Avatar 3 way 15/6/tweet

[sabre79]

I'm still not sure what purpose a 6" speaker will have on the overall sound?

I remember before I had my first beer.....

 

[Handyman]

6 + 15 > 15. It will make it 6 more. Nigel Tufnel understands. What else is there to say?

You're telling me this cab goes to 21? That's 11 better than 10!

 

[Chef]

or, 10 better than 11...

 

[greenboy]

You're telling me this cab goes to 21? That's 11 better than 10!

Indeed! It like you had the best of both worlds: the 10, for smooth sensitive stuff and the 11 for the aggressive and raucous baddernhell things! And then the 21 - to be bassier and deeper than ever before!

How could anybody not love this!?!?!

 

[KJung]

The 3015LF dies at or before 1500 Hz -- well below Tweeterland. Whether or not a suckout from 1500-4500 Hz would hurt your sound would depend on... your sound. With my B212s it doesn't hurt me because I don't run up that high with the music I play. For a slap player, that midrange is a must, which he may not even realize if he's never heard a cab with a midrange driver.

Just to be clear, the need for a midrange driver is primarily driven by the 3015LF (or similar) drivers. For cabs that use a more traditional 'full range' driver, the response of most of those drivers covers that upper midrange very nicely up to the range the tweeter kicks in. Yes, of course you can use a midrange driver with a more typical full range woofer, but it makes less sense to me.

If you (or anyone considering one of these Avatar versions... seems pretty nice!) are interested in hearing some different 'upper midrange' flavors of various two way and three way cabs with and without mid drivers (and also the Thunderchild execution using a tweeter and horn to cover the upper mids and treble), I have a bunch of clips up on my Youtube channel of various cabs with mid drivers, different crossovers, and a variety of two way cabs with tweeters, all using the same basses and heads.

Most of the clips I've heard of these 15/6 type executions have been more from players like you (based on your description of your tone goals), and I guess that makes sense... more 'traditional old school tone' players seem to be attracted to these types of executions. My clips represent a little more of a full range type tone (for better or worse), with active instruments and roundwound strings.

FYI...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Indeed! It like you had the best of both worlds: the 10, for smooth sensitive stuff and the 11 for the aggressive and raucous baddernhell things! And then the 21 - to be bassier and deeper than ever before!

How could anybody not love this!?!?!

Bump for Red Dwarf reference.

 

[Son of Sanford]

Even despite some "meh" comments, I think this is the bottom line that even the experts are trying to say:
For the price, you're not going to find a better cab. For something better, you'll end up spending at least $100-700 more (ranging from DIY to LDS to barefaced) -- and you'll still either have to make the cab yourself, OR wait 3-6 months from the day you pay until you get your cab.

Sounds like what Avatar has always done. 80% of the product at a great price, and great/fast service.

(And if you turn your tweeter down, you won't have comb filtering in the lower treble area... which honestly most bass players wouldn't care much about anyways...)

+1 I would not expect this to compete with higher-end cabinets, but it looks like avatar is doing what they always do with decent quality and low prices

 

[lomo]

Here's a question for the engineering club:
Given imperfections in the design of this 15/6/tweet box and those of a conventional 410, which would you prefer if given one or the other free, assuming equal weight and both 4 Ohms?

 

[KJung]

Here's a question for the engineering club:
Given imperfections in the design of this 15/6/tweet box and those of a conventional 410, which would you prefer if given one or the other free, assuming equal weight and both 4 Ohms?

The 'engineering club' will answer differently and predictably (and the great spec's of the 3015LF and the better upper midrange dispersion that a mid driver provides are obviously 'real' and meaningful). Having played quite a few 15/6 executions, and having the luxury of having the disposable income to buy pretty much anything I want, I still am playing either my high quality 410's or more traditional 212 two way designs for the most part Go figure!

Depends on the tone you want. EVERY cabinet has its own tonal footprint, which will work for some and not for others. I don't think Avatar is going to eliminate all their other cab designs

 

[craig.p]

Another factor in the decision is what particular amp you're running. One of my amps is a BDDI into a power amp, which, for me, does best running into a relatively dark-sounding cab. Another of my amps is a GK MB200, which (again, for me) works best with a cab with a more-forward character -- and may explain why some GK cabs aren't lined. First example is middy into dark. Second is dark into middy.

 

[greenboy]

I'm thinking if you want predictable, look at Ken's responses.

Frankly Ken, you like to on one hand say everything is subjective and might be good for someone, while on the other hand presenting YOUR ears as the only ones actually ever being used, infallible and objective. While all others who may play entirely different regional scenes, in different genres - well: their ears are to be devalued or ignored. And that's just dishonest.

