# 12" subs,idmax,flatline,alumapro,rsd,w6v2



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

All these results are my opinion. I had some others around me that have been in the car audio business for ~15 years and there thoughts were for the most part in synic with my own. Take that for what is worth. All boxes were built to manufactory specs and built with the same style of bracing. The amp used for the test was one half of the Phoenix Gold MS1000ta, its specs are...
250x2 @ 4ohms
500x2 @ 2ohms
1050x1 @ 4ohms
Car tested in Dodge Intrepid 2002. All subs were crossed at 80hz with a 30db slope off my alpine pxa h701. Speakers were dyn mw 160 and dyn md 100.

































SUBWOOFERS REVEIWED
IDMAX 12d4 v.3
1.5 cu. ft sealed
Retail: $450 
run @ 8ohms








What can I say, I have read all this hype about the sub through the forums over and over. looking at the sub lived up to it, it's build quality on this sub is amazing, and its looks o so sexy. Once I got it powered up it met all of that hype. The subwoofer was the smoothest sounding next to my old IDQ 15", but had a little more upmh to it. The bass dropped amazingly low, but yet recreated the high range 60hz-80hz incredibly well, and got incredibly loud off of only 500 watts. It is the type of woofer when you want can play seamlessly with your midbass and then when you get in those moods make your chest thump. Build quality on this sub is amazing, and its looks o so sexy.

JL W6v2 12"
1.4 cu ft. sealed
Retail: $400
run @ 8ohms








W6v2, another well hyped sub that I had heard in a few "not so great" install before, but I have to say when installed properly this sub impressed me. It played tight and blended with my mids great, the bass sounded as if it was upfront. It also dropped pretty low, but not with the authority of the IDMAX, FLATLINE, or RSd. Also didn’t quite have the output of the three other woofers I mentioned. But as a pure SQ woofer this would be at the top of my list. 

Arc Audio Flatline 12D2
1.25 cu ft sealed
Retail: $500
run @ 4ohms








This sub to be honest disappointed me. It was the loudest sub out of the bunch most likely because it was run at 4 ohms obviously, but I felt it was lacking quite a bit. I feel that it wasn’t happy off the 1000 watts and that it wanted more, and the 50hz-80hz on this woofer was terrible, it was sounded like a sub and did not blend well with the mids. It was boomy and missed many notes that the other woofers were hitting. Under 50hz its response was about the same as the IDMAX, but the IDMAX at half the power sounded a little better and almost got as loud. My impression of this sub is an inefficient version of the IDMAX.

Alumapro Alcemey RX sq version 12D4 (newest version)
1.4 cu ft sealed
Retail:$375
run @ 8ohms








This sub was by far the best in the 60hz-80hz range. Sub was awesome up there, I previously said the other woofer blended seamlessly with the mids, well after this sub the others didnt compare. But 45hz on down I was disappointed with this sub, the output was very weak compared to the other woofers. IMO this sub reminded me a lot of Boston speakers or seas speakers, very neutral, and I think could make some on into that "neutral" sound would be extremely happy with this sub.

Phoenix Gold RSd12d
1.8 cu ft sealed
Retail:$170
run @ 8ohms








This sub, I had hanging around, from PG and figured why not add it in. It was the prototype model that went into production, thus no magnet boot and dust cap not labeled. Well when you look at this sub verus the other you almost laugh I put it into the test, and I was thinking the same thing. Any how I powered it up, and I WAS SHOCKED, to simply put it. This woofer was amazing, it output was neck and neck with the IDMAX, it was very tight in the 50hz-80hz range, and hit low with authority. The sub is in the same league as the other and was better then most all-round actually.


Since the subs were listened to all in one day and changed constantly throughout two weeks I think I can do a fair number rating. I will also add RF p1 12"(worst woofer I ever had), and JL w3v2 12" for people to have an idea where these subs lay.

