 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Car Audio / October 2006MTX JackHammer: I want dat sh.t!
It got a 22" cone for real. It got a raw phatass magnet. It weigh 369 lbs. You need a 'Lade to haul the mofo. I want dat sh.t. I want dat sh.t!! Whiny librarian neighbor yakkin 'bout sleep. She say she gotta work AM. Fuk dat sh.t. I wake dat bitch up cause it all about ME and my fly rig. I wanna rock da hood from 1,000 yards, none o' dat 200 yard sh.t. U can't tuch dat, homes! Gimme dat MTX now, bitch! Aye, it pricey but I just steal some sh.t for cash. It all about ME. http://www.mtxaudio.com/caraudio/products/subwoofers/jackHammer.cfm "YOU'VE GOT THE RIDE. YOU'RE ROLLIN' ON DUB DUBS. STOP PLAYIN' WITH THOSE TINY 15s AND SHOW 'EM WHAT YOU'RE ALL ABOUT. EXCESS IS IT AND JACKHAMMER IS ALL ABOUT EXCESS!" Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) Was he writing in some other language because I didn't get any of that. MOSFET > It got a 22" cone for real. It got a raw phatass magnet. It weigh 369 > lbs. You need a 'Lade to haul the mofo. I want dat sh.t. I want dat [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) > Was he writing in some other language because I didn't get any of that. It be da language of da people wit da boom, biotch. Da language no chump can unnastand. Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) > It be da language of da people wit da boom, biotch. Da language no > chump can unnastand. Oh THANK GOD, I'm a chump!! I don't want to "unnastand". MOSFET > > Was he writing in some other language because I didn't get any of that. > > It be da language of da people wit da boom, biotch. Da language no > chump can unnastand. > > Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) Then take it off here to somewhere somebody gives a sh.t. If us "chumps" won't understand it you are just showing what a fool you are spending time posting it where we don't care.  SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > It got a 22" cone for real. It got a raw phatass magnet. It weigh 369 > lbs. You need a 'Lade to haul the mofo. I want dat sh.t. I want dat [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) Typical Gimp. Come wake me up,I'll make you EAT that fuckin speaker. > > Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) > > Typical Gimp. > > Come wake me up,I'll make you EAT that fuckin speaker. That response tells me you don't know ROT13. Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) Take your stupid sh.t somewhere else.Car audio isnt about having all bass.Its more then that dumbass. TroyT. > Take your stupid sh.t somewhere else.Car audio isnt about having all > bass.Its more then that dumbass. Do you know what ROT13 is? Hint: I'm wit you, homes. Guvf jnf fngver. On another topic; if you're going to use the word "dumbass" I'd fix those missing apostrophes, lack of spaces after periods and "then" where "than" should be. LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) > On another topic; if you're going to use the word "dumbass" I'd fix > those missing apostrophes, lack of spaces after periods and "then" > where "than" should be. And you need to learn proper sentence construction. > > On another topic; if you're going to use the word "dumbass" I'd fix > > those missing apostrophes, lack of spaces after periods and "then" > > where "than" should be. > > And you need to learn proper sentence construction. How so? at least i dont rite like this like so many ppls do Brad >>> Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yours truly, LBS (Ybjyvsr Obbzre Fphz) I know ROT13..and 47,and...anyways.. Fitting name. Wow, some things never change--there still isn't any shortage of trollers on USENET or people who are quick to pull out their flamethrowers. http://www.rot13.com/ Interesting. I wonder how it actually sounds. Seems pretty impractical to have a driver with a 21"+ mounting depth. Many moons ago, EV made a 30" speaker (I'm not sure it could be considered a subwoofer) and my shop actually installed one into the back of a Saab turbo. I never got a chance to listen to it, but I was told it was pretty impressive, despite its 15W power rating. When you've got that much cone on an efficient driver, I suppose you don't need much power. :-) -dan > Wow, some things never change--there still isn't any shortage of > trollers on USENET or people who are quick to pull out their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you've got that much cone on an efficient driver, I suppose you don't > need much power. :-) The frequency curves of "phat" stereos are far too exaggerated at the low end. It's not balanced sound. If true sound quality (not ego) is one's goal, I think you can do fine with one or two tight 8" subs in most cars. 10" tops. Bass beyond that is mostly about thug appeal. It overwhelms the other frequencies at any significant volume. The first time I rode in a "boom car" (mid 90s) I knew it was all for show. It quickly became unpleasant to listen to and physically annoying to be around. These fools drive around causing themselves pain and inflicting it on everyone else. The same mindset makes them endure low-rider cars with stiff, bumpy rides. Brad >The same mindset makes them endur >low-rider cars with stiff, bumpy rides >Bra Just because it rides low does not mean it has to be uncomfortable.. -- John > > Wow, some things never change--there still isn't any shortage of > > trollers on USENET or people who are quick to pull out their [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Brad Generally when asked they also state they are into good music. The unfortunate part is that in a couple of years, if not already, they won't be able to hear the very music they claim they enjoy. What I really think they enjoy, is pi**ing off everyone else around them or calling attention to themselves, not truly enjoying the music. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > > The first time I rode in a "boom car" (mid 90s) I knew it was all for > > show. It quickly became unpleasant to listen to and physically annoying [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What I really think they enjoy, is pi**ing off everyone else around them > or calling attention to themselves, not truly enjoying the music. ThugBass is an attempt by the "societally-wronged" to even the score. They be slingin' some powah bak at da oppressors. Too bad they can't just clean up their own stupid act. Thug lineage goes way back. Brad bac6567@yahoo.com Wrote: > > > The first time I rode in a "boom car" (mid 90s) I knew it was al > fo [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Brad This guy is basically saying, "I HATE NIGGERS! I HATE NIGGERS! I HAT NIGGERS! -- flak_monkey > ... I think you can do fine with one or two tight 8" subs in > most cars. 10" tops. Bass beyond that is mostly about thug appeal. It > overwhelms the other frequencies at any significant volume. Not if you do it right.. I have a pair of 12's and my system is balanced very nicely. In fact I have identical amps running my subs and the inside 4 corners. I def. wouldn't consider my car a boom car, although I can if I want to.. Plenty of ppl in this forum who aren't boomers have 12's or better. 12's or 15's are fine for non-boomers, you just can't neglect the rest of the system. > The first time I rode in a "boom car" (mid 90s) I knew it was all for > show. It quickly became unpleasant to listen to and physically annoying > to be around. These fools drive around causing themselves pain and > inflicting it on everyone else. The same mindset makes them endure > low-rider cars with stiff, bumpy rides. 'Unpleasant'? Obviously a fukd up system.. I only really pound on the freeway where I'm not bothering anyone.. If that's pain, then it's glorious beautiful pain! When I'm in town I have more respect than that.. I'd actually be embarrassed to be sitting there at a red light pounding away with everyone looking at me like 'WTF?!' I'm not in high school anymore! Even if I didn't give a sh.t, I'd turn it down anyway so nobody would follow me home and gank my system! I'm not trying to advertise........ its all show n ya can talk. otheria wise walk..lol ya see homeyyyy.these guys here all drive ole buicks n caddys. like 15 yrs old..anything else is just for show...lol now i'm no fan of mtx...but the measurements i read tells me you wouldnt be able to take the volume inside the car.... oh you betta have 6 strong batterys n a large cap......for the amp to run just that..... Brad, I am sorry about my first comment.I dont know rot13.I just cant stand people that have their bass ALL the way up so that all you hear is bass and their car about to rattel apart. I have seen the Jackhammers installed in a car and they actually ave this massive metal support bracket to hold it up. Again im sorry TroyT Damn newbies. >Brad, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >TroyT > Damn newbies. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > >TroyT How to identify a r.a.c newbie. http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/newbie.htm SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} I got news for you--the spam ain't never going to stop. I had to kill my original e-mail address bigdan at kreft dot net after getting deluged with spam. About 7 years later, I figured that I'd revive it and as soon as I did, I got deluged with spam again. Once your address finds its way onto those jokers' cd-roms or dvds, it ain't never coming off because, as I understand it, they get paid by the address. One think you could do is use http://groups.google.com/, which will automatically obfuscate your e-mail address for you. It's not as full-featured as a "real" news-reader, but it serves the purpose. :-) -dan I. Care, I am not an R.A.C newbie. TroyT. > I. Care, > I am not an R.A.C newbie. > > TroyT. My reply was to Captain_Howdy who made the comment about newbies. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > My reply was to Captain_Howdy who made the comment about newbies. Geez, if you spent your time answering every one of Howdy's insults, you'd go crazy. Ignore him while you can!!! Just look at me!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! MOSFET (do you want to end up like this?) ok. sounded like it was towards me TroyT. > http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/newbie.htm I took a look at "TeamRoc". You have to kind of wonder about an organization that has in it's FAQ "Does TeamRoc Accept Homosexuals?". I mean, does that issue really come up a lot (I am not trying to say whether being gay is wrong or not, it just seemed an odd place for that issue to pop up)? Also, $50 membership seems a little steep for what you get, which is basically nothing (well, a T-shirt) and membership in an "Internet Car Audio Club". I mean, IASCA is only $40 and you get a CD to help tune your car, rule book and most important, the ability to compete (if you can still find an IASCA sponsored event). But as far as online car audio goes, hell, RAC is free. MOSFET LOL This reminds me of someone on here that does not have his own car and thinks he is a Car Audio expert because he buys stereo magazines on Ebay, item # 9713556467, 9713766820, 9713766361, 9713765514, 9713556088, 9713555566. He will LIE and he will CRY, we all seen that. This is just too funny, a hoot in fact. >How to identify a r.a.c newbie. > >http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/newbie.htm Oh, you seem to be talking about me, yet again. Those weren't car stereo magazines you bonehead. They were very old issues of Audiophile (I'm a collector) which has NOTHING to do with car audio. Yet, again, you prove what a TOTAL moron you are. MOSFET > LOL This reminds me of someone on here that does not have his own car and > thinks he is a Car Audio expert because he buys stereo magazines on Ebay, item [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > >http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/newbie.htm bbahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa You're a collector alright hahahahahahha I think that you summed up your moron status in the battery charger thread. heheheheheheheeheheheheheh >Oh, you seem to be talking about me, yet again. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > >> >http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/newbie.htm > bbahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > heheheheheheheeheheheheheh Yeh, sure Bob (I mean Howdy), whatever you say. MOSFET > [...snip...] Do you have to ruin every thread you "participate" in? Seriously, can't you just stop with the public mocking and just e-mail Nick privately and duke it out with him behind the scenes? I have no problem with joking around and having fun; but this sort of prolonged, childish harassment is incredibly tiresome. -dan And furthermore (this is NOT directed towards Howdy). Why is there anything wrong with car audio magazines? I haven't bought one in about 6 years, but LONG ago, they were a key source of info regarding competitions (IASCA information), how-to info, test-reports, and so on. Now we have the internet (I'm talking very early 90's) so I personally don't find car audio magazines very useful or relevant (today they just seem like one big advertisement). But I do treasure my very old car stereo magazines (I have all the CSR and CA&E's going back to 1989). It's fun to flip through those old magazines and marvel at the changes in technology. The idea that car audio mags= RAC newbie is ridiculous. I am certainly no newbie here (I have been surfing RAC for over 11 years, worked in the industry at Phoenix Gold, and competed for years in IASCA). I have been into car audio for over 22 years now. There is nothing wrong with car audio mags. MOSFET > I ... worked in the industry at Phoenix Gold I didn't know that. What did you do there? How long did you work at PG? And, if it's not too personal of a question, why did you leave? -dan I worked in the marketing dept. (I have an MBA from the University of Portland) from 2000-2001, Keith Peterson hired me. At that time, I was also a college professor at the University of Portland. I taught an evening class on Consumer Behavior to both graduates and undergrads. Before that, I had worked 10 years as an executive at AT&T. I was forced to quit both jobs and move back to my home town of Stanwood, Washington in late 2001 because my father had a heart attack and I was needed to help run my family's company, Tanner Properties. We own office buildings, apartment complexes, rental houses, etc. That is what I still do today and to be totally honest, I don't miss the "rat-race" AT ALL. I like being 'the boss" and living in my home town suits my wife and I just fine. Furthermore, with the sale of Phoenix Gold and Keith no longer at the helm, I'm not sure I would have still wanted to work there. Nicholas Tanner aka MOSFET > > I ... worked in the industry at Phoenix Gold > > I didn't know that. What did you do there? How long did you work at PG? > And, if it's not too personal of a question, why did you leave? > > -dan Enough said, you made fliers for PG. WOW an executive at AT&T at the age of 22-23 you should of been a CEO by the time you quit. >I worked in the marketing dept. (I have an MBA from the University of >Portland) from 2000-2001, Keith Peterson hired me. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> -dan Wow. Quite an illustrious career. All I've done since kollege is play basketball and write software. :-) > I was forced to quit both jobs and move back to my home town of Stanwood, That makes you and I pretty much neighbors--I live in Kirkland. :-) > Furthermore, with the sale of Phoenix Gold and Keith no longer at the helm, > I'm not sure I would have still wanted to work there. Yeah, Steve at JL told me that the industry as a whole has kinda taken a slide...MB Quart, Precision Power, PG all changed hands and haven't been the same since. :-( -dan > Wow. Quite an illustrious career. All I've done since kollege is play > basketball and write software. :-) > > > I was forced to quit both jobs and move back to my home town of Stanwood, > > That makes you and I pretty much neighbors--I live in Kirkland. :-) Did you go to the Udub? That's where I got my undergraduate degree. I got hired by AT&T right out of business school at the UofW. And then I got part of my Master's degree at Seattle University (AT&T paid for my Masters so I decided to go to the most expensive school I could, heh, heh) before AT&T transferred me to Portland on a promotion. That's how I ended up in Portland and then finished my Master's at Uof P. Both SU and Uof P are private Catholic schools. Kirkland, wow, we're practically neighbors. Nick > Did you go to the Udub? No, Northwestern University. http://the.kreft.net/journals/ > Kirkland, wow, we're practically neighbors. Yeah, so uhh...just make sure you keep your lawn mowed and everything'll be cool between us. :-) -dan He might have added that by the time it changed hands - twice - PPI wasn't the same then, either :-) JD > Wow. Quite an illustrious career. All I've done since kollege is play > basketball and write software. :-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -dan The whole thing just screams your name, Misfit the junk collector. What did you do at Phoenix Gold other then sweep the parking lot? Where are all of your IASCA trophies, did your pet monkey eat them? You've have been into car audio for over 22 years now and you still don't know sh.t. That's why you give damaging advice just like your friend Bob. >The idea that car audio mags= RAC newbie is ridiculous. I am certainly no >newbie here (I have been surfing RAC for over 11 years, worked in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >MOSFET > The whole thing just screams your name, Misfit the junk collector. > What did you do at Phoenix Gold other then sweep the parking lot? > Where are all of your IASCA trophies, did your pet monkey eat them? > You've have been into car audio for over 22 years now and you still don't know > sh.t. That's why you give damaging advice just like your friend Bob. Yes, sure whatever you say Howdy. Take care, MOSFET > What did you do at Phoenix Gold other then sweep the parking lot? Oh boy, are we back on that one again? You think I'm lying? Listen Howdy, this is REAL simple. Call The University of Portland Business School and verify that Nicholas Victor Tanner got a Masters of Business Administration degree in 1995. Then call Phoenix Gold and verify that Nicholas Tanner worked there in their marketing dept. in 2000 (I believe they will tell you that much). THEN SHUT THE f.ck UP YOU MORON. Hey, and while we're at it, what high-school do you CLAIM to have graduated from? Will you give it to us like I just did for you so we can verify? Also, where do you work as a janitor? Can we verify that as well? Put up or shut up, moron. MOSFET > Also, where do you work as a janitor? Can we verify that as well? Hey man, my *mom* was a janitor...for the private school she had my two younger brothers in--it's the only way she could foot the bill. So back off the janitorial slams or I'll...uhh....I'll....hrmm....what will I do? I guess nothing, although given that only a couple hours' drive separates us, I *could* theoretically look you up in the phone book, drive to your house and "fork" your lawn. :-) In all seriousness, Nick, why not just put this guy in your killfile and ignore him for the rest of his days? Or do you find in the rage some form of catharsis? ;-) -dan > In all seriousness, Nick, why not just put this guy in your killfile > and ignore him for the rest of his days? Or do you find in the rage > some form of catharsis? ;-) > > -dan Sorry if I offended by the janitor remark. Nick > Sorry if I offended by the janitor remark. You didn't...just givin' ya a hard time. Had you going though, didn't I? :-) -dan > Had you going though, didn't I? :-) > > -dan I've got to keep my eye on you (from "Kingpin")! Nick I can't be killed, you silly little freak. >> Also, where do you work as a janitor? Can we verify that as well? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >-dan > Brad, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > TroyT No offense taken - but y'all still got dem kissin' periods and jungle spelling. ;] Qng EBG13 furrlhg or byq fpubby Hfrarg. Brad > > ... I think you can do fine with one or two tight 8" subs in > > most cars. 10" tops. Bass beyond that is mostly about thug appeal. It [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > boomers have 12's or better. 12's or 15's are fine for non-boomers, you > just can't neglect the rest of the system. But why are 12's really necessary? I'm sure you know that woofer diameter is unrelated to frequency extension. It only helps boost the SPL. You can go below 20hz inside your skull with good earbuds (i.e. Sony Fontopia), so driver size is only relative to the space you're filling. Considering that a typical car has less than half the air-space of a small bathroom, big woofers can be overkill. That is, unless you drive around with the windows open and the pressure isn't contained. I'm sure you can run 12's in a mellow way but to me they just waste cargo space and may not sound as tight. A single Bazooka 8" has been quite adequate inside my truck cab and I can easily feel 35hz. > > The first time I rode in a "boom car" (mid 90s) I knew it was all for > > show. It quickly became unpleasant to listen to and physically annoying [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > so nobody would follow me home and gank my system! I'm not trying to > advertise........ Well, you can control the boom urge, but the mofos who can't are everywhere! They think they look as cool as others think they look stupid. Yes, that was a logical sentence. Brad > But why are 12's really necessary? I'm sure you know that woofer > diameter is unrelated to frequency extension. It only helps boost the > SPL. Are you saying that an 8 can hit a low as well as a 12? Totally wrong, here's a couple quick examples from the mfr's own web sites: Kicker L7 8" - 28-100 Hz Kicker L7 12" - 20-100Hz Pioneer Premier TS-SW841D - 30-1500 Hz Pioneer Premier TS-SW1241D - 18-1000 Hz Size DOES appear to be related to freq. response.... As for "It only helps boost the SPL.", well hell yeah it does! I've had 10's, 12's, and 15's in the past. The bigger, the louder, AND the lower. If you're happy at a level of SPL and SQ that 8's can give you, then that's great! You'll spend a lot less $, and you'll have more room in your trunk. I personally require more than that. bac6567@yahoo.com wrote > But why are 12's really necessary? I'm sure you know that woofe > diameter is unrelated to frequency extension. It only helps boost th > SPL >Are you saying that an 8 can hit a low as well as a 12? Totally wrong >here's a couple quick examples from the mfr's own web sites >Kicker L7 8" - 28-100 H >Kicker L7 12" - 20-100H >Pioneer Premier TS-SW841D - 30-1500 H >Pioneer Premier TS-SW1241D - 18-1000 H Neither of you know much do you -- John > Neither of you know much do you? Care to explain what your problem is? Bigger subs are louder and lower. Am I wrong? > Are you saying that an 8 can hit a low as well as a 12? Totally wrong, > here's a couple quick examples from the mfr's own web sites: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Pioneer Premier TS-SW841D - 30-1500 Hz > Pioneer Premier TS-SW1241D - 18-1000 Hz Again, I'd like to remind everyone that comparing subwoofers outside of an enclosure is pretty much meaningless. > Size DOES appear to be related to freq. response.... It would appear that way, but in reality it has more to do with the Vd--which is the volume of air that the speaker can displace, and the resonant frequency of the driver (Fs) [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiel/Small]. It's a simple matter of physics and the frequency response of the human ear. Physics: Any object with mass X is going to have a lower resonant frequency than an object of the same material with a mass less than X. Basically, the heavier something is, the lower the frequency it is going to be at which it will "want" to vibrate (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE for a great example of a massive system whose undamped low-frequency osscilations caused its destruction). The unfortunate part about this is that we get nothing for free--as you increase the moving mass of the system, you reduce its efficiency. As you reduce its efficiency, you