From an earlier Ken post:

There is some minor (IMO) midrange dispersion advantages also (kind of more of an 'icing on the cake thing' with bass guitar backline... more of an issue with PA's, etc.)

You may want to think about that, finally. I mean really think, and not just play tactician. Duke LeJeune's designs are heavily prioritizing the importance of dispersion. And since you've championed his Thunderchild, then you ought to give him respect for his insight into the importance of this. He considers it an advancement. He prioritizes dispersion in the design process. Of course, he could be wrong, but I don't personally see that being likely, and sure have not heard it that way.

Good dispersion? It sure matters in stage monitoring as conducted by sidefills and wedges. Which is why the good ones are designed the way they are. It matters in PA mains. Which is why the good ones are designed the way they are. It matters for playback in home. Which is where Duke has been competing, and largely because of his approach to dispersion, he is to be taken as a serious contender.

So devaluating the benefits of good dispersion when given a chance seems to be both counterproductive, and shortsighted - and as evidence of a very limited perspective. Given the preponderance of evidence that supports the utility of better dispersion over a wider bandwidth, why would that be any different for instrumental amplification, backline? Things that have better dispersion fill a given area better. And that's what good monitoring is usually about.

Also, you may want to eventually realize that the stages you play, you yourself just haven't noticed so much that good dispersion can matter. But for a lot of other people it may not be such a minimal thing. I'll speak for people playing in other genres, often very loud ones where frequency-masking is a real problem. Then doppler-shifted speaker antics and unintelligible midrange often get battled with volume war tactics, and bad EQing, and usually result in harshenss and boominess, and vocalists who can't hear themselves.

Try to step aside from your own stages and styles and realize these are very real problems for bands all over the world in some genres and not be so quick to minimize that which presents an improvement. I am not saying everybody should go the same route of course. But give respect to those who can solve problems that some may be experiencing on a rather regular basis.

Also, good dispersion is LOUDER to the ear in a toneful way. It fills more of an area, more evenly. Who wants to throw away that good thing?


* * *

Lomo, I'm a little mixed because of the HF component placement. It's not optimum. But then I look at the 410 picture. It's kind of a mess for that too. And I have a very good idea of the 4-ohm 3015LF's capabilities. It's likely even more sensitive than the 8-ohm version, at a slight cost of low end extension, I'll warrant. But since the 3015LF is so far beyond what most people are using in that regard, I think it'll be a good tradeoff for those who want single cab 4-ohm solutions. And the midrange driver is very sensitive too. And what the crossover usually does with that, it's going to be a high-sensitivity cab, and one that'll really handle a lot of real world power without any balking or special treatment needed.

So the only thing in quiestion really, is whetehr the quality of the crossover is good enough to make it toneful. I'd say it probably passed that test or the cab wouldn't have been offered to the public yet. I'm equally sure it's not all it could be given the financial picture. But it only has to be so good to do better than anything else in the price range or even anything at 1.5 times the price range. Maybe more.

 

[ricky]

I wonder if this cab be a good match for a 73 fender bassman 100 head?

also, would it be good for upright bass?

 

[KJung]

I'm thinking if you want predictable, look at Ken's responses.

Frankly Ken, you like to on one hand say everything is subjective and might be good for someone, while on the other hand presenting YOUR ears as the only ones actually ever being used, infallible and objective. While all others who may play entirely different regional scenes, in different genres - well their ears are to be devalued or ignored. That's just dishonest and snarky.

I of course TOTALLY disagree, and have no dog in this hunt, unlike virtually every EE type on this thread, who is either promoting their own company or their own designs. Everything is not subjective at all, just like constantly talking about 3 or 4 design specifications does not IN ANY WAY describe the total performance or tone of an entire signal chain. The truth, as with most things, lies in between those two extremes, and is something I try to keep in mind when discussing this stuff.

Your post above actually makes my point... we all have different tone goals and different gear will work better for some and not for others. That is always my goal when I try to honestly review cabs, versus saying 'this whole class of cabs is bad and this whole class of cabs is good, REGARDLESS of playing style, gigging context, or the rest of the signal chain. Your constant suggestion that simple EQ can make your particular cab design 'work for everyone' is misleading, dishonest, and IMO does much damage on this site.

My comments are ALWAYS IMO and IME, and backed up for better or worse by clips that I post regularly and pretty constant gigging and also listening to other players in various clubs without PA support.

I am trying to provide at least somewhat of a balance to your posts, which are gettting more and more 'pseudo- didactic' and IMO misleading and unfortunately self-serving.

