• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

deltalite version I vs. II

will33

will33

May 22, 2006
18,185
2,113
austin,tx
#1
I have here a pair of original series deltalites I got from Avatar when they were blowing them out and switching to the II's. According to them at the time you took the stock specs from eminence, increased xmax to 5.2 and that's what they are. I don't know how you could change one spec that much (original 2.9 or 3.9?) without affecting the others but it doesn't really matter in this case. I've had these things in a couple different cab designs and while they can take quite a pounding, I've never liked them. They always sounded hollow or like something's missing for lack of better terms. They're 4ohm versions if that matters (different coil). Biamping to a mid did improve things but didn't solve the problem so I think there's something else wierd going on other than just trading top for more excursion. I have other supposedly "lesser" drivers here like peavey's, carvin's and even a pair of edens that sound much better.

My main question is are the motor structures/frames between the 2 versions the same or made in such a way where I could recone these and end up with 8ohm version II's? If not, fine, I can repurpose them elsewhere but is this an option?
 
#7
Yeah, expanding the xmax also very probably screws with the midrange a little -- at least that's what Bill has said in the past.

Btw, I heard from GB that the woofer tester may not be the best one :) Apparently it's some kind of knockoff of this guy:
Invalid Link Removed
 
#9
will33 said:
I don't know how you could change one spec that much (original 2.9 or 3.9?) without affecting the others
Click to expand...
You change one, you change them all.
My main question is are the motor structures/frames between the 2 versions the same or made in such a way where I could recone these and end up with 8ohm version II's?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The frames are the same, but nothing else is. The motor is different, the original had no pole piece vent, the II does. Since the original had no pole piece vent it had a vented dust cap for cooling the coil. That means you can't use a II recone kit with a solid dome, even if the voice coil is the same, which it may not be. IMO Eminence rushed the original Deltalites to market and they were dogs; that's why they were only around a couple of years. They got it right with the IIs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PawleeP
#10
Thanks Bill but this is now getting really odd. Mine does not have a vented dustcap but does have a vented pole piece. May have to break down and get some pics up here being the luddite that I am. Avatar was selling these raw drivers for $75 bucks the same time the transition was made from I's to II's. At the time they were advertised as I's and shortly thereafter everything was called II's.

Regardless, they don't sound right, never have. I've had these things in a test box at just about every reasonable combination of volume and tuning you can think of. Some better than others but none what I'd call good. I emailed eminence about them a couple years back and they were oem and couldn't provide any detail.
 
#12
Cool, that goes a good ways towards figuring this out. So what I have is avatar spec II's which still means some specs will be off but it gets me closer. These things have been on the back burner here for quite a while but started messing with them again, trying to dig up info as of late seeing as my skills have improved greatly since I first was messing with them.

I still don't know how to explain the problem in technical terms, they just lack some warmth/fullness compared to other stuff, seem a bit more mechanical, bit less musical if that makes any sense, even when compensating for the rising mid response. They will outrun most of my other stuff in terms of shear output but you sacrifice some tone to get that.

So, will give them another shot, otherwise I do have T39 plans figuring they'd have Lab12's living in them if these don't work out but now it seems I could recone them to stock spec II's and run that way which would be sticking to the plans.
 
#13
will33 said:
I still don't know how to explain the problem in technical terms, they just lack some warmth/fullness compared to other stuff, seem a bit more mechanical, bit less musical if that makes any sense, even when compensating for the rising mid response.
Click to expand...
This measured response chart of an Avatar 410 loaded with them would explain it.

Avatar4x2510.gif
 
#14
I saw that chart before on your sight but without putting it into practice I guess I didn't grasp just how much they're missing by doing these "LF" deltalites. Wildass guessing what's going on with their 12's it seems what I'm dealing with is a complete and total lack of harmonics in the sound that's likely even worse than that measurement. Could try crossing them a good bit lower than you normally would with 12's.
 
#16
1n3 said:
If the midrange response is screwed up, it seems that consigning them to sub duty would be a more cost-effective solution than reconing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I never really looked into that chart as far as exactly where the issue is happening, just kinda glanced at, said yep, there's a big hole there and didn't care as I don't have an avatar 410. I know you have to trade highs for lows but didn't realize you had to trade that much. I don't have a bunch of test equipment, just ears. When you adjust higher bands on the eq it does change the sound some, must be some artifacts of something going on higher up but it's like little bits and pieces of sound, not the whole picture.

