AudioKinesis 112 Cab

[KJung]

Based on your a/b with these two cabs, which is louder?

Anyone know off hand if Duke can do an 8 ohm Thunderchild?

No 8ohm Thunderchild, but Duke does make a larger, similar cab with the stock 8ohm 3012LF and a more beefy driver for the big horn.

I'm my experience, WITH THE SAME POWER, the 12/6 will get louder. It is voiced deeper and is a bigger box. However, given the different impedances, it is hard to get the same amount of power into an 8 ohm 12/6 versus the 4ohm ThunderChild with many of the micro heads on the market. One of Duke's design goals was to produce a small cab with many of the tonal benefits of the more stock 12/6 type cabs, but that can be used optimally with the small 500 watt class micro amps on the market.

Literally a perfect cab for those looking for a relatively deep bass response, a relatively even mid response, a bit of sparkle up top (if you want it), in the absolutely smallest configuration possible. And you get that improvement in upper mid dispersion as a bonus, like the 12/6 cabs.

Kind of a miracle cab to me, and for others who are looking for a very small, single cab solution for use with a micro head that sounds MUCH bigger than it actually is

 

[JxBass]

Based on your a/b with these two cabs, which is louder?

Anyone know off hand if Duke can do an 8 ohm Thunderchild?

Ken's comments right on as usual. I'll add that I haven't yet had the chance to A/B them in a setting where I can do a true volume test. What I have found is that my Thunderchild takes more low end than my 12/6 before breaking up. This could be unique to my combination of preferred EQ settings and (semi-hollow) basses, etc. A true test would be flat settings in a big space, which I haven't done.

 

[greenboy]

What I have found is that my Thunderchild takes more low end than my 12/6 before breaking up.

It sounds like your LDS 12/6 is not tuned/ported correctly then.

A true test would be flat settings in a big space, which I haven't done.

Yes. That's a closer way to gauge what is really what.

 

[JxBass]

It sounds like your LDS 12/6 is not tuned/ported correctly then.

I recall some interesting discussions on the LDS thread about porting Don's cabs. I have wondered whether Duke's ports better match his design.

 

[greenboy]

Duke knows how to tune a cab to the driver, and measures to make sure.

There are two possible issues here with the LDS: chuffing, which means a port makes sounds when the cab is driven harder, and that can sometimes give the impression that no more bass response is forthcoming. That would indicate that there is not enough port cross-sectional area, determined by frontal dimensions.

The other issue would be tuning wrong so that the response curve is not complimentary to the driver in that size of box. That can be adjusted by shortening or lengthening the porting.

 

[KJung]

I recall some interesting discussions on the LDS thread about porting Don's cabs. I have wondered whether Duke's ports better match his design.

I would doubt it. I've played many of the LDS 12/6's, and the low end is just beautiful to me. These are just very different sounding executions with quite different drivers, impedance, mid response...everything. Hard to exactly compare, but with enough power, I think you will find the 12/6 pulling ahead a bit from the smaller, tighter voiced ThunderChild in absolute low end and max SPL.

However, again, for single cab use with a micro, and for at least my tone goals, the TC is literally perfect

 

[LeonD]

I've read some of the posts about this cab and it seems interesting. I'm trying to figure where it fits sound wise compared to what I have and know.

The cabs I've been playing are an Epifani UL112 s1, a pair of Genz Benz Neo 112's and an Epifani UL410 s1. Sound wise, where does the ThunderChild fit?

For reference, I'll be using a GB Shuttle 9.0 and Sadowsky WL4.

Also, once placing an order, what's the turnaround time to receive the cabinet?

Thanks.

 

[KJung]

I've read some of the posts about this cab and it seems interesting. I'm trying to figure where it fits sound wise compared to what I have and know.

The cabs I've been playing are an Epifani UL112 s1, a pair of Genz Benz Neo 112's and an Epifani UL410 s1. Sound wise, where does the ThunderChild fit?

