AudioKinesis 1x12 Cab Part Two

[DLM]

I ask this question out of ignorance, but I read somewhere that larger diameter speakers have worse dispersion than their smaller counterparts because the size of the source is very large compared to the wavelengths of the sounds. If true, does this mean that the TC112 will have better dispersion than the TC115?

 

[rpsands]

The TC115 will be crossed over lower and the HF will be coming out of the tiny horn driver.

 

[John D Harris]

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

My memory is not the greatest, but I think he said either top cab inverted aligned in the same direction as the bottom cab 'or' the scenario you mentioned above depending on how much of the stage you want to cover.

 

[Jazzdogg]

I ask this question out of ignorance, but I read somewhere that larger diameter speakers have worse dispersion than their smaller counterparts because the size of the source is very large compared to the wavelengths of the sounds. If true, does this mean that the TC112 will have better dispersion than the TC115?

You've piqued my curiosity about the possibility that using a 15" driver instead of a 12" driver could impair dispersion.

As I understand it, the larger a speaker's cone is, the more it acts like a megaphone or a parabolic reflector. As a consequence, larger speakers are "beamier" and more directional, and smaller speakers have better dispersion. As I understand it, Duke decided to forego a recessed baffle in order to to improve dispersion.

 

[rpsands]

You've piqued my curiosity about the possibility that using a 15" driver instead of a 12" driver could impair dispersion.

As I understand it, the larger a speaker's cone is, the more it acts like a megaphone or a parabolic reflector. As a consequence, larger speakers are "beamier" and more directional, and smaller speakers have better dispersion. As I understand it, Duke decided to forego a recessed baffle in order to to improve dispersion.

Duke is the man at pattern control. Don't worry for a second.

Beaming is not a "starts beaming at x frequency" scenario, it's a progression. Off-axis losses start much lower than the typical "beaming" Frequency, but intelligibility is gone by the beaming frequency (and might pop back in again at a higher frequency too, something to do with the dust cap dimensions).

So a 15, say, falls off starting around 1200hz, a 12 around 1500hz. Ballpark, right?

So Duke brings a bigger horn driver in starting lower with the 15 than the 12, and problem is solved.

 

[Jazzdogg]

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).

Can you tell us how quickly the bass response falls off below 62 Hz? At what frequencies is it down 3 dB? 10dB?

Thanks!

 

[steve_rolfeca]

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

Two TC's makes more sense to me as a big-gig rig, than adding a fEarful Sub and an active crossover.

With a suitable amplifier, you pick up about 6dB, and it's full-range. The improvement provided by the Sub would be less, since you only benefit in the frequency range below the horn, and the output of the two woofers is not combined in parallel.

The only reason I can see for using a fEarful Sub, is to get the extra low-end extension. Even there, the fEarful's output on a low B is still predominantly 2nd harmonic, since the corner frequency is up around 50Hz.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I use the same horn in the 115 as in the 112, but with a different compression driver that allows a lower crossover. The 112 is the more ideal configuration from a radiation pattern standpoint, but the compromise in the 115 configuration still leaves it outperforming most conventional cabs as far as radiation pattern smoothness in the crossover region.

Can you tell us how quickly the bass response falls off below 62 Hz? At what frequencies is it down 3 dB? 10dB?

-3 dB @ 56 Hz; -6 dB @ 47 Hz; -10 dB @ 40 Hz, based on computer simulations. Other relevant specs are 95.0 dB and an internal volume of about 1.65 cubic feet (for the 112 cab), if anyone wants to run some simulations of their own to double-check the feasibility of my claims.

 

[loopee]

well the jam was cancelled so no chance of hearing the Tots in a band mix as of yet.....I did tweak the EQ to get a warmer sound yesterday but not there yet, hopefully by the time the break in period is over I'll have gotten it to where I like it......it's the transparency, I'm not used to hearing my basses as they truly are....those Markbass cabs do add their own tone (which I like)....I really wish I could hear the Tots in a band situation so I can really make up my mind on them.........I like how the Tots sound though I'm not sure it's the tone I want, they just seem too clean but my ears are getting used to them slowly....next I'll try one Tot with the NY121 and see what that's like though it's defeating the purpose of having 2 x 22 lb cabs

 

[JxBass]

well the jam was cancelled so no chance of hearing the Tots in a band mix as of yet.....I did tweak the EQ to get a warmer sound yesterday but not there yet, hopefully by the time the break in period is over I'll have gotten it to where I like it......it's the transparency, I'm not used to hearing my basses as they truly are....those Markbass cabs do add their own tone (which I like)....I really wish I could hear the Tots in a band situation so I can really make up my mind on them.........I like how the Tots sound though I'm not sure it's the tone I want, they just seem too clean but my ears are getting used to them slowly....next I'll try one Tot with the NY121 and see what that's like though it's defeating the purpose of having 2 x 22 lb cabs

I understand your point of view. Markbass cabs do sound nice (except those darn piezos ) and for quite some time I used and really liked Epifani UL cabs which definitely have their own tone profile.

