THE Boutique Bass Cab Shootout

[Lowendtech]

I think, as this is a boutique cab shootout, most 410’s are prolly out. Although, I would put DNA cabs in that category.
But (and this is with some personal interest/bias) I think a Roger Baer cab would fit the criteria. But more cabs = more work.

 

[pickles]

= more awesome.

 

[MDBass]

I think, as this is a boutique cab shootout, most 410’s are prolly out. Although, I would put DNA cabs in that category.
But (and this is with some personal interest/bias) I think a Roger Baer cab would fit the criteria. But more cabs = more work.

= more awesome.

At an extra ~15 minutes per cab, I honestly don't mind.

Any new additions will definitely have to wait until after NAMM though, I won't be able to get ahold of the T3W or Berg cabs until after the show anyway.

 

[Kirk Bryant]

I’ve followed the thread since inception with great interest. Also the MAS and Audiokenisis threads as well. And I have been on the same search for the last year or two. And I have researched the heck out of the subject. I recently got an F12/6/1 but I mostly use Bergs. The red herring I just saw and thought ooh! Interesting is Jim Bergantino’s new 410 that is 310 frontmounted and 110 rear facing! But it’s still too heavy for me, I’m looking for a one cab solution at a lower weight. I am looking forward to just trying to hear the differences in 112 based cabs to 115 based cabs. I Will be following and considering this shootout very carefully in my upcoming cab purchases. ATM I’m leaning towards AK and MAS without even hearing them! Haha I know at this level it’s just different flavors of world class bass cab greatness.

 

[MDBass]

I’ve followed the thread since inception with great interest. Also the MAS and Audiokenisis threads as well. And I have been on the same search for the last year or two. And I have researched the heck out of the subject. I recently got an F12/6/1 but I mostly use Bergs. The red herring I just saw and thought ooh! Interesting is Jim Bergantino’s new 410 that is 310 frontmounted and 110 rear facing! But it’s still too heavy for me, I’m looking for a one cab solution at a lower weight. I am looking forward to just trying to hear the differences in 112 based cabs to 115 based cabs. I Will be following and considering this shootout very carefully in my upcoming cab purchases. ATM I’m leaning towards AK and MAS without even hearing them! Haha I know at this level it’s just different flavors of world class bass cab greatness.

Hopefully the results help give you some clarity!

Based on what @Mike Arnopol posted earlier in the thread, if the new Berg 410 is too heavy for you his cabs will be as well: the Bodai 28 is 45lbs.

Looking forward to chatting with Jim at the show, my pedalboard will be spending some time at his booth

 

[MarkA]

The MAS site lists the Bodai 110 at 37 pounds and the Bodai 28 at 43 pounds. Displacements of ~600 and ~900 cubic centimeters, respectively. For reference, the Vds of the Kappalite 3012 and 3015 LF drivers are given at ~500 and ~850 ccs, respectively.

Kirk, I haven't heard of the "3+1" Berg 410 you mentioned. Had a quick look at his website but didn't see it. You're not referring to the Invalid Link Removed (two front-facing 10s, one rear, 35 pounds), are you?

Glancing over the first few posts in this thread, MDBass, you were looking for something you could manage with one hand up a flight of stairs (you also mentioned that you'd like to keep it around 40 pounds or less) and something that might hang with an Aggie 410, right? (Not sure if you came out and said that re. the 410, but it seemed implied at some point.) I don't know what the Vd the Aggie 410 is, but I don't know that any of the 3012 LF-based or similar-output cabs (I know it depends on more than the woofer, but for ballpark purposes...) would hang with it in terms of sheer output. A 3015LF-based cab and cabs with similar output might give it a run for its money, though. Not to say the super-12 cabs won't be loud and sound good, just that I wouldn't count on them being as loud as a good 410, if that's what you're going for. You're the one who'll know if they're enough for what you want to do with them, though.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Schroeder 310 kicks arse.

 

[HaphAsSard]

Kirk, I haven't heard of the "3+1" Berg 410 you mentioned. Had a quick look at his website but didn't see it. You're not referring to the New Bergie sealed 410 (two front-facing 10s, one rear, 35 pounds), are you?

New Bergie sealed 410
So basically like the HG310...but -410. Weighs (OK, will weigh - soon to be presented at NAMM) 47#.

 

[murphy]

 

[tombowlus]

Briefly, Duke suggested that a somewhat greater microphone distance would probably result in a bit more level playing field for the different cabs.

+1 I'm probably too late to the party, here, but I agree with this and would suggest 1m (centered on the driver or on the epicenter of the drivers, if multiple). I would also suggest getting the cabs up off of the floor and recording in the largest room available (to minimize floor/wall reflections and room loading). Looking forward to your results!

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

@MDBass Can you please describe the room dimensions where recording takes place and how you have treated the room for sound? Especially corner treatments to minimize bass buildup. A well treated room will make the results more interesting. A non-treated room ... well.

