This does not happen as good as you make it sound. Really not that good at all and definitely not enough to make it sound any different than a front firing cabinet. For sure.No doubt you've noticed that the sound does stay low to the ground... in spite of firing upward AND sideways. It's all about defying physics.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Is this good? Boom Bass Cabinet
- Thread starter Wumper
- Start date
I'm glad I wasn't the first one to say it...
Indeed.
This thread has me conflicted on which way to direct my sarcasm.....
Oh yeah, its ability to defy the laws of acoustics is clearly seen on the horizontal and vertical polar charts on the BB website.
You can fool some of the people all of the time...
Oh yeah, its ability to defy the laws of acoustics is clearly seen on the horizontal and vertical polar charts on the BB website.
You can fool some of the people all of the time...
People like you are a staple here... but what's new about that?
Here's one of the people BBC apparently fooled... Duke LeJeune of Audiokinesis. His explanation did not include any breaking of any laws. AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...
"The following is just my opinion, and I invite correction from Brad Johnson or Drue or anyone else who knows more about these cabs.
I'm not sure of everything that's going on internally with the cab, but I think the enclosure is in effect a (rather innovative) ported box, and I think the slotted chamber down at the bottom that the downfiring woofer fires into does double-duty as part of the port. Imo that's pretty darn clever!
I think the downfiring woofer will reinforce the front-firing woofer in-phase at long wavelengths (low frequencies), gradually transitioning to approximately semi-random-phase at short wavelengths, because of the path-length differences that the geometry causes. In English, the down-firing woofer will reinforce the lows more than it reinforces the mids.
The lows will be omnidirectional regardless of where they exit the box, but the mids that exit the side-slots of the down-firing woofer will of course be dispersed to the sides. Imo this is a good thing, though I would guess they'd still be down in volume quite a bit relative to the omnidirectional lows.
The chamber that the down-firing woofer fires into probably has two effects that I can think of: First, it probably rolls off the upper mids to a certain extent. Second, it increases the effective moving mass of the downfiring woofer by "coupling" the air within the chamber to the woofer cone more effectively than if there were no chamber present. This would slightly reduce the broadband efficiency of the woofer, but at the same time the bottom end would "fatten up" a bit.
The internal volume looks like it's smaller than one might normally use for two woofers. This will reduce the output down low (relative to a bigger box), but will also tend to reduce cone motion, so the excursion-limited power handling is probably pretty good.
I like the tiltback baffle with tweeter down low, which puts the bass player less off-axis than a vertical baffle would.
Imo that cab is a very interesting and creative juggling of the tradeoffs involved in bass cab design. It packs a LOT of SPL capability and muscle into a small package and uses what might be called "acoustic filtering" (rather than electrical filtering) so that the down-firing woofer reinforces the front woofer's lows considerably more than it reinforces the front woofer's mids.
I prototyped a cab that had one front-firing and one down-firing woofer about six years ago and decided not to continue in that direction, but perhaps with different woofers and/or different goal posts I'd have reached a different conclusion".
I didn't offer a correction because it was a spot on description of what's going on with the design. So when folks like you say what you say and others say silly things like the dispersion is the same as front loaded cabs it's nice to see someone who actually has expertise in the field not taking the same blind kneejerk dump that you guys do on the products.
So let the jokes and rants continue, it doesn't change the fact that the design does what it does. And I guess that kind of sucks for some folks. As Duke mentioned, there are trade-offs... and that doesn't make the cabs bad, just different. It might not be the cab for folks who buy off of spec sheets. Or already have the last cab you'll ever need
. Or can't hear a tweeter firing more directly at them.
Last edited:
Sounds like he was basing his thoughts on someone who hasn't tried one in person. Nothing negative towards Duke's opinion, as everyone here knows he is more than qualified to look at it in a completely different view (science).People like you are a staple here... but what's new about that?
Here's one of the people BBC apparently fooled... Duke LeJeune of Audiokinesis. His explanation did not include any breaking of any laws. AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...
