Baer ML112 and Audiokinesis TC112

[DLM]

Hi, all.

I am considering either one of these two cabs for a variety of music I play ranging from Top 40 rock/funk/classic rock to contemporary smooth jazz which includes both fingerstyle and slap playing.

For you players that have gig experience with both of these cabs, can you tell me your preference and why?

Thanks.

[KJung]

You aren't going to find many (maybe anyone) who has gigged both of these cabs. They are both relatively low production boutiques with limited distribution. Only a handful of them out there.

I have gigged the Thunderchild extensively, and spent quite a bit of time with the ML112 in a review setting at home. I have clips up of both cabs with various basses and heads, and detailed reviews of both on their respective mega threads. That might give you some information.

The cabs sound quite different, and are both great in their own way.

[KJung]

Ps I see you have an F500 and an AE212 (maybe my favorite rig ever.. period!).

I have a comparison clip of the AE212 and Thunderchild with a J Bass and the F500 on my Youtube channel if you dig through all the clips. They are all labeled pretty well. That might provide you with a useful data point.

[DLM]

Thanks for your input, Ken. I have viewed both mega-threads as well as your Youtube vids. While I have a general sense between the two cabs, I feel like I'm missing a compelling reason or two why one player might choose one over the other but will readily admit that perhaps none exists.

[tombowlus]

Originally Posted by DLM

Hi, all.

I am considering either one of these two cabs for a variety of music I play ranging from Top 40 rock/funk/classic rock to contemporary smooth jazz which includes both fingerstyle and slap playing.

For you players that have gig experience with both of these cabs, can you tell me your preference and why?

Thanks.

I own both of these cabs (two ML-112's, in fact, and I have a TC115AF on order). The TC112 is more smooth from top to bottom, and is more full in the lower mids. The ML-112 is more aggressive in the upper midrange, and is a bit more colored - not majorly colored, but it can take on a very nice growl with a little coaxing from your bass/amp.

Of course, the TC112 can growl, too, if you feed it a growly signal, but in general, it's the more smooth, rich and balanced of the two, and the ML-112 the more aggressive/punchy of the two.

Hope this helps, Tom.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by DLM

Thanks for your input, Ken. I have viewed both mega-threads as well as your Youtube vids. While I have a general sense between the two cabs, I feel like I'm missing a compelling reason or two why one player might choose one over the other but will readily admit that perhaps none exists.

They actually are quite different. The main difference to me is the upper mid voicing. The Thunderchild is as smooth as can be, and kind of gives you a feeling of playing out of a studio monitor. It is not aggressive up top, but very 'flat and clean'. It is almost like a small reference monitor in a studio. It won't generate massive low end, but will reproduce its range at high volumes very accurately.

The ML112, with that Faital mid driver and a bit different tuning in general has a similar low end, but more low mid punch (it sounds to me like Roger built a bit of low mid bump into that cab, since he said his design goal was to make a 'really good bass cab' versus a 'studio monitor or PA type cab), and a more aggressive, slghtly goosed upper mid response that will break up ever so slightly when you push it. So, it is a 'tighter/brighter' cab with more of what many call 'character' (i.e., its own pleasant mid distortion that sounds very musical).

For a guy that plays with a pick, or adds distortion to his tone through pedals, the ML112 is SMOKING. It is also a very nice 'Larry Graham' type slap cab... more grind and growl than scoop and sizzle.

I guess if I had to associate a player with the Thunderchild, maybe it would be Mark King... that uber clean, soap bar sort of tone..... modern, crisp slap with very little grind or grit.

So, quite different. I actually dig them both for what they are. The Thunderchild extends a smidge higher into the upper treble, and the ML112 puts your top end right under the cymbals.

Since (from what I understand) the Thunderchild is based on a custom 3012LF, and the ML112 is based on a custom 3012HO, the max output for each cab is the same with a typical 300/500 8ohm-4ohm head like the F500. In other words, the Thunderchild's lower sensitivity versus the ML112 is 'made up for' by the 4ohm impedance.

[nutdog]

I haven't played either one but I have lusted after both. This may be an obvious point but impedance would play a major factor in my choice. 8 vs 4 ohms.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by nutdog

I haven't played either one but I have lusted after both. This may be an obvious point but impedance would play a major factor in my choice. 8 vs 4 ohms.

See the last paragraph in my post above.

[DLM]

Thanks again, Ken. Much appreciated.

[DLM]

Tom,

Would you say the recent change that Roger made to the ML112 (reducing 1.5k by 2db) essentially gets it closer to the Thunderchild voicing thereby minimizing the tonal differences between the two cabs?

[nutdog]

Originally Posted by KJung

See the last paragraph in my post above.

I completely missed that, but it would still make a difference to me in case I wanted to add a second cab.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by nutdog

I completely missed that, but it would still make a difference to me in case I wanted to add a second cab.

+1 The Thunderchild really is designed as a stand-alone solution.. small, powerful, 4ohm. For a larger, 2 x 112 rig, the Baer makes more sense with its 8ohm impedance and its 'designed to be stacked' format.

