That's ok... for Jazz combo, I don't need a lot of power... it's more about tone than big power, and I'm pretty sure the MB200 would have plenty for a typical combo gig.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 1x12 Cab Part Two
- Thread starter Thor
- Start date
- Status
I might be wrong but I don't think the Thunderchild is terribly efficient (and I don't mean in bad way, just low sensitivity).
From my experience with the MB200 you won't get much volume going but then it all depends on how quiet the gig is!
From my experience with the MB200 you won't get much volume going but then it all depends on how quiet the gig is!
Oh, way to put stupid words in my mouth... never said it... you can't prove it.That's what he said
(tho a mod probably could)
Sorry for the misread.
I wouldn't call it low. If I remember correctly, Duke's LF-derivative has slightly greater sensitivity but slightly less low end extension than the stock LF, which isn't low sensitivity either - as people bring up with the fEARfuls, just because it can take a lot of wattage doesn't mean it needs it. It is a single twelve, though
By the time you take out the upper mid spike and the upper bass bump of conventional fullrange speakers, it might sound lower sensitivity to some (less smiley-face). The TC might be a bit less sensitive in the mid-mids than the Berg AE 210 I had, and substantially where the upper mid spike was, but the TC was considerably more sensitive in the sub-100 region.Anyways, my view on discussing sensitivity is it's really meant to be answering this question: how do two speakers compare in maximal capability with a given amp's limited output potential? Once you acknowledge that lows cost more watts at the amp, it's clear that it shouldn't be a contest of directly A/Bing two speakers with identical EQ settings and the master up a third of the pot's taper. Cutting sub-100 and bumping low mids with the TC equates to some really substantial savings in wattage output at the same point in the pot's taper, which means you have more taper to work with. A spike at 2.6 kHz wouldn't cost anything on the amp/pre/instrument side either, if you wanted to emulate the upper-mid character of a traditional fullrange speaker.
Comparisons to answer which speaker can get louder with an amp requires more intimacy than a general sensitivity number, or even experience with comparative apparent volumes. That's even before you talk about higher wattage amp options!
I wouldn't call it low. If I remember correctly, Duke's LF-derivative has slightly greater sensitivity but slightly less low end extension than the stock LF, which isn't low sensitivity either - as people bring up with the fEARfuls, just because it can take a lot of wattage doesn't mean it needs it. It is a single twelve, though
Anyways, my view on discussing sensitivity is it's really meant to be answering this question: how do two speakers compare in maximal capability with a given amp's limited output potential? Once you acknowledge that lows cost more watts at the amp, it's clear that it shouldn't be a contest of directly A/Bing two speakers with identical EQ settings and the master up a third of the pot's taper. Cutting sub-100 and bumping low mids with the TC equates to some really substantial savings in wattage output at the same point in the pot's taper, which means you have more taper to work with. A spike at 2.6 kHz wouldn't cost anything on the amp/pre/instrument side either, if you wanted to emulate the upper-mid character of a traditional fullrange speaker.
Comparisons to answer which speaker can get louder with an amp requires more intimacy than a general sensitivity number, or even experience with comparative apparent volumes. That's even before you talk about higher wattage amp options!
Nice post and +1. It isn't that the Thunderchild is low SPL in an absolute sense. These cabs just don't have the midrange peaks (both down low and up top) that make a more traditional cab (i.e., one with a more full range woofer and high crossover point tweeter) sound very loud to the ear.
That being said, it does take quite a bit more of the master volume (comparing the Thunderchild to various other small cabs which happen to be 8ohms with the same head/bass/player/room) to get the Thunderchild up to the same perceived volume. The good news is, the mechanical properties of that amazing woofer allow it to actually handle the power, and when you do get it pushed to the same volume as more traditional cabs, the response is beautifully even, from the true bass through the upper treble.
