• 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.

Subway 215 vs. Subway 212, sonic differences ?

jnewmark

jnewmark

Just wanna play the groove.
Supporting Member
Aug 31, 2006
10,120
7,019
NW Ohio
Disclosures
Third St. Cigar Records staff musician.
#1
I've an upcoming Rock band project, mostly classic stuff, but sort of on the lighter side, ( Dylan, NRBQ, Hall and Oates, etc.) Mostly going to play smallish bars, with no PA support ( dance floor coverage only ). I want a one cab solution, as pack space will be limited. I don't use effects, and my tone is your typical nice, thumpy support bass guitar. My amp is a GB Shuttlemax 12.2. So, I'm checking out the two Subway models of 212 and 215, and wondering what the sonic differences, if any, between the two ? They both seem pretty similar in specs, sensitivity, and power handling, but how do they sound compared to each other ? 215 is deeper sounding ? 212 more on the punchy side , etc. ? Appreciate any thoughts from those of you who have actually played these two models. Unfortunately, neither one is available locally to try. And, respectfully, please don't suggest other brands; I'm pretty much decided on these two. Thanks !
 
#3
mmbongo said:
212- More in the low mids, thicker overall.

215- Deeper, clearer, more articulate, can get louder, more snappy.

If you can swing it, I would go with the 215 as you can make it sound pretty much any way you want but the 212 cannot do what the 215 does.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying the 215 has a more clear tone, but not very thick or chunky as the 212 ? Deep, means exactly what ? I remember playing out of an 18 cab once, that sounded deep like I was at the bottom of a well. I need to fit in, not stand out as much in this band.
 
#4
The 212 sounds fantastic. I demoed the 215 and yes, it is deeper sounding, but it seems to just flex the point. In other words, the 212 is loud and has a very useful range. Some people love the thicc boom the 215 makes, but is it worth the extra $500? NRBQ will never sound bigger...
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottm
#5
squish said:
The 212 sounds fantastic. I demoed the 215 and yes, it is deeper sounding, but it seems to just flex the point. In other words, the 212 is loud and has a very useful range. Some people love the thicc boom the 215 makes, but is it worth the extra $500? NRBQ will never sound bigger...
Click to expand...
NRBQ's bassist uses the 212?
 
#8
jnewmark said:
So, are you saying the 215 has a more clear tone, but not very thick or chunky as the 212 ? Deep, means exactly what ? I remember playing out of an 18 cab once, that sounded deep like I was at the bottom of a well. I need to fit in, not stand out as much in this band.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's kinda what I'm saying.

Here's how I think of it...the 12 is more old school, rounder sounding. It's a P-bass.

The 15 is more modern..clearer and punches you in the gut...rattles your pants more. It's a Dingwall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ggaa, Laklandfan, Jazzdogg and 4 others
#9
I think the SW212 is a worthy candidate especially for a 4 string player planning to gig at reasonable volume levels, who wants solid low/low mid punch, isn't looking for lots of deep low presence, and would prefer a single package as opposed to multiple cabs. The SW215 (like the SW115) is clearly in a league of its own - I'll be the biggest defender of that statement - but I suspect many bass players would be very satisfied with a SW212 for the playing many of us do.

For my money the SW 15" loaded cabs are beyond exceptional. That said, I also think the SW 12" loaded cabs are top of their field for 12" offerings and do not disappoint. They are voiced differently than the 15" versions (as are the 10" loaded SW cabs) to offer variety within the SW line. I will readily say that I find the SW112 a little more inherently mid focused than I like and I need to push it a bit (which it was built to handle) to get the kind of low end presence I prefer.

However, the SW212 (or 2 X SW112's) tends to create a much larger and fuller sound like I find so often when you double drivers or cabs. IMO and for my tone goals the choice between a SW112 and SW115 is an easier one for me (I'll take the 115 every day) than choosing between the SW212 and SW215. The 212 fills out the bottom end with a nice punch that sits well in busy mix. While it will never get to SW215 levels, it is quite impressive IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HowieD72, Coot, Blues Bass 2 and 8 others
#11
I ran 12s for a very long time, last rig with a pair of GK neo 212s. Can confirm a single 212 will be sufficient for a one cab solution. When I jumped to Mesa I went with the 215. My reasoning was not tone, it was the 215 will move a smidge more air than the 212 "just in case".

Do not regret that move, and would also point out the 215 has built in tilt back casters and handle that make it super easy to move. You wont go wrong either way though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HowieD72, Al Kraft, Murch and 1 other person
#12
I had the same decision to make a couple years back, and they were not available in my area to test drive. I went with the 212, due to its lighter weight and stronger mid focus. I later added a 115, which is either added to the 212 for larger gigs or used on its own for smaller ones. The SW 15's are NOT what comes to mind when i think of a 15 (my old TNT 100 i had back in HS:). They are very articulate, clear and snappy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murphy and Al Kraft
#14
Thanks for the comments, everyone. What I'm getting so far: 215= Clear, snappy, deep. 212= mid focused, thick, needs a bit more EQ. I'm tending toward the 212 for those reasons, and also the size and weight factor. Wish I could try these cabs out, but GC doesn't have either one here. Also, waiting to see if this new project even gets off the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AB Nate, Coot, Jazzdogg and 3 others
#15
Marko 1 said:
Unless size presents a problem with something like limited space, weight, transportation, etc...

bigger is always better.

ALWAYS!! :bassist:
Click to expand...

I have a strong preference for ampless (and cabless) gigs. The PA at my gigs does the work splendidly, and it's one trip in, one trip out. So, in my case, non-existent easily trumps bigger. Unless you count the PA as my "rig", in which case 8 subs with 20kW behind them means....we agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XLunacy and BassNugget
#19
This is hard.
Product is non existent for the average musician, so playing it involves traveling to where? At what additional cost?
Video's are difficult as they use heads and guitars that are not yours, not set the way you like and the bass is also different to your choices.
Always recall the Marshall VBA 400 dilemma. The stores that stocked one, sold it same day. No more sales because noone could hear one. Caused an unnecessary demise of an amp that is drooled upon when played out in the flesh by bass players hearing one for the first time.
Hope this doesn't happen to Mesa because the few I have played, were wonderful bass amps.
 
#20
micguy said:
I have a strong preference for ampless (and cabless) gigs. The PA at my gigs does the work splendidly, and it's one trip in, one trip out. So, in my case, non-existent easily trumps bigger. Unless you count the PA as my "rig", in which case 8 subs with 20kW behind them means....we agree.
Click to expand...
You’re lucky.
In the old days we did gigs that didn’t even have toilet paper.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Count Bassie, Drredplate, musicmansf and 6 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back