton]

Originally Posted by Eublet

I feel you there. I've considered just getting the ML212 and calling it a day. In the past I have always preferred to use a bigger cab that just kind of cruises versus using a smaller cab pushed hard. If the ML112 can really push the same volume as a typical 112 without any of the typical low end compression that starts happening, then I'd be more apt to use it over a larger cabinet. I seldom need 212 volume, but I prefer 212 feel.

I have a Neox212T. My ML112 sounds and feels just as "big" as the 212. However, for obvious reasons, the 212 can achieve overall higher volume.

Since getting the ML112, I rarely take the 212 out anymore. I always have PA support and the 212 was just more than I needed most of the time.

I will also say, I've never played another 112 that can achieve the volume and depth that the ML112 can. It's even louder than most 210's I've had the pleasure of using.

For context, I play in a New Country/Blues/Classic Rock band with Keys, 1 Guitar, and a Drums. I also play in a Fusion/Blues band with Keys, 1 Guitar, and Drums.

[Hollow Man]

Originally Posted by GRoberts

That is awesome. What kind of amp are you using to drive your ML112? and What kind of bass?

I use a Tecamp Puma900 and an Atelier Z 5-string Jazz. Amazing combination, although I have to make sure I'm not too heavy-handed on the volume, since the Puma has an incredible amount of output, and as badass as the ML112 is, it is a single 8-ohm, 1x12 cab.

Originally Posted by Eublet

So you use the ML112 for that versus your AE212? What are the differences in your words between those two cabs?

I use both, depending on the environment. That said, over the last few gigs, I think I've decided I'll end up using the AE212 more in the future, just because when we're crankin', it's a lot of noise for the ML112 (or any 8-ohm, 1x12 cab) to contend with, and I can't afford a second ML112 right now. But, I'm always cutting through, so from a tonal perspective, it rocks.

As far as tonal differences, the AE212 is a bit fatter in the low end and low mids and a bit smoother in the upper mids; the high end isn't terribly dissimilar between the two cabs to my ear (but then again, I try to keep my tone from extending too far out in that direction). The ML112 is a bit punchier; the low end is tighter and more focused, and the upper mids are more aggressive. Remember, the AE212 is 4-ohm and the ML112 is 8-ohm, and I haven't done a true, gain-matched A/B. For those with a lot of time on the Berg AE series, I'd loosely compare the ML112 to an AE210/down-sized AE410.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Hollow Man

I use a Tecamp Puma900 and an Atelier Z 5-string Jazz. Amazing combination, although I have to make sure I'm not too heavy-handed on the volume, since the Puma has an incredible amount of output, and as badass as the ML112 is, it is a single 8-ohm, 1x12 cab.




I use both, depending on the environment. That said, over the last few gigs, I think I've decided I'll end up using the AE212 more in the future, just because when we're crankin', it's a lot of noise for the ML112 (or any 8-ohm, 1x12 cab) to contend with, and I can't afford a second ML112 right now. But, I'm always cutting through, so from a tonal perspective, it rocks.

As far as tonal differences, the AE212 is a bit fatter in the low end and low mids and a bit smoother in the upper mids; the high end isn't terribly dissimilar between the two cabs to my ear (but then again, I try to keep my tone from extending too far out in that direction). The ML112 is a bit punchier; the low end is tighter and more focused, and the upper mids are more aggressive. Remember, the AE212 is 4-ohm and the ML112 is 8-ohm, and I haven't done a true, gain-matched A/B. For those with a lot of time on the Berg AE series, I'd loosely compare the ML112 to an AE210/down-sized AE410.

+1 to every point in your post, based on my direct comparison of all these cabs. I continue to recommend the ML112 for those who 'missed out' on the AE cabs, and it has much in common with the AE410 and AE210 in general terms.... punchy, upper mid forward, loud! The ML112 has a bit more going on down low than the AE210, but is in the same tone universe. I haven't spent much time with the AE112, but that was my least favorite AE cab, and my guess is the ML112 will stomp it in absolute volume and low end. More similar in output to the AE210, given its 'super 12' type woofer, based on, I believe the 3012HO with Roger's tweaks implemented by Eminence that kind of puts it half way between an HO and LF.

[Eublet]

The AE212 was nice, but I wanted it a little tighter in the bottom end. A shift towards more upper mids would have made it the perfect cab for me, so that's a plus for the ML112. I was more curious that you would use the ML112 in a 7-piece band over the AE212 which I would assume to be a grand slam in that setting. I usually go for a more pillowy bottom in a busy mix rather than fighting the band by cutting through. However if the ML112 handles it from a volume perspective, then that is promising. I'm just on the fence about getting it versus the ML212 really. I don't really want two cabs anymore. Just a one and done, even if it means I'm overkill sometimes.