+1
i have a carbine, and i'm looking for a smaller cab than my PH212. i'm running a Warwick Thumb 5 BO and a Corvette $$ 4, each with flats. playing rock to industrial/electro (no slap).
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Acme Full Range Series III 112
- Thread starter KJung
- Start date
+1
i have a carbine, and i'm looking for a smaller cab than my PH212. i'm running a Warwick Thumb 5 BO and a Corvette $$ 4, each with flats. playing rock to industrial/electro (no slap).
I received my Full Range this past week. Last night was my first chance to A/B against my Thunderchild 112. Although the FR sounded exactly like Ken and others described I was surprised at how different the two cabs sounded to me. It's going to take me some time to fiddle around and digest what I'm hearing before I make a final decision.
Both are great cabs for sure.
Both are great cabs for sure.
I found that going back and forth between the two was too confusing, in that both sounded great but very different. I'm going to spend some time focused on the Acme (it still isn't broken in) to get comfortable with it, find my favorite settings, etc. Then I'll go back to the Thunderchild.
I'll definitely post a more detailed review, best I can, when done.
I look forward to your review. It is a unique cab, and quite different from the Thunderchild (not better or worse, but different).
I chickened out this weekend and used my tried and true Thunderchild on my gig. It ended up being a bit larger room than I originally thought, and for me, a bit of a high profile gig (I was subbing for a very good bassist in St. Louis this weekend). So, didn't want to try something so radically different from what I'm used to.
I'll be gigging in Peoria this weekend, and will find out what kind of gig I'm playing this afternoon. If it is nothing crazy, I'll get the cab on that gig this weekend and give it a good tryout.
My goal is to own just two cabs, a 112 and a 115. This will cover all of my cab requirements for the foreseeable future. My original plan was to have my TC112 and (on order for some time) TC115.
The Acme 112 FR sounded pretty intriguing and I thought it might be cool to have something slightly different for my 112. But since I'll keep one and only one 112 I want to make absolutely sure it's the best possible cab for me, especially as it will get the most use.
My initial impression was that that the Acme is a really cool cab ... and that Duke is one amazing cab builder. I have this suspicion that the results may the same as my TC112 / LDS 12/6 bake off. My Wine Taurus 12/6 was an absolutely fabulous cab, my favorite until the TC112. In the end it was the TC112, winner in the power versus size ratio.
We'll see .....
I'm finding also that it is VERY difficult to top the Thunderchild 112 based on the size/weight/oomph formula. However, the Acme is such a unique sounding box that I feel it will have a place in my cab stable.
I too found the 12/6 builds similar enough in tone to the Thunderchild that the smaller size and 4ohm configuration of the Thunderchild gave it a significant advantage over those bigger 8ohm boxes for stand alone operation. The Acme FullRange sounds different enough that it seems 'another thing' to me. We shall see!
That Streamliner/P bass thing with the Acme is really something. I just have to see what kind of absolute volume it puts out on the gig.
I will definitely have the FullRange on the gig this Saturday. I'm just playing a wedding at a country club in Peoria, so it should be an appropriate venue for this size of cab. I have a 2 hour trio (piano, bass and sax) and then a 4 hour dance gig (two singers, one horn, guitar, bass, drums), so that should give me plenty of time to really see what it can do in a couple of different contexts. So, kind of an old school casual gig.
I'll be using the P Bass (which is always challenging in a trio setting, but I dig it) and the Streamliner.
I'll post up next Sunday.
K
I'll be using the P Bass (which is always challenging in a trio setting, but I dig it) and the Streamliner.
I'll post up next Sunday.
K
Very cool. Post up after you have spent some time with it. Remember, Acme's are one of those cabs that opens up after a few hours of playing, so give it some time. The low end will open up and the top end will smooth out after a few hours when the surround loosens a touch. You don't have to do anything special... just play it at moderate volumes for a day or so prior to really cranking it up.
I spent another round with my Acme 112 FR and can add some additional comments. My test bed included my Acoustic Image Clarus+ and modified Rob Allen MB-2 (with Solid 4 mag pickup only, see avatar). I apologize for any repeats or misquotes from previous posts.
