So I'm no professional, but I figure I'd throw my .02 in for anyone looking at these cabs. This comparison was done poorly, and any opinions in this thread should be taken with a grain of salt
"" - My opinion of tonal descriptions
All test were done through a 700rb-ii set flat.
210 - This was the first cab I tested. Compared to the 112 it was slightly louder and went noticably lower. When played solo this is the cab I preferred. The response seems relatively flat, and the cab has a nice "smooth", "full" sound; stuck in limbo between modern and old school. It is very "articulate" and "clear", without loosing any "warmth" or "body".
112 - The second cab. Compared to the 210, this cab was slightly quieter, and had more mids. Now this is not to say the cab is mid heavy. It also has a fairly flat response to my ears, but it has a much "fatter" sound than the 210. I think it's due to the slightly rolled off deep lows, and the more presesnt high-lows/low-mids. It's the same as the 210, between modern and old school.
In the mix - I purposely did not touch any volume knobs during the cab switch. I really like both cabs, but in the end I preferred the 112. When I switched cabs the volume difference between the cabs was not very noticable, and I believe it's due to the "tighter/fatter" sound of the 112 compared to the "wider" 210. The 210 was present and cut through, but the 112 had more "punch" that really filled my space in a style I prefer.
The quick version -
210:
Wider, louder, more articulate
112:
Tighter, fatter, punchier
