Acoustic 600H & 810 cab I tried today!!

[mini455]

Hello, I tried out the 600h & 810 cab today and heres the skinny, 1st NEGATIVE is the cab is very shallow maybe 15 or 16 inches deep and is slanted at the top & bottom, the top slant starts at about 12 inches from the front looking at the cab from the side, the head hangs over that slant at least 2-3 inches which looks horrible. Cab sounded loud but bright, not as low sounding as the 115 or 410 which both are deeper in inches. The head was louder of coarse but didnt sound as deep or as toneful as the 200H, also the 600H is about 2-3 deeper in inches than the 200H, these added inches make the head not fit the cab correctly, from the front the rig looks fine but from the side the head is 2-3 inches longer than the cab which looks like its going to fall off. All the acoustic heads of old fit the cab perfectly and then the slant starts, from the side the 600H looks too big for the cab, the 200H fits MUCH BETTER!! I even tried the 600H with the 115 & 410 and still liked the 200H sound better. Thus my pick is the 200H & 115 cab or better still the 200 combo with the 115 spk.

 

[musicman7722]

Thank you

CP

 

[Gearhead43]

Not a very informative "review".

Who cares if the head hangs off the back by 2-3 inches? What difference does that make, and who'd be looking at the side profile of the rig enough to care? A small overhang isn't going to make the thing fall off.

You didn't really say much about the sound of the rig, what bass you used, EQ settings or ?????

You just focused on the way the head "fits" on the top of the cab.

 

[whanbury]

I would like to know more about the sound, but for me, the head and cab fitting together properly are deal breakers. First off, who would design the stuff like that? Second, how many of us have had drunks, mates, OURSELVES bump a stack and it nearly fell over? The chance for breakage is quite high if the equipment doesn't fit together. That's why they make corner cups!?
So, yeah, if it doesn't fit together right, it wouldn't even turn on for me. Thanks for the information.

 

[will33]

If the cab's that small and loud, it's not going to have any lowend. Forget the 2-3inch hangover thing. The 200 +115 compared to the 600 + 115 would be a much more accurate comparison BUT, cranking the 600 will likely fart out the cab whereas the 200 may not so the 200 may still sound better although I bet it really sounds the same set to the same volume. Figuring manufacturing costs, etc., I bet it's the same pre coupled to a bigger poweramp.

 

[ashtray]

I played the Acoustic 600H and 810 at BP Live this weekend, and spoke to the rep (er, a friend of mine). The amp sounded really good - especially given the price point. Didn't sound "amazing" or anything, but very solid, decent tone. The cab put out some sound. I think it sells for $500 or so? For an 8x10 cab! That's very tempting by itself.

According to the rep, each row of 10's has a partition separating it from the speakers below it, but the partition isn't solid - so it allow air to pass ("porting" between the speaker sets), resulting in lower frequency something or other. The cab itself isn't ported to the outside.

As a side note, got to A/B test it vs John Paul Jones' actual Acoustic 360 stack (with the powered folded 18" speaker cab). The old 360 was cool - it boomed low, and from across the room it sounded good. But in a practical manner, the new 8x10 cab with the 600H head sounded better (more full range), and would be much more practical to move around. Oh, don't get me wrong - I'd rather have JPJ's 360 - but only for show/display. The 600H/810 would be my choice for everyday and gigging use.

(I tried out an Aguilar 810 setup later that day, but it's tough to really A/B the amps when you're in a noisy environment, so I can't give a comparison to the Acoustic. The Aguilar setup had a LOT of hiss though - really turned me off.)

 

[will33]

According to the rep, each row of 10's has a partition separating it from the speakers below it, but the partition isn't solid - so it allow air to pass ("porting" between the speaker sets), resulting in lower frequency something or other. The cab itself isn't ported to the outside.

That much is pure marketing BS, no porting, no lower freqency response, just a simple sealed cab with some bracing. Hey, at least it has some bracing in it for being so cheap but it does absolutely nothing as far as lowend response or anything else that guy told you. Not saying it does or doesn't sound good, I haven't heard it, but I can tell you that partition, porting, lower response stuff is BS. I bet his shoes were nice and shiny too, slick hair maybe?