As far as using them in the subs, I have no way of knowing what other specs may have changed or by how much or whether they still fit within the guidelines for use in a truncated horn design like that. That means when the time comes I stick them in there and see what happens.:hiding: If they don't sound right, I recone them to stock specs as that is an acceptable driver......and a good deal cheaper than buying more neo's these days.
 
#17
will33 said:
As far as using them in the subs, I have no way of knowing what other specs may have changed or by how much or whether they still fit within the guidelines for use in a truncated horn design like that. That means when the time comes I stick them in there and see what happens.:hiding: If they don't sound right, I recone them to stock specs as that is an acceptable driver......and a good deal cheaper than buying more neo's these days.
Click to expand...

Hard to know how Bill's chart bears on your problem, since it's for 10s, and you have 12s. I've seen that chart before, and wondered if there was a screwed-up crossover; tweeter out of phase, etc. That's quite a dip. But it's easy to believe that the extra extension cost some midrange performance.

I assume there is no T/S data available for your Avatar speakers, so your plan makes sense to me. But I don't have the T39 plans, so don't know how enclosure volume differs between a stock 2512 and a Lab 12. Hopefully, the Lab 12 needs a smaller volume.
 
#18
Avatar uses an oem version of the deltalite platform that has a longer xmax, can take a little more power down low without farting out. Changing that spec from the stock driver also affects the rest of the drivers specs but it's not published as to exactly which specs and to what degree. Always, in any driver, if you want to increase performance in the lows and keep giggable spl, the tradeoff is reduced performance elsewhere, in this case the uppermids and highs. I just didn't realize how much you had to give up. They do this same tradeoff in their whole line of neo drivers so my assumptions about the 12 are based on what they did to the 10. Not exact by any stretch but something similair will result.

As far as recommended cab space/tunings, etc....you can throw all that out the window when it comes to horn loading stuff....whole 'nother breed o' cat, different rules apply.

This is enough info to take one more stab at getting a good bass guitar reproducer out of them. If it doesn't work out, to the horns they go.....likely with a stock spec recone but I will try them as is at least once. I don't know what all happens with the other spec changes but all you need to be concerned with at that point is how they work between 40-50 and at most 200hz, more like 160-180. Just figuring out they are II's opened up a possibility or two.
 
#19
will33 said:
According to them at the time you took the stock specs from eminence, increased xmax to 5.2 and that's what they are.
Click to expand...

I have a Woofer Tester II (the Smith & Larson version) and recently tested the same Avatar neo drivers you have. Here's what I measured:

Fs = 31 Hz
Re = 3.95 Ohms
Le = 1.6 mH
Vas = 4.56 Ft3
Cms = 298 um/N
Sd = 551 cm2
Qms = 5.21
Qes = .231
Mms = 87.6 gr
BL = 17.22 Tm

If you want to play with the numbers in the B212 Avatar box, the internal volume is 3.9 Ft3, tuned to 51 hz. Good Luck, but I think you'll find the efficiency and response is much less than you were led to believe.
 
#20
exmaxima1 said:
I have a Woofer Tester II (the Smith & Larson version) and recently tested the same Avatar neo drivers you have. Here's what I measured:

Fs = 31 Hz
Re = 3.95 Ohms
Le = 1.6 mH
Vas = 4.56 Ft3
Cms = 298 um/N
Sd = 551 cm2
Qms = 5.21
Qes = .231
Mms = 87.6 gr
BL = 17.22 Tm
Click to expand...
That Re makes it a 6 ohm driver, a matter of some concern. To be sure test an 8 ohm resistor to 'calibrate' your WT2. My WT3 is off a bit as well, so I always do a manual calibration when testing, using an 8 ohm resistor and 1mH inductor.
Qes also looks way too low, especially considering how much higher the Mms is compared to the stock 2512's 49g.

If those specs are accurate that driver sacrifices a lot for only 0.3mm additional xmax.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back