AudioKinesis Cabs V!!!!

[dukeorock]

So is anyone using a TC112 and a TC115 together ? I have both but don't have an amp to run them together. I thought about selling the TC112 but then I was thinking they may sound great together.
I currently have a GB Streamliner and was thinking of getting a GB-Suttlemax 12 or 12.2 so I can run both cabs together when I have the need to. I sometimes do outdoor gigs and I think running both may be the way to go.
Also is anyone using a ShuttleMax 12 or 12.2 with a TC112 or 115 ? That should be enough power right ? Main my setup would be a Suttlemax 12 and a TC115.

I think the ShuttleMax 12.2 would be perfect for that stack...I used to tour a TC115 with a SM12.0 and it was a beautiful sounding combo, IMO I'm currently running a 9.2 with two 8 ohm cabs...the Genz '.2' stuff is an improvement in general, but the 12.0 is no slouch either

 

[svtb15]

+1
The SM 9.2 does clean and dirty... And its loud.. I like the clean setting the most by using the FET channel almost all the time.. But just lately on a gig i have been throwing a pedal in front of it to get a different dimension.... Its all in the tweaking...
Its amazing to me how the SM9.2 can hold its own against some other amps. lead sleds included... I only wish they had an Shuttle MAX 18.2 at times...

the Genz '.2' stuff is an improvement in general, but the 12.0 is no slouch either

 

[steubig]

I use a Kart-a-Bag luggage cart with my 112. No problems getting around NYC... it even fits through the subway turnstiles!

yes. i've seen you post that before. i have a kart-a-bag, but don't want to deal with it in the l.a. metro (not a huge fan of it in the nyc metro either, fwiw).

i have a specific vision and set of circumstances that i need to meet at this time. (not that duke needs to cater to it.)

 

[PDGood]

you're welcome (it's well deserved).

i usually favor 8-ohm cabs, but i seem to be "married" to the 4-ohms now.

by the way, i'm the idiot who was lobbying for a 1x10. i kind of held back on commenting on it for a while, but figured i'd explain my reasoning/needs:

for me, the quest for a really nice 1x10 is because i want to take the subway to more gigs. yeah, i live in l.a., but it's starting.

i've actually done this of late. rolling case with puma 500 and pedals, bass on back and a benz 1x10, which, though it has its charms, is the weak link in the chain.

the genz has been moved and i'm thinking about an ea wizzy due to its smaller profile and weight (which somehow seems important for negotiating trains and platforms).

ideally i'd love something that has your basic tonal profile, but i know it's probably a long-shot in terms of marketability . . .

comparison pic of 112 vs the genzView attachment 340899

+1
I get this and would be lobbying harder myself except I don't have the funds currently to back up my desires.

But I think the deal is this: Yes, we know there are other cabinets out there in the 110 (or 8" or similar) form factor, but we are fans of your work Duke. And when you find a builder whose tone goals are similar to your own, you're inclined to think that their 110 would be better than the next guy's for your needs.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it's the smart market move to make. Traditionally, you've looked for niches that are unfilled. The million dollar question is, have you reached the point where there are enough followers that making a product in a market that is rife with competition is worth your trouble? Only you can answer. All we can do is make you aware that there is interest from at least a few of us.

As anyone in business knows, getting people to part with their money is not easy, especially for high dollar items. Even the best intentions can be affected by sudden changes in life situations. So it's easy to understand the risk such a project would bring. But you can't blame us for wishing.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Steubig and PDGood, I hear you, and over the past couple of months have built three experimental cabs in pursuit of an ubercompact cab that really brings it. I've been slow to respond here on this subject because the most recent experimental cab was still being tweaked, and I was hoping to report good news. Unfortunately, I'm not happy enough with the results to feel like I can offer a significant improvement over what's already out there. I really would love to build a killer small-box cab, as I'd much rather build small cabs than big ones. But the pieces of the puzzle either aren't out there, or I haven't found them and put them together right.

I think I need to step back and make sure that I'm directing my efforts in the right direction here. Maybe you guys can help me a bit.

You see, I could use some assistance in figuring out where the goal posts are for an uberportable cab. With the TC112, the goal posts were: Smallest, lightest cab that would handle the full output of a 500 watt microhead, deliver the first overtone of low-B, and do the rest of the spectrum well.

So... a page or two back, steubig posted a photo of a TC112 next to the little 16-pound, 12.5" x 14" x 11.75" Genz Benz 110... how much bigger and heavier do you guys think I can go, and still meet your portability targets?

And for this application, how important is that first overtone of low-B?

Would a suitcase-format cab be significantly easier to one-hand than a more cube-like cab, even if it's a pound or so heavier? Like, would 18" x 18" x 10" deep be easier to manage than 14" x 14" x 14"? Just looking for any angle that would let me sneak in as much internal volume as possible.

Thanks!

