• 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.

AudioKinesis 112 Cab

Status
Not open for further replies.
#301
What is the consensus on the Thunderchild vs Barefaced Compact?

I am strongly thinking of selling my 1212BMF and picking up one of these cabs.

The Compact is an 8 ohm 115 with the 3015(nonLF) and the Thunderchild of course is a 4 ohm 112. I'd be using either a gk MB500 or LMII. I think either cab would work well for me tonally.

Which would be louder?
 
#302
The compact will be a lot louder per watt at the expense of polar response above 1200hz or so, and smoothness of response above 2khz. Figure about as loud as two thunderchildren per watt.

Taking into account the increase in voltage sensitivity (4 ohms vs. 8 ohms) they should be pretty similar volume with your heads. The compact may have a little more going on on bottom, but I'd have to check it out - will be a bit later before I can model it, but duke might give you better numbers.

If it were me, I'd go with the TC, because I am finnicky about things like midrange dispersion and junk. :) Often, if you can hear clearly off-axis you don't need to turn up quite as loud.
 
#303
KJung said:
+1 on Petebass's post..

Two of these would require a 'dual mono amp' or an amp that is safe at 2ohms. It would be quite a bit wump IMO, but you need that 500 watts per cab or so IMO and IME. That smooth, relatively flat response without that hi bass hump means these cabs sound quite a bit softer at the same 'level of the master knob' as a more typical cab, but if you turn them up and crank some watts into them, they will take it, and you will get a surprising amount of low end out of this little cab.

That being said, the Thunder Child really is designed as a 'on cab' solution for those needed full low end, more volume than a typical 112 or typical 210, and who have size and weight as a key purchase driver, and who use a typical mono micro head that puts out 300-600 watts at 4ohms.

IMO and somewhat limited IME at this point.. only received it a week or so ago.

K
Click to expand...

Ken, I'm using a ShuttleMAX 12; so have the 2 x 4ohm topography covered.
 
#309
rpsands said:
The compact will be a lot louder per watt at the expense of polar response above 1200hz or so, and smoothness of response above 2khz. Figure about as loud as two thunderchildren per watt.

Taking into account the increase in voltage sensitivity (4 ohms vs. 8 ohms) they should be pretty similar volume with your heads. The compact may have a little more going on on bottom, but I'd have to check it out - will be a bit later before I can model it, but duke might give you better numbers.

If it were me, I'd go with the TC, because I am finnicky about things like midrange dispersion and junk. :) Often, if you can hear clearly off-axis you don't need to turn up quite as loud.
Click to expand...
The respective websites say:

Compact - 100dB
TC - 95dB

Also considering that the Compact is a 115 versus the 112 TC... maybe the Compact will produce more volume regardless of ohms? Not sure.

I also have experienced that 115s are generally much fuller sounding than 112s. However, of course, these are not your typical cabs so its very difficult to generalize with any sort of accuracy.... at least for me. As a bassist who does not have alot of highs inherent in his tone, I'm guessing the TC horn might be 'wasted' on me? I do know I like the fullness of 15s. My 15/6 rocks. Is the thunderchild likely to achieve that same fullness?
 
#311
::::BASSIST:::: said:
The respective websites say:

Compact - 100dB
TC - 95dB

Also considering that the Compact is a 115 versus the 112 TC... maybe the Compact will produce more volume regardless of ohms? Not sure.

I also have experienced that 115s are generally much fuller sounding than 112s. However, of course, these are not your typical cabs so its very difficult to generalize with any sort of accuracy.... at least for me. As a bassist who does not have alot of highs inherent in his tone, I'm guessing the TC horn might be 'wasted' on me? I do know I like the fullness of 15s. My 15/6 rocks. Is the thunderchild likely to achieve that same fullness?
Click to expand...

Wow you're right, I'd remembered it closer to 99/96. Chances are good you'd see a slight volume difference with the same amp - just add 3db to the ThunderChild's number and that'll give you a rough figure for its sensitivity in comparison (for the 4 ohm difference).

What's weird is my "calculated" SPL for the 3015 is closer to 98db than the 100db the Eminence FR chart suggests. A lot of the relative volume will depend on whether Duke is using eminence's SPL figure or the less generous calculated or measured figure. I would guess the latter if I had to but since he's around he could probably tell you.

You can expect the TC to be about as loud with your amp as your 15/6 - the 3015LF is closer to 98db than the 3015. It'll have quite a bit less low end extension.

My low end numbers show the 3015 in a 3cf box tuned to 50hz to be almost exactly the same as Duke's -3db and -6db figures (56hz and 48hz respectively).

The 3015LF (in a 4 cubic foot box tuned to 45hz), by contrast, is about -3db at 45hz and -6db @ 40hz. So not a huge deal, but kinda cool.

Hope that helps.
 
