More lightweight 112 cab questions

[PDGood]

There's been a lot of great info on here comparing some outstanding boutique 112 cabs - Thunderchild, Acme, and Baer. But I haven't been able to find much to compare them to the (non-boutique?) 112s such as Wizzy 12, EA, Bergantino AE112, Epifany UL D.I.S.T. 112, and Aguilars.

Anyone care to weigh in on that?

[pgbassman]

For small gigs I use a Mesa Walkabout 12 cab, this is a dedicated cab not a walkabout with the head removed...light weight but full bodied. It throws well and has a very round warm tone when teamed with my MB tube 800.

[PDGood]

Aaah, one more player in the mix. I don't see that exact model in a search. Is it ported? High frequency horn/driver? Watts handled?

[MarTONEbass]

The Bergantino AE112 is just an amazing 112. Great low end and low mids, little upper mid grind, just perfect to my ear. I just completed my AE112 x2 stack and I'm done buying cabs. I am now a reformed cab whore. 30lbs, 300 watts.

[PDGood]

Specs sound good. Have you had a chance to compare the Berg to any of the other cabs enough to provide a description of the sonic differences?

[KJung]

Originally Posted by PDGood

Specs sound good. Have you had a chance to compare the Berg to any of the other cabs enough to provide a description of the sonic differences?

Remember that the Berg AE cabs are no longer available. Nice 12... brighter in the upper mids than most others, moderate low end output.

[thehess]

New Bergantino HD-112 is solid. First full rehearsal with mine last night, onstage tomorrow. Plenty off low end, and lots of mid punch. I find that I can hear subtle righthand articulation very clearly through it. Pushes me to be very intentional with my tone, a good thing IMO. Paired with an Aggie TH500.

[PDGood]

Anyone know how the Berg HD112 compares to the HT112ER?

I've been trying to get a clearer picture on what exists in the lightweight, high quality 112 market. I'm posting an Excel sheet on here (don't know how well that will work) comparing specs.

One thing that puzzles me is that some of the specs aren't what I thought they would be. For example, the Thunderchild I know has an extended low range - sounds great down there, yet it's rated at 56hz which is higher than most of the other cabs. I'd welcome any advice on making meaningful interpretations of the specs. Yes, hearing the cabs would be better, but that seems to be almost impossible. I've gone to many stores, even bass specialty stores, contacted builders and GTG groups, but have still only heard a very few of them. So I'm going to have to trust something other than my own ears. Info is welcome.

[rpsands]

Most of the other cabinets are claiming -10db numbers as their lower end response, or flat out lying.

The Berg AE112 is a good example. It is impossible for a 1x12 in that sized box to be -3db @ 40hz and 100db sensitivity. Totally impossible.

So it's most likely -10db at 40hz and then exaggerating the sensitivity a bit (e.g. measuring it at 1khz or so). Calculated conservative sensitivity number is probably closer to 97db.

I suspect strongly if someone measured the AE112, they'd find -3db @ 50hz or so and 96-97db sensitivity.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by rpsands

Most of the other cabinets are claiming -10db numbers as their lower end response, or flat out lying.

+1 Better to pretty much ignore those specs in your sheet. (Edit: Per your AE112 example, I believe Tom B. posted that Jim uses -10db for the 'useable low end' spec, and, given the brightness of at least the original AE112 voicing, since most report sensitivity at 1K, it would make sense that the sensitivity of that cab is very high). So. that spec actually tells you a lot about that cab, and is pretty accurate as to how it sounds... tight, bright, grindy, loud per watt in the midrange. There was a modification to the AE112 (called the AE112b) that was made shortly before the line was discontinued that revised the crossover to match the voicing closer to the smoother sounding AE212 FYI).


The HD112 seems like it will be pretty cool. Same driver as the HT112ER, from what I understand, and a less hi fi tweeter/top end. Not super lightweight, but it should hammer pretty nicely with at least a few hundred watts pumping into it.

[alexclaber]

Our complete specs are here: http://barefacedbass.com/uploads/bar...cs-jan2011.jpg

The Midget, Midget T, Big Baby and Big Baby T are all 1x12" cabs, and are optimised as far as physics appears to allow! Note that there is a direct correlation between sensitivity, enclosure size and low frequency response - you can't have loud, small and low at the same time, you can only have two of three.

So the Midget does small and loud whilst the Big Baby goes much lower but is larger so it doesn't end up being much quieter.

Don't confuse the ability to produce big lows with the ability to go low - the Midget will do bigger lows than everything on your spreadsheet bar the Thunderchild, Acme and Baer (in descending order of how loud they'll go in the lows) but you'll see from the LF roll-off specs that with the EQ flat it's relatively shy in the lows. The Big Baby goes lower than all bar the Acme and probably matches the Thunderchild in loudness (but needs a bigger amp to do so).

