• 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.
#984
JimmyM said:
hey duke, you realize you shouldn't listen to any of us about the name of future cabs. name a cab thunderthighs and you'll be bankrupt in 30 days ;)
Click to expand...

I for one like big legged women:spit::p And if you're gonna be the purveyor of the groove, what's more fun to watch than a big Mama boogie?:D

'Sides after the set you can go over to Big Mama and tell her how she's got it goin' on and your cab was named after her.:hiding:

:help:

:D

God Bless, Ray
 
#986
koobie said:
Duke, I may have missed it, but what are your objectives with your upcoming 15 cab? I've heard the ThunderChild cab and really liked it, wondering how you expect the 15 will compare.
Click to expand...

In several ways, the 115 will try to emulate the 112. For instance, low end will be very similar; I think the 112 kinda hits a sweet spot with its combination of extension, efficiency, box size, and fartout resistance.

Obvoiusly the 115 will play a bit louder. The 115 with 500 watts will play about as loud as the 112 could with 850 watts... that is, if the 112 could take it. Or put another way, the 115 with 300 watts will be comparable to the 112 with 500 watts.

Turning to the actual numbers, the 12" woofer's efficiency (based on its Theile/Small parameters) is 95.0 dB. The 15" woofer is 97.4 dB efficient. Using the same yardstick, the Kappalite 3015 (non-LF) is 97.7 dB efficient, and it gets pretty good compliments for playing loud. So for applications where the 112 is "almost... but not quite" enough cab, the 115 should do it.

As a result of the lower crossover frequency and greater SPL requirement, I have to use a beefier compression driver. But in this case it's also a bit better driver, so the 115 may do some things better aside from just playing louder.

I may change up the tweeter switching as well, replacing the "tweeter off" switch with a "more tweeter rolloff" switch.

The 115 will have four 3" flared ports clustered behind the woofer, and that opens up the possibility of plugging two ports on a diagonal and leaving two ports open, thus lowering the tuning frequency while still maintaining a symmetrical airload on the back of the cone. So the 115 will have the options of normal tuning, lower tuning, and sealed box.

While the 115 won't be terribly heavy, it will still be heavier and more awkward than the 112, so it will have pocket handles on the sides in addition to the recessed handle on top.

So my objective is to offer the bestest-sounding reasonably portable 115 in its price ballpark.
 
#988
GRoberts said:
Duke! I have the name for your upcoming 15" cab.

...Since your 112 is called the Thunderchild, and the Fif'teen' has the word "teen" ...It should be called the ThunderTeen!
Click to expand...

rpsands said:
The 1212 can be the Thunderthunderchild and the 4x10 can be the Thunder Thunder Thunder THUNDERCHILD!
Click to expand...

lbwdog said:
Maybe one of these days there'll be a "Thunderstorm"!!
Followed by........"SEVERE THUNDERSTORM"
Click to expand...


tombowlus said:
I think we already know the name of Duke's future Australian distributor...
Click to expand...

JimmyM said:
i want duke to name the 212 after me and call it the thundergeezer
Click to expand...

LilRay said:
I say the 1212 should be called ThunderThighs.

Who could Mother a ThunderChild but a ThunderThighs????
Click to expand...

igrok said:
I suggest for the 115 -- ThunderThor
Click to expand...

Omigosh - you guys are wonderful!

I didn't "get it" either, so thanks for asking lbwdog and thanks for the explanation, my DirtPoor friend!

And again @ lbwdog, one of my first home audio speakers was called the "Stormbringer". This was shortly after Katrina, and my friends back in New Orleans did not approve.

The 115 will probably just be the Thunderchild 15, as in my mind the Thunderchild is sort of a particular approach or concept, not unique in prosound but unorthodox among bass cabs at least.

I have an unrelated name lined up for the 212, but doubt it will generate as many spin-offs as ya'll have come up with here!
 
#990
DukeLeJeune said:
In several ways, the 115 will try to emulate the 112. For instance, low end will be very similar; I think the 112 kinda hits a sweet spot with its combination of extension, efficiency, box size, and fartout resistance.

Obvoiusly the 115 will play a bit louder. The 115 with 500 watts will play about as loud as the 112 could with 850 watts... that is, if the 112 could take it. Or put another way, the 115 with 300 watts will be comparable to the 112 with 500 watts.

Turning to the actual numbers, the 12" woofer's efficiency (based on its Theile/Small parameters) is 95.0 dB. The 15" woofer is 97.4 dB efficient. Using the same yardstick, the Kappalite 3015 (non-LF) is 97.7 dB efficient, and it gets pretty good compliments for playing loud. So for applications where the 112 is "almost... but not quite" enough cab, the 115 should do it.

As a result of the lower crossover frequency and greater SPL requirement, I have to use a beefier compression driver. But in this case it's also a bit better driver, so the 115 may do some things better aside from just playing louder.

I may change up the tweeter switching as well, replacing the "tweeter off" switch with a "more tweeter rolloff" switch.

The 115 will have four 3" flared ports clustered behind the woofer, and that opens up the possibility of plugging two ports on a diagonal and leaving two ports open, thus lowering the tuning frequency while still maintaining a symmetrical airload on the back of the cone. So the 115 will have the options of normal tuning, lower tuning, and sealed box.

While the 115 won't be terribly heavy, it will still be heavier and more awkward than the 112, so it will have pocket handles on the sides in addition to the recessed handle on top.

So my objective is to offer the bestest-sounding reasonably portable 115 in its price ballpark.
Click to expand...