Put another way, it isn't that the Thunderchild won't get loud with fewer watts, but the more watts you put in it (within reason) the smoother the response (i.e., the low end opens and widens to my ear, with virtually no compression). Quite amazing. +1 to your point of bumping up the upper mids (at 1 or 2K) to somewhat emulate a more traditional two way cab top end. However, your point of cutting under 100 hz is not necessary IMO if you have, again, a nice 400-600 watt head driving the cab. It again has very little to do with volume, but rather full, open low end. I guess that is the whole point of that amazing woofer.... it is voiced to not reproduce the super low bass that can really suck power and get mushy in a mix, and also has the mechanical and thermal specs to just POUND that 50hz round low end out at surprisingly high volumes, again, with a bit of wattage.
Really nice, and just the perfect cab with the wide variety of 500 or so what into 4ohm micro heads for those looking for a very 'even' amplification platform for their bass.
I searched and didn't see any comments on that. I do recall Duke saying it would be close to a 4x10 in output.
For the life of me I can't remember if the 15 is a 4 or 8 ohm cab ... been searching, perhaps it's in thread #1.
Yes. The tuning, frequency response, tone etc. should be quite similar according to Duke. The big difference is that it will get louder than the 112 at a given wattage input, and should also have a bit higher max volume.
Given that the Thunderchild puts out the volume and full low end of approximately a 310, I would not be surprised if the Thunderchild115 would cover many gigs that you would traditionally need a 410 or 212 to do.
On the whole "sensitivity" thing, I guess I look at it more holistically. If I have to turn the master up more on one cab to get it to seem as loud as another, then it's gonna' effectively be the same to me as a cab that has lower sensitivity on spec sheets, so I consider that to be a wash.
+1 More of a tonal issue, but still nice to kind of understand what is actually going on.
The key is that the combination of Duke's proprietary 4ohm 3012LF variant and voicing makes it literally a perfect fit with the 400-600 watt micro's out there. It is that 'magic' combination of a small cab being able to actually use that extra wump of power, and to provide non-compressed low end at moderately loud volumes.
The Berg HT112ER is in this class of performance, as are the stock 12/6 variants (although the 8ohm impedance makes some heads sweat a bit).
Oh, absolutely agreed! Very interesting stuff from actual owners of the product I still await. Just to make sure we're on the same page, if need be, my comment wasn't intended to squelch the conversation... but rather to kinda' tie it back to how well the MB200 may or may not work with it regarding having enough "oomph" for smaller gigs with acoustic drummers and vox-only or no PA.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Here's what Duke had to say about the relative sensitivity of the TC12 v TC15 in a recent email:
"The thermal power handling of the 12" and 15" woofers are identical. The 15" woofer will play 2.3 dB louder (it's actually 97.3 dB) based on the thermal power handling, and about 4 dB louder based on excursion-limited power handling. I think that thermal power handling will be the limiting factor, so let's use that. Whether or not 2.3 dB is worth the extra weight and cost, I cannot say. It probably will be to some people, and not to others.
"The 115 may well rival many 410s in real-world max SPL. Alex Claber claims that his Barefaced Compact will play louder than any 410, and the Kappalite 3015 that he uses is only .4 (point four) dB more efficient than my 15" woofer, while mine has about 3 dB more fartout headroom. So my 115 will be in that same general ballpark.
"Assuming 500 watts input, I would estimate the max SPL of the 112 at 120 dB, assuming 2 dB of thermal compression. The 115 would max out at an estimated 122.3 dB."
I'm eager to hear some reviews and clips of the TC15!
Thanks Jazzdog, very cool. I'm still curious about the ohm rating, strictly from amp overhead point of view
- Nov 24, 2008
- 4,343
- 7,163
- Disclosures
- Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
Thanks Jazzdog, very cool. I'm still curious about the ohm rating, strictly from amp overhead point of view
The 115 will be a 4-ohm cab; sorry for not putting that information out there.
Thanks Duke!
Have had my Thunderchild for about 3 weeks. Best cab I've ever played through. Not that it's the best bass cab ever built (which I actually think it's close to ) in absolute terms, but astounding in reaching it's design goals which are the best compromise in terms of size, weight, function and fidelity.
