Acme Full Range Series III 112

[KJung]

I'm really interested in the sound of this. I currently gig 2 x Low B2's and love the sound. The only thing I find lacking in these cabs is the mids, which I find affect the way they handle effects as well. Many people have decried them as polite sounding and the fEarful guys are telling me their mid range is much more prominent.

Seeing as how I'm currently thinking about new cabs this info couldn't be coming at a better time!

The upper midrange response of the 12/6 is going to be far superior to the Low B2's. The nice thing about the 12/6 designs is that you have pretty good upper mid/lower treble response without having to resort to a tweeter, which makes them great for effects, distortion, etc.

Nice cabs... tighter down low than the Acme, and as RPSANDS points out, a bit more even and pronounced in the upper mids.

This cab seems to fall in the middle of what I remember about my old B210's and my experience with quite a few 12/6 executions. Again, the Thunderchild is kind of in the middle... more treble response than the 12/6 cabs, and a smaller box and a bit less low end extension, and a bit smoother and more even and not quite as upper treble extended as the FullRange, with a significantly more attenuated low end.

All these cabs sound great for what they are, and even though I hate this term, they all take EQ quite 'well', meaning if you have a couple of bands of semi-parametric midrange, and a good shelving bass control with a low shelving start point, you can push each cab to sound at least a bit like the other.

 

[rpsands]

They're in there somewhere, something like 499/599 or something.

 

[JxBass]

So far, I can get the Acme and Thunderchild to sound relatively similar if I crank quite a bit of 100hz into the Acme, and soften the upper treble a touch with the Markbass VLE control to match the upper treble response of the Thunderchild.

This is kinda scary. Sounds like the comparison I did with my TC112 and LDS 12/6. Very similar in tone but the TC112 won by delivering essentially the same thing in a smaller package.

My B-112FR is a couple of weeks away and I only want to keep one 112. I wonder if the TC112 will win again?

Of course if the B-112FR wins I'll still have a Thunderchild, the TC115 (when it starts shipping)

 

[KJung]

This is kinda scary. Sounds like the comparison I did with my TC112 and LDS 12/6. Very similar in tone but the TC112 won by delivering essentially the same thing in a smaller package.

My B-112FR is a couple of weeks away and I only want to keep one 112. I wonder if the TC112 will win again?

Of course if the B-112FR wins I'll still have a Thunderchild, the TC115 (when it starts shipping)

Hard to beat the entire package of the Thunderchild.... very small, super mechanical specs so you can EQ in some additional low end, and very, very smooth, even response all the way up to the 'mid treble' region. That cab has never let me down, and the 4ohm thing really makes a difference given that many of us use moderately powered micro's, and that wonderful woofer Duke uses can use a good, honest 400-500 watts. It is also cool to be able to roll the cab off at 3.5K, giving it a very 'one way cab' vibe for 'old school' type tones. Of course, with the Markbass VLE, I can get there with the Acme also.

The extra low end extension combined with the extra sparkle up top is kind of intoxicating with the Acme FullRange. I'll just have to see how that translates on a gig. I've never really felt I was missing low end with the Thunderchild (although of course, that is allowing for the small size of the cab).

To be clear, I've been able to EQ the Acme Full range to sound VERY similar to the Thunderchild, but it doesn't work the other way around. There is no way the Thunderchild will reproduce that low B fundamental, nor will it sizzle at 15K. However, Duke's voicing was on purpose, and it is very musical. Sometimes, a lot of the good stuff (deep lows, sizzly highs) can be too much of a good thing in some mixes.



We shall see. All great stuff!

 

[rpsands]

My take, based on the charts, is that the fullrange is a solid execution of the 2-way cab--what 2-ways should be for MI use, when intended to be completely full range. It gives up some smoothness in the mids but stays musical in order to achieve excellent polar response all the way up.

It has more on top top and bottom bottom than the Thunderchild, but sacrifices sensitivity to do it.

The TC will be a LOT louder through the main bands of 4-string bass, and a lot smoother as well. The Acme sacrifices both sensitivity and smoothness in favor of extension.

The money areas for the Acme s3 cabs appear to be:
* 5-string and lower players, especially guys who tune under B.
* Double bassists who want extended highs and gently rolling off lows with plenty of fundamental (many db guys roll off a lot of lows, but others just notch the feedback area, from what I can tell). DB has a LOT more fundamental content potentially.
* Pillowy R&B guys with lots and lots of bass who don't need to be loud, just low

Other than that I'd tend to recommend the TC or fEarfuls, since for most of your typical 4-string rock / pop gigs I expect you will need two of the Acme cabs for many circumstances.

Just my take.