Also, once placing an order, what's the turnaround time to receive the cabinet?

Thanks.

I'm very familiar with all those cabs. The TC is a bit different than any of them. I guess the closest would be if you ever played a 112UL/110UL stack. The TC is more mid present and punchy than the 112UL, and will GREATLY exceed the max SPL of the 112UL. So, it is a bit like that nice 112UL/110UL stack... with the nice deep low end of the 112UL, but with a MUCH more even mid response, especially in the low mids and upper mids (which the 110UL kind of provides in that stack). The treble response is a bit more organic and polite versus the airy sizzle you get with the 112UL (and all the UL's for that matter, given that hole in the upper mids between the top end of the driver and the tweeter).

All nice stuff, but the TC is a bit of its own thing... max volume-wise with 500 watts or so into 4ohms, it will sit between your 112UL and your Genz stack.

 

[LeonD]

Thanks Ken. I don't think the TC is the cab for me.

I was using the UL112 for small gigs and the UL410 for larger ones. Then I thought to try the GB Neo 112 pair to replace both. The UL 112 is now gone and I've been comparing the UL410 to the GB Neo 112 pair.

And the UL is winning out. I guess I'm looking for something with the UL410 sound in a small, light, portable package.

 

[KJung]

Thanks Ken. I don't think the TC is the cab for me.

I was using the UL112 for small gigs and the UL410 for larger ones. Then I thought to try the GB Neo 112 pair to replace both. The UL 112 is now gone and I've been comparing the UL410 to the GB Neo 112 pair.

And the UL is winning out. I guess I'm looking for something with the UL410 sound in a small, light, portable package.

Makes sense. That 410UL(I) is a beautiful box. I actually spec'd a little LDS coax 112 using a coax B&C driver that IMO really nailed the 410UL tone in a VERY small box. It didn't quite fit in my amp portfolio at the time, so my buddy Jason (TBer Vision) is using it now as his small cab option when his 410UL(I) is too much. It sounds KILLER, and VERY much like the 410UL (I) to my ear.

You might want to PM Jason (Vision) and ask him about it. It is like a smaller, punchier, 112UL.

Jason has a killer live clip of that cab up on Youtube if you search for Jason Phelps Liquid Soul... check out the 'Actual Proof' clip (killing in every way... and that cab does the 'airy top end with upper mid grind' just like the 410UL(I) IMO).

 

[JxBass]

I'm very familiar with all those cabs. The TC is a bit different than any of them. I guess the closest would be if you ever played a 112UL/110UL stack. The TC is more mid present and punchy than the 112UL, and will GREATLY exceed the max SPL of the 112UL. So, it is a bit like that nice 112UL/110UL stack... with the nice deep low end of the 112UL, but with a MUCH more even mid response, especially in the low mids and upper mids (which the 110UL kind of provides in that stack). The treble response is a bit more organic and polite versus the airy sizzle you get with the 112UL (and all the UL's for that matter, given that hole in the upper mids between the top end of the driver and the tweeter).

All nice stuff, but the TC is a bit of its own thing... max volume-wise with 500 watts or so into 4ohms, it will sit between your 112UL and your Genz stack.

Great analogy. I've owned several Epifani cabs and the UL110/UL112 is my preferred pairing by far (the UL110 is my favorite Epi cab). The TC does indeed combine the best of those two tone profiles into a single box.

 

[shrigg]

All I can say is I'm very excited to get my Thunderchild! About a month till it's ready....

 

[Handyman]

Can anyone tell me how this would compare to something like Bill Fitzmaurice's Jack 12? I'm assuming this guy is smaller and lighter, by eyeballing the thing. What about things like volume, frequency response, and sensitivity?

 

[KJung]

Can anyone tell me how this would compare to something like Bill Fitzmaurice's Jack 12? I'm assuming this guy is smaller and lighter, by eyeballing the thing. What about things like volume, frequency response, and sensitivity?

