Greenboy vs. Barefaced vs. Audiokinesis

[agedhorse]

Rick - my comments and criticisms were about ALL folded horn type cabinets, and I was careful to include this in my comments. You presented the Jack, and it works the same as every other folded horn of similar dimensions with the same advantages and ALSO the same disadvantages compared with similarity sized reflex cabinets, as I mentioned. It wouldn't matter one bit it the response was given in chart or tabular form. I have also had the opportunity to measure one, and even without being in an anechoic environment (but away from all but one boundary) the response was consistent with all folded horn cabinets that I have measured.

We provide the LF data in tabular form, along with a lot more useful data (also in tabular form) for those who understand (or care to understand) what it means.

I would like to note that the engineering is done during the development phase, then we shift to measurement and analysis as we work with prototypes, along with extensive listening and play testing. Different analysis methods apply to different parts of the design, and require different tools to execute well. That required initially breaking up the spectrum and using the appropriate tools for each part that is being analyzed.

 

[Al Kraft]

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear experts sharing thoughts on a forum about anticipated attributes and typical limitations of a particular design approach/concept or what can be ascertained from certain results or methods for presenting them, I don't immediately read "criticism" of someone who is doing that - I hear engineers discussing perspectives and experience. As for testing and how it's conducted, in my engineering experience (spanning 5 decades), the needs of the design process to achieve the desired outcomes (including required certifications) should determine the test methods, test points and test parameters. Innovative designs that break state of the art paradigms will more often than not drive the development of new T&E techniques to complement standard industry tests.

I fully acknowledge that in some cases testing will need to strictly adhere/conform precisely to industry standards in order to receive compliances and certifications. In other cases though development and prototype testing may be of a novel nature to provide at least a first order sense of how the design is progressing. I can't help but recall watching a You Tube video of Bob Gallien giving a factory tour. He came to a room with prototype cabinet designs and there was a rubber mallet on the floor or on one of the cabinets. He then discussed how they used a mallet to hit the cabs and listen for unwanted resonance. They made adjustments as necessary and then hit the cab some more. That's meaningful testing, but I'm not sure how one might plot it out, or why you'd want to.

Innovation in design requires a number of things, but two in particular come to mind. First, you need a solid understanding of the generally accepted benefits and limitations of current design approaches/concepts - these are not inherently good or bad, they're just facts. Second, new approaches and innovative designs frequently require new/novel test approaches to support the design process. This is how we get to true innovation. I suspect that all the designs discussed in this thread wouldn't have happened without both an understanding of current state of the art and a willingness to try out new concepts that needed some test techniques that didn't cause at least one person to say, "but that's not the way we usually do it".

Open discussion of limitations is how we start conversations about new ideas in engineering. What sounds like criticism to some, just sounds to me like an invitation to offer new thoughts and ideas.

 

[Rick James]

We provide the LF data in tabular form, along with a lot more useful data (also in tabular form) for those who understand (or care to understand) what it means.

As you said yourself providing a lot of data may not help most players because they don’t know what it means, so for their benefit I used the data on the Mesa site to compare the sensitivity of the Subway 112 and 115 to the Jack 112 and 115.

The Mesa 112 average sensitivity is 97.5 dB, the Jack 12 with a 3012HO is 99 dB. Based on the f3, f6 and f10 the Mesa sensitivity at 57.5 hz is 94.5 dB. The Jack is 98.5 dB. At 48.1 hz the Mesa is 91.5, the Jack is 95. At 41.5 hz the Mesa is 87.5, the Jack is 90. That’s a win for the Jack 12 across the board in the lows by an average of 3.3dB. In the midbass the Jack peaks at 107 dB at 300 hz, the Mesa who knows because there’s no chart, but since the Mesa isn’t horn loaded it’s probably around 100 dB.

The Mesa 115 average sensitivity is 98.5dB, the Jack 115 with a 3015 is 100dB. Based on the f3, f6 and f10 the Mesa sensitivity at 56.6 hz is 95.5, the Jack 15 is 98.5. At 47.2 hz the Mesa is 92.5, the Jack 15 is 96.5. At 38.1 hz the Mesa is 88.5, the Jack 15 is 92.5 dB. Jack wins again in the lows by an average of 3.6 dB. In the midbass the Jack 15 peaks at 106dB at 250 hz, the Mesa again who knows because there’s no chart, but since the Mesa isn’t horn loaded it’s probably around 101 dB.

To put the sensitivity advantages of the Jacks in perspective for non-tech heads 3dB higher sensitivity gives the same result as doubling the your amp watts.

The Jacks are bigger than the Mesa, that’s inevitable to have higher sensitivity. The Jacks are heavier too, but not by much, and if you need lighter weight the Jack Lites have the same sensitivity as the standard versions but are lighter than the Mesa cabs, even though they’re bigger.

