Detroit Area Last Minute GTG this Saturday

[Shiveringbass]

OK, sorry guies, I've read too fast.

[peterpalmieri]

I play a Glock HR and pair it up to a Sadowsky SA410 cabinet which to me sounds allot more like the AE410 then any UL cabinet.

The pairing of the somewhat attenuated low end on the Sad410 or AE410 when compared to an Epi matches well with the big low end inherint in the Glock amps..

[KJung]

Originally Posted by peterpalmieri

I play a Glock HR and pair it up to a Sadowsky SA410 cabinet which to me sounds allot more like the AE410 then any UL cabinet.

The pairing of the somewhat attenuated low end on the Sad410 or AE410 when compared to an Epi matches well with the big low end inherint in the Glock amps..

+1... that's kind of what I was guessing.. nice match-up!

[peterpalmieri]

Originally Posted by KJung

+1... that's kind of what I was guessing.. nice match-up!

Weight aside I think most people would have a hard time hearing a big difference between the SA410 and AE410.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by peterpalmieri

Weight aside I think most people would have a hard time hearing a big difference between the SA410 and AE410.

I've never directly A/B'd them, but it does seem that the AE410 is more open down low... bigger low end in general. However, I would agree that the general tonality seems the same. I do find the upper mids of the AE410 more aggressive and grindy than my smoother HS210 (the HS is basically an 'updated' SA with drivers designed to push out a little more low end). All nice stuff!

My guess is, you would notice more of a difference in the low end of the AE410 versus SA410 with a more moderately powered amp without the low end power and oomph of the Heart Rock... that head can punch deep low end out of any cab!!!!

[peterpalmieri]

Originally Posted by KJung

I've never directly A/B'd them, but it does seem that the AE410 is more open down low... bigger low end in general. However, I would agree that the general tonality seems the same. I do find the upper mids of the AE410 more aggressive and grindy than my smoother HS210 (the HS is basically an 'updated' SA with drivers designed to push out a little more low end). All nice stuff!

My guess is, you would notice more of a difference in the low end of the AE410 versus SA410 with a more moderately powered amp without the low end power and oomph of the Heart Rock... that head can punch deep low end out of any cab!!!!

We're both guessing I did a direct comparison of the HS410 and SA410 the HS had more on the low end. I also compared the HS to the AE and again the HS had more low end. I am assuming based on this that the AE and SA are very close. Never did a direct A/B either...

I have very little doubt that the Glock will sound wonderful with the AE410.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by peterpalmieri

We're both guessing I did a direct comparison of the HS410 and SA410 the HS had more on the low end. I also compared the HS to the AE and again the HS had more low end. I am assuming based on this that the AE and SA are very close. Never did a direct A/B either...

I have very little doubt that the Glock will sound wonderful with the AE410.

+1.. also, I think the 210 versions of these cabs are quite different from the 410. The SA210 was REALLY thin sounding, and my HS210 is more full than that, but still pretty 'tight'. However, it seems the AE210 has significantly greater low end extension, and less of the upper mid aggressiveness that many hear in the AE410 (at least based on reviews).

[tombowlus]

Originally Posted by KJung

The SA210 was REALLY thin sounding

FWIW, when you heard the SA210 at my house, Ken, it had just arrived, and was not 'broken in.' To be honest, I am a bit on the fence when it comes to how much of a difference 'breaking in' makes (and from what I've seen, it's not always a consistent phenomenon), but I do think that the SA210 got a good bit more full in the lows after I put some hours on it. The HS210, HT210s, and AE210 are all more full/deep than the SA210, to be sure, but it's not as big of a difference as I think it sounded at that one GTG (if that's the experience you are using as a basis for your statements).

