Acme B-112 vs Barefaced Big Baby

Doner Designs

Doner Designs

Steve Doner
Gold Supporting Member
Jun 2, 2012
5,769
6,761
4,961
Metro Chicago Area
www.donerdesigns.org
Disclosures
Doner Designs is an alias for Steve Doner
#1
After haunting many cab threads I thought I'd ask a question I don't see addressed elsewhere. Would be interested in impressions from anyone who has compared an Acme B-112 (FR or FW) to a Barefaced Big Baby II. Most interested in the comparative deep low end.

As an aside, other Acme vs Barefaced comments welcome as well as suggestions on any other brands worth looking at for super deep low end response in a LIGHT WEIGHT box. I'm a grumpy old man and 35 to 40 pounds per box is my upper limit....preferably closer to 30. A 15 pound bass is ok with me, but a 45 pound cab is not.

The Acme 212 is too heavy, the Acme B-2 is too heavy, the Barefaced Big Twin is too heavy, the Accugroove El Whappo is too heavy and all 410's are too heavy.

A pair of Acme B-1's is a possibility but it would seem that both would be needed even for smaller gigs. However, an advantage of two B-1's is an ability to split them up for home use in order to have rigs in a couple of different rooms. A pair of Big Baby's sounds like a good way to go but that starts to run into serious money.

I have emailed both companies and received kind, patient, helpful replies but still would be interested in independent assessments from anyone who has tried both since it's not easy to test drive both. Also wonder who else, if anyone is in this extended-low-end market (and under 40 lbs).

One other note - I'm a BEAD flatwound player (sometimes drop tuned) who don't need no stinking tweeter but is ok with them if they can be turned down/off.

Thanks!
 
#2
I have owned both. The owned two Acme 112FR cabs and a B1. The 112FR has an unbelievable low end and a shimmering highs. The BB2 has a deep, full low end and clear, smooth highs.

I got rid of the Acme as it was too sterile for my taste. The BB2 is smooth and even across the spectrum with a very organic, natural sound. BB2 all the way, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monsterthompson, Dp1363, Sonoma Bass and 2 others
#3
JxBass said:
I have owned both. The owned two Acme 112FR cabs and a B1. The 112FR has an unbelievable low end and a shimmering highs. The BB2 has a deep, full low end and clear, smooth highs.

I got rid of the Acme as it was too sterile for my taste. The BB2 is smooth and even across the spectrum with a very organic, natural sound. BB2 all the way, IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Sounds like the Acme 112 may have a slight edge in terms of going very deep/low? I'm less concerned about the highs since I play flats and tend to turn down the tweets.

Am I on the right track between these two brands? Does anything else come close?
 
#4
Doner Designs said:
Thanks! Sounds like the Acme 112 may have a slight edge in terms of going very deep/low? I'm less concerned about the highs since I play flats and tend to turn down the tweets.

Am I on the right track between these two brands? Does anything else come close?
Click to expand...

I don't know that the Acme goes lower, it just may be more prominent. The Acme 112FR is rated at 41 Hz while the BB2 is rated at 30 Hz. The BB2 goes as low as I would ever need, just in a more balanced way.

I owned these cabs years apart so I can't provide a better A/B analysis.
 
Last edited:
#7
Dp1363 said:
The BB2 has a range of 30Hz to 20,000 Hz. Not sure you'll need a lower range than that.
Click to expand...

Barefaced does not publish the -3db, -6db and -10db rolloff points. Published frequency response ranges are not very comparable without that information.

I suspect the reason the Acme is less efficient is that it probably is tuned lower than the Barefaced. Both will go to 30hz but with what rolloff curve? Acme is -3db at 41hz and -6db at 31hz.

Absent the ability to compare the numbers, I was hoping for an A/B comparison from an independent source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vokain
#8
CL400Peavey said:
The efficiency difference will be the biggest initial difference between these two cabs. With the same amp settings, the Barefaced cab is going to sound a lot louder, and hence deeper.
Click to expand...