I don’t know why you refer to the Jacks as folded horns, because they aren’t, they’re straight horn reflex. That makes me question if you really did measure a Jack 12, because you should know the difference at a glance.

 

[agedhorse]

I agree Al, and perhaps a little insight into WHY horn loaded cabinets came into being might help with the understanding of their limitations.

From a historic perspective, going back into the 1920's, amplifier power was very expensive per watt, and large amplifiers were essentially unobtanium with the technology that existed at the time. The power triode was a very inefficient device, and the power pentode, beam tetrode, and other devices were not yet in production.

By contrast, labor and materials were relatively inexpensive, size and weight didn't matter (because the vast majority of these newer applications were in the cinema market) so the easiest way to increase SPL was to improve the matching of the acoustic impedance between the driver and the air by the use of horn loading (which functions as an acoustic transformer by matching acoustic loading through pressure ratios). This could improve the overall efficiency by as much as 4X. The downside was the large size and weight required to achieve acceptable LF bandwidth (though still limited by the program and reproduction medium of Western Electric playback discs and later variable density sound tracks with PE cells).

Size and weights you might ask? These cabinets were maybe 100CF-200CF and weighed a few hundred pounds. Because of the large throat geometries, the mid and high frequencies suffered from throat distortions so it was common to see a crossover to a smaller compression driver between 300-500Hz.

As amplifier power increased over the years, the reliance on super high efficiency speakers decreased, ultimately leading to where we are today. Bass reflex cabinets trade off efficiency for linearity (for a given cabinet size). It is certainly possible to design a horn loaded enclosure with acceptable LF performance but few bass players would be able to move them, and because they have a limited linear pass, would require additional speakers to cover where linearity becomes problematic.

This is a very complicated subject with lots of history involved. I serviced the cinema industry and have studied extensively the evolution of cinema sound systems since the beginnings. There's a lot to be learned by studying the past.

 

[CL400Peavey]

IMHO all the mid sensitivity in the world isnt useful with a response that is so peaky. Most amps are not going to have the eq necessary to tame those peaks and sound what I consider musical. Now if someone was using DSP to balance it all out, that would be a different story. The system is still going to be limited to the lowest point on that curve though.

As an example, the 18sound woofer that was specced in the original fEARful 15/6 plan is a very sensitive driver. It peaks at ~98db/w/m, but that isnt a useful spec because it is in the high mids, and it has to be paired with a woofer to be applicable for bass use. The mid driver gets padded down to be paired with the 3015LF, and non an insignificant amount. No one cites a 98db/w/m sensitivity on that cab, because it isnt. They might point you towards the woofer, and the cab plans and tell you to make your own speculations, which may not be as helpful as a "This cab is rated at xx.x db/w/m" for some, but is sufficient to anyone that can understand what that really means. In this way, I see why a lot of companies dont provide any information. It just leads to internet pissing matches between guys citing numbers that they dont understand, and which are probably measured and derived in different manners anyways.

 

[monsterthompson]

Just saw this thread and did a quick skim. My tl;dr advice is that the Super Compact is not as fair a comparison as the Big Baby II would be, because of the full range issue. I've owned and played through fearless/full 115 and 112 cabs, and I've played through a TC112. I've owned the Barefaced Super Midget and Super compact, before selling them to move up to my current Big Baby II. I've not done a bunch of side by side, but I did get a chance to play my Super Compact against nostatic's TC112 when I first got it.
My feedback is that the SC is the way I'd go if the full range tweeter/driver wasn't a requirement. The TC is a bit more refined and "smooth" sounding than the other two, so if you like some studio-polish to your sound, I'd go with that. I'd pick the greenboy cab if you want the full range, but with a bit more bite/edge than the TC. If there were no budget nor size issues, I'd say step up to the Big Baby II.

I voted Super Compact because P-bass with flats. I believe the SC starts rolling off around 4k, so it can still get bright if you bump the highs, but it won't sparkle and zing like the others. It will work nicely with overdrive/distortion if the OP uses those. Output will certainly be comparable among the options provided (though I'd like to believe the Barefaced is more comparable than the others YMMV)

 

[Al Kraft]

There is a good reason we have NIST, ASTM, IEEE, SAE, etc. all helping professionals find common standards and best practices that facilitate apples to apples discussions and allow the better educated consumers of the world to comparison shop with some degree of confidence. However, even with that, there are very few times when specs alone are enough to tell the whole story to a level of confidence where you'd bet your next paycheck (assuming those specs represent testing results from identical test conditions with accurate corrections if necessary for environmental variables).