However, +1, if a bit better midrange dispersion in that 800 to 3K range is a 'life and death' necessity for a player, then these types of cabs are the thing

Edit: I do love the Thunder Child cab, and the dispersion characteristics are not the primary driver of why I like them. Actually, according to your 'reality', Duke's crossover that is close to 2K would be a huge design flaw that you would typically attack. That higher crossover point is one of the big advantages of Duke's cab to my ear, versus the lower crossover point of some of the other more mid driver oriented designs.....

 

[billfitzmaurice]

For cabs that use a more traditional 'full range' driver, the response of most of those drivers covers that upper midrange very nicely up to the range the tweeter kicks in.

That's not the case. Even on-axis most tens die at 2.5kHz, some considerably lower than that, and larger drivers at even lower frequencies. The average tweeter starts no lower than 4kHz, so the midrange hole isn't always just a hole, it can be a canyon. For example, the measured on-axis response of the Avatar neo 4x10:

Given imperfections in the design of this 15/6/tweet box and those of a conventional 410, which would you prefer if given one or the other free, assuming equal weight and both 4 Ohms?

The 15/6 will crush the average 410 in output and tone.

 

[KJung]

The 15/6 will crush the average 410 in output and tone.

God help us all, and another classic case in point of what I'm talking about on this site IMO. However, to be fair, +1 in that some more traditional executions sound like dog (especially some of the Avatar executions I've played). That I agree with.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

I wonder if this cab be a good match for a 73 fender bassman 100 head?

also, would it be good for upright bass?

Anything less than 300 watts won't get out of this cab what it's capable of. With a lower power amp you're better off with at least a dual driver cab, for higher sensitivity.

 

[lomo]

Upon further reflection I realize that the main advantage of my 15/6 is not only that it's a single cab solution, but that it's under 50 lbs. I am fortunate enough that cost isn't an issue in this range and I'd rather pay a few hundy more for the lower weight. In my case, if I want a 4 Ohm single box, a 410 makes more sense. Tonally, I'm with Ken that perfect can be 1)perfect 2)the enemy of good or 3)ill-suited for someone who likes a particular imperfection and/or who doesn't measurably benefit from "perfection" (aka the guy who wants the grind from the low driver climbing into the midrange it can't quite transduce accurately. This debate gets silly and needlessly aggressive. It reminds me of the fanned fret debate. For years I played Dingwalls because the physics behind them is undeniably "correct". The advantages like even string tension are measurable and indisputable BUT.....the undeniable advantages are small enough for me that a comfy 34" scale matters more to me. Better on paper in that case, even if "true",is not better for me. If I pull the trigger on a 4 Ohm single cab solution it'll be a Golight 410 at under 60 lbs.

 

[KJung]

Upon further reflection I realize that the main advantage of my 15/6 is not only that it's a single cab solution, but that it's under 50 lbs. I am fortunate enough that cost isn't an issue in this range and I'd rather pay a few hundy more for the lower weight. In my case, if I want a 4 Ohm single box, a 410 makes more sense. Tonally, I'm with Ken that perfect can be 1)perfect 2)the enemy of good or 3)ill-suited for someone who likes a particular imperfection and/or who doesn't measurably benefit from "perfection" (aka the guy who wants the grind from the low driver climbing into the midrange it can't quite transduce accurately. This debate gets silly and needlessly aggressive. It reminds me of the fanned fret debate. For years I played Dingwalls because the physics behind them is undeniably "correct". The advantages like even string tension are measurable and indisputable BUT.....the undeniable advantages are small enough for me that a comfy 34" scale matters more to me. Better on paper in that case, even if "true",is not better for me. If I pull the trigger on a 4 Ohm single cab solution it'll be a Golight 410 at under 60 lbs.

+1 and beautifully stated.

 

[greenboy]

Actually, according to your 'reality', Duke's crossover that is close to 2K would be a huge design flaw that you would typically attack.

Big fail there again. What Duke has done in two-way is exactly what I would have done - and for the same reasons. We talked about it in depth, niggling over small details, frequently, right up through the prototyping and into the first production. Hey, ask him yourself.

Those discussions, by the way also extend to things like the very fine crossover and shape-filtering Duke designed, the rolloff switch, stuff like that. Duke actually asks my advice as a bass player there and not just someone who gets some of the techie stuff. And I freely give it - not because I have any stake in anything financially - but because I want to see the bass cab industry get better and more diversified.

 

[lomo]

Big fail there again. .

Why word it this way?

Would "I have to disagree here" not have worked? Like the TB rules say, it's all about tone.