• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

AudioKinesis Cabs V!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
#281
rpsands said:
Eric prefers the Hathor slightly and I prefer the TC115 slightly, mostly a function of the low end. Eric prefers a smoother rolloff of the lower tuned hathor, and I feel for the gut punch of the higher tuning a little. Not a big deal.

In my opinion the upper mids/highs of the TC carried around the room just a little better, but I'm sure the Hathor was easier to hear on stage...
Click to expand...

ricosego said:
Anders' gig with rpsands was my first exposure to the Thunderchildren in person (I'd read HOURS worth of threads here before hearing it). My response was similar to what most everybody says.... WOW. Holy S*** that is full, clean LOUD bass.
To my ears the TC115 was the bigger presence of the two. I think rpsands is right, the Hathor is probably cleaner/clearer to the player's ear on stage, but from 25-50 ft back the low end of the TC115 was just breathtaking.
Click to expand...

Thank you both very much! I appreciate the compare/contrast, and agree completely with your observations. The Thunderchild cabs are sort of a "known quantity", so your comparisons add to the body of information out there on the Hathor cab. Each does some things better, surprise surprise. I figure that's the way it ought to be.

KJung said:
After months of gigging my TC115 in a variety of acoustic situations (some very ugly and some very loud!) you can believe your ears. I love my TC112, and it does gigs a 12 shouldn't be able to do, but the TC115 doesn't break a sweat in '410 or 212 land'. Amazingly full, even, loud, nice sounding cab, and with Arnopol's composite build, it weighs about as much as the Epifani 112UL (back when the UL's were light:p)
Click to expand...

Mike's composite builds take my TC115 and 212 cabs into new territory, as far as power-to-weight ratio goes.

* * * *

I've decided to leave the 8-ohm-only Thunderchild 118 project on the back burner for now at least. It's been developed, but I keep going back and forth on whether a 118 cab would find much acceptance in the marketplace.

In its place, I'm thinking of moving ahead with a 115 that could be offered in both 4 and 8 ohm variants. It would sort of sit in between the TC112 and TC115 Compact in size and weight (a bit closer to the TC115 Compact obviously), and performance. It would be based on the Faital 15PR400 woofer, the same one I'm using in the Hathor 1544, and would probably have the same horn section as the TC115. I'd probably dimension it more suitcase-like (shallow), in a move back towards the one-hand-portability of the TC112.

Also, the 1512 project (15" woofer + 12" guitar speaker) project will be undergoing some revisions. Beta-testing indicates that it's promising but not there yet. I still like the idea of a cab that really could be used for either guitar or bass, so I'm going to to keep working on it.

I'm also looking at ways to move into more affordable territory by going with ceramic magnets, hopefully without too much of a weight penalty.
 
#282
If you already had an 8 ohm tc115 available, I probably would have put in an order at 3am after a nasty sounding gig. I really good have used one or even two cabs like that. After tweaking my back alittle I've been hobbling around for a few weeks and it makes me think that I may not always want to be schlepiing around my favorite sealed cabs. A pair of of 8 ohm TC115 cabs and a Fdeck HPF3 may be good enough.
 
#284
3rdcurve said:
Duke, did you ever release the dimensions for the TC212?
Click to expand...

If not, sounds like the time has come to do so. Lemme grab my tape measure rather ran relying on memory... the Thunderchild 212 measures 34.5" tall by 14.5" wide by 14.5" deep (that's counting 1/2" of grille pooch-outage). Weight = 47 pounds "regular", 48 pounds "acoustic friendly".
 
#289
Update on my experience with the TC115AF wide:
After extended use, the best compliment I can give this cabinet is that it is no longer part of a rotation. It is the cabinet. Period. Everything else in the signal chain is subject to change. This is going nowhere (unless I can afford the lighter weight composite version some day).
 
#290
PDGood said:
Update on my experience with the TC115AF wide:
After extended use, the best compliment I can give this cabinet is that it is no longer part of a rotation. It is the cabinet. Period. Everything else in the signal chain is subject to change. This is going nowhere (unless I can afford the lighter weight composite version some day).
Click to expand...

I hear ya Paul! My cab shopping days are also over, unless I get a gig that warrants the 212. I must say though, that the composite compact version just kicks so much a#$. So light you can't believe it and I personally like that it is less wide.
 
#291
DukeLeJeune said:
If not, sounds like the time has come to do so. Lemme grab my tape measure rather ran relying on memory... the Thunderchild 212 measures 34.5" tall by 14.5" wide by 14.5" deep (that's counting 1/2" of grille pooch-outage). Weight = 47 pounds "regular", 48 pounds "acoustic friendly".
Click to expand...

What an absolute perfect spec. Small footprint on stage, tall enough to get some sound a bit closer to your ear, stock drivers (no drama with repairs/replacement ever) and still 4ohms, and the amazing 'Duke horn/crossover' system that results in the nicest top end I've ever heard on a bass cab (maybe any cab). Under 50 pounds in the wood version... perfect. I assume Arnopol takes 10 pounds off of that for those who want a really lightweight monster.

