. . .in my living room, at moderate levels. I figured I had them all laying around, and I could use the parallel mode on my QSC to make a good A-B test setup (ability to quickly switch to the other speaker at the same power level). The cabs involved: Acme Low-B1 - three-way 10" compact cab. Ported cabinet bass tuning. 15.75"H x 15.75"W x 13.5"D, 31 lbs. 4 ohms Euphonic Audio VL-110 - three-way 10" compact cab. Transmission-line bass tuning. 18"W x 14"H x 14"D, 37 lbs. 8 ohms Tech Soundsystems CT2000 - two-way 2x12" very compact (for a 2x12) cab. Ported? cab (one 12 is front-facing, the other mounted on a diagonal baffle. There are gaps around the driver on this baffle, effectively very shallow ports). 21"W x 14"H x 16.5"D, 50 lbs. 8 ohms Peavey 210TX - two-way 2x10" cab, standard 2x10 size. 24.5"W x 16"H x 17"D, 60+ lbs. 4 ohms The test setup: Hanewinckel 6-string neck-through with Bartolini electronics -> SansAmp BDDI (blend all the way "direct", level all the way up) -> QSC PLX 3002 in parallel mode. All mid/tweeter attenuators on cabs in full "up" setting. So, here are my impressions: 1. VL-110 v. Low-B1 At first, I was suprised because the Acme was the same volume as the EA. Then I remembered that the Acme is 4 ohms and the EA is 8. So, that means about a 3dB difference between the two, plus or minus a couple dB maybe. I was only using my ears, but with a comparison method I think is pretty accurate: put one cab on the left, the other on the right; adjust gain until the sound is coming from the center. The knobs on the QSC run about 3dB per click I think. The sound was at center w/ the same setting on each channel. Given the Acmes are rated at 90 dB 1w/1m, I'd say if I saw a spec for the EAs indicating 93-95 dB I'd believe it. Anyway, tonal differences: the EA had more midrange, the Acme a bit fuller bass (in around the 50-60Hz range). I couldn't hear any significant difference in the fundamental range on the B string - at least it didn't jump out at me. I think the Acme probably does have more output down there, but it wasn't so noticeable. The upper mids and treble on both units both seemed pretty equal - couldn't hear any gaps, and neither was harsh. The Acme sounded more "clear", but this could just be the difference in midrange level between the two. I'd be hard pressed without a known-quality monitor speaker or test equipment to say which one is more tonally accurate. 2. VL-110 v. CT2000 The Tech cab is a good 6dB louder at least (I should have compared it against two EAs but didnt'). It's also got a very bumpy frequency response. It has a big bump in the 80-100Hz range, very little upper midrange, and when the tweeter is up a very sharp, brittle high-end. The upper-bass bump probably is similar to the non-XST Eden sound. It makes for a pretty thick tone, but I can't stand it. Note that I'm not even using the EA as a baseline - these qualities are so strong that I can state pretty surely they are there. I've heard some people (JMX, you out there?) say that Tech cabs are "hi-fi" sounding. Not this one, at least with my definition of "hi-fi". 3. Two VL-110s v. Peavey 210tx It'd been a while since I played through the Peavey. It sounds pretty good. It's got a bit of a scooped midrange (somewhere between the Acme and the Tech, closer to the Acme I think). Again the bass seemed a bit "fuller", around 60Hz, than the EAs (though, stacking the two EAs brought up the bass there a noticeable amount). I'd rate the EAs sound as better, as the midrange was more to my liking, and I think it'd be a lot easier to bring up the bass a tad on the EAs then it would be to bring in the midrange with the Peavey. The bass on the Peavey was also a bit "softer" than the EAs, laid-back I guess. The Peavey was also about 3dB louder than the EA stack. If you took away the CT2000's big upper-bass hump, it'd probably be comparable in volume to the Peavey. To recap: Volume, increasing: Acme -> single EA -> two EAs -> Peavey -> Tech Coloration (Overall, each cab had a different character as far as some notes jumping out more than others), increasing: Acme -> EA (slight) -> Peavey -> Tech Portability (decreasing) Acme -> single EA -> two EAs -> Tech -> Peavey I can't compare max. volume, and that's a nebulous idea anyway since max volume in the bass will be different than max in the midrange. But, all cabs involved are made with fairly high-power drivers. I'd guess that the Acme and EAs have the longest excursion capabilities - but then, both need it as they have the lowest sensetivities (a common tradeoff). I'm definitely keeping the EAs, and probably the Acme as it still makes a good compact monitor-quality speaker if I need one. The Tech and the Peavey are going.