• 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.

Double Bass AudioKinesis Thunderchild 112 cab

#42
Thanks, Vic and Kjung and Hensonbass.

It's an honor have my little cab hold its own alongside the VL-208 in Vic's system (which doesn't necessarily extrapolate to other systems).

On the transition between lower and upper registers, the technical side of that goes back to the transition between woofer and horn. Briefly, I pay more attention to what's happening off-axis than to what's happening on-axis, and specificaly I try to match up the off-axis behavior of woofer and horn in the crossover region. That's why I use such a big horn. Credit for any success I have there goes back to the men who taught me, Wayne Pahram and Earl Geddes.

The reason the radiation pattern matters is, most of the sound that reaches listeners' ears is off-axis and/or reverberant field energy (and that statement is almost redundant, because the reverberant field is dominated by what's happening off-axis). Glitches in the off-axis response, usually caused by going from a woofer that's beaming to a tweeter that's not, will be audible as a discontinuity when you go up and down the scale - because most of what you're hearing goes back to the off-axis sound.

By the way, eyeballing the VL-208, I would expect it to likewise outperform most bass cabs in transitioning from lower to upper registers. Its unorthodox driver complement results in much better radiation pattern uniformity (particularly in the horizontal plane) than most bass cabs. My pattern will probably be a bit more uniform, but the VL-208's pattern will be wider, which is also desirable. Like I said, it's an honor for my cab to be considered in the same league.
 
#44
bassmasta1209 said:
sorry for my noob-ness, but that looks like a pa cab! but is it designed for bass? and can it really fully handle the 900 watt streamliner you put on it in your video? (i'm looking for a portable cab)
Click to expand...

I have been playing through a Streamliner 900 into a Thunderchild cab. This rig will get really loud, however I am very careful about how loud I go with this amp because all it takes is some transient spikes and you might blow up the driver. I am looking into some larger 4x10 cabs that handle 800 - 1000 watts to avoid this issue.

If you only wanted to use a Thunderchild cab I might just go with the Streamliner 600 version over the 900.
 
#45
hensonbass said:
I have been playing through a Streamliner 900 into a Thunderchild cab. This rig will get really loud, however I am very careful about how loud I go with this amp because all it takes is some transient spikes and you might blow up the driver. I am looking into some larger 4x10 cabs that handle 800 - 1000 watts to avoid this issue.

If you only wanted to use a Thunderchild cab I might just go with the Streamliner 600 version over the 900.
Click to expand...

Nah. I need the full 900 for headroom. If I'm looking for a more modern tone and portable, what can would you recommend that can handle like 900 watts.
 
#46
bassmasta1209 said:
Nah. I need the full 900 for headroom. If I'm looking for a more modern tone and portable, what can would you recommend that can handle like 900 watts.
Click to expand...


Duke is currently working on the finishing touches for his Thunderchild 115 I don't know the specs for this cabinet but all you have to do is contact him to find it. If I'm not mistaken he will begin shipping them pretty soon.

Ric

P.S. This Thread Follows the Thunderchild on the EB side of TB http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/audiokinesis-1x12-cab-part-two-750677/
 
#47
bassmasta1209 said:
Nah. I need the full 900 for headroom. If I'm looking for a more modern tone and portable, what can would you recommend that can handle like 900 watts.
Click to expand...

Ric Vice said:
Duke is currently working on the finishing touches for his Thunderchild 115...
Click to expand...

The 115 mentioned by Ric will have approximately the same power handling as the 112, with higher efficiency. So I don't think it will meet the 900 watt requirement, but the higher efficiency means that the 115 with 500 watts will play about as loud as the 112 could with 850 watts, assuming the 112 could handle that much (which it can't).

I do have a 212 in the pipeline, and it could probably handle 900 watts.

This is for double bass?

Duke
 
#48
DukeLeJeune said:
The 115 mentioned by Ric will have approximately the same power handling as the 112, with higher efficiency. So I don't think it will meet the 900 watt requirement, but the higher efficiency means that the 115 with 500 watts will play about as loud as the 112 could with 850 watts, assuming the 112 could handle that much (which it can't).

