• 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.

Acme Full Range Series III 112

#381
dukeorock: I tried the NeoX. Light as a feather, nice cab, just wasn't for me. Yeah, 212 is a whole 'nother story and would probably sound great. I'm just wanting smaller.

Ken: the quality of high end is what I can't really hear on the vids which is why I suggested pumping full range music through them to get a clearer picture. But ultimately, I just have to play them, so that's what it's going to come down to sooner or later.

I don't hear the clarity in the TC from first exposure, but it is smooth and deep and powerful and light. The one lesson I have learned is that a second or third exposure is often a good idea. More data = clearer results. I am keeping an open mind to the TC and especially like to do business with people like Duke whenever possible.

The Baer sounds ultra smooth to me but like the GB seems like it would be better when paired with a second cabinet.
 
#382
PDGood said:
What I hear in your youtube videos of the Acme is amazing low end and great clarity in separation of quickly played notes. That's the only area where your ears and mine seem to be different, because you describe the TC as like studio monitors and that's how I hear the Acme. (Heck, we can disagree on one thing, can't we?)
Both sound great to me in the vids but hearing them in person and then in a live mix is the real test.
Click to expand...

I think the acme will give you just what you are looking for. The questions is how much volume will you really need. If you are not opposed to a two cab setup, these could be just the ticket.
 
#383
PDGood said:
...Ken: the quality of high end is what I can't really hear on the vids which is why I suggested pumping full range music through them to get a clearer picture. But ultimately, I just have to play them, so that's what it's going to come down to sooner or later.

I don't hear the clarity in the TC from first exposure, but it is smooth and deep and powerful and light. The one lesson I have learned is that a second or third exposure is often a good idea. More data = clearer results. I am keeping an open mind to the TC and especially like to do business with people like Duke whenever possible.

The Baer sounds ultra smooth to me but like the GB seems like it would be better when paired with a second cabinet.
Click to expand...

I just got my Thunderchild yesterday. Based on what you're saying about your tastes, I suspect the Acme or the Baer would be a better bet.

The Thunderchild is super smooth- almost like a good stereo speaker. If you're used to the "zing" on top from a typical tweeter-equipped bass cab, you might find it a little too polite.

Make no mistake, with some EQ the big horn on the Thunderchild can put out a lot of sizzle, and the low end is very impressive. But the Acme already has that "bass cab only wider" voicing already built in, whereas the AudioKinesis sounds more like a really nice FOH system- very balanced and almost acoustic sounding.
 
#385
steve_rolfeca said:
I just got my Thunderchild yesterday. Based on what you're saying about your tastes, I suspect the Acme or the Baer would be a better bet.

The Thunderchild is super smooth- almost like a good stereo speaker. If you're used to the "zing" on top from a typical tweeter-equipped bass cab, you might find it a little too polite.

Make no mistake, with some EQ the big horn on the Thunderchild can put out a lot of sizzle, and the low end is very impressive. But the Acme already has that "bass cab only wider" voicing already built in, whereas the AudioKinesis sounds more like a really nice FOH system- very balanced and almost acoustic sounding.
Click to expand...

That is a good way of putting it, with the Baer kind of sitting in the middle of those two.
 
#387
I had two gigs this past Saturday, and the first one was a private party at a friend's house. About 90 people, pretty big house, we were playing in the great room (which was pretty big). Vocals only in PA (two of the Bose systems), un-mic'd drums, two guitars... I ended up using both the Flatwound and the Full Range (both are 4-ohm models), driven by my ShuttleMAX 12.0. While I certainly had more volume potential on tap than was needed for that gig, the room did soak up the sound pretty well, so I wasn't just coasting on the volume, either. For basses, I was playing my Lakland Skyline DJ4 and my F bass VF5.

From the very first note, myself and both guitar players simultaneously said, "Wow!" The tone was great, and the depth of the note was very impressive. The low end did not overpower, but certainly did have a certain "seismic" feel to it that I don't get out of every rig. I ran with the Full Range stacked upside down on top of the Flatwound (to get those two 12's closer together) and this seemed to work really well. The other guys in the band commented several times during the show and then afterwards how much they liked the bass tone. The ShuttleMAX12.0 is a nearly ideal head to drive two of the 4-ohm Acmes, and that rig was a real winner, in my book. :cool:

Tom.
 
#388
tombowlus said:
I had two gigs this past Saturday, and the first one was a private party at a friend's house. About 90 people, pretty big house, we were playing in the great room (which was pretty big). Vocals only in PA (two of the Bose systems), un-mic'd drums, two guitars... I ended up using both the Flatwound and the Full Range (both are 4-ohm models), driven by my ShuttleMAX 12.0. While I certainly had more volume potential on tap than was needed for that gig, the room did soak up the sound pretty well, so I wasn't just coasting on the volume, either. For basses, I was playing my Lakland Skyline DJ4 and my F bass VF5.

From the very first note, myself and both guitar players simultaneously said, "Wow!" The tone was great, and the depth of the note was very impressive. The low end did not overpower, but certainly did have a certain "seismic" feel to it that I don't get out of every rig. I ran with the Full Range stacked upside down on top of the Flatwound (to get those two 12's closer together) and this seemed to work really well. The other guys in the band commented several times during the show and then afterwards how much they liked the bass tone. The ShuttleMAX12.0 is a nearly ideal head to drive two of the 4-ohm Acmes, and that rig was a real winner, in my book. :cool:

Tom.
Click to expand...

That head would seem to be THE head with that stack! I bet it sounded great, and the hi passing that Genz uses is GREAT for controlling the big low end of the Acme's.
 
#392
steve_rolfeca said:
Hey, dude. How would you describe the relative differences between the Acme and the Thunderchild?
Click to expand...

