A little on DNA cabs

[bluejayway82]

For what it may be worth to anyone, I just compared a DNS 210 against an Eden XLT 210, I used a US J that was set up like a bit of a pig, and an Ampeg PF-350 head. The idea was to used fairly unexciting gear just to see if the DNA speakers stand out at all. I set the amps EQ settings to 12 o'clock.

I have owned a 210XST before, and noticed that there was a LOT of top end coming off the XLT cab straight away, even though the tweeter was set at less than half way. Cab sounded good though, with eq, definitely usable. When I switched to the DNA cab, you could notice the increase in bottom end straight away. The bass sounded a lot more full across all registers. You'd be happy with the sound, and I imagine with a good amp you'd be laughing.

The point worth noting though, was when I went back to the Eden speaker after the DNA, the difference was embarrassing for the Eden speaker. The Eden sounded small and weak compared to the DNA (obviously the sheer size of the DNA cab might suggest this). I compare this to when I used to have to go back to a GK700rb head after using my Aguilar DB750.. the difference is definitely noticeable going up to the Aggy, but going back the difference was almost suicidal.. maybe not that bad..

My 2 cents anyway.

 

[Bulky Bass]

Has anyone else tried the 115? I know the original reviewer hated it but I like an old school tone but I want clarity as well. I've only owned two 15s in my life. An SWR SOB that was the worst sound I've ever heard and a DR. Bass rx115 that sounded good but too mid heavy for me. I'm looking for soft, pillowy bass tone, especially when I play my P-Bass with flats and I was thinking this DNA 15 would cut it.

 

[c2thej2theizzo]

I believe the DNA stuff is using FaitalPro drivers.

can anyone verify exactly what model 10" drivers are being used in the DNA cabs especially the 4x10?

 

[bongomania]

i used to think i could tell flat response when i heard it...found out quite quickly that i can't.

Saving this quote for posterity.


Back on topic of DNA, I'm kind of amazed how there can be such a huge disparity between the "Nordschow side" of things (the claimed specs, the user reports of performance) and the "Fitzmaurice side" (analysis of the components and what they're theoretically capable of). Obviously there's room for leeway on both sides: cab specs are almost always inflated by the manufacturer, and user reports are subjective and biased; while looking only at models can miss out whenever the data and algorithms used to create the model don't actually encompass everything that makes up the real thing. So some amount of gap between them is inevitable--but such a wide gap! It's a head-scratcher.

 

[fdeck]

Saving this quote for posterity.


Back on topic of DNA, I'm kind of amazed how there can be such a huge disparity between the "Nordschow side" of things (the claimed specs, the user reports of performance) and the "Fitzmaurice side" (analysis of the components and what they're theoretically capable of). Obviously there's room for leeway on both sides: cab specs are almost always inflated by the manufacturer, and user reports are subjective and biased; while looking only at models can miss out whenever the data and algorithms used to create the model don't actually encompass everything that makes up the real thing. So some amount of gap between them is inevitable--but such a wide gap! It's a head-scratcher.

I think that in practice, "looking only at models" is a straw man. Those who read my posts would probably put me on one of those "sides." However, I have ears, as do many of the folks who are building cabs from more of a theory-guided approach.

My approach is to combine everything that I can find out, in case one source of information can fill in a gap from another source: Theory, historical precedent, modeling, measurement, and of course extensive listening tests. A lot of folks who are trying Bill's designs, the fEARfuls, and so forth, are reporting on tone quality as they experience it when playing. I consider that to be valuable information, and I read it with interest when considering my own gear purchases and projects.

 

[devilman666]

I can only say this I've been running a dna 4x10 for 6months after years of running swr,ampeg and tc electronics cabs and heads and my Eden navigator and DNS 4x10 is by far my favorite set up. Only issue is saving up for another to complete an 8x10 stack.

 

[pan1k]

I'm going down to San Diego next weekend. I'm hoping to make it to the shop and try out some bass goodies. I'm also scared too. I know I'll be leaving there GASSY. And not the stinky kind either

 

[bongomania]

I think that in practice, "looking only at models" is a straw man. Those who read my posts would probably put me on one of those "sides." However, I have ears, as do many of the folks who are building cabs from more of a theory-guided approach.

My approach is to combine everything that I can find out, in case one source of information can fill in a gap from another source: Theory, historical precedent, modeling, measurement, and of course extensive listening tests. A lot of folks who are trying Bill's designs, the fEARfuls, and so forth, are reporting on tone quality as they experience it when playing. I consider that to be valuable information, and I read it with interest when considering my own gear purchases and projects.

I agree with all of that, except the "straw man" claim. All of the data acquisition and probability analysis we do, short of measuring the actual subject, is just modeling. I'll grant that the more we know, the more accurate the model can be--but it's still a model, not a physical measurement of the complete system. And that is the only logical reason I can think of for the discrepancy between the two camps.