Bergantino AE212 - Just Released

[Eublet]

Agreed Vic. Which brings me back to the AE212...

I don't know what to think, but it seems the voice of the cab has changed since I got it, or my ears have just grown accustomed to it really quickly. It seems to have much more bottom now than when I first got it. I was doing a good bit more of low-end boosting on day 1 and 2 (5 or 6 clicks) than I am now (2 or 3), and it sounds great running everything flat. It's still aggressive in the upper-mids, which I totally love, but the bottom has filled out nicely to make the total experience more enjoyable. It sounds hard to believe that this could be that drastic of a difference, so I am still questioning my own observations.

 

[Eublet]

I think you're right, Ken. I never had a low-end issue with the LMII, although in some boomy venues controlling lows was a problem with any head. The LMII's EQ did serve well to reduce that. I'm just wondering if my sheer volume comparison between the LMII and RH450 might have been skewed by the deeper lows of the LMII. At the practical gig volumes I run, even the louder gigs, driver stress is never a concern.

 

[KJung]

Agreed Vic. Which brings me back to the AE212...

I don't know what to think, but it seems the voice of the cab has changed since I got it, or my ears have just grown accustomed to it really quickly. It seems to have much more bottom now than when I first got it. I was doing a good bit more of low-end boosting on day 1 and 2 (5 or 6 clicks) than I am now (2 or 3), and it sounds great running everything flat. It's still aggressive in the upper-mids, which I totally love, but the bottom has filled out nicely to make the total experience more enjoyable. It sounds hard to believe that this could be that drastic of a difference, so I am still questioning my own observations.

Nope, you aren't crazy... most of us have reported this. Within the first hour or so of playing, for some reason, the AE212 shows a significantly increased low end, which again, gives the impression of a softening of the upper mids... due I assume to that ratio changing. It is a BIG change and happens very quickly.

I am one who rarely hears this 'break-in' effect of a cab (which is why the guys gave me all that s*** a few pages back in this thread), but with the AE212, it is really there. It happens VERY quickly, I guess the surrounds just need to open up a smidge versus other cabs. I did not notice any change in my AE410 from taking it out of the box to gigging it for a couple of years now.

 

[greenboy]

The bottom line is, I feel VERY strongly that you should be 80-90% happy with everything set "flat", and then ONLY have to tweak from there for given situations. Anything calling for an extreme adjustment simply means you have the wrong tool for the job.

I don't see a great deal of difference between using a designer/manufacturer's hidden default voicing that boosts bass n decibels at certain frequencies, or instead giving the user a product without so much hidden voicing - and then that user choosing to do exactly the same boosting. They both are the same in phase response and frequency response.

Advantage of flatter pre without hidden voicing: with adequate EQ facilities it can be very flexible and one can know exactly what's going on without digging into a microcosm of critical listening and maybe failing.

Advantage of lots of hidden EQ "voicing": when a user sets controls at detent they are hearing a response contour the particular manufacturer wants them to hear (with certain cabs anyway) ... while the user gets a sense they are "safe". And for people who aren't good at EQ, the product with the hidden voicing may be chosen instead of others with different hidden default voicings, without hazarding the sometimes crazy front panel EQ facilities.

 

[Vic]

Nope... most of us have reported this. Within the first hour or so of playing, for some reason, the AE212 shows a significantly increased low end, which again, gives the impression of a softening of the upper mids... due I assume to that ratio changing. It is a BIG change and happens very quickly.

I am one who rarely hears this 'break-in' effect of a cab (which is why the guys gave me all that s*** a few pages back in this thread), but with the AE212, it is really there. It happens VERY quickly, I guess the surrounds just need to open up a smidge versus other cabs. I did not notice any change in my AE410 from taking it out of the box to gigging it for a couple of years now.

Sooooooo tempting....

Merry Christmas, Ken.

That said, I have to say I've never officially had a position on it other than I'd simply never personally heard it with any of the gear I've used. But... I think it's clearly applicable to the AE212, and I certainly accept on faith what's been said here, due to the level of experience making these claims.

(group hug)

Now, do I need to don a flack jacket? Hopefully not...