Tom.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by tombowlus

FWIW, when you heard the SA210 at my house, Ken, it had just arrived, and was not 'broken in.' To be honest, I am a bit on the fence when it comes to how much of a difference 'breaking in' makes (and from what I've seen, it's not always a consistent phenomenon), but I do think that the SA210 got a good bit more full in the lows after I put some hours on it. The HS210, HT210s, and AE210 are all more full/deep than the SA210, to be sure, but it's not as big of a difference as I think it sounded at that one GTG (if that's the experience you are using as a basis for your statements).

Tom.

I'm one who has never really hears a significant extension of low end after break-in, but who knows. Since the SA210 no longer exists, it's kind of a moot point. The HS210 has plenty of 'usable' low end though... I do like a more tightly voiced, louder, punchier box for a 210, and the HS210 is a good one to my ear (I think Jim increased the box size a touch, and used drivers with looser surrounds/higher xmax to drive some more low end) versus the SA210.

[Vic]

Hmmm... I wonder how a pair of AE210's would sound...

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Vic

Hmmm... I wonder how a pair of AE210's would sound...

My guess would be pretty darn good. The bad news is, that's one expensive stack... about $450 more than the AE410. It also seems that you might lose some of that upper mid aggressiveness (from other AE210 reviews) which really makes the AE410 'what it is' IMO.

The AE410 is so small that I wouldn't really see the 'modular advantage' versus the higher price. I also don't really dig stacking cabs without 'locking corners'... small deal, but when you add it all up, the AE410 is pretty killer and pretty reasonable pricewise... and you can put wheels on it and not deal with a cart, etc., etc.

IMO... and I guess is you didn't have other small cabs that you dig, the modular thing works pretty well.

[GRoberts]

Originally Posted by vision

Based on the differences I've heard between the S1 and S2 cabs, I really don't think I would care for the 310ULS2, which would likely sound way too scooped (this fits with your description). The 310UL S1 already has a bit of a scoop, but those original speakers have a mid hump to them which I don't hear in the S2.

This explains why I seem to be the only LMII owner I know who bumps the Low and Low Mid EQ on my amp to almost 2 o'clock with my EpiUL310 (S2). Maybe I'm not crazy after all! I am clearly compensating for the UL310 (s2) mid scoop by Eq'ing more low and low mid punch into the signal chain. AHA! So I'm not crazy!

Maybe my LMII will sound more balanced and and more 'flat' through a more even sounding cabinet!

All that aside, I may sell my Shuttle 6.0 one day to help fund an F1. But only after I settle on a different cabinet.

I am just so seduced by the size and light weight of the UL310 (S2). It may still retain a place in my line-up for gigs that don't require anything bigger. Gary

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Roscoe5

This explains why I seem to be the only LMII owner I know who bumps the Low and Low Mid EQ on my amp to almost 2 o'clock with my EpiUL310 (S2). Maybe I'm not crazy after all! I am clearly compensating for the UL310 (s2) mid scoop by Eq'ing more low and low mid punch into the signal chain. AHA! So I'm not crazy!

Maybe my LMII will sound more balanced and and more 'flat' through a more even sounding cabinet!

All that aside, I may sell my Shuttle 6.0 one day to help fund an F1. But only after I settle on a different cabinet.

I am just so seduced by the size and light weight of the UL310 (S2). It may still retain a place in my line-up for gigs that don't require anything bigger. Gary

I had similar EQ issues with my 210UL (I) with other heads (I didn't have the LMII at the time)... having to bump the low mids much more than other cabs to bring up the mid punch and reduce the relative lows versus mids. It worked quite well. The low and hi mid EQ points and Q's are just great on that head. Just a touch of cut or boost in one of those bands or the other depending on the cab can really even things out!

On the AE410, I just cut the upper mids slightly (11 o'clock) and it just smooths that cab right out.

