Jump to content

rbbrnck

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About rbbrnck

  • Rank
    Just Startin'

Profile Information

  • Registered Products
    3
  1. ...you just made my evening, rd2rk, with the best piece of news i could hope for. now PC212 it's an option, a real possible choice. thank you!
  2. haven't found the instance mentioned anywhere in documentation, or posts in this forum (or else, actually), so i can only hope in a reply by any actual owner: • do PowerCab 112+ and PowerCab 212+ have internal cooling fan(s) for the amp(s) that are housed inside, or just a passive heatsink somewhere? • and, if you know that one or more fans are in there, can you actually hear it when the PowerCab is being miked in a studio setting, when idling in between takes or phrases? i'm seriously considering either of them for purchase, but i'm worried that they may have been designed for their real killer application: providing the ultimate guitar amp experience, in connection to a Helix device, loud and live on a stage, or louder – at which a whirring cooling fan wouldn't be heard at all. in an otherwise typical setting, alternative but real, such as a recording session, together with one koto- and one shakuachi player, only a fanless design would make it usable – or a quite smart logic function behind a colling fan, one that seriously drives it at high speed only when at a very high SPL output). can any owner / user share this piece of information, please, with this humble newbie here? wholehearted thanks in advance for your feedback!
  3. technically speaking, your initial statement might hold true for perception, figures in real life taking us somewhere else nonetheless. two equal [full-range] speakers playing "together", each producing the same sound pressure level, spaced apart as in a stereo setting, introduce a sum of 3dB (it's called "non-coherent sum", and – for sake of simplicity – this applies to the range of mid- to high- frequencies). two PowerCab 112 playing together at same level will then yield 3dB on top of 125, hence 128dB SPL – please note that applying double power to the same transducer (provided it can survive it) yields +3dB SPL, i.e. if any speaker producing 130dB SPL when receiving 250W of power is then supplied with 500W, it shall produce 133dB SPL (if it can stand it) – and, not incidentally, the same rule applies in reverse, too (halving the power results in -3dB SPL). actually, the 131dB SPL of a PowerCab 212 in full swing compared to the 125dB SPL of a PowerCab 112 is a whole world of difference, as if (provided it had only one of the same loudspeaker internally – and it does NOT, on both accounts) it was being applied FOUR TIMES the power (like 1.000W instead of 250W, which might not go on for a long time anyway, in practical terms). inside one PowerCab 212+, though, are two 12" speakers, and surely not of the same type and with the same specs as the one fitted in the PowerCab 112. most likely, each of these two 12" has about 3dB more sensitivity than the one fitted in the PowerCab 122 (meaning: louder at equal power). two speakers playing concurrently, each with +3dB sensitivity over the term of comparison, produce +6dB SPL, a most impressive difference (in terms of engineering effort and production financials), equals to four times the applied power. in order to properly gauge the different sonic performance of the PowerCab 212 in real life, then, consider that in the low-end spectrum region (again, shorthand for sake of brevity – defining it in words would require far more ink that what's being used here) doubling a sound source with an equal one of same SPL yields +6dB (at a distance between sources that's significantly smaller than the frequency of equivalent wavelength)... bottom line is, in terms of listening experience, that one PowerCab 212 will play about 6dB louder than one PowerCab 112, but with a further boost of +6dB in the lower range of its frequency response. your statement about audience in the front seats willing to step back is indeed spot-on, absolutely correct both in principle and in practice – but the difference between 125 and 131 in terms of dB SPL, and in this case with double number of sources (thus with resulting double radiating surface, which is at least significant at the lower end of spectrum) is indeed a HUGE difference, quite the opposite of a "not too far off from" quantity – and it surely provides for a totally different sonic reward to the listener (be it the player, or the audience member). in order to correctly evaluate the impact of sound pressure level over the listening area, then, never forget that (at least in terms of direct acoustic energy, and for a point-source, spherical-like sound emission, like what we're dealing with, here) the inverse square law dictates how at every doubling of distance from a sound source, sound pressure level drops 6dB – so if a source is 131dB SPL measured at 1m, a listener at 2m will be exposed to 125dB, one at 4m to 119, as that at 8m will measure a sound pressure level of 113 dB SPL in his or her place; concurrently, this also explains why the famed Wall of Sound (system) by Grateful Dead is best kept in the annuals of early rock'n'roll electroacoustics exercises. if i could afford the premium in