I compared it to my EA CXL112 which (when eq'd properly) does a decent job of trying for the same design goals.
My first question was, which will go functionally louder with my Doubler? After firing them up I was a bit bummed. The CXL112 seemed to go louder given the same amp settings. I'm thinking "man, I was expecting the 4 ohm TC to be louder than the 8 ohm CXL". And the the clouds parted as I recovered from my brain fart. Without realizing it I was boosting the bass for the CXL to about 3 o'clock to sound the same as the TC flat. I assume that that's requiring a LOT more power. So when you tame the CXL's rather aggressive midrange and then boost the bass it's apparent that the TC in real world terms is more efficient.
I've only had a chance to play (and record) one gig with the TC with a loud fusion trio where I was playing upright and it sounded amazing.
Had to put a bit of a hold on gigs right now as I'm recovering from having both of my hips replaced 10 days ago!!!
I compared it to my EA CXL112 which (when eq'd properly) does a decent job of trying for the same design goals.
My first question was, which will go functionally louder with my Doubler? After firing them up I was a bit bummed. The CXL112 seemed to go louder given the same amp settings. I'm thinking "man, I was expecting the 4 ohm TC to be louder than the 8 ohm CXL". And the the clouds parted as I recovered from my brain fart. Without realizing it I was boosting the bass for the CXL to about 3 o'clock to sound the same as the TC flat. I assume that that's requiring a LOT more power. So when you tame the CXL's rather aggressive midrange and then boost the bass it's apparent that the TC in real world terms is more efficient.
I've only had a chance to play (and record) one gig with the TC with a loud fusion trio where I was playing upright and it sounded amazing.
Had to put a bit of a hold on gigs right now as I'm recovering from having both of my hips replaced 10 days ago!!!
Oh no, I agree, I like what it's doing under 100 Hz and generally wouldn't cut it. I have a ShuttleMAX and it works out beautifully with 600 watts. I was more meaning to point out that if you were to compare it to another speaker with an amp such as the GK MB200, it's content down there that costs precious wattage, and you need to do a little knob twiddling to get a real impression of capability with a dissimilar speaker (which seems like the underlying reason people ask about sensitivity). If it has 200 watts of clean headroom, then it's only a fair comparison if you adjust the amp for the speaker and test the boundaries of the amp's clean volume production. As the mantra here goes, position on the taper doesn't tell you much about actual wattage output, which is still not quite what we're looking for. It's important to remember how little the change between 200 and 400 watts really is volume-wise as well.
This is a really good illustration of what I was trying to say. The question is more about efficiency than sensitivity - it doesn't matter if the volume knob is dialed up a notch or two if it ends up saving you a ton of wattage in the low end, because the amp needs to do less work for similar results. Nice review!
I like using the tone control on the bass. A .1 μF capacitor and a 4H pickup means the tone control introduces coloration with a resonance peak at 250 Hz and balances the volume content above the resonance starting at 4 or so on the pot. If I have it around 3 or 3.5, I can give a touch more weight to the low-mids and lows while smoothing out the uppermid resonance from the pickup/cable interaction, without having the highs drop off, usually adding in a touch in the upper mids exactly where I want them at the amp (usually lower than the resonance from the pickup/cable). I like to think of it as sort of a "new vintage" tonal profile. I get way better results with this approach then I've had with traditional gear. I can understand how the ability to get higher driver THD is desirable to some, but it's not necessary for my needs, so the TC is able to capture everything I could want from a bass cab.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Thanks for the heads-up. Does your Doubler seem "powerful enough" to take full advantage of the TC's capabilities?
Here's to a speedy and complete recovery from your double hip replacement!
- Nov 24, 2008
- 4,343
- 7,163
- Disclosures
- Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
Hi Mike,
Glad to hear you're on the mend!!
I appreciate the thumbs-up very much.
But now you've got me really curious... what is that "best bass cab ever built" you alluded to??
- Status