On scales 1-10(1 as the lowest, 10 the highest)
50hz-80hz
Alumapro RX=10 (tight, extremely tight, and played every note)
IDMAX=8 (hit every note with uphm but not as tight pro and rsd)
RSd=8.5 (hit the notes very tight not as tight as the pro, but had a ti bit more uphm with the notes)
Flatline=4(Was not great, just your avg woofer)
w6v2=8(very similar response to IDMAX)
w3v2=4 (your avg woofer and to me little boomy)
p1=1.5 (p1 enough said)

20hz-50hz
Alumapro RX=5.5 (hit the notes just didnt have the outpute of the other woofer here)
IDMAX=9.5 (great down here hit all the notes, accurate, and hit em hard)
RSd=9.25 (right there with the MAX but was just barley a little behind)
Flatline=9(great down here but not quite as accurate as the max and rsd)
w6v2=7.5(accurate, but didnt have the output of the rsd max and flatline)
w3v2=5(decent down here but not in the league of the other woofers)
p1=1 (look above)

The winner of the bunch with no price involved would be the IDMAX and the RSd. When you look at price the RSd is hands down the winner. The max wins in build quality. The only difference in the woofers sonically is the RSd hits a little tighter and more neutral where as the IDMAX has a more of a robust sound. Which one would I choose many will ask well, the RSd it is less the 1/2 the cost of the MAX, and performs just as well so id go that route, but if prestige is your thing then go with the max. 

fyi I ordered 2 RSd at the end of this test.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

Nice review. What are the conditions in the trunk as far as dampening? Rear deck? Trunk lid? Music listened to?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

two layers of none other then Raammat. Music listend to was mostly rock ranging from jimmy hendrix to green day to system of a down with mix of techno, hip-hop, and bass tester songs.


----------



## ocuriel (Oct 7, 2005)

Great review. It's not everyday you get to read a comparison review on 4 incredible subs. 

I'm surprised to hear bad things about the flat line. Never heard one myself, but everyone else swears by them. They do look sexy though.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

ocuriel said:


> Great review. It's not everyday you get to read a comparison review on 4 incredible subs.
> 
> I'm surprised to hear bad things about the flat line. Never heard one myself, but everyone else swears by them. They do look sexy though.



Dont get me wrong, I think its a great sub, but the other subs that were tested, required less watts and sounded a little better. My feeling on the flatline is that it wanted more then the 1000watts I threw at it. If your looking at one Id say go with the max, takes less watts to get it going, and was much mroe accurate in the higher frequencys.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

You have me wanting to try the new Alumapro  
So are you saying the rsd is the new poor mans IDMax?
Here is a link to get them cheap
http://www.etronics.com/product.asp...36313B313&stk_code=phorsd12d&svbname=403&CA=Y


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Awesome review, I only wish we had more like this!


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

Interesting about the RSD, it seems to be a little more sensitive, but only has 13.5m xmax and keeps up with the rest.....hmmmm


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

xencloud said:


> Interesting about the RSD, it seems to be a little more sensitive, but only has 13.5m xmax and keeps up with the rest.....hmmmm



RSd is the not the poor mans IDMAX, it performs right with it. It sensitivity is 90db better then the maxs 88db. I dropped the RSd down to 2 ohms with, about 1500 watts going to it on sine wave 20-45, and once the gains were agusted for no clipping it took them for 25 minutes straight, i gave up tryign to kill it. And the xmax is far more then 13.5mm the thing was ready to jump out of the box with 1500 watts. Pg's tech Errin keeling in tests before the line was realsed had one 12 off of 2000 watts and could not damage the sub. He was told by PG to kill the sub, and he couldnt do it off of 2000watts, the prior sub PG had the xenon he killed in 20 mintues. I can take a video of it if people would like of the excrusion fo the sub.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> You have me wanting to try the new Alumapro
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> the alumapro I fell in love with when blending with the mids, it was truly seemless. I honestly could not tell that I had a sub in the trunk, sounded as if it was all up front. Just wish it had more in the low end.


----------



## dBassHz (Nov 2, 2005)

bdubs767 said:


> the alumapro I fell in love with when blending with the mids, it was truly seemless. I honestly could not tell that I had a sub in the trunk, sounded as if it was all up front. Just wish it had more in the low end.


I too would like to try the alumapro subs... I also need one that can play low. -45-50Hz.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> legend94 said:
> 
> 
> > You have me wanting to try the new Alumapro
> ...


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Have to second your findings on the RSd, they are really, really nice subs for the money.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> bdubs767 said:
> 
> 
> > On a scale of 1-10, could you rate both the rsd and the alumapro on blending? What causes one sub to blend better than another?
> ...


----------



## jearhart (Jul 28, 2006)

so is the production rsd the same as your proto or were there modifications when it went into production?


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

awesome, I can't wait to see dang's data on the Rsd, seems like a great bargain sub so far


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

jearhart said:


> so is the production rsd the same as your proto or were there modifications when it went into production?


same as production models, just mine has no logo on the dust cap, magent boot, and I think it was made in Portland instead of mass produced in china.


