funkle

Dormant thread reboot. Looking over the Barefaced website, It looks like the Big Baby is 3 dB more efficient than my Acme B2 and a good chunk lighter. Not tuned quite so low but tuned lower than any other bass cabinet I've seen save for the Acme. Slightly different dimensions. Very very interesting! If it sounds similar and has the expected depth in the low end then it's basically equivalent to having 2 x B2's. Wow! If Alex is reading, I'd love knowing how this sounds against the old B2's he used to play through. I have wondered if it's possible to ask Alex for customisations to cabs...I quite like plastic stacking corners and carpet covering. Somehow I'd prefer a simpler logo too...I know Alex has felt unfairly treated over the issue of cosmetics but I must admit I prefer the look of my Series II Acme or the Vanderkley 112MNT. Though Alex's cabs clearly have great drivers and are excellently designed.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1355011890' post='1893049'] My opinion is based on a having built basses and guitars with various body, neck and fingerboard materials too, and I quit the search when I got what was perfect for me. [/quote] Fair enough. Sensible way to do it.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1354732841' post='1889807'] Both brightness and sustain are enhanced by denser woods, reduced by less dense woods. The finish will have some effect, but not that much, unless it's a hollowbody. The fingerboard material has the least effect, followed by the neck material, with the body material having the most effect. While typical hardwood bodies like maple and ash give a lot better sustain and brightness than softer woods like birch and basswood they pale in comparison to tropical hardwoods like rosewood and ebony. But tropical hardwoods weigh a ton, so they're generally reserved for neck and fingerboards. My bass is all rosewood, but weight isn't an issue, as I used the same semi-hollow body construction as Rickenbacker employs. It weighs less than a poplar body Fender, but is brighter and sustains better than any commercial bass I've ever heard. I can hit a harmonic and let it ring literally indefinitely, until I damp the string. [/quote] I was of a similar opinion until recently, after going through different maple neck basses. I just cannot get on with them. Roger Sadowsky seems to believe that fingerboard wood may be more important to tone than even body wood - http://btpub.boyd-printing.com/iphone/article.php?id=1236876&id_issue=135014&src=menu&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fbtpub.boyd-printing.com%2Fiphone%2F%3Fi%3D135014%26p%3D%26search_str%3D%26noframe%3D%26r%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bassgearmag.com%252Fbgm%252FMagazine. He also seems to think maple is brighter than rosewood. http://www.sadowsky.com/pop/roger_talks.html I have now come to agree with his point of view. I have never played a maple boarded bass that I have not found 'clattery', despite the different body woods being used. However, I find rosewood boards to sound pleasant on a variety of basses with different body woods (alder, ash, mahogany, maple) and pickups (PJ, JJ, dual MM, MM+J). I have found pao ferro pleasant for my tastes also. Just my own personal experience. Pete

FYI. Another useful thread with some technical speculation, for those interested in Vanderkley - http://basschat.co.uk/topic/193166-vanderkley

Hey Lawrence, PM'd you. Could use your thoughts.

Fair enough, I don't know enough about reading all the specs to be certain, and I know you've built a few cabs, so I'll defer to experience there. I was mainly looking at the freq/SPL charts. There is a serious roll-off in the low end in the Vanderkleys compared to my Acmes so I went hunting for a driver with the right dB rating, power rating, and which had an SPL/freq chart which matched what I hear. Of course the box and tuning have an impact on that. I will point out I think the Vanderkley is an excellent cab; I just think a lot of the low end if from the 1st harmonics of E and A being emphasised as opposed to the fundamental. I don't think most people would ever know unless they had an Acme next to it pumping out the fundamental for comparison. Which I do. The Streamliner probably pairs well as it has a lot of baked in low end (at least according to the charts I've seen on Talkbass and my ears) which fattens things out nicely. Anyhoo, my 2p.

Looks like a Faital driver in there. I'm guessing the 12HP1020 (http://www.faitalpro.com/products/schede/hps.php?id=201050110).

OK, I've had some time with my Acme B2 (4 ohm), the Vanderkley 112MNT (8 ohm), the Streamliner 900, and my Tecamp Puma 500. Tried out my maple neck Dingwall Super J, Squier CV Jazz, Sterling HH through the various combinations. (All 4 strings). Tested in a large sitting room with a wooden floor, all cabs sat on the ground. If it were a gig it'd be a coffee house gig. I'll try and summarise it all. The Acme B2 sounds very good with the Streamliner 900, now I have an idea where 'flat' is on the controls. The low end seems fracitonally tidier with the Streamliner than with the Puma. I suspect the HPF built into the Streamliner works well with the Acmes. The Acme + Streamliner 'flat' sounds very even tone from top to bottom, politer in the mids compared to the Vanderkley and definitely more way more low end extension with than the Vanderkley. I shouldn't be surprised, I don't know of any cabs tuned lower than the Acmes. The Vanderkley needs a ton of bass boost to get anywhere near the low end built into the Acme. This bass boost can be achieved well with the Tecamp or the Streamliner though I actually prefer the Tecamp + Vanderkley to the Streamliner + Vanderkley combination. The Vanderkley 112MNT is more of a mid machine overall. Definitely grittier in the mids with either head compared to the Acme B2. The treble is pretty full-on and there's definitely more finger on string noise with the Vanderkley + either amp head. It does need some EQ to sort it out which I don't need on the Acme. The Acme gets damn loud with the Streamliner though not as loud as the Vanderkley + Streamliner, which is just plain ridiculous. Turning up to the max on the Vanderkley + Streamliner made the windows and walls shake. I couldn't tolerate it for very long; I was afraid of scaring the neighbours. The Acme + Streamliner was bloody loud but didn't [i]quite[/i] hit the same SPL. I don't think I can imagine needing max volume right now from either combination. On the whole, I think the Vanderkley trades high SPL (mainly in the mid range) for loss of low end extension compared to the Acme. The Acme does the reverse; unsurprisingly, it has extremely even tone in the whole range but trades max SPL for the low end extension. The Vanderkley sounds good in the mids and I suspect if you'd never heard an Acme you wouldn't miss hearing the low E fundamental in quite the same way. I wouldn't call the Vanderkley a full range cab but I do think it sounds good and is loud. It seems to take EQ well and weighs 37 lbs vs the 50 lbs for my Acme. On the whole, I think a lot of the tone I liked when I heard it at Bass Direct was from the Streamliner. I was also hearing the Streamliner 900 push 2 x Vanderkley 112 MNTs and I think the low end extension and overall sound benefited from the 2 x 112 combination. Both cabs just seem like different flavours of good to me. Now I need to gig and see what I think works best out in the real world. Hope that stream of consciousness is helpful to someone....