Based on reviews and my very limited, short tryout of one of the Jack 12's, the TC has much more low end, much lower SPL (which the 4ohm impedance helps with). Maximum volume... probably about the same, but with the TC having more true low end and even response (i.e., more SPL down low at the expense of sensitivity).


(Edited to clarify, based on the confusion posted below, which cab is which!).

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Anyone know off hand if Duke can do an 8 ohm Thunderchild?

No 8ohm Thunderchild, but Duke does make a larger, similar cab with the stock 8ohm 3012LF and a more beefy driver for the big horn.

Ken is correct. Now theoretically I could put a 3012LF + horn in the same cabinet as the Thunderchild if size and weight were issues, and the result would trade off some efficiency for deeper extension and more meat below 100 Hz. Unfortunately the standard 3012LF doesn't quite go up as high as my version so I would have to use a more expensive compression driver, but on the other hand the more expensive compression driver is also a bit better.

My target with the Thunderchild was to get just barely enough bass to catch the first overtone of low B, perhaps needing a dB or two of boost but being able to handle it. That's just where I happened to judge the "sweet spot" to be, as far as juggling the bass extension/box size/efficiency tradeoffs; for many bass players, the sweet spot will be somewhere else.

 

[IntrepidCellist]

Based on reviews and my very limited, short tryout of one of the 12's, much more low end, much lower SPL (which the 4ohm impedance helps with). Maximum volume... probably about the same, but with much more true low end and even response (i.e., more SPL down low at the expense of sensitivity).

Uh, which cab are you talking about here? The Jack or the TC?

 

[shrigg]

Seems like the Jack as Ken owns *two* Thunderchildren and has posted much more than "very limited short tryout" impressions of them.

 

[rpsands]

Based on reviews and my very limited, short tryout of one of the 12's, much more low end, much lower SPL (which the 4ohm impedance helps with). Maximum volume... probably about the same, but with much more true low end and even response (i.e., more SPL down low at the expense of sensitivity).

I own a Jack 12, and there is no way in hell a 12/6 gets as loud without a 6nd410 midrange and adjustable padding (e.g. an active crossover or a switch). But, you're right, it gives up evenness to achieve that.

The Jack 12 of the previous generation had some issues with getting to max volume with the 3012HO, but the new model has a lot more port area - so that's worth keeping in mind.

The Thunderchild and 12/6 will be comparable down low, but in they both give up 6db or so of sensitivity on tap in the low to upper mid region. The 12/6 will have some serious edge down low in terms of maximum volume.

That's not desirable for everyone of course, but if your tone is "I crank a bunch of low mids," like a lot of people, the Jack will get you a pretty ridiculous amount of volume per pound. Otherwise you're cutting eq to get the same volume, and it's pretty pointless.

Some people will beg to differ there, but having A/B'd a Jack 12 to a 15/6 I think I've probably got more experience in the game than most.

Hope that helps.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I think Ken is saying the Thunderchild is the one with "...more low end, much lower SPL (which the 4ohm impedance helps with)...". One clue is, the Jack 12 is 8 ohms, the Thunderchild 4 ohms.

 

[KJung]

I think Ken is saying the Thunderchild is the one with "...more low end, much lower SPL (which the 4ohm impedance helps with)...". One clue is, the Jack 12 is 8 ohms, the Thunderchild 4 ohms.

+1 Per the above comments, sorry for my writing being a bit unclear (I cleaned up that post a touch).

Yes, the Jack is louder without as much low end as these 3012LF executions. I again like the 'compromise' you found with the TC..... a little less low end than a 'stock' 3012LF execution, but the cab is smaller, the bass sounds GREAT, and the 4ohm proprietary version of the 3012LF that you use results in your little cab really wumping without having to limit your amplification options (i.e., it seems to be able to be driven to 'full' performance with the typical 500 watt into 4ohm micro head).