Sounds great. I like the idea of a second 'top end smoothing' switch versus the 'on/off'. I can't imagine anyone turning that amazing sounding horn completely off. Quite frankly, your current 'upper treble smoothing' switch is probably sufficient for the vast majority of users. However, given that you will be crossing over that horn a bit lower and using a different driver, I wonder if some sort of 'upper mid smoothing' circuit might not be cool... i.e., to mimic that touch of hole between the driver and tweeter in many traditional two way cabs that many players like.... i.e., full treble extension, but a touch of dip around 1K or whatever, which is a classic modern J sort of EQ tone.

Just an idea. I am perfectly happy with the treble smoothing switch on the TC112.. perfect for a more 'one way paper cone' tone of the TC112 with my more relaxed instruments (60's J and P basses).

I really look forward to the 15!
 
#992
DukeLeJeune said:
In several ways, the 115 will try to emulate the 112. For instance, low end will be very similar; I think the 112 kinda hits a sweet spot with its combination of extension, efficiency, box size, and fartout resistance.

Obvoiusly the 115 will play a bit louder. The 115 with 500 watts will play about as loud as the 112 could with 850 watts... that is, if the 112 could take it. Or put another way, the 115 with 300 watts will be comparable to the 112 with 500 watts.

Turning to the actual numbers, the 12" woofer's efficiency (based on its Theile/Small parameters) is 95.0 dB. The 15" woofer is 97.4 dB efficient. Using the same yardstick, the Kappalite 3015 (non-LF) is 97.7 dB efficient, and it gets pretty good compliments for playing loud. So for applications where the 112 is "almost... but not quite" enough cab, the 115 should do it.

As a result of the lower crossover frequency and greater SPL requirement, I have to use a beefier compression driver. But in this case it's also a bit better driver, so the 115 may do some things better aside from just playing louder.

I may change up the tweeter switching as well, replacing the "tweeter off" switch with a "more tweeter rolloff" switch.

The 115 will have four 3" flared ports clustered behind the woofer, and that opens up the possibility of plugging two ports on a diagonal and leaving two ports open, thus lowering the tuning frequency while still maintaining a symmetrical airload on the back of the cone. So the 115 will have the options of normal tuning, lower tuning, and sealed box.

While the 115 won't be terribly heavy, it will still be heavier and more awkward than the 112, so it will have pocket handles on the sides in addition to the recessed handle on top.

So my objective is to offer the bestest-sounding reasonably portable 115 in its price ballpark.
Click to expand...

Ahh, re-reading the ThunderChild 115 goals with sweet new refinements makes me just giddy. I think "best-est" sums it up nicely. CAN'T WAIT!
 
#993
Duke, you really seem to grok what'll make a great sounding instrument cab. The only reason I haven't (yet) ordered a Thunderchild 12 is that my amps are 'only' 200 to 300 watts, wanted to see what you had coming down the pike. I look forward to hearing the Thunderchild 15, likely I'll end up with one of your designs.
 
#994
koobie said:
Duke, you really seem to grok what'll make a great sounding instrument cab.
Click to expand...

If by "instrument cab" you mean something that can work well for other instruments besides bass guitar, that's something I have in the back of my mind for some of these forthcoming designs. One of the key ingredients is the "better compression driver" I've been yapping about.

At Invalid Link Removed link you can hear a sound clip of a pair of my home audio speakers which use this better compression driver. Note that unlike the original recording of the song which you may have heard (from Simon & Garfunkel "Live at Central Park"), this is an in-room recording of a pair of speakers, so it includes not only the speaker's signature but also the in-room reflections that the speaker generates at the microphone location (about 8 feet from the speakers). The top end of the recording is rolled off a bit, but it should still give you an idea of what I aspire to in the midrange. The woofer in this case is an off-the-shelf Kappalite 3012LF, so there is some family resemblance to the woofers in my bass cabs. I'm not going to promise that the upcoming bass cabs with the new compression driver will sound like this, but they won't be too far off.

So hopefully some of these new cabs will be not just bass cabs, but multi-purpose "instrument cabs".
 
#995
I would suggest a 3-position switch for the 15; "flat" "loud" and "quiet"

Might be cool to have the typical 10" woofer "rising midrange response" built in on the loud setting. Just a thought though. :)
 
#996
rpsands said:
I would suggest a 3-position switch for the 15; "flat" "loud" and "quiet"

Might be cool to have the typical 10" woofer "rising midrange response" built in on the loud setting. Just a thought though.
Click to expand...

I will look into it, but off the top of my head I don't really see a way to offer two different response curves in the crossover region without either designing two different crossovers or making some serious compromises somewhere.
 
#997
I just have to say I am VERY impressed by your approach, insight and methodology Duke! Looking forward to checking out your cab sometime soon. The Thunderchild 112 may be all I need since I already have a Bergie AE410 for my bigger/louder gigs. ...and it seems your 112 is quite punchy in its own right! the 115 however is very very interesting to me. especially with your focus of using the sweetest compression drivers. That was one thing I always admired and loved about early Bergantino's. A great crossover and exceptional compression driver/horn makes for sweet mids and highs!
 
#998
DukeLeJeune said:
I will look into it, but off the top of my head I don't really see a way to offer two different response curves in the crossover region without either designing two different crossovers or making some serious compromises somewhere.
Click to expand...

Do you think it'd be completely terrible sounding to dial back the amount of attenuation only? Or would that wind up being too harsh/abrupt?

Meh, I know nossing :)
 
#999
rpsands said:
Do you think it'd be completely terrible sounding to dial back the amount of attenuation only? Or would that wind up being too harsh/abrupt?
Click to expand...

Good question.

There's a great deal of inter-relatedness in a crossover (at least in my experience), and changing one component has consequences beyond what you'd intuitively expect. That's one reason why I don't use L-pads: In my world anyway, they change more than just how loud the tweeter is; they can really screw up your carefully-tailored equalization circuits. So with my tweeter rolloff switch I use a different type of circuit, which is still a compromise but one where I have more control over the results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back