Members J.C.T. Posted July 18, 2011 Members Share Posted July 18, 2011 To Al or whoever has both, is the lower cost of the D412A a better bang for the buck than the ART 310A for monitor purposes? Comparing the two, they are close in dimensions eventhough the D412A has a 12". The ART 310A can go lower (on paper), is lighter and probably more reliable. So is the $100+ savings worth it if we're looking into getting 6-8 boxes? Thanks. JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Flogger59 Posted July 18, 2011 Members Share Posted July 18, 2011 I used to work for a distributer that had both lines. This was a while ago, so products change, but at the time an RCF was a far better box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted July 18, 2011 Members Share Posted July 18, 2011 You'll be hard pressed to find anyone owning both. The fact the 310A had a price drop of $150 in the last year, MAP was $600 and now it's $450 with street prices around $400, pretty much tells the story. The RCF goes louder on paper, has bigger, and no doubt better amps, and weighs 8 lbs less. The 310A does not, however, go very low. That said, you shouldn't be beating the snot out of any small speaker by feeding it bass frequencies at high volume. I own 3 of these and they make excellent monitors and even mains over subs for small shows. In the video link in my sig you can see a half dozen videos from a wedding done last month where we packed light and just used a single sub and 2 RCF 310A's as mains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al Poulin Posted July 18, 2011 Members Share Posted July 18, 2011 If you are in the US and can get the RCF 310A at around 400$, you will simply not find a better sounding or louder ultra compact cabinet at this price. I own four of the 310As but have had the Auros in my home for a day to test out. Basically, my impressions of the Auros was that they sounded pretty good for their 250$ price tag and remimded me quite a bit of Behringer's B212A powered speaker in almost every way. The Behringers get louder but have less bass while the Samsons have more bass but limit more quickly (possibly because some of the bass is processed). The D412As do sound good BUT limit pretty quickly with playback music and do not put out anywhere near the 125db Samson claims. The bigger Auro D415As (300$ a box) sound better than the D412A to my ears with a more natural and fuller bottom end with much less effort. They are much bigger and heavier however...(probably not great as monitors) The RCFs are simply in a different league than the Samsons. They sound better and get louder and are better built with quality RCF woofers and horns. I love mine and would recommend them to anyone looking for the best sounding and loudest bookshelf speaker sized box available at under 500$. They don't put out much below 70hz, but have a strong 100hz bump that makes them sound biger than they are. They should work great for monitor duty IMO. Al - Party-Time! DJ Services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J.C.T. Posted July 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted July 18, 2011 If you are in the US and can get the RCF 310A at around 400$, you will simply not find a better sounding or louder ultra compact cabinet at this price.I own four of the 310As but have had the Auros in my home for a day to test out. Basically, my impressions of the Auros was that they sounded pretty good for their 250$ price tag and remimded me quite a bit of Behringer's B212A powered speaker in almost every way. The Behringers get louder but have less bass while the Samsons have more bass but limit more quickly (possibly because some of the bass is processed).The D412As do sound good BUT limit pretty quickly with playback music and do not put out anywhere near the 125db Samson claims. The bigger Auro D415As (300$ a box) sound better than the D412A to my ears with a more natural and fuller bottom end with much less effort. They are much bigger and heavier however...(probably not great as monitors)The RCFs are simply in a different league than the Samsons. They sound better and get louder and are better built with quality RCF woofers and horns. I love mine and would recommend them to anyone looking for the best sounding and loudest bookshelf speaker sized box available at under 500$. They don't put out much below 70hz, but have a strong 100hz bump that makes them sound biger than they are. They should work great for monitor duty IMO. Al - Party-Time! DJ Services Thanks for the input. Don't need to really put out much bass since they will be mainly for monitor use so either will be good. But from what you're saying, even with the price difference, the RCFs are still the best bang for the buck. Thanks again.JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al Poulin Posted July 18, 2011 Members Share Posted July 18, 2011 Thanks for the input. Don't need to really put out much bass since they will be mainly for monitor use so either will be good. But from what you're saying, even with the price difference, the RCFs are still the best bang for the buck. Thanks again.JC The Samsons are value oriented entry level boxes that sound good but are best used for lighter duty stuff. The RCFs are a step up in both sound quality and performance. They are worth the extra $$$ IMO. I paid 620-700$ a box + taxes here in Canada, so at the price you get in the US - they are an outstanding value. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Randyman Posted July 19, 2011 Members Share Posted July 19, 2011 It's interesting that the 310a and 312a spec out the same on RCF's website: 127 db, -3 @ 50 hz. Weight wise though it goes from 27 to almost 42 pounds, a huge jump. Any experience with why the 312a is worth the money/extra weight over the 310a? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoadRanger Posted July 19, 2011 Members Share Posted July 19, 2011 I'd guess they both use dynamic bass boost to get down to 50hz and the 10 loses more low end than the 12 as you push them. I'm supposed to finally receive my pair of 310A's this weekend . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al Poulin Posted July 19, 2011 Members Share Posted July 19, 2011 With both boxes run flat, the 312A does indeed go lower and has a little more beef below 100hz overall. My dealer and I tested my 310A and his 312A the day he received them in the store and the difference is noticeable. The 312A is a substantially bigger speaker however while the 310A is closer to having the dimensions of a bookshelf speaker. Neither the 312A or 310A put out anything at 50hz regardless of what RCF says. I would say the low frequency response drops quickly below 80hz. Maybe -10DB at 50hz, but definitely not -/+3DB... Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted July 21, 2011 Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 With both boxes run flat, the 312A does indeed go lower and has a little more beef below 100hz overall. My dealer and I tested my 310A and his 312A the day he received them in the store and the difference is noticeable. The 312A is a substantially bigger speaker however while the 310A is closer to having the dimensions of a bookshelf speaker. Neither the 312A or 310A put out anything at 50hz regardless of what RCF says. I would say the low frequency response drops quickly below 80hz. Maybe -10DB at 50hz, but definitely not -/+3DB... Al Hey Al, It was my experience that none of the current batch of 12" powered speakers had much on the bottom. You would definitely want to use a sub with any of these speakers for a full band or dj music. If you are doing an acoustic gig, the 12's will do it beautiful. I compared my Klipsch 15" 3-ways against my DSR112's stand alone ...... no comparison at all. The Klipsch were WAY more powerful as a full range speaker with tons more on the bottom. Once you put them over subs .... not so much difference in sound ..... lots of difference in weight For the average band, 12's over subs are an excellent combination. I remember Abzurd saying that the 310's didn't quite have the nuts to be used as mains. Perhaps the 312's would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al Poulin Posted July 21, 2011 Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 Hey Al, It was my experience that none of the current batch of 12" powered speakers had much on the bottom. You would definitely want to use a sub with any of these speakers for a full band or dj music. If you are doing an acoustic gig, the 12's will do it beautiful. I compared my Klipsch 15" 3-ways against my DSR112's stand alone ...... no comparison at all. The Klipsch were WAY more powerful as a full range speaker with tons more on the bottom. Once you put them over subs .... not so much difference in sound ..... lots of difference in weight For the average band, 12's over subs are an excellent combination. I remember Abzurd saying that the 310's didn't quite have the nuts to be used as mains. Perhaps the 312's would? The OP was asking about which to choose for monitors originally and then a question was asked about which box had more low frequency response - since RCF specs both the 310A and 312A the same. In most live band applications, either of these should be used with subs - especially if kick drum is mic'ed and bass is being run through the PA. For DJ applications, the 312A is a good choice as a full range powered speaker for smaller applications while the 310A is better for speech/vocal reinforcement but can handle small DJ gigs pretty competently as well. Both sound much better with subs since neither will put out much below 70hz and should be used with subs for anything but small events. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.