AudioKinesis 1x12 Cab Part Two

[mothra2]

So I finally got a chance to hear the acoustic-friendly version in some typical gigging contexts last night. Small winery open mike (100 capacity), minimalist drum kit, acoustic guitar, electric guitar (Fender Super), keys, alto sax, a couple of singers. I was playing my EUB, using my overkill-ish DIY rack "head". Set of Beatles ballads, set of uptempo alt-classic folk rock, and my set of deconstructed jazz standards (Gangsta-rap Autumn Leaves etc.) The place was busy but not crazy, maybe 60 patrons during my sets.

This is usually the toughest room I play in; boom is always lurking and my ears are often ringing into the next morning. Last night I managed to lay down a pretty nice "real" upright vibe and get the others to buy into a rational volume level. No ringing at all today. One of the regulars who I trust told me this was the best he's ever heard our little jazz ensemble sound in there. MY EUB just felt more "acoustic" than I'm used to in that room. So Duke's little cab passed the first test with flying colors.

My main takeaway continues to be that the secondary tweeter adds a lot more than one might expect at first blush. This one's a keeper, for sure.

Wow! ... sounds intriguing.
In what ways might straight Electric bass improve over the non rear tweeter version?

 

[Passinwind]

Wow! ... sounds intriguing.
In what ways might straight Electric bass improve over the non rear tweeter version?

Dispersion, and air. We heard that echo'ed over and over at the Boise GTG.

 

[mothra2]

Dispersion, and air. We heard that echo'ed over and over at the Boise GTG.

NICE! ... does it require any boundary distance minimums for the rear driver to work optimally?

Does its response/effectiveness change depending on what that rear boundary consists of?

 

[IntrepidCellist]

I have the "standard" non-acoustic version, and it sounds great with my electric cello.

 

[Passinwind]

NICE! ... does it require any boundary distance minimums for the rear driver to work optimally?

Does its response/effectiveness change depending on what that rear boundary consists of?

I think Duke should/could answer that in depth. Seems like he mentioned 6 inches as the minimum boundary distance. That's about where I was at last night in the winery.

I have the "standard" non-acoustic version, and it sounds great with my electric cello.

I'm sure it does, my EUB has sounded great through all the iterations I've tried.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

NICE! ... does it require any boundary distance minimums for the rear driver to work optimally?

Does its response/effectiveness change depending on what that rear boundary consists of?

You can think of the cab as behaving sort of like an acoustic instrument, say an acoustic guitar. Yeah it might sound a little better out from the wall instead of right up against it, and yeah it'll sound a bit richer with a reflective rather than absorptive surface behind it, but you can still use it anywhere it will fit.

I think the acoustic-friendly version will actually be less room-sensitive than most cabs. The reason is, the contribution of the reverberant field isn't going to change the tonal balance significantly because it's spectrally pretty close to the direct sound out in front of the cab. So the tonal balance probably won't change a whole lot from one environment to another, though the timbre (richness or "texture" of the tone) will probably be best in an environment that's not overdamped.

In an outdoor setting, I don't think the rear-firing tweeter would add anything useful to what the audience hears. It would, however, improve your drummer's chances of hearing what you're doing. But that cab's probably a bit small for most outdoor gigs anyway.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

My main takeaway continues to be that the secondary tweeter adds a lot more than one might expect at first blush.

Thank you very much, Charlie! Wish I could claim the idea was original... maybe the implementation is; I don't know of anyone using a rear-firing tweeter to complement a constant-directivity front-firing horn.

The first prosound-type cab I did with a rear-facing tweeter was supposed to be a guitar cab, which I built years ago for my daughter (who you met in Boise). Not knowing diddly about guitar cabs, it used PA-style drivers and looked sort of like a Thunderchild, but the horn and crossover weren't as good. Not surprisingly it left something to be desired as a guitar cab, but turned out to be a pretty decent bass cab, and people who played through it liked being able to hear what was going on from behind the cab. So I made mental note that, one of these days, the concept was probably worth coming back to.

 

[Passinwind]

Just letting everyone know that there is now a second source for a Thunderchild cover. I had Gary & Co at Tuki make one up for me. Great service, great fit, and a terrific padded cover as always.

I went for one of these, ordered directly off the website. It just arrived this afternoon. It came stock with no logo and a velcro strap, FWIW. Eleven days from order to delivery in my case. Good stuff!

 

[JxBass]

Cool. I'm very happy with Tuki Covers. I actually wound up with two TC12 covers but only one TC12. I ordered the 2nd cover before I changed my 2nd TC12 to a TC15

 

[Passinwind]

Cool. I'm very happy with Tuki Covers. I actually wound up with two TC12 covers but only one TC12. I ordered the 2nd cover before I changed my 2nd TC12 to a TC15

Aw, I would have just bought yours. Thanks for doing the legwork anyhow. Ordering one up was dead easy.

