• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Schroeder Cabinets ... smart design = very compact ! (regular and lights)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've always wondered if the 410 would project a little "harder" - I keep my 21012 tuned more towards the low end and have thought to myself that it DOES appear to be more "forceful" when I adjust the crossover more for top end. That being said, I realize that my hands have the most to say about how my attack projects.


I'm guessing the 410 would project harder because the extra 10" speaker pushes more air. So the 21012 has more low end but doesn't project as well as the 410 overall. The 410 is louder because of more mids, but with ample low end. How much more low end does the 21012 have over the 410?
 
Well, the spec actually says that the 21012 has one db one the 410 for loudness, but that's just a spec, and it's just one db. The db spec also says that the 1212 and the 410 have the same sensitivity. So, is the 1212 as "loud" as the 410? I wouldn't think so, but I know little, as I'm still waiting on my Schro experience.
 
rulyøngo said:
All I know is that I'm getting my Schroeder 410 Next week!!!:):):)
I get mine the week after. It's gonna sit on top of my 21012. And yes, guys, I realize it is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY UNDENIABLY overkill ;) , this is part of my cure to paying off a huge chunk of cash after getting divorced.

But it IS true about "why is divorce so expensive? It's worth it!"
 
davekoch said:
I've always wondered if the 410 would project a little "harder" - I keep my 21012 tuned more towards the low end and have thought to myself that it DOES appear to be more "forceful" when I adjust the crossover more for top end. That being said, I realize that my hands have the most to say about how my attack projects.


I'm guessing the 410 would project harder because the extra 10" speaker pushes more air. So the 21012 has more low end but doesn't project as well as the 410 overall. The 410 is louder because of more mids, but with ample low end. How much more low end does the 21012 have over the 410?


Dave-

With regard to your original question, I always thought the SPL ratings for the cabs represented how loud they were, at least given the same input power. I may be wrong, but assuming that I am correct, then the 21012 vs. the 410 is a statistical dead heat. You may hear the 410 better because of the voicing, but I don't think it would show up significantly louder if you checked it with a dB meter. Nominally, you might give another tiny edge to the 410 if you took advantage of the slightly higher power capacity, but I wouldn't be sure that there is much of a power handling difference between the cabs in practice.

By the way, the SPL data is only there for the lights right now. I swear it used to be there for the regulars when they were the only game in town.

In answer to this question, I don't know how anyone would quantify the difference in bottom. You've heard a 410, the 21012 is reported to have a deeper voicing though it can still be EQed to punch. I keep hearing that the difference between the 21012 and 410 is similar to the difference between the 1212 and 1210.

I use the 1212 myself, so all I can do right now is synthesize the data already presented in this thread. I am thinking of adding a 1210L for larger gigs and to create a more articulate top end. I would suppose that you could add a 1212 for larger gigs to generate deeper bottom. Hey, it's only money, right?
 
AlembicBob,
Thanks for the post. I was responding to Guiseppe's first paragraph post in the second paragraph of your quote. I didn't use the Quote function; I will in the future. Sorry.

Anyway, it's hard for my pea-brain to understand how 3 speakers can be as loud as 4 (all things being as equal as they can be, of course). Am I putting too much emphasis on the Pi * R-squared thing. Surface area of 21012 is 269, while the 410 is 312. Can the 12 make up the difference of 2-10s? Wouldn't 2-10s have better low end than 1-12?
 
Guiseppe said:
I get mine the week after. It's gonna sit on top of my 21012. And yes, guys, I realize it is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY UNDENIABLY overkill ;) , this is part of my cure to paying off a huge chunk of cash after getting divorced.

But it IS true about "why is divorce so expensive? It's worth it!"


Ja ja ja... sorry about your divorce... but my wife told me that she would divorce me if I didn't stop talking about the cab and actually buy it!!!:bassist: :bassist: :bassist:
 
First of all I starting talking to Jorg about being a dealer in Mid December for those who are curious for whatever reason. He insisted on my waiting until after the NAMM show.

There are a TON of exceptionally talented bassists here in Cleveland as there are across the country. They aren't Jamerson or anything real close to him style or tonewise. They're different....But they're in many instances playing Jamerson's (and the other bass icons mentioned) music, not their band's own.

I am not a proponent of stuffing a "modern" tone down anyone's throat. If someone is playing in a Motown or Disco oriented band here, and they sound...tonewise, just like the record, I'm not about to be critical of it...But they don't!!! AND....they are likely not playing most of the recorded parts, many of which are right up there with the most difficult, intense and technical feel of bass parts of all time.

When the local bassist plays nothing close to the record AND if heard, sounds abrasive tinny or like a lead guitar, or in otherwords totally unMotown, R&B, or whatever style they're playing where there was a more "standard, signiture tone," I am going to assume the role of educator or tone policeman.

A couple quick observations: at one of the Jams I set up at, I had the 410 and my focus head. The third bassist came up to me, had a J bass Replica, turned the passive tone off, wanted more bottom, and no mids or treble. I gave him what he wanted, he proceded to both play and sound extremely mediocre, not just in my opinion, but the other 5 bassists that preceded and followed him TOLD me, PLEASE, DON"T SET MY SOUND UP LIKE THAT GUY. I would say that he sounded as close to the bass tone on Goiin' to Agogo about as one could get outta my rig!!! So figure.