must increase power to get the same output. As you increase power, you drive the speaker to its physical and thermal limits. To increase the Xmax of the driver to get more output from the smaller driver at low frequencies, you start running into practical limitations of conventional loudspeaker design, namely a great difficulty in designing a suspension that is capable of remaining somewhat linear throughout a very large travel. And as Xmax increases, you have to put a bigger and bigger motor on the back of that subwoofer in order to "wrench" it back and forth so rapidly over so great a distance--which puts incredible amounts of acceleration on the driver at the top and bottom of it's stroke. So then you have to re-design your cone to handle the stress. It's the loudspeaker equivalent of buying a rice burner (e.g. Honda, Toyota) and trying to make it perform like a Corvette. There are two ways around this: buy a bigger engine, or use a bunch of smaller engines. Just like with most other things in life, the less you "rag on" a subwoofer, the better it will sound and the longer it will last. But as it happens, buying a small number of larger drivers is usually more economical than it is to buy a large number of smaller drivers. [Side note: my shop once built a single-reflex bandpass in cab of a small extended-cab pickup truck that had 16 pairs of iso-loaded JL Audio 8W2s in it. The whole system was run by *one* amplifier--a "100 Watt" Precision Power "cheater amp" and the bass produced by that enclosure had very good LF extension and was also *very* painful to sit in...I didn't like it at all, but it was pretty impressive.] Human ear: To make things more difficult for the bass-o-phile, the human ear was not designed to be sensitive at low frequencies. God thought that it was "very good" to give us ears that were sensitive to higher frequencies (it's no accident that a baby's cry is *right* smack dab in the middle of our most sensitive region). Sensitivity to higher frequencies also makes it possible to quickly and accurately pinpoint the location of noises (possible danger) coming at us. Check out this plot and note how much more energy has to be applied in the lower-registers to achieve the same perceived loudness as some of the higher frequencies: http://www.extron.com/technology/img/loudnesscontrol_ts_2-lg.jpg If you want your system to sound "flat", your RTA would ideally would look like one of those curves. Only problem is that our ears are not linear w.r.t. SPL...the louder things get, the more those curves flatten out--so the highs begin to take over again when things get hecka-loud. > As for "It only > helps boost the SPL.", well hell yeah it does! I've had 10's, 12's, > and 15's in the past. The bigger, the louder, AND the lower. Not if you put them all in the same-sized box. Remember...it's positively meaningless to compare drivers outside of their enclosures. Absolutely meaningless. So don't do it--it sounds silly when you do. > If you're happy at a level of SPL and SQ that 8's can give you, then > that's great! You'll spend a lot less $, and you'll have more room in > your trunk. I personally require more than that. I dunno, sir, it sounds to me a bit like you've fallen for the old "mo' bigga, mo' betta'" wive's tale. I'd be interested to know what well-designed small-driver systems you've actually tried-out for yourself. I'm not saying you *haven't* actually experimented with smaller drivers--just curious--because my experience tells me that typically, it's a matter of prejudice. When I was a salesman at Speaker Warehouse in Hollywood, FL, I would go through this all the time with kids who'd come in and "poo-poo" smaller drivers because they couldn't "quad" hard enough. So, I'd take them out to my car and ask them to sit and listen for a little bit. I'd then turn the stereo down and ask them what they thought they were listening to in terms of driver size, number and amp power. I'd typically get responses like "500W and a pair of 12-inch subs" or something crazy like that. Then I'd take them around, open the hatch and show them a single 10" in a single-reflex bandpass powered by half of a 50x4. There wasn't one person to whom I showed my car that wasn't floored. [My manager at another store used the same approach with a pair of JL Audio 8W2's in a single-reflex bandpass powered by a PPI 30x2, and he got similar responses!!!!] Then we'd go inside and I'd run the numbers for them "This is how much it costs to do to your car what I have in my car......now here's what it'd cost to put in your car what you *thought* I had in my car....." But the approach didn't really get me *that* many sales. Want to know why? Because these guys couldn't see themselves pulling up in the parking lot of their local movie theatre and impressing their buddies with "only a 10" or "only a pair of 8's" because after all, to them big sound didn't mean jack unless you had big subwoofers to go along with it. "Yeah, Dan's got a single 10 that sounds like a pair of 12's, but Joe has a pair of 12's!!!!". Smaller drivers just wouldn't stroke their egos hard enough. :-\ -dan > > As for "It only > > helps boost the SPL.", well hell yeah it does! I've had 10's, 12's, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > positively meaningless to compare drivers outside of their enclosures. > Absolutely meaningless. So don't do it--it sounds silly when you do. You're right, and I agree with pretty much everything you said, including the above statement.. However, people don't put 8's and 12's in the same size box.. Even most dummies could tell you larger subs go in larger boxes. If anyone could get a single 10 to sound like my 2 12's, then I can't even imagine what that same person could make my 12's sound like! I guess I needed to qualify that with "given equally optimal enclosures". Given equally optimal enclosures, the bigger drivers will be louder and hit lower. I can't possibly be wrong about this? > I'm not saying you *haven't* actually experimented with > smaller drivers--just curious--because my experience tells me that > typically, it's a matter of prejudice. The smallest sub box I ever personally tried was a single 10. And I wasn't impressed.. I had a dual 10 box after that, it was ok, better, but nothing close to what I have now.. I've never seen anyone with a single 10 OR a dual 10 that compares to what I have. But my experience is limited, so idk.. When I had the 2 10's, an install shop quoted me something like $250 to build a custom enclosure. Hell, that cost more than the subs themselves! MAYBE it woulda been worth it, but I didn't beleive it would be at the time, based on other systems with 10's that I'd heard. I dont build boxes, I guess I'm afraid I'd waste hours and hours trying to build the perfect enclosure, then not even be able to notice the difference. That's assuming I could obtain plans for this perfect enclosure. I just have a pre-fab ported MTX box that came with 2 12's I bought like 10 years ago. I've upgraded the subs since then. I know the dimensions of the box are close to what JL says the recommended enclosure is, and I know it's the loudest, hardest pounding system I've ever had. > You're right, and I agree with pretty much everything you said, > including the above statement.. However, people don't put 8's and 12's > in the same size box.. Even most dummies could tell you larger subs go > in larger boxes. That's also not true. A JL Audio 8W2 (we're talking old-school, here) worked really well in about 1.75 cubic feet, ported. A JL Audio 12W6 would also work in 1.75 cubic feet, sealed. Granted, the 12W6 wouldn't be in its optimal box--it prefers an even *smaller* box--1.25, sealed. > If anyone could get a single 10 to sound like my 2 12's, then I can't > even imagine what that same person could make my 12's sound like! I don't know about *your* 12's, but I've personally listened to JL Audio subs in SRBP boxes that I or my co-workers have designed that were just....sick (read: "very loud"). > I guess I needed to qualify that with "given equally optimal enclosures". > Given equally optimal enclosures, the bigger drivers will be louder > and hit lower. I