#312
::::BASSIST:::: said:
The respective websites say:

Compact - 100dB
TC - 95dB

My 15/6 rocks. Is the thunderchild likely to achieve that same fullness?
Click to expand...


rpsands said:
What's weird is my "calculated" SPL for the 3015 is closer to 98db than the 100db the Eminence FR chart suggests. A lot of the relative volume will depend on whether Duke is using eminence's SPL figure or the less generous calculated or measured figure. I would guess the latter if I had to but since he's around he could probably tell you. is closer to 98db than the 3015. It'll have quite a bit less low end extension.

My low end numbers show the 3015 in a 3cf box tuned to 50hz to be almost exactly the same as Duke's -3db and -6db figures (56hz and 48hz respectively).

The 3015LF (in a 4 cubic foot box tuned to 45hz), by contrast, is about -3db at 45hz and -6db @ 40hz. So not a huge deal, but kinda cool.
Click to expand...

Rpsands is right on the money.

My 95 dB efficiency is calculated from the driver's parameters, and in that sense is comparable with the 98 dB that he calculates for the 3015 (which is the same number I get for that driver). The 3015 has elevated response in the upper midrange region, hence the higher SPL on the Eminence spec sheet. I shoot for a smoother response curve, so don't really have justification for claiming anything higher than 95 dB.

The Compact will indeed play louder than my cab, and a fEarful-type 15/6 will play both louder and deeper.

Sorry for my slowness to get back to this thread; I've been out of town at a home audio trade show.
 
#313
Thanks for confirmation Duke. In that case I would say, given the wattage limitations of ~300 watts @ 8 ohms vs. 500 watts @ 4 ohms, it is probable that the Compact would be negligibly louder than the Thunderchild based on what I know about ::Bassist::'s tone profile.

The advantages of even dispersion and smooth upper mids are a big plus in my book and I expect they would be for him too.
 
#314
Rpsands, just to add a little bit more to the discussion, one "dirty little secret" that we'd all like to ignore is thermal compression. It's normal for a woofer to have about 1 dB of thermal compression at 1/10th its rated power, rising to perhaps 2 dB at 1/2 its rated power and 3 dB at its full rated power. In the Thunderchild vs Compact scenario, when my cab is pushed to its full rated power the Compact is only pushed to about 1/2 its rated power, and as a result my cab will lose about 1 dB more due to thermal compression compared to the Compact. I'm not saying that's a big deal, but rather one of many "little deals" that one might take into account, and an argument for high thermal power handling even if you don't really "need" it, which in this case favors the other cab over mine.

bucephylus said:
Back to AK, couple of questions:

First are these cabs derivative of the fEarful technology? Sorry, but I am interested, but unwilling to prowl through hundreds of pages of posts to see where this came from. Thanks for your patience.

Second, couldn't find a price on the web site. How much are these?
Click to expand...

Thunderchild might be called a derivative of my home audio speakers, but my stuff and greenboy's all trace back to the same basic principles; the difference is in how we've chosen to implement those principles. If I were using a cone midrange, I'd be doing something very similar to the fEarful 12/6/1. Likewise if greenboy had chosen to use a horn, he'd probably be doing something that looks an awful lot like my cab. Someday someone will put 'em side-by-side, and I suspect the difference will come down to which juggling of tradeoffs best suits a particular application.

The price is $700 plus shipping; half up front, and the balance when it's ready to ship.
 
#315
::::BASSIST:::: said:
What is the consensus on the Thunderchild vs Barefaced Compact?

I am strongly thinking of selling my 1212BMF and picking up one of these cabs.

The Compact is an 8 ohm 115 with the 3015(nonLF) and the Thunderchild of course is a 4 ohm 112. I'd be using either a gk MB500 or LMII. I think either cab would work well for me tonally.

Which would be louder?
Click to expand...

All the exact SPL stuff is a bit over my head. I guess I will say that your 1212BMF will be massively louder than this cab in an absolute sense (based on my experience with the 115L+, but it will sound much thinner down low, and MUCH more goosed in the low mids and upper mids. That's not a bad thing, just depends what you want.

I have not played a Barefaced compact, but have spent time with a couple LDS 3015 (non LF) loaded small 115 boxes made by LDS (beautiful sound). Punchier than the Thunderchild, and MUCH more aggressive/less smooth in the upper mids (I have a clip of one of these 115HO boxes on my iComposition site, which should be somewhat similar to the one way Barefaced 115 Compact). The voicing to me is between your very bright, very low end attenuated, uber mid voiced BMF cab, and the more wide, even, deep, smooth and pure voicing of the Thunderchild. Maximum volume would probably be pretty similar with a full 500 watts going into each cab, although my guess is the Compact would still 'sound' loude due to the mid response.

Again, on this cab (and also all the 12/6's I've played) you have to turn that master volume knob up quite a bit more (the lower SPL thing), but the cab will take it, and provide a much more 'big cab' sound without the trade-offs and compromizes of most other 'loud small cabs'. Also, when you dig it, you won't get that loss of low end and compression like most other small, more midrange oriented cabs.

