AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...

[5StringPocket]

That's a very reasonable weight for a cab of that size.

 

[monsterthompson]

Duke, can you give me some "sound reasoning" regarding going with a TC115 vs a Hathor? What's the flavor difference I should expect to hear? Heaven forbid I decide to consider the 18" woofer versions of the TC vs Hathor line, what other differences will be most notable?

 

[christw]

Meanwhile, I'm in love with the TC118. I'm seriously considering a second one because it can handle anything! A pair would cover any gig I'll see for years to come.

 

[monsterthompson]

don't tempt me.

 

[christw]

I just bought an IPR 1600 DSP and need to pick it up from my old jam spot. Ears be damned, there will be bass!

Expect the TC to be clean. The 18 goes deeeeep, especially with judicious EQ. I use the 3.5k rolloff for bass but want to demo it full range as soon as I can. Thus far, what you put in is what you get out. That's why I loved the first Audiokinesis cab I saw, a TC112 at a GTG

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Duke, can you give me some "sound reasoning" regarding going with a TC115 vs a Hathor? What's the flavor difference I should expect to hear? Heaven forbid I decide to consider the 18" woofer versions of the TC vs Hathor line, what other differences will be most notable?

As far as flavor goes, the Thunderchild series all are aimed at "what goes in is what comes out". All start out fairly neutral, all have that 3.5 kHz rolloff switch, and a few have a switch that puts a little bit more bite into the upper mids, but they're basically high-end PA cabs with enough excursion and extension to handle bass guitar.

The Hathor series is evolving towards being more deliberately "voiced" for bass guitar, and with cones on top (instead of a PA-style horn) they're more overdrive-friendly. There's more variation from model to model within the Hathor line, as I'm not so much beating the drivers into submission. And I'm more comfortable about allowing some bumpage and dippage in the response, as long as it's in the right places.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

As far as flavor goes, the Thunderchild series all are aimed at "what goes in is what comes out".

This is the secret to the TC line. If you have basses that sound great recorded direct, then the Thunderchild is your cab.

If you get your tone from pushing cone drivers to the edge, you'll be better off with the Hathor.

 

[PDGood]

This is the secret to the TC line. If you have basses that sound great recorded direct, then the Thunderchild is your cab.

If you get your tone from pushing cone drivers to the edge, you'll be better off with the Hathor.

Well said.

 

[Bmorefoozler]

Duke:
The twister series has me thinking.
Has anything ever been designed before, where instead of "twisting" the woofers to increase dispersion, what if there were 1-2 ordinarily mounted 3015's(of which many love the tone) with an intentionally "over-splayed" array of mid drivers on top.
The thought being, that, if done correctly the narrow dispersion at the top end of the 3015 coincides with the 'null" zone between the two intentionally over-splayed mid drivers.
Would this be an even reasonable manner of increasing dispersion out in the room without altering tonality to a large degree?
The one hiccup that immediately jumps to mind is that the mid drivers also narrow in dispersion as the freq rises, so you would end up with a couple high freq spikes wide to the sides that would NOT be present in front of the cabinet. Perhaps a gentle roll-off on top solves that to some degree.

Purely a thought experiment. Thanks for indulging me if you so choose.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

This is the secret to the TC line. If you have basses that sound great recorded direct, then the Thunderchild is your cab.

If you get your tone from pushing cone drivers to the edge, you'll be better off with the Hathor.

Thank you Steve for translating my geekspeak into bassplayerspeak!

Duke:
The twister series has me thinking.
Has anything ever been designed before, where instead of "twisting" the woofers to increase dispersion, what if there were 1-2 ordinarily mounted 3015's(of which many love the tone) with an intentionally "over-splayed" array of mid drivers on top.
The thought being, that, if done correctly the narrow dispersion at the top end of the 3015 coincides with the 'null" zone between the two intentionally over-splayed mid drivers.
Would this be an even reasonable manner of increasing dispersion out in the room without altering tonality to a large degree?
The one hiccup that immediately jumps to mind is that the mid drivers also narrow in dispersion as the freq rises, so you would end up with a couple high freq spikes wide to the sides that would NOT be present in front of the cabinet. Perhaps a gentle roll-off on top solves that to some degree.

Purely a thought experiment. Thanks for indulging me if you so choose.

Wow, this is very creative thinking! I'm not sure that I could be more foozled by your ingenuity!!

And you already figured out the upper-frequency spike problem, along with a possible solution. Very good job!

I cranked up my modeling program and found that, even with oversplay, the mids have to be quite directional - i.e. large in diameter - in order to have much of a "hole in the middle" in the region where the 3015 starts to beam. With 75 degrees of splay, 10" mids still don't develop a 6 dB hole in the middle until somewhere around 1.8 kHz, and that's assuming they behave as pistons, which would not be the case.