I find the Acme to be a VERY clear sounding cab. As such, it's a bit unforgiving of sloppy play. Proper technique is needed, especially when playing chords or double-stops, which I do a lot. It's starting to open up a bit now and as a result sounds a tad warmer than out of the box. Taming and/or proper use of the high end is the biggest challenge so far. However, goosing the treble is not unpleasant, it just adds to the clarity factor (see "technique" above
)
After playing with it for an hour or so, I broke my rule of giving the Acme extended play before again comparing to the Thunderchild. I plugged in the Thunderchild. I couldn't help it.
I was again struck by the dramatic difference, practically on the first note. By comparison, the TC112 sounded mid-present, somewhat muted, and more mellow sounding. I attribute it to its very even sound palette and Duke's overall design goal. After playing the Acme, the Thunderchild felt a bit more musical, which I believe Ken commented on earlier? It was also more forgiving on technique, again, especially when employing double-stops and chords.
I then returned to the Acme. I backed off the treble a bit more and got a bit closer to the musical quality of the TC112, though it was still astoundingly clear. What I've ignored until now are comments on the Acme low end. Stunning! For fun, I maxed out the bass on the Clarus .... gut wrenching. It's hard to be a bass guitarist and not be moved (in more ways than one) by the Acme low end.
Before retiring for the evening I experimented with the built-in effects on the Clarus+. Chorus, reverb, plate, etc. were all very dramatic with the Acme, more so than I experienced with the Thunderchild. I attribute it to the bigger box, giving the effects an added richness, IMO.
At least one more round of tests to go before I make my final decision. I mentioned in an earlier post that I will keep only one 112 and one 115. So I will either return the Acme or sell the TC112. I'm not off the fence yet, but I'm strongly leaning toward selling the TC112. I wouldn't do this if I didn't have a Thunderchild 115 in the works. Still, it's hard to let go of a cab so beautifully designed and packaged as the TC112.
All comments are strictly my opinions and observations. Others may and will likely have their own views, perhaps quite different than mine.
I find the Acme to be a VERY clear sounding cab. As such, it's a bit unforgiving of sloppy play. Proper technique is needed, especially when playing chords or double-stops, which I do a lot. It's starting to open up a bit now and as a result sounds a tad warmer than out of the box. Taming and/or proper use of the high end is the biggest challenge so far. However, goosing the treble is not unpleasant, it just adds to the clarity factor (see "technique" above
)After playing with it for an hour or so, I broke my rule of giving the Acme extended play before again comparing to the Thunderchild. I plugged in the Thunderchild. I couldn't help it.
I was again struck by the dramatic difference, practically on the first note. By comparison, the TC112 sounded mid-present, somewhat muted, and more mellow sounding. I attribute it to its very even sound palette and Duke's overall design goal. After playing the Acme, the Thunderchild felt a bit more musical, which I believe Ken commented on earlier? It was also more forgiving on technique, again, especially when employing double-stops and chords.
I then returned to the Acme. I backed off the treble a bit more and got a bit closer to the musical quality of the TC112, though it was still astoundingly clear. What I've ignored until now are comments on the Acme low end. Stunning! For fun, I maxed out the bass on the Clarus .... gut wrenching. It's hard to be a bass guitarist and not be moved (in more ways than one) by the Acme low end.
Before retiring for the evening I experimented with the built-in effects on the Clarus+. Chorus, reverb, plate, etc. were all very dramatic with the Acme, more so than I experienced with the Thunderchild. I attribute it to the bigger box, giving the effects an added richness, IMO.
At least one more round of tests to go before I make my final decision. I mentioned in an earlier post that I will keep only one 112 and one 115. So I will either return the Acme or sell the TC112. I'm not off the fence yet, but I'm strongly leaning toward selling the TC112. I wouldn't do this if I didn't have a Thunderchild 115 in the works. Still, it's hard to let go of a cab so beautifully designed and packaged as the TC112.
All comments are strictly my opinions and observations. Others may and will likely have their own views, perhaps quite different than mine.
Nice to get a second opinion on that comparison. Cool!
