AudioKinesis 112 Cab

[IntrepidCellist]

So I'm assuming you think the Thunder Child is a 'keeper'?

[...maybe you should move it from your GAS list to your current setup list... -- I know, you're too busy enjoying the cab -- I probably would be too. ]

Fine, be that way.

I'm actually too busy "enjoying" being a first-year law student right now to really get to enjoy the cab

 

[John D Harris]

Fine, be that way.

I'm actually too busy "enjoying" being a first-year law student right now to really get to enjoy the cab

Now I'm afraid that you won't have the time to give that Child the proper attention that it deserves.
I'd volunteer to help nurture it along for you if you didn't live so far away.
Oh Darn!

 

[IntrepidCellist]

It's currently acting as a large home audio speaker actually while I study. Sounds pretty good in that context too!

I'll get to give it some attention eventually. Just not this month or the next.

 

[kittyboy]

Would anyone be willing to compare the Thunderchild to an acme B-1, in terms of tone, SPL, and portability?

What are the dimensions of the Thunderchild?

 

[KJung]

Would anyone be willing to compare the Thunderchild to an acme B-1, in terms of tone, SPL, and portability?

What are the dimensions of the Thunderchild?

I owned a B1 in the past. The Thunderchild is approximately 14 by 14 by 20 high, and 34 pounds. It is probably four times as loud as the B1 (max SPL... lets just say lots louder), takes less watts to get there, but does not extend as deep (of course, nothing extends as deep as the Acme cabs). It would be much closer in output to the B210 than the B110.

It is punchier though, and it has a different top end (that I like much better... a bit more balanced to my ear between the driver and the mid/tweeter).

The tuning and that super duper 3012LF driver allows it to put out 'real' low end at 'more than 210 levels', and the 4ohm impedance makes it a great match with various micro heads.

You also don't have to worry about the drivers being 'overextended' or whatever like with the Acme's when you really push them without a hi pass filter. The combination of high xmax and hi 'xmech' (if I have that term right), and 'reasonable' tuning to around 50hz works really nicely.

Nothing sounds like an Acme other than an Acme, so it is a bit of a different vibe, but a single Thunderchild will massively bury the little B110, and easily keep up with the B210 in volume.

IMO and IME!

 

[KJung]

OK, November 13th I have a loud gig in a moderate sized room with an UGLY load in (large hotel in a very busy part of St. Louis with suck parking and suck load in)... so the Thunderchild will get a full 'baptism by fire' with an 8 piece band playing pop music with no front of house support. I'm thinking it is going to do fine! We shall see... this is exactly the type of gig I purchased it for.

I've used my 115L+ in this room, and it did fine also, although without much true low end. So, we shall see!

I was going to use my AE212, but this is just too good of a gig to pass up for seeing what this little cab will do with my F500 and my Alleva-Coppolo LM5.

 

[rpsands]

Would anyone be willing to compare the Thunderchild to an acme B-1, in terms of tone, SPL, and portability?

In numeric terms of SPL, the Thunderchild should be in between the sensitivity of a B2 and a B4.

 

[Lowtonejoe]

In numeric terms of SPL, the Thunderchild should be in between the sensitivity of a B2 and a B4.

Joe.

 

[KJung]

Joe.

To be clear, there is no way this little box is going to keep up with a 410 (Acme or otherwise) powered optimally. However, it is a 'super 112', and will give virtually any 210 a run for its money if you pump enough watts into it (optimally 400-500).

 

[kittyboy]

I owned a B1 in the past. The Thunderchild is approximately 14 by 14 by 20 high, and 34 pounds. It is probably four times as loud as the B1 (max SPL... lets just say lots louder), takes less watts to get there, but does not extend as deep (of course, nothing extends as deep as the Acme cabs). It would be much closer in output to the B210 than the B110.

It is punchier though, and it has a different top end (that I like much better... a bit more balanced to my ear between the driver and the mid/tweeter).

The tuning and that super duper 3012LF driver allows it to put out 'real' low end at 'more than 210 levels', and the 4ohm impedance makes it a great match with various micro heads.

You also don't have to worry about the drivers being 'overextended' or whatever like with the Acme's when you really push them without a hi pass filter. The combination of high xmax and hi 'xmech' (if I have that term right), and 'reasonable' tuning to around 50hz works really nicely.

Nothing sounds like an Acme other than an Acme, so it is a bit of a different vibe, but a single Thunderchild will massively bury the little B110, and easily keep up with the B210 in volume.

IMO and IME!

Thanks very much for that.