----------



## SQ_Bronco (Jul 31, 2005)

On the subs that blended well but lacked low end punch, like the alumapro, did you try boosting the low frequencies? Were they bottoming out, or just not playing as loudly down low as you would have liked? From your description it seems to fit into the category of midbass-heavy subs like the Illusion nd-12, idmax, ed 13ov2's, etc. A little bit of low-end eq does wonders for those subs imho. They roll off naturally fairly high but (with the exception of the nd12) they have plenty of xmax; you just have to tweak a bit to get them to give it to you 

Also - and I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just pointing out something I noticed- I think part of the problem with the flatline may have been that the box was way too big, especially with that much power. Your box was almost twice the size of the optimum box for that woofer-winisd says that .71 qtc is .7cf, and 1.25cf is .58 qtc. If you get a chance, you might want to try it again with a box in the .6-.9cf range to see if it improves the dynamics at all. I've never used one, so I can't say I have any reason to disagree with your findings, but they were interesting considering the other reviews it has gotten.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

SQ_Bronco said:


> On the subs that blended well but lacked low end punch, like the alumapro, did you try boosting the low frequencies? Were they bottoming out, or just not playing as loudly down low as you would have liked? From your description it seems to fit into the category of midbass-heavy subs like the Illusion nd-12, idmax, ed 13ov2's, etc. A little bit of low-end eq does wonders for those subs imho. They roll off naturally fairly high but (with the exception of the nd12) they have plenty of xmax; you just have to tweak a bit to get them to give it to you
> 
> Also - and I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just pointing out something I noticed- I think part of the problem with the flatline may have been that the box was way too big, especially with that much power. Your box was almost twice the size of the optimum box for that woofer-winisd says that .71 qtc is .7cf, and 1.25cf is .58 qtc. If you get a chance, you might want to try it again with a box in the .6-.9cf range to see if it improves the dynamics at all. I've never used one, so I can't say I have any reason to disagree with your findings, but they were interesting considering the other reviews it has gotten.


coudl be very right bout the flatline, I just went of off what each tech told me to do for the box size. And eqing I used zero of, I wanted to compare the sub naturaly, and yes eqing could bring up the low end on some of the subs.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

I would try out one of the RSd subs myself if the box requirements were not so large. The magazine review showed that they did not like that sub until it was put in the 1.8 cu ft box. Still, sounds like a nice budget sub for someone that has space to work with.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Which magazine? CAE? Didn´t they just build the box according to the reccomendations from PG? 
I agree that 1.8 is a lot these days, but i kinda like it, as it reminds my of my boxes of old...


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

anyone ordered a rsd yet?


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Rbsarve said:


> Which magazine? CAE? Didn´t they just build the box according to the reccomendations from PG?
> I agree that 1.8 is a lot these days, but i kinda like it, as it reminds my of my boxes of old...


Yes! the CAE reveiw. Eric Holdaway tried a 1.2 cu ft but liked 1.8 much better. I think I remember reading on the forums somewhere that he thought the 1.8 sounded much better?

http://www.caraudiomag.com/testreports/0605_cae_phoenix_gold_rsd12_test_report/index.html

Excerpts from the review:

_"Switching to the pop/R&B artist Usher, I played the song "Simple Things." Listening to this track, I found a renewed appreciation for how much I like larger subwoofers. Bigger is almost always better. Bigger subs reproduce the deep stuff with more authority than smaller subs. With the RSd12, I heard notes and details that I haven't heard since I tested the JL Audio 12W6 and the Stroker Pro 15". At low, medium and at high volumes, the RSd12 was unstressed and sounded wonderful."
Score: 8/10 

"Next, I played "Boxenkiller" from the Focal Demonstration Disc 4. The bass drum and bass guitar were reproduced tightly and with force. The RSd12 was very impressive sounding and I frequently reminded myself that it costs only $169.99. The RSd12 has some real gusto. I really like how smooth the frequency response sounded and that there was nothing pulling the imaging to the rear of the vehicle where I had the enclosure installed."
Score: 9/10 _


----------



## Boring (Sep 21, 2006)

I'm very tempted to get the 10" RSD. I wonder if it'll be good in 10". Anyone has any experience with a 10" RSD?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

Boring said:


> I'm very tempted to get the 10" RSD. I wonder if it'll be good in 10". Anyone has any experience with a 10" RSD?