The problem with your spreadsheet is that you're missing the critical spec of volume displacement or excursion limited power handling - without that you won't know how much bottom you can get out of the cab without it farting out, and with small cab that's always the crunch point. It only other manufacturers would provide that at least we'd then know where everything stands - the usual thermal wattage figures are almost entirely useless!

[will33]

Originally Posted by PDGood

Anyone know how the Berg HD112 compares to the HT112ER?

I've been trying to get a clearer picture on what exists in the lightweight, high quality 112 market. I'm posting an Excel sheet on here (don't know how well that will work) comparing specs.

One thing that puzzles me is that some of the specs aren't what I thought they would be. For example, the Thunderchild I know has an extended low range - sounds great down there, yet it's rated at 56hz which is higher than most of the other cabs. I'd welcome any advice on making meaningful interpretations of the specs. Yes, hearing the cabs would be better, but that seems to be almost impossible. I've gone to many stores, even bass specialty stores, contacted builders and GTG groups, but have still only heard a very few of them. So I'm going to have to trust something other than my own ears. Info is welcome.

That's easy, the Thunderchild's are honest, the others are not.

Aside from dimensions and weight, you can't tell anything from the so-called specs you see in advertisements. Most are inflated at the least, some physically impossible and there's virtually no standard to the measurements if they were even measured at all.

If you can't play them yourself, the next best thing you can do is take advice/tone descriptions from folks around here who have. Listen to mp3's over the internet may let you hear differences between 2 different voicings or something but still, none will sound anything like standing in the room with the cab and playing it.

[will33]

Barefaced up there is about the only one who gives complete, true, accurate specs. He's the exception, not the rule.

The specs on the Thunderchild are fairly lean on info, more like the rest of the industry but what he does publish are also honest, accurate.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by will33

Barefaced up there is about the only one who gives complete, true, accurate specs. He's the exception, not the rule.

The specs on the Thunderchild are fairly lean on info, more like the rest of the industry but what he does publish are also honest, accurate.

Duke has a lot of info on his spec sheet for the Thunderchild, but it is hard to even find. He needs to update that website!!!

[PDGood]

Thanks for the comments, and that's much what I expected.

I've been following Ken's descriptions and videos religiously and also found a good A/B blog from Tom B.

Problem is, those are just pieces of the puzzle - I'm still trying to create a more complete picture. I'm learning, but there is a lot of info to gather. Without being able to hear, it's quite challenging and I have no interest in buying just to make a change. I don't come by $$ often and need to put them precisely on what will upgrade the system.

From what I've heard thus far the Berg HT112ER has the smoothness I'd prefer, but that's been discontinued if I understand correctly. So that's why I wondered about the HD112.
And how would either of those stand up to the Thunderchild which sounds less warm/smooth to me but seems to get rave reviews in virtually every other category.

I'm confident from what I'm reading that I can choose a cabinet with sufficient bottom end - I play a 4. The big issue is the upper register. For years I've played a pair of 115s with horns and they sound great. Upon further research I discovered that the reason they sound so good is I've been running a vintage P bass with virtually no brightness to it. The combo works. Now, I have new bass toys with active EQ and the brashness of the horn doesn't play well with the SR700 in particular. The XLT emphasizes similar frequencies as are present in the 700 so that's a challenge in a different direction. Hence the search.

The third factor is clarity and you rarely see or hear that discussed. That's what I loved about the Acme, but I lack the power to push it. And I'm not even sure that warm and clear are not mutually exclusive. Certainly you don't hear them discussed together often. The Berg HT112ER comes closes from what I've heard, but I've heard so little.

Sorry for the long explanation.

[DukeLeJeune]

Originally Posted by KJung

Duke has a lot of info on his spec sheet for the Thunderchild, but it is hard to even find. He needs to update that website!!!

Yeah, sorry 'bout that!

Here's a link; scroll down to the bottom of the first post.

Also, credit where credit's due, kudos to Andy Lewis of Acme for his accurate and comprehensive specs. I think he was the first.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by PDGood

Thanks for the comments, and that's much what I expected.

I've been following Ken's descriptions and videos religiously and also found a good A/B blog from Tom B.

Problem is, those are just pieces of the puzzle - I'm still trying to create a more complete picture. I'm learning, but there is a lot of info to gather. Without being able to hear, it's quite challenging and I have no interest in buying just to make a change. I don't come by $$ often and need to put them precisely on what will upgrade the system.

From what I've heard thus far the Berg HT112ER has the smoothness I'd prefer, but that's been discontinued if I understand correctly. So that's why I wondered about the HD112.
And how would either of those stand up to the Thunderchild which sounds less warm/smooth to me but seems to get rave reviews in virtually every other category.

