AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...

[Passinwind]

Wow! Okay, I'm editing my post!

Heh...that's a pretty substantial can o' worms; there was a long thread here recently that generated a fair ration of angst.

 

[Type-55]

I DO charge for my knowledge. Have you seen the prices on my cabs??

Seriously, this stuff is my hobby as well as my business. At the end of a long day of dodging tablesaw blades and inhaling solder fumes, I like to unwind by designing imaginary speakers. Occasionally I stumble across something that seems promising, but mostly it's just entertainment.

You don’t charge enough.

 

[mexicanyella]

Hey Duke, good to see you back!

And back with a bang: that was a fascinating look at how you look at engineering tradeoffs with, you know, physics, and explained in your usual approachable, understandable way. Lots of interesting stuff to think about.

 

[Raf Seibert]

I gained a great insight into his thinking on filters and crossovers from that filter he designed (and explained so nicely) for that inexpensive coffeehouse 110 he gave us a while back.

 

[Snaxster]

...it won't just vibrate, it will bark at you and chase you off the stage and out the door.

Quotable!

 

[Bassist30]

Has anyone used the TC 212. Care to make a comment?

 

[nutdog]

Has anyone used the TC 212. Care to make a comment?

Yes, apparently when this thread started 5 years ago.

In. Leaning toward the gk.

View attachment 2130019

It's a beast. Tight, loud and clear. I like the hathors better but it's a fine piece of work.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Has anyone used the TC 212. Care to make a comment?

The Thunderchild 212 has a smooth, arguably "hi-fi-esque" voicing, such that what comes out is pretty close to what goes in, with minimal tonal character interjected by the cab. It doesn't "sound like a bass cab", at least not like the bass cab in my head, but it's a voicing that works well for double bass, for example. So it probably is not the voicing that most bass players are looking for, but for some it is.

(My background is in high-end home audio and custom studio monitors, so when I started doing bass cabs, I didn't know "where the goal posts are" for electric bass. The Thunderchild series was my first foray into bass cabs so they reflect that backgound, while the more recent Hathor and Changeling cabs reflect what I've since learned about "where the goal posts are" for electric bass.)

 

[ajn]

(...while the more recent Hathor and Changeling cabs reflect what I've since learned about "where the goal posts are" for electric bass.)

Yes. And you’ve scored some touchdowns with those!

 

[John D Harris]

Has anyone used the TC 212. Care to make a comment?

If you want to hear the voice of your bass guitar &/or your amp &/or your pedals &/or your modeler (AX8 or Helix) that's what one of the Thunder Child cabs will give you.

 

[Dave Hill]

while the more recent Hathor and Changeling cabs reflect what I've since learned about "where the goal posts are" for electric bass.)

Care to share?

 

[Snaxster]

Care to share?

Dave, my impression is that Duke shares that info throughout this thread.

 

[Dave Hill]

Dave, my impression is that Duke shares that info throughout this thread.

I’m sure. Was hoping for a brief synopsis of his findings/observations.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

while the more recent Hathor and Changeling cabs reflect what I've since learned about "where the goal posts are" for electric bass.

Care to share?

Not knowing "where the goal posts are", I paid attention to any clues that might show up on TalkBass. Pretty soon I noticed that, from time to time, a bass player would post how much he liked the tone when he played through a guitar rig. That gave me an idea (which turned out to not be a very good idea, but it WAS a very good learning experience).

I built a prototype cab that combined a 15" woofer with a 12" guitar speaker and sent it off to my beta-tester. What he had to say was extremely interesting: He said it sounded great solo, but he was having a really hard time EQing it to sit will in the mix. Soon as he said that, the problem became obvious to me: My cab was fighting a losing battle with the guitars over THEIR sonic turf!!

This mistake made me start thinking about how to voice a bass cab so that it would "sit well in the mix". I started looking at published response curves of guitar speakers.

The most obvious feature of most guitar speakers' response curves is a screaming peak from about 2 kHz to about 4 kHz. That octave belongs to the guitars. If we are also loud in that region, we risk instigating a volume war, and they can buy volume for a lot less money than we can.

Less obvious at first glance, but present in most guitar speakers' curves, is a dip in the octave between 1 and 2 kHz, which is not nearly as wide as the peak spanning that next octave, and is typically centered in the 1.5 to 1.7 kHz region. This dip is our window of opportunity! We can have a peak in this region and it sounds nice and growly and sits in the mix well. But this peak arguably doesn't sound all that great for solo practice, and it's not always welcome in the mix, so I include a switch to tame it.

There are a few other little things I try to do in pursuit of "sits well in the mix", but those are the main ones: Don't fight the guitars in the 2 to 4 kHz octave, and have switchable peakage centered in the upper-middle of the next octave down.

I also learned that mistakes can be really good learning experiences. I consider that utterly failed prototype cab to be among my best mistakes.

 

[Type-55]

I have learned so many "little things" from Duke's post it's amazing.
So generous once again.

 

[John D Harris]

If you want to hear the voice of your bass guitar &/or your amp &/or your pedals &/or your modeler (AX8 or Helix) that's what one of the Thunder Child cabs will give you.

