Baer Amplification Part 3

[pjhandlin]

Originally Posted by BluesyCat

Thanks Roger. What would your description of the 112 be? I am looking to replace my svt410hlf. Just too big. Sounds great. Just want something for home that can handle that Sadowsky low B.

Both of my Sadowsky low B's have never sounded better with the ML112.

I'm sure others will comment as well.

[CTC564]

It's really great with my Lakland 55-94's B string

[Tugboat]

Originally Posted by Art Araya

the ML112 can easily handle the Sadowsky low B. I've got a Modulus Q5 and my low B thunders thru my newly acquired ML112. Doesn't break a sweat and it doesn't fart out at all.

I've had other higher end 1x12s from Epifani and Bergantino that this could not be said about.

The Baer 112 is in another ballpark from a normal 1x12 when it comes to be able to handle the low B string.

+ 1

Fbass BN5F low B...awesome
Elrick Platinum Classic Hybrid low B...just as awesome

[Tunaman]

A GK NEO 112 CANNOT handle the low B, that I know... which is why the ML 112 is so appealing.
I'm just amazed that people still get excited about "regular" 12s like the new Bergantino... its the SAME old cab design that cant break its physics limitations.

The Baer ML 112 lets the low speakers handle the low freq & the mid driver take the rest.

Someone tell me why people are getting so damn excited about "regular" cabs anymore? I swear because it costs $1000 for a 112 people believe it has to be better but the Baer has actually has an answer for the limitation of 1 cone running full range.

What the hell am I missing here?

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by BluesyCat

Thanks Roger. What would your description of the 112 be? I am looking to replace my svt410hlf. Just too big. Sounds great. Just want something for home that can handle that Sadowsky low B.

The ML212 is a bit bigger sounding in the low end, due to the bigger box and slightly lower tuning, plus you get a bit better midrange dispersion due to the mid drivers being stacked directly on top of each other. The ML112's will sound a hair tighter in the low end, which also makes the mids sound a touch more present. If I remember right, the SVT410HLF has some pretty huge sounding lows, so the ML212 might seem a bit more familiar to you. Where the ML112's dominate, is of course in the ability to have a modular rig that you can tailor to every gig. One cab for smaller gigs, two cabs for everything else. Also, the ML112 still sound very good at lower volumes, which is a huge plus for players that need to have a quite stage volume for some gigs. The ML212 is going to be happiest pushed a bit harder, but it will still probably work better than the SVT410HLF for quieter gigs. Going from the Ampeg, which is around 110 lbs to the ML212 at 67lbs. will be an enlightening experience to be sure!

[BluesyCat]

Originally Posted by Chef

Those would work great with either of those heads.
I use my 1001RBII with 2 ML112's regularly. It's devastatingly good.

Chef, Thank you for a terrific review in BGM. THAT is why I am looking at Baer cabs.

[BluesyCat]

Originally Posted by R Baer

The ML212 is a bit bigger sounding in the low end, due to the bigger box and slightly lower tuning, plus you get a bit better midrange dispersion due to the mid drivers being stacked directly on top of each other. The ML112's will sound a hair tighter in the low end, which also makes the mids sound a touch more present. If I remember right, the SVT410HLF has some pretty huge sounding lows, so the ML212 might seem a bit more familiar to you. Where the ML112's dominate, is of course in the ability to have a modular rig that you can tailor to every gig. One cab for smaller gigs, two cabs for everything else. Also, the ML112 still sound very good at lower volumes, which is a huge plus for players that need to have a quite stage volume for some gigs. The ML212 is going to be happiest pushed a bit harder, but it will still probably work better than the SVT410HLF for quieter gigs. Going from the Ampeg, which is around 110 lbs to the ML212 at 67lbs. will be an enlightening experience to be sure!

Thanks again Roger and to everyone who chimed in - all the input certainly does help!
Decisions....this will take some time to figure out for me personally. Meanwhile, continue on in the thread and I will be lurking.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by BluesyCat

Thanks Roger. What would your description of the 112 be? I am looking to replace my svt410hlf. Just too big. Sounds great. Just want something for home that can handle that Sadowsky low B.