I'm confident from what I'm reading that I can choose a cabinet with sufficient bottom end - I play a 4. The big issue is the upper register. For years I've played a pair of 115s with horns and they sound great. Upon further research I discovered that the reason they sound so good is I've been running a vintage P bass with virtually no brightness to it. The combo works. Now, I have new bass toys with active EQ and the brashness of the horn doesn't play well with the SR700 in particular. The XLT emphasizes similar frequencies as are present in the 700 so that's a challenge in a different direction. Hence the search.

The third factor is clarity and you rarely see or hear that discussed. That's what I loved about the Acme, but I lack the power to push it. And I'm not even sure that warm and clear are not mutually exclusive. Certainly you don't hear them discussed together often. The Berg HT112ER comes closes from what I've heard, but I've heard so little.

Sorry for the long explanation.

Makes much sense, and it is hard to know exactly unless you try your bass with your technique with your head, etc.

First, the Thunderchild is actually about the smoothest cab with the highest clarity I've ever played. Some feel too much so. It does not grind, it does not growl, it does not burp. It is very even from its low end tuning (which actually isn't super deep, but it POUNDS down there) through the lower treble. The key signature tone of the Thunderchild 112 is its totally even, pure upper midrange, and the VERY smooth transition form the top of the driver to the horn (which sounds very organic). So, it gives you a bit of that 'playing through a studio monitor' thing.

If you are looking for voicing coming from the cab, this cab would not be for you... very even, very clean, very smooth, and nice and small and light. A typical 500 watt micro pushed it well.

I hear what you are saying about the Acme fullrange. It is not nearly as 'smooth' as the Thunderchild112, but in a way, it is more transparent... meaning you hear the FULL range of the instrument, from the fundamental of the open E and below to the ultra high 10K+ treble. It is a very unforgiving cab in many ways (technique, EQ, power, hi pass filtering, etc.). You need to know what you are getting into with that one, but it is very cool.

The Baer ML112 is a great box in that it has some of the 'super12' credentials (i.e., it pounds really nicely at high volumes), but has more of a 'bass cab' voice... punchy down low, and it will add a bit of grunt and grind to your tone if you want it when pushed, especially in the upper mids. NICE box for a rocker IMO (and others).

The HT112ER (I have a clip of that cab up also) is what I would call 'hi fi' as we use that term on TB... relatively big low end, nice low mid push, very relaxed upper mids (i.e., clean, and a bit of a dip), and then a beautiful airy tweeter that floats a bit above the cab. I have not heard the HD112, but my expecation is a similar low end, and a bit more presence in the midrange, and a less airy top end due to the tweeter/crossover change.

I have not heard the little Aguiler Neo 112's, so can't comment on that. I do like the Aguilar DB112's (fat and mid punchy), but you would need two of them for most gigs.... not really a 'super 12', but a good sounding 12 nonetheless.

[R Baer]

Originally Posted by PDGood

...One thing that puzzles me is that some of the specs aren't what I thought they would be. For example, the Thunderchild I know has an extended low range - sounds great down there, yet it's rated at 56hz which is higher than most of the other cabs. I'd welcome any advice on making meaningful interpretations of the specs...

How "low" a cabinet should go, is certainly a spec that is open to a lot of interpretation. A company like Acme goes on the premise that your cab should be tuned to the lowest notes on your bass, while others will tune higher, or much higher. This is totally a matter pf personal preference and there is no "right" spec.

With our ML112, we originally had it tuned considerably lower. Reports from users on gigs were coming back that the cab has plenty of low end, but the guys would be willing to trade some of that for more "hit you in the chest" punch. So, we started tuning up. Once we got to the current tuning, the reports coming in were were much more positive. Guys were more than happy to trade that really deep low end response for a punchier low end that gave them better definition on stage. While there was certainly a good amount of engineering that went into the cab, the final tuning to the tuning and crossover tweaks were done based off of "on the job" feedback from players covering a wide variety of playing styles. The current tuning is a reflection of what seemed to work best for the majority of players that tested the cab.

It all comes down to design philosophy. IMO, too much info down real low makes for a sound that can easily become a wall of low frequencies with poor definition in a lot of the (less than ideal) venues that the typical gigging bassist is likely to encounter. I prefer the sound of a higher tuned cab for its punchiness and low end definition, but it's strictly a matter of personal preference as to what works for you. Don't let yourself be swayed too much by that low end frequency spec unless you are confident in your ability to interpret that spec as it relates to cab performance in a live situation.

[KJung]

Hey Roger! What's up! Well said!

[billfitzmaurice]

Originally Posted by PDGood

One thing that puzzles me is that some of the specs aren't what I thought they would be. For example, the Thunderchild I know has an extended low range - sounds great down there, yet it's rated at 56hz which is higher than most of the other cabs.

That's because Duke's figure is accurate.
Making a spreadsheet using manufacturer supplied data is a waste of time, as Duke's honesty is very much the exception to the rule. And as noted by Alex without displacement you're only comparing two dimensions of a three dimensional scenario.