I have two RSd10d and a RSd comp set sitting next to me right now just got em from PG this week...I dont think Ill ever get around to playing with them though, PM if your intersted in one I can let em go for dirt cheap


----------



## Boring (Sep 21, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> I have two RSd10d and a RSd comp set sitting next to me right now just got em from PG this week...I dont think Ill ever get around to playing with them though, PM if your intersted in one I can let em go for dirt cheap


Problem is I'm in Singapore. Shipping is a problem. If you don't mind shipping them to me. I'll be very happy to take them of you


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> two layers of none other then Raammat. Music listend to was mostly rock ranging from jimmy hendrix to green day to system of a down with mix of techno, hip-hop, and bass tester songs.


Do you think it's safe to extrapolate much of your impressions to the 10" versions of these subs?

I have to go 10" unfortunately do the custom nature of my enclosures....~.7-.8 cubic feet...


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

Fellippe said:


> Do you think it's safe to extrapolate much of your impressions to the 10" versions of these subs?
> 
> I have to go 10" unfortunately do the custom nature of my enclosures....~.7-.8 cubic feet...


I have yet to play with the 10s, well yesterday at the shop I help out at we finished a install with 8 RSd10s tuned to 60hz. I couldnt sit in the car it hurt so bad, surprisingly to the install didnt sound liek complete **** even though it was tuned to 60hz.
But as for the RSd10 performing for SQers, PG tech errin told me they are basically the same response as the 12" just down 1-2 db depending on the frequency. Also .55 cu ft is a little better.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Donno what Errin told you, but the RSd and the RSd12 are two very different woofers. 
The RSd12 is a low down digger that needs a 1.7 cu.ft enclosure, the RSd10 is a much leaner creature, relying more on cabin gain then the bigger brother. A bit dryer in character I think. But it´s very good in smaller cabins, especially since it will comfortably play in 0.5 cu.ft.


----------



## Boring (Sep 21, 2006)

I'm driving a small hatch so I guess the RSD10 should be ok for my install then?


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Just about perfect. We sell them at around US$180 here so they should be in that region down there aswell


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

rsd's rock !!! we have installed a number of them now.. everyone LOVES THEM... and they seem to be near bulletproof. we have only seen one come back. as he stated they are both very different the 12 LOVES THE BIG BOX where we have used the 10 in some tiny boxes and they did very well.. its actually pretty damn awsomw what you can get out of them considering what they can be had for, and when looking at them they look so lean kinda like "where's the beef??" but hell if i was not not damn impressed when we heard the first one... as bdub stated also they can def get damn loud when one wants them 2. not my first choice out of the list but def a top performer...


----------



## stucknok (Jan 23, 2006)

Hey, BDUBS, great review. I have been considering the Radial SD but can't find any dimensions on PG's website. Specifically for the 10 inch. If you can find the time, would you mind doing some measuring for me. Looking for mounting depth and overall diameter mainly. Also, do you think that 700 watts RMS in a daily driver would be too much for these? Thanks again for the awesome review.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Outer	Baffle	Depth	Vdd 
265 mm	232 mm	137 mm	2,65 ltrs

Divide with 25.4 if you want them in mm.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

stucknok said:


> Hey, BDUBS, great review. I have been considering the Radial SD but can't find any dimensions on PG's website. Specifically for the 10 inch. If you can find the time, would you mind doing some measuring for me. Looking for mounting depth and overall diameter mainly. Also, do you think that 700 watts RMS in a daily driver would be too much for these? Thanks again for the awesome review.


here ya go stole this from PGs tech


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

mountign depth on 10 is 5.93 inches...


----------



## stucknok (Jan 23, 2006)

Thanks gentlemen. Those dimensions are what I was looking for.


----------



## xencloud (Aug 26, 2005)

anyone have driver volume for the RSD10? Trying to get an exact spec on the box......


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

about 2,65 litrs... Divide with 28.317 and you have it in cu.ft.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs:
any review on the 2 12 pgs?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> bdubs:
> any review on the 2 12 pgs?



no...between beign lazy, school, travel, ect i havent been able to build a new box.

I have them just not using them. I may try them IB as with an fs of below 22hz and qtc of .55 they should work well.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> no...between beign lazy, school, travel, ect i havent been able to build a new box.
> 
> I have them just not using them. I may try them IB as with an fs of below 22hz and qtc of .55 they should work well.



just noticed in your sig they were there  
please keep me updated, because i may buy one for use much later down the road


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> just noticed in your sig they were there
> please keep me updated, because i may buy one for use much later down the road



i will Ill use em at some point unless I find my blessed IDQs 15" again for a cheap price.