However, if pure volume and 'loudness' is the goal, there are easier and less expensive ways to get there. If 'more than a 210 volume' is the goal, with much more 'real' low end in a very small package, this continues to amaze! IMO and a bit of IME at this point.
 
#316
emjazz said:
Ken, I listened to your clips again, but this time with headphones that I am more familiar with. I was wrong.....it sounds great......damn you.

How do you think it would sound with an Acoustic Image Clarus+? I finally got to play one and I fell in love with it.
Click to expand...

Hey Andy,

It really is something. Not sure about the Clarus +. That's big wattage, so of course, you would have to be careful. My only concern with that combination (having previously owned a FocusII) is that it would be a combination of 'warm and fat and smooth' with 'warm and fat and smooth' between the cab and head, and not much EQ power (the AI EQ is VERY subtle versus your MB). Might actually be a little too much of a good thing. The brighter, tighter voicing of your LMII would, IMO, fit this cab a bit better if you want true full range response.

However, a bit darker, fatter, warmer.... the AI stuff kills. Just worried about the upper mids and treble response with that combination.
 
#318
KJung said:
All the exact SPL stuff is a bit over my head. I guess I will say that your 1212BMF will be massively louder than this cab in an absolute sense (based on my experience with the 115L+, but it will sound much thinner down low, and MUCH more goosed in the low mids and upper mids. That's not a bad thing, just depends what you want.

I have not played a Barefaced compact, but have spent time with a couple LDS 3015 (non LF) loaded small 115 boxes made by LDS (beautiful sound). Punchier than the Thunderchild, and MUCH more aggressive/less smooth in the upper mids (I have a clip of one of these 115HO boxes on my iComposition site, which should be somewhat similar to the one way Barefaced 115 Compact). The voicing to me is between your very bright, very low end attenuated, uber mid voiced BMF cab, and the more wide, even, deep, smooth and pure voicing of the Thunderchild. Maximum volume would probably be pretty similar with a full 500 watts going into each cab, although my guess is the Compact would still 'sound' loude due to the mid response.

Again, on this cab (and also all the 12/6's I've played) you have to turn that master volume knob up quite a bit more (the lower SPL thing), but the cab will take it, and provide a much more 'big cab' sound without the trade-offs and compromizes of most other 'loud small cabs'. Also, when you dig it, you won't get that loss of low end and compression like most other small, more midrange oriented cabs.

However, if pure volume and 'loudness' is the goal, there are easier and less expensive ways to get there. If 'more than a 210 volume' is the goal, with much more 'real' low end in a very small package, this continues to amaze! IMO and a bit of IME at this point.
Click to expand...

If Pure volume were the goal I doubt he'd be dumping the Schroeder...

He certainly is choosing between some mighty nice cabs. With him already having a pair of LDS 3012HO boxes, my reco is the TC. This would give him 3 pretty different sollutions factoring the 15/6 as well... TC for small, 2x repaired 3012HO boxes for medium and 15/6 and poweramp for big...
 
#319
Bmorefoozler said:
If Pure volume were the goal I doubt he'd be dumping the Schroeder...

He certainly is choosing between some mighty nice cabs. With him already having a pair of LDS 3012HO boxes, my reco is the TC. This would give him 3 pretty different sollutions factoring the 15/6 as well... TC for small, 2x repaired 3012HO boxes for medium and 15/6 and poweramp for big...
Click to expand...
Right.

Pure volume is not the goal. Having played my ul112 x 2 rig and 15/6 for quite a while now, I don't know that I can go back to the Schroeder sound. As great as that cab is, I definitely miss the low-end.

I do like having the option of adding the Compact to my LDS 15/6. I have a very BIG car show coming up in Feb. Last year I did it with just the 15/6 and it worked very well, but I can imagine the addition of the 8 ohm Compact could only be a good thing. Anyway, still considering all options... and how much I *need* another cab. :cool:
 
#320
::::BASSIST:::: said:
Right.

Pure volume is not the goal. Having played my ul112 x 2 rig and 15/6 for quite a while now, I don't know that I can go back to the Schroeder sound. As great as that cab is, I definitely miss the low-end.

I do like having the option of adding the Compact to my LDS 15/6. I have a very BIG car show coming up in Feb. Last year I did it with just the 15/6 and it worked very well, but I can imagine the addition of the 8 ohm Compact could only be a good thing. Anyway, still considering all options... and how much I *need* another cab. :cool:
Click to expand...

hmmm... I'm a little over my head here, but the very mid voiced and very high SPL Compact type cab would not be my choice of pairing with the much deeper and lower SPL 15/6.

I'm out of my depth, but that sounds like a match that could be less than optimal. Time for Alex to chime in!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back