I had previously posted some comments comparing the TC112AF to the Flatwound, but I need to revisit this comparison using the Full Range. Compared to the Flatwound, though, I found that the Acme sounded more tight and clear in the low end, but was a little more woolly in the midrange. The TC was stronger in the low mids, and seemed to hit a little harder, overall. The TC seemed a little smoother from the "middle mids" on up through as high as it would go, as well. While certainly deeper than your typical "vintage" cab, the Acme has the more "vintage-sounding" midranges, of the two cabs.

Tom.
 
#393
tombowlus said:
I had previously posted some comments comparing the TC112AF to the Flatwound, but I need to revisit this comparison using the Full Range. Compared to the Flatwound, though, I found that the Acme sounded more tight and clear in the low end, but was a little more woolly in the midrange. The TC was stronger in the low mids, and seemed to hit a little harder, overall. The TC seemed a little smoother from the "middle mids" on up through as high as it would go, as well. While certainly deeper than your typical "vintage" cab, the Acme has the more "vintage-sounding" midranges, of the two cabs.

Tom.
Click to expand...

+1 To add a bit, the Acme Fullrange obviously extends way deeper than the TC112, but that has its downsides. The Acme absolutely needs an amp that has the following characteristics:

1) High absolute power (500 watts+ into the cab).
2) Nice high pass filtering (the Acme' low end results in the cab totally giving up the ghost if you punch a lot of sub bass through it)
3) Power amp limiting that is of the more 'tube emulation' type (Genz or TCRH750, etc) versus the more hard stop (like Markbass), since you WILL hit the limits of most moderately powered amps with the Acme.

The TC112, on the other hand, is VERY forgiving of amplification, and has sounded great and performed at shockingly high volume levels with virtually every head I've tried it with, and as Tom says, vibes a studio monitor (very clean, even mids through treble) versus the rougher mids of the Acme Full Range and the much more extended top end, way up into the sizzle area.

Both cabs are great. For most, the Thunderchild would be the 'safer bet' if you were looking for a single small cab solution for up to moderate sized gigs (even high volume ones). However, if you take the time to learn about the Acme's quirks, and get the right amplification, the performance is also amazing in a different way.... massive fat low end, and more 'character' up top coming from the box, and probably 75% of the max volume of the Thunderchild.

IMO and IME!
 
#394
+2 to the comments of Tom and Ken. I posted somewhere, on the TC thread perhaps, my initial A/B of the Acme & TC112. I found the voicings to be surprisingly more different than I expected. The Acme is pretty astounding down low as stated, and is very clear, with a definite "sharpness" to the tone. Funny, I thought of the TC in the same way in terms of clarity until I compared the two. The unbelievable eveness of the TC presents a much smoother, warmer tone profile.

Of course, this is all IMHO and I'm sure greatly effected by my playing style, EQ preferences, bass, etc.
 
#396
JxBass said:
+2 to the comments of Tom and Ken. I posted somewhere, on the TC thread perhaps, my initial A/B of the Acme & TC112. I found the voicings to be surprisingly more different than I expected. The Acme is pretty astounding down low as stated, and is very clear, with a definite "sharpness" to the tone. Funny, I thought of the TC in the same way in terms of clarity until I compared the two. The unbelievable eveness of the TC presents a much smoother, warmer tone profile.

Of course, this is all IMHO and I'm sure greatly effected by my playing style, EQ preferences, bass, etc.
Click to expand...

This was the impression I got from the videos.
 
#398
DLM said:
Have any of you found the low end of the Acme to be problematic on the gig? If so, were you able to dial it out via EQ?
Click to expand...

Pretty much driven by the low end voicing of the head. With my Streamliner, which has a very sophisticated and effective hi pass filtering on the low end, allowing it to sound very big down low, but totally controlled, the low end on the gig was fat, round, but still defined and articulate.

In a short trial with the Mesa M6, which has a wide open (i.e., uncontrolled) low end, the Acme sounded tubby, and farted out at moderate volumes.

As long as you have an amp with a scultped, controlled low end, and enough power (like the Streamliner for a fat, old school tone, or one of the Shuttle Max heads for a more modern tone), the low end of the Acme112's is beautiful.

Also, the mids and top end are much more aggressive than the original B210's, etc. Not as 'flat or even', but IMO sounds better in every way for me.

That being said, the design of the woofer still gives you similar issues when slapping as the original Acme's. If I have my terms right, it is pretty easy to hit that 'xmin' and 'overextend' that driver on the massive peak resulting from a slap thump (sounds like the driver slamming into the voice coil or something). IME there.
 
#399
DLM said:
Have any of you found the low end of the Acme to be problematic on the gig? If so, were you able to dial it out via EQ?
Click to expand...

I played a couple rooms where my Acme (FW) was too boomy. I just elevated it off the ground and problem solved. EQ on my LMII was basically flat and I needed less volume from the amp and got way better dispersion. YMMV, but sometimes the simplest solution works best.
 
#400
KJung said:
In a short trial with the Mesa M6, which has a wide open (i.e., uncontrolled) low end, the Acme sounded tubby, and farted out at moderate volumes.

As long as you have an amp with a scultped, controlled low end, and enough power (like the Streamliner for a fat, old school tone, or one of the Shuttle Max heads for a more modern tone), the low end of the Acme112's is beautiful.
Click to expand...

Ken, if memory serves, you have some Walkabout experience. I'm currently playing through an M6, though considering switching to a Walkabout. Do you feel the parametric EQ on the WA is enough to tame some of the tubby farting, or is it an issue of the Mesa voicing and design? Do you feel the issue is specific to this head/cab combo, or just the nature of the M6?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back