But even if we don't get much hole in the middle from our big oversplayed mids, I don't think it's such a bad thing to be reinforcing the woofer's on-axis response in that upper midrange region. We'd still be taking a big step forward in effective coverage.

I'm doing something vaguely similar in the Hathor 1855, although I opted for a fairly modest splay because I don't want a hole in the middle up high where only the mids are contributing. Well in all fairness the 18" subwoofer I'm using in that model is weak in the upper mids, so it differs from your example in that way as well, but it does combine splayed mids with a big woofer.

I think the Twister will make a worthwhile improvement to the pattern width of the 3015 and other good 15's. The effective pattern is imo competitive with that of a single 8" cone over the 1k - 2.5k region, in the horizontal plane. I'm not sure whether it's been obvious from my description, but the Twister configuration has the drivers physically overlapping in the horizontal plane, which delays onset of the "two spikes + hole in the middle" effect we get from splayed drivers that are beaming. How the visual weirdness will go over remains to be seen. Unfortunately about half of the boards for the Twister were cut wrong, and those cuts are more complicated than I can do on my own, so that project is delayed a bit.

I'm going to keep your oversplay configuration in mind because its day may well come. I am genuinely very impressed that you came up with such a creative configuration. Thanks!

 

[christw]

Wow! That's a cool idea. Gotta love TB!

 

[Bmorefoozler]

Thank you Steve for translating my geekspeak into bassplayerspeak!



Wow, this is very creative thinking! I'm not sure that I could be more foozled by your ingenuity!!

And you already figured out the upper-frequency spike problem, along with a possible solution. Very good job!

I cranked up my modeling program and found that, even with oversplay, the mids have to be quite directional - i.e. large in diameter - in order to have much of a "hole in the middle" in the region where the 3015 starts to beam. With 75 degrees of splay, 10" mids still don't develop a 6 dB hole in the middle until somewhere around 1.8 kHz, and that's assuming they behave as pistons, which would not be the case.

But even if we don't get much hole in the middle from our big oversplayed mids, I don't think it's such a bad thing to be reinforcing the woofer's on-axis response in that upper midrange region. We'd still be taking a big step forward in effective coverage.

I'm doing something vaguely similar in the Hathor 1855, although I opted for a fairly modest splay because I don't want a hole in the middle up high where only the mids are contributing. Well in all fairness the 18" subwoofer I'm using in that model is weak in the upper mids, so it differs from your example in that way as well, but it does combine splayed mids with a big woofer.

I think the Twister will make a worthwhile improvement to the pattern width of the 3015 and other good 15's. The effective pattern is imo competitive with that of a single 8" cone over the 1k - 2.5k region, in the horizontal plane. I'm not sure whether it's been obvious from my description, but the Twister configuration has the drivers physically overlapping in the horizontal plane, which delays onset of the "two spikes + hole in the middle" effect we get from splayed drivers that are beaming. How the visual weirdness will go over remains to be seen. Unfortunately about half of the boards for the Twister were cut wrong, and those cuts are more complicated than I can do on my own, so that project is delayed a bit.

I'm going to keep your oversplay configuration in mind because its day may well come. I am genuinely very impressed that you came up with such a creative configuration. Thanks!

Thanks for the compliment. I look forward to every project you develop. I like outside the box approaches.

BTW, did you check on that null zone with both outwardly splayed and inwardly splayed mids? /\ vs \/?

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I look forward to every project you develop. I like outside the box approaches.

Thank you. I'll probably never build a totally mainstream conventional cab because that's already being done and done successfully - I'm looking for things that aren't really being done yet (often with an eye on the radiation pattern), as that way I can hopefully contribute to the range of options you guys have to choose from.

BTW, did you check on that null zone with both outwardly splayed and inwardly splayed mids? /\ vs \/?

I only looked at outward splay. Normally I prefer inward splay because normally I'm trying to minimize the hole in the middle, and inward splay allows for closer horizontal spacing because we don't have to allow clearance for the magnets. In this case I wanted to encourage the hole in the middle, so I used very aggressive outward splay with full-cabinet-width driver spacing.

For very aggressive splay angles, inward splay starts to approach slot loading, and my program doesn't model slot loading effects.

 

[LeonD]

I'm thinking it's new amp time and I was wondering about the TC cabs and power ratings of amps.

Duke, I know there are a lot of variables but what would you recommend as a minimum wattage to drive your cabinets? And then what would the ideal wattage be?

For the record, I'm playing an 8 ohm, TC115. Would the power requirements change for a single 4 ohm cab or for two 8 ohm cabs (for a 4 ohm load)?

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I'm thinking it's new amp time and I was wondering about the TC cabs and power ratings of amps.

Duke, I know there are a lot of variables but what would you recommend as a minimum wattage to drive your cabinets? And then what would the ideal wattage be?