can't possibly be wrong about this? Yes, you could. :-) Because then I could hand you a 10" E/V loudspeaker (which is actually a professional midrange) and compare it to a 10" subwoofer, and the subwoofer would play lower, while the E/V would be "infinitely" louder. You'd also have to define what "equally optimal" means. You'd also be wrong because you're not saying louder at what frequency. A sealed box has a characteristic roll-off of 12dB/octave below F3, ported boxes 18dB/octave or higher depending upon the alignment. Everyone says that ported boxes are more "efficient" but if you look low enough in the frequency response curve of the ported box (below F3), you'll find that the output is actually *far* less than that of the sealed box, even though the sealed box is "less efficient." It'd also be wrong because professional subs (like the kind you see at concerts) are more efficient than car audio subs, so it's not even fair there. See the can of worms you've opened up for yourself when you try to make generalizations like this? :-) > The smallest sub box I ever personally tried was a single 10. And I > wasn't impressed.. I had a dual 10 box after that, it was ok, better, > but nothing close to what I have now.. I've never seen anyone with a > single 10 OR a dual 10 that compares to what I have. But my experience > is limited, so idk.. You could have saved me a bunch of typing by qualifying this up front. ;-) When you speak from limited experience, it's usually best for all concerned to humbly state that up front so people know how to weigh your comments. No harm has been done, but it's just a good idea in general to be forthcoming with these little details. :-) > When I had the 2 10's, an install shop quoted me something like $250 to > build a custom enclosure. Hell, that cost more than the subs > themselves! MAYBE it woulda been worth it, but I didn't beleive it > would be at the time, based on other systems with 10's that I'd heard. I couldn't comment on the enclosure or the price unless I knew what they planned to build. If it were a bandpass enclosure, then yeah, I can see $250. If it had a bunch of angles or involved any amount of fiberglass work, then yeah, I can see that. If it was a simple plain-Jane ported or sealed box, then I'd want to know what material they were using to make the box. :-) > I dont build boxes, I guess I'm afraid I'd waste hours and hours trying > to build the perfect enclosure, then not even be able to notice the > difference. That's assuming I could obtain plans for this perfect > enclosure. Well, you see, that's why some people get paid to do this. If you already have the drivers, contact your dealer for the optimal box configuration for you (e.g. "A sealed box of X cu.ft. or a ported box of X cu.ft. and a port that's Y by Z")...but if you're looking for maximum SPL (requiring a more efficient enclosure like a SRBP), that's more involved and requires more work--something the manufacturer will typically draw-up for you for free (I designed *lots* of bandpass enclosures for people when I served as a Technical Support Specialist for JL Audio :-). > I just have a pre-fab ported MTX box that came with 2 12's > I bought like 10 years ago. I've upgraded the subs since then. I know > the dimensions of the box are close to what JL says the recommended > enclosure is, and I know it's the loudest, hardest pounding system I've > ever had. So now you're comparing different *brands* of speakers in addition to comparing different sizes? Ouch...that's not comparing apples to oranges, that's like apples and automobiles. :-) How close is "close"? And did you make sure the port was acceptable for use with your JL subs? Sounds to me like you got really lucky here. -dan > You'd also have to define what "equally optimal" means. > You'd also be wrong because you're not saying louder at what frequency. > See the can of worms you've opened up for yourself when you try to make > generalizations like this? :-) Yess, I see.. My bad for making assumptions, like that ppl would know I was talking about car subs and not PA gear! Seriously, I DO understand that there's a ton of 'if' and 'depends on' in my statements that I didn't specify very well... > How close is "close"? And did you make sure the port was acceptable for > use with your JL subs? Sounds to me like you got really lucky here. Good question, I know the box volume is almost exactly right. Ports, no idea.. So I measured my box/ports, and got the specs for the recomended enclosure from the JL manual. I downloaded WinISD and entered both. WinISD and the JL manual didn't exactly agree about the tuning frequency for the recommended box, so IDK what the problem there is.. Anyway, my box looks to me like it's slightly more SPL oriented, but fairly close. http://www.recoilrocks.com/images/subboxes.jpg The blue line is my box, the magenta one is the recommended. The green line is something I may be interested in building. Is it worth going that low, or do you not even really hear those frequencies anyway? Should I go for a sharper peak at some higher freq, say around 30 Hz, and let it drop off faster below that? I guess I don't know what the ideal curve should look like.. I'll probably be starting a new thread with more questions.. >> You'd also have to define what "equally optimal" means. >> You'd also be wrong because you're not saying louder at what frequency. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >is.. Anyway, my box looks to me like it's slightly more SPL oriented, >but fairly close. Actually, you can compute all you want, but that does not guarantee its going to be right. You would assume that the manufacturer specs are correct. If anyone builds boxes, then some checks should be made. Other than measuring parameters, one can do a quick check to see if everything comes out OK. (one should always measure free air resonance if possible, that will tell you if most of the manufacturers specs are good in the ballpark) Basically, the port will minimize cone excursion above the low end frequency where the port will loose effect. I usually just enter a sine wave tone above the low end cutoff. Its not very critical. Turn up the volume until you can see the cone moving. Put your hand near the port, or a port. The cone excursion should increase. There is usually a big difference in cone motion. If not, the port may be too long, where the only thing you can do is cut off part of the port length. I have done this many times, and it includes minor changes in box size and losses. greg http://www.recoilrocks.com/images/subboxes.jpg >The blue line is my box, the magenta one is the recommended. The green >line is something I may be interested in building. Is it worth going [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'll probably be starting a new thread with more questions.. >>> You'd also have to define what "equally optimal" means. >>> You'd also be wrong because you're not saying louder at what frequency. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >off part of the port length. I have done this many times, and it includes minor >changes in box size and losses. I forgot to say, if the cones excursion dimishes when you put your hand near the port, then the port is too short, or too large in diameter. greg > Other than measuring parameters, one can do a quick check to > see if everything comes out OK. (one should always measure free air > resonance if possible, that will tell you if most of the manufacturers specs are good > in the ballpark) Maybe it's just my experience having worked with high quality subs for the entirety of my car audio career, but I for one have never measured nor even heard of any shop actually doing this...and I've never built a box to JL's specs that has sounded anything less than stellar. Yes, there are going to be slight deviations in actual measurements, but I don't think there's anything worth concerning oneself over to the point of jumping through all these hoops. We're talking about a lot of extra tweaking for dubious benefit. > Basically, the port will minimize cone excursion above the low end frequency > where the port will loose effect. In other words, "the tuning frequency of the port." > I usually just enter a sine wave tone above > the low end cutoff. Its not very critical. Turn up the volume until [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off part of the port length. I have done this many times, and it includes minor > changes in box size and losses. As long as we're playing around with sine-wave generators (which I don't suppose many do-it-yourselfers have), it seems to me that a much simpler approach, without all the hand-waving ( is to simply find the *actual* Fb and compare that frequency with the frequency you were attempting to hit with your design. You'll know you've hit the Fb when cone movement is minimized and there's a hurricane coming out of your port. If the actual Fb is too high, lengthen the port; if it's too low, shave a bit off. If you've got enough power, this is also a good way to see if you need to either do some more rounding of the port edges (whistling at resonance) or use a larger-diameter port (excessive huffing). -dan >> Other than measuring parameters, one can do a quick check to >> see if everything comes out OK. (one should always measure free air [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >(whistling at resonance) or use a larger-diameter port (excessive >huffing). There are CD's and you could probably make MP3's with various tones instead of using a generator. I have test CD's around I have not even had a chance to use. I have been doing things using generators and such, even measured the parameters once using the online calculations from..... http://www.kbapps.com/ But, I have used all kinds of drivers over the years, many cheap, but few expensive. I also intentionaly alter driver weights sometimes to lower resonant frequency. I like the idea of using sealed box woofers. It just seems natural to have a better response match for cars. Perhaps one cannot hear 20 Hz, but you sure can feel it. greg > Good question, I know the box volume is almost exactly right. Ports, > no idea.. So I measured my box/ports, and got the specs for the > recomended enclosure from the JL manual. I downloaded WinISD and > entered both. WinISD and the JL manual didn't exactly agree about the > tuning frequency for the recommended box, so IDK what the problem there > is.. The problem is that modeling takes guesses--the recommendations that JL Audio makes are based upon modeling with better software *and* with lots of experimentation by people with really good ears. > Anyway, my box looks to me like it's slightly more SPL oriented, > but fairly close. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > line is something I may be interested in building. Is it worth going > that low, or do you not even really hear those frequencies anyway? 10ft^3???? Oh my goodness. Yeah, that *might* work for a home setup. Putting a box with such low extension into a vehicle will very likely wind up sounding really...."thuddy". Remember that the interior of the vehicle boosts low frequencies at a rate of roughly 12dB/octave, which will likely result in a greatly over-exaggerated LF response--great for reproducing subsonics and giggling your colon; not so great for making music that doesn't fatigue the brain (and body). Without actually considering the input power you're supplying, I can't say whether that would be even safe to do. I don't know what the Vas of a 10W3 is, but if it's anything less than 10ft^3, then you'd essentially be making an infinite-baffle setup which can lead you into mechanical problems. Does WinISD give you the ability to plot excursion as well as frequency? You should plot that as well. The problem with ported boxes is that below Fb (in your case, 40 Hz), the subwoofer will basically unload and play as if it were in "free-air". In other words, the controlling force that the box exerts on the driver disappears and the only thing controlling the driver is its suspension--which means that if you listen to anything with much content below 40Hz, you're stressin' your driver pretty hard (well, relatively speaking...I don't recall you saying how much power you were applying to each driver). > Should I go for a sharper peak at some higher freq, say around 30 Hz, > and let it drop off faster below that? I guess I don't know what the > ideal curve should look like.. The "ideal curve"...depends upon what your system goals are and what kind of music you typically listen to. If we start getting too deep into this, I'm going to have to punt you over to JL Audio technical support. I don't have a Reference Manual for JL Audio's new stuff (I don't even know if I still have my 10-year-old manual, come to think of it :-) so all I'm going to be able to do is give you general guidance. -dan > 10ft^3???? Oh my goodness. Yeah, that *might* work for a home setup. The 10 cu ft box is for 2 12's, JL 12w3v2's, so it's actually 5 cu ft per driver. I'm running 280 rms into each one. The default box WinISD gave me for 2 12w3v2's was 16 cu ft, which was +- 1 db of linear down to 19Hz, and tuned to 20.43 Hz! It basically looks the same as the green line, with the left dropoff shifted left by 10 Hz. > Does WinISD give you the ability to plot excursion > as well as frequency? You should plot that as well. It does, and I did. Xmax is .51", and I played with the tuning and size until that box peaked right at the xmax line, at 35 Hz. At freq's below 20 Hz, it climbs significantly above Xmax again, but less than my current box, and I haven't blown my subs yet. http://www.recoilrocks.com/images/conex.jpg That's after I added on a highpass xover at 20 Hz, which I read was recommended to curb the high excursion at extremely low freq's. > The "ideal curve"...depends upon what your system goals are and what > kind of music you typically listen to. Well, as it's been noted, I like it loud, but I guess I'm not sure what freq's I'm looking for. My current box's SPL peak is about 55Hz according to WinISD, and freq's below 30 Hz are practically non-existant. I think it's safe to say I wanna flatten out that 55Hz peak and move it lower. To where? IDK, 30 Hz? 35? 45? No idea. IDK how low is just impractical though. I'm willing to give up some SPL for SQ, but if you can't even hear 20 Hz anyway, no point in building a box to play 20 Hz well. It's plainly obvious there's a lot more area under the green SPL curve that the other 2 though. I'm giving up 5db at 55Hz and gaining 12db at 25. I'm a metal head. In Flames, Lamb of God, Soilwork, etc.. Double-bass and a lot of screaming. Sometimes I like hiphop or rap, but mostly metal. The double bass gives me a nice back massage whenever I'm driving anywhere! > If we start getting too deep into this, I'm going to have to punt you > over to JL Audio technical support. I don't have a Reference Manual for > JL Audio's new stuff (I don't even know if I still have my 10-year-old > manual, come to think of it :-) so all I'm going to be able to do is > give you general guidance. That's ok, I'm learning more and more, now you got me on a mission.. A sheet of mdf doesn't cost THAT much, I suppose I could try a couple diff. boxes. We'll see how it goes, Yes, Dan, you're right, size of the driver (by itself) has little to do with frequency response. Example: Heaphone Speakers - Has anyone mentioned that little paradox yet? My tiny speakers on my Grado's go down to 25 Hz. Yet they have a diameter of 2". Obviously other physics besides speaker diameter are at work here. Also, I remember once an IASCA competitor (Dan, you might know who I'm talking about) who used a bank of 4" drivers as his "subwoofers". They apparently were capabale of producing significant output down to 20 Hz (of course, cabin gain plays a big part here). MOSFET > > You're right, and I agree with pretty much everything you said, > > including the above statement.. However, people don't put 8's and 12's [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > -dan > Also, I remember once an IASCA competitor (Dan, you might know who I'm > talking about) who used a bank of 4" drivers as his "subwoofers". They > apparently were capabale of producing significant output down to 20 Hz (of > course, cabin gain plays a big part here). I