Also, please describe your final mastered output level. You may be aware of this, but if not, streaming services are now standardizing on "LUFS" levels that are way below where people usually master the volume. Forget about pushing it to a -1dB peak! They're looking more for -12dB to -19dB (varies by service). Basically, all the services are aiming to 'normalize' volume to eliminate the "Loud Commercial" syndrome of overcompressed, loud masters. If you submit at the lower LUFS standard, they'll increase volume for their listeners automatically, If you crank your mastered peak, the service will automatically decrease volume to their standard - which means your overly compressed master will lose even more dynamics. Your tests are trying to measure and reproduce subtle points. Getting the LUFS level right will make your recordings useful ... or worthless.

 

[MDBass]

@MDBass Can you please describe the room dimensions where recording takes place and how you have treated the room for sound? Especially corner treatments to minimize bass buildup. A well treated room will make the results more interesting. A non-treated room ... well.

Also, please describe your final mastered output level. You may be aware of this, but if not, streaming services are now standardizing on "LUFS" levels that are way below where people usually master the volume. Forget about pushing it to a -1dB peak! They're looking more for -12dB to -19dB (varies by service). Basically, all the services are aiming to 'normalize' volume to eliminate the "Loud Commercial" syndrome of overcompressed, loud masters. If you submit at the lower LUFS standard, they'll increase volume for their listeners automatically, If you crank your mastered peak, the service will automatically decrease volume to their standard - which means your overly compressed master will lose even more dynamics. Your tests are trying to measure and reproduce subtle points. Getting the LUFS level right will make your recordings useful ... or worthless.

Pretty standard studio control room: a few bass traps, panels, etc. I do commercial mixing and vocal recording in the room, and won't be reamping at a particularly loud volume, so the room shouldn't be much of a factor.

If I find that it is though, I'll buy a friend of mine a 6 pack and use his live room instead

Well aware of the LUFS issue w streaming services, though a "loud" master isn't actually getting additional compression added to bring the level down, but I'm also not going to be "mastering" these tracks in a traditional sense either.

That implies adding compression, limiting and EQ: the stems won't be receiving any additional processing at all when they're rendered.

Sure hope I never hear anything mastered at -1dB either: "loud" is generally considered to be peaking around -9 or -8, a track pushed to -1 would have to be a crushed, clipping abomination

 

[nostatic]

crushed clipping abomination

Looking forward to their set at Coachella this year

 

[MDBass]

Looking forward to their set at Coachella this year

Reminds me of that bit from one of the late night talk shows where they had a reporter ask attendees at Coachella how excited they were about seeing various made up bands: one fellow was so desperate for his 15 minutes that he even made up a story about how he used to spin said imaginary bands debut LP back when he was a college DJ

 

[tombowlus]

Pretty standard studio control room: a few bass traps, panels, etc. I do commercial mixing and vocal recording in the room, and won't be reamping at a particularly loud volume, so the room shouldn't be much of a factor.

We do our speaker measurement using the 1w/1m approach, and we use a huge room at our local college. Just for kicks, I tried duplicating some measurements in my basement (which is not tiny, but does have lower ceilings), and I was shocked at how much room loading was taking place using only 1w.

 

[MDBass]

We do our speaker measurement using the 1w/1m approach, and we use a huge room at our local college. Just for kicks, I tried duplicating some measurements in my basement (which is not tiny, but does have lower ceilings), and I was shocked at how much room loading was taking place using only 1w.

Good to know Tom.

My control room actually has a 12 foot ceiling, but I may end up using the live room; I'll keep the thread posted.

 

[12bass]

Just a quick FYI: it is probably best not to have any elephants in the room during testing.....

 

[MDBass]

Just a quick FYI: it is probably best not to have any elephants in the room during testing.....

Fear not: I have a separate paddock for the elephants.

 

[smeet]

We do our speaker measurement using the 1w/1m approach, and we use a huge room at our local college. Just for kicks, I tried duplicating some measurements in my basement (which is not tiny, but does have lower ceilings), and I was shocked at how much room loading was taking place using only 1w.

My impression is that the acoustic effects of the room do not depend on the volume of the sound, although they may be less noticeable at lower volume. Am I incorrect?

 

[DukeLeJeune]

My impression is that the acoustic effects of the room do not depend on the volume of the sound, although they may be less noticeable at lower volume. Am I incorrect?

Imo you are absolutely correct.

It can SOUND LIKE the room becomes "overloaded" at a certain SPL, and that is an accurate description of our PERCEPTION, but what's really happening is this: The ear is having a NON-LINEAR response to what is actually a LINEAR acoustic effect. So it sounds like a distortion sets in at a certain volume level, but really it was there all along, in the same proportion, but it was simply below our detection and/or objection threshold.