"The following is just my opinion, and I invite correction from Brad Johnson or Drue or anyone else who knows more about these cabs.
I'm not sure of everything that's going on internally with the cab, but I think the enclosure is in effect a (rather innovative) ported box, and I think the slotted chamber down at the bottom that the downfiring woofer fires into does double-duty as part of the port. Imo that's pretty darn clever!
I think the downfiring woofer will reinforce the front-firing woofer in-phase at long wavelengths (low frequencies), gradually transitioning to approximately semi-random-phase at short wavelengths, because of the path-length differences that the geometry causes. In English, the down-firing woofer will reinforce the lows more than it reinforces the mids.
The lows will be omnidirectional regardless of where they exit the box, but the mids that exit the side-slots of the down-firing woofer will of course be dispersed to the sides. Imo this is a good thing, though I would guess they'd still be down in volume quite a bit relative to the omnidirectional lows.
The chamber that the down-firing woofer fires into probably has two effects that I can think of: First, it probably rolls off the upper mids to a certain extent. Second, it increases the effective moving mass of the downfiring woofer by "coupling" the air within the chamber to the woofer cone more effectively than if there were no chamber present. This would slightly reduce the broadband efficiency of the woofer, but at the same time the bottom end would "fatten up" a bit.
The internal volume looks like it's smaller than one might normally use for two woofers. This will reduce the output down low (relative to a bigger box), but will also tend to reduce cone motion, so the excursion-limited power handling is probably pretty good.
I like the tiltback baffle with tweeter down low, which puts the bass player less off-axis than a vertical baffle would.
Imo that cab is a very interesting and creative juggling of the tradeoffs involved in bass cab design. It packs a LOT of SPL capability and muscle into a small package and uses what might be called "acoustic filtering" (rather than electrical filtering) so that the down-firing woofer reinforces the front woofer's lows considerably more than it reinforces the front woofer's mids.
I prototyped a cab that had one front-firing and one down-firing woofer about six years ago and decided not to continue in that direction, but perhaps with different woofers and/or different goal posts I'd have reached a different conclusion".
I didn't offer a correction because it was a spot on description of what's going on with the design. So when folks like you say what you say and others say silly things like the dispersion is the same as front loaded cabs it's nice to see someone who actually has expertise in the field not taking the same blind kneejerk dump that you guys do on the products.
So let the jokes and rants continue, it doesn't change the fact that the design does what it does. And I guess that kind of sucks for some folks. As Duke mentioned, there are trade-offs... and that doesn't make the cabs bad, just different. It might not be the cab for folks who buy off of spec sheets. Or already have the last cab you'll ever need
I'm just an everyday guy that knows what my hands on, comparo resulted in. In the end usually your ears do not lie.
Duke's comments read like damnation by faint praise.People like you are a staple here... but what's new about that?
Here's one of the people BBC apparently fooled... Duke LeJeune of Audiokinesis. His explanation did not include any breaking of any laws. AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...
"The following is just my opinion, and I invite correction from Brad Johnson or Drue or anyone else who knows more about these cabs.
I'm not sure of everything that's going on internally with the cab, but I think the enclosure is in effect a (rather innovative) ported box, and I think the slotted chamber down at the bottom that the downfiring woofer fires into does double-duty as part of the port. Imo that's pretty darn clever!
I think the downfiring woofer will reinforce the front-firing woofer in-phase at long wavelengths (low frequencies), gradually transitioning to approximately semi-random-phase at short wavelengths, because of the path-length differences that the geometry causes. In English, the down-firing woofer will reinforce the lows more than it reinforces the mids.
The lows will be omnidirectional regardless of where they exit the box, but the mids that exit the side-slots of the down-firing woofer will of course be dispersed to the sides. Imo this is a good thing, though I would guess they'd still be down in volume quite a bit relative to the omnidirectional lows.
