Best 410 cab

[HaphAsSard]

The crossover is at 800 hz

Thanks. In theory (not that I fully grasp it beyond a very general idea) the radiating pattern starts narrowing significantly above 400Hz or so, until (> ~550Hz) side lobes develop, with two side "valleys" between them and the central lobe; in practice, for >45° off-axis listening positions, there should be some scoopage in that passband, the wider in frequency the further one stands from the cab, centered at different frequencies depending on the exact angle, until the 3" midrange drivers in the Genzler fully kick in:
Sound Wave Interference Applet
[Increase scale some, set speaker separation to 12" (a reasonable guesstimate for center-to-center distance of side-by-side tens in a 410, but remember that a player onstage will get effects caused by either diagonal, so 15" is more realistic in that case) and play with the frequency.]

Now, I doubt the above-described effect is detectable as anything but minor, if at all; if anything, many players and listeners may and do actually like some mid-mid scoop; also, I'd definitely say it's better this way, i.e. standing off-axis and getting a little less mids in that frequency area but getting back a healthy dose thereof above it, than just having mids and highs falling inexorably from that point up; finally, there are likely to be aspects I've overlooked, like the specifics of the crossover slopes or, I dunno, even the central mid array blocking the direct path from the furthest tens and mitigating the comb filtering somewhat?

 

[HaphAsSard]

Has any bassist tried to address "beaming" of any cabs by using Weber Beam Blocker devices ?

Couple threads, one covering the alternative (and apparently less suitable for bass) "Mitchell doughnut":
weber beam blockers
Weber Beam Blocker
Anyone try this fix for speaker beaming?
There's more, do a forum search if you're curious.

Some quotes by BFM:

They'll work OK at frequencies where they are a wavelength or more across. For the four inch that's 3.4kHz and higher, for the five inch 2.7kHz and up, so OK for guitar, not so much for bass

It will work, but even with the 5 inch version only above 2.7kHz, higher than most woofers for bass extend anyway.

If you did you would see some reduction in the on-axis SPL, with a corresponding increase in the off-axis SPL. With careful attention to the size and shape of the blocker significant improvement in the overall result can be obtained. How much time was spent testing the Weber version I can't say, and as you note it's unfortunate that no measured results are available.

@beans-on-toast has experimented on such devices.

The gen II Barefaced Midget T had a coaxial tweeter mounted in front of the woofer that apparently worked kinda like that according to @alexclaber:
10's, 12's and 15's
Old Barefaced News - see our website for the latest news!

As I hinted at above, the midrange array in Genzler cabs may have been designed with a similar effect in mind.

 

[DukeLeJeune]

I imagine the crossfiring in the Smart 410 moves the beamy area to a narrow wedge-shaped zone forming at some distance from the cab, at the center of the field, from a certain frequency upwards, while elsewhere and below that point the two columns radiate each its own pattern, centered in the two diverging axes, without one affecting the other.

Thank you for mentioning the Smart 410.

The Smart 410's cross-firing configuration gives an unusually wide and uniform radiation pattern up to about 4 kHz. It is not without tradeoffs, but I think it compares favorably with a vertical 410, and up to 4 kHz, is arguably competitive with a single 6. The following figures are based on computer modelling, rounded to the nearest 5 degrees:

A vertical 410's pattern width (-6 dB at the edges) is 90 degrees at 2 kHz, 40 degrees at 3 kHz, 30 degrees at 4 kHz, and 20 degrees at 6 kHz.

A single 6's pattern width is 140 degrees at 2 kHz, 90 degrees at 3 kHz, 75 degrees at 4 kHz, and 35 degrees at 6 kHz.

The Smart 410's pattern width is 90 degrees at 2 kHz, 90 degrees at 3 kHz, 80 degrees at 4 kHz, and 60 degrees at 6 kHz, BUT at 6 kHz the pattern has a -7 dB hole in the middle.

Thus the Smart 410 has a fairly wide and unusually uniform pattern up to about 4 kHz, then above that the pattern develops a hole in the middle, because you have in effect two beaming 10's, each aimed at a different point. However unless the venue is long and narrow, you're probably still getting the highs to more audience members than with a vertical 410 (which in turn significantly outperforms a conventional 410). The vertical 410 has the advantage of getting the top woofer up significantly closer to ear level.

The other drawback of the Smart 410 configuration is, the on-axis SPL trend is several dB lower than that of the vertical 410 as we go up in frequency (the extreme case of this being the hole in the middle up high). This is because the configuration spreads the highs across a wider area, so they are less concentrated on-axis. Here are three possible solutions: Crank in some top-end EQ; start out with tens that have a rising response to begin with (like Deltalites); or add a pair of cross-firing mids (for example four BP102's plus two Alpha 6 CBMR's). The front baffles can be turned upside-down, leaving enough room at the top for the cross-firing mids.

Relative to the .5 alignment, the Smart 410 puts more highs out into the audience (because you aren't removing the highs from half of your 10's), has wider and more uniform coverage, and the coverage pattern is the same on both sides of the centerline (which is not the case for the .5 alignment because of interaction between the rolled-off tens and the full-range tens).

I have ZERO financial interest in the Smart 410 kit. Leland and I worked together on it, so while the initial idea was mine, he did most of the refining.

And I tip my virtual hat to Jeff Genzler and Jim Bergantino for their innovative new 410 designs.