AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...

[steubig]

I think the 1505 is a bit more aggressive in the upper mids than the 1203 when both are in "grindy" mode, but it's cut from the same cloth, so to speak. With the midrange smoothed on both, I think they are probably more similar in the midrange region. The 1203 of course goes a bit higher, 12 kHz vs about 8 kHz (those claims take beaming into account... both midrange manufacturers' published [on-axis] curves go to 20 kHz, and that's what they claim).

Part of the 4 string/5 string thing probably goes back to the low end. The little 1203 actually has a slightly louder low-B, relative to the rest of the spectrum, -3.2 dB at 62 Hz vs -4.0 dB for the 1505. That being said, most people who own one and have heard both have said that the 1505 (or 1533) has a "bigger" low end. That's how it sounds to me too, but I can't readily explain it. The shape of the curves in the low end is a little bit different, but not by much. Maybe it's just a difference that the bigger cone makes, and it doesn't show up in a graph.

i'm sorta more interested in how the mids/highs sound in comparison to the tc112v1.


also, it is possible that the sense of there being more low end comes from a larger cabinet interior holding the low notes more/longer. mssr no static and i felt this was a possibility when comparing a few cabinets the other day.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

My mistake - it's only a 1200 watt woofer. Sorry about that!

Indeed the new Hathor 18 will assume the crown of "most powerful AK cab." ....or perhaps it already did... Duke?

The new Hathor 18 uses the same woofer as in the Hathor 1855 that it will be replacing. According to my calculations, the motor is approximately three times as strong as a Kappalite motor, so it's not pillowy like some legacy 18" bass cabs. Don't tell anyone because this is top secret, but it's the Invalid Link Removed.

 

[John D Harris]

Cool, maybe I'll be able to buy some more of the gear you cast off.

Jeez, I've been reading through this thread trying to educate myself a little so I can ask better questions when I'm ready to make some decisions, but it's almost impossible to keep up. You guys keep it moving too **** fast!

I've been stuck on the TC212 for a while as my primary GAS cab, but I think it's been replaced by the Hathor 212 - love the form factor / weight & I'm sure I'd love the tone (set for closest to flat - don't care about the uber hi-freqs)!

 

[DukeLeJeune]

i'm sorta more interested in how the mids/highs sound in comparison to the tc112v1.

So far none of my Hathor cabinets have the smooth mids and highs of the Thunderchild cabinets. That being said, the current version of the Thunderchild 115 does use the same custom woofer as the 15" Hathor cabs, so it has a bit more growly in growly mode than my other Thunderchild cabs, but still not as much as a Hathor cab.

also, it is possible that the sense of there being more low end comes from a larger cabinet interior holding the low notes more/longer. mssr no static and i felt this was a possibility when comparing a few cabinets the other day.

Excellent observation and excellent question!

Assuming we use the same woofer, a larger box translates into more contribution from the port, which does indeed make notes near the tuning frequency last longer! One advantage of my multi-port cabs is, when some ports are plugged, the tuning frequency shifts lower and therefore further away from most notes, so low-end articulation improves a bit.

Neither the Hathor 1203 nor the Hathor 15xx have very large cabs for their respective woofers, so neither has a relatively large amount of contribution from the port. But the 15xx's port's contribution is a bit more than that of the 1203. In fact I deliberately kept the cabinet size small (relatively speaking) on those two in part for that reason.

If we bring in the Thunderchild 112 for another data point, it has more relative port contribution than Hathors 1203 or 15xx, yet the 15xx sounds much bigger (to my ears).

If we just look at cabinet internal volume, the TC112's internal volume is about 1.4 times that of the Hathor 1203, and then the Hathor 15xx's is about 1.4 times the TC112's internal volume. Yet to my ears, the "bigness" jump from Thunderchild 112 to Hathor 15xx is a lot, ah, bigger, than the jump between Hathor 1203 to TC112.

Maybe it's a combination of factors (most things in the real world are). I hope to figure it out, because I think it's worth deliberately pursuing.

 

[slagheap]

pizza parlor type gig saturday. bone stock P bass, 2 hathor 1203s + d800 set @ 2 ohms. with back turned felt like i was playing through a big 2x15. uncanny to turn around and see that tiny stack. small cabs! loving the rear toggles, too. i would love to hear a 1505, but man, those little 1203s have a teensy footprint. it's addicting. they are unbelievably easy to schlep.

