• 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.

Xsonics Club

#61
Brad Johnson said:
As someone who currently owns a Tech 212, Schroeder 1210L and Glasstone Lil G I think the comparison and conclusions drawn are off. Way off. I look forward to checking one of your cabs out... assuming the Lil G sounds like the others or sacrifices tone is a mistake.
:cool:
Click to expand...

My apologies Brad. I know little about the Glasstone but worlds about the Tech 212 after about 300 gigs with 1 thru 4 of them. I thought the configuration was pretty much the same. My bad.
 
#62
Ncognito said:
Hi Mike, my fellow Chicagoan!

My design allows for conventional loading if one wishes. I like the push-pull as it helps limit excursion and allows my cabinet to get louder with the two drivers working together with their own kind of "governor" if you will. I've had a few years experience with the Tech SoundSystems/Schroeder's knock-off which is somewhat similar to the Glasstone Lil G I believe. My ears tell me along with years of playing that design that those cabinets having a woofer firing directly into a surface in very close proximity is what causes midrange and high anomalies. The Xsonics doesn't fire directly into a close sidewall, and I believe there is little or no high end loss or sonic anomalies happening here. Charts and graphs are great but aren't the ears what we hear with or is it our eyes?

I think the advantage of the Xsonics is that it's the smallest and lighest possible cabinet that doesn't sacrifice tone. The cabinet roars.
Click to expand...

Charts and graphs are a representation of what you can expect the cab to do in real life.

Charts could help prove what you're saying.

Years of experience of those too that have written books, and published and presented at AES count for a solid foundation. They have charts and measurements that show what can be reproduced from their designs. A chart would sure help prove your point.
 
#63
Brad Johnson said:
As someone who currently owns a Tech 212, Schroeder 1210L and Glasstone Lil G I think the comparison and conclusions drawn are off. Way off. I look forward to checking one of your cabs out... assuming the Lil G sounds like the others or sacrifices tone is a mistake.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Interesting. My first prototype which I built and loaded with Faital Pro 12PR300 drivers over a year ago appears to have some distinct similarities to the Glasstone. It sounded VERY good, but not exactly what I was looking for. That was 7 prototypes ago and I now am satisfied with the Xsonics 212CF and 210CF. Everyone has their own ears, and everyone has their own criteria for desirable bass tone. I guess that's why there's ketchup AND mustard.

May the bass be with you...
 

Attachments

  • prototype 1.jpg
    prototype 1.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 266
  • Faital Pro 12pr300s.jpg
    Faital Pro 12pr300s.jpg
    164.6 KB · Views: 266
#64
You had me at "sounds like an Eden 410XLT" :D

Sounds very cool, although with the rash of people getting ripped off by cabinet builders, I'm wary. With that being said, this cabinet gets as loud as the Genz and goes almost as low in that size box...that's pretty impressive.
 
#66
Ncognito said:
Interesting. My first prototype which I built and loaded with Faital Pro 12PR300 drivers over a year ago appears to have some distinct similarities to the Glasstone. It sounded VERY good, but not exactly what I was looking for. That was 7 prototypes ago and I now am satisfied with the Xsonics 212CF and 210CF. Everyone has their own ears, and everyone has their own criteria for desirable bass tone. I guess that's why there's ketchup AND mustard.

May the bass be with you...
Click to expand...

Yes but I can see a distinct difference too
 
#67
Ncognito said:
Interesting. My first prototype which I built and loaded with Faital Pro 12PR300 drivers ...
Click to expand...

When I see that 1e picture there are two things that are different from your cabinet.

1. the sidechamber driver is not reversed(so it's not push-pull)
2. the sidechamber is smaller and thus has a more narrow opening

The smaller sidechamber can now definitely have some impact on the behavior of that sidechamber driver, it now might act as a sort of bandpass.
But since it also shares the same enclosure with the frontdriver, the behavior of both drivers will be not so easy to predict. But probably the opening is still big enough to not have much impact around the drivers Fs.
It might be possible to simulate this with AJhorn, a pretty advanced piece of software(way better then Winisd).
 
#68
From the animated model on the webpage, it looks like the drivers are wired with reverse polarity. If that is really the case, it looks like a massive amount of air would be pushed out the vents when the front driver is traveling backwards and the inward facing driver is traveling frontwards. In relation to the magnets. Maybe thats part of the sound.
 
#69
kringle77 said:
From the animated model on the webpage, it looks like the drivers are wired with reverse polarity. If that is really the case, it looks like a massive amount of air would be pushed out the vents when the front driver is traveling backwards and the inward facing driver is traveling frontwards. In relation to the magnets. Maybe thats part of the sound.
Click to expand...