For the record, I'm playing an 8 ohm, TC115. Would the power requirements change for a single 4 ohm cab or for two 8 ohm cabs (for a 4 ohm load)?

I'd say 250 to 300 watts is at the lower end of recommended, with 500 watts being just about ideal. More is okay if you're careful, and given how much I charge for my cabs, most of my customers are careful!

These wattage numbers are the same for all of my 112 and 115 cabs. Of course the bigger 115 cabs are more efficient, such that 300 watts into a 115 is going to be about like 500 watts into a 112, as far as SPL.

That being said, please give greater weight to any of your fellow bass players who post or have posted on the subject, as I'd trust them over my armchair-quarterback opinion.

 

[John D Harris]

I'm thinking it's new amp time and I was wondering about the TC cabs and power ratings of amps.

Duke, I know there are a lot of variables but what would you recommend as a minimum wattage to drive your cabinets? And then what would the ideal wattage be?

For the record, I'm playing an 8 ohm, TC115. Would the power requirements change for a single 4 ohm cab or for two 8 ohm cabs (for a 4 ohm load)?

Two 8 ohm TC115 would handle twice the power of a single one, but as far as minimum, it should be the same as a single cab; you'd just have access to more maximum power out of a conventional solid-state power section with the 4 ohm load; tube power sections are generally a different animal.

 

[Freddels]

Leon, I can bring over my 7Pro and TH500 to see if you like one of those with your cab.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

I'm thinking it's new amp time and I was wondering about the TC cabs and power ratings of amps.

Duke, I know there are a lot of variables but what would you recommend as a minimum wattage to drive your cabinets? And then what would the ideal wattage be?

For the record, I'm playing an 8 ohm, TC115. Would the power requirements change for a single 4 ohm cab or for two 8 ohm cabs (for a 4 ohm load)?

Duke's power ratings are real, not like the "peak power" ratings of the cabs you see at GC. They still sound really good at full blast.

The G-K MB or MBF 800's, Genz 9.0's or 9.2's (Shuttle, Max, Streamliner), Ampeg PF800, TecAmp Puma 1000, Warwick LWA1000, etc., all put out a solid 500 watts into 8 ohms. This makes them a perfect power match for your 8 ohm Thunderchild.

You can hit them hard without worrying too much about blowing up your expensive cab, and if you get a second cab for big gigs, you'll still be driving each one with a respectable 400 watts or so.

These cabs still sound great when they're a little underpowered (my 4 ohm TC is pleasing on quiet gigs with my little MB200), but you sacrifice the clean, open headroom that makes these cabs such a treat when the band gets rockin'.

The minimum wattage I'd want with an 8-ohm TC would be 350 real-world watts, which requires a "500 watt class" head, like the Aguilar TH 500, Ampeg PF 500, G-K MB and MBF 500's, Genz 6.0's and 6.2's, etc.

 

[LeonD]

Thanks for the input guys.

I've recently started feeling that my GK MB800 might be too colored for the TC cab. I think I'd like more of the natural bass' voice to come thru. The cab is certainly setup for an uncolored sound.

I was thinking along the lines of an EA iAmp, AI Focus, TecAmp Puma or a Jule Amps De-Monique.

My questions about power comes from the fact that I'm turning my amp up more with the TC than my other cabs. Thinking about it though, it's not a fair comparison; apples to oranges. 4 ohms vs. 8 ohms; tweeters vs horn, etc. It's not like I'm running out of power now it's just that I have the volume knob up higher. If I'm getting a new amp, I want to make sure it has enough power. I've been under powered before and I NEVER want to go back there.

Fred, we've tried those heads with other cabinets. I'd like to hear them again thru the TC; see what that cab can bring out of them. Email me when you're free and we can set something up.

 

[tombowlus]

Thanks for the input guys.

I've recently started feeling that my GK MB800 might be too colored for the TC cab. I think I'd like more of the natural bass' voice to come thru. The cab is certainly setup for an uncolored sound.

I was thinking along the lines of an EA iAmp, AI Focus, TecAmp Puma or a Jule Amps De-Monique.

My questions about power comes from the fact that I'm turning my amp up more with the TC than my other cabs. Thinking about it though, it's not a fair comparison; apples to oranges. 4 ohms vs. 8 ohms; tweeters vs horn, etc. It's not like I'm running out of power now it's just that I have the volume knob up higher. If I'm getting a new amp, I want to make sure it has enough power. I've been under powered before and I NEVER want to go back there.

Fred, we've tried those heads with other cabinets. I'd like to hear them again thru the TC; see what that cab can bring out of them. Email me when you're free and we can set something up.

FWIW, the Link Removed is more colored than the Link Removed. I dig them both, granted. Check the links, above, to see our technical reviews (and "all controls at noon" vs "optimally flat").