+1 There is SOMETHING going on in the upper range of the Acme FullRange that I can't put my finger on, but I like it. The low end is obvious and kind of hits you in the face, and I was expecting that, given Andy's design goals. It was the character and aggressive top end (which I believe is that 'unforgiving thing' that you are describing) that was the surprise. Very addicting!
+1 There is SOMETHING going on in the upper range of the Acme FullRange that I can't put my finger on, but I like it. The low end is obvious and kind of hits you in the face, and I was expecting that, given Andy's design goals. It was the character and aggressive top end (which I believe is that 'unforgiving thing' that you are describing) that was the surprise. Very addicting!
I spent another round with my Acme 112 FR and can add some additional comments. My test bed included my Acoustic Image Clarus+ and modified Rob Allen MB-2 (with Solid 4 mag pickup only, see avatar). I apologize for any repeats or misquotes from previous posts.
I find the Acme to be a VERY clear sounding cab. As such, it's a bit unforgiving of sloppy play. Proper technique is needed, especially when playing chords or double-stops, which I do a lot. It's starting to open up a bit now and as a result sounds a tad warmer than out of the box. Taming and/or proper use of the high end is the biggest challenge so far. However, goosing the treble is not unpleasant, it just adds to the clarity factor (see "technique" above
After playing with it for an hour or so, I broke my rule of giving the Acme extended play before again comparing to the Thunderchild. I plugged in the Thunderchild. I couldn't help it.
I was again struck by the dramatic difference, practically on the first note. By comparison, the TC112 sounded mid-present, somewhat muted, and more mellow sounding. I attribute it to its very even sound palette and Duke's overall design goal. After playing the Acme, the Thunderchild felt a bit more musical, which I believe Ken commented on earlier? It was also more forgiving on technique, again, especially when employing double-stops and chords.
I then returned to the Acme. I backed off the treble a bit more and got a bit closer to the musical quality of the TC112, though it was still astoundingly clear. What I've ignored until now are comments on the Acme low end. Stunning! For fun, I maxed out the bass on the Clarus .... gut wrenching. It's hard to be a bass guitarist and not be moved (in more ways than one) by the Acme low end.
Before retiring for the evening I experimented with the built-in effects on the Clarus+. Chorus, reverb, plate, etc. were all very dramatic with the Acme, more so than I experienced with the Thunderchild. I attribute it to the bigger box, giving the effects an added richness, IMO.
At least one more round of tests to go before I make my final decision. I mentioned in an earlier post that I will keep only one 112 and one 115. So I will either return the Acme or sell the TC112. I'm not off the fence yet, but I'm strongly leaning toward selling the TC112. I wouldn't do this if I didn't have a Thunderchild 115 in the works. Still, it's hard to let go of a cab so beautifully designed and packaged as the TC112.
All comments are strictly my opinions and observations. Others may and will likely have their own views, perhaps quite different than mine.
Very nice, this cab is growing on me more with every note! I have found this box likes a different eq than either my Bag Ends or my 810e. Of course there isn't as much volume as either of my other cabs, but the Acme has a presence in the low end that just isn't there with the other cabs. Its just full. I really did't notice how different the low end was until I started putting a little distance between myself and the cabs. Once I got 10-12 ft away the low end just seemed to be everywhere. One of my earlier rigs was a pair of b410 neos, and while the low end was huge it was also loose. It just didn't sound natural and the rest of the spectrum seemed a little hollow. So far, I am really digging the Flatwound.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
From your description, it sounds as though a Flatwound/Full Range stack would envelop the stage in bass while remaining articulate.
From Ken's posts, I surmise the Thunderchild will take a lot of bass EQ without complaint; have you heard your Flatwound "complain" yet?
This is what I notice about this cab also. I remember early discussions with Alex Claber about the sensitivity of the Acme's. His point is that it is better to think of the Acme as 'high sensitivity in the low bass region', versus 'low sensitivity' in general. Of course, that results in these cabs 'needing' more power, but with that additional power (which is cheap these days), you get a much more meaty tone than most (maybe any) other 112 execution out there (and, of course, that can be a strong positive or a negative, depending on instrument, amp and tone goals.)
Since the human ear is more efficient at hearing midrange, the cab won't sound as 'loud' in an absolute sense, but in some contexts and with some instruments, it will sound more full and supportive.