Moving to a PA-style cabinet is definitely a choice, IMO. EQ can go a long way by adding and subtracting the frequencies that make your ears happy, in which case the amp is pretty important. Some folks go with a clean rig and get the tone they want through effects. That's not for me, if I wanted an SVT tone I'd use an SVT. Again, that's just me.

Lately I've been expanding the PA-style rig concept to having the same feature in the amp as well as the cab. It then truly comes down to the sound of your bass and your playing style and it definitely takes some getting used to. Again, I could add effects for coloration, but for me it defeats the goal.

If the EQ thing doesn't work for you perhaps another amp might be worth investigating before abandoning the Tots?

 

[KJung]

I understand your point of view. Markbass cabs do sound nice (except those darn piezos ) and for quite some time I used and really liked Epifani UL cabs which definitely have their own tone profile.

Moving to a PA-style cabinet is definitely a choice, IMO. EQ can go a long way by adding and subtracting the frequencies that make your ears happy, in which case the amp is pretty important. Some folks go with a clean rig and get the tone they want through effects. That's not for me, if I wanted an SVT tone I'd use an SVT. Again, that's just me.

Lately I've been expanding the PA-style rig concept to having the same feature in the amp as well as the cab. It then truly comes down to the sound of your bass and your playing style and it definitely takes some getting used to. Again, I could add effects for coloration, but for me it defeats the goal.

If the EQ thing doesn't work for you perhaps another amp might be worth investigating before abandoning the Tots?

Are the tots one way? Are they based on the 3012HO drivers? (I have no idea, but that is what I would assume). IF that is the case, these cabs will be quite voiced and not 'PA like' at all. They will be super bright in the upper mids, which gives the impression of 'transparency'... i.e., hearing every little bit of string noise, etc.

Again, I could be VERY wrong here, but IF these are small 3012HO cabs, you again will be shocked at how much upper mid brightness you might need to dial out to smooth the response out. On the OP's Markbass, that means the upper mid control at 800hz dialed back to 9 o'clock, or more.

I might be very wrong here, but if I am not, then these cabs will be very 'bright' right in the area where many players don't want a peak... that 'gank' area in the 1K region.

I actually like that voicing, but it can freak you out if you aren't ready for it!

 

[JxBass]

Are the tots one way? Are they based on the 3012HO drivers? (I have no idea, but that is what I would assume). IF that is the case, these cabs will be quite voiced and not 'PA like' at all. They will be super bright in the upper mids, which gives the impression of 'transparency'... i.e., hearing every little bit of string noise, etc.

Again, I could be VERY wrong here, but IF these are small 3012HO cabs, you again will be shocked at how much upper mid brightness you might need to dial out to smooth the response out. On the OP's Markbass, that means the upper mid control at 800hz dialed back to 9 o'clock, or more.

I might be very wrong here, but if I am not, then these cabs will be very 'bright' right in the area where many players don't want a peak... that 'gank' area in the 1K region.

I actually like that voicing, but it can freak you out if you aren't ready for it!

Good point Ken, it may have been an incorrect assumption on my part. I certainly lay no claim to being a signal modeler or interpreter of cab designs, I made a leap based on my TC112 experience and Loopee's transparency comment.

 

[KJung]

Good point Ken, it may have been an incorrect assumption on my part. I certainly lay no claim to being a signal modeler or interpreter of cab designs, I made a leap based on my TC112 experience and Loopee's transparency comment.

+1 I guess my experience is that many times, when someone (including me!) feels a cab is 'transparent', that often correlates not so much to 'flat' as it does to a very present upper mid response. When you start to hear that 'winding on the B string' sort of tone, it can really be a 'whoa' experience for better or worse (depending on again, what you are going for).

I again don't have any info if this is the case with the OP's cabs, but her impressions of the cab suggest that I 'might' be right. If I am, it is an easy fix, since her Markbass fixed frequency upper mid control is in pretty much the right place to reduce that brightness, which will smooth the response of the cabs, and also give the impression of a fatter low end due to the more balanced lows to highs.

Duke... apologies if I'm totally off base here, and I'll erase these posts if I'm guessing wrong

 

[IntrepidCellist]

Also, the Markbass mini 12" cabs have a very, very warm, smooth tone. It's pleasing, but not very "present."