Duke

 

[steubig]

hi, cab size? i guess split the difference between the genz and the 112? i know this stuff gets tricky . . . and probably a little absurd on my part ;-)

i suppose i see the height of the horn on the 112 as the variable that makes it problematic? (adds height, which i see as the "major drawback.") obviously a 10 and a 12 are not radically different in size . . . and your compression driver (horn configuration?) and crossover are pretty magical, imho. . . .tough nut to crack, i know.

about the low b. darned good question. kind of important? i play 6-string only . . . but open b happens less frequently than the other notes on the b string.

that being said. love the 112's response to the low string. really quite noticeable sitting *off to the side* on gigs i've done of late.

wanting to have my cake and eat it too . . .

thanks for the dialog.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Thank you steubig, that definitely helps!

Yes my weakness for big horns is a drawback when it comes to reducing cabinet height.

Any thoughts on the suitcase-format approach? It gets the center of gravity in close to your body, which makes for an easier one-hand carry, but of course the downside is that now you have a little cab with a big face.

 

[steubig]

the suitcase thing is not something i've given much thought to, so it seems less important to me.

that being said, if it sounds good and works, it's good, ya know?

i really didn't expect to fall for the tc112 . . . yet here i am, so i'd totally see what you came up with.

 

[steubig]

p.s. i assume the bigger horn has a lot to do with the way your cabs sound, meaning that one loses some of that signature if one does not have the larger horn.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

Thanks again, steubig. As long as the suitcase format hasn't been eliminated because it has some problem that I wasn't giving due consideration to, it's still in the running.

I will be switching to a narrower horn for the Gen 2 TC112, one with the same horizontal dispersion but improved dispersion in the vertical plane. And there is yet a third horn I've gotten good results with, which calls for a bit higher crossover frequency, so it's a candidate for something like the uberportable cab with its smaller woofer. Unfortunately neither of these new horns are significantly smaller in the vertical dimension than the original horn.

One of my experimentals was a coaxial, and I'm also looking into non-horn tweeters (imo undersized horns suck, so I don't want to go there if I can help it), as well as a little Hathor-style open-format mid chamber. Haven't tried the latter two yet.

 

[PDGood]

I guess Steubig and I have different approaches. To me if you want to add space then height is exactly where that should go. First it gets the sound closer to the ear of the player. Second it allows the handle to be better positioned for carrying. And thirdly and most important, it fits anywhere in a car easily. Anything that has much depth is hell to get in and out of a car door. Width is OK but if you grew the size mostly that way, I'd just turn it on end and it would become height anyway.

I don't play a low B so that's not an issue for me, but I could see how it would be important for many.

In my mind, the goal is not a giggable cab but just the opposite - a very nice sounding cabinet for small get togethers. Usually this is with a single acoustic guitarist or piano player - a rehearsal before the band gets together. Sometimes it could be for small acoustic groups like at Chistmas where family gets together and we have a hammered dulcimer, acoustic guitar and bass.

My only experience with a brief case shape is the Phil Jones which didn't seem to have much bottom to me. But I've only heard it on youtubes.

 

[RColie]

Hi Duke et al,

To respond to a few comments and questions above:

I own two TC112s and use them together most of the time. Only a few of my gigs need two but I stack them vertically and rotate the top one to get great coverage in the room and allow my guitar player to hear me better (at his request). The top cab also gets the sound up closer to my ear. I use a Genz Benz ShuttleMAX 12.2 so there's no problem running two 4-ohm cabs. The SM12.2 has great EQ control, but except to correct for room issues I leave everything pretty much flat and it gives me the best sound I've ever had.

I've also used the TC112 and TC115 together and they work very well - Duke has confirmed that the tuning is close enough to work well together, and that's what my ears heard for sure.

To respond to Duke's inquiries, I really like the form factor of the TC112. I like the vertical orientation - small footprint on stage, gets the sound up closer to the ear, easy to carry and fit into cars. I don't much like the "suitcase" shape - for the same internal volume too squat and the width could be problematic on a tight stage. I do understand that some might find the suitcase shape easier to carry.

The first overtone of the low "B" is important to me - I play 5 and 6 string basses, and one of the many outstanding features of the TC112 is the strong low end that is focused and tight and not boomy. However, if we're talking a small acoustic rehearsal type cab it might not matter so much.

For my ear and my sound, the Thunderchildren are the best cabs I've ever played or heard...period.

Anyway, all IMO...

Bob

 

[steubig]

I guess Steubig and I have different approaches. To me if you want to add space then height is exactly where that should go. First it gets the sound closer to the ear of the player. Second it allows the handle to be better positioned for carrying. And thirdly and most important, it fits anywhere in a car easily. Anything that has much depth is hell to get in and out of a car door. Width is OK but if you grew the size mostly that way, I'd just turn it on end and it would become height anyway.
.

i guess my point is that it would not be as tall as the tc112, but taller than the cab i showed with the tc.

my gig needs are not as loud as that of many folks and the tc112 covers what i consider loud very well.

 

[PDGood]

Plus, you have to be concerned about carrying on rapid transit if I remember correctly, so naturally your needs and mine would be different. And to be fair, I've heard of others in your shoes, but have yet to hear anyone else speak up with a similar situation to mine. I suspect those guys are just buying little combo amps.

 

[Thor]

Continued here:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/audiokinesis-cabs-part-vi-988858/#post14405922