I haven't had a chance to try the ML112 yet, but I suspect it's going to sound fairly different from the 410hlf (which was all about huge low end when I tried it). If anyone has experience with both, maybe they can chime in.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by Tunaman

A GK NEO 112 CANNOT handle the low B, that I know... which is why the ML 112 is so appealing.
I'm just amazed that people still get excited about "regular" 12s like the new Bergantino... its the SAME old cab design that cant break its physics limitations.

The Baer ML 112 lets the low speakers handle the low freq & the mid driver take the rest.

Someone tell me why people are getting so damn excited about "regular" cabs anymore? I swear because it costs $1000 for a 112 people believe it has to be better but the Baer has actually has an answer for the limitation of 1 cone running full range.

What the hell am I missing here?

Are you talking about this? If so, your number is waaaay off.

[Tunaman]

$749 for a "regular" 112 is waaaay too much when I can get a GK NEO 112 for $300 any day of the week and ESPECIALLY waaaay too much when I can buy a Baer ML112 or any of these "Super" 12s for near that.

I'll pay extra for "super" cabs & would love to hear this cab. Baer\Barefaced\Fearful\TC\LDS cabs destroyed the notion that you can break the laws of physics just by spending more. Im AMAZED that people are still hyping that buying into it. Thanks Baer for bringing something REALLY new, improved to the table & for a reasonable price... maybe if you added a few hundred to the price, people would get more excited?

[Ewo]

Originally Posted by pjhandlin

Both of my Sadowsky low B's have never sounded better with the ML112.

I'm sure others will comment as well.

A pair of ML112s have all the bottom I'd ever want, with my Carvin SB 5000 and Fbass VF5.

Tight, and deep.

[One Drop]

Originally Posted by Tunaman

$749 for a "regular" 112 is waaaay too much when I can get a GK NEO 112 for $300 any day of the week and ESPECIALLY waaaay too much when I can buy a Baer ML112 or any of these "Super" 12s for near that.

I'll pay extra for "super" cabs & would love to hear this cab. Baer\Barefaced\Fearful\TC\LDS cabs destroyed the notion that you can break the laws of physics just by spending more. Im AMAZED that people are still hyping that buying into it. Thanks Baer for bringing something REALLY new, improved to the table & for a reasonable price... maybe if you added a few hundred to the price, people would get more excited?

When Baer gets better established his cabs probably will sell for more, and if they do more power to Roger, as this way he will be in business for the long run and will be able to support the costs involved with increasing availability and growing a company. Sorry for making assumptions, but this is a likely scenario. He's probably making razor thin margins now at the launch stage of his products. Sometimes launching at a high price will increase the perception of value, but for a new brand that not many can hear or see yet, unknown beyond the confines of a few website threads, it would probably backfire, especially now when money in still tight with consumers.

Besides, not every cab sounds the same, maybe some prefer the voicing of a Berg over a Baer, and vice versa. The more I hear absolutes being thrown around about cabs the more I cringe. The fEARful designs were the beginning of this cab design as religion tendency and it's not helpful to the general acceptance of the designs, which in the end will always come back to preference and suitability for a given set of applications for a given player. The cab designers themselves are probably laughing into their damping materials at the quasi religious debates that arise over what are essentially a set of compromises that balance voicing preferences, form factors, cost of production, intended price points and target customers and their received ideas, etc.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Tunaman

A GK NEO 112 CANNOT handle the low B, that I know... which is why the ML 112 is so appealing.
I'm just amazed that people still get excited about "regular" 12s like the new Bergantino... its the SAME old cab design that cant break its physics limitations.

The Baer ML 112 lets the low speakers handle the low freq & the mid driver take the rest.

Someone tell me why people are getting so damn excited about "regular" cabs anymore? I swear because it costs $1000 for a 112 people believe it has to be better but the Baer has actually has an answer for the limitation of 1 cone running full range.