Observation two. had my 410 and focus at another blues jam and one of my favorite friends/bassist came in with his 64 P bass. The bass sounds absolutely fantastic, especially with someone else playing it besides me for some reason. Anyway, in spite of this player being very "solid" and tasteful, he doesn't or can't handle the stage volume that my 410 can produce....so he turns down and "guess what?" Ya can't hear him on the dance floor or close to the stage in the audience. He's used to PA support and not the sheer volume that might be needed in other non-supported venues.

In both cases I was critical...told the first guy the bass sounds muddy and I can barely distinquish the notes. I said he's making himself look bad in spite of his being "a decent player." He kept right on a playin' with no changes.

I told the second player you're makin' my rig sound like it's a weak willy .... please turn it up or please use the house bassists rig (set up right next to where I was), .... that woulda taken a 10 second switch of cords. He switched, was happy and so was I.

Whether these guys listen or not to what I'm commenting on , that's obviously up to them. If they can play the parts in a stylistically authentic manner and sound like a 60's or 70's typical system, AND it's hearable in that venue set up that way, I'm not going to tell them that they should "modernize" their tone.

Other than the above examples there are more times than not where the bass players around here can not be cleanly heard, yet have a tremendous amount of musical talent and value to offer their bands and audiences. A great player or a really "tasty" player who can't be heard isn't doing their band or audience justice in my mind. A great player who's system makes every note mushy, harshsounding, and/or ear piercing also takes away from the musicality and talent they offer.

Like me or not for it, I will go up to them and question whether they like how they sound, how they feel it sounds out here in the audience, discuss it civily not go up to 'em and say "man, your tone sucks" for cryin' out loud. I'm very tactful and because of that have gotten a tremendous response from people I don't even know to live demo my stuff. Not only don't they know me personally, they've never heard of any of the big names in cabinets, let alone Jorg's line!!

Regarding the 410 vs 21012, I plan on getting a 21012 in stock over the next couple of months, and will be using both for gigging and demoing and will report the "real" skinny comparison between them (if you trust my opinion). Also between the 1212 and 1210. If anyone has both and have used them in similar or the same venues and if there's any more feedback on the Lights, I'm sure many of the posters here would like hear it from you guys.

Thanks

Lkaye
TheCabZone
Dealer for Schroeder Cabinets
 
Guiseppe said:
Too bad, too. Jorg just told me that my 410L is going to ship (maybe) next week, and I have some interest in the 21012 vs. 410 controversy myself. I've always wondered if the 410 would project a little "harder" - I keep my 21012 tuned more towards the low end and have thought to myself that it DOES appear to be more "forceful" when I adjust the crossover more for top end. That being said, I realize that my hands have the most to say about how my attack projects.

+1 on all of the above! I am a 'Schroeder lover' (among some other pieces of gear also). I currently own a 1210 and 1212 regular... great sounding. I decided to purchase a larger 'light' cab based on my very, very positive experiences with the 1210 and 1212. I LOVE my 1210. My 1212 gets a little louder and sounds great, but IMO at the expense of a little bit of mid punch (especially at lower to moderate volumes). So... I had to decide between the 410 and 21012 Light. After discussions with Jorg, I went for the 21012 Light... when I described my quest for 'that 1210 punch with the more forceful low end of the 1212', Jorg strongly recommended the 21012 Light. That makes sense to me, since the front mounted 10's should provide plenty of mid definition, and the baffle mounted 12 in the larger box should provide bigger bottom than even the 1212. Add to that the slightly higher efficiency of the 21012 Light vs. the 410L, and I took the plunge.

We will see!:)

PS Did a gig with my 1212/TF550/Sadowsky Vintage last night.... very, very, very, very nice.... it still just blows me a way that a cab that small can cover a loud pop gig!
 
James Hart said:
Simple Solution Larry, delete all your posts from 2/15 forward that pertain to Schroeder that do not answer a DIRECT question.


+1

That is the right thing to do. And contact Paul, and get your listing update from 'Registered User' to 'Schroeder Dealer'.

Commercial users who are not in accord with the CUP only serve to make the products with which they are affiliated look bad. Like they are shilling, or hiding their affiliation.
 
KJung said:
+1 on all of the above! I am a 'Schroeder lover' (among some other pieces of gear also). I currently own a 1210 and 1212 regular... great sounding. I decided to purchase a larger 'light' cab based on my very, very positive experiences with the 1210 and 1212. I LOVE my 1210. My 1212 gets a little louder and sounds great, but IMO at the expense of a little bit of mid punch (especially at lower to moderate volumes). So... I had to decide between the 410 and 21012 Light. After discussions with Jorg, I went for the 21012 Light... when I described my quest for 'that 1210 punch with the more forceful low end of the 1212', Jorg strongly recommended the 21012 Light. That makes sense to me, since the front mounted 10's should provide plenty of mid definition, and the baffle mounted 12 in the larger box should provide bigger bottom than even the 1212. Add to that the slightly higher efficiency of the 21012 Light vs. the 410L, and I took the plunge.