 

[KJung]

Put another hour or so on the cab last night. Speaker break-in is an interesting thing. I don't notice any difference over time with most cabs, but sometimes it makes a huge difference. I found this with my Bergantino AE212 also. Right out of the box, the cab sounded a bit 'top heavy' and harsh. Within an hour or two, the response smoothed and fattened, and the rough edges disappeared. Same thing with the FullRange.

The Markbass heads just sound great with this cab, and the VLE control (variable lo pass) works wonderfully as a tweeter attenuator to control the impressive upper treble extension on this cab (if you want to).

This cab does have its own voice (like all other cabs), and as stated above, its voice is wide and open... deep low end, sparkly up top, and a nice, relaxed midrange response. The cab takes a bump in the lower mids very nicely, and punches up nicely if you so choose. and have the EQ to do it.

Great quality, great service, great company (just like Audiokinesis).

So, yet another great flavor for those looking for a single lightweight 12 that can do the job of many 212 cabs.

I'll put up a clip or two next week. Might get it out on my gig this weekend, but it is a large, boomy room with a loud band, and I probably need my 'big gig rig' for that one. So, it will have to wait until nex weekend to get a full try in a mix.

 

[KJung]

It has more on top top and bottom bottom than the Thunderchild, but sacrifices sensitivity to do it.

The TC will be a LOT louder through the main bands of 4-string bass, and a lot smoother as well. The Acme sacrifices both sensitivity and smoothness in favor of extension.

The money areas for the Acme s3 cabs appear to be:
* 5-string and lower players, especially guys who tune under B.
* Double bassists who want extended highs and gently rolling off lows with plenty of fundamental (many db guys roll off a lot of lows, but others just notch the feedback area, from what I can tell). DB has a LOT more fundamental content potentially.
* Pillowy R&B guys with lots and lots of bass who don't need to be loud, just low

Other than that I'd tend to recommend the TC or fEarfuls, since for most of your typical 4-string rock / pop gigs I expect you will need two of the Acme cabs for many circumstances.

Just my take.

While I agree that the contexts you list above would be good ones for the FullRange, I would in no way say this cab is limited to those.

Yes, it is low SPL, but with the 4ohm option, the max SPL (which these days is really all that matters), if VERY impressive with a typical 400-600 watt micro head. This is one of the big advantages of the custom drivers that Andy and Duke uses versus the more 'off the shelf' components of the 12/6 executions. For those looking for a small, single cab solution for use with a small, moderately powered micro head, either the Thunderchild or the 4ohm Acme would work fine, and my feeling is the 'max volume' of both would be about the same, and would be almost shocking to those using other more traditionally designed 112's.

Also, as a long time B210 user back in the day, while the FullRange does have impressive low end extension, it doesn't feel 'loose' like I personally experienced with the original Acme boxes. I always felt that I needed some sort of hi pass filter to keep those drivers from pistoning through the front of the cab! This custom neo 12 seems to have a bit more heavy duty specs, tighter surrounds, whatever, that makes it feel and sound more forceful down low to me, without needing any special filtering or care.

So, I would not limit the use of this cab. Yes, if you live and die (for whatever reason) by needing a bit better off axis response in the upper midrange (that 2K thing), the 12/6 and Thunderchild would be a better choice.

Very impressive little box!

 

[jnewmark]

Put another hour or so on the cab last night. Speaker break-in is an interesting thing. I don't notice any difference over time with most cabs, but sometimes it makes a huge difference. I found this with my Bergantino AE212 also. Right out of the box, the cab sounded a bit 'top heavy' and harsh. Within an hour or two, the response smoothed and fattened, and the rough edges disappeared. Same thing with the FullRange.

The Markbass heads just sound great with this cab, and the VLE control (variable lo pass) works wonderfully as a tweeter attenuator to control the impressive upper treble extension on this cab (if you want to).

This cab does have its own voice (like all other cabs), and as stated above, its voice is wide and open... deep low end, sparkly up top, and a nice, relaxed midrange response. The cab takes a bump in the lower mids very nicely, and punches up nicely if you so choose. and have the EQ to do it.

Great quality, great service, great company (just like Audiokinesis).

So, yet another great flavor for those looking for a single lightweight 12 that can do the job of many 212 cabs.

I'll put up a clip or two next week. Might get it out on my gig this weekend, but it is a large, boomy room with a loud band, and I probably need my 'big gig rig' for that one. So, it will have to wait until nex weekend to get a full try in a mix.

Would you say that the Acme full range is more " scooped " sounding than the TC ? It seems as if you are saying, big lows, big highs, polite mids with the Acme.

 

[KJung]

Would you say that the Acme full range is more " scooped " sounding than the TC ? It seems as if you are saying, big lows, big highs, polite mids with the Acme.