don't remember his name, but I think I remember the brand of driver: G&S. Those things were pretty stinking beefy (my shop used to sell 'em). -dan Also, even cheap $20 Koss "The Plug" earplug type headphones will go as low as 10Hz (at least, that's what is listed in the specs on the package). They probably aren't more than 1/2 inch in diameter, and yet they do reproduce very low bass. (Although that type of headphone probably qualifies as a transducer, rather than a loudspeaker magnet/voicecoil/cone type of driver design.) > Yes, Dan, you're right, size of the driver (by itself) has little to do with > frequency response. [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > > > -dan > > > As for "It only > > > helps boost the SPL.", well hell yeah it does! I've had 10's, 12's, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in the same size box.. Even most dummies could tell you larger subs go > in larger boxes. But the "box" is ultimately the car's interior volume, assuming the woofer is properly mounted. If you compare the typical boom-car set up to what people install in homes, it's extreme overkill at the low end. You can tell when someone's critically listening or just broadcasting. > The smallest sub box I ever personally tried was a single 10. And I > wasn't impressed.. I had a dual 10 box after that, it was ok, better, > but nothing close to what I have now.. I've never seen anyone with a > single 10 OR a dual 10 that compares to what I have. But my experience > is limited, so idk.. But how loud are you playing it? Just being louder than the next guy has little to do with music quality. This country has a big ThugWoofer problem. You may be a decent guy but you could be angering people and not knowing it. Many victims don't complain because they fear criminal retaliation. ThugBass comes off like beating war drums or doing a Haka. Challenge back the average bass-head and you get a lot of belligerence. They are already aware that it bothers people but they choose to keep doing it. Brad > The unfortunate part about this is that we get nothing for free--as you > increase the moving mass of the system, you reduce its efficiency. As [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > buying a rice burner (e.g. Honda, Toyota) and trying to make it perform > like a Corvette. Good explanation of why many larger cones sound "looser." (No, that's not the usual typo for "loser.") > > If you're happy at a level of SPL and SQ that 8's can give you, then > > that's great! You'll spend a lot less $, and you'll have more room in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > smaller drivers--just curious--because my experience tells me that > typically, it's a matter of prejudice. There's tons of ego involved in car stereos, but I do have a 12" sub in my home system because I'm filling a much bigger volume. What's funny is that I only need a single 12" driver for a 20x20 ft living room, while these jokers put banks of them in SUVs with maybe 1/10th the airspace. That much pressure cannot be good for the inner ear. I just wish nature would make them go deaf or get tinnitus in time for me to sleep! > When I was a salesman at Speaker Warehouse in Hollywood, FL, I would go > through this all the time with kids who'd come in and "poo-poo" smaller [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > single 10" in a single-reflex bandpass powered by half of a 50x4. There > wasn't one person to whom I showed my car that wasn't floored. And of course most music (except for synthesized bass) rarely goes below 30 Hz or even 40 Hz. Bigger cones are just flapping around wasting energy in many cases. Brad bac6567@yahoo.com Wrote: > And of course most music (except for synthesized bass) rarely goe > below 30 Hz or even 40 Hz. Bigger cones are just flapping aroun > wasting energy in many cases > > Bra I'd like to disagree on this point. And what music doesn't have synthesizer in it these days? The intro to the Dark Side of The Moo (breathe) has a good passage of 20-25 hz on it and it's older than am. Kick drums can play very low depending on the size, and of cours there is five and six string basses. Drop the tuning a little and yo are down into the upper to mid 20's. And then there are harmonics fro upright basses, the note is the same, but that's only about 70% of th wave form IIRC. The rest depends on the material and the size of th instrument. Also, there are organs. My point is that there are plent of instruments and synthesized sounds in both today's music and musi of the past that have program material way below 3o to 40 hz. I be somebody's already mentioned that bigger cones are TYPICALLY (empahsi on that) more efficient and require less power to obtain a given soun pressure level, even at low frequencies. Your statement that they ar flapping around and wasting energy is incorrect. If it were true, the I wouldn't need a gigantic 15 to 18 inch woofer to gig with and play m six string bass on, I could just use a single ten. They are actually, i a general sense, more efficient and conserving energy. You seem to hav a general misunderstanding of how size and material effect many of th parameters of a driver -- flak_monkey > And of course most music (except for synthesized bass) rarely goes > below 30 Hz or even 40 Hz. Bigger cones are just flapping around > wasting energy in many cases. > > Brad You are touching on an often discussed topic here. Are smaller subwoofers (8", 10", 12") "tighter" than larger subwoofers (15", 18", or larger)? This seems to be an often repeated "true-ism" in the world of car-audio. You hear car audio sales people say this ALL the time, "you want multiple smaller woofers as it will sound 'tighter' than larger ones". I went back forth with someone on this (Matt I think) and what we concluded was that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (this is the key statement) there is no reason why a larger cone should move any faster, or sound "tighter" than a smaller cone. The problem is that seldom are "all things equal". What you tend to find with in subwoofer manufacturing is that they will often use the same motor structure in their 15" subwoofer as they will in their 12" subwoofer, or the same motor in their 18" as their 15" model. OR, they might put a motor structure on their larger woofers (15" or 18") that is not in proportion with the cone size of their smaller woofers (the 10's and 8's). Just look at the back of a bunch of 8" and 10" subwoofers, and then look at the back of a bunch of 15" and 18" subwoofers. What you will tend to see is a smaller motor in relation to the cone size with the larger subwoofers. This tends to be true even with the more "higher-end" brands. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Obviously, this WILL effect performance. Where you find the above to be true, then yes, the smaller woofers WILL be faster and sound "tighter". But if the motor structure is kept in proportion to cone size, then no, in theory there should be no difference. So did I answer the question? Basically, it depends on the woofer in question. But, again, if ALL THINGS ARE KEPT EQUAL, cone diameter DOES NOT effect the speed or "tightness" of the woofer. MOSFET > This seems to be an often repeated "true-ism" in the world of car-audio. > You hear car audio sales people say this ALL the time, "you want multiple > smaller woofers as it will sound 'tighter' than larger ones". Heheh...every time I get into this discussion it takes me back to The Day. I took a one-week installation course in Orlando, FL from a place called Creative Mobile Associates (I don't think they're around any longer--haven't been in some time). Every day we had 6 or 8 hours of class and a test to take. Out of the 5 tests, I got every single question right....except one: T / F Smaller subs produce tighter bass than larger subs. I instinctively circled "T" and wound up getting a 99.34% average across all my tests. I was one misconception away from having a perfect score. I argued my case, but was ultimately unable to persuade my instructor that I was bigger than him and could hurt him. It's a lesson I never forgot. :-) -dan > What you tend to find with