• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

410Neo vs 410 RBH

#41
From what I remember, 410 NEO sounds a bit more scooped and a bit more hi fi than 212 (and 412). The 12'' neos IMO have warmer low mids, and more balls in the mid area. I have no problem getting tremendous low end from my cab, especially when I kick in the synth pedal and start the frequency sweep. Or Swollen Pickle that has tremendous low end! My 412 was shaking the floors with the Pickle low end, and definitely threw more low end than my old Ampeg 810. The low end really opened up on my 412, and it's fabulous. Never muddy, and gives such a nice bottom.
 
#43
Filip Burdon said:
Yhym
Gonna remember that :P

My friend recomended me the Trace Elliot 1048H, have anyone tried it maybe?
It's not neodynium, it's pretty light and looks solid to me :P
Click to expand...

I love the 1048H cabinet! More similar to the SWR Goliath than the GK 410RBH, imo, but still a fantastic source of lows and low-mids. I wouldn't call it light by any standard, but it is a bit lighter than the 410RBH.

Also, Muttleybass said, "The RBH is mabye a little darker in tone and perhaps a tad smoother."

I was previously unable to put this in to words, but I absolutely agree with his account. Darker and noticably smoother than the Neo 410.
 
#44
The manual says that 410 weights 35kg and the I love the 1048H cabinet 34.5kg. So it seams light compared to the RBH, and to other 410 on the marked.

And what's the SWR Goliath sound like(you say the sound simillar) 'cause I've never heard any SWR products. Neither 1048H cabinet :P

To make my question simple is the Trace Elliot 1048H worth considering or re the neo cabs much better?
 
#45
After a certain point or threshold of quality you cannot compare cabinets by whether they're inherently better than one another. The 1048H is a completely different sound than the 410RBH but they're both extremely well made and good sounding cabinets.

The 1048 is definitely worth considering and is definitely in the same "league" as the GK 410RBH. The Neo cabinets, similarly, are top-tier commercial cabinets and sound fantastic. I think that you'll just have to go out and play as many cabinets as you can using flat EQ settings to judge the sound you want.
 
#47
Filip Burdon said:
I think I'll drop the RBH 'cause of it weight because it's bit problematic at the moment and stick to the 410 neos or 1048H.

Which of those two would you personaly choose?
Click to expand...

If weight is problematic, I'd go Neo. But honestly tone is very different between all three options, and I encourage you to go out and play these cabinets or (at least) listen to demo's of them before making your decision.
 
#48
As I posted befour the weight difference is 0.5kg between the 410 Neo and the 1048H(which is lighter).

That's why I started considering the 1048H(plus some good opinions I've heard about it).

Could you amybe say some words about the 1048H and how it's different form the 410 neo?

You know if I could try 'em out I wouldn't ask :P
That's the problem in Norway. Those cabs ain't in the shops so if I want to here it I have to order it and buy it :P
 
#49
I'm no Trace expert, I just tend to love their products. I played out of a friend's Trace Elliot half stack (AH200 with a 1048H cabinet) and to me it sounded very clear; almost seemed like it lacked the mid-range bite I am so accustomed to. Trace products tend to track extremely well, and notes seem more "powerful" in their bass-ness rather than the "punchy" or "deep" sound of GK. The 1048H cabinet (and Trace Elliot in general) seems to be most represented by the mid-90's Britpop bands, and overall lends itself itself really well to all kinds of pop music. Trace, SWR, and GK are all very versatile companies.

If that helps at all, then great! I'm sure there are other posters who are much more accustomed to the 1048H cabinet itself.
 
#50
ahc said:
All part of the friendly courteous service here on TB! :D

Also, B-15N's were never more than 50 watts RMS. Originally they were either 40 or 45 and in the mid to later 60's they grew to a whopping 45 or 50. My first bass amp was a new '64 which I later stupidly traded for something bigger, and I now own a mid 70's version. I may be fuzzy on some of the details here, but I did live in the 60's so I don't remember it. ;)
Al

/derail
Click to expand...

hmm.

The original B15's were never more than 30w. Between 25 and 30w depending on year and specific model, between their introduction in 1960 and end of the original line in the 70's.

just sayin'

of course this has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread, just felt like that statement should be corrected.

please resume the original GK cab discussion:cool:

but most importantly ...

enjoy!
 
#55
Equal distribution of sound between both cabs. Plenty of lows, mids + highs to cover any situation. You’ll also sound somewhat the same when you only use one cab (familiarity). I just like 12” cabs and 212 cabs also. I use two 112 cabs and it’s plenty for what my band is doing.
 
#57
Filip Burdon said:
Yhym.

I have to find those cabs and try 'em out really.

I was just wondering because the freq. respons to the 410 cabs is much better (at least a the paper) that's why I find it confusing that everybody says that the 212 sound better and fuller.
Click to expand...

Again, I highly suggest playing the cabs themselves before making any serious judgments. You cannot base a cabinet's quality off of what people on talkbass say... the website's an amazing resource that may influence what you look into... but I don't think anyone should make a blind purchase from the experience of another.

A 2x 212 Neo stack isn't necessarily "better" than a 410 Neo stack. Objectively, it's better, because like jeff said there is less unpredictability regarding phasing issues... but you may love the dual tones from a 410 and 212. Most of popular music has been derived from some sort of technical "error" (or at least has been perceived as such: distortion, "glitchy" rhythms, circuit bending, etc.)
 
#58
"Most of popular music has been derived from some sort of technical "error" (or at least has been perceived as such: distortion, "glitchy" rhythms, circuit bending, etc.) ".

True dat!!

:bassist:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back