 

[steubig]

Excellent observation and excellent question!

Assuming we use the same woofer, a larger box translates into more contribution from the port, which does indeed make notes near the tuning frequency last longer! One advantage of my multi-port cabs is, when some ports are plugged, the tuning frequency shifts lower and therefore further away from most notes, so low-end articulation improves a bit.

Neither the Hathor 1203 nor the Hathor 15xx have very large cabs for their respective woofers, so neither has a relatively large amount of contribution from the port. But the 15xx's port's contribution is a bit more than that of the 1203. In fact I deliberately kept the cabinet size small (relatively speaking) on those two in part for that reason.

If we bring in the Thunderchild 112 for another data point, it has more relative port contribution than Hathors 1203 or 15xx, yet the 15xx sounds much bigger (to my ears).

If we just look at cabinet internal volume, the TC112's internal volume is about 1.4 times that of the Hathor 1203, and then the Hathor 15xx's is about 1.4 times the TC112's internal volume. Yet to my ears, the "bigness" jump from Thunderchild 112 to Hathor 15xx is a lot, ah, bigger, than the jump between Hathor 1203 to TC112.

Maybe it's a combination of factors (most things in the real world are). I hope to figure it out, because I think it's worth deliberately pursuing.

i read this 2.8 times and i think i almost understand it.

seriously though, thanks for this. it does make sense to my limited tech mind.

 

[Passinwind]

So far none of my Hathor cabinets have the smooth mids and highs of the Thunderchild cabinets. That being said, the current version of the Thunderchild 115 does use the same custom woofer as the 15" Hathor cabs, so it has a bit more growly in growly mode than my other Thunderchild cabs, but still not as much as a Hathor cab.

Assuming we use the same woofer, a larger box translates into more contribution from the port, which does indeed make notes near the tuning frequency last longer! One advantage of my multi-port cabs is, when some ports are plugged, the tuning frequency shifts lower and therefore further away from most notes, so low-end articulation improves a bit.

Neither the Hathor 1203 nor the Hathor 15xx have very large cabs for their respective woofers, so neither has a relatively large amount of contribution from the port. But the 15xx's port's contribution is a bit more than that of the 1203. In fact I deliberately kept the cabinet size small (relatively speaking) on those two in part for that reason.

If we bring in the Thunderchild 112 for another data point, it has more relative port contribution than Hathors 1203 or 15xx, yet the 15xx sounds much bigger (to my ears).

If we just look at cabinet internal volume, the TC112's internal volume is about 1.4 times that of the Hathor 1203, and then the Hathor 15xx's is about 1.4 times the TC112's internal volume. Yet to my ears, the "bigness" jump from Thunderchild 112 to Hathor 15xx is a lot, ah, bigger, than the jump between Hathor 1203 to TC112.

Maybe it's a combination of factors (most things in the real world are). I hope to figure it out, because I think it's worth deliberately pursuing.

Hey Duke, just wanted to mention that your post a while ago about possibly doing an Uber-TC type build with a more robust tweeter is by far my favorite concept of anything you've mentioned recently. I already have a couple of DIY cabs like that that I use at home nearly every day, but they are far too unwieldy to gig with and I would love to hear your take(s) on that sort of cab for sure.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I have to say, I really like the look of the Hathor 212.

Thank you Marial! That is NOT the kind of comment my cabs are used to getting!

i would love to hear a 1505, but man, those little 1203s have a teensy footprint. it's addicting. they are unbelievably easy to schlep.

Thank you!

The Hathor 1203 came about in large part because I had people urging me to do a 110 cab. I looked around and didn't see any 10" woofers that looked as good to me as the 12" Kappalite 3012LF crammed into a really small box. Kudos to Jerry McNutt of Eminence for his Kappalite woofers, and kudos to whoever designed the little 3FE22 for Faital Pro in Italy.

i read this 2.8 times and i think i almost understand it.

seriously though, thanks for this. it does make sense to my limited tech mind.

Sometimes my inner geek goes off on tangents and my fingers just keep typing.