At the end of the day though, in every technology area I've worked with it really comes down to what trade-offs work best for your design goals - and every design has trade-offs that will make it better suited or more appealing for one application than another. I will admit to no first hand experience in audio engineering, but feel very confident that the trades (and "no free lunch" law) are as abundant there as they have been in everything I have worked with from nuclear power to military aircraft to airborne weapons to advanced RADAR and other sensor systems.

In my experience there is always a story to be told with the numbers alone that might create expectations which are not exactly what you'll experience in the real world (for multiple reasons, none of which are dishonesty). This is why we test and it's why whenever we can it's best to listen for ourselves before we buy. I like numbers and data, especially when presented with context and referenced to standard test procedures. I let them help point me in the directions I think will be most fruitful - but at the end of the day it's my ears that get the final the vote and they are mathematically agnostic.

 

[agedhorse]

As you said yourself providing a lot of data may not help most players because they don’t know what it means, so for their benefit I used the data on the Mesa site to compare the sensitivity of the Subway 112 and 115 to the Jack 112 and 115.

The Mesa 112 average sensitivity is 97.5 dB, the Jack 12 with a 3012HO is 99 dB. Based on the f3, f6 and f10 the Mesa sensitivity at 57.5 hz is 94.5 dB. The Jack is 98.5 dB. At 48.1 hz the Mesa is 91.5, the Jack is 95. At 41.5 hz the Mesa is 87.5, the Jack is 90. That’s a win for the Jack 12 across the board in the lows by an average of 3.3dB. In the midbass the Jack peaks at 107 dB at 300 hz, the Mesa who knows because there’s no chart, but since the Mesa isn’t horn loaded it’s probably around 100 dB.

The Mesa 115 average sensitivity is 98.5dB, the Jack 115 with a 3015 is 100dB. Based on the f3, f6 and f10 the Mesa sensitivity at 56.6 hz is 95.5, the Jack 15 is 98.5. At 47.2 hz the Mesa is 92.5, the Jack 15 is 96.5. At 38.1 hz the Mesa is 88.5, the Jack 15 is 92.5 dB. Jack wins again in the lows by an average of 3.6 dB. In the midbass the Jack 15 peaks at 106dB at 250 hz, the Mesa again who knows because there’s no chart, but since the Mesa isn’t horn loaded it’s probably around 101 dB.

To put the sensitivity advantages of the Jacks in perspective for non-tech heads 3dB higher sensitivity gives the same result as doubling the your amp watts.

The Jacks are bigger than the Mesa, that’s inevitable to have higher sensitivity. The Jacks are heavier too, but not by much, and if you need lighter weight the Jack Lites have the same sensitivity as the standard versions but are lighter than the Mesa cabs, even though they’re bigger.

I don’t know why you refer to the Jacks as folded horns, because they aren’t, they’re straight horn reflex. That makes me question if you really did measure a Jack 12, because you should know the difference at a glance.

Rick, I don't know what Jack graphs you are getting your info from but using the second graph from the top, these are the approximate numbers I see for the Jack 12 with the 3012HO driver:

Jack 12 - BillFitzmaurice.info

57.5 Hz: 97.5dB
48.1 Hz: 92.5dB
41.5 Hz: 85.0dB

The Jack 112 is also ~40% larger and ~25% heavier. As I said before, comparing like sized cabinets would skew the results in favor of the bass reflex design as LF extension would improve considerably with a bigger cabinet and the possible tunings that this could take advantage of.

The results are not a clear cut win, but a different approach that discounts size, weight, linearity and low frequency extension for maximum efficiency, especially peak efficiency. There's nothing wrong with this, but it is important IMO to discuss the tradeoffs between the two different approaches. There is no free lunch.

I had mentioned folded horns because there is a class of horn within horn loaded designs where the horn isn't straight, and linearity is even worse in general for these designs. I didn't mean to imply that the jack was a folded horn type. I should have been more clear with this.

For the Jack 115, the only info I can easily find is with the 2515 driver and the data below becomes:

56.6 Hz: 96.0dB
47.2 Hz: 96.5dB
38.1 Hz: 92.5dB

Jack 15 - BillFitzmaurice.info

Again, the difference is not as large as you suggested (mostly because of the F3 difference, but I am using the only published graph I could find, with the best interpolation I could do)... but this is with a cabinet that's 45% larger and ~25% heavier.

This is IMO a clear cut case of different strokes for different folks. Neither is right or wrong, though IMO when the linearity is that far from flat, and especially over a several octave range, it's important to be consider that the amp's eq is sophisticated enough to be able to accomplish the potential corrections while leaving adequate remaining adjustment range for personal taste adjustments. (For comparison, the Subway cabinets are approx. +/-3dB around the stated average SPL).

 

[alaskaleftybass]

I made two invites to Alex to drop by and state his position but he never showed up. I need to mention before I bought my AK cabs the Barefaced were my next choice.