in subwoofer manufacturing is that they will > often use the same motor structure in their 15" subwoofer as they will in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > if the motor structure is kept in proportion to cone size, then no, in > theory there should be no difference. Except that there's more potential for cone surface distortion as size increases. I'm guessing the magnet assembly would have to be much stronger (non-linear progression) to equally control the mass of a larger cone. It's like the difference between "punching the air" with a pocket umbrella vs. a beach umbrella. Not only are you fighting more air-resistance, there's likely to be more flex over that larger area. Brad > Except that there's more potential for cone surface distortion as size > increases. This kind of distorsion surely won't overwhelm the distorsion produced by having a larger excursion to compensate for smaller cone. Also, at subwoofer frequencies the cone mostly keeps its piston behavior ie, no cone breakup. SignatureEric (Dero) Desrochers http://homepage.mac.com/dero72 Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95 > You are touching on an often discussed topic here. ... And I wonder why because it's well known everywhere else that there is no such thing. A good place to start is : http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm Mostly, a subwoofer CANNOT be fast because it is band limited by definition, by the crossover and/or its own natural response. Any driver able to reproduce the frequency it is asked to reproduce will be plenty fast. We want it to reproduce, say, up to 80 Hz? It can reproduce 80 Hz at full volume? No need to be any faster than this. What is refered as a fast bass is actually a function of what is happening in the mid-bass range. A fast, dynamic system will comprise of good mid-bass in good enclosure and proper crossover settings. For example, a 12 inches sub crossed over to cheap 5 inches mids will sound slow and bloated. Another factor in the thightness of the sound may come from the tuning of the box. It is generally understood that sealed boxes are more damped, hence sound thighter and more true. But I think most already know this! Regards, SignatureEric (Dero) Desrochers http://homepage.mac.com/dero72 Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95 > Mostly, a subwoofer CANNOT be fast because it is band limited by > definition, by the crossover and/or its own natural response. Any > driver able to reproduce the frequency it is asked to reproduce will be > plenty fast. We want it to reproduce, say, up to 80 Hz? It can > reproduce 80 Hz at full volume? No need to be any faster than this. I haven't read the article you've cited (I'm about 15 seconds away from having my wife pull me off the computer to help her fold clothes, so I'm in a rush :-), so I'm not sure what they're talking about when they're discussing "fast" subwoofers. But my gut reaction is that I would guess it depends upon one's definition of "fast". There is always the concern of group delay--a quantitative measurement of how quickly a driver or system can respond to the signal applied to it. If you're talking about "fast" in this context, it makes perfect sense. There's also the acceleration the driver undergoes at the top and bottom of its stroke when its velocity is zero. It's been eons since I've taken a physics course or even had to discuss all this stuff, but experience tells me that if I'm walking at 3 mph and I suddenly stop and turn around and walk back at 3 mph, the amount of acceleration is going to be less than if I'm running at 18 mph, stop and turn around *in the same amount of time* (read "at the same frequency), and run back the other way at 18 mph. So even if you're talking about "fast" in this context I would think that it makes sense. -dan > ... And I wonder why because it's well known everywhere else that there > is no such thing. My guess would be that in the circles you're talking about, you're probably dealing more with people who have more theoretical /mathematical background in acoustics and physics and they work in environments were subtleties make more of a difference. In the car audio realm, few people bother to learn the estoteric stuff because much of it doesn't apply to a highly reflective, acoustically chaotic environment where you typically have little to no control over where you can put your speakers. Then there's the typical age of the target audience you have to take into consideration...some are too young to know or too immature to want to know, while others of us have gotten so old we've *forgotten* more than the young bucks know. :-) > A good place to start is : > > http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm I just read the whole article. Good stuff. I learned many moons ago when I was a grasshopper installer that without good integration of midbass and sub-bass, the latter will always sound like dogmeat. It's why we would never design a system for anyone with a bandpass sub enclosure unless they had at least 6.5" midbass drivers---and not just flimsy Pioneer coaxes either--GOOD ones. Of course, sometimes we got "bass monkey" kids who didn't care how good it sounded. You know the type--the ones who think the only reason you put those "little speakers" in the vehicle is so you can hear DMX cussing and spitting. But even *with* solid midbass drivers, I still don't like bandpass enclosures (either in the car *or* the home) because quite frankly they have lousy response characteristics. > What is refered as a fast bass is actually a function of what is > happening in the mid-bass range. A fast, dynamic system will comprise > of good mid-bass in good enclosure and proper crossover settings. For > example, a 12 inches sub crossed over to cheap 5 inches mids will sound > slow and bloated. My experience with such set-ups (or "mishaps" as they should probably be called) is that the bass seems plenty "fast" but that voices come from the back and it basically sounds really muddy. Maybe it's just a matter of perception. > Another factor in the thightness of the sound may come from the tuning > of the box. It is generally understood that sealed boxes are more > damped, hence sound thighter and more true. But I think most already > know this! I would tend to disagree on this point. I've found that customers who described a system as "tight" usually did so referring to a response curve that had a bit of a mid-bass bump and didn't have terrific low-frequency extension. You've got to remember the vehicle's transfer function...that automatic 12dB/octave bass boost can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. But then again, I used to sell and install in the 'hood where questions like "Yeah, but do it 'quad'?" and commands such as "Krunk it up!!!!" could be regularly heard. What they consider "tight" is likely to be quite different than a golden-eared "tweak" who would use the same word to describe a critically- or even over-damped system--the same system that the boys in the hood might label as "whack". This, in my estimation, highlights one of the big problems with discussing audio performance--not everyone uses the same vocabulary and they don't all have the same level of experience. Sometimes, you just have to experiment a lot to figure out what they're talking about. For example, we had one customer--a guy in his early 40's with a big Chevy Dually P/U with an obscenely loud system in it (I hated the way it sounded). He kept coming in telling us that his mids and highs were too quiet and so we kept tweaking his gain and doing everything we could think of--even putting in a bigger amp for his mids and highs, and nothing worked. Then one day, one of the installers got to talking to him and got an idea...he went out and turned *down* his subs and the guy was ecstatic. We thought he said he wanted his mids and highs to match his subs, but what made him happy was matching his subs to his mids and highs. It's a tricky business....figuring people out, and all. :-) > http://homepage.mac.com/dero72 Too bad I don't sprechen sie no French. :-) -dan |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message