Hey Duke, just wanted to mention that your post a while ago about possibly doing an Uber-TC type build with a more robust tweeter is by far my favorite concept of anything you've mentioned recently. I already have a couple of DIY cabs like that that I use at home nearly every day, but they are far too unwieldy to gig with and I would love to hear your take(s) on that sort of cab for sure.

Thank you. You're the one who told me to go ahead and build the TC112, and you're the one who showed me that it could benefit from a rear-firing tweeter, even if you didn't realize it at the time.

 

[Passinwind]

Thank you. You're the one who told me to go ahead and build the TC112, and you're the one who showed me that it could benefit from a rear-firing tweeter, even if you didn't realize it at the time.

That back tweeter has been very helpful in my regular big band gigs this year, along with the back porting. Even, or maybe especially, with fretless BG, which has become my default with that band. I'm sure the Birdhaus concept would play well with that band situation too, FWIW. With 17 people strewn all over the place, and no PA monitors the vast majority of the time, dispersion really matters even more than usual.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

That back tweeter has been very helpful in my regular big band gigs this year, along with the back porting. Even, or maybe especially, with fretless BG, which has become my default with that band. I'm sure the Birdhaus concept would play well with that band situation too, FWIW. With 17 people strewn all over the place, and no PA monitors the vast majority of the time, dispersion really matters even more than usual.

Very interesting, as improving dispersion is an area that interests me a great deal. More can be done than what I've done so far. Just gotta figure out how to keep the size and weight reasonable. Hmmm.

 

[Passinwind]

Very interesting, as improving dispersion is an area that interests me a great deal. More can be done than what I've done so far. Just gotta figure out how to keep the size and weight reasonable. Hmmm.

How about an MI version of the Walsh driver?

 

[John D Harris]

How about an MI version of the Walsh driver?

Didn't know those were still around.

 

[Passinwind]

Didn't know those were still around.

Not sure if they really are, but there's a 4 year/100 page thread on DIYaudio.com about rolling your own.

 

[Turn Em Loose]

I was only talking about the last flip, not the next one. Enjoy the honeymoon Bro...the bride looks lovely.

Oh. Nevermind, then. But you can give me pre-empitve sh*t about he next flip. Shucks, might as well get in a few shots for the next coupla flips. I don't mind. In fact, I deserve it!!


My dogs barely lift a head when the FedEx guy parks in front of the house.


And "Thanks!".....The honeymoon starts NYE with the 1533.

 

[Marial]

Badges?

 

[tombowlus]

If only we had the same choice in president-elects...

Too funny!

 

[tombowlus]

My mistake - it's only a 1200 watt woofer. Sorry about that!



The new Hathor 18 uses the same woofer as in the Hathor 1855 that it will be replacing. According to my calculations, the motor is approximately three times as strong as a Kappalite motor, so it's not pillowy like some legacy 18" bass cabs. Don't tell anyone because this is top secret, but it's the Invalid Link Removed.

The low end output and "feel" from the 1855 (and I'm sure the new 18XX) really has to be heard/felt in person to be fully appreciated. Throw a powerful head at this cab, and prepare yourself! Do not - I REPEAT, DO NOT!!! - attempt to play the "brown note" through this cab, because you WILL succeed!

 

[3rdcurve]

The low end output and "feel" from the 1855 (and I'm sure the new 18XX) really has to be heard/felt in person to be fully appreciated. Throw a powerful head at this cab, and prepare yourself! Do not - I REPEAT, DO NOT!!! - attempt to play the "brown note" through this cab, because you WILL succeed!

Question:

Would the low end of the 1855 be lost on a 4 string player (Some drop D)? Would 1 or 2 of the 15" models make or sense?

 

[tombowlus]

Question:

Would the low end of the 1855 be lost on a 4 string player (Some drop D)? Would 1 or 2 of the 15" models make or sense?

I won't say it is "lost," especially in drop-D. You do appreciate the depth/strength/impact of the lows more on a low B, but it's a very fun 4-string cab, as well.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Badges?

The second round of samples has been ordered (first ones didn't work) so those wheels are turning.

Question:

Would the low end of the 1855 be lost on a 4 string player (Some drop D)? Would 1 or 2 of the 15" models make or sense?

You have the option of lowering the tuning frequency via port plugging, which makes the low-end rolloff start out higher up but it's more gradual. This can be useful if you don't want or need maximum low end extension.