 

[monsterthompson]

My Markbass rig is really loud. I want a cab that has more pronounced lows than my MB cab. Plus I want a cab with better dispersion. My 410 cab sounds different everywhere on the stage. I am looking for a one cab solution. I do not want to buy 2 cabs. I have no experience with audiokinesis. How good does the thunderchild 12 sound? If I was to get one, I would get the 8ohm version. Does anyone know how it compares to a Barefaced or Greenboy?

The TC112 sounds really good. I don't think it could replace the 410 output, but it will likely be better at what it can produce. I'd say the TC112 is between the Barefaced Super Midget/BBII and Super Compact in some ways. I think the BBII is the biggest and loudest, then the SC is going to be next, then the TC then the SM. The TC can cop a bit of a BBII/SM sound. The TC also has a bit more of a "bass cab" voicing. It isn't as dark as the Barefaced 10" driver voiced cabs; it is a bit brighter with more growl. I've actually had a chance to hear nostatic's TC112 on top of my Barefaced Big Baby II, and it was a nice pairing with a subtle but pleasant voicing. As a one-cab solution, the TC112 is going to be pushing it in louder settings, and may fail to keep up. I had one for a bit, and my SC could keep going after the volume the TC started feeling questionable to me.

 

[alexclaber]

I made two invites to Alex to drop by and state his position but he never showed up.

Sorry, what was this regarding?

If people want to get hold of Barefaced or me, the best route is always email. I've finally had a proper holiday (aka vacation) but am now back (though obviously Barefaced has been carrying on without me, just the more technical enquiries have been waiting...)

 

[nutdog]

Sorry, what was this regarding?

Your thoughts on Brexit.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Sorry, what was this regarding?

If people want to get hold of Barefaced or me, the best route is always email. I've finally had a proper holiday (aka vacation) but am now back (though obviously Barefaced has been carrying on without me, just the more technical enquiries have been waiting...)

Hi Alex. Glad you had a nice holiday!

If you read through the post there are some pretty lively discussions on bass cabinets displacements etc. and I thought it was only proper for you to chime in since Barefaced was one of the cabs mentioned.

 

[12bass]

YES, this is exactly why I have been hesitant to include such detailed specs, because it does require spending a lot of time learning and understanding, which may not be productive to the average player. It was, in part, the bitching by some who felt that detailed specs were absolutely necessary to choose a bass cabinet that is responsible for the added published data (I always generate this data during the design so it's not like it didn't exist or was a wild ass guess). In the end, I just can't win either way I suppose

Sensitivity at relevant bass frequencies, -3dB and -10dB points, thermal & mechanical limits @ what frequency, plus on/off-axis response curves would be appreciated. Making such data available is definitely preferable, even if some people have no interest. Could make it a optional download or "click here for more detailed specifications"....

 

[Dave Hill]

I have an engineering degree. When it comes to bass gear, I would much rather read testimonials of players who have first-hand experience than look at graphs and specs. I do, however, like to peak at data (when available) to see if it correlates to what I hear. I am curious to see what makes an SVT sound like an SVT on a graph.

 

[monsterthompson]

I have an engineering degree. When it comes to bass gear, I would much rather read testimonials of players who have first-hand experience than look at graphs and specs. I do, however, like to peak at data (when available) to see if it correlates to what I hear. I am curious to see what makes an SVT sound like an SVT on a graph.

phew. i was beginning to wonder if my experience with these cabs wasn't meaningful since i didn't provide an infographic, diorama, nor powerpoint. not that i'd trust my ears, my writing skills, nor my taste in tone

 

[agedhorse]

I have an engineering degree. When it comes to bass gear, I would much rather read testimonials of players who have first-hand experience than look at graphs and specs. I do, however, like to peak at data (when available) to see if it correlates to what I hear. I am curious to see what makes an SVT sound like an SVT on a graph.

What's more interesting is trying to discover through graphs what makes an SVT FEEL like an SVT. Very difficult to represent numerically IMO.

 

[Dave Hill]

What's more interesting is trying to discover through graphs what makes an SVT FEEL like an SVT. Very difficult to represent numerically IMO.

Have you? Lol

 

[Handyman]

What's more interesting is trying to discover through graphs what makes an SVT FEEL like an SVT. Very difficult to represent numerically IMO.

In my experience, what makes a SVT 8x10 feel like a SVT 8x10 is about 140 lbs.

 

[Turn Em Loose]

Your thoughts on Brexit.

Excellent!!

All three cabs are different flavors of greatness. I'm sure you can't go wrong with any of the choices. And that little Hathor looks nice! It's amazing what cab designers (and amp designers) are doing for bass. Soooooooo much easier schelpping these little micro heads and cabs than in the "old daze".

I'll chime in and say the Barefaced Super Midget is a good choice, also, for a small, light, punchy and responsive cab. I've got two and they are quite amazing.