So while it's quieter, the B1 is still a fair bit smaller, which is nice, and can run full-range as a mini-PA.

Does the wildchild in it's current configuration have potential to double as a mini-PA, ie, does the horn extend out to anywhere near 20khz?

The truth is that I don't need the ultra-lows of the B1, but it's size and full-range response make it a cool doubling cab, with a pair able to do small bass gigs or work as a mini PA for guitar or singer-songwriter stuff...

And then I have a 12/6 when more volume is required.

But maybe a pair of Wildchilds would be all I need?

 

[KJung]

Thanks very much for that.

So while it's quieter, the B1 is still a fair bit smaller, which is nice, and can run full-range as a mini-PA.

Does the wildchild in it's current configuration have potential to double as a mini-PA, ie, does the horn extend out to anywhere near 20khz?

The truth is that I don't need the ultra-lows of the B1, but it's size and full-range response make it a cool doubling cab, with a pair able to do small bass gigs or work as a mini PA for guitar or singer-songwriter stuff...

And then I have a 12/6 when more volume is required.

But maybe a pair of Wildchilds would be all I need?

Thunder Child is the name, although I like 'Wild Child'. Yes, these are 'PA Quality cabs', and I believe the top end extends to 18K. The low end is obviously similar to the 12/6 (a little higher tuning, due to Duke's proprietary driver). The tone of the Thunder Child is a bit between a 'regular' two way 112 and the 12/6. Almost as deep as the 12/6, but with a more present upper mid and treble response (and not as 'hi fi sounding as the 12/6/1 cabs I've played).

The big differences (besides the more extended range and the different nature of the upper mids) between the Thunderchild and the 12/6 is SPL. Since Duke has a custom designed version of the 3012LF which is tuned a bit higher and is 4ohm, this cab will wump quite a bit more with the typical solid state 500 watt micro head (Markbass, GK, whatever) than the lower SPL, 8ohm, slightly deeper voiced 12/6. It also allows for a smaller box.

Pretty cool. Definitely not 'better' than either the 12/6 or Acme, but definitely 'different' and it fits my tone goals better than either of those. It's kind of a 'better' traditional 2 way cab (by better, I mean deeper, louder, smoother, better dispersion than a typical 112 or 210), but not as radically different sounding as the cabs with the deeper tuning and mid driver like the Acme and 12/6.

Hope that makes sense. The niche for this product is the 'almost as loud and deep as a much bigger cab that you can easily one hand to the gig and power to full performance with a small micro head'.

Edit: TBer Mothra2 has an Acme B210 and also had a Thunder Child for a short while. He liked his B210 a bit better, so if he doesn't show up here, PM him and he can give you a different perspective, which is always good to have.

 

[rpsands]

To be clear, there is no way this little box is going to keep up with a 410 (Acme or otherwise) powered optimally. However, it is a 'super 112', and will give virtually any 210 a run for its money if you pump enough watts into it (optimally 400-500).

In terms of sensitivity, the difference in SPL will be very minor between a B4 and the Thunderchild. If the B4 is 8 ohms, the Thunderchild will be slightly louder per watt.

The difference is low end extension and overall power handling (the latter being less than you might think; the Acme drivers don't have much difference between xLim and xMax as you've pointed out, and do not have an excess of thermal power handling either).

Please remember that the Acme B4 is 3db quieter than a cheap 4x10, with an extra octave of low end extension as a result.

 

[rpsands]

Thanks very much for that.

So while it's quieter, the B1 is still a fair bit smaller, which is nice, and can run full-range as a mini-PA.

Does the wildchild in it's current configuration have potential to double as a mini-PA, ie, does the horn extend out to anywhere near 20khz?

The truth is that I don't need the ultra-lows of the B1, but it's size and full-range response make it a cool doubling cab, with a pair able to do small bass gigs or work as a mini PA for guitar or singer-songwriter stuff...

And then I have a 12/6 when more volume is required.

But maybe a pair of Wildchilds would be all I need?

Duke's cab will be comparable to the Acmes in terms of full rangeness. I haven't seen an FR chart to say what the "flatness" is like - I would guess it is slightly voiced, so probably not as true flat as the Acmes.

I would not hesitate to run vocals through the TC based on what I know about it.

 

[Lowtonejoe]

To be clear, there is no way this little box is going to keep up with a 410 (Acme or otherwise) powered optimally. However, it is a 'super 112', and will give virtually any 210 a run for its money if you pump enough watts into it (optimally 400-500).

Yup. Already understood but good to point out.



Joe.

