Avatar B2x10 w/Kappalite 3010LF

madjazzbass

madjazzbass

Jan 5, 2014
2,662
1,900
5,081
Earth
#1
I recently found out that Avatar is now offering the Kappalite 3010LF's as an option for their B2x10 cab. I currently have the B2x10 w/ the Delta Pros and I wanna add a second 2x10 on top; (I'm running a Genz Benz Streamliner 900 head). I really like the B2x10's with the Delta Pros, BUT, the added deepness and more power handling of the Kappalite 3010LF's (in the same enclosure) sounds awesome! So here's the thing; I've heard/read that the Kappalite LF's aren't "that great" when it comes to mids. (I think my current B2x10 sounds great in the mids); so I'm wondering if I should add the Kappalite LF atop (or below) the Delta Pro cab., and mix them OR keep both cabs the same? ... and are the Kappalite LF's really bad when it comes to mids? I know there's another 2x10 cab that has the LF's, but I believe they also have a mid driver as well ... if I'm not mistaken; thoughts, suggestions, Thanks.
 
#3
TB is full of approved experts regarding any "mixing" driver topic. They very quickly join to any discussion/party when it comes to a querstion of mixing different drivers. They will tell you everything about phase concerns and midrange response and dispersion. I'm pretty sure they join in soon (as usual).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: madjazzbass
#5
popgadget said:
Are you sure it's the 3010LF and not the 3010HO?
The LF is a subwoofer, and really needs a midrange. The HO can be used full range.
Click to expand...
I copied and pasted this from the Avatar site; Available with the following drivers:
Delta Pro 10s 700 watt
Deltalite2 2510s +$50.00 500 watt
Faital Neo 10s +$50.00 600 watt
Kappalite 3010LF +$190.00 900 watt
 
#7
madjazzbass said:
Yeah, I'm thinking cause they're all (10's) the same size driver, just different specs. and ? power handling
Click to expand...
It's the specs that matter. The 3010LF has longer excursion than the others, so it can go louder in the lows, but if you're running them along with something else then the power you can put into them is limited by the shorter excursion of the other cab. You'd only get any real benefit from them with a stereo amp so that you could set their volume separately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: madjazzbass
#8
Rick James said:
It's the specs that matter. The 3010LF has longer excursion than the others, so it can go louder in the lows, but if you're running them along with something else then the power you can put into them is limited by the shorter excursion of the other cab. You'd only get any real benefit from them with a stereo amp so that you could set their volume separately.
Click to expand...
Ooooh! O.K. You learn something new everyday! well, not Every day, but ... Thanks Dude, I'll keep 'em both the same then.
 
#9
Some notes (as our generally reliable and very quick experts seemingly don't like to post on your topic)

The 3010LF has a very large Xmax therefore can potentially go louder at the lows. It's potentially because max loudness depends on distinct max input power.
Also the 3010LF is a distinctly bass woofer thus will produce enlarged low end.
But also the 3010LF suffers somewhat on efficience versus the Beta so the 3010LF is missing some loudness by same input power. That's around -3dB for the cab loaded with 3010LF. It's the same difference in loudness like power was halfed for the Beta loaded cab.

If that's ok for you then it's ok I think. The extra in SPL for both running will be around +4.7 dB instead of +6 dB for "matching" cabs.

But (for completenss) generally the approved TB experts don't suggest cabs with similar uneven efficience/SPL.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: madjazzbass
#10
ThisBass said:
Some notes (as our generally reliable and very quick experts seemingly don't like to post on your topic)

The 3010LF has a very large Xmax therefore can potentially go louder at the lows. It's potentially because max loudness depends on distinct max input power.
Also the 3010LF is a distinctly bass woofer thus will produce enlarged low end.
But also the 3010LF suffers somewhat on efficience versus the Beta so the 3010LF is missing some loudness by same input power. That's around -3dB for the cab loaded with 3010LF. It's the same difference in loudness like power was halfed for the Beta loaded cab.

If that's ok for you than it's ok I think. The extra in SPL for both running will be around +4.7 dB instead of +6 dB for "matching" cabs.

