• 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.

NEW Acoustic 360/361

#241
zon6c-f said:
IFH.... 408 cab....

Frankly, I have never seen nor heard a 408 live. I am only going with comments from owner/ users..most prefer 408 over a 301..claiming 408 is even louder.

I haven't heard any ultra-light neo speaker cabs that are all the talk here, either. If modern speakers are so much better, then I would love to see/hear a 408 loaded with such speakers.

Many players continue to utilize 8x10 cabs and no one says they are obsolete, so why not 'update' a 408 with new and more powerful speakers? Better yet.. update the cab with new lighter construction materials....tone, volume and weight reduction.

..win....win....win..
Click to expand...

Part of the reason that 'modern' speakers tend to be good is that people are putting speakers with fantastic new capabilities in correctly designed boxes rather than retrofitting them in boxes designed for other speakers (or boxes that haven't really been designed per se).

Its not just a matter of them being lighter & louder...its a matter of advanced speaker design meeting cabinet design understanding that didn't exist when many of the vintage amps and speakers were being produced.
 
#242
I better understand in example of analogy.

'Modern' 4 cylender vehicles have more horse power and higher speeds than older 8 cyl vehicles....I GET IT... But, I prefer a more comfortable old school vehicle over a spiffy-smart flavor of the week FAST AND FURIOUS sports car...just my P O V.

I certainly respect weight issues with older cabs, VS newer, as I just turned 60. I have bass players back[ from my first 30 years at my day job], repaired hernia [ from yard work; not from hefting my old-school speaker cabs] and a heart valve [ probable birth defect?] issue as well.

From a marketing perspective, I would rather buy a 'new' 408-styled cab with new neo speakers than having someone build a 12-6-1 cab for more $$. Those ultra-light deigned cabs aren't inexpensive..you pay for the benefit of ultra-light and the deign/ engineering. I haven't the space to build my own and time constraints prohibit that as well.

Look at contemporary vehicles...Dodge and Chevy are having great sales from their retro- styled Charger and Camaro models. Ford does a retro of T-Bird and so on. I don't see that many exotic cars of any make of model sales in comparison..same for speaker cab designs.

Agreed..I don't want to use a 361 or ANY larger bass amp for a coffee house or smaller bar gig, but up against a Stack, larger venue, or an outdoor event, where bass gets lost???....I want some muscle.

I am not against newer [frankly, they aren't NEW at all] designs..I applaud them, however, please don't tell me I am 'wrong' if I don't prefer them over older designs.....
 
#243
zon6c-f said:
I better understand in example of analogy.

'Modern' 4 cylender vehicles have more horse power and higher speeds than older 8 cyl vehicles....I GET IT... But, I prefer a more comfortable old school vehicle over a spiffy-smart flavor of the week FAST AND FURIOUS sports car...just my P O V.

I certainly respect weight issues with older cabs, VS newer, as I just turned 60. I have bass players back[ from my first 30 years at my day job], repaired hernia [ from yard work; not from hefting my old-school speaker cabs] and a heart valve [ probable birth defect?] issue as well.

From a marketing perspective, I would rather buy a 'new' 408-styled cab with new neo speakers than having someone build a 12-6-1 cab for more $$. Those ultra-light deigned cabs aren't inexpensive..you pay for the benefit of ultra-light and the deign/ engineering. I haven't the space to build my own and time constraints prohibit that as well.

Look at contemporary vehicles...Dodge and Chevy are having great sales from their retro- styled Charger and Camaro models. Ford does a retro of T-Bird and so on. I don't see that many exotic cars of any make of model sales in comparison..same for speaker cab designs.

Agreed..I don't want to use a 361 or ANY larger bass amp for a coffee house or smaller bar gig, but up against a Stack, larger venue, or an outdoor event, where bass gets lost???....I want some muscle.

I am not against newer [frankly, they aren't NEW at all] designs..I applaud them, however, please don't tell me I am 'wrong' if I don't prefer them over older designs.....
Click to expand...

I'm not pushing any cabinet designs of any kinds. I'm just merely pointing out why:

If modern speakers are so much better, then I would love to see/hear a 408 loaded with such speakers.

Many players continue to utilize 8x10 cabs and no one says they are obsolete, so why not 'update' a 408 with new and more powerful speakers? Better yet.. update the cab with new lighter construction materials....tone, volume and weight reduction.
Click to expand...

...doesn't really work on a basic level for the purposes of an effective comparison of what 'modern' speakers can do in the same box.
 
#244
Plus I would love to see a Neo 408 style cab, regardless of construction, come in costing less than the disparaged "12-6-1" cab.

If one was going to spend the money for the Neo 15's, why waste them in an outdated design that doesnt take advantage of the improvements in the driver?

