Vertical 8-Ohm 3x10 Cab Concept

[R. Laevinus]

...okay, so, yet another crazy concept from my crazy mind.

A vertically arrayed, 8-ohm, 3x10" cab, complete with <19" slot for a micro head.

First off, it's the success of the Ampeg 210AV cabs that's making me think of this. They impress me greatly, and prove that usable volume can be had from tiny, hyper-lightweight enclosures. So I'm thinking of starting from there: a minimum-volume sealed enclosure, loaded with 2 8-ohm 10's in parallel, to present a 4-ohm load on the top half.

Then mount another chamber on the bottom - a ported chamber mounting a single 4-ohm 10, so as to provide just a touch more mid or bass response (dependent on tuning... right?), and wired in series with the top half, so as to present a combined 8-ohm load to amp.

I'm aware that the drivers won't each be receiving the same amount of power, but that's okay by me.

I'm at work right now, so I can't pump the numbers into WinISD, but I will later. I'm curious as to your views on the practicality of such a beast, and its potential feasibility. Bear in mind that I keep my volumes reasonable and don't downtune. For reference, I've been able to overpower my main band with my 12" Walkabout Scout - so seeing as this proposed cab would present more than twice the cone area, it should be at least as loud or louder, no? I understand that I won't have nearly the low-end response as a full-size cab, but that really does not bother me in the least.

[rpsands]

I don't think you will achieve much more than a ported 2x10 would.

[billfitzmaurice]

Originally Posted by rpsands

I don't think you will achieve much more than a ported 2x10 would.

It will go a bit louder, but not much. Not enough to make it worthwhile IMO.

[gregoire1]

I think a vertical 3x10 is a great idea, just port the whole thing! See Kustoms Groove 310! taller, but narrower than an awkward 4x10. Of course you need a 2ohm head.

[dmusic148]

I've considered more or less the same, using the guts from a UL-310(woofers, tweeter, crossover, attenuator, jack plate).
As much as I love my UL-310, I really wish it was taller. My theory is that an enclosure with the same internal volume, porting, and guts but in a tall-skinny shape should sound similar to the UL. No?

[babebambi]

just 310 full range is quite good IMO

if you must have a 310 config with HF and LF sections
then put the bottom 210 in their own chamber and make that into a sub

[Roadkill]

I'd think this would be the ideal minimum height to get sound into your ears when standing on the floor. I'd love a 3x10 4 ohm version of the SVT210AV to go with the Micro-VR or a GK MB200 .

[R. Laevinus]

Originally Posted by billfitzmaurice

It will go a bit louder, but not much. Not enough to make it worthwhile IMO.

This is interesting, because I can usually get by quite well with a single ported 2x10 - so if I had just a touch more kick, and in a format just a touch easier to carry, and in an array three times as high off the ground, I think I'd definitely have a winner!

I came up with the brilliant concept of having a ported lower chamber not out of any great concern for low-end extension, but really because I figured that the 8-ohm and 4-ohm drivers ought not share the same sealed space - I figured their T/S stats would vary. Now that I think about it though, I'm not sure they would, so I'll look into that.

If there's no issue with having the three in the same space, then I may just do that. A slightly high rolloff isn't an issue for me - and also, I'm under the impression that you can get drivers to work more efficiently in less space if the box is sealed - if you have porting, don't you require a certain minimum internal volume?

Once again, I'll get to the WinISD tonight, no worries.

Thanks!

[Roadkill]

3x 16 ohm drivers in parallel would give you 5.33 ohms which would be close enough to 4 ohms I think? For weight and ease of construction I'd just go with one compartment...

[BassmanPaul]

As I see it you'll be asking one driver to cope with the same power as the other two together. The single 10 will be a limiting factor constantly. You'll end up with it failing. Why not just add the fourth 10 and make it a vertical 4x10? It'll make your final impedance easier to match.

Going with the 3x10 if you just install 16Ω drivers you'll end up with 5.3Ω which any SS amp will handle with ease.

P.S. RoadKill great minds think alike!

[funkingroovin]

I have a Kustom 310c and LOVE IT! It's taller/deeper than a 4x10,taking up far less space onstage,and soundwise it kills my 4x10,2x15,2x10/1x15,4x10/1x15 cab configurations. Very clean/clear. All the sparkle of 10's plus the deep thump lows of 15's without any speaker 'flop' or muddiness...unless you dial in the mud.(No Prob w/low B)

[funkingroovin]

..oh yeah,it's wired at 2 ohms(3 8ohm spkrs)

[BassGreaser]

EA had a 3x10 cab that was suppose to be one of the best EA cabs ever built..

[rpsands]

You might want to consider a vertical 2x12 also.

[bucephylus]

I believe the Bergantino NV610 uses 6 specially made drivers to get to 4 ohms. It seems to me that making that cab in 2 pieces consisting of two vertically arrayed 8 ohm cabs should be possible. Whether the vertical alignment would have a +/- effect is open for question. Just sayin' it should be possible.

[jumbodbassman]

Originally Posted by BassGreaser

EA had a 3x10 cab that was suppose to be one of the best EA cabs ever built..

epifani also

[bassgrant]

I like the original idea of having two compartments. one sealed with two tens and the other ported with one. The only thing would be putting a driver in the bottom that takes the power of the other two together. No one said they all have to be identical speakers.
Anyways i like it

[DukeLeJeune]

One possibility might be two Basslite or Deltalites in the top chamber, and a 4 ohm BP-102 in the bottom chamber. Figuring out what size to make the chambers, and what tuning for the lower chamber, well that would take some effort.

[R. Laevinus]

As has been mentioned, the drivers don't need to be the same in both chambers. I actually wasn't planning to use the same drivers throughout, so loading the bottom chamber with a higher x-max/thermal rating driver ought not be an issue. I'd also really like for the total impedance to be 8-ohms if possible, so that I can pair the cab with a second 8-ohm cab to snag some extra volume when needed, or so I can have one pointed at me and one pointed at the drummer.

It would appear based on comments that a 3x10 has potential merit. The trick now is going to be working out the details.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth just picking up a 210AV and reverse-engineering it, rather than designing a new cab from scratch. As I've mentioned, I'm very impressed with the performance of the twee wittle Ampeg, so perhaps if I just took measurements and ordered some replacement drivers, I could basically build myself a 310AV rather than messing with all the math that I'm not really equipped to handle.

...and Paul, you and everyone else will hate me for this, but... the idea is to have a giggable cab that I can easily carry on foot. Going with a vertical 4x10 would be just tipping over the threshold of what can be easily managed in terms of physical dimensions.

Of course, I could just get a couple of 210AV's, and may well do that if the project proves to not be cost-effective or if it offers only marginal benefits... but where's the fun in buying when you can build?

[BassmanPaul]

I've been using the vertical 2x10 + another vertical 2x10 on top making a 4x10. I'd not go back to any other format, My amps up at eye level. I can hear myself clearly and load in/out is a dream with a simple dolly.