But (for completenss) generally the approved TB experts don't suggest cabs with similar uneven efficience/SPL.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Thanks Man; Actually, I just ordered another one of the B2x10's w/ the Delta Pros earlier today (the exact same cab.); that one 2x10 sounds great as a stand alone , but I have a Streamliner 900, I need to have another cab to utilize (almost) that heads "potential", Ha! ... every now and then I'll hear the cab. Popping telling me to "back off" a little on the volume dude! I'm pushing it too hard with all that power.
 
#11
Now the OP has made his decision (which I approve of FWIW), I felt like commenting on this interesting post about not mistaking volume displacement (max clean excursion times surface area of the cone) for a cure-all:
ThisBass said:
The 3010LF has a very large Xmax therefore can potentially go louder at the lows. It's potentially because max loudness depends on distinct max input power.
Also the 3010LF is a distinctly bass woofer thus will produce enlarged low end.
But also the 3010LF suffers somewhat on efficience versus the Beta so the 3010LF is missing some loudness by same input power. That's around -3dB for the cab loaded with 3010LF. It's the same difference in loudness like power was halfed for the Beta loaded cab.
Click to expand...
In fact I've made a recent post along the same lines:
HaphAsSard said:
Not even volume displacement matters in isolation. It's just a peak value. The complex of Thiele-Small parameters, the internal volume of the enclosure and its tuning if ported determine low end performance, and other aspects of driver construction shape its upper end response and efficiency.

I've been looking at a particular 15" driver with low Qts, high sensitivity starting from the upper bass region, but an overall rising profile in the lows for all possible tunings, and very high Vd. Thing is, many drivers with a much lower peak displacement figure would outperform it as far as SPL in the deep lows for a given input wattage, and perform "better" as far as balance of deep-to-high lows (sound fuller) because of the above mentioned rising profile. The Vd doesn't matter one jot until you start eq-pumping more lows into it, because it can take them in spades unlike the other drivers I compared it to, but that basically means it has poor efficiency in the lows, high Vd notwithstanding.

(Of course higher Vd also means more mechanical power handling and the possibility of getting higher volume across the board, but as said the driver I've alluded to specifically needs eqing in a healthy dose of lows not to sound lean, at any level.)

I've also seen an 8" driver or two (not the oft-praised Faital 8PR200) with Vd comparable to ten-inchers but lowish thermal power handling. You can get "small" and "deep-sounding" out of them but, unless used in multiples, not "loud" (per watt but also absolutely speaking) before they risk giving up the ghost.
Click to expand...
However, a post on yet another thread has made me consider other benefits of a high displacement driver:
alexclaber said:
Even if the other cabs were actually 102 or 103dB sensitivity then that's only the 1W sensitivity. A cab with greater thermal and excursion limited power handling will exhibit less power compression and thus can exhibit higher output with 100W or 500W than a cab which is more sensitive but has lower real world power handling.
Click to expand...
So, while it seemed reasonable to me that the advantage a high excursion driver has on a lower Xmax one only comes into play once you feed the former with more power that the latter could take mechanically (and after the often lower sensitivity handicap of the former is made up for), the lower duty driver actually starts falling short of its small-signal expectations significantly earlier than its clean power handling limit, which means the tortoise actually catches up with the hare earlier in the race.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: madjazzbass
#13
ThisBass said:
Hey bro, don't you miss the very quick experts too ? ;)
BTW I enjoy your well-conveived posting on TB. :)
Click to expand...
Aw, shucks! :oops:
Likewise, sir - although when you discuss tube amps in depth it's all seriously over my head...
I'm just a parrot with little experience but I mostly love it here and try to soak up as much knowledge as I can. I can benefit from info posted by many members, even those full of unqualified absolutes, condescending attitudes and unhealthy fanboyism, but I have to distill the useful part from the rest. Sometimes all it takes is two or three posts by a bona fide expert to demolish, or at least put in a much-needed perspective, some of the most quoted dogmas around here.
Of course, misconceptions and old wives' tales abound outside, and sometimes inside TB amps, so I do understand where some of the correcting fervour comes from. I just wish they'd tone it down a notch or two, and also be aware that some of the alleged truths deteriorate down the line, telephone game -style ("Stille Post", according to Wikipedia?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: madjazzbass
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back