Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by Micolao, Oct 18, 2005.
Andy Lewis from Acme article:
I'm taggin onto this one........
The fact he commits something like that to paper is a disgrace. Don't know the guy but I'm not into shooting down the competition...
I like d this little touch
Well, the question is as to whether he's shooting down the competition in an unfair manner?
Or, does he have a valid arguement.
I don't have the know-how in any case....surely someone here on TB has the knowledge for this...
His tone through-out the piece is obviously snyde...so that automatically makes me want to disagree with his information. I would like to get more facts from more sources myself.
I don't trust Ford to tell me how good a Chevy is...but I would trust them to make a problem public.......or perhaps start rumors to debase their competition
We need more information on this subject before making any accusations.
I suppose Andy's comments are slightly "snyde (sic)", but I have no problem with this. In fact, considering how competitive the bass cab market has become, it seems fair to me. Surely it is not something I would characterize as disgraceful.
But hey, let's cut to the chase, call a spade a spade, tell it like it is, shed some light, etc. These comments are in reference to Accugroove cabs, right?
OK, does anyone out there actually know if the design of the Accugroove cabs and their ability to switch from 4 to 8 Ohm is, in fact, the same as, or similar to, the one that Andy describes? Has anyone who cares contacted Accugroove to ask about this? And if the design is similar to the one Andy describes, is this deceptive?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
- Aldous Huxley
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
- David Hume
Meh, I don't like ineffecient cabs anyway.
I don't know, it seems to me that Andy's done his homework.
THIS IS THE POINT.
All I can say is wow!
If a series capacitor is all the Accuswitch really is (and thus not the functional alternative I proposed a while back), then I think the guys at Accugroove may have let the bass playing community down.
Again, if indeed this is all the technology amounts to, then I give a lot of credit to Andy Lewis for taking a stance on the subject. Given the commonality of comparison between Acme and Accugroove's products, I can see why defending his product in light of a competitor's technology is justified. I would say especially so in the case that Accugroove would be gaining market share from Acme's niche by touting a technology that wins buyers over, but has little or no functional purpose in application.
On another note, my own opinion between comparing both companies' products is that such comparison isn't appropriate. Proposing a "all things considered equal" perspective for comparing the tri210l to the low b-2 is inaccurate. True they have similarities. They both have use 10" woofers for the LF production. They both use a midrange driver and a HF section. They both have well designed crossovers. That is where the comparison ends.
The tri210l purports to be a lot louder than the low b-2. The published specs put it 10dB's louder. The tri210l quotes -6dB at 35hz, whereas the low b-2's -6dB point sits at 31hz. "All things being equal" in an audio isolation room, there's no way the tri20L can accomplish low frequency output curve from 30-80hz with a similar curve to the low b-2's. The laws of physics can't be bent or broken. If indeed the tri210L is 10db's louder (from 100hz and up) than the low b-2, it simply cannot produce a similarly shallow-sloped output curve from 30-80hz.
For a second comparison, both cabinets weigh in around the mid fifties in lbs. The tri210L is 1.75" wider and deeper, and 5.5" taller than the low b-2. This ends up meaning a pretty decent size difference between the two. The tri210l probably gets better helmholz resonator suppport to its low end than the low b-2 does, but loses the greater portability (and likely a MUCH lesser group delay curve) that the low-b2 has.
For a third comparison, the tri210L uses neodymium 10's. The acme uses standard magnet technology. Neodymium woofers (all that I've seen or tested, anyway) tend to have noticably less oomph in the midbass region than do standard woofers.
A fourth comparison, the low-b2 enclosure itself is designed with tensioned panel and bracing technology which improves rigidity and reduces vibration-related problems. The Accugroove enclosure is (as far as I know) a standard non-tensioned design.
For a final comparison, the tri210l is roughly 2-3 times more expensive than the low b-2.
Even though It may look as though I'm trying to claim a technological or performance winner "all things being equal," the exact opposite is my intent. Both are quality designs that produce great tones for their owners. What they aren't, however, are designs that can be equated in all ways except that the tri210l does "everything that the low-b2 does except its louder!" It really annoys me when I hear people say that or things like it, cause that's not a fair assessment.
Anyone else feel warm, or is it me?
+1 - I'm all for the snark.
I really don't know much about this kind of things, but what I've understand reading in italian forums is that THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO SWITCH THE IMPEDENCE OF A CAB:
put in the cab an "impedance transformer" an impedance traslator, but in the facts, this will mean add costs and weight to the cabs.
So the subtle irony of Andy Lewis is only showing us a a BIG truth.
there's no way a simple switch can do this, and the explanation is extremely clear and the facts explained by Lewis I think can't be contraddicted, simply cause some scientific facts can't be contraddicted also by the greatest mind.
I don't know how the Accuswitch works,so I can't really say nothing about it, but if is what Lewis says, this is not really nice...
I know i'll really never buy an Acme cab.
Accugroove has been silent about this.
Check out the switchable loads thread for more information. Pay particular attention to Jim Bergantino's posts.
In case no one knows, Accugroove has been silent on the recommendation of his patent attorney.
Why have the guys from accugroove not commented on this in depth?
After the article in bass player, the discussions on the forums, & Andy Lewis's article I would think they would be running to provide an explanation of their product & how it works. If its patented, whats the harm?
Im not trying to crap on them, but it does look bad.
All Ive seen from them was a post about how their lawers told them not to comment & their responses to the bass player review, which were just straight up vauge.
I'm no expert on this but if it's patent pending than why is there an issue? Also, why is there nothing to be found in the records for a patent pending?
Do you get an increase in volume when you change thier cabs from 8ohm to 4ohm ??
Separate names with a comma.