Acme Full Range Series III 112

[RobinC]

Awesome review!

I've been thinking about getting a pair of 8-ohm Acme cabs to replace my ampeg 410 classic. Now that the Series III models have been floating around the bass world for a little while, what Acme stacks are you using and what are the pros/cons of each? One full range, one B-1 series III like posted above? Two 112 Series IIIs of either configuration?

Based on the reviews, I think I would want at least one Full Range. My dream is to have a nice compact and modular rig that can adapt to whatever gig. I'd be running them through a GB Shuttle 9 (500@8, 900@4), though I'd love to A/B this setup with a Streamliner too.

 

[KJung]

Awesome review!

I've been thinking about getting a pair of 8-ohm Acme cabs to replace my ampeg 410 classic. Now that the Series III models have been floating around the bass world for a little while, what Acme stacks are you using and what are the pros/cons of each? One full range, one B-1 series III like posted above? Two 112 Series IIIs of either configuration?

Based on the reviews, I think I would want at least one Full Range. My dream is to have a nice compact and modular rig that can adapt to whatever gig. I'd be running them through a GB Shuttle 9 (500@8, 900@4), though I'd love to A/B this setup with a Streamliner too.

I've done many gigs with the B210 and my Fullrange...

These are unique cabs, as many have posted. They go deep, they need a lot of power, and they are 'maximum volume limited' more than most cabs, due to the unique voicing and extreme low end extension (which is the Acme 'trademark' tone IMO).

I like the tone of the FullRange more than my old B210... more aggressive, more mid present, and more present up top. With the Streamliner, my 4ohm Fullrange goes quite a bit deeper, but does not get nearly as loud as, for example, my Bergantino 8ohm AE210.

If you can get a FullRange and Flatwound stack, and get some serious power into them, they will give you a more wide range response than your 410, and IMO about 75% of the absolute volume you are getting now.

Interesting cabs, and they continue to be a 'love it or hate it' sort of thing for many. However, if you have the power and EQ sophistication to get the maximum performance out of these boxes, they really don't sound like anything else, and you might totally dig them.

IMO and IME.

 

[tombowlus]

Awesome review!

I've been thinking about getting a pair of 8-ohm Acme cabs to replace my ampeg 410 classic. Now that the Series III models have been floating around the bass world for a little while, what Acme stacks are you using and what are the pros/cons of each? One full range, one B-1 series III like posted above? Two 112 Series IIIs of either configuration?

Based on the reviews, I think I would want at least one Full Range. My dream is to have a nice compact and modular rig that can adapt to whatever gig. I'd be running them through a GB Shuttle 9 (500@8, 900@4), though I'd love to A/B this setup with a Streamliner too.

I am pretty stoked by the tone/volume I am getting from the Full Range and Flatwround, together, and I am amazed that the tweeter is able to maintain a balanced high end, even when using both 1x12's. That being said, Andy definitely intended his cabs to work well in a "mix and match" configuration, and I have to admit to being very curious as to how a Series III B-1 or B-2 would sound with one of my Series III 1x12's.

 

[RobinC]

Thanks for the input KJung and Tom!

How would you guys compare a single Full Range and the AudioKinesis Thunderchild side by side for volume, tone, etc?

 

[Michael Vee]

The B-1 is a beautiful match with the B-112 Full Range now that they are both Series III.

There is nothing yet on the Acmebass website about the B-1 Series III. If that's the same 10" as the Series II B-1, then there is a definite mismatch in the rated power handling between the B-1 and the B-112.

B-1: 175 watts
B-112: 350 watts

I wonder if the B-1 could keep up with the B-112, run together for a four-ohm load, without blowing, once the amp power started getting way up there for sustained loud passages. Think a Shuttle 9.0 cranked to about 6 or 7 on the master, or more. However, Acmes are well-known for durability, so maybe the B-1 could hang with the B-112 within reason.

There's not much difference in efficiency, 90 for the B-1 and 91 for the B-112, so the volume difference with the two stacked would not be audible.

That's a good looking combination, Jxbass. I also found myself wondering if the B-1 and Flatwound would be a good, and somewhat cheaper, combination. The B-1 could handle the small gigs, and then the Flatwound added for bigger gigs. Does one need the Roundwound tweeter if one has the B-1 with the tweeter and midrange?

 

[John D Harris]

I am pretty stoked by the tone/volume I am getting from the Full Range and Flatwround, together, and I am amazed that the tweeter is able to maintain a balanced high end, even when using both 1x12's. That being said, Andy definitely intended his cabs to work well in a "mix and match" configuration, and I have to admit to being very curious as to how a Series III B-1 or B-2 would sound with one of my Series III 1x12's.