I believe Tom Bowlus mentioned that unlike Epifani, Jim has some overlap between the upper range of the drivers and the point where the tweeter kicks in. I think that's why many talk about the 'seemless' sort of transition between the woofer and tweeter in the Bergs, versus the description of the Epi and a 'full range cab with a tweeter kind of sitting on top of the overall tone. However, if this is true, it explains that 'upper mid' sort of 'bump' I hear in the AE410... it sounds like a LOT going on around 1K or so to my ear (or maybe my other cabs just have a 'hole' there and I'm not used to it). However, to my ear, cutting the upper mids on the LMII and especially the F1 really works nicely to my ear in removing that little bit of 'gank' (I believe it's a moderately wide Q centered at 800hz, if I remember correctly).

Anyway, the AE410 or 410UL would be a whole different world compared to that 310UL (II) with regards to volume, low end, mid punch, and overall even tone out in the room. While the AE410 is definitely heavier, the size is closer to the 310UL than the 410UL.. quite impressive!

I never really 'fell in love' with any of Jim's other cabs (although I still own others that I like). Can you tell that the AE line completely floats my boat I still love the 410UL, but the AE410 is movin' up the more I play it and gig with it!

[Vic]

Originally Posted by KJung

My guess would be pretty darn good. The bad news is, that's one expensive stack... about $450 more than the AE410.

+1 and +1, but I've always loved the "line-array vertical 410" config best. I get the elevation of a stack for stage monitoring as well as a smaller footprint on stage. I still miss that from my old dual Eden 210 stack. To your later "modular" point, yeah, that's not important to me... it's just the stack/footprint thing.

Just not sure if it's worth that much extra cash... hmmm...

It also seems that you might lose some of that upper mid aggressiveness (from other AE210 reviews) which really makes the AE410 'what it is' IMO.

True, but if the AE410 might have "a bit much of that" for my tastes anyway, maybe that's ok. Remember, I'm still a huge fan of the S2 UL410 over the S1.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Vic

+1 and +1, but I've always loved the "line-array vertical 410" config best. I get the elevation of a stack for stage monitoring as well as a smaller footprint on stage. I still miss that from my old dual Eden 210 stack. To your later "modular" point, yeah, that's not important to me... it's just the stack/footprint thing.

Just not sure if it's worth that much extra cash... hmmm...

True, but if the AE410 might have "a bit much of that" for my tastes anyway, maybe that's ok. Remember, I'm still a huge fan of the S2 UL410 over the S1.

+1... just FYI, you would probably need to put rubber feet on the side of those cabs (or install locking plastic corners) if you were doing vertical stacking, since they are designed to stack in the 'designed orientation' (i.e., there are rubber feet on the bottom of each cab, and then 'feet cups' molded into the top of each cab).

The good news is, given the offset design of the speakers, the 'normal stack' configuration is a touch taller than the 410.

[vision]

Originally Posted by Roscoe5

This explains why I seem to be the only LMII owner I know who bumps the Low and Low Mid EQ on my amp to almost 2 o'clock with my EpiUL310 (S2). Maybe I'm not crazy after all! I am clearly compensating for the UL310 (s2) mid scoop by Eq'ing more low and low mid punch into the signal chain. AHA! So I'm not crazy!

Maybe my LMII will sound more balanced and and more 'flat' through a more even sounding cabinet!

+1...I will sometimes bump the low mids on my LMII with my 310UL S1, so I KNOW I would be cranking the low mids if I was using it with a 310UL S2. I also will cut the lows a bit on the LMII.

But yeah, the LMII is in general a very balanced sounding head, that also happens to have 4 set eq's in the PERFECT frequency ranges!

[Vic]

Originally Posted by KJung

+1... just FYI, you would probably need to put rubber feet on the side of those cabs (or install locking plastic corners) if you were doing vertical stacking, since they are designed to stack in the 'designed orientation' (i.e., there are rubber feet on the bottom of each cab, and then 'feet cups' molded into the top of each cab).

The good news is, given the offset design of the speakers, the 'normal stack' configuration is a touch taller than the 410.

Exactly. Yeah, I new they had the dimples and feet horizontally, but of course not on the sides, and since they don't have stacking corners (another discussion!), I'd have to do one or the other. No problem there.