I'm really digging mine, and again, will give it a pretty serious try out at moderately high volumes this Saturday.
And yes, it is a large 112, but so nice and lightweight that it is still easy to schlep.
I've been messing with my Rob Allen Mouse (very deeply voiced piezo pickup semi-acoustic instrument), and with the Streamliner, the low end is literally a thing of wonder... like playing out of a huge PA with high quality subs (of course, at moderate volumes). Maybe too much of a good thing on the gig with that bass, but it is just stunning how much low end (real low end) comes out of this box.
The idea posted earlier and in another thread that these boxes only make sense for 5 string players is ridiculous. It fattens up every string on the bass, for better or worse.
The other thing I notice on this cab is that even though it is cranking a lot of real low end, I don't see the driver piston to the HUGE degree the B210 did. That always kind of worried me, and the cone creasing deal, etc. could be an issue with those. It is too early on to know, but the 12's seem more 'sturdy'.
Of course, that could be the hi pass filtering that Genz builds into their heads that really is a wonderful thing. I have not tried the Streamliner with a B210.
While I did bring my F500 to its knees (i.e., I heard some significant distortion when really digging in at high volumes with my Sadowsky, burping the B string playing at the bridge at high volumes), I have yet to feel I've run out of 'speaker mechanical capability' with the Streamliner at volumes that are as high as with my AE210 and Thunderchild.
We shall again see on the gig, which can be a very different thing, but at the moment, the maximum volume of a 4ohm Acme12 with a good dose of power seems to be in the range of any 112 I've ever experienced.
Edit: Also, I don't feel it is so much the 'power' of the Streamliner that is making the difference, but the limiting design of the Genz amps, that allows them to be pushed hard and still sound musical and 'good'. I would doubt that I'm pushing that much more absolute power with the Streamliner versus my F500, but the F500 finally just gives up the ghost when it is pushed to its absolute limit, whereas the Streamliner kind of does that 'tube amp' sort of thing.. natural, musical compression that still sounds good. I NEVER have an issue with my F500 and a more typical cab (I've played stupid loud outdoor gigs with no PA support with the F500 and the AE410, and never ran out of juice). So, this again illustrates the unique design of the Acme's (again, for better or worse).
Hey Ken,
I know you had an HT112ER to test out a while back - how is the SPL and deepness of the Acme compare to the HT112ER - deeper, tighter, louder?
Thanks,
Bob
I know you had an HT112ER to test out a while back - how is the SPL and deepness of the Acme compare to the HT112ER - deeper, tighter, louder?
Thanks,
Bob
That HT is a wonderful cab. The Acme extends deeper (I think Jim's specs on the HT112ER are -10db at 40 hz if I remember correctly, versus probably only -3db at 40 for the Acme (interpreting Andy's published charts).
The HT112ER has a much more hi fi, sweet, airy top end... VERY different than the more aggressive upper mids and treble coming out of the FullRange.
I would be pretty comfortable saying that the HT112ER 8ohm will get louder in an absolute sense with most micro amps versus the 4ohm Acme 112, but not massively so.
The Acme112 is larger and lighter than the HT112ER (which I guess is now called the HD112).
I do have a clip up of the HT112ER on my Youtube channel, and I think you can probably hear the different nature of the top ends of these cabs.
That all being said, the HT112ER would extend deep enough for the vast majority of players, and I include that cab in my category of 'super 12' cabs, given its surprising volume and low end response compared to most 12's.
IMO and limited IME with the HT112ER.
I believe my TB friend Roger Baer is going to send me one of his new 12/6's to check out. That is another interesting execution, and since I'm kind of ga-ga over these super 12's at the moment, I'll continue to put up clips and reviews, since most would have no opportunity to try these out.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,948
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Ken already posted his response, but I did compare the Acme Flatwound to the HT112ER, and as far as the audible or perceived low end is concerned, the Berg seemed just as big/deep down low. Here's something I posted in another thread that is somewhat related:
Latest posts
-
Would you play gigs with a band that doesn't have a great PA?- Latest: Thunderthumbs73
-
-
-
-