 

[KJung]

Also, the Markbass mini 12" cabs have a very, very warm, smooth tone. It's pleasing, but not very "present."

+1 Classic 'hole' between the top of the driver response and where the tweeter kicks in, giving the top end a very airy (even with that awful piezo tweeter!) response, and being quite forgiving to not perfect technique (similar in a way to the Epi UL cabs).

Just to provide an example of what I'm talking about, and maybe what the OP is hearing, here is an audio clip of a small 3015HO loaded one way box. I LOVE this sound, but you can hear that VERY present upper mid grind and brightness. This clip is with my Markbass head set neutral, letting those upper mids come screaming out of that box. I love it for what it is, but again, very different than the TC112.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Jazzdogg]

I use the same horn in the 115 as in the 112, but with a different compression driver that allows a lower crossover. The 112 is the more ideal configuration from a radiation pattern standpoint, but the compromise in the 115 configuration still leaves it outperforming most conventional cabs as far as radiation pattern smoothness in the crossover region.



-3 dB @ 56 Hz; -6 dB @ 47 Hz; -10 dB @ 40 Hz, based on computer simulations. Other relevant specs are 95.0 dB and an internal volume of about 1.65 cubic feet (for the 112 cab), if anyone wants to run some simulations of their own to double-check the feasibility of my claims.

Thanks, Duke.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

The pricing and availability situation for custom neodymium-magnet woofers has continued to deteriorate. My choices are to: a) leave my prices alone and get out of the neodymium cab business when my existing stock of woofers is gone, or b) hike my prices and sock away enough money to (hopefully) stay in the game.

Well the bad news for you guys is, I wanna stay in the game.

My $50 hike back in June only covered my additional cost on the woofers at that time; it didn't add on any markup to restore my percentage margin. Basically, I treated it like a neodymium "surcharge".

Well unfortunately we're at the point where another $50 "surcharge" has to be tacked on.

So effective September 1st, the cost of the standard Thunderchild will go up to by $50 to $800 each, and $920 each for the "acoustic friendly" version (plus shipping).

At the same time "introductory pricing" will come to an end for the 115, and its price will rise by $100 to $950 for the standard version and $1070 for the "acoustic friendly" version (plus shipping).

Just to be clear, this doesn't affect any orders in place or placed before September 1st.

Duke

 

[Joebone]

The pricing and availability situation for custom neodymium-magnet woofers has continued to deteriorate. My choices are to: a) leave my prices alone and get out of the neodymium cab business when my existing stock of woofers is gone, or b) hike my prices and sock away enough money to (hopefully) stay in the game.

Well the bad news for you guys is, I wanna stay in the game.

My $50 hike back in June only covered my additional cost on the woofers at that time; it didn't add on any markup to restore my percentage margin. Basically, I treated it like a neodymium "surcharge".

Well unfortunately we're at the point where another $50 "surcharge" has to be tacked on.

So effective September 1st, the cost of the standard Thunderchild will go up to by $50 to $800 each, and $920 each for the "acoustic friendly" version (plus shipping).

At the same time "introductory pricing" will come to an end for the 115, and its price will rise by $100 to $950 for the standard version and $1070 for the "acoustic friendly" version (plus shipping).

Duke

What's the projected size and weight for that 115?

 

[DukeLeJeune]

What's the projected size and weight for that 115?

25" tall by 21" wide by 14" deep (same depth as the Thunderchild). The idea was to have a fat-suitcase-type form factor. It will have the recessed padded handle on top, and pocket handles on the sides for two-hand carry. Projected weight is in the low 40's.

 

[loopee]

yes, it is a definite "whoa" experience as you say Kjung.....having been using the MB cabs for the last year or more I got to really enjoy that warm though not so "Present" tone....so it'll take a bit of time to get used to the Tots....quite right also about the mids.....yesterday I ended up with both mid knobs between 9-10 before the Tots started sounding more familiar, I'm going to have to do more tweaking and hopefully when the break in period is done it might make a bit of a difference also......don't get me wrong, the Tots sound great but just a bit too "there" but I want to hear them in a band mix before I make a decision on them cause that's where it's the most important....mostly Rock and Blues....the MB cabs do that pretty darn good....but those Tots are just the right size and weight and so darn "cute" and powerful all at the same time (just like their owner...lol) that I really want them to do it for me...Duke builds some really nice quality cabs

wonder if the GB Streamliner would work better??????

I'm also considering changing my pedals......I have a box full of them, the Diamond Comp adds a nice warm tone so I might try that one and switch the DHA for the BDDI once again and maybe even the Exciter though I was hoping to get away from pedals and keeping my rig simple....