There is definitely a much higher ratio of deep bass to lower mids with the Acme, and also a less even upper mid response (from the top of the driver to the tweeter) than the Thunderchild (which sound very 'flat' to me within its range).

So, relative to the Thunderchild, you could call the FullRange a bit more 'scooped'. A bit of boost in the low midrange punches it up nicely, and if you cut the deepest bass a bit (my Markbass has a nice 40hz bass control that is functionally a shelving control), the low end through mid midrange response is quite close to the Thunderchild.

Definitely a bit different when set 'flat' though, especially at both ends of its response.

 

[Passinwind]

Hard to beat the entire package of the Thunderchild.... very small, super mechanical specs so you can EQ in some additional low end, and very, very smooth, even response all the way up to the 'mid treble' region. That cab has never let me down, and the 4ohm thing really makes a difference given that many of us use moderately powered micro's, and that wonderful woofer Duke uses can use a good, honest 400-500 watts. It is also cool to be able to roll the cab off at 3.5K, giving it a very 'one way cab' vibe for 'old school' type tones. Of course, with the Markbass VLE, I can get there with the Acme also.

The extra low end extension combined with the extra sparkle up top is kind of intoxicating with the Acme FullRange. I'll just have to see how that translates on a gig. I've never really felt I was missing low end with the Thunderchild (although of course, that is allowing for the small size of the cab).

To be clear, I've been able to EQ the Acme Full range to sound VERY similar to the Thunderchild, but it doesn't work the other way around. There is no way the Thunderchild will reproduce that low B fundamental, nor will it sizzle at 15K. However, Duke's voicing was on purpose, and it is very musical. Sometimes, a lot of the good stuff (deep lows, sizzly highs) can be too much of a good thing in some mixes.

FWIW, the Thunderchild AF cab measured pretty danged close to dead flat on-axis to 15KHz in my living room, and around -5dB at 20K. How about trying both cabs with a good quality full range music recording, just because?

As always, thanks for the review Ken, and looking forward to the sound clips. These 112 cabs are pretty much the sweet spot for my gigging situations these days.

 

[KJung]

FWIW, the Thunderchild AF cab measured pretty danged close to dead flat on-axis to 15KHz in my living room, and around -5dB at 20K. How about trying both cabs with a good quality full range music recording, just because?

As always, thanks for the review Ken, and looking forward to the sound clips. These 112 cabs are pretty much the sweet spot for my gigging situations these days.

I love the top end of the Thunderchild. I wonder why the Acme sounds more 'crystal clear and sizzly' up there (not a better or worse thing, but quite different). Could the extra 5K extension to 20K make that much difference, or might it be, as I guessed above, that there is a bit more of a dip in the upper mids and lower treble with the Acme that results in the upper treble to sit out there a bit more on its own, fooling the ear a bit regarding the top end? I guess maybe the combination of those two things explains it (Andy has some nice on and off axis plots on his website, maybe you could take a look).

I'll check out a couple of CD's through each cab to see if that helps solidify what I think I'm hearing!

 

[Passinwind]

I love the top end of the Thunderchild. I wonder why the Acme sounds more 'crystal clear and sizzly' up there (not a better or worse thing, but quite different). Could the extra 5K extension to 20K make that much difference, or might it be, as I guessed above, that there is a bit more of a dip in the upper mids and lower treble with the Acme that results in the upper treble to sit out there a bit more on its own, fooling the ear a bit regarding the top end? I guess maybe the combination of those two things explains it (Andy has some nice on and off axis plots on his website, maybe you could take a look).

I'd guess whatever you're hearing is starting a lot lower than 15K.

The dispersion on a dome tweeter is gonna be a lot different than the waveguide Duke uses, and I also have the added back-firing tweeter in my TC cab, but I like different flavors in any case.

I will take a look at Andy's charts presently, thanks!

 

[rpsands]

While I agree that the contexts you list above would be good ones for the FullRange, I would in no way say this cab is limited to those.

Yes, it is low SPL, but with the 4ohm option, the max SPL (which these days is really all that matters), if VERY impressive with a typical 400-600 watt micro head. This is one of the big advantages of the custom drivers that Andy and Duke uses versus the more 'off the shelf' components of the 12/6 executions. For those looking for a small, single cab solution for use with a small, moderately powered micro head, either the Thunderchild or the 4ohm Acme would work fine, and my feeling is the 'max volume' of both would be about the same, and would be almost shocking to those using other more traditionally designed 112's.

Also, as a long time B210 user back in the day, while the FullRange does have impressive low end extension, it doesn't feel 'loose' like I personally experienced with the original Acme boxes. I always felt that I needed some sort of hi pass filter to keep those drivers from pistoning through the front of the cab! This custom neo 12 seems to have a bit more heavy duty specs, tighter surrounds, whatever, that makes it feel and sound more forceful down low to me, without needing any special filtering or care.