My thought was that there is probably a tradeoff between efficiency and low end frequency response. I think the reason both the Acme and Barefaced cabs are power hungry is that both are tuned low. Since the Acme is less efficient I figured that it's probably because of being tuned lower. I don't care about efficiency but do care about going as deep as possible with as little rolloff as possible.

I gotta stay under 40lbs though, otherwise I would go for an Acme 212 or an Accugroove El Whappo.
 
#9
Doner Designs said:
My thought was that there is probably a tradeoff between efficiency and low end frequency response. I think the reason both the Acme and Barefaced cabs are power hungry is that both are tuned low. Since the Acme is less efficient I figured that it's probably because of being tuned lower. I don't care about efficiency but do care about going as deep as possible with as little rolloff as possible.

I gotta stay under 40lbs though, otherwise I would go for an Acme 212 or an Accugroove El Whappo.
Click to expand...


I would disagree in this case with your goal. While the ACME may go lower in a flatter way, you're not really gaining much of anything in terms of true performance. The vast majority of your signal will be in the first overtone of the note, and your brain will fill in the rest. So the cab that has more volume in that range will sound louder/bassier to your ear as you play. IMO the ACME trades too much for that last half an octave of depth. As an example, using a 2012LF will get you almost as close, 46hz which is the first overtone of low F#, and get you enough sensitivity increase that you wouldn't notice the difference in the mix as you will be significantly louder.

@wcriley has experience with the 3012LF and the ACME cabs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doner Designs
#10
Doner Designs said:
Barefaced does not publish the -3db, -6db and -10db rolloff points. Published frequency response ranges are not very comparable without that information.

I suspect the reason the Acme is less efficient is that it probably is tuned lower than the Barefaced. Both will go to 30hz but with what rolloff curve? Acme is -3db at 41hz and -6db at 31hz.

Absent the ability to compare the numbers, I was hoping for an A/B comparison from an independent source.
Click to expand...
A significant number of bass cabinet manufacturers when not giving a level with the range, the level will be -10 dB, but of course, it could be -12 or worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doner Designs
#11
CL400Peavey said:
I would disagree in this case with your goal. While the ACME may go lower in a flatter way, you're not really gaining much of anything in terms of true performance. The vast majority of your signal will be in the first overtone of the note, and your brain will fill in the rest. So the cab that has more volume in that range will sound louder/bassier to your ear as you play. IMO the ACME trades too much for that last half an octave of depth. As an example, using a 2012LF will get you almost as close, 46hz which is the first overtone of low F#, and get you enough sensitivity increase that you wouldn't notice the difference in the mix as you will be significantly louder.

@wcriley has experience with the 3012LF and the ACME cabs.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear here. Do you mean by low F#, low F# tuning or F# 0 or 2nd fret F# on the E string F# 1 ? If F#1 46hz WOULD be the fundamental.
 
#13
Dp1363 said:
The BB2 has a range of 30Hz to 20,000 Hz. Not sure you'll need a lower range than that.
Click to expand...

Doner Designs said:
Barefaced does not publish the -3db, -6db and -10db rolloff points. Published frequency response ranges are not very comparable without that information.

I suspect the reason the Acme is less efficient is that it probably is tuned lower than the Barefaced. Both will go to 30hz but with what rolloff curve? Acme is -3db at 41hz and -6db at 31hz.

Absent the ability to compare the numbers, I was hoping for an A/B comparison from an independent source.
Click to expand...

The Acme goes much lower.Hence its lower efficiency. I think that the you can't say "the second harmonic is enough". Yeah---you can get a functional sound from a cab that is -3db @ 60hz. But---a well designed cab that goes lower can offer a lot to the sound---given that the box is tuned low enough which the Acme is.

I would love to see actual specs from Barefaced. They used to publish them.I encourage anyone to check out the measurements in Bass Gear Magazine. They reviewed the Acme cabs in Issue 8 and a few Barefaced cabs in Issue 18.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregC, Doner Designs and RColie
#15
lo-freq said:
A significant number of bass cabinet manufacturers when not giving a level with the range, the level will be -10 dB, but of course, it could be -12 or worse.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't think BF would press the limits of reasonableness, but would still prefer to see the data. I'm a number cruncher in my day job, so it's how I think.
 
