Look dude. We get it. Someone posted some facts that supported an argument, y'all bought it as gospel just because math somehow rules this roost and trusting your own ears sucks, and that flat out means that now everything that's come before it is now completely wrong, and the people still doing it are all stupids.
It's like that whole Pluto is no longer a planet thing. Oh wait.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/02/pluto-planet-solar-system/16578959/
Ok, silly analogy.
I could give a golly-goddamn that my 410 is not as efficient in delivery as a line-arrayed orientation of the same drivers, I like the form factor and it sounds good to my ears. Do you really want to waste your energy trying to convince me I'm supposedly wrong, as set by "the new standard" you believe? Spare me.
I used to work for the largest pro-audio enclosure manufacturer in the world. I was with them before the whole vertical column line array thing became the successor. Does not mean their previous systems didn't kick ass and sound amazing just the same. Same thing here.
That was a LOOOONNNNNNGGGGG time ago then. Vertical 410's were very common going back to the 60's.
Link Removed
that is from 1978, but the Shure vocal master is one of the more Iconic such systems.
Speakers in a box, refers to someone stuffing speakers in a general sized box with general tuning. In most cases, it works fairly well. At Avatar's budget prices, that isn't a bad deal at all.
What is funny, is that when one understands that there IS NO PERFECT BOX, they can clearly understand how the Eminence 3012LF can be correctly designed to work in a variety of enclosures, as an example. Greenboy's design comes about different trade-offs then Duke Lejeune's as an example, and gasp, Duke even uses multiple different boxes with the same drivers as a manner of juggling those trade-offs for different goals. Duke even goes a step further and has a specific box with 2 different speakers available to further juggle trade offs in a different manner. The 1533E and 1533B is what I am describing. If one wants more emphasis on their B- string, he chooses a different driver and optimizes the tuning to accomplish that task.
Dave, who's ultimate goal is a decent product at a ROCK BOTTOM price, juggles his trade-offs different. His number one goal, is to reuse the box. I think it's not impossible to suggest that he generally just shoots for a generally decent tuning in said box, and lives with the results. I don't think that is the worst juggling of trade-offs ever. He uses Neo drivers, and then uses 3/4" plywood to still sort of be able to produce lightweight boxes at BARGAIN BASEMENT prices. His direct to consumer model allows he to be in the budget spectrum of prices, while providing a drastically superior driver and end product then say... Acoustic provides.
He has mentioned several times that Eminence helped him design his original box-size and tuning based on his custom drivers. The fact that he re-uses those boxes and "perhaps" adjusts his tuning, or perhaps does not is the question. I would be willing to bet, that they work fairly well, and while someone could clearly design a box around those speakers that chose different trade-offs and could produce better results for them, that may not be the case for everyone, and clearly that would require a greater cost to consumer to do so.
He has his niche, and I think he does fine in that niche.
The "proof" that he isn't a world renowned audio engineer can be as simple as looking at the ill-fated 1510 design(which, BTW, is sort of a Triad copy, so SWR fell into the trap as well, once upon a time). But the true value of Avatar, is that he listened, and produced the TB153 which really fits a niche and improved upon said failed design. While it is far from perfect, it is a more well designed system then many boutique manufacturers produce. While a fearful is objectively better, it is also more then twice the cost. It better be better. Better mid driver, x-over, driver placement, etc.
I, personally, don't see the desire to bash Dave and his product line. No, it's not perfect, but at least I can see how and why he juggles his trade-offs how he does, and his budget price is what, to me, proves he does a good job of doing so. the fact that mesa, Aguilar and other so called Boutique manufacturers that charge an arm and a leg for similar balanced trade offs shows me that.
When one understands there is no perfect box, and that all it ever is, is a balancing of trade-offs, it shouldn't be too hard to see that Dave produces a "good" product at a fair price.
