• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
#603
Jeremy Allen said:
What's the first cab on the other side of that dividing line for you these days? That AE212?
Click to expand...

Either the AE410 or the AE212, depending on my mood, and the bass I'm playing.

I actually have a pair of rigs that kind of cover all my bases (I know, luxury, but what the heck).

Tight and bright.... AE410 for big, AE210 for little

Wide, fat, and smooth/even.... AE212 for big, TC112 for medium/small. If I didn't already have the AE212, I'd do the TC115 for the 'large' part of this equation.

:bassist:
 
#604
Passinwind said:
In general I agree. However, biamping to a dedicated subwoofer actually works pretty well IME...;)
Click to expand...

Given that I have no tweeter in that GS112NT, I feel like I'm sort of down that road. Plus by having the GS112NT placed horizontally and the TC112 vertically above it (an inverted T), it seemed like the character of the TC112 was well-preserved, but with more volume and impact. Again, just an in-home afternoon experiment, but at this point I'm gonna hang with this for now as my expedient in the event I need more than just the TC112.
 
#606
DLM said:
Hmmm...I had a 112UL stack and loved the tone profile; especially that sweet, airy signature tone of that "tweeter sitting above the driver sound."

Is this something the TC can emulate?
Click to expand...

There is more upper mid content with the TC. However, if you have an amp that has an upper mid control anywhere near 1K, you can cut a bit out and get close. To my ear, the beauty of those UL cabs is that there actually was such a hole between the top of the driver and the upper mids, allowing that tweeter to sit out there and sound so pure and glassy.

The good news is, one of the easiest things to do with EQ (assuming you have an upper midrange EQ) is to reduce that particular 1K-2K region.

That being said, it won't sound exactly the same, but I think you would dig it.
 
#607
Joebone said:
Given that I have no tweeter in that GS112NT, I feel like I'm sort of down that road. Plus by having the GS112NT placed horizontally and the TC112 vertically above it (an inverted T), it seemed like the character of the TC112 was well-preserved, but with more volume and impact. Again, just an in-home afternoon experiment, but at this point I'm gonna hang with this for now as my expedient in the event I need more than just the TC112.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of 'if it sounds good, it sounds good':)
 
#608
KJung said:
Not even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I'll try it out when I get my TC so I can give an empirical report, but I'm extremely confident that the TC's horn can take enough of a pounding to stack with a fEarful sub (especially a 12) as long as you're careful about the 1.5-2.5k region where the horn is going to have the hardest time.

Also, since many people naturally scoop out a lot of midrange content, any of those guys are likely to be very very happy with a lot of extra 40-800 from a fEarful sub.

Yeah, maybe you'd be better off ordering a 2x12 or a 15AF in the first place. Maybe. But a 400.00 fEarful sub might be a better investment than a 1000 dollar AE212 when you just need to do a louder gig once in a while. :)

Especially if you're like me and happen to have a 15sub lying around that doubles as a PA cab.

* Things get a heck of a lot easier if you're a biamping guy or a power amp guy and can have a 4 ohm and 8 ohm load balanced. Just stacking a fEarful sub underneath a TC112/115 just clearly isn't goin to work with a typical micro head rig.
 
#609
rpsands said:
Nonsense. I'll try it out when I get my TC so I can give an empirical report, but I'm extremely confident that the TC's horn can take enough of a pounding to stack with a fEarful sub (especially a 12) as long as you're careful about the 1.5-2.5k region where the horn is going to have the hardest time.

Also, since many people naturally scoop out a lot of midrange content, any of those guys are likely to be very very happy with a lot of extra 40-800 from a fEarful sub.

Yeah, maybe you'd be better off ordering a 2x12 or a 15AF in the first place. Maybe. But a 400.00 fEarful sub might be a better investment than a 1000 dollar AE212 when you just need to do a louder gig once in a while. :)

Especially if you're like me and happen to have a 15sub lying around that doubles as a PA cab.

* Things get a heck of a lot easier if you're a biamping guy or a power amp guy and can have a 4 ohm and 8 ohm load balanced. Just stacking a fEarful sub underneath a TC112/115 just clearly isn't goin to work with a typical micro head rig.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the volume, but the tonality, even-ness and character of the mid response.

And, +1 it could sound great for some people.
 
#610
It'd be really neat to take some scopes of contemporary bass amps and overlay the various eq sweeps, so you can see what really looks like when you turn up mids and treble on a 4-band type amp, for example.

So you can see the difference between having a louder horn and turning up the high mids and treble for example.

Since markbass actually publishes eq curves I might give that a shot with their stuff :)
 
#611
rpsands said:
It'd be really neat to take some scopes of contemporary bass amps and overlay the various eq sweeps, so you can see what really looks like when you turn up mids and treble on a 4-band type amp, for example.

So you can see the difference between having a louder horn and turning up the high mids and treble for example.

