PF 500 with 115/210 stack?

Spirit King · #1 03-08-2013, 11:47 AM

After waiting nearly 6 months I have just ordered an additional Portaflex 210 to be paired with my PF 500 and PF 115. Now before people start to moan

, I have heard some really good things about this setup. Anyone else like this setup or have some info on how the rig sounds?

N.B I'm playing in a Hard Psych/Stoner rock influenced band so looking for a varied sound that has enough low end and yet Geezer/Scott Reader style mids.

woody357 · #2 03-08-2013, 11:53 AM

I have a buddy that uses that speaker setup, but with the PF350, IMHO not bad, not bad at all. He plays with a lot of mid rang punch, and growl, more than I would or do, but it works for him, and like I said it sounds good!

**CL400Peavey** · #3 03-08-2013, 11:54 AM

If I was going to run two PF cabs with my PF-500, they would be two PF-115LF's. When I tried the 210he it was ok. The 115he is better, but I prefer a ported cab for the lows.

Spirit King · #4 03-08-2013, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woody357

I have a buddy that uses that speaker setup, but with the PF350, IMHO not bad, not bad at all. He plays with a lot of mid rang punch, and growl, more than I would or do, but it works for him, and like I said it sounds good!

That's cool, I was initially tempted with a another 115, but found a wicked deal for the 210 which most def tipped the balance. I like the sound of it tone wise because I'm in a standard 4 piece band so need a slightly more punchy sound live otherwise I'm drowned out or too thin on the ground during guitar solo's etc.

Now I've heard that an additional PF cab will certainly boost the overall volume? I.e both cabs providing all the power from the head.

**CL400Peavey** · #5 03-08-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spirit King

That's cool, I was initially tempted with a another 115, but found a wicked deal for the 210 which most def tipped the balance. I like the sound of it tone wise because I'm in a standard 4 piece band so need a slightly more punchy sound live otherwise I'm drowned out or too thin on the ground during guitar solo's etc.

Now I've heard that an additional PF cab will certainly boost the overall volume? I.e both cabs providing all the power from the head.

I dont think the 210 is "more punchy" than the 115. Its a little bit lighter in the low end. The additional cab will add a few db's to your volume, and headroom.

Spirit King · #6 03-08-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CL400Peavey

I dont think the 210 is "more punchy" than the 115. Its a little bit lighter in the low end. The additional cab will add a few db's to your volume, and headroom.

Yeah I though the second cab would help with headroom and subsequently volume. My band is very much into having the bass as a prominent element to our sound so this will prob help.

Gonna be interesting trying it out next week.

coreyfyfe · #7 03-08-2013, 07:37 PM

Should sound pretty good. I use my PF-210 as an extension cab for my B15 and occasionally with my PF-500. The cabs pair fairly well.

JimmyM · #8 03-08-2013, 09:22 PM

I've never tried it but it's possible it would work out. Despite the fact that most people recommend against mixing cabs, some manufacturers actually test dissimilar cabs out with each other to see if they work well together, and some actually have been known to make changes in one or the other because of it. It's unpredictable as to how well it will work until you do it, but if it works, it works.

woody357 · #9 03-09-2013, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CL400Peavey

I dont think the 210 is "more punchy" than the 115. Its a little bit lighter in the low end. The additional cab will add a few db's to your volume, and headroom.

I have found that some 2x10 cabinets have a better low end than a 1x15 cabinet, and more punch. Think about it as a math problem 2x10=20, wher as 1x15=15. A 2x10 = more surface area which = lower end, + 10s move faster than 15s = more punch!

4-string · #10 03-09-2013, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woody357

I have found that some 2x10 cabinets have a better low end than a 1x15 cabinet, and more punch. Think about it as a math problem 2x10=20, wher as 1x15=15. A 2x10 = more surface area which = lower end, + 10s move faster than 15s = more punch!

No Pi?

And "10s move faster than 15s=more punch" qualifies you for a witch fire around here.

woody357 · #11 03-09-2013, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4-string

No Pi?

And "10s move faster than 15s=more punch" qualifies you for a witch fire around here.

No PI, hahah, and yes I can feel the fires starting, but it is what it is, 10s to move faster and have more punch than 15s. I'm the guy that thought 18s were the way to go, but this old dog learned a few new tricks!!!!

Jack · #12 03-09-2013, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woody357

but it is what it is, 10s to move faster and have more punch than 15s.

This is new to me, what makes you say this?

ram936 · #13 03-09-2013, 06:29 AM

I have 2 PF 500's. One w/the 115, the other with the 210 cab. I only use the 210 for rehearsing sometimes. It's okay, but I think the sound is thinner than the 115. I much prefer the tone of the 115. Pairing the two through one PF 500 sounds okay, but I have used my 410 Ampeg cab as an extension w/the 115, and that sounded awesome. For my gig tonight I'm using the 15" speaker in a little Carvin combo I have as an extension for the PF 500 & 115. It sounded great this week during rehearsals. We'll see how it sounds tonight at the show.

HofnerVox · #14 03-09-2013, 06:35 AM

Originally I bought the PF500 with the 115 and the 210....I play with labella flats and love rich creamy low end bass tone and with the 210 cab I would get a farty sound when hitting low end notes and it drove me nuts....so I took it back and picked up another 115 so now with 2 of the 115's I don't have a problem....don't get me wrong I love my ampeg 810 cab but the pf210 sounds nothing like the 10's in the svt810

Bass_Pounder · #15 03-09-2013, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woody357

I have found that some 2x10 cabinets have a better low end than a 1x15 cabinet, and more punch. Think about it as a math problem 2x10=20, wher as 1x15=15. A 2x10 = more surface area which = lower end, + 10s move faster than 15s = more punch!

Wow..............just wow

4-string · #16 03-09-2013, 09:00 AM

Woody, 1x15" has greater surface area than 2x10"

lowendrv · #17 03-09-2013, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4-string

Woody, 1x15" has greater surface area than 2x10"

+ 1,000
And surface area doesn't really have anything to do with a cabinets Freq. response or sound. It's the whole design working together.

Jack · #18 03-09-2013, 09:52 AM

4 string, I always actually believe you're Lee Sklar.

I dunno why, it's not like I think those guys that have Tal Wilkenwhatsherface or a horse as their avatars actually are those people but it's whenever I see that pic in your posts it takes me a while to realise it's not you.

4-string · #19 03-09-2013, 10:02 AM

If you heard me play you'd realize I'm not Lee Sklar.

Only a big fan of his, besides the pic is just so cool.

Vince Klortho · #20 03-09-2013, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woody357

I have found that some 2x10 cabinets have a better low end than a 1x15 cabinet, and more punch. Think about it as a math problem 2x10=20, wher as 1x15=15. A 2x10 = more surface area which = lower end, + 10s move faster than 15s = more punch!

Yes, it is a math problem but that's not the right math. Surface area of a speaker is pi times the radius squared and that is the radius minus the surround which is usually about one inch. If you want to compare proprotionately, you can lose pi so it is 6.5 squared versus 2 times 4 squared or 42 versus 32. This means one 15 has about 30% more surface area than two 10s. This does not take into account excursion (Xmax) though which is the other factor in displacement.