Gallien Krueger Neo I vs. Neo II difference (Sorry!)

[slimjim5792]

Hey all, so I'm sure this has been answered a dozen times, but I can't for the life of me find it, very sorry , I must be searchbar-challenged. So either an answer or a link to a previous thread on the subject would be very helpful. What is the difference between the GK original Neo series cabs and the Neo II series cabs. (I'm comparing both the 4x10 and the 2x12). What did they change and how do the cabs compare? Thank you!

 

[DougD]

The only difference is the Neo II cabs are made to stack better. A Neo 1 cab may not stack well with a Neo II cab. Sound wize, they are the same.

 

[slap5string]

The series I 212 has round tube-like ports as opposed to series II which has a large corner-slice cutout for a port. Not sure why they changed it or what advantage one has over the other.

 

[bongomania]

They also changed the dimensions in response to customers wanting smaller sizes, better portability--which also means the cabs are tuned higher. The earlier ones have better low end.

 

[DougD]

They also changed the dimensions in response to customers wanting smaller sizes, better portability--which also means the cabs are tuned higher. The earlier ones have better low end.

Ive had both. They are the same (minus cosmetic differences). They changed the dimensions to make them more stackable. Thats all. Before, you couldn't stack a 210 with a 212 or a 212 with a 410 without overhang. They fixed that.

 

[bongomania]

Perhaps I'm thinking of the neo III's then; one of their newer series was definitely sized smaller and tuned higher.

 

[mouthmw]

The series I 212 has round tube-like ports as opposed to series II which has a large corner-slice cutout for a port. Not sure why they changed it or what advantage one has over the other.

I think they weight less because of that. I know my GK NEO 412 with sliced corners weights a bit less than the older 412 with tube like cutouts.

 

[lomo]

Perhaps I'm thinking of the neo III's then; one of their newer series was definitely sized smaller and tuned higher.

It's the MBX series you may be referring to. Smaller, cheaper, no nearly as low or robust.

 

[bongomania]

No, I was definitely comparing Neo models, but after looking around to make sure, I found it is definitely the series III that I was thinking of--so my comment was not relevant to the OP's question about series I vs. series II. Sorry about that.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/gallien-krueger-neo-115-versus-neo-115-iii-704083/
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/gk-neo-115-ii-vs-gk-neo-115-iii-651455/
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/quick-question-about-g-k-mb210-extension-cab-618346/#post8565872
Also I was shopping around for myself a year ago, and comparing specs at each of the dealers at that time, noting that there was a significant difference in the size AND the stated frequency range... for series III.

 

[woundround]

they are only re configured for better stackablity ,I have 2 of the series 2 neo 12 s and there is def. no lack of bottom end,I had read somewhere that the series 2 threw a lil more bottom end.
The neo 1 12 series 2 are amazing and incredible value, just because they are relatively cheap does nt mean they don t blow away some way more expensive competitors...they do in spades

 

[scottfeldstein]

I have the Neo II 212 cab. I seem to recall from when I was shopping/buying that the older ones were more square, might have been a couple pounds heavier, had a different method of attaching the grill (the screws are more hidden now), and might possibly have included casters.