Since markbass actually publishes eq curves I might give that a shot with their stuff :)
Click to expand...

Again, just remember that there is much more to tonality than the frequencies on a scope. There are a zillion other things going on with distortion, etc. that make each piece of gear sound like it does.
 
#612
rpsands said:
Nonsense. I'll try it out when I get my TC so I can give an empirical report, but I'm extremely confident that the TC's horn can take enough of a pounding to stack with a fEarful sub (especially a 12) as long as you're careful about the 1.5-2.5k region where the horn is going to have the hardest time.

Also, since many people naturally scoop out a lot of midrange content, any of those guys are likely to be very very happy with a lot of extra 40-800 from a fEarful sub.

Yeah, maybe you'd be better off ordering a 2x12 or a 15AF in the first place. Maybe. But a 400.00 fEarful sub might be a better investment than a 1000 dollar AE212 when you just need to do a louder gig once in a while. :)

Especially if you're like me and happen to have a 15sub lying around that doubles as a PA cab.

* Things get a heck of a lot easier if you're a biamping guy or a power amp guy and can have a 4 ohm and 8 ohm load balanced. Just stacking a fEarful sub underneath a TC112/115 just clearly isn't goin to work with a typical micro head rig.
Click to expand...

I often have a very hard time following your logic.

The TC12 is designed as a stand alone cab to be used with a micro amp. It's easy to carry around, doesn't take up much space on a stage etc etc.

When you start getting into adding a sub, using a separate power amp and some sort of crossover (possibly internal to the power amp), increasing the tweeter output and changing your amp EQ significantly to compensate. IMO you are getting so far away from Duke's intended use.

If gigs beyond the capability of this single cab are a reality and the option of a larger stand alone cab are not financially conceivable. There is probably a better cabinet or pair of cabinets to meet those needs.

If on the other hand you've got all the gear and want to experiment that's cool, report back when you do.

You also said many people scoop out the mids, from what I'm reading most guys are boosting mids with the TC12. Adding a sub and increasing the tweeter output would seem to make it more difficult not easy to boost the mids.
 
#613
peterpalmieri said:
If on the other hand you've got all the gear and want to experiment that's cool, report back when you do.
Click to expand...

OK, let me brew another espresso and try a few more configs. Here's what I was just using a moment ago:

Link Removed

I found that crossing at around 100-120Hz (@12dB/octave, since that's what I happened to have on hand this morning) gave the most bang for my tastes. I'll try RP's idea of a low pass only on the sub in a minute.
 
#614
We perceived absolutely linear fundamental tone power down to Low B. IIRC a maximum of one of my friend's 7-8 basses is a 4-string, the remainder are all 5-string (some low B, most high A). IIRC Duke said the slow rollout starts around 50 Hz, but don't quote me (come in Duke!). IOW low B is slightly rolled off anechoic. Critical to remember the average room gain via boundary reinforcement is +3 dB/octave below 100 Hz...which is a two edged-sword: it magnifies any speaker-inherent bump below 100 Hz and minimizes the audibility of Duke's rollout.

As always, no free lunch, but Tc gets as close as possible for its size (the dirty little street fighter you want on your 6 in a dark ugly alley).

If two Tc are required for greater output, what is best siting? Inverted head to head? Or rather spaced on the stage?
 
#615
KJung said:
Again, just remember that there is much more to tonality than the frequencies on a scope. There are a zillion other things going on with distortion, etc. that make each piece of gear sound like it does.
Click to expand...

Ditto...Duke does something (I know but don't want to state it publicy for confidentiality) with the way the two drivers interact that absolutely no one else does in the MI world (AFAIK).
 
#616
Passinwind said:
I found that crossing at around 100-120Hz (@12dB/octave, since that's what I happened to have on hand this morning) gave the most bang for my tastes. I'll try RP's idea of a low pass only on the sub in a minute.
Click to expand...

Done. Every test I made detracted in some way from what I like about the TCAF. Biamping at ~100Hz works pretty well if you want seriously uber-fat low bass though, which I don't at all. Overlapping the ranges to 500-800 Hz was not really my cuppa, but I could see plenty of people digging it, I guess.

Any of the configs I tried could help get me through a gig if the TCAF on its own wasn't enough, but in my situation I'd more than likely just leave the TCAF at home at that point and go with something else. Or just hire a sub for the gig...:cool:
 
#617
primeVibe said:
IIRC Duke said the slow rollout starts around 50 Hz, but don't quote me (come in Duke!).
Click to expand...

Sorry for quoting you after you asked me not to...

The rolloff actually accelerates rapidly below the 50 Hz tuning frequency. My target was to do justice to the first overtone of low-B, and we're down 2 dB at 62 Hz (calculated).
 
#619
I recall Duke saying that sitting one on top of the other at 90 degrees would be the best way to combine two TC's for most situations. (so turn the top one a quarter turn to the right or something). Hope I'm not mixing stuff up :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back