 

[Eublet]

I don't see a great deal of difference between using a designer/manufacturer's hidden default voicing that boosts bass n decibels at certain frequencies, or instead giving the user a product without so much hidden voicing - and then that user choosing to do exactly the same boosting. They both are the same in phase response and frequency response.

Advantage of flatter pre without hidden voicing: with adequate EQ facilities it can be very flexible and one can know exactly what's going on without digging into a microcosm of critical listening and maybe failing.

Advantage of lots of hidden EQ "voicing": when a user sets controls at detent they are hearing a response contour the particular manufacturer wants them to hear (with certain cabs anyway) ... while the user gets a sense they are "safe". And for people who aren't good at EQ, the product with the hidden voicing may be chosen instead of others with different hidden default voicings, without hazarding the sometimes crazy front panel EQ facilities.

With respect to Vic, I think this is a better way of looking at it. If you consider the fact that most MI EQ's are limited, they don't really have the power to completely overcome the default voicing applied in the preamp unless the chosen EQ points line up with what the player is expecting. The wider Q's also don't lend themselves very well to sculpting a tone. As such, I think Vic's comment is a very valid one because if it sounds good "flat" then you won't need to make many changes to get what you're after.

 

[Vic]

I don't see a great deal of difference...

I totally hear you on this, and really, I was trying to account for that by putting the word "flat" in quotes.

But that's what I'm also referring to (and I think Ken) in the "matchup" deal. I totally agree everything has it's own voice, and when you find the right matchups, then things just sorta' "work". But I think if you're in a situation where you've got all that voicing combining in such a way that you have to make an extreme adjustment, then it's just a bad idea.

I know you're a super technical person on this stuff, but really, I just plug stuff in and make high level pragmatic choices by what's in front of me and how it works when I move stuff around. This just based on what's typically worked for me, though I can't necessarily explain it in technical detail.

Again, just MHO/IME.

 

[greenboy]

Hey Eublet,

Every time I think of this topic I'm reminded of when I first started bass playing, with gear pilgrimages to Bass Northwest.

With particular cabs there, two of the preamps I had read were great choices were markedly different. I'm not sure about the Demeter, but later I got to experiment with a Kern, and it had a lot of hidden bass boost - like a big shelf that covered from maybe 250 Hz and down, boosted. And I could use a good EQ section to make a Demeter or anything relatively flat sound so much like that it was uncanny.

Kind of a Blinders Fall Off moment for me back then, because it seemed like I'd been convinced by Bass Player Magazine there was something other than EQ that made one sound this way and the other sound that way. But no: it was mainly voicing - both had good components and circuits.

 

[KJung]

As such, I think Vic's comment is a very valid one because if it sounds good "flat" then you won't need to make many changes to get what you're after.

+1 The concept of 'flat' is less interesting that 'sounding good' when set relatively neutral, since as you point out, most typical on-board EQ will not necessariy be voiced to get you where you need to go if the neutral voicing of the amp (flat or otherwise) is not to your liking.

And, talking about the voicing of a head is only meaningful when taken into account with the entire signal chain. Cab voicing and bass voicing can result in a very 'not flat head' actually being more flat as part of the entire signal chain than a head that is 'purely flat on the scope' in a vacuum.

 

[greenboy]

I totally hear you on this, and really, I was trying to account for that by putting the word "flat" in quotes.

Yeah, Vic, I kinda got that, but I always think this bears further typing. To me anyway ; }

I know you're a super technical person on this stuff,

More like I'm a guy who digs when I don't understand exactly what it is that makes certain things sound the way they do, really. Sometimes people say things about what they hear too, and I don't always know if I agree. So when I can I like to see the stuff on RTA or whatever, to have veracity. Part of this happened coming from doing live sound, and then coming into bass guitar. I found a lot of basists were often an octave off on what frequency bands they were trying to describe.

but really, I just plug stuff in and make high level pragmatic choices by what's in front of me and how it works when I move stuff around.

Likewise. In recent years I think the whole mix and match thing has become both more of a minefield - because we are blessed with a plethora or product diversity past and present ... and less of a minefield, because a lot of the heads now are NOT so heavily voiced, which makes them get along with more enclosures. And a lot of the enclosures are more capable now, and not so dependent on upstream voicing to make them work good.