Tom B. just posted up that Roger slightly softened the upper mid voicing of the ML112, which is probably a good thing. You can always dial that back in with an upper mid control, but he reports a slightly smoother upper mid response, which would probably sound great to the vast majority of players. It would still be brighter with a bit more 'grind' capability than the very clean and smooth and 'flat' Thunderchild though.

K

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by nutdog

I haven't played either one but I have lusted after both. This may be an obvious point but impedance would play a major factor in my choice. 8 vs 4 ohms.

The impedance of the cab is indeed a very important factor to consider when matching to your specific needs and minimum impedance rating of your amplifier. If you are using an amp that has a minimum load of 4ohms, the TC112, with its LF based driver, is great for those who need a single cab solution that can wring maximum power from your amp and actually handle all that low end power. An excellent cab, with a very accurate response. Being a 4ohm cab, you would not be able to run 2 cabs with a 4ohm head.

The ML112, with its HO based driver is designed more to work within your amplifiers 8ohm output rating and be part of a modular system. One cab for small to medium gigs, two cabs for bigger venues. You would get maximum power from your 4ohm amp into two ML112's. Different cabs for players with different needs and taste.

Originally Posted by DLM

Tom,
Would you say the recent change that Roger made to the ML112 (reducing 1.5k by 2db) essentially gets it closer to the Thunderchild voicing thereby minimizing the tonal differences between the two cabs?

The crossover change is very slight and would still leave these cabs sounding very different in the mids and top end from each other.

[tombowlus]

Originally Posted by DLM

Tom,

Would you say the recent change that Roger made to the ML112 (reducing 1.5k by 2db) essentially gets it closer to the Thunderchild voicing thereby minimizing the tonal differences between the two cabs?

Closer, but they still sound fairly different.

[DLM]

Originally Posted by KJung

For a guy that plays with a pick, or adds distortion to his tone through pedals, the ML112 is SMOKING. It is also a very nice 'Larry Graham' type slap cab... more grind and growl than scoop and sizzle.

I guess if I had to associate a player with the Thunderchild, maybe it would be Mark King... that uber clean, soap bar sort of tone..... modern, crisp slap with very little grind or grit.

Which would you say is the M. Miller type cab?

[babebambi]

Originally Posted by DLM

Which would you say is the M. Miller type cab?

That would be the Acme full range 12

[KJung]

Originally Posted by babebambi

That would be the Acme full range 12

Just like the original like of Acme 10's, I find that the Acme 112 does not handle slap transients well at all. The tone is there for sure... plenty of aggressive upper mids, big low end and super sizzle up top, but turn up and hit that E string with your thumb, and it is easy to hit the back plate of that driver (or drive many moderate powered heads into limiting. IMO and IME there.

With a boost to the upper mids, the Thunderchild does a pretty nice job with an 'active J slap tone', and that driver will not compress. Stil a little too smooth up top to totally cop the classic Marcus tone, but close enough for most.

[babebambi]

Originally Posted by KJung

Just like the original like of Acme 10's, I find that the Acme 112 does not handle slap transients well at all. The tone is there for sure... plenty of aggressive upper mids, big low end and super sizzle up top, but turn up and hit that E string with your thumb, and it is easy to hit the back plate of that driver (or drive many moderate powered heads into limiting. IMO and IME there.

With a boost to the upper mids, the Thunderchild does a pretty nice job with an 'active J slap tone', and that driver will not compress. Stil a little too smooth up top to totally cop the classic Marcus tone, but close enough for most.

I remember the TC not having the treble extension for MM / SWR type sound.
Perhaps a fEarful 12/6/1 then ?

[KJung]

Originally Posted by babebambi

I remember the TC not having the treble extension for MM / SWR type sound.
Perhaps a fEarful 12/6/1 then ?

I actually think a more traditional two way cab like the Bergantino HD112 would probably make a player looking for that tone pretty happy. A more traditional 410 is probably the best bet, since that kind of tone is kind of baked into many 410's like the Epifani410UL, the SWR Goliath, etc.

The TC does extend quite high into the upper treble, but the very pure voicing of the upper mid fights that 'upper midrange grind' of a 70's J bass just a smidge. However, it works pretty well.

That style of playing is not my particular strength, but here is a quick little clip of the Thunderchild112, the Markbass F500, and a 70's style active J with stainless steel roundwounds. There is a short slap example, actually paraphrasing a classic Marcus thump line, and it sounds 'reasonably' close IMO to that tone. (Edit: If I swap the Hi Beams with Lo Rider Steels, the tone of that bass grits up a bit in the upper mids, making it a bit more 'Fendery' sounding and copping that 'brightness' of Marcus's tone a bit better. I dig the smooth, crisp Hi Beams though).

Audiokinesis Thunderchild 112, Markbass F500, Alleva-Coppolo LM5 - YouTube

[JimmyM]

Do you really need that ultra treble extension for Marcus sound? I would argue you don't. Those mid horns on Duke's cabs go pretty high as it is, and the important frequencies would be covered, especially when you consider the improved dispersion of the mid drivers. Not quite as high pitched as a dedicated tweeter, and some might disagree, but I think it would work well if you're into a really bright slap sound like Marcus'.