 

[KJung]

In terms of sensitivity, the difference in SPL will be very minor between a B4 and the Thunderchild. If the B4 is 8 ohms, the Thunderchild will be slightly louder per watt.

The difference is low end extension and overall power handling (the latter being less than you might think; the Acme drivers don't have much difference between xLim and xMax as you've pointed out, and do not have an excess of thermal power handling either).

Please remember that the Acme B4 is 3db quieter than a cheap 4x10, with an extra octave of low end extension as a result.

+1 Just saying if you pump enough power into that B4, it gets pretty darn loud, and if you hi pass it a bit, you won't run into the xlim and xmax issue that many do with the Acme's.

I'm no Acme fan, and I hear what you are saying. An AWFUL LOT of power goes into pushing those extremely deep frequencies, and the mid driver and tweeter seem quite overwhelmed by even the B210 much less the B410 on the gig when you are wumping.

But... a box that is much bigger usually wins the max SPL fight!

 

[rpsands]

+1 Just saying if you pump enough power into that B4, it gets pretty darn loud, and if you hi pass it a bit, you won't run into the xlim and xmax issue that many do with the Acme's.

I'm no Acme fan, and I hear what you are saying. An AWFUL LOT of power goes into pushing those extremely deep frequencies, and the mid driver and tweeter seem quite overwhelmed by even the B210 much less the B410 on the gig when you are wumping.

But... a box that is much bigger usually wins the max SPL fight!

I think you'll need more power than a conventional mini amp (500w/300w) to make the B4 more than a tiny bit louder than the thunderchild. Certainly, a thunderchild has more volume and power handling than a B2 in every respect except below the tuning frequency of the TC.

And remember, those Acme woofers are thermally rated around 150 watts apiece. So you really do not have that much more headroom even with a high pass.

Anyway...it will win the SPL fight, but it's not by as much as folks think. I would expect some people would have a hard time telling the difference in overall volume.

Also worth noting the differences in sensitivity in the midrange/horn sections; I am not sure but I would say it is pretty probable that there is more volume headroom before distortion with Duke's mid/high section than the Acmes.

What that means is that I think it is probable you could coax more overall volume out of the TC than its sensitivity figure suggests, if you were willing to go with a mid heavy tone profile.

short version: It's a pretty complex issue but I think some people would find a TC an adequate replacement for a B4, if they are willing to give up extension and are not pushing the limits of how loud the B4 can go.

 

[IntrepidCellist]

It sounds great as a slightly bottom-heavy PA speaker with my Eden driving it and my iPod running into the Aux In. Some of that is probably the amp's characteristics, but it sounds very good full-range for recorded music.

 

[mothra2]

... Edit: TBer Mothra2 has an Acme B210 and also had a Thunder Child for a short while. He liked his B210 a bit better, so if he doesn't show up here, PM him and he can give you a different perspective, which is always good to have.

Well, for me I found the TC to be voiced a bit lower, believe it or not, then my B2. As such I could not seem to coax the 'openness' that I achieve with my Acme. I also found the bass, while very good, to be again more closed in and slightly thicker. The overall sound for me just didn't have enough space in it if compared to the B2 (if that makes any sense).

Unaltered the horn blends in seemlessly with the 12, but I felt that when I pushed freq's around the 2.2k region in an attempt to bring on a bit of wood, things started to get a bit 'smackie' for me from the horn's delivery as well (by comparison).

There is no doubt in my mind that the TC would muscle it's way thru a dense mix better with great dispersion (although I never gigged it), just not with the sound I wanted.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Does the wildchild in it's current configuration have potential to double as a mini-PA, ie, does the horn extend out to anywhere near 20khz?

The wild/Thunderchild could theoretically be used as a mini-PA cab. I think my claimed top-end extension is something like 18 kHz, but the actual measurements would justify a claim of 20 kHz if I wanted to push it.

I've toyed with the idea of doing a more PA-optimized version of wild/Thunderchild. The main difference would be a more expensive compression driver with higher thermal power handling, as the spectral balance for PA has a lot more energy at high frequencies than the spectral balance for bass guitar.

 

[JimmyM]

The wild/Thunderchild could theoretically be used as a mini-PA cab. I think my claimed top-end extension is something like 18 kHz, but the actual measurements would justify a claim of 20 kHz if I wanted to push it.

I've toyed with the idea of doing a more PA-optimized version of wild/Thunderchild. The main difference would be a more expensive compression driver with higher thermal power handling, as the spectral balance for PA has a lot more energy at high frequencies than the spectral balance for bass guitar.

does that mean we'd run the risk of blowing the horn if we used them for double duty?