#16
CL400Peavey said:
I would disagree in this case with your goal. While the ACME may go lower in a flatter way, you're not really gaining much of anything in terms of true performance. The vast majority of your signal will be in the first overtone of the note, and your brain will fill in the rest. So the cab that has more volume in that range will sound louder/bassier to your ear as you play. IMO the ACME trades too much for that last half an octave of depth. As an example, using a 2012LF will get you almost as close, 46hz which is the first overtone of low F#, and get you enough sensitivity increase that you wouldn't notice the difference in the mix as you will be significantly louder.

@wcriley has experience with the 3012LF and the ACME cabs.
Click to expand...

This may be true but it's a lesson I must learn for myself. Typically I have some (crappy) FOH support with no subs. So, my needs are more around quality and low end rather than sheer volume and don't mind carrying a 1000 watt amp if that's what it takes to light up an inefficient cab.
 
#18
Mike Arnopol said:
The Acme goes much lower. Hence its lower efficiency. I think that the you can't say "the second harmonic is enough". Yeah---you can get a functional sound from a cab that is -3db @ 60hz. But---a well designed cab that goes lower can offer a lot to the sound---given that the box is tuned low enough which the Acme is.

I would love to see actual specs from Barefaced. They used to publish them.I encourage anyone to check out the measurements in Bass Gear Magazine. They reviewed the Acme cabs in Issue 8 and a few Barefaced cabs in Issue 18.
Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in sir and for candidly answering my question! Both great cabs, just different. In the end I might end up with one of each, then I can do the shootout test I'm looking for.

I looked at your cabs too because they get stellar reviews but didn't see anything that would meet my weight requirements and also cover the ground I want to cover (strong low B fundamental coverage and under 40 lbs, preferably closer to 30).

I have read those reviews you noted but want to go back and revisit them again.
 
#19
Doner Designs said:
Yep, I drop to A sometimes but typically am in B standard.
Click to expand...


Doner Designs said:
Thanks for chiming in sir and for candidly answering my question! Both great cabs, just different. In the end I might end up with one of each, then I can do the shootout test I'm looking for.

I looked at your cabs too because they get stellar reviews but didn't see anything that would meet my weight requirements and also cover the ground I want to cover (strong low B fundamental coverage and under 40 lbs, preferably closer to 30).

I have read those reviews you noted but want to go back and revisit them again.
Click to expand...

a note to mods----I'm responding directly to the question

Actually, my cabs do go as low as the Acme cabs. Almost identical -3db points. My MAS109 weighs around 34# and (using Barefaced nomenclature) moves around 600cc's of air. The MAS46 weighs around 42# and also moves around 600cc's. My MAS112 weighs around 44# and moves 950cc's of air. The "super" 12's like the Audiokinesis, Barefaced, and others move around 500cc's. ( Barefaced claims 550 cc's)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregC, Doner Designs and John D Harris
#20
Tommyc said:
Since the original poster is tuned BEAD, F#0 (23.12HZ) shouldn't be a concern for him.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why hitting 30hz isnt as important as it seems. Even drop A only really needs 50hz or so to highlight the harmonic.

Doner Designs said:
This may be true but it's a lesson I must learn for myself. Typically I have some (crappy) FOH support with no subs. So, my needs are more around quality and low end rather than sheer volume and don't mind carrying a 1000 watt amp if that's what it takes to light up an inefficient cab.
Click to expand...

Then I would plan on three or four of the ACME's. They are power hungry, but have limits just like any other cab in terms of power handling. When Andy rates the speakers at 350 watts, and recommends 300-400 watts, he means it. So depending on volume needs you might need more than two cabs to meet your goals. Hitting them too hard will "light them up".

As an example it would take two ACME 12's to surpass the output of one 3012LF loaded cab, regardless of the amp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k35string, Doner Designs and John D Harris
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back