What the hell am I missing here?

Unfortunately, you are missing a basic understanding of cabinet design It is ALL about the quality of the driver and the design of the crossover. Bergantino and Baer are both IMO are at the top of this game.

What you are missing is that there are a WIDE range of drivers that can be used in any design, and multiple ways to get to a superior performing cabinet. While those GK 112's you have perform impressively at their price point, the idea that your experience with them now gives you 'all the info you need to say that all two way 112's are junk' is, well, an interesting extension of limited experience and knowledge!

Edit: Also, while I am not a particular fan of those GK112's (primarily the top end), the statement that they 'can't handle a B string' is rubbish. Of course, if you crank your bass control and try to get a massive amount of 30-40hz fundamental, most cabs would not do particularly well, but that would, IMO be user error (i.e., not understanding that the meat of the lowest notes on the B string are driven by the second harmonic, which is in the 60-80hz range).

[Chef]

Tunaman:

1) The GK 112 is a perfectly fine cab, and, it handles a B string as well as anything, within it's limits. All cabs have limits. Pick your fave: it has limits.
2) Baer ML's don't cost $1,000; and in fact, I can't think of a 112 that costs that much.
3) "Baer has actually has an answer for the limitation of 1 cone running full range".....what? The Baers are multi-driver cabs...?!?!?!?!?!
4) The "supercabs" outperform other cabs in some ways: that's reality, not hype. whether they outperform other cabs in a way you like is a whole different deal. Some folks are gonna prefer traditional cabs, and that's fine.
5) Baers, while they are my fave right now, are not substantively different than a fF 12/6 or a bareface in their basic design ideas. they are voiced in a way that suits me better, and, they are very well crafted. And, I like Roger.

I pretty well disagree with the entirety of your post.....

[CTC564]

Well said to above posts...

Roger is a great guy...but what initially drew me to his cabs were the really cool "B" logo and his use of "Black Cougar Tolex"...it just screams ROCK AND ROLL to me ;-)

[Chef]

and really, who doesn't like a snappy cougar, in some tolex.

[One Drop]

I thought Tunaman was defending the Baer and slagging the new Bergantino? hard to decipher the intent and meaning of the post.

[One Drop]

Originally Posted by Chef

and really, who doesn't like a snappy cougar, in some tolex.

That you don't have to cook breakfast for, at that.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by CTC564

Well said to above posts...

Roger is a great guy...but what initially drew me to his cabs were the really cool "B" logo and his use of "Black Cougar Tolex"...it just screams ROCK AND ROLL to me ;-)

I will add that one of the things I like the best about Roger's cabs is they actually SOUND like a great bass cab, and bring to mind a bit of the classic one way cabs of the past. He wasn't trying to make a PA cabinet or whatever with the most massive bass extension or cutting upper mids he could, but rather using a VERY nice combination of his own OEM driver that is voiced to be a very powerful but relatively 'typically voiced' full range bass driver, and then extend the top end with a very good choice mid driver choice (versus a tweeter) that sounds a lot like the top end of a driver, and moderately high crossover point that still lets the top of the driver speak a bit in the tone.

The result... a 'vintage meets modern' voicing that is not bloated down low, is not overly crisp or clinical up top, and that extends a bit more than a one way cab up top with a bit better dispersion off axis on stage.

VERY nice! One of the few midrange driver loaded executions I've heard that really does sound like a very good traditional one way box with some improvements in max SPL and top end response.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by One Drop

I thought Tunaman was defending the Baer and slagging the new Bergantino? hard to decipher the intent and meaning of the post.

+1 I don't think he has heard any of these cabs, but seems to be under the impression that any cab with a mid driver is 'good' and any cab without a mid driver is 'bad'. Per all the above posts, that of course isn't the case at all.

As posted in that VERY good post a few posts above, EVERY design decision is a trade-off, and there are a lot of ways to make both a very nice sounding bass cab, and also many ways to make a bad sounding one