 

[Lowbrow]

That much is pure marketing BS, no porting, no lower freqency response, just a simple sealed cab with some bracing. Hey, at least it has some bracing in it for being so cheap but it does absolutely nothing as far as lowend response or anything else that guy told you. Not saying it does or doesn't sound good, I haven't heard it, but I can tell you that partition, porting, lower response stuff is BS. I bet his shoes were nice and shiny too, slick hair maybe?

Wow. A lot of heat in this thread, much of it second or third hand.

I own the B600H, and it is so far everything I hoped for: a 2-ohm big-rig version of the seductive tone stack that I (and many others) surprisingly discovered in the B200 combo and B200H head.

To be fair, I use the head to power two Schroeder cabs, so no detailed comment on the B810; I spent a few minutes checking out the head's operation through the cab, and found the B810 to sound more like a large 4x10, or as some have said, a pile of 2x10s, rather than, say, a quality 8x10 SVT cab (which are sealed and w/out porting, BTW). And I don't really like 10" speakers except in the best SVT cabs, so I'm not a good judge.

My GC only had one B600H head in stock, so I took the time to ensure all the switches, pots, and connections worked correctly, then took it home to truly judge its worth with my 2 4-ohm cabs.

In that context, I'm VERY happy to say that it carried over all that I found to be right with the B200 and B200H, only at three times the power. I must say that the headroom is ample; I have not gigged it yet, but suffice it to say it gets loud enough that I haven't seen either of my cats in about two days.

The user-accessible cost-cutting points are obvious: mainly the head's light-duty dip switches and its rear-panel DI-level and effects-loop mix dials -- IMO these are simple components that I feel I may bring to a tech to have switched out for more heavy-duty versions if called for. I don't intend to do heavy touring or leave this amp in a rehearsal space as shared equipment, so it really should not pose a problem in my life.

Also of note is the head's lack of a second Speakon connection. That may freak some people out, and while I consider it a design gaffe with regard to modern expectations, a geezer like myself who happily used a GK 400RB for many years sees standard multiple 1/4" speaker outs as the norm anyway. Note, too, that I always found that my GK sounded good powering almost any speaker cab (that wasn't blown), and I'll assume for the moment that the B600H will have the same quality -- as demonstrated through my Schroeders.

UPSHOT: For the price, sound, and power, I give a big thumbs up to the B600H.

 

[Bassmore]

Wow. A lot of heat in this thread, much of it second or third hand.

I own the B600H, and it is so far everything I hoped for: a 2-ohm big-rig version of the seductive tone stack that I (and many others) surprisingly discovered in the B200 combo and B200H head.

To be fair, I use the head to power two Schroeder cabs, so no detailed comment on the B810; I spent a few minutes checking out the head's operation through the cab, and found the B810 to sound more like a large 4x10, or as some have said, a pile of 2x10s, rather than, say, a quality 8x10 SVT cab (that are sealed and w/out porting, BTW). And I don't really like 10" speakers except in the best SVT cabs, so I'm not a good judge.

My GC only had one B600H head in stock, so I took the time to ensure all the switches, pots, and connections worked correctly, then took it home to truly judge its worth with my 2 4-ohm cabs.

In that context, I'm VERY happy to say that it carried over all that I found to be right with the B200 and B200H, only at three times the power. I must say that the headroom is ample; I have not gigged it yet, but suffice it to say it gets loud enough that I haven't seen either of my cats in about two days.

The user-accessible cost-cutting points are obvious: mainly the head's light-duty dip switches and DI-level and effects-loop mix dials -- IMO these are simple components that I feel I may bring to a tech to have switched out for more heavy-duty versions if called for. I don't intend to do heavy touring or leave this amp in a rehearsal space as shared equipment, so it really should not pose a problem in my life.

Also of note is the head's lack of a second Speakon connection. That may freak some people out, and while I consider it a design gaffe with regard to modern expectations, a geezer like myself who happily used a GK 400RB for many years sees standard multiple 1/4" speaker outs as the norm anyway. Note too that I always found that my GK sounded good powering almost any speaker cab (that wasn't not blown), and I'll assume for the moment that the B600H will have the same quality -- as demonstrated through my Schroeders.