The chamber that the down-firing woofer fires into probably has two effects that I can think of: First, it probably rolls off the upper mids to a certain extent. Second, it increases the effective moving mass of the downfiring woofer by "coupling" the air within the chamber to the woofer cone more effectively than if there were no chamber present. This would slightly reduce the broadband efficiency of the woofer, but at the same time the bottom end would "fatten up" a bit.
The internal volume looks like it's smaller than one might normally use for two woofers. This will reduce the output down low (relative to a bigger box), but will also tend to reduce cone motion, so the excursion-limited power handling is probably pretty good.
I like the tiltback baffle with tweeter down low, which puts the bass player less off-axis than a vertical baffle would.
Imo that cab is a very interesting and creative juggling of the tradeoffs involved in bass cab design. It packs a LOT of SPL capability and muscle into a small package and uses what might be called "acoustic filtering" (rather than electrical filtering) so that the down-firing woofer reinforces the front woofer's lows considerably more than it reinforces the front woofer's mids.
I prototyped a cab that had one front-firing and one down-firing woofer about six years ago and decided not to continue in that direction, but perhaps with different woofers and/or different goal posts I'd have reached a different conclusion".
I didn't offer a correction because it was a spot on description of what's going on with the design. So when folks like you say what you say and others say silly things like the dispersion is the same as front loaded cabs it's nice to see someone who actually has expertise in the field not taking the same blind kneejerk dump that you guys do on the products.
So let the jokes and rants continue, it doesn't change the fact that the design does what it does. And I guess that kind of sucks for some folks. As Duke mentioned, there are trade-offs... and that doesn't make the cabs bad, just different. It might not be the cab for folks who buy off of spec sheets. Or already have the last cab you'll ever need
This thread is... I don't actually think I can describe it!
What I get so far is:
- Someone asked about a boom box, following it with a "wump wump"
- Some other people then proceeded to pick faults with said boom box.
- After some more "wump wump"-ing, another person comes along to defend the boom box from the attack by people that have something to do with fearing a green child.
- Lots more sarcasm goes around, some more "wump wump"s and then some homie buys an SWR, which I believe is a very fast station wagon.
Did I get this right?
What I get so far is:
- Someone asked about a boom box, following it with a "wump wump"
- Some other people then proceeded to pick faults with said boom box.
- After some more "wump wump"-ing, another person comes along to defend the boom box from the attack by people that have something to do with fearing a green child.
- Lots more sarcasm goes around, some more "wump wump"s and then some homie buys an SWR, which I believe is a very fast station wagon.
Did I get this right?
Sounded like he based his thoughts on what he understood of the design and unlike the fear people that didn't inform him that they couldn't work. The majority of negative comments have been based on people not actually hearing the cabs either, instead basing their opinion on what they think will happen. The majority of positive ones are from people who've actually heard them. Coincidence?
With your description, particularly not hearing a difference in dispersion, I didn't even bother addressing it. I've already spoken with people who tried the cabs stuck between two other cabs or some other boundaries and claimed the same thing. Or couldn't hear what by most accounts can be a very loud tweeter firing up, even close up on the cab. I don't know how that happens and frankly at this point I don't need to know. You apparently experienced what you experienced what you experienced and I have at least few hundred gigs under my belt with clearly different results. Along with lots of feedback from bandmates, contractors, audience members and some very good live engineers. I'm guessing those ears didn't lie either.
Pretty close. In post 3 he asked for a comparison between the BBC and the "Fear Stuff".
Silly me thinking I could express my opinion based on experience with both cabs (head to head in a controlled room and on stage with a band) without the usual shill showing up and claiming conspiracy and lack of perception/knowledge.
Look at where all the BBC threads have gone and why.
I have no loyalty to any builder. If I thought the BBCs sounded better, I'd have one. They clearly don't, and everyone at our little GTG were of the same opinion.
Latest posts
-
How can Fender release a "Vintage" series with an unplayable bridge?- Latest: Fernando Costa
-
-
-
