Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

New light CXL-112 vs. old heavy CXL-112

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by basss, Apr 3, 2003.


  1. basss

    basss

    Aug 27, 2001
    NYC
    Someone mentioned in a recent thread that Euphonic Audio's new, lighter weight CXL-112L doesn't compare to the older model. Anyone compare these two? I've been thinking about trading in my old heavy CXL-112 for a new light one, but if the light one sucks...
     
  2. bassboat

    bassboat

    Sep 27, 2001
    Is the new cabinet Neodynium (sp?) speakers?
    :confused:
     
  3. gfab333

    gfab333

    Mar 22, 2000
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Custom Kevlar according to the web site.

    I just bought one of the new ones, and it sounds great as far as tone and volume. Very easy to carry. Sorry, I can't make a comparison with the older model because I've never played through one.

    EA CxL 12 Specs
     
  4. Mike Dimin

    Mike Dimin

    Dec 11, 1999
    Clinician: EA, Zon, Boomerang, TI. Author "The Art of Solo Bass"
    Before I start I just want to say that I endorse EA gear.

    I've played both. Both are great. It is hard to imagine that EA would make anything that "sucks" - be real :D If you have ever met the guys from EA, they are the most dedicated (some might say picky) quality control freaks (some might say anal) that I've ever met.

    Here's the difference. There are 2 main differences between the cabinets. The wood on the light is an Italian poplar ply vs. Baltic ply of the older one. Secondly, the finish is applied more efficiently. In total the savings is about 8-10 pounds.

    According to EA "Poplar is what the VLs were made of, midrange is a bit better other wise sound is the same." Personally, I don't hear the difference (I just feel it in my back)

    Mike Dimin
     
  5. Mike Dimin

    Mike Dimin

    Dec 11, 1999
    Clinician: EA, Zon, Boomerang, TI. Author "The Art of Solo Bass"
    No they are not. Neodynium speakers in the EA line would have a "N" in the designation For example the new "NL-210"

    Mike
     
  6. AndyGL

    AndyGL

    Nov 20, 2000
    Wellsville, NY
    Hi Mike,

    I know this is a thread on EA speakers (I use the new light one myself) but when I looked at your profile I noticed you use EA amps as well as Water Woods. I'm interested in how these two compare from your point of view. I know you are involved with EA so if you are uncomfortable answering this question, I understandÂ…

    Andy
     
  7. Mike Dimin

    Mike Dimin

    Dec 11, 1999
    Clinician: EA, Zon, Boomerang, TI. Author "The Art of Solo Bass"
    Andy,
    Actually I just sent the WW off to Steve Azola. Steve really wanted the WW for his upright/electic doubling (it is a stereo WW) - I wanted a bugbass. Seemed like a fair trade. If the EA didn't match up to the Walter I wouldn't have let it go. Here are some of the comparisons that I would make:

    1. The EA is heavier (19 lbs to 7lbs). Although many feel that at 19lbs the EA is light. From my perspective of playing the WW for so many years, it feels a bit on the heavy size (it's all a matter of perspective)

    2. The EA is warmer sounding. The WW has a more of a brittle, honkey sound. The EA is warmer through the spectrum while still being clear, articulate and accurate.

    3. The tone controls on the EA do more. Although I usually set them flat anyway. There is much more usable variation in tone from the EA.

    4. The EA has more power than I was running with the WW which gives me a bit more flexibility

    5. The Walter was a stereo amp and the EA mono.

    Steve Azola wouldn't let me send him the WW until I was sure that I was happy with the EA. It didn't take me long to make that decision. I'm sure that there will be times that I wish I had the WW, but that will be offset by the bugbass

    Mike
     
  8. Christopher

    Christopher

    Apr 28, 2000
    New York, NY
    Has anyone (Mike?) tried the new Wizzy cab? What did they do there to reduce the weight?
     
