Maybe, or you might find you dont need to resort to any types of devices made to corect a cabs design flaws...
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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!!!!
- Thread starter Chef
- Start date
- Status
Maybe, or you might find you dont need to resort to any types of devices made to corect a cabs design flaws...
Great story, it shows how committed Duke is to designing and producing a exceptional product. The HPF/Buffer Pre Amp is an essential tool do deal with rooms, that have weird resonant peaks of their own. Occasionally there are rooms that will defy logic, and EQ no mater how
great a cabinet is, in those cases the new HPF Series 3 is a god send. Just my take
Ric
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,943
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Maybe, or you might find you dont need to resort to any types of devices made to corect a cabs design flaws...
I certainly don't feel as if the Hathor has anything approaching uncontrolled in the low end. That being said, HPF's are very cool devices which can often be helpful. Of course, based upon my experience with the Hathor so far, I'm guessing that you'll have less of a need with the Hathor for an HPF than you might with most other cabs.
I fade in and out of this thread, but wonder if at this juncture Duke has something that would do well for a sealed cab sound? I remember about a year ago Duke mentioned that he had some ideas on getting a sealed cab sound. I will be looking for a new cab when I get tax money back this year, so I am wondering about this in advance. Duke's cab or a Fearful are on my short list.
The fearfuls are the exact opposite of the sealed sound. The hathor is supposed to be tuned to "approximate" a sealed low end. Thats all I know.
- Nov 24, 2008
- 4,343
- 7,163
- Disclosures
- Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
Funny you should mention it.
The reason I haven't campaigned the Thunderchild cabs in the FRFR market is this: I do not yet know for sure that I will be able to replenish my stock of custom neo woofers, and I think those woofers are sort of ideal for bass guitar, whereas there are suitable off-the-shelf woofers out there that would go low enough and have adequate excursion for modellers.
I am indeed planning on entering the guitar modelling cab market with at least one Thunderchild-ish cab. In fact, I'll be drawing up the plans this weekend and taking them to my woodworker on Monday. So like I said, funny you should mention it.
Behold the value of beta-testing, and in particular, the value of having your beta-tester point out to you where you need to improve!
A year or so ago, what I had in mind was a fairly big, extremely low-tuned cab to approximate the sound of a sealed box. High x-max was still called for, to prevent fartout in the excursion-limited-power-handling "saddle" above the tuning frequency (familiar to those who play around with modelling programs; if that's not you, don't worry about it).
When anderbass ran into low-end mud in the first version of the Hathor, I did several days of research, looking for a way to improve the low end pitch definition without resorting to an extremely low tuning frequency (the box simply didn't have room for very long ports without a major redesign, and this woofer doesn't have Kappalite LF-class x-max). The technique I settled on combined some drop in tuning frequency with an unorthodox approach to internal damping (which I'd like to keep to myself for now, but credit to TalkBass member and small room acoustics professional Ironjaw for consultation on the subject). If my calculations are correct, the net result is a closer approach to sealed-box sound without the reduced excursion-limited power handling imposed by using an extremely low-tuned vented box. I'm sure the day will come when someone finds out where the Hathor cab goes into fartout, but I think it be putting out a lot of sound by the time it gets there.
The Thunderchild 112 and 115 kinda get there when you plug up half of the ports. The TC212's three-port arrangement gives you a bit more flexibility: You can plug either only the center port, or only the top and bottom two, depending on what works best. The producion version of the Hathor is designed to run with both ports open, and is already tuned and damped for that tighter, "sealed box emulation" low end.
I'm not going in the opposite direction of the fEarfuls because I think they're doing something wrong; I'm going in the opposite direction because they do their end of the spectrum so well already that I really wouldn't be broadening the field of choices open to bass players if I went there too.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,943
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Minor update. I used the Hathor again at practice last night (same band, same room, same bass - which was a Lakland Skyline Duck Dunn, btw). This time, I powered it with my Mesa/Boogie WalkAbout. The WalkAbout has a more low-mid rich tone than the Orange TB500, though there are some similarities. The WalkAbout is also more warm/round in the lower half of its range. The Hathor once again sounded great. I was able to dial in some rumbley, growly lows, but still retained good pitch definition and clarity.
My only beef so far is that when I carry the cab with the speaker facing me, the protruding grill would occasionally bump into me and flex. And before anyone else says it, I will admit that I am on the "husky" side, but my belly doesn't stick out that far, really.
The easy solution, of course, is to carry it with the speaker facing away from me.
My only beef so far is that when I carry the cab with the speaker facing me, the protruding grill would occasionally bump into me and flex. And before anyone else says it, I will admit that I am on the "husky" side, but my belly doesn't stick out that far, really.
The easy solution, of course, is to carry it with the speaker facing away from me.
That's not you, so much, IMO, but rather a problem that any cab with that sort of grill is subject to.........IMO.
Tracking changed to Monday.....sorry!
I'm probably not going to be an "open the box and comment" kinda guy either.
I'm more likely to get it to some gigs/rehearsals first.
I'm probably not going to be an "open the box and comment" kinda guy either.
I'm more likely to get it to some gigs/rehearsals first.
RColie said:I'm a bit curious to hear the TH500 through the TC115...I use a ShuttleMAX 12.2, and usually like a really clean tone, but maybe I'll expand my tone pallet a bit.
