As promised from this thread: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/so-410-15-bad-but-210-15-good-969182/ I'd like to kick off a thread on mixed cabs, what has to be one of the most controversial and heated debates in TB as far as I can tell. But in this case what I'm proposing is to help set up a consortium of interested parties who have the time, experience, and equipment to help get down to brass tacks: in what ways do cabinets with different sized drivers working full range and with out crossovers work and not work? What I'm seeing now is a growing consensus that mixing cabs doesn't suck 100% of the time. But what is missing is a deeper understanding of why in some instances it does and doesn't work. The idea is to present a collection of data collected in the real world by real bassists using real gear. A simple and reproducible test protocol needs to be hashed out and agreed upon. This is directly analogous in the engineering world to setting up test committees in such bodies as the ASTM or ISO. Thankfully we don't have to reinvent the wheel as there are already standardized tests in the speaker world that can be used as is or modified/simplified. With dirt cheap digital electronics and the world wide interwebz it can be done by a large number of people regardless of geographical location. Combining these two concepts: round robin testing using a standardized protocol and using a large number of participants with different rigs is analogous to pharmaceutical or medical device clinical trials. No two patients are quite the same even thought they may qualify to participate in a test treatment for some condition provided they meet some sort of inclusion criteria. There are statistical methods to collect, collate, and analyze data and present trends and results from experimental designs of this nature. What will inevitably happen is the initial data will be confusing and the test protocol modified as real world experience is gained. Like Clauswitz said, once the first shot is fired, the battle plan becomes obsolete. But at least it's a template and guide to get you off the ground. FWIW a little background about me so you know where I'm coming from in all this: my day job is in the medical research field and I'm an engineer with science degrees as well. I am not an acoustic engineer but I've been a musician pretty much all my life (I'm in my early 50s), a bassist for nearly 40 years. I've also designed and built speaker cabinets for PAs, bass, and guitars since the early 70s and have stayed abreast of the science and technology of musical equipment as best an amateur with a day job elsewhere can. I've set up and chaired an ASTM committee to establish test standards and test round robins in my field so I'm familiar with how to go about setting up test consortiums and manage them. I've also been involved in more clinical trials than I care to remember, including designing them. That said: I am not an acoustic engineer and I would really like some help from those who are: there are limitations in the medical test world analogies to the world of acoutics and MI. I am willing to take some time to help get this going but again, help is appreciated. My goal is simple: I'd like to get to the bottom of this and see the bass community help itself instead of bickering and arguing. Makes TB an unpleasant place to visit and participate in (I admit adding fuel to a few fire fights here so my doo doo stinks too). We can answer this question to some degree using the right tools and with reason, supporting the art of making music, which is what it's all about, yes? Yes. So........where to begin? Looking at the posts in the above-referenced thread starting around post #180 there's suggestions as to what kind of signal(s) we should be using, gear, conditions. So let the dialog continue here, please. One more thing: it's unimportant what your bias is in this debate, I have mine but I will -I have to if I'm following sound scientific practice- suspend disbelief and let the data do the talking. Hopefully we can all do this.