 

[mothra2]

You can think of the cab as behaving sort of like an acoustic instrument, say an acoustic guitar. Yeah it might sound a little better out from the wall instead of right up against it, and yeah it'll sound a bit richer with a reflective rather than absorptive surface behind it, but you can still use it anywhere it will fit.

I think the acoustic-friendly version will actually be less room-sensitive than most cabs. The reason is, the contribution of the reverberant field isn't going to change the tonal balance significantly because it's spectrally pretty close to the direct sound out in front of the cab. So the tonal balance probably won't change a whole lot from one environment to another, though the timbre (richness or "texture" of the tone) will probably be best in an environment that's not overdamped.

In an outdoor setting, I don't think the rear-firing tweeter would add anything useful to what the audience hears. It would, however, improve your drummer's chances of hearing what you're doing. But that cab's probably a bit small for most outdoor gigs anyway.

I just have to say that the bass community is really really fortunate to have guys like Duke stepping in to the bass cab world.

... just sayin.

Is this off topic? ...

 

[mothra2]

... That's one of the things that really got my attention when I first took a look at greenboy's fEarfuls: Not only had he found a way to use the mighty 3015LF, but his system design was excellent. As for his crossover expertise, well some time ago I was thinking of offering a kit with the 3015LF + a big compression driver, and with all my fancy-schmancy measurement equipment, the low-pass filter I came up with for the 3015LF was identical to greenboy's! And he got there without the fancy toys I have.

So anyway sorry for the ramble, but my point is, it takes a knowledge of all the factors and tradeoffs to do a system design right, and a horn is enough of a system in and of itself that it should be designed by an expert. And, that ain't me!.

THIS is an amazing statement!

 

[pkstone]

Greetings, TB'ers.

I'm a newbie here, having been drawn out of my lurkage by the ThunderChild thread. I'm just beginning to play out at this late stage of my life, having come to the bass in my middle-age with a background in more electronic and experimental performance. I play both a lefty MIJ Jazz and a Steinberger XL2 unlined fretless, flipped to lefty. I'm in a start-up that mostly covers a variety of rock, but I also play jazz, and intend to gig in both cases.

I'm thinking that the TC112 looks perfect for my needs. Concurrently, I've been gassing for the Gallien-Krueger MB500. Does anyone have experience with that combination, or an opinion about it, at least?

Thanks for any feedback. (Feedback?! Turn DOWN!)

Phil

 

[Derek Kiernan]

Something I'd like to correct myself on:

When A/Bing my Berg AE 210 and Duke's cabinet recently, it seemed as if Duke's cabinet had at least as much apparent volume as the Berg. I kept all settings consistent (including volume) for the back and forth. The lower two strings had much more body, the upper two sounded much smoother and more even. The cabinet change requires substantial pickup adjustment Before, I was reporting that the Berg had more apparent volume. I don't know if the Thunderchild's woofer breaking in has been that significant, but it's certainly not true at this point. Important note: the Berg is 8 ohm, Duke's is 4 ohm, so there is a considerable wattage increase with the ShuttleMAX - I'm not trying to say I tested at comparable wattages.

Even if the Berg's upper mid resonance made it louder at the same settings, you could add in similar coloration with the Thunderchild (if you have the tools for it) and not sacrifice headroom/wattage. I don't have a clear notion of how maximum volumes compare, since the Berg may still be more sensitive per watt, but it seems like you'd have to use enough watts with it to get a similarly full lowend that you couldn't get much louder with both at max volume, if at all. I'm very satisfied and will probably unload the Berg when I'm able to. I never run into situations where I have to run the amp that hard. Has anyone tested the limits of the Thunderchild?

 

[JxBass]

Something I'd like to correct myself on:

When A/Bing my Berg AE 210 and Duke's cabinet recently, it seemed as if Duke's cabinet had at least as much apparent volume as the Berg. I kept all settings consistent (including volume) for the back and forth. The lower two strings had much more body, the upper two sounded much smoother and more even. The cabinet change requires substantial pickup adjustment Before, I was reporting that the Berg had more apparent volume. I don't know if the Thunderchild's woofer breaking in has been that significant, but it's certainly not true at this point. Important note: the Berg is 8 ohm, Duke's is 4 ohm, so there is a considerable wattage increase with the ShuttleMAX - I'm not trying to say I tested at comparable wattages.

This is consistent with Ken's initial comments on the TC12. He believed it would be as loud as most 210s.

 

[KJung]

This is consistent with Ken's initial comments on the TC12. He believed it would be as loud as most 210s.