Bob
Great to meet you last night. It's always great to put a'face to the avatar'! I wouldn't want to do club gigs all the time any more, but that place was hopping! Fun night, and as we discussed, the TC115 can pretty much handle anything. The tone profile was a bit darker than usual for me with the Aguilar, but it seemed to anchor the band nicely. I dig it for what it is... Round, warm, fat!
The TC115, as you know from using yours, really is special
I got blessed yesterday, my TC212 arrived 2 days early. I play with it last night at my house and this cab is just amazing. It sounds much better than my old Berg AE212. I am going to play it today at my church and see how it mixes with the band. But this is the cab to have. Duke you are the man.
Attachments
How would you compare the TC212 and the AE212? I love my AE212, and it looks like we both use the Puma900. Would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
In my own opinion. The TC212 has more punch and the sound is cleaner. Plus is lighter, easy to move.
I would have expected the cleaner sound, but I'm surprised to hear you think it's punchier.
- Nov 24, 2008
- 4,343
- 7,163
- Disclosures
- Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
Otto asked me a very good question via PM, and I thought it was worth answering in some detail here. He asked why I included only two port plugs when there are three ports, given that I've included as many plugs as ports on my previous Thunderchild models.
Well, there's actually more to it than me just growing cheap in my old age!
Briefly, one port open (the center port preferrably) very closely approximates a sealed box, and in fact is arguably a bit better than a sealed box.
Okay, let me put my geek hat on:
With all three ports open the tuning frequency is 46 Hz, the -3 dB point is 59 Hz, and -10 dB is 39 Hz.
With two ports open (center port plugged), the tuning frequency drops to 37Hz, the -3dB point rises to 65 Hz, and -10 dB drops to 37 Hz.
With one port open (top and bottom ports plugged), the tuning frequency drops to 27 Hz, the -3 dB point rises to 73 Hz, and -10 dB bumps up to 38 Hz.
So as we lower the tuning frequency, the -3 dB point moves up, and the slope of response curve below the -3 dB point becomes more and more gentle.
Now here's the interesting part about one port open: From 100 Hz down to 25 Hz, the curve looks exactly like a sealed box with a Qtc of .57 (which is an unusually low Qtc). The -3 dB point is a bit lower with the single port than it would have been if all ports were sealed, which shifts the curve downward a little bit relative to a true sealed box, but the shape and slope of the curve itself from 100 Hz to 25 Hz are otherwise identical. In addition, the excursion-limited power handling is better than if the box were sealed.
One final thing we want to take into account is port airspeed. If we were expecting to put 900 watts into the fundamental, then our port area would be too small once we start plugging ports. But two things work in our favor: First, the fundamental will be seeing far less than full power; and second, as we shift the tuning frequency lower, we are shifting the frequency of maximum airflow lower, down below where the cab is going to be seeing very high power anyway. Also, if any of you decide to model the airspeed, remember that my 3" diameter ports are flared inside and out, which delays the onset of chuffing by about 2 dB. In other words, my 3" diameter flared ports theoretically start to chuff about where a 3.5" straight-sided port would.
Anyway, that's my story for why I'm only including two port plugs with the TC212 cabs.
Well, there's actually more to it than me just growing cheap in my old age!
Briefly, one port open (the center port preferrably) very closely approximates a sealed box, and in fact is arguably a bit better than a sealed box.
Okay, let me put my geek hat on:
With all three ports open the tuning frequency is 46 Hz, the -3 dB point is 59 Hz, and -10 dB is 39 Hz.
With two ports open (center port plugged), the tuning frequency drops to 37Hz, the -3dB point rises to 65 Hz, and -10 dB drops to 37 Hz.
With one port open (top and bottom ports plugged), the tuning frequency drops to 27 Hz, the -3 dB point rises to 73 Hz, and -10 dB bumps up to 38 Hz.
So as we lower the tuning frequency, the -3 dB point moves up, and the slope of response curve below the -3 dB point becomes more and more gentle.
Now here's the interesting part about one port open: From 100 Hz down to 25 Hz, the curve looks exactly like a sealed box with a Qtc of .57 (which is an unusually low Qtc). The -3 dB point is a bit lower with the single port than it would have been if all ports were sealed, which shifts the curve downward a little bit relative to a true sealed box, but the shape and slope of the curve itself from 100 Hz to 25 Hz are otherwise identical. In addition, the excursion-limited power handling is better than if the box were sealed.
One final thing we want to take into account is port airspeed. If we were expecting to put 900 watts into the fundamental, then our port area would be too small once we start plugging ports. But two things work in our favor: First, the fundamental will be seeing far less than full power; and second, as we shift the tuning frequency lower, we are shifting the frequency of maximum airflow lower, down below where the cab is going to be seeing very high power anyway. Also, if any of you decide to model the airspeed, remember that my 3" diameter ports are flared inside and out, which delays the onset of chuffing by about 2 dB. In other words, my 3" diameter flared ports theoretically start to chuff about where a 3.5" straight-sided port would.
Anyway, that's my story for why I'm only including two port plugs with the TC212 cabs.
Thanks for that explanation; quite helpful. That's a very innovative way to use ports and tuning to vary the low end profile. Instead of having ported and sealed cabs the TC212 seems to do it all. Great design!
- Status
