What a surprise

[jonnythenotes]

I have discovered that at low volume 2 Ashdown Mibass 1x10 cabs sound better than my Barefaced Super 12t. I bought the two 10" cabs recently as they seemed to be at a good price, and were in exceptional condition. Also I was using my BF for rehearsal and smaller gigs, and was becoming increasingly worried about damage, particularly as it has the cloth front. My intention was to buy just one of these little Ashdown cabs...@250 watts, but they looked so good together, I couldn't resist the two of 'em. (So now I am up to 500 watts.) Anyway, I presume these two little cabs sound better than the BF at low volume, as the BF has to be pushed a bit to get the best out of it, whereas the little Ashdowns are being worked harder, and being smaller speakers create more 'perceived' volume than the BF does when only just ticking over. In no way am I suggesting that the Ashdowns are a better cab, or sound better than the BF, as in my opinion, nothing sounds better than the BF when it is is being pushed a bit, it's just that in a rehearsal room, playing in a small venue, or unplugged, the power and tone of the BF does not have a chance to manifest itself, whereas the Ashdown cabs do... A bit like using a Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Would I be correct in assuming this is the case, and have any of you guys found something similar...🎸

Edited June 6, 2017 by jonnythenotes

[gary mac]

I've no experience with Ashdown cabs but have to agree that my BF cabs really do sound better, to me, when driven a bit harder.

[mikel]

[quote name='jonnythenotes' timestamp='1496726868' post='3313410']
I have discovered that at low volume 2 Ashdown Mibass 1x10 cabs sound better than my Barefaced Super 12t. I bought the two 10" cabs recently as they seemed to be at a good price, and were in exceptional condition. Also I was using my BF for rehearsal and smaller gigs, and was becoming increasingly worried about damage, particularly as it has the cloth front. My intention was to buy just one of these little Ashdown cabs...@250 watts, but they looked so good together, I couldn't resist the two of 'em. (So now I am up to 500 watts.) Anyway, I presume these two little cabs sound better than the BF at low volume, as the BF has to be pushed a bit to get the best out of it, whereas the little Ashdowns are being worked harder, and being smaller speakers create more 'perceived' volume than the BF does when only just ticking over.[b] In no way am I suggesting that the Ashdowns are a better cab, or sound better than the BF,[/b] as in my opinion, nothing sounds better than the BF when it is is being pushed a bit, it's just that in a rehearsal room, playing in a small venue, or unplugged, the power and tone of the BF does not have a chance to manifest itself, whereas the Ashdown cabs do... A bit like using a Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Would I be correct in assuming this is the case, and have any of you guys found something similar...
[/quote]

Could there not be a bit of gear snobbery creeping in there? BF are high range expensive bits of kit, so surely a mid range cab should not be able to get near it? Sound is very much a personal thing, why not simply use what you prefer the sound of? Just saying, not trying to get into the technicalities of acoustics or electronics.

[Lozz196]

Price and technology aren`t factors in sound when compared to ears. If you prefer the sound of something cheap to something expensive all the tech and money in the world can`t change that.

Bit like me and food, I prefer a plate of pie & mash to fine dining grub, cost and technique aren`t factors, my taste buds are all that count.

[chris_b]

A 210 could well be pokier and punchier than a 112 with more emphasis on the mids. I use a One10 at home, which sounds better to me in a front room context than 1 of the 2 Super Compacts I use on a gig.

On the other hand there's no rule that says you can't prefer cab a to cab b or cab c.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='jonnythenotes' timestamp='1496726868' post='3313410']
I have discovered that at low volume 2 Ashdown Mibass 1x10 cabs sound better than my Barefaced Super 12t. I bought the two 10" cabs recently as they seemed to be at a good price, and were in exceptional condition. Also I was using my BF for rehearsal and smaller gigs, and was becoming increasingly worried about damage, particularly as it has the cloth front. My intention was to buy just one of these little Ashdown cabs...@250 watts, but they looked so good together, I couldn't resist the two of 'em. (So now I am up to 500 watts.) Anyway, I presume these two little cabs sound better than the BF at low volume, as the BF has to be pushed a bit to get the best out of it, whereas the little Ashdowns are being worked harder, and being smaller speakers create more 'perceived' volume than the BF does when only just ticking over. In no way am I suggesting that the Ashdowns are a better cab, or sound better than the BF, as in my opinion, nothing sounds better than the BF when it is is being pushed a bit, it's just that in a rehearsal room, playing in a small venue, or unplugged, the power and tone of the BF does not have a chance to manifest itself, whereas the Ashdown cabs do... A bit like using a Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Would I be correct in assuming this is the case, and have any of you guys found something similar...
[/quote]

For this comparison, were you using them in a domestic sized room?

[jonnythenotes]

The comparison was made at an unplugged rehearsal in the drummers lounge, a small rehearsal room, and a gig at a smallish pub with about 50 or so people in the audience. The Barefaced 2x12 and the Ashdowns being swapped when time allowed between songs... Just a speakon cable from one cab to the other...

[jonnythenotes]

Hey Mikel... I can't figure out have you managed to get gear snobbery into this thread... I own both the Ashdowns and the Barefaced mentioned above, and have made an observation that at lower volume levels, the smaller cabs sound better than the bigger one in certain situations.. Forget what badge is on the front of the cab, just wondered if some people had found the same if they had a small and larger set up.

[naxos10]

I used one Mi10 at rehearsal and found it sounded okay but added a second and everything that seemed to be missing from the sound, low bass and depth, suddenly appeared. I have used a Barefaced 2x12 in the same situation (smallish pub room no audience) and to me this cab sounded better by being cleaner and better defined.
2 x Mi10 in the music room (i.e. spare bedroom) sounded great but using one was not so bad either so I think room acoustics play a great part here.

I think Alex may have come across this effect hence he introduction of the One10 and Two10whi is the route I may go.

[lownote]

FWIW I had two Fender 112 cabs that at bedroom volumes sounded excellent. But they got ugly if you really turned the wick up. Same was true of a pair of TC BC 210s I had. So I bought a BF 210 which sounds good in the bedroom and excellent on the stage. But then I guess there's a very big difference in the quality of the drivers given the relative price of the cabs.

Edited June 7, 2017 by lownote12

[Dan Dare]

[quote name='lownote12' timestamp='1496818819' post='3313983']
FWIW I had two Fender 112 cabs that at bedroom volumes sounded excellent. But they got ugly if you really turned the wick up. Same was true of a pair of TC BC 210s I had. So I bought a BF 210 which sounds good in the bedroom and excellent on the stage. But then I guess there's a very big difference in the quality of the drivers given the relative price of the cabs.
[/quote]

On the head. Most kit sounds decent at showroom levels, but quality shows in real world situations when you need to push it.