The 15PR400 comes in 4 or 8 Ohms, so you could have a 2 or 4 ohm cab. Problem is, you are going to have $1100 just in drivers. Add in a poor design, and you have not increased the performance over a better design that only uses two drivers, and better engineering.

Your example is like saying, "I have spent twice as much money, for less performance, because I appreciate that I can continue to throw money at this and not see any benifit..."
 
#245
I frequently read about them in TB..AGAIN....never heard any of them. Not a 'new design' at all if truth be told. and actually based on older [light weight] 2 and 3 way P A cab designs. Only 'NEW' is some of the materials chosen for constuction...AND DON'T DROP ONE...

People retro fit cars/ trucks..huge industry in parts/ updating for vehicles. People upgrade inexpesnive basses ; turning them into 'dream basses' at a fraction of 'boutique' costs.

Same with speaker cabs. I won't argue agaInst the math/science aspect in ultra light designs. Frankly, there are folded horn designs in ultra-light configuration..again ..VERY expensive when compared with older cabs.

A 408 is just a unique array of plywood with 4 speakers attached...no magic... and obviously no profound science either, but they seem to be a compelling design. Same with my Sunn 118-vh..similar to 'NEW''snail shell' design..

Some time back, I suggested to a certain significant ultra light designer to make a retro 408, 301 etc with ultra light materials/ speakers. Response was a lecture on obsolete designs..WRONG ANSWER, friend...

A manufacturer,...??Monolith??..on West coast U S A makes/ made a 408-styled cab up until recently. I believe it was priced less than the 'new designs' in a similar manner...could be wrong, there.

Geodesic domes and other designs are 'better' from a scientific P O V,but I am glad other construction designs still exist and aren't deemed as 'obsolete'. The constant reference of 'obsolete' seems offensive in a way..and turns me off from looking deeper into such designs.. sounds a little like brain washing..repeat..repeat..repeat until desired effect takes hold.

Attitude is everyting.

There is a constant debate on TB.. 1x15..4x10. 2X15.. 8x10's 1x18 folded horn..all based on prefered tone with preference never stating one design makes another 'obsolete'.

There are more ways than one to accomplish many things. Ask 4 engineers which was is 'best'....you'll get 4 DIFFERENT answers every time; all based on scientificly sound priciples.
 
#247
It may be an obsolete design. Many designs are done to maximize the potential of a specific component (this case, speakers) and to do so given the shortcomings of the current technology. As speaker technology has progressed, many designs have fallen by the wayside given the potential of current production speakers.

That's not to say that old speakers are necessarily bad, or that the tone they produce is bad. It just is what it is. Either you like that and work within the parameters of their limits or you don't.
 
#248
Burning Skies..

Leave out the ...'obsolete design'... part and I will agree with you, completely....

"Either you like that and work within the parameters of their limits or you don't".

I want you to have and ENJOY yoru ultralights... I certainly enjoy my old school stuff, but ..please ... don't tell me I am 'wrong' or obsolete in my choices.

I don't understand why anyone would go through the effort to build, load and shoot a muzzle-loader gun..BUT..I will never tell them their choice is wrong nor obsolete.. Makes them happy.. Pride from accomplishing such a skilled task, then proving it 'works'..I totally get it.

Same with cabinet construction. I would love to have a cab builder to make another 118-vh to match my old one..stack them vertically....Sure.. weight is major.. which is why I use body mechanics and a hand truck.

Ultra lights will win on weight every time..however, my old school cabs will cause 'digestive issues' at 40 feet away..and THEN THE SOUND BLOOMS...all the while being clear as a bell on stage, with no loss of highs ...no cross overs. [Believe me..I love corssovers..really I do]

If someone wants to spend time/ effort and $$$$$ building a castle?? MORE POWER TO THEM...Their choice. Choice is a FREEDOM, btw...

Why can't it be same with speaker cab designs?

B T W..CL400 Peavey..I still enjoy your posts....my friendship is not based on agreement, rather in honesty and respect of P O V. I always believe you are frank, honest and respectful. I appreciate that.

Again...It is a choice ..not a life-style agreement.

WOW..We are wayyyy off topic, but I enjoy sharing, regardless.
 
#253
My 'dream' is to test a double cab 371, 361, 320/408...and even my 370 atop (2) Sunn 118-vh cabinets...load em with whatever..just disclose what speakers are in the boxes....

..up against a 15-6-1..and not a folded horn version or variant. Any production bass head you choose.. with cab/ head specs disclosed as well. Acoustic heads being 'archaically obsolete'.. no specs revealed other than as posted on websites.

..NOT-SO-FAST.... 2 TESTS TAKEN: ONE: out of doors..Levels checked at : 1/10, 1/4 mile away from sound source..NO PA reinforcement.

Test 2.. cabs and amps to be indoors..sound tested at 1/10 mile outside of said venue.
And AGREED.. G-B's and f-Fulls will win on weight..hands down. [But that isn't the test criteria...]
 