So, I would not limit the use of this cab. Yes, if you live and die (for whatever reason) by needing a bit better off axis response in the upper midrange (that 2K thing), the 12/6 and Thunderchild would be a better choice.

Very impressive little box!

Dude, you are wrong on the max volume. The TC has the same amount of excursion available, and almost 6db of sensitivity. Pushed to its limit, the TC112 will be close to as loud as /two/ of the Acme cabs pushed to their limits, above 50hz or so.

 

[KJung]

Dude, you are wrong on the max volume. The TC has the same amount of excursion available, and almost 6db of sensitivity. Pushed to its limit, the TC112 will be close to as loud as /two/ of the Acme cabs pushed to their limits, above 50hz or so.

EQ'd to sound similar, that is not what I'm hearing at all, even though I have to turn the master up a bit more on the Acme.

 

[KJung]

I'd guess whatever you're hearing is starting a lot lower than 15K.

The dispersion on a dome tweeter is gonna be a lot different than the waveguide Duke uses, and I also have the added back-firing tweeter in my TC cab, but I like different flavors in any case.

I will take a look at Andy's charts presently, thanks!

Cool! Both very neat little boxes!

 

[rpsands]

EQ'd to sound similar, that is not what I'm hearing at all, even though I have to turn the master up a bit more on the Acme.

All I can do is look at the numbers and trust them (since both vendors publish calculated sensitivity numbers). Calculated sensitivity numbers are actually closer to 4db apart from the looks of things. I was eyeballing the chart and assuming 90 for the Acme, sorry

How much are you turning the master up? Remember it doesn't take much knob turniness to double the power you're using.

 

[KJung]

All I can do is look at the numbers and trust them (since both vendors publish calculated sensitivity numbers). Calculated sensitivity numbers are actually closer to 4db apart from the looks of things. I was eyeballing the chart and assuming 90 for the Acme, sorry

How much are you turning the master up? Remember it doesn't take much knob turniness to double the power you're using.

A LOT more. As an example, to get the perceived volume about the same (of course, the tone of each of these cabs is very different, so hard to even talk about 'same volume' in a way), here are my settings with the same EQ:

8 ohm Bergantino AE210... around 9 o'clock

4ohm Thunderchild... around 10 o'clock

4ohm Acme Full Range.... around noon

Each cab is loud as the dickens at those setting, and 'one more click of the Master would get each to IME their maximum output prior to the drivers starting to compress a bit.


So, +1 that the Acme definitely needs more power to reach similar volumes, although it does so with a more meaty low end.

Edit: To your point earlier, of course, the Berg AE210 gives up the ghost on the B string at a much lower volume than the Thunderchild. The Thunderchild and Acme both replicate the B string (D and below) at about the same maximum volume, but there is much more fundamental in that maximum volume of the Acme than the Thunderchild. So, kind of different beasts.

 

[rpsands]

I can't make any assumptions about the taper on that volume pot but the TC and Acme have the same excursion, and it's clear that the sensitivity difference is significant. What that says to me is that the maximum volume will not be equivalent. Another note is that due to the effects of power compression, the need for twice as much power to achieve the same volume will degrade your maximum volume a bit more.

 

[KJung]

I can't make any assumptions about the taper on that volume pot but the TC and Acme have the same excursion, and it's clear that the sensitivity difference is significant. What that says to me is that the maximum volume will not be equivalent. Another note is that due to the effects of power compression, the need for twice as much power to achieve the same volume will degrade your maximum volume a bit more.

It would not surprise me if the Thunderchild was a bit louder in an absolute sense, and +1, Acme is known for big low end in a small box at the expense of needing quite a bit more power to get it up to rockin levels'.

That is one of the reasons I like the Thunderchild so much.... 4ohm, all that excursion, and also a voicing that is very musical and full without the 'cost' of that super deep low end extension. However, the Acme FullRange is a beautiful sounding cab, and for some players, it would be a dream. I like it a lot... very unforgiving of technique flaws... LOTS going on up top. Not so much flat as 'transparent', meaning everything is there from the deepest lows to the most sparkling upper treble.

Both cabs are very easy to schlepp also... nice form factors. Even though the Acme is quite a bit deeper than the Thunderchild, the stage footprint is identical, given that you need to leave 4-6" of space behind the Thunderchild for the rear ports.

 

[rpsands]

Yeah, I definitely see the niche. I just think it might be a little narrower than you. Any neck-pup-playing 5-stringer has a strong case for the Acme (or a pair of them) for sure.