I do have a 212 in the pipeline, and it could probably handle 900 watts.

This is for double bass?

Duke
Click to expand...

no. electric. like what KJung was doing in his video. so where can i find this guy's website? i looked up audiokenisis, but couldnt find it on the first page. and could i get the thunderchild with any speaker combination i want?
 
#56
Ric Vice said:
I suppose it could, though I doubt that you'd need to, since it sounds terrific on the floor. The cabinet is incredibly well voiced and it has great of axis response because of that horn.

Ric
Click to expand...
Thanks Ric

from my recente experiences, when i play with a speaker mounted on a stand, everyone (including me) can hear me much better with a lot less volume.
less db= more acoustic

when i'm playing electric i prefer the speaker on the floor, then everyone can feel me better :)
 
#57
jmmcc said:
Thanks Ric

from my recente experiences, when i play with a speaker mounted on a stand, everyone (including me) can hear me much better with a lot less volume.
less db= more acoustic

when i'm playing electric i prefer the speaker on the floor, then everyone can feel me better :)
Click to expand...

You'll want to P.M. Duke LeJeune and ask him if the cabinet will work up on a speaker stand, he will be able to provide you with that information.

Ric
 
#59
bassmasta1209 said:
sorry for my noob-ness, but that looks like a pa cab! but is it designed for bass?
Click to expand...

The reason for the big PA-style horn is that I'm doing something often seen in PA-cabs, but which is fairly unusual in bass cabs: Pattern-matching in the crossover region.

Briefly, I cross over the woofer and horn approximately at the frequency where they have the same radiation pattern, which has some advantages from a sound-quality standpoint.

Perhaps relevant to this forum is the recent introduction of an "acoustic-friendly" version of my little 112 cab, the main difference being a rear-firing tweeter which covers essentially the same region as the front-firing horn, albeit at lower SPL. Combined with the midrange output from the rear-facing ports (which are right behind the woofer cone) and the wrap-around bass energy from the woofer, the tonal balance from behind the cab is similar to the tonal balance out in front. This way you can place the cab some distance in front of you and still hear hear it pretty well. The way the cab behaves, from a radiation pattern standpoint anyway, is closer to the way an actual acoustic instrument behaves. I'm not saying this is necessarily better than the way a more conventional cabinet behaves when it comes to amplifying acoustic instruments, but if the goal is to retain (rather than modify or enhance) the sound of the unamplified acoustic instrument, then it may be desirable.

My first customer is Talkbass member Derek Kiernan, and you can find some of his commentary starting here.

jmmcc said:
can it be mounted on a speaker stand like a PA speaker?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. The problem is this: The crossover board covers the bottom of the cabinet, and I'd have to split the crossover board in two in order to make room for the tophat. That is easier said than done. If you are really interested let me know, and I'll look into it more closely.
 
#60
DukeLeJeune said:
Perhaps relevant to this forum is the recent introduction of an "acoustic-friendly" version of my little 112 cab, the main difference being a rear-firing tweeter which covers essentially the same region as the front-firing horn, albeit at lower SPL. Combined with the midrange output from the rear-facing ports (which are right behind the woofer cone) and the wrap-around bass energy from the woofer, the tonal balance from behind the cab is similar to the tonal balance out in front. This way you can place the cab some distance in front of you and still hear hear it pretty well. The way the cab behaves, from a radiation pattern standpoint anyway, is closer to the way an actual acoustic instrument behaves. I'm not saying this is necessarily better than the way a more conventional cabinet behaves when it comes to amplifying acoustic instruments, but if the goal is to retain (rather than modify or enhance) the sound of the unamplified acoustic instrument, then it may be desirable.

My first customer is Talkbass member Derek Kiernan, and you can find some of his commentary starting here.I
Click to expand...

I just received one of these "acoustic-friendly" versions as well, with my primary target usage being EUB. I am very impressed so far, for both EUB and fretless slab, but will report back with a full review after I get a few gigs with it under my belt. I intend to get a few AUB players to try it soon as well.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back