UPSHOT: For the price, sound, and power, I give a big thumbs up to the B600H.

+1!

Lowbrow,

Nicely done fair review. Pretty damn rig too! I wish I had never parted with my ol' GK400RB, it was my second amp back in the day, late 70's, after I traded in a Sunn Concert for it. I wish I knew then what I know now. Anyhoo, that does seem a little strange that the B600H hangs over the back of the B810 but I'm sure it's nice thick rubber feet are set firmly, they really grip well on the tolex. I actually have my B600H and B200H stacked vertically, one on top of the other (although not a config. recommended for gigs) and after cranking it (well, almost, lets say at 12:00) for awhile in a pretty small room they never budged so I guess that's something people should factor in if they are concerned.
Now, I thinking it's time to lower my pick-ups on some of my basses just a bit, I no longer have to strain a single bit to be heard very well it's more like the other way around I mean I'm afraid if I get into it like I used to have to I may just blow something up!

Play On!

Bassmore

 

[Lowbrow]

Figuring manufacturing costs, etc., I bet it's the same pre coupled to a bigger poweramp.

BTW peeked in through the top grilles of my B600H, and the preamp board reads "Acoustic B600 preamp, Rev. Aug 2008," which would place it's engineering date later than that of the B200H. Also, the preamp's EQ tone stack differs in that the subs band is centered at 40 hz, unlike the B200H, which goes down to only 63 hz.

Free speech makes allowances for voicing pure speculation, but in the interest of accurate information -- or even informed opinions -- it would be nice if "reviewers" would take to time see and hear the equipment they are commenting on so they can add observations that are based on, well, observations.

 

[will33]

I stand corrected on the amp. My BS calling was related to the spiel about the internal construction of the 810 as was described by ashtrays salesman guy. It's simple bracing, doesn't lower any response, doesn't qualify as a port, etc. Typical hype.

 

[GaryLC]

I'm still waffling whether I'm going to get the 200H or the 600H. I tried the 200H, and loved it, but our local GC doesn't have any 600H's yet. I probably don't need all the power, will be using it mostly with an Epifani UL310, but have an Avatar 212 that I could add to the stack.....and maybe the 600 would shine there!

 

[will33]

I did goof around with the 200 for a little bit, has a nice thick sound to it. Haven't heard the 600, apparently the pre is different.

 

[Stacknobuser]

That much is pure marketing BS, no porting, no lower freqency response, just a simple sealed cab with some bracing. Hey, at least it has some bracing in it for being so cheap but it does absolutely nothing as far as lowend response or anything else that guy told you. Not saying it does or doesn't sound good, I haven't heard it, but I can tell you that partition, porting, lower response stuff is BS. I bet his shoes were nice and shiny too, slick hair maybe?

OK, since you asked a question, I guess it is OK to respond.

First of all, LOL on the shiny shoes and slicked back hair. Neither are correct, and if you knew the parties involved you would be as amused as we are and realize that nothing could be further from the truth.

On the "pure marketing BS", as you put it, perhaps an explanation is in order.

When you build an 810 by making four individual sealed 2 x 10" internal enclosures each speaker sees a relatively small internal cabinet volume and interacts with that. If you have a speaker that is designed to operate optimally in that environment, no problem, but there is a very high degree of damping as each speaker interacts in a very limited internal cabinet space or doghouse.

When you build an 810 as Acoustic has done, by opening up the chambers, even though the TOTAL internal cabinet volume is unchanged, each speaker is allowed to interact with the entire internal volume of the cabinet which produces lower damping overall and a lower resonant frequency for the cabinet. This assumes that the speakers are designed to operate optimally in this environment, which these are.

The science behind this enclosure and the quasi-open chambers in our opinion provides the best of both worlds. The punch of an 810 with a lower resonant frequency and deeper and more pronounced bottom end, and solid bracing between each pair of speakers, without the floppyness of porting.

In terms of the "art", suggest you audition and compare the cab with your ears rather than dismissing the performance as "pure marketing BS" without having actually checked out the product.

 

[Bassmore]

OK, since you asked a question, I guess it is OK to respond.

First of all, LOL on the shiny shoes and slicked back hair. Neither are correct, and if you knew the parties involved you would be as amused as we are and realize that nothing could be further from the truth.

