Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

By request, a Brief Review of Accugroove Tri 1-12 & Tri 2-10 Combination

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by gfab333, May 15, 2005.


  1. gfab333

    gfab333

    Mar 22, 2000
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    I received a request from a Brother TBer for a review on the Tri 2-10 / Tri 1-12 combination.

    As background, I've been gigging with both cabs typically in small to medium sized bars/clubs. Also, did one outdoor gig with no PA support. I usually place the 12 cab on top of the 2-10, with the 2-10 on its side on the floor. I purposely bought this cab combination so that I could use them together for loud gigs, use the 1-12 for soft gigs, and use the 2-10 by itself for anything in between. Did I mention that I'm almost 50 years old with a sore back? :bawl: so, the Whappos were out of the question.

    As far as tone, punch, and volume, these cabs are everything that has been mentioned in previous TB threads on Accugroove cabs so I won't duplicate the content of those posts - I'll let you do the search.

    These two cabs function very well as a pair. I had concerns that one cab would be louder than the other due to the small diff in the "sensitivity" rating, but no, they seem to have a balanced volume when run together (maybe the TB engineer types might be able to explain the technical aspects of this matter). Using either my WT-550 or GK 1001rb II, the two cabs provide more bottom, volume, and punch than I would ever need at the gigs that I play. I'm frankly very impressed with the amount of bottom that they put out. I run the amp's bass control at only 12-1 o'clock and have tons of full, deep, articulate low end! With these Tri cabs, the mids and highs can be added as desired - refined warm and Hi Fi style tone, or gritty almost-harsh zinging highs, what ever turns you on.

    I recently tried an El Whappo at the Honolulu AG dealer, ABC Music. Played it at what I would describe as soft- to medium-volume. I also went to see a friend run a WW Ultra / Whappo rig at a loud blues gig. IMHO, my stack seems like it sounds comparable to the Whappo as far as overall tone, bottom, punch, and volume capability. However, if you read the TB posts from the guys that play Whappos at loud volume on live gigs, it seems that the Whappo has an incredibly HUGE amount of low end! stuuuupidly HUGE! I'm guessing that this is primarily due to the 12" & 15" drivers and the dimensions of the Whappo cab, relative to the 2-10 cab. but then the Whappo is a very heavy cab for us old farts. As I previously alluded, I bought the 1-12 / 2-10 combination for ease of transport. I'm getting all the tone, punch, and volume that I need in an easy to schlepp rig. Overall, I'm very happy with my rig.

    I hope this will do for a quick Sunday morning review.

    :hyper: :bassist: :eyebrow: :bassist: :hyper:
     
  2. Muzique Fann

    Muzique Fann Howzit brah

    Dec 8, 2003
    Kauai, HI
    I think I need to take a trip to ABC Music.
    Mahalo...
     
  3. lo-freq

    lo-freq aka UFO

    Jan 19, 2003
    The Republic of Texas
    Thanks for the review!

    I'm curious about the way you stack them.

    Do you stack the 112 on top/210 on bottom, for more punch or more low end output, or what?

    Have you tried them the other way?

    Also, which amp do you prefer with them?
     
  4. gfab333

    gfab333

    Mar 22, 2000
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Low-freq,

    as shown in the pic... 2-10 on the bottom on its side, and the 12 on top of the 2-10, also on its side (FYI: the relative sides, top, and bottom on the Tri 112 depend on which one you have; Mark changed the position of the badge on the more recent models - thus, changing your reference of "side, top, and bottom").

    Maybe it's some kind of psycho-acoustic- voodoo-mojo, but I think I get a bigger, fatter, punchy, low end with the cabs stacked in this configuration. I think that the cabs achieve a better coupling with each other and the floor, resulting in a bigger punchy low end response. I tried leaving the 2-10 on its casters with the 1-12 on top, and the bottom just did not sound as good no matter what I did with the EQ. I haven't tried them the other way, 12 on the bottom. I didn't think that you'd get more bottom that way, since when each cab is played by itself, the 2-10 puts out more bottom than the 1-12 all other factors constant. I never got around to trying that config because I don't feel like lifting the 2-10 on to the 12 (it's that lazy old fart thing again! :spit: ).

    I forgot to mention in the initial post that this rig really performed well at an outdoor gig that I did. It was a classic rock gig at moderately loud volume and no PA support for my bass. The rig sounded outstanding overall, but I was really I pressed by the the amount of articulate and fat low end that I got outdoors.

    Did I see that you have two Tri 2-10s listed on your profile's GAS list? :eyebrow: :eyebrow: :eyebrow:
    If you buy that stack, you are just going to kill!
    [​IMG]
     
  5. lo-freq

    lo-freq aka UFO

    Jan 19, 2003
    The Republic of Texas
    Looks great and I bet it sounds even better.

    My ultimate (non-powered Meyer) system, would probably be a Bill Dickens Sub with a pair of Tri 210.
    A Gordo would be cool to match with a Tri 210 for more modest sized gigs.

    Anyway, at this point, I'm just dreaming. My funds are pretty limited right now.

    Thanks for the info.
     
  6. GRoberts

    GRoberts Supporting Member

    Jan 7, 2003
    Tucson, AZ USA
    Hi GFab. Thanks for the report. Great stuff! How do you like your WT-550 and GK1001RB II? Do you prefer one of those amps to the other with your Accugrooves? Can you describe the sonic and power differences that you notice? Thanks! Gary
     
  7. Gfab

    Nice review, you have convinced me to try my Tri112L's on their sides etc to see what gives the best responce.

    Regards

    Matthew