• 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.

Basslite SC10 sealed cab drivers

#81
Here is a top for you guys. Every speaker is a trade off of some sort. In this case there is a spike at 2.5kHz and a small one at 3.8kHz. If you have the eq to remove those little slivers, they sound even more pleasing and more "ceramic". Then you can boost highs even more while staying sweet.
 
#82
kringle77 said:
Here is a top for you guys. Every speaker is a trade off of some sort. In this case there is a spike at 2.5kHz and a small one at 3.8kHz. If you have the eq to remove those little slivers, they sound even more pleasing and more "ceramic". Then you can boost highs even more while staying sweet.
Click to expand...
A couple of well designed notch filters could take care of those. I don't have the skills, but I'm sure there are forum members who do.
 
#86
Can anyone comment on how the max SPL of these drivers compares to the 3015 and 3012 drivers? I'm sure they won't have the booty, but from 80hz and up how loud can they get? For example, how would a 410 compare to a 212 with 3012s? I don't have a computer set up with WinISD or I'd do it myself. I figured someone has already done the math.

Reason I ask is I've been considering building a replacement for the 2 1x12 I've been using. They are a nearful design. Just wondering how may of these tens it would take to get me there. I really like the idea of a sealed cab, but need the stage volume without lugging out an 810.
 
#87
zac2944 said:
Can anyone comment on how the max SPL of these drivers compares to the 3015 and 3012 drivers? I'm sure they won't have the booty, but from 80hz and up how loud can they get? For example, how would a 410 compare to a 212 with 3012s? I don't have a computer set up with WinISD or I'd do it myself. I figured someone has already done the math.

Reason I ask is I've been considering building a replacement for the 2 1x12 I've been using. They are a nearful design. Just wondering how may of these tens it would take to get me there. I really like the idea of a sealed cab, but need the stage volume without lugging out an 810.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the LFs? If so, the 3012LF has just under 496cc of displacement, and the 3015LF has 846cc, compare this to the 154cc. Also, the 3015 and 3012 are both designed for ported cabinets - which, if I do recall can double the effective displacement - I probably have this wrong, but if does if I recall add up to 3db of the low end of a cabinet when done properly on top of extending the low end - when designed well. If one is simply to compare the displacement, one would need about six of these drivers to compete with a 3015, and something like four to compete with a 3012.

This, of course, doesn't factor in various cabinet design factors, frequency response and sensitivity, or distortion or anything like that.


Latitude94941 said:
Based on what I've been learning, 13x24x16 seems too big for these drivers. Seems like the "ideal" gross enclosure volume for a 210 is 1.883, which results in a Qtc of .707. I'm just learning this stuff myself, so anyone should please feel to correct me.

At the other extreme, while the 210AV cabinets will work with these drivers, their small volume of approximately 1.198 (net) will over damp the drivers. The expected result of this smaller enclosure would be a higher F3 (but higher low frequency power handling).

Also, in terms of the best dimensions, it seems like having a wider, but less deep cabinet would work best for smaller stages. The Barefaced cabinets adopt this "more wide than deep" approach, but I wonder if there is a downside to having a wider front baffle (maybe worse horizontal dispersion)?
Click to expand...

I think what you might be thinking of, with your last paragraph, is the concept of baffle step. It's something that I still need to read up on, I'm a bit behind on this stuff, but if I recall the size and shape of the baffle can affect the frequency response of a cabinet by boosting certain frequencies for a given size/shape. Other than this, I don't think it affects dispersion much, unless perhaps it's a very flimsy baffle.

With regards to your references to Qtc and over-damping, that's not necessarily a bad thing - and over-damped box can also lead to an upper bass/lower mid bump, which some people can like in varying doses. It's all about what sounds "good" to a person. Of course, though, assuming your math is right, then you're right with your assumptions of an over-damped sealed cabinet.
 
Last edited:
#88
pie_man_25 said:
Do you mean the LFs? If so, the 3012LF has just under 496cc of displacement, and the 3015LF has 846cc, compare this to the 154cc. Also, the 3015 and 3012 are both designed for ported cabinets - which, if I do recall can double the effective displacement - I probably have this wrong, but if does if I recall add up to 3db of the low end of a cabinet when done properly on top of extending the low end - when designed well. If one is simply to compare the displacement, one would need about six of these drivers to compete with a 3015, and something like four to compete with a 3012.

This, of course, doesn't factor in various cabinet design factors, frequency response and sensitivity, or distortion or anything like that.
Click to expand...

I do mean the LF. I figured my "nearful" mention would indicate that.

I'm aware of the trade offs with vented vs sealed designs, and that's why I mentioned output above the low bass range. I'm assuming this 10 can't compete down there. That's fine for me as I tend to cut a lot of that range anyway.

I'll have to model up in WinISD. Just hoping I could save time if someone else has already done the work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pie_man_25
#92
I liked the tone of the vertical 4x10, you just need to boost a little bottom in some rooms. The regular 6x10 is much fatter but, the mids aren't as defined. Its just a tonal balance thing. Someone should build a vertical 101015 sealed using a pair of 16 ohm sc10 drivers and the new BP1525 woofer. That would be pretty killer, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5StringPocket, PawleeP, Vanni and 1 other person
#96
kringle77 said:
I liked the tone of the vertical 4x10, you just need to boost a little bottom in some rooms. The regular 6x10 is much fatter but, the mids aren't as defined. Its just a tonal balance thing. Someone should build a vertical 101015 sealed using a pair of 16 ohm sc10 drivers and the new BP1525 woofer. That would be pretty killer, I think.
Click to expand...

that BP1525 has some SERIOUS excursion for a ceramic woofer in that price range, and gets LOW. Now that I think about it, the SC10 has a 16-ohm version, so the whole thing could make a 4-ohm cabinet.
 
Last edited:
#97
kringle77 said:
Still loving the new drivers. Light, loud, sealed, solid tone! I'm surprised that I haven't seen more projects pop up using them.
Click to expand...
Hi, Chris. Want to thank you again for making these drivers happen. I've done two projects with them (just been too busy playing to write about them). I started out by putting them into Ampeg 210AV boxes and then had Don Oatman at Low Down Sound build me a pair of custom vertical 210s. Very happy with these drivers in both applications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: razboinikoff
#99
Latitude94941 said:
Hi, Chris. Want to thank you again for making these drivers happen. I've done two projects with them (just been too busy playing to write about them). I started out by putting them into Ampeg 210AV boxes and then had Don Oatman at Low Down Sound build me a pair of custom vertical 210s. Very happy with these drivers in both applications.
Click to expand...
oh great! I was hoping someone would do that. I like my vertical 4x10 a lot. A pair of 2x10 may be more practical for most. One of them along with a sealed bp1525 would be a sweet modular pair that would stack vertically too.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back