----------



## yermolovd (Oct 10, 2005)

bdubs767
could you please re-up the jpg file with box specs for RSD?
I remember it had a sealed box diagram, but how about ported?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

Heres the entire manual


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

Or I can get you guys to start drooling  
took it away


----------



## yermolovd (Oct 10, 2005)

yay thanks. i'm making up my mind about rsd. just have to wait for tax return next year .

Awesome, I got a 2.6-2.8 cu box tuned to 30hz that should work with rsd. yay.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> Or I can get you guys to start drooling


which version is this?


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

thats the unreleased rsd comp sub... lucky bastard... damn you


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

zfactor said:


> thats the unreleased rsd comp sub... lucky bastard... damn you


hes working on the inside


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> which version is this?


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


>


ok, how does it compare with the rsd that you have? 
also, does this mean you will be selling the new rsd you have?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> ok, how does it compare with the rsd that you have?
> also, does this mean you will be selling the new rsd you have?



I wish I had it....but it is from what I have been told by far the best sounding woofer PG has ever made EVER.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

extra post


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

will it be 07 before they come out?
and do you know what the msrp will be?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> will it be 07 before they come out?
> and do you know what the msrp will be?



I hope
decent amount


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

oh okay i though errin sent it out to you.. i cant wait to play with those IF THEY ACTUALLY come out this time... lol.. i know he was working on making them more efficient but man its been a looooooooooong time...i am not supposed to tell any more of what i was told except... this may completly change though.. supposed to be geared around an old school sub... wayyy up there in efficiency


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

zfactor said:


> oh okay i though errin sent it out to you.. i cant wait to play with those IF THEY ACTUALLY come out this time... lol.. i know he was working on making them more efficient but man its been a looooooooooong time...i am not supposed to tell any more of what i was told except... this may completly change though.. supposed to be geared around an old school sub... wayyy up there in efficiency



lol few things changed....you'll catch up with errin at CES  as we cant say everything and why I took the pics down even tho they can be found easily but don't want to get anyone in trouble.


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

hmmm ill have to make a call tomm..


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

Thanks for the major tease  
I still remember what they looked like  
Are they going to be an sq sub with a punch(not rf)?


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Ther is a guy over at audiogroupforum that says he liked the JBL Power subs over the PG RSd subs:

http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum/showthread.php?p=633575&posted=1#post633575

I really need to hear both those subs for myself......


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Not to knock an obviously awesome review, but do you think that in a typical SQ setup, that all of the subs you reviewed could have been fully optimized(eq, level matching, phase, filtering) to sound very similar?


----------



## mk1982 (Jul 3, 2005)

i think you commented earlier npdang, that you believe that with subs, a lot can be done just by optimizing


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

npdang said:


> Not to knock an obviously awesome review, but do you think that in a typical SQ setup, that all of the subs you reviewed could have been fully optimized(eq, level matching, phase, filtering) to sound very similar?



I matched gains (minus the flatline as different ohm load) and played w/ phase. I left the xover same and eq flat to get a feel for how well the woofer play naturally as I feel the less you have to eq the better.


The alumapro I dont think I could of gotten it to play as well low as the other woofers...could of gotten it to play lower but not as well.

The other subs IMO cant match the quickness of the alumapro. 

THe flatline I HATED....but I read reveiw of it on eca where a guy tested it in 5 different boxes, and said 1.5 SUCKED. Which is what arc told me to use but may be the problem why I hated it.

The Idmax, RSd, and w6v2 I think when tuned properly could all sound VERY similar, with a few different tendecies.


npdang would you like the test my RSd12d? Once I build a box for the w15gti..


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

WLDock said:


> Ther is a guy over at audiogroupforum that says he liked the JBL Power subs over the PG RSd subs:
> 
> http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum/showthread.php?p=633575&posted=1#post633575
> 
> I really need to hear both those subs for myself......



I have a w15gti...nto same size but I can get a good judgement on em.


----------



## 300Z (Mar 20, 2005)

bdubs767 said:


> I have a w15gti...nto same size but I can get a good judgement on em.


And when is that review coming?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

300Z said:


> And when is that review coming?




When I get a brake from classes to build a damn box already...so busy this semester and only the third week.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

I also have a peerless XLS 12" on the way


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Sure I will test.

I'm curