AudioKinesis 1x12 Cab Part Two

[Chef]

What small floor pedal are you talking about here?

I'm researching a very small DSP suggested by another techno-guru TB member Passinwind. It would give a variable high-pass filter as well as MANY bands of parametric eq and much more.All in a small floor pedal. With a proper high pass, I don't know of ANY cab that sounds better. What we're paid to do as bassists is to pump out quarter notes (or whatever) that have power, authority and control. In terms of function, the rest is icing on the cake. And the TC has the perfect balance of these 3.
Anyway enough of my blathering----must be the copius amount of pain meds!

 

[Passinwind]

What small floor pedal are you talking about here?

MiniDSP 2X4. TB'er rpsands had Putnam build up one in a floor pedal format. I think you've seen my 1/3 rack format one, yeah?

 

[Chef]

I don't think so...sounds neat!
Feel free to pm me a thread, or details or whatev...

 

[Vic]

I think most people's...

I may have misread you, but again, I wasn't suggesting it was strictly a case of a different measured sensitivity. I agree the voicing also plays a role in the subjective part. It just seemed to me the idea of an actual sensitivity difference was being rejected, which I disagreed with.

So I guess I hope we're really saying the same thing... it's "both".

 

[Vic]

FWIW, I tried my TC at a Seattle GTG with an MB200. Not happening for me -- I could hear the amp limiting way too early for my taste. On the other hand, my 200 watt Hafler (one channel of a P-3000) sounds just fine with the TC and I'm sure I could do low key jazz trio gigs with it happily. YMMV...

I've tried the MB500 with the TC as well. That worked great.

Cool, and thanks, but I'm still gonna' be a belligerent cuss and try it anyway.

 

[Passinwind]

Cool, and thanks, but I'm still gonna' be a belligerent cuss and try it anyway.

I'd love to hear that it works for you, and I also never take what I hear at GTGs as being definitive of how something might work on a gig. I tend to need a lot more clean headroom than most bassists too, FWIW.

 

[lomo]

Cool, and thanks, but I'm still gonna' be a belligerent cuss and try it anyway.

If you still have a Walkabout, try that!

 

[Passinwind]

If you still have a Walkabout, try that!

I've tried that, worked pretty well.

 

[Vic]

I'd love to hear that it works for you, and I also never take what I hear at GTGs as being definitive of how something might work on a gig. I tend to need a lot more clean headroom than most bassists too, FWIW.

Well, to be honest, I'm pretty confident I'll come to the same conclusion as you and others here on it... it's really more a matter of just being curious at this point.

If you still have a Walkabout, try that!

I don't. Some days I wish I did, but I still have faith that Mesa will someday come out with the dream amp so many have asked for for years now, and I'm happy enough with the classic tones I get from my TC RH750 that I can wait for that to happen.

 

[KJung]

Cool, and thanks, but I'm still gonna' be a belligerent cuss and try it anyway.

I found the GK M500 to work pretty darn well with this cab, although I had to tame all those zingy goosed upper treble highs with the high end roll-off switch. Once you did that, it sounded nice and punchy and even, and not that far from the F1/F500 with the tweeter set 'flat'.

Hated the RH450 with it though. That really didn't work. The Streamliner sounds nice and sweet also. However, a little too much 'wide and pure' meets 'wide and pure' for my taste. It sounds pretty darn good with the bass cut just a touch and the upper mids (2.5K) boosted a smidge, but I again have not found any amp that works better than the F500. Very 'accurate', and lots of perceived deep bass without getting that woofer pistoning like crazy (which is a bit of an issue with the MB500).

I actually liked the tone of the LMII/III the best of all... almost perfect... accurate, even, but warm and organic. However, unlike the F1/F500, I hit the power amp limiting way too early on the gig when cranking a bit (which isn't an issue with my larger 4ohm cabs). Not a problem on low volume gigs of course, but that cab can really bring a head to its knees if you are really digging in IMO and IME.

I look forward to your comments. Amazing little box!

 

[lomo]

I've tried that, worked pretty well.

The TC12 and WA produced the most pleasing bass sound I have heard. I'm assuming the 15 will do the same, only a li'l but louder.

 

[KJung]

The TC12 and WA produced the most pleasing bass sound I have heard. I'm assuming the 15 will do the same, only a li'l but louder.

That should be a killer combination.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I may have misread you, but again, I wasn't suggesting it was strictly a case of a different measured sensitivity. I agree the voicing also plays a role in the subjective part. It just seemed to me the idea of an actual sensitivity difference was being rejected, which I disagreed with.

So I guess I hope we're really saying the same thing... it's "both".

Based on the Thiele-Small parameters, the calculated efficiency of my 12" woofer is 95.0 dB, which is probably about medium for a 12" bass guitar woofer (higher than the 3012LF or Deltalite 12 or Basslite 12 or Delta 12LF, but lower than the 3012HO or Delta Pro 12). So I think it's primarily the throwing away of midrange bumpage that accounts for the lower than average observed efficiency.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Duke, have you had many/any returns on these?

I have had one woofer develop a problem in the field, and the user conceded that he was pushing the cab too hard with too big an amp. He swapped out the old woofer for a new one himself.

I did have one customer who decided not to keep his Thunderchild - he preferred his Acme. But rather than return it, he sold it to someone who already had one and wanted a second.

When shipping in the dead of winter to a cold destination, I did have a couple of cabs with plastic corners cracked and one even had the horn crack. I sent out replacements on most, but one of the cracked corner guys replaced his corner(s) without telling me about it until afterwards.

So technically no "returns", but that's not to say there have been no "issues"... though no insurmountable ones.

 

[Vic]

Hated the RH450 with it though.

In a way that might be addressed by the TweeterTone, or no?

I look forward to your comments. Amazing little box!

Count on it. Of course it'll only be lil' ol' me and purely subjective, not the mag, but just try to stop me from commenting when I get it. No way, Jose.

 

[tombowlus]

If any of you TC owners have a nice tube head on hand, I suggest that you give it a try with the TC112 (or TC112AF). I've been playing around with a couple, and they really sound great through Duke's little marvel!

 

[KJung]

In a way that might be addressed by the TweeterTone, or no?

Unfortunately no. It wasn't an issue with the top end at all (the Thunderchild really isn't about aggressive sizzle up top anyway).

When you have a cab like the 12/6 or 15/6 cabs, or the Thunderchild, with that relatively even tone profile through their range, they really lay the sound of a head pretty open to the ears. All that midrange distortion and voicing and stuff that makes the TC heads sound so good with their cabs really works against them (IMO and IME) with the Thunderchild. The tight low end and warm mids becomes a bit nasal and congested sounding.

I don't think anyone at my little GTG's in Detroit liked that pairing. You can really hear what I'm talking about with the little clip I did with various heads (including the TC RH450) and the Bergantino HT112ER, which is another cab with some of the tonal properties of these 'super 12's'.

I would say IMO, but so many people heard that combo with lots of different EQ settings and felt the same way. Something about all that stuff they are doing in that pre and power module that IMO needs a bit of 'covering up' to sound realistic. The Thunderchild is very unforgiving (in a good way!).

 

[Vic]

Based on the Thiele-Small parameters, the calculated efficiency of my 12" woofer is 95.0 dB, which is probably about medium for a 12" bass guitar woofer (higher than the 3012LF or Deltalite 12 or Basslite 12 or Delta 12LF, but lower than the 3012HO or Delta Pro 12). So I think it's primarily the throwing away of midrange bumpage that accounts for the lower than average observed efficiency.

Ok, this is interesting.

I have a couple of the 8 ohm GK Neo112-II cabs, which are (very very loosely) a similar design in that it's a 12 and a tweeter. I'm a firm believer that, at least within the realms of most typically sized 112 cabs, with the same head, the "loudness" will be pretty much subjectively perceived as the same between an 8 ohm cab and a 4 ohm cab (not to open another can tho). Add to that, the GK's are also not what I'd consider particularly mid-strong. More even through the mids, and if anything, some emphasis down low, which I think is what I'm getting from TC112 folks as well.

SO... given that, I'd typically predict the TC112 and the GK 112 to be more or less equivalent in "loudness", and the GK 112 is loud enough to very viably cover a Jazz combo gig with acoustic drums with the MB200. That's qualified with... as long as the drummer wasn't completely out of control anyway, but I typically find most Jazz drummers to be a lot more about finesse than slam/bang, so that's been a fairly safe bet in the past for me.

Anyone else with a TC112 do this comparison yet?

 

[KJung]

Ok, this is interesting.

I have a couple of the 8 ohm GK Neo112-II cabs, which are (very very loosely) a similar design in that it's a 12 and a tweeter. I'm a firm believer that, at least within the realms of most typically sized 112 cabs, with the same head, the "loudness" will be pretty much subjectively perceived as the same between an 8 ohm cab and a 4 ohm cab (not to open another can tho). Add to that, the GK's are also not what I'd consider particularly mid-strong. More even through the mids, and if anything, some emphasis down low, which I think is what I'm getting from TC112 folks as well.

SO... given that, I'd typically predict the TC112 and the GK 112 to be more or less equivalent in "loudness", and the GK 112 is loud enough to very viably cover a Jazz combo gig with acoustic drums with the MB200. That's qualified with... as long as the drummer wasn't completely out of control anyway, but I typically find most Jazz drummers to be a lot more about finesse than slam/bang, so that's been a fairly safe bet in the past for me.

Anyone else with a TC112 do this comparison yet?

This is the problem. The Thunderchild is MUCH closer to the tone and performance of the 12/6 cab than a typical two way mid driver/tweeter design.

You are placing too much emphasis on wattage as it relates to perceived volume, versus being used to generate all that nice, deep low end EVENLY with the mids and treble. It is hard to understand how different these cabs are (Acme, EA VL210, 12/6 or 15/6 variants, etc.) versus the typical mid woofer executions with a tweeter only covering the upper treble.

The even, flat, relatively wide voicing of this type of cab puts them in an entirely different universe than even a high quality 'regular' 112 with a typical midrange woofer with 'normal' mechanical properties, and a crossover that is set (in most cases) closer to 3K than to 1K.

The little GK 112 will sound shockingly louder with the same head at the same master volume level. However, it will do so with much less real low end, much more of a spikey upper mid response, and there will still be a hole (by definition) between the top of the driver and the tweeter.

The magic of the Thunderchild is that, with a nice dose of watts (and Duke was nice enough to OEM a 4ohm version of the driver so that the typical 500 watt micro can drive it to full performance), the Thunderchild will actually get MUCH louder than the little GK112, with much more real low end, and virtually no compression (i.e., loss of low end) when you dig in and slap.

Think of this as more the 'next generation' of Acme or EA VL cab, versus a 112 with a PA horn.

 

[Vic]

You are placing too much emphasis on wattage as it relates to perceived volume, versus being used to generate all that nice, deep low end EVENLY with the mids and treble.

No I'm not. I'm simply saying the GK cab seems to me to be somewhat close to the tonal descriptions I've read so far on the TC112, including big lows, so I would think they would be fairly comparable if Duke says the sensitivity is "in the ballpark". Don't over-read me here... I'm not saying identical. I'm saying comparable. There's a big difference there.

The little GK 112 will sound shockingly louder with the same head at the same master volume level. However, it will do so with much less real low end, much more of a spikey upper mid response...

Have you actually heard or played through a GK Neo112-II? This reads as if you haven't. This reads more along the lines of a Berg AE112. Totally different animals.