BTW: when it comes to OD/Distortion pedals through HF drivers, the driver that Duke uses is a much better unit than what we used to see in cabs like Eden & SWR so the result is much smoother, but if you still don't like the sound of fuzz through horns, I would think the HF roll-off switch on the ThunderChild cabs should fix most of that (& better emulate the top end of a guitar speaker).

 

[Dave Hill]

Not knowing "where the goal posts are", I paid attention to any clues that might show up on TalkBass. Pretty soon I noticed that, from time to time, a bass player would post how much he liked the tone when he played through a guitar rig. That gave me an idea (which turned out to not be a very good idea, but it WAS a very good learning experience).

I built a prototype cab that combined a 15" woofer with a 12" guitar speaker and sent it off to my beta-tester. What he had to say was extremely interesting: He said it sounded great solo, but he was having a really hard time EQing it to sit will in the mix. Soon as he said that, the problem became obvious to me: My cab was fighting a losing battle with the guitars over THEIR sonic turf!!

This mistake made me start thinking about how to voice a bass cab so that it would "sit well in the mix". I started looking at published response curves of guitar speakers.

The most obvious feature of most guitar speakers' response curves is a screaming peak from about 2 kHz to about 4 kHz. That octave belongs to the guitars. If we are also loud in that region, we risk instigating a volume war, and they can buy volume for a lot less money than we can.

Less obvious at first glance, but present in most guitar speakers' curves, is a dip in the octave between 1 and 2 kHz, which is not nearly as wide as the peak spanning that next octave, and is typically centered in the 1.5 to 1.7 kHz region. This dip is our window of opportunity! We can have a peak in this region and it sounds nice and growly and sits in the mix well. But this peak arguably doesn't sound all that great for solo practice, and it's not always welcome in the mix, so I include a switch to tame it.

There are a few other little things I try to do in pursuit of "sits well in the mix", but those are the main ones: Don't fight the guitars in the 2 to 4 kHz octave, and have switchable peakage centered in the upper-middle of the next octave down.

I also learned that mistakes can be really good learning experiences. I consider that utterly failed prototype cab to be among my best mistakes.

Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Dave Hill]

What about 30-1k and the kick drum?!
Lol

 

[DukeLeJeune]

What about 30-1k and the kick drum?!

At the bottom end, my target is almost always the 62 Hz first overtone of low-B. I don't aim for a massive low end, as "massive" generally trades off against "articulate" (and "portable"). I'm under the impression that the kick tends to sit in the 50 Hz ballpark, so in general I want my cabs to be done by then. I say "in general" because my 118s (which are still being revised) can hold up down into the 40's, if all of the ports are open. There are a few other low-end tradeoffs that I juggle, or let my customers juggle, by providing port plugs.

I don't want the cab to be weak from 80 Hz to 200 Hz. Some woofer/box combinations that look great down lower are a bit weak in that region.

Also, I try to avoid a lot of emphasis in the upper bass region, say around 100 Hz or so. Emphasis there can indeed sound good, but then what also happens is, you walk down the scale and the lowest notes just sorta die off. I'd rather have the lowest notes not die off.

I don't want over-emphasis in the octave between 600 Hz and 1.2 kHz. We don't necessarily need dippage in that region, but over-emphasis there can sound ganky, and I think it can interfere with vocals.

Actually I probably pay as much (if not more) attention to radiation patterns as to frequency response per se, because they are kinda the same thing - the radiation pattern is the off-axis frequency response, and most of the sound that most people hear in most rooms started out as off-axis energy.

This is all just my opinion at this point in time, and is subject to change without notice.

 

[TomB]

At the bottom end, my target is almost always the 62 Hz first overtone of low-B. I don't aim for a massive low end, as "massive" generally trades off against "articulate" (and "portable"). I'm under the impression that the kick tends to sit in the 50 Hz ballpark, so in general I want my cabs to be done by then. I say "in general" because my 118s (which are still being revised) can hold up down into the 40's, if all of the ports are open. There are a few other low-end tradeoffs that I juggle, or let my customers juggle, by providing port plugs.

I don't want the cab to be weak from 80 Hz to 200 Hz. Some woofer/box combinations that look great down lower are a bit weak in that region.

Also, I try to avoid a lot of emphasis in the upper bass region, say around 100 Hz or so. Emphasis there can indeed sound good, but then what also happens is, you walk down the scale and the lowest notes just sorta die off. I'd rather have the lowest notes not die off.

I don't want over-emphasis in the octave between 600 Hz and 1.2 kHz. We don't necessarily need dippage in that region, but over-emphasis there can sound ganky, and I think it can interfere with vocals.

Actually I probably pay as much (if not more) attention to radiation patterns as to frequency response per se, because they are kinda the same thing - the radiation pattern is the off-axis frequency response, and most of the sound that most people hear in most rooms started out as off-axis energy.

This is all just my opinion at this point in time, and is subject to change without notice.

Thanks once again Duke for that valuable mini-seminar. As someone noted just above, this whole thread is filled with acoustic wisdom for the taking.