cost, weight, and overall estate, i would indeed choose a PowerCab 212 over a 112. any day, any week – and i would, again, even over two PowerCab112 – though spreading two of these some 3 or 4 meters apart, and being exactly in the middle of them when playing, is indeed much more fun (for stereo image, and perception of air being moved about) than sitting in front of a 212 – which will always play louder, more focused, deeper, and tighter (and which, shall you ever need to, will have to be miked with two mikes, if ever the need to go at it old school will happen). hope i'll find a buyer for my Fender George Benson Twin Reverb... and too bad if, over a PowerCab 212, this means i will have made a saving of only 2kg – for better or worse, even before the pandemic, i do my own noise mostly at home! :-)
  4. thnx for sharing this (precious) piece of news here and now - not that HLX-NTV3.0 showed any flaw on my system so far, but i can't deny i take solace when both all machines' firmware and software's version align - like stars do in outer space.
  5. feature you're describing is there for a reason, most users often want to train or jam along with audio content playing on computer. i suppose you can route the output block, on any patch, directing it to usb only, rather than the usual "everywhere" default destination, and that shall prevent your processed input signal to automatically show up at headphone output, too... at least that's where i'd look at, but as i don't have my HXS at hand right now, and i often confuse too much of my whatever feeble recollection of features between my Helix Rack and my HX Stomps... i can only hope this silly thought of mine gives you a hint you hadn't thought of before. but, rest assured, soon as i have them under my paws, i'll check it myself, too!
  6. i appreciate everyone's feedback in reply to the questions raised here. i only regret that Yamaha / Line6 do not rate Helix Rack as a worthy piece of pro audio gear despite their claims - or do not rate it worthy enough of a proper technical specifications' sheet. of course, there's @DunedinDragon chiming here, too, to prove them right in their line of thought. we're among guitarists, he or she seems to be saying, so what's the use of knowing what's going on? rock on, bro, bring down the house, you don't need to know, you better learn how to feel things... seems to be his/her thought on the matter, along which i also detect a slight twist of mockery, added in for effect. i take decisions on what i'm listening, and what my brain decodes of aural stimuli alone - to the point that the only feature i really miss on my Helix Rack is a display blackout timer or switch, lacking which i've shaped a sheet of black cardboard to cling onto it, in order to mute its screen – for mixing, and mastering, i use a blindfold over my eyes whenever i need to give, or use, a reliable word of judgement, or an assessment of what shall be different than what i'm listening to. still, beside guitar nerds and black arts artifacts, in any sound design (and i urge you to please look this up if the terms sound arcane), your sound project / audio chain / source material can only fit within the existing capacity and headroom through all of your audio components - hence the slope of existing highpass filter in the Mic Input, too – and not only IRs or EQs around presets – means a lot, as such tool's used to create a feedback path onto a choice of existing loudspeakers and microphones. audio professionals can and do take decisions based on audio facts, before they can and do get busy at designing sound, hence creating what pleases their ears, too - but based on knowledge lying behind, rather than wise cracks and know-it-all attitude. even when they engage in playing guitar, or bass, in their workflow, too. mixing consoles for professional applications come provided with a signal path / level normograph, depicting all paths and levels across inputs, outputs, insert points, matrix, auxes and subgroups... as do quality audio interfaces, too. which i rate Helix Rack to be, to an extent - it's just the lack of this documentation from its Manufacturer to push me into thinking the "professional" adjective attached to the text on its user manual is misplaced, or used for mere marketing hype.
  7. May I kindly step in, Dixiechicken, and ride along with your question? For I have one myself, same playfield as yours, though on a side instance: how about the Mic input Lo-Cut filter's slope? Is it 6, 12, 18 or 24 dB/octave? I realize that, as a device conceived for guitar and bass players, every possible effort went towards the most fluid user interface, and I appreciate how that turned out... well, stellar, no less. The lack of any specification in terms of audio signal and audio path, though, even something as minimal as one page of the Owner/User Manual dedicated to it, I have very little appreciation for it. You know, in order to learn its exact size and weight before buying it, I had to look it up on Thomann.de webshop, for guessing whether it may fit the place I had available for it on my audio table, that's not exactly in line with my idea of an engineering specs sheet – or lack thereof. Just like the missing audio data you and I are asking about, here and now.
×
×
  • Create New...