If the crossover design allows for just a smidge more upper driver response (as has been reported), then this would go from an A+ to, well, an A++:D

Perfect! The TC115 is more than what I need, so I won't be taking the plunge. However, I sure will be on the 'recommends highly' list with this cab when talking to my peers, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ
#293
KJung said:
What an absolute perfect spec. Small footprint on stage, tall enough to get some sound a bit closer to your ear, stock drivers (no drama with repairs/replacement ever) and still 4ohms, and the amazing 'Duke horn/crossover' system that results in the nicest top end I've ever heard on a bass cab (maybe any cab). Under 50 pounds in the wood version... perfect. I assume Arnopol takes 10 pounds off of that for those who want a really lightweight monster.

If the crossover design allows for just a smidge more upper driver response (as has been reported), then this would go from an A+ to, well, an A++:D
Click to expand...

That's my hope. Footprint on stage is a big deal as I often play tight stages. The challenge is to get big low end and still being able to hear when jammed tight. The footprint and weight on my current Tecamp XS112 pair is right, but it doesn't have as much fundamental as I'd like. I know Duke's design fills the room well so this should be a hit. Mike's version should be a hair under 40#.
 
#294
nostatic said:
That's my hope. Footprint on stage is a big deal as I often play tight stages. The challenge is to get big low end and still being able to hear when jammed tight. The footprint and weight on my current Tecamp XS112 pair is right, but it doesn't have as much fundamental as I'd like. I know Duke's design fills the room well so this should be a hit. Mike's version should be a hair under 40#.
Click to expand...

It will be a VERY different experience from your TecAmp 212's. This one will be quite a bit less efficient (needs more watts to get to the same volume level as the M212), and it will not have that 'bite' in the upper mids. However, it will massively outperform the M212 in true low end (not the 'useless' sub bass that comes out of the Acme's, but punchy mid bass that just hammers). My guess is, if you can get 700-900 watts into this cab, you will get all the absolute volume of your M212 with 500 watts, plus a LOT more thunder.

A Puma900 or GK MB800 would be just about perfect with this cab for those who want to get the maximum volume out of it, and the maximum open low end. I find that my 500 or so watt amps push my TC115 to what seems like full performance, but those stock 3012LF's can take a massive pounding!
 
#295
I've got Puma 900 and 500 heads (new design) so I'm not worried about being able to push it. The M212 (front port) sounds good but has a fairly wide footprint. It's worked great on outdoor and larger stages but a lot of gigs it just isn't a fit. One thing I really liked about the TC112 was being able to mess with the ports. Some rooms just sound bad, but being able to tune on the fly can help.
 
#296
nostatic said:
I've got Puma 900 and 500 heads (new design) so I'm not worried about being able to push it. The M212 (front port) sounds good but has a fairly wide footprint. It's worked great on outdoor and larger stages but a lot of gigs it just isn't a fit. One thing I really liked about the TC112 was being able to mess with the ports. Some rooms just sound bad, but being able to tune on the fly can help.
Click to expand...

The 900 will kill with this cab, and should 'feel' like the 500 with the M212, but with massively more low end, and much softer upper mids (assuming it sounds relatively similar to the TC115). Both the Puma and the MB800 have nicely voiced lower mid and upper mid controls that help to put in a bit of low mid bump to give you that nice punchy low end, and an upper mid control nicely voiced to rough up the top end a smidge.

I have not ever used the port plugs on either of mine (12 and 15). The low end of these cabs (at least the TC112 and TC115... the stock 3012LF drivers in the TC212 MIGHT be a bit more extended... don't know) is a unique combination of 'super powerful but not overextended'. Fat without mush or mud or boom.

That being said, the three port design of the TC212 seems pretty cool and I assume plugging one port would work a bit like a hi pass filter (just guessing there).

It will be interesting to see what you think of the cab. The inherent voicing of the Thunderchild cabs is actually a bit similar to the Glock Blue Soul..... big, round, warm, powerful low end, and a very relaxed, pure, clean midrange and treble response.... like a very good studio monitor to my ears.
 
#297
I've been in sonic transition the past year. Part of it is retooling my playing studying with Anthony. The other is settling in with my Rob Allen/Fodera combination. The Foderas are brutally honest instruments and while that took awhile to adjust to, now I'm wanting something similar in an amp. The balance though is that I don't want it too pure - it needs some edge here and there. I had a TC112 for awhile and it was a bit polite in the mids for my taste, but I also didn't really push it around with EQ much. The upper mid eq point on the Puma is perfect for getting a bit of gank into the sound.

That said lately I've been (poorly) copping a bit of an Anthony Jackson vibe, and have been using chorus on tunes to good effect. Having the sound a bit more towards the studio monitor end helps that work in the bands where I'm using that. For the Steely Dan thing and live band karaoke - not so much. My hunch is that Blue Soul + TC212 would be a huge sound, but probably not enough mid punch for my taste. Puma + TC212 should be just about right.
 
#298
The mids on the 212 are different than the 15. Not agressive but a bit more pronounced. I like a darker sound but the TC115 in some situations needed a bit more mids for me. The 212 has got 'em. But still smooth like a Thunderchild. Punchier than the 15.

Ask Duke about the midrange switch.

Plugging one port actually lowers the tuning frequency but gives a little lowering of the curve in the low end. But it goes a bit lower with more control. You just have to boost the bass a notch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back