In the past, a lot of the companies were going for a signature sound that often only fit some cabs that also had a signature sound. And when that signature fell out of favor, those products often did too.

 

[Chef]

I soooo completely agree with this!!!

Likewise. In recent years I think the whole mix and match thing has become both more of a minefield - because we are blessed with a plethora or product diversity past and present ... and less of a minefield, because a lot of the heads now are NOT so heavily voiced, which makes them get along with more enclosures. And a lot of the enclosures are more capable now, and not so dependent on upstream voicing to make them work good.

In the past, a lot of the companies were going for a signature sound that often only fit some cabs that also had a signature sound. And when that signature fell out of favor, those products often did too.

 

[KJung]

I soooo completely agree with this!!!

I'll +1 that also. Stuff is just betting better and better and lots of stuff to consider. And, also, many heads that have that wonderful combinatio of relatively even 'on the scope', with enough EQ power to keep them sounding that way in all but the worst situation. I can go for literally months and dozens of gigs without really every having to touch a knob, other than maybe roll off some deep bass in particularly bad rooms.

EQ back to what it was designed for: 'equalization' from venue to venue, versus having to turn a bunch of knobs just to make the rig not suck

 

[Eublet]

Part of this happened coming from doing live sound, and then coming into bass guitar. I found a lot of basists were often an octave off on what frequency bands they were trying to describe.

Oh gosh, huge, huge +1. I know for me, getting a better handle on what 250hz sounds like was a big eye-opener. The first time I played with a sine wave generator I was like, "That's WAY too high for 200 hz." I also remember at a sound reinforcement class I took when the instructor was talking about vocals, and he stated that the typical vocal range was in the 80-300 hz range. I thought he was crazy, but it's true. Yet bass players are always talking about boosting these low-mid frequencies to "cut through the mix", not realizing that they are trampling all over ever other person and instrument on stage when they do that. I've actually learned to cut low-mids when I want to fit in the mix better. The sound guys typically thank me.

 

[KJung]

OK, back to the AE212.... my thread... my call

 

[Chef]

OK then:
I love my M9. I love it the most paired with my two LDS 2x8's.
They're pretty deep sounding cabs. The aggressive selenium horns are stout, and crossed at about 1800hz, so they cover a lot of the upper mid thing, and have a lot of top end extension too. Great for DB as well; really delivering string and finger noise. With electric, man, you hear the rounds for sure. I feel like they're kinda "AE410 meets UL410" in terms of lows, mids and highs.
Lightweight, they're not, at about 48lbs per. The 4x8 ticks in at about 70lbs.

My current dream is this:
MB-Fusion+Berg AE212 would be about the same thing.
Except the mB would go in my bass bag, and I could schlepp the 212 one handed from the parking lot to the stage easy enough.

 

[Eublet]

OK, back to the AE212.... my thread... my call

So it has been written, so it shall be done!

Link Removed

 

[KJung]

 

[scowboy]

I'm still tempted to buy an F500 just to compare to the Shuttle 9.0!!! Conversely I'm also still tempted to buy something along the lines of a Carbine M6 or Ashdown ABM500 (I admit it I have a real never quite satisfied curiosity about Ashdown that goes WAY back). There is an Ashown in the TB classifieds but the guy wants a more than I want to pay for an experiment. I also used to have a Demeter HBP-1 separates rig that could be or have been really interesting too!

I'm definitely watching the classifieds again just to compare...

FWIW, my TC Electronic RH450 is shipping out today to it's new home and I honestly never even tried it.

I'd love to get my hands on a LMIII to compare with the Shuttle 9.0, just for comparison's sake. From what I've seen of the LMII's scope, there is no attenuation in the low-end to speak of at all. Much different than even the 9.0 with the LF Boost disabled. What is strange to me is that the F1/500 scopes identically to the LMII/III, yet so many folks say they sound tighter. I'd like to compare those as well.

I think I need Tom B's job.

 

[Vic]

Yeah...

Great post, and like Chef, I totally agree with your last point in particular. I lived through those days and I know EXACTLY what you're talking about.

 

[Vic]

So it has been written, so it shall be done!

Link Removed

et-cetera, et-cetera, et-cetera... LOL