+1 Given the lower sensitivity of the TC112, even at 4ohms versus the typical 8ohm 210, you have to crank the master a bit more with the TC112, but that driver will take it. At the same master volume setting, most mid voiced 210's will sound quite a bit louder. However, as you turn that master up with the typical 400-600 micro head, the TC will continue to get louder and the low end will not compress nearly as much as most 210's, given you higher absolute volume through the entire frequency range of the cab.

Really impressive! The voicing is more even and 'smooth' with the TC, so the EQ requirements are quite different. As posted above, a cut in the upper mids with my Berg AE's turns into a boost in the upper mids with my TC112.

I would guess that the relationship between the upcomming TC115 and most 212 cabs would be similar.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Greetings, TB'ers.

I'm a newbie here, having been drawn out of my lurkage by the ThunderChild thread. I'm just beginning to play out at this late stage of my life, having come to the bass in my middle-age with a background in more electronic and experimental performance. I play both a lefty MIJ Jazz and a Steinberger XL2 unlined fretless, flipped to lefty. I'm in a start-up that mostly covers a variety of rock, but I also play jazz, and intend to gig in both cases.

I'm thinking that the TC112 looks perfect for my needs. Concurrently, I've been gassing for the Gallien-Krueger MB500. Does anyone have experience with that combination, or an opinion about it, at least?l

Welcome, Phil!

Thanks for posting here! It's an honor to have my little cab be the subject of your first post on TB.

Unfortunately I can's shed much light on your question about compatibility with the Gallien-Krueger MB500 head, except to say that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work well. That looks to me like an unusually flexible little head, as far as EQ goes, and my hope is that the Thunderchild cabs start out sort of like a clean canvas for you and your bass and amp to paint on.

As 4-ohm cabs go, both version of the Thunderchild 112 are relatively easy loads. [geek mode] The minimum impedance is 3.9 ohms, which in itself is a rather benign minimum for a "4 ohm" cab, and the phase angle at that point is just about 0 degrees - which again contributes to an easy load [/geek mode]. As mentioned by others its efficiency is rather modest, so it likes (and can take) a fair amount of power; my intention was that it work well with 500-watt microheads.

 

[KJung]

Welcome, Phil!

Thanks for posting here! It's an honor to have my little cab be the subject of your first post on TB.

Unfortunately I can's shed much light on your question about compatibility with the Gallien-Krueger MB500 head, except to say that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work well. That looks to me like an unusually flexible little head, as far as EQ goes, and my hope is that the Thunderchild cabs start out sort of like a clean canvas for you and your bass and amp to paint on.

As 4-ohm cabs go, both version of the Thunderchild 112 are relatively easy loads. [geek mode] The minimum impedance is 3.9 ohms, which in itself is a rather benign minimum for a "4 ohm" cab, and the phase angle at that point is just about 0 degrees - which again contributes to an easy load [/geek mode]. As mentioned by others its efficiency is rather modest, so it likes (and can take) a fair amount of power; my intention was that it work well with 500-watt microheads.

Hey Duke,

The little GK sounds quite good with your cab. While the EQ points are virtually identical to the Markbass F1 (which sounds REALLY good with your cab), the voicing is quite a bit more 'aggressive'... deeper low end, much more sizzly/extended top end, and MUCH more upper midrange distortion/grind built into its voicing.

I prefer the F1/F500 with your cab, since it kind of vibes better with the 'clean, accurate, relatively neutral' vibe of your cab voicing, but the GK MB500 (and I assume MBFusion) adds more 'bigness and brightness and sizzle and grind' to the sound, and would appeal to a player that wants some more aggressive bite to his/her tone.

IMO and IME!

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Hey Duke,

The little GK sounds quite good with your cab. While the EQ points are virtually identical to the Markbass F1 (which sounds REALLY good with your cab), the voicing is quite a bit more 'aggressive'... deeper low end, much more sizzly/extended top end, and MUCH more upper midrange distortion/grind built into its voicing.

I prefer the F1/F500 with your cab, since it kind of vibes better with the 'clean, accurate, relatively neutral' vibe of your cab voicing, but the GK MB500 (and I assume MBFusion) adds more 'bigness and brightness and sizzle and grind' to the sound, and would appeal to a player that wants some more aggressive bite to his/her tone.

IMO and IME!

Thanks, Ken!

 

[pkstone]

Welcome, Phil!

Thanks for posting here! It's an honor to have my little cab be the subject of your first post on TB.

Unfortunately I can's shed much light on your question about compatibility with the Gallien-Krueger MB500 head, except to say that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work well. That looks to me like an unusually flexible little head, as far as EQ goes, and my hope is that the Thunderchild cabs start out sort of like a clean canvas for you and your bass and amp to paint on.

Thanks for the quick reply, Duke (talk about being honored!). I'm PM'ing you. Thanks for your input, also, Ken.


Phil