Carvin RL210T vs. Avatar B210 NEO

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by slombovia, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. Carvin RL210T / light wood / regular magnets

    2 vote(s)
  2. Avatar B210 NEO / NEO magnets / heavy wood

    7 vote(s)
  3. Other: save your money and get...?

    0 vote(s)
  1. slombovia


    Jul 15, 2003
    I am a determined follower of Jesus Christ and am a Mormon.
    OK, guys, for an affordable but good standalone 2x10 which of these do you recommend? I need a portable, efficient cab to go with about 600w RMS.

    Both cabs are about the same weight. The Carvin is light because of lighter poplar plywood and has regular magnets. The Avatar is light due to neodymium magnets but uses heavy birch plywood.

    So light wood and heavy magnets or light magnets and heavy wood? Which is better? Or does it matter? Which of these cabs would you choose as a standalone? I have Avatar CB112 cabs (I need something more efficient) and the build quality and sound is good but I find the grill mounting on rubber feet a bit cheesy and I also prefer the metal corners on the Carvin. I also do not care for the sound of the horn on the Avvie. The new titanium horn and crossover on the RL210T seem higher quality so I am leaning towards that although I am concerned it will be shy in the low end.

    This is for small gigs and gigs with good PA doing many styles on fretted and fretless 6-string bass. A friend of mine has the Avvie B210 NEO and really likes it. I respect his opinion. So I am in a quandry. BTW I am getting married so donations by way of congratulations or condolences (depending on how you see it) will not be rejected... :D
  2. Quadzilla

    Quadzilla Supporting Member

    A couple things:

    I've have/had both Avatar and Carvin cabs and the Avatars are constructed better and have better drivers. The Avatar horns are upgraded versions of the ones that Carvin was using in there Redline (or Redeye?) series. Both use Eminence speakers but the Avatar ones are the Delta's, Kappa's and NEO's vs the pretty much Gamma spec of the Carvin's. I felt that the cabs were more solid on the Avatars.

    Another thing that you should know is that Avatar just upgarded their crossovers to MUCH nicer units. There is a recent thread on this so do a search...

    Zilla - Out!
  3. slombovia


    Jul 15, 2003
    I am a determined follower of Jesus Christ and am a Mormon.
    Thanks for the tip! Very cool Dave is improving the product. I just read a couple threads on the crossover. So do the horns really sound better with the new crossover? Anyone?
  4. Eric Moesle

    Eric Moesle Supporting Member

    Sep 21, 2001
    Columbus OH
    No comparison. Carvin 2x10's are weak in the low end, moreso than any other 2x10's I've tried. Go with the Avatar . . .
  5. I had the Carvin RL210 and RL410 a few years ago and liked them.I had Peavey 210TX and 410TX before that and the Carvins had a better midrange but not enough bottom end.I ended up getting a pair of Eden 210XLTs and they had tighter low end,way better mids and smoother high end than either.I've still got one of the Edens and have an Avatar NEO 410.The Avatar doesn't have the mid bite of the Eden but it cuts through pretty well and has very good low end.Very tight sounding cabinet.I'd get the NEO over the Carvin for sure.