#255
I stated..DOUBLE CAB: 371, 361, 320/408 AND 370. (2) 118-VH...against 15-6-1.


For clarity.. one rig -at-a-time... Double cab to utilize full power of AC heads at lowest ohms.

I thought the premise of all of these new super efficient cabs coud clearly eat obsolte rigs with no question.

I mean, I would want my rig measured at no less than 40 feet in a rectangular hall.

I recall listening to someone play my rig in the 80's.

I was in back of room and asked my [later to be] wife if I was always that loud?? ...YEPPP, She said..as I began to feel a looseness in my gut..I backed my 371 down from 2.5 to 2 flat..with no EQ boost. and that was with my single ancient/ archaic.. not yet obsolete as of tha era...Sunn cab.
 
#256
zon6c-f said:
I stated..DOUBLE CAB: 371, 361, 320/408 AND 370. (2) 118-VH...against 15-6-1.
Click to expand...

:eyebrow:

So you want to run two cabs against one 15/6? That hardly seems fair. Its like asking to have a quarter mile drag with a 69 charger against a brand new pedal bike. Sure one is newer than the other, but lets go apples to apples here.

Tell you what, why dont I bring two '66's so I can get the full power out of my B1500 and compare that two any two ACC cabs and matching amp. Sounds fair?
 
#259
All I ever read before today was how astoundingly efficient 'new' cabs were, so I thought it only fair to optimise the Acoustic rigs with (2) cabs to achieve max output from the heads. Acoustic heads are 4 ohm heads.. 2 cabs @ 2 ohms. 320/ 408 I believe is @ 2 ohms.....I know the cab is. 361 is unique in that the cab is powered, so 2 cabs would be like using 2 amps..totally not fair..AGREED. Also a 320 is 2 channel amp in one, so utilizing a 408 in each and both switched ON would be unfair....

I never specified which heads [ you] could use beyond that they would be production bass heads..Ampeg SVT, Marshall, Peavey..any production bass head. [I was hoping for a mirco head as a contender]. Walk in with cab in one hand.. head in back pack.. bass in the other..now that is impressive, there.
[I wouldn't advise placing a tube head atop an ultra light cab..may crush it..]


On the other hand.. my old MARSHALL 1550 [ 250 watts @ 8-ohms: 1X15] is a one hander..even for an old guy like me.


OH..OK..Acoustic rigs/ heads..Single cab Only......same distances..Best I can offer
Stock bass/ basses..no mods ..seperate measurements for active VS passive.
You set your head levels and cab crossover levels however you desire.

I have seen/heard audiophile systems meaured at '1-watt..1 meter'.. impressive ,but I don't think it is a real-world test for bass rigs.

I have often wondered if folded horns and similar cabs cause structural damage in venues from 'seizemic impact'.
 
#260
zon6c-f said:
All I ever read before today was how astoundingly efficient 'new' cabs were, so I thought it only fair to optimise the Acoustic rigs with (2) cabs to achieve max output from the heads. Acoustic heads are 4 ohm heads.. 2 cabs @ 2 ohms. 320/ 408 I believe is @ 2 ohms.....I know the cab is. 361 is unique in that the cab is powered, so 2 cabs would be like using 2 amps..totally not fair..AGREED. Also a 320 is 2 channel amp in one, so utilizing a 408 in each and both switched ON would be unfair....

I never specified which heads [ you] could use beyond that they would be production bass heads..Ampeg SVT, Marshall, Peavey..any production bass head. [I was hoping for a mirco head as a contender]. Walk in with cab in one hand.. head in back pack.. bass in the other..now that is impressive, there.
[I wouldn't advise placing a tube head atop an ultra light cab..may crush it..]


On the other hand.. my old MARSHALL 1550 [ 250 watts @ 8-ohms: 1X15] is a one hander..even for an old guy like me.


OH..OK..Acoustic rigs/ heads..Single cab Only......same distances..Best I can offer
Stock bass/ basses..no mods ..seperate measurements for active VS passive.
You set your head levels and cab crossover levels however you desire.

I have seen/heard audiophile systems meaured at '1-watt..1 meter'.. impressive ,but I don't think it is a real-world test for bass rigs.

I have often wondered if folded horns and similar cabs cause structural damage in venues from 'seizemic impact'.
Click to expand...

Let's get back to the realm of physics and science. No one has every claimed no matter what your hyperbolic rhetoric states that the 3015LF is magic and one of them can beat 1448948956789714549814865 other 15" speakers. Although, they WILL beat the crap out of the competition and in many cases a single one may be as loud as a 2x15 cab of mass produced variety. That doesn't mean I'll bring out my massive 4x15 rig and you bring out your single 15 and we'll see. That's called 'stacking the deck'. And again, how did this become some kind of competition or referendum on fEARful cabs? You keep bringing it back to them.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back