For push-pull you reverse polarity. My cabinets are loaded conventionaly or compound (push-pull) if desired. I like both configurations depending on what a player is looking for.


xsonics212cfi_zpsde34c979.jpg
 
#70
Nick, I've been thinking about your design. It looks like when the front driver is moving foward, the side driver is moving backward (relative to the magnets) so air is being gathered up like taking a breath where both lungs are expanding. Then on the reverse travel they would be pushing air out of the cab through both the front and side vents like exhaling. The side driver is facing in so you lose most of the highs and upper mids that come from the dust cap are of the speaker. I think that this would result in a roughly 3db boost from 500hz on down. If you were using the faital driver you would have a low/lowmid boost with a flat upper mid and treble. If using a driver like the 3012ho which has a boost in the mids and a big boost in the upper mids, you would have a flatter response up to around 1khz and then a relative 3db bump at 2.5khz which, actually should sound pretty good. A fatter sound than would be expected with both drivers firing forward. Your design would probably give a bigger, fatter sound at lower volumes than a super 12.
 
#71
kringle77 said:
Nick, I've been thinking about your design. It looks like when the front driver is moving foward, the side driver is moving backward (relative to the magnets) so air is being gathered up like taking a breath where both lungs are expanding. Then on the reverse travel they would be pushing air out of the cab through both the front and side vents like exhaling. The side driver is facing in so you lose most of the highs and upper mids that come from the dust cap are of the speaker. I think that this would result in a roughly 3db boost from 500hz on down. If you were using the faital driver you would have a low/lowmid boost with a flat upper mid and treble. If using a driver like the 3012ho which has a boost in the mids and a big boost in the upper mids, you would have a flatter response up to around 1khz and then a relative 3db bump at 2.5khz which, actually should sound pretty good. A fatter sound than would be expected with both drivers firing forward. Your design would probably give a bigger, fatter sound at lower volumes than a super 12.
Click to expand...

Wow! Nice bit of homework there Chris. You know your stuff I see. The Xsonics 212CF really has terrific lows for a cab of it's size. I have a GB 212T NX2 at home for reference and the lows are quite similar with the Xsonics being tighter and punchier. No doubt the GB goes a tad lower but I find it a bit flabby, IMO.

The Xsonics cabinets do "breathe" like you described, and they remind me of how an accordian works and really "squeeze" and "push" out the sound (terrible comparison, but pretty accurate!!!).

Thank you for that very informative analysis!!!!
 

Attachments

  • gb compare 212cf 210cf.jpg
    gb compare 212cf 210cf.jpg
    147.7 KB · Views: 215
  • schlangen-0016.gif
    schlangen-0016.gif
    17.2 KB · Views: 754
#72
Cool little cabs! Sounds like a great design.

Re: how they look similar in design to others, that shouldn't bother anyone more than two companies using side-ported cabs, really.

kringle77 said:
The side driver is facing in so you lose most of the highs and upper mids that come from the dust cap are of the speaker. I think that this would result in a roughly 3db boost from 500hz on down.
Click to expand...

Huh, so it's like a "mechanical" .5 alignment. Curious if one could just flip speakers around as needed to get that. No need for crossover analysis or extra components. :D
 
#73
Im thinking thats a safe assumption though, I think that you would still have less highs and high mids than if they were both facing straight forward. This could be a very cool, one trip solution for alot of guys.
 
#75
Placing the driver facing the side like that basically winds up acting like a bandpass IIRC. Imagine if you were standing 90 degrees off of a woofer...it removes all those on-axis highs and mids you'd hear standing in front.

So just like the glasstone, it cuts a ton of mids and highs from the second woofer and gives you way more lows and low mids relatively.
 
#77
I had Nick put the tweet in the upper left hand corner of my cab as well as a recessed handle on the left. I plan to use it in the vertical position so the tweet is as high up as possible and I can just reach down and pick the cab up in the vertical position. It looks like the one in Nick's avatar picture.
 
#79
kringle77 said:
I just went to the xsonics page and he has posted up more pics. I think that is my cab!
Click to expand...

Right on Chris! Your cabinet was the build from heaven. Everything went perfectly and it sounded great when I play tested it as I do with every cabinet prior to shipment. Hope you don't mind but your 212CF made for an excellent photo session!!!!

Here is a 412 stack the size of a typical 212. These cabinets ROAR!!!!!!!
 

Attachments

  • xsonics 212 stack.jpg
    xsonics 212 stack.jpg
    200.6 KB · Views: 208
#80
rpsands said:
Placing the driver facing the side like that basically winds up acting like a bandpass IIRC. Imagine if you were standing 90 degrees off of a woofer...it removes all those on-axis highs and mids you'd hear standing in front.

So just like the glasstone, it cuts a ton of mids and highs from the second woofer and gives you way more lows and low mids relatively.
Click to expand...

That's an assumption that folks who haven't heard a Glasstone continue to make, along with many others. As far as "just like the glasstone" goes, since these are clearly different, particularly the direction the second driver is firing...
:hmm:

Even though I've been using a Glasstone for the better part of a year, this has me wondering... where do the mids and highs that are firing directly into the front firing port disappear to?

I have a switch that allows me to cut off the second driver and the second driver is clearly adding more than just depth and low mids when switched in. It sounds like adding a second cab.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back