We will see!:)

PS Did a gig with my 1212/TF550/Sadowsky Vintage last night.... very, very, very, very nice.... it still just blows me a way that a cab that small can cover a loud pop gig!



Were your 1212 and 1210 cabs 4 ohm or 8 ohm?
 
CanadianBass48 said:
Were your 1212 and 1210 cabs 4 ohm or 8 ohm?

Both 4ohm and I don't use them together. I bought the 1210 first and really liked it. Volume wise it covers most gigs. However, I play some (unfortunately) very loud gigs (i.e., large rooms with no PA support and large 11-12 piece bands). At the very loudest, I felt like I could use a little more low end than I was getting with the 1210.. it was plently loud, which is amazing for that small of a cab, but I was missing a little bit down below 100hz. So, I thought the 1212 might be a good fit for those types of gigs... and it is... when you have it cranked, the tone is similar to the 1210, but it gets 'louder and lower'. I prefer the 1210 for 80% of my gigs though, and if I had to choose between them, I'd give up a little low end for the punch that the 1210 provides at lower volumes.

Now that the Lights have been introduced, I'm hoping the 21012Light is a great combination of both of the above cabs... the punch of the 1210 with those front mounted 10's, and the low end authority of the 1212 from the bigger volume box and the baffle mounted 12. Since the cab is not that much bigger than the 'medium' boxes, and about the same weight, I'm hoping this single cab will cover all my gigs (along with my beloved Epi410UL!).
 
davekoch said:
Anyway, it's hard for my pea-brain to understand how 3 speakers can be as loud as 4 (all things being as equal as they can be, of course). Am I putting too much emphasis on the Pi * R-squared thing. Surface area of 21012 is 269, while the 410 is 312. Can the 12 make up the difference of 2-10s? Wouldn't 2-10s have better low end than 1-12?

Same reason a 115 matches up with a 410 for a "standard" full stack. The 410 has a lot more surface area, but it's efficiency is different in different frequency ranges, and doesn't project the same way as a 15.
 
Metal Mitch said:
Same reason a 115 matches up with a 410 for a "standard" full stack. The 410 has a lot more surface area, but it's efficiency is different in different frequency ranges, and doesn't project the same way as a 15.

Also, different 410 cabs can each have very different efficiency ratings... I think 'surface area' is only a very small part of the equation.
 
embellisher said:
+1

That is the right thing to do. And contact Paul, and get your listing update from 'Registered User' to 'Schroeder Dealer'.

Commercial users who are not in accord with the CUP only serve to make the products with which they are affiliated look bad. Like they are shilling, or hiding their affiliation.



What came first the chicken or the egg? Was he a Schro fan after becomming a dealer...or was his love for the cab his motivation in being a dealer? Just my .02, but not just Larry is in love with these cabs...a lot of other folks say the same things about them and they are not dealers. I think it's fair since he has become a dealer that he let's everone know he is. But to delete his posts IMO will rob a lot of people valuable information that are considering these cabs. Like it or not I find and i'm sure others do as well his posts regarding Schros very informative, and information is why 98% of people come here to TB.
 
RicPlaya said:
What came first the chicken or the egg? Was he a Schro fan after becomming a dealer...
I vote we just let Larry and the mods work it out in PMs, and Larry continues to contribute to this forum in whatever agreed upon fashion. IMHO, I'd rather see the rest of us stay on topic, as I subscribed to this forum to read about Schroeder cabs... not some CUPS policy matter.

Please? Pretty please with suguar on top?
 
Just curious, but it seems like Larry is willing to comply with the CUP and behave just like any other dealer. Why does this upset anyone? He just recently became a dealer, and now that he has been made aware of the pertinent language in the CUP, it sounds like he is fine with abiding by that. I do agree that deleting/editing posts is something that he and the mods should work out on their own, but I don't think that we need to give Larry any special treatment (either more harsh or more lenient) that is different from that accorded to other dealers. The reason that TB even has a CUP policy up there for everyone to read is to level the playing field and treat dealers, endorsees, manufacturers, etc. in a consistent manner. What is so bad about that?

Back to your regular scheduled programming!

Tom.
 
Vic said:
I vote we just let Larry and the mods work it out in PMs, and Larry continues to contribute to this forum in whatever agreed upon fashion. IMHO, I'd rather see the rest of us stay on topic, as I subscribed to this forum to read about Schroeder cabs... not some CUPS policy matter.

Please? Pretty please with suguar on top?



Agreed..just sharing my .02 on the deleting posts thingy!
 
:rollno:

I sure hope we can keep this on topic and not get this thread closed down. The reason for my post was to keep all Schroeder information available no matter who/what the source.

Perhaps the PM feature is best for the personal nature of the above conversation:)
 
RicPlaya said:
:rollno:

I sure hope we can keep this on topic and not get this thread closed down. The reason for my post was to keep all Schroeder information available no matter who/what the source.

Perhaps the PM feature is best for the personal nature of the above conversation:)


Information about bass products we are all interested in is a great thing. Spamming from dealers and people paid by dealers is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.