Xsonics 212CF FIRST GIG IMPRESSIONS

[Fretlessboy]

I can swap my it myself when I feel like it. If it flattens the response... May be worth a shot at some point. Maybe do the 210 that way

[Ncognito]

Originally Posted by Fretlessboy

I can swap my it myself when I feel like it. If it flattens the response... May be worth a shot at some point. Maybe do the 210 that way

It certainly flattens out the response as well as gets a bit lower and louder. Your 210CF will ship with push/pull.

[Fretlessboy]

Originally Posted by Ncognito

It certainly flattens out the response as well as gets a bit lower and louder. Your 210CF will ship with push/pull.

Cool. That will be interesting to try

[Fretlessboy]

I think today is the day

[Fretlessboy]

Today was the day and it was worth it. Sounds so much more open. Nice bottom.

[Fretlessboy]

I will try to get up a video or 2 today

[5StringPocket]

Looking forward to your video. When you reversed that bottom speaker so it faced in and beefed up the lows, that seemed to work well for you with the mid-present voice of that Shuttle Max 12.0. Based on your extensive gigging with a pair of 210 cabs, would you say the XSonics CF212 with the 3012HO drivers is a 410 equivalent if you have an amp that can drive it hard to open it up?

[JimmyM]

Glad to hear you're over your health problems, Dennis!

[Fretlessboy]

Originally Posted by 5StringPocket

Looking forward to your video. When you reversed that bottom speaker so it faced in and beefed up the lows, that seemed to work well for you with the mid-present voice of that Shuttle Max 12.0. Based on your extensive gigging with a pair of 210 cabs, would you say the XSonics CF212 with the 3012HO drivers is a 410 equivalent if you have an amp that can drive it hard to open it up?

yes...it hits like as big box. I would run it against anyone with a 410

[Fretlessboy]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Glad to hear you're over your health problems, Dennis!

Thank you Jimmy...been a real long road/

[svtb15]

Seems similar yet different than the Schroeder cabs. These are ported on the front. I played a friends Schroeder that was very loud and punchy but lacked bottom. But these have the ability to change the firing direction of the utility speaker that increases internal box size. Interesting.
Do you have rear shot photos? I would need a pair of these to do some of the gigs that I do with the Git players that I play with

[Fretlessboy]

The 215/5 may be more up your alley 4 ohm 1,000 watts 40 hz .

[seamonkey]

Just plain silly to swap drivers facing in facing out.

Any cabinet can mount the dirvers facing in and if it increases the bass, then the cabinet wasn't designed with enough volume inside to account for what the drivers take up. Baskets out - drivers simple allow more room inside the cab. If it sounds better, it says the cabinet is too small for two drivers in the first place.

There's no new science here. More anecdotal testimony. Just another gimmick as with other cabinets with the same setup. Missing BFM

[KJung]

Originally Posted by seamonkey

Just plain silly to swap drivers facing in facing out.

Any cabinet can mount the dirvers facing in and if it increases the bass, then the cabinet wasn't designed with enough volume inside to account for what the drivers take up. Baskets out - drivers simple allow more room inside the cab. If it sounds better, it says the cabinet is too small for two drivers in the first place.

There's no new science here. More anecdotal testimony. Just another gimmick as with other cabinets with the same setup. Missing BFM

I think that is the point (just like with a true isobaric design like some of the Orange designs). It isn't about volume, but rather to get more low end response out of a smaller box. Makes sense to me for those who are trying to achieve the 'sound' of a bigger box with a single driver, in a much smaller box.

Seems like this is a bit of a 'supercharged' passive driver design, like the Walkabout Scout cab. I'm sure not the same thing per se (just like this is not a true isobaric design), but attempts to achieve the same goal.. more true low end coming from a box too small to achieve that response in the 'traditional' way.

The 'angle baffle' Schroeders were again another different thing, with that massive band pass in that design which resulted, as Kirk described above, as an amazingly loud, punchy small cab that was mostly low mids. I would guess that with the driver 'out', these cabs would be quite similar to that design.

IMO and IME. I guess the popular Glasstone Lil'g is yet another twist on this concept.

Edit: +1 Good to see you back on the site Dennis!

[kringle77]

Ken is right on here. Nick and I have been talking for awhile about a front firing, vertical aligned cab using the same woofers, a mid and tweet, properly tuned with the right amount of internal volume but, made with very tight width and heigth dimensions. It's already built and he is just waiting on the crossover. I don't know if it is going to be a production model but, it will definitely be in my living room soon for a video. It's the cab that would make the rest of you happy if you arent' into his xfire design. Period. I'll post a link to the video on my xsonics thread when that happens. We've also are talking about optimizing the porting of his current cab to get the best possible results without changing the design or size. I don't think Nick would mind that I mentioned these things. I personally feel that I would prefer his current cab loaded with both drivers facing out with optimal tuning for it's current internal volume. I also expect to prefer the design that we worked on from scratch to that. Nick is at home in the woodshop right at this very moment experimenting with some of what we talked about. He is a very driven individual.

[Fretlessboy]

We have as well. Compound loading for my 215/5 cf. I will have it this week for Daytona

[Fretlessboy]

Originally Posted by KJung

I think that is the point (just like with a true isobaric design like some of the Orange designs). It isn't about volume, but rather to get more low end response out of a smaller box. Makes sense to me for those who are trying to achieve the 'sound' of a bigger box with a single driver, in a much smaller box.

Seems like this is a bit of a 'supercharged' passive driver design, like the Walkabout Scout cab. I'm sure not the same thing per se (just like this is not a true isobaric design), but attempts to achieve the same goal.. more true low end coming from a box too small to achieve that response in the 'traditional' way.

The 'angle baffle' Schroeders were again another different thing, with that massive band pass in that design which resulted, as Kirk described above, as an amazingly loud, punchy small cab that was mostly low mids. I would guess that with the driver 'out', these cabs would be quite similar to that design.

IMO and IME. I guess the popular Glasstone Lil'g is yet another twist on this concept.

Edit: +1 Good to see you back on the site Dennis!

Thank you my friend... Finally dealing decent

[seamonkey]

Originally Posted by KJung

I think that is the point (just like with a true isobaric design like some of the Orange designs). It isn't about volume, but rather to get more low end response out of a smaller box. Makes sense to me for those who are trying to achieve the 'sound' of a bigger box with a single driver, in a much smaller box.

"Making sense" and how it actually works don't always align. Somebody years ago came up with the isobaric design. This is not Isobaric. Isobaric today is replaced by good driver design, and good cabinet design. You're not going to see isobaric in expensive FOH, or even High end HiFi designs anymore.

You will will see bandpass designs. Low bass 40hz and lower not needed. This is a bandpass design. Where it fails is simply no measurements to prove it's anything more than speakers in a cabinet. A lot of experimentation, using ears, a lot of trial and error - 1000 of ways to not build a lightbuld. This design is not going to exceed driver manufacturer reference designs. The driver manufactures want you to get the most out of their drivers - that's why they have reference designs and measurements for you.

If it does exceed reference designs - it would be easy to measure.

A little EQ tweaking goes a long way compared to swapping around drivers inside out. That is silly, and instantly suggest a bad design.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by seamonkey

"Making sense" and how it actually works don't always align. Somebody years ago came up with the isobaric design. This is not Isobaric. Isobaric today is replaced by good driver design, and good cabinet design. You're not going to see isobaric in expensive FOH, or even High end HiFi designs anymore.

You will will see bandpass designs. Low bass 40hz and lower not needed. This is a bandpass design. Where it fails is simply no measurements to prove it's anything more than speakers in a cabinet. A lot of experimentation, using ears, a lot of trial and error - 1000 of ways to not build a lightbuld. This design is not going to exceed driver manufacturer reference designs. The driver manufactures want you to get the most out of their drivers - that's why they have reference designs and measurements for you.

If it does exceed reference designs - it would be easy to measure.

A little EQ tweaking goes a long way compared to swapping around drivers inside out. That is silly, and instantly suggest a bad design.

Again, I'm just a layman, but there are lot of ways to get to good performance. I understand, this is surely not the most efficient way to go, and for the front of house systems you are talking about, that is all about reasonably accurate REPRODUCTION. With bass guitar, something that looks a bit strange on paper can sound absolutely fantastic for various tone goals and with certain voicings of bass heads.

Again, no dog in this hunt (and I'm personally with you in that I prefer more standard, researched, simple designs personally), but I've learned long ago that spec's and designs coming from the PA and Audiophile world are not necessarily the 'end all' when amplifying a bass guitar in a live setting!

Edi: Also, I did not, in ANY way, suggest this was an isobaric design. I'm a layman, but not an idiot! My point was, if you reread my post, this seems to be targeted toward the same DESIGN GOAL as the isobaric designs, and also the passive driver designs.... to get more low end out of a small cab and still use a more traditionally voiced bass guitar type driver. IMO though... just musing.

[Fretlessboy]

Also bear in mind these we my gig findings in the real world with a bass in my hand not a slide rule.