  9. AndyGL

    AndyGL

    Nov 20, 2000
    Wellsville, NY
    Mike...Thanks for the info..Andy
     
  10. Chris Fitzgerald

    Chris Fitzgerald Student of Life Staff Member Administrator

    Oct 19, 2000
    Louisville, KY
    I agree. I've never been a huge WW fan because of this. "Brittle" is exactly the word that comes to mind, especially compared to the EA.
     
  11. basss

    basss

    Aug 27, 2001
    NYC
    Thanks for the replies.
    You're right, of course. The word "sucks" and euphonic audio definitely don't belong together. My CXL 112:bassist:
     
  12. EAGary

    EAGary Registered User

    May 27, 2002
    There is absolutely nothing that EA makes that "sucks" in the traditional sense. Of course, if you are referring to the way that our products suck in and spit out the competition, well, I can't argue with that.

    Gary Gibilisco, EA
     
  13. NeedMoreBass

    NeedMoreBass unregistered

    Feb 14, 2003
    Sounds like ya'll are comparing the older Woods and not the Electracoustic model. I agree with you if that is the case, but the Electracoustic is one of the most smooothest, warmest, and most natural amps I've ever owned, and I've owned them all including the EA.

    As far as the new lighter cabs go I've had the opportunity to A/B the CXL110 old and new and found the older one to have a much richer low end and the new one to be so midrangey(I guess more midrange is improved midrange by EA's definition) that I did not like the tone as well. I can only assume that the CXL112 has much of the same differences. I will not say the cab sucked, but not as good as the old version IMHO.
     
  14. Chris Fitzgerald

    Chris Fitzgerald Student of Life Staff Member Administrator

    Oct 19, 2000
    Louisville, KY
    Can't say, as I have the older model. I would be curious to A/B the old with the new, though....
     
  15. NeedMoreBass

    NeedMoreBass unregistered

    Feb 14, 2003
    UPDATE!!- Since my earlier post I have been in contact with 2 other people that have had the old and new CXL-110's and both agreed with my opinion that the older one was much better sounding. In fact one of them even used the "S" word to describe the new cab! Gary, I love EA stuff but I really think ya'll made a wrong turn on the new cabs.
     
  16. LM Bass

    LM Bass

    Jul 19, 2002
    Vancouver, BC
    I've gotta chime in here about the EA/WW thing. I have an old Walter, and I love it for portability, but the Iamp 600 I have sounds a lot better. Rounder, fuller, smoother, with tone controls that really work. I just don't like hauling 24lbs of "big" amp, when I already have the double bass to haul.

    I haven't heard about any difference between old and new, but I use CXL-110's and really like 'em.
     
  17. Mike Dimin

    Mike Dimin

    Dec 11, 1999
    Clinician: EA, Zon, Boomerang, TI. Author "The Art of Solo Bass"
    What EA gear does, better than anyone else is transparently reproduce the sound coming from your hands, your bass and your strings. Perhaps your friend that used the ubiquitous "S" word might want to look inward

    Mike
     
  18. Chris Fitzgerald

    Chris Fitzgerald Student of Life Staff Member Administrator

    Oct 19, 2000
    Louisville, KY

    :D
     
  19. basss

    basss

    Aug 27, 2001
    NYC
    Thanks NeedMoreBass
    It is nice to hear the opinion of someone who has compared the old and new cabs that doesn't work for EA.
     
  20. Mike Dimin

    Mike Dimin

    Dec 11, 1999
    Clinician: EA, Zon, Boomerang, TI. Author "The Art of Solo Bass"
    I freely admit that I have a intrest in EA products. I endorse their amps and cabs and wrote the forward for the iAMP800 manual.

    I am not however an employee of EA and have not ever been paid by them. I have paid for my gear.

    That being said. I must say that it infuriates me when I hear things such as:

    If someone is unhappy, let them say it. Let us know the conditions of the testing that they did. Let us know what their expectations were and why they were not met. The above quote, really means absolutely nothing. It is not presented in any context whatsoever and is therefore, IMO worthless.

    Mike