The clips that I heard of the Fullrange were a bit bright sounding for my taste; I'd expect that pairing it with a Flatwound would balance it out just about right for me.

 

[Ric Vice]

There is nothing yet on the Acmebass website about the B-1 Series III. If that's the same 10" as the Series II B-1, then there is a definite mismatch in the rated power handling between the B-1 and the B-112.

B-1: 175 watts
B-112: 350 watts

I wonder if the B-1 could keep up with the B-112, run together for a four-ohm load, without blowing, once the amp power started getting way up there for sustained loud passages. Think a Shuttle 9.0 cranked to about 6 or 7 on the master, or more. However, Acmes are well-known for durability, so maybe the B-1 could hang with the B-112 within reason.

There's not much difference in efficiency, 90 for the B-1 and 91 for the B-112, so the volume difference with the two stacked would not be audible.

That's a good looking combination, Jxbass. I also found myself wondering if the B-1 and Flatwound would be a good, and somewhat cheaper, combination. The B-1 could handle the small gigs, and then the Flatwound added for bigger gigs. Does one need the Roundwound tweeter if one has the B-1 with the tweeter and midrange?

I remember Ken and I comparing the Low B2 with with the other cabinets he owned at the time, one of them was a Euphonic Audio VL 210. These cabinets sounded great then, but their drawbacks were that they were heavy and needed powerful amplifier to drive them. When the first Epifani 2x10's and 3x10's came along they were so much more efficient. Nick Epifani's comments at the time intimated that all that low bass response disappears when you get 20ft from the cabinet.
I recently tried Ken's Acme Full Range, as it's here in St. Louis on consignment at Gravity Strings. It's a great sounding cabinet with lots of bottom and more defined highs and mids than the B2' or B1's, but I takes a bit more power to drive it, than my TC 112. That said, it certainly has an attractive price


Ric

 

[tombowlus]

The clips that I heard of the Fullrange were a bit bright sounding for my taste; I'd expect that pairing it with a Flatwound would balance it out just about right for me.

Yes, for a lot of players, I think a Full Range & Flatwound rig is going to be just right.

 

[Bassist30]

I've done many gigs with the B210 and my Fullrange...

These are unique cabs, as many have posted. They go deep, they need a lot of power, and they are 'maximum volume limited' more than most cabs, due to the unique voicing and extreme low end extension (which is the Acme 'trademark' tone IMO).

I like the tone of the FullRange more than my old B210... more aggressive, more mid present, and more present up top. With the Streamliner, my 4ohm Fullrange goes quite a bit deeper, but does not get nearly as loud as, for example, my Bergantino 8ohm AE210.

If you can get a FullRange and Flatwound stack, and get some serious power into them, they will give you a more wide range response than your 410, and IMO about 75% of the absolute volume you are getting now.

Interesting cabs, and they continue to be a 'love it or hate it' sort of thing for many. However, if you have the power and EQ sophistication to get the maximum performance out of these boxes, they really don't sound like anything else, and you might totally dig them.

IMO and IME.

Earlier reviews you sort of mention that it had a bigger bottom and can get higher top end than the audiokinesis. Being that you have played it more do you feel it has a bigger range or that the Audiokinesis is tighter all around? I personally dont have either, yet...I will have a TC15AF soon. Curious.

 

[KJung]

Earlier reviews you sort of mention that it had a bigger bottom and can get higher top end than the audiokinesis. Being that you have played it more do you feel it has a bigger range or that the Audiokinesis is tighter all around? I personally dont have either, yet...I will have a TC15AF soon. Curious.

The full range is definitely rougher up top (aggressive sizzle of the tweeter) and deeper down low. However, deeper does not really mean 'fuller'. The Audiokinesis cabs (and the fEARFul) seem to focus more energy where it really counts... the mid bass versus that sub 40 hz thing.

Again, all fabulous stuff. The Audiokinesis works better for me since it is relatively efficient (no massive power needed), VERY well controlled (no issues with needing separate hi passing), it handles peaks (like slapping and digging in) WAY better than the Acme, and it gets louder in an absolute sense.

That being said, the Acme is a unique tone that I do like... deep, a bit rough in the midrange, and very aggressive up top. Quite different from the old B210 models.

As Tom posts, a Flatwound/Fullrange stack would be quite loud (with 500+ watts hitting each one) and IMO nicely balanced.