I thought about doing that but was afraid there would be "problems." So turning one cab to the side doesn't negatively affect the sound?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
What is the inherent problem with a 4x10?
- Thread starter Konan888
- Start date
I thought about doing that but was afraid there would be "problems." So turning one cab to the side doesn't negatively affect the sound?
Why Genz did it that way, who knows? Heads are smaller for now for one but anyway, it is better. Vertical dispersion is cut in half and horizontal dispersion is maintained. Sound is spread better around the stage and audience. Audiences, or stages for that matter can be 10ft., 50ft. or however wide but the difference between a short person sitting and a tall person standing is what, 4ft.?
Woofer diameter has little to do with low frequency extension - that is determined by the cabinet's tuning in conjunction with porting (for bass reflex cabs, like most 4x10's).
Thanks. How do you think the AE212 will sound playing reggae? Would you recommend the 212 or 410?
Genz Benz makes a couple VERY nice 410's.
Again, it is kind of like talking about aerodynamics in cars. There really is only one absolutely best shape for a car, but varying that a bit makes things more interesting and results in only a very slight performance issue, in the thread's case, a bit less upper mid dispersion.
I have 'vertical' 212's and also various 410's. Yes, there is a slight difference in disperson in the upper mids area. However, the vast majority of 410's will bury the vast majority of 212's in absolute volume and projection. So, pick your poison.
That being said, that Genz 212 is a nice one... very tight, grindy, bright and punchy. I prefer the Bergantino AE212. Of course, 12's still beam a bit in the upper mids, so if you really want to 'drink the Kool-aid', you should look for a vertical oriented 212 with a mid driverHowever, those boxes have their own inherent tone that you might or might not like.
I recently purchased a wonderful sounding Audiokinesis Thunder Child 112 that takes another approach to the dispersion issue in the upper mids... using a relatively low crossed over PA type horn to the top end of the bass guitar's sound.
All nice stuff, but I would NEVER pick a cab based on slight dispersion improvement in a relatively narrow range of the bass guitar if I didn't dig the tone.
IMO and again, a ton of IME on this one!
I'm GASin' after a Micro-VR head (or maybe a GK MB200
) but have a stoopid large collection of cabs now so don't know if I want to add any more - but that 4x10 Micro VR stack does look killer . I'm thinkin' of trying one of my 1x15's under my present 2x10 stacked vertically with the Micro-VR on top - that would be a bit more stable than two of the 2x10's stacked vertically I think. Still, nothing beats a pile of Ampeg badges for "cool factor" IMO .
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,942
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
I remember seeing a picture of a Ampeg Micro-VR stack with two of the 2x10 cabs stacks vertically - I bet that doesn't have the dispersion probs of a regular 4x10 but I'm not sure how easy it would be to keep from falling over! Bet it kills though
You mean like this?
That is definitely how I prefer to stack two 2x10's. It sounds great and the dispersion is generally pretty good. As long as you don't back into it, that stack is plenty stable.
Here is a clip of both of them side by side. The AE212 has a bit more deep low end and a bit smoother up top (and has a bonus in that it is a bit smaller and lighter and also the... IMO minor... dispersion advantage) than the AE410, so that's the way I'd go if you like the AE voicing. They are very punchy, have a nice round low end, and nice 'presence up top'. Not cheap, but IMO a good value.
The only downside is that the very nice looking spray on finish is a bit fragile.. the padded cover is a must to keep them looking good.
Here's the clip, although my tone is about as far away from a classic reggae thing as you can get
Might still be helpful to you. 4ohm cab... kicks with 400-600 watts.[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I was told the recommended way to stack two Thunderchilds is to have them turned 90 degrees to each other and point the "corner" forward - that gives you 180 degree coverage
.I have to ask. What do you guys mean by "farty"? No punch? They frap out?
In regards to the dispersion question scientifically it makes sense. Speaker placement is important. Is the inherent flaw of the standard 4x10 a real issue? Maybe I can ask another question. The 4x10 is a good size for moving around. That is why I was considering it. If verticle is the way to go, why not two 2x12 like what Ken has?
In regards to the dispersion question scientifically it makes sense. Speaker placement is important. Is the inherent flaw of the standard 4x10 a real issue? Maybe I can ask another question. The 4x10 is a good size for moving around. That is why I was considering it. If verticle is the way to go, why not two 2x12 like what Ken has?
Looks wicked!
You mean like this?
That is definitely how I prefer to stack two 2x10's. It sounds great and the dispersion is generally pretty good. As long as you don't back into it, that stack is plenty stable.
I'm GASin' after a Micro-VR head (or maybe a GK MB200
+1...Those little 210 Ampeg cabs look great!
I ended up going with two Avatar Neo 210 cabinets for my vertical stack 410.
Their 16" deep with locking edge protectors, very stable.
I'm driving them with a G.K. MB-500 head, love this rig!
Why not indeed
? Mostly because two 2x10's are smaller and lighter. I love the sound of my B25 2x15 vertically arranged cab (with original drivers ) but my back doesn't like schlepping it around so it stays home.
that's a good way to go to get full stage coverage. i've thought about doing something similar, but as it turns out, the guys in my band don't want full stage coverageI was told the recommended way to stack two Thunderchilds is to have them turned 90 degrees to each other and point the "corner" forward - that gives you 180 degree coverage
however, the thunderchild has excellent dispersion as it is, so you may or may not find it necessary to do the angling.
The primary reason for the angling is to keep the two huge horns from combing with each other
. If one cab is loud enough for yah (and they are pretty loud) it's not a problem 
.
tru dat. but duke was smart to include a kill switch on the horn for just such purposes. absolute genius the way he's configured his horns. old school switch...kill switch...genius!The primary reason for the angling is to keep the two huge horns from combing with each other
Seems like a waste of that big $$$ horn - maybe they'll make a hornless version of it for stacking or a 2x12 version?
+1 Duke designed the Thunder Child 112 for stand alone use (it is optimized of use with the current batch of 500 or so watt micro amps.... 4ohms, and a super driver that can handle that kind of wattage both 'thermally' and excursion-wise). The '90 degree' thing for two of them is really not recommended as much as 'well, if someone really wants to use two of these, then that is the best way to do it'.
He does have a 212 coming out.
Any idea of the efficiency and/or max SPL? The stoopidest rig I ever owned was a V4B ("only" 100 watts) driving two V9 cabs (9x10 each) and I only used that with both cabs once - it darn near killed me both with output and weight
- and sheer "smile" factor .Any idea of the efficiency and/or max SPL? The stoopidest rig I ever owned was a V4B ("only" 100 watts) driving two V9 cabs (9x10 each) and I only used that with both cabs once - it darn near killed me both with output and weight
Efficiency is on the low side for the single 112, due to the design of that driver. Max SPL is HIGH for a 112. The excursion is two to three times a standard high end 12, and the power handling is about double. Given the somewhat low efficiency, that's why he uses his own proprietary 3012LF driver... tuned just a touch higher, and also 4ohms, so that the typical micro head can drive the heck out of it.
Max SPL seems, to me, just a touch under a typical, high end 2 x 112 stack.
There are clips, pictures and a few reviews in the Thunder Child thread. I think if you search for my TB name and 'Audiokinesis' it will come up for you if you are interested. Quite an amazing one cab solution for small, moderate, and even relatively large loud gigs.
You mean like this?
That is definitely how I prefer to stack two 2x10's. It sounds great and the dispersion is generally pretty good. As long as you don't back into it, that stack is plenty stable.
Tom,
What's your full and finial opinion on those Ampeg 210 cabinets?
