• 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.

Show me your LDS cabs

DSC_0413.jpg

DSC_0414.jpg

DSC_0415.jpg

DSC_0416.jpg

DSC_0417.jpg

DSC_0418.jpg

DSC_0419.jpg
 
Ukiah Bass thanks for the inside shots.
Just wonderin if you are happy w/o tweeters.
Since I end up in classic rock/blues and SRV/Hendrix/blues bands, I ordered mine W/O a tweeter. Good call?


Don't miss tweeters one bit. I'm not a slapper and don't need the "sheen" atop my tone. Both cabs sound fantastic, and tweeterless will be perfect for the music you play.
 
What happened?

It was an experiment. I used only the 12/6 for a loud outdoor electric gig and (w/a QSC PLX 3602 amp) overdid it. It did sound very good until it blew.

I sold the QSC and am downsizing slightly as it became apparent I did not need that much power. My new amp will arrive by next weekend - it's a EA iAMP Pro w/600 watts per side at 8 ohms. You play that brand, don't you? Any advice for how that amp will work with the 15/6 and 12/6?
 
yes...with our NeoX series, we build one with porting just like that. "X" porting. :atoz:

Don't worry Hasbeen, Don reminded me at the time of the order that this was similar to a GB212 port. I was blessed, if you will, because Don has wanted to try this porting ever since he received one at his storefront shop, so he was excited. He really likes this porting. So do I.

I was under the false impression HB that X port meant that it was like a transmission line cab, kinda like EA.

The X porting sounds terrific, by the way on a NeoX-112. Bluescat, have you had an opportunity to play a more conventional port on a 15/6, and if so could you sonically compare both? Always wondered about that....

I agree with you, the X porting helps bring the cab to it's full potential, it certainly doesn't hinder it. Just the other night I was noticing how much air was coming out of the top ports. I checked to see if the same amount of air was coming out of all 4 ports. It was even out of all 4 ports, as it should be.

I wanted this cab to be 29 1/2" tall with removable 3.5" casters, and that's what I got perfectly. 25"t x 21.5"w x 18"d
 
The X porting sounds terrific, by the way on a NeoX-112. Bluescat, have you had an opportunity to play a more conventional port on a 15/6, and if so could you sonically compare both? Always wondered about that....

It meets my sonic and cartage requirements with the ability to tilt the cab back by removing the rear casters.

I'm sure it sounds very similar to other well designed 156 cabs as K Jung has stated as well
 

Attachments

  • LDS 007 (Medium).jpg
    LDS 007 (Medium).jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 92
Hmm, go say that in the fEarful thread.......

;)

Not to speak for him, but I bet that's one of those "all other things being equal" sorta things.

If port area and tuning is the same, i doubt it matters sonically if it is a shelf port, tube port or x port. However, some of those may have better structural rigidity for the cab, or offer the need for less bracing, etc. It's also harder to get the required port area with tubes.
 
Not to speak for him, but I bet that's one of those "all other things being equal" sorta things.

If port area and tuning is the same, i doubt it matters sonically if it is a shelf port, tube port or x port. However, some of those may have better structural rigidity for the cab, or offer the need for less bracing, etc. It's also harder to get the required port area with tubes.

I have not had the opportunity to A-B differences between my LDS tube ports and the shelf ports on a more traditional fEarful style cab. By covering the tube ports with a grill on my 15/6 and 12/6, my cabs have taken a radical departure in design, but I have a hunch their tone and performance are about the same. In the 90th percentile is good enough for me. Besides, a grill keeps the snakes out.