On the "pure marketing BS", as you put it, perhaps an explanation is in order.

When you build an 810 by making four individual sealed 2 x 10" internal enclosures each speaker sees a relatively small internal cabinet volume and interacts with that. If you have a speaker that is designed to operate optimally in that environment, no problem, but there is a very high degree of damping as each speaker interacts in a very limited internal cabinet space or doghouse.

When you build an 810 as Acoustic has done, by opening up the chambers, even though the TOTAL internal cabinet volume is unchanged, each speaker is allowed to interact with the entire internal volume of the cabinet which produces lower damping overall and a lower resonant frequency for the cabinet. This assumes that the speakers are designed to operate optimally in this environment, which these are.

The science behind this enclosure and the quasi-open chambers in our opinion provides the best of both worlds. The punch of an 810 with a lower resonant frequency and deeper and more pronounced bottom end, and solid bracing between each pair of speakers, without the floppyness of porting.

In terms of the "art", suggest you audition and compare the cab with your ears rather than dismissing the performance as "pure marketing BS" without having actually checked out the product.

Stacknobuser,

Well said! I hope all went well in LA. I have another question or two. Was the over hang of the B600H considered in design when it is placed on top of the B810? Are different 10" speakers used in the B810 than those in the B410? Were the two lower EQ knobs (bands) on the B600H , 40Hz and 120Hz (I think) put there by design for a better Low B response or better speaker response using the B810 or both and will the speakers in my B115 and B410 properly handle the lower parameters of the B600H's EQ? Is the B410 cab designed in the same way as you have just described the B810? I've heard many who were impressed with it's lower end response. Just curious.

Many Thanks again to you and all their at Acoustic.

Play On!

Bassmore

 

[Gearhead43]

Thanks Stack,

Finally some facts in this thread instead of conjecture and speculation.

 

[shoot-r]

Stacknobuser, With the current trend to micro heads, do you forsee G.C. Acoustic coming out with a micro B600? Thanks.

 

[Stacknobuser]

Stacknobuser, With the current trend to micro heads, do you forsee G.C. Acoustic coming out with a micro B600? Thanks.

The Acoustic brand has always been known for large and loud, and that philosophy continues. This of course, is quite the opposite of the current fashion in the category.

I did pick up a nice 301 cab over the weekend, and wow!

Something like that would be much more logical extension for future product development.

Plus, there are so many good mini and micro products out there that it does not seem to make sense for Acoustic at this time to jump into the fray.

But...never say never. As long as it doesn't go so far as shark jumping, we will always keep an open mind.

 

[musicman7722]

Well I went in to GC today and returned my B200 15" combo. Not that I didn't like it BUT I traded up for the new B600H head. I have the B200H now and 2 Avatar neo 210 cabs so just didn't need the 15" combo but I really wanted the B60H. I really felt though that owning 3 different ams for me was to much.

Now I only played the head for maybe 10 minutes through the Acoustic 15" and 4 10 cabs but man was it nice. I really liked being able to switch off the para filter. Wow what a nice difference.

Finally I noted that the FX loop has a variable pot to control the wet/dry. Man they added a lot of features for just an extra $250.

Hey I forget can this amp do 2ohms?

Cheers CP

 

[Bassmore]

Well I went in to GC today and returned my B200 15" combo. Not that I didn't like it BUT I traded up for the new B600H head. I have the B200H now and 2 Avatar neo 210 cabs so just didn't need the 15" combo but I really wanted the B60H. I really felt though that owning 3 different ams for me was to much.

Now I only played the head for maybe 10 minutes through the Acoustic 15" and 4 10 cabs but man was it nice. I really liked being able to switch off the para filter. Wow what a nice difference.

Finally I noted that the FX loop has a variable pot to control the wet/dry. Man they added a lot of features for just an extra $250.

Hey I forget can this amp do 2ohms?

Cheers CP

2 Ohms? Why certainly. That's how you get the full 600W RMS!!! Should be way Monster Killer through your 2 x Avatars. I'm assuming they are 4 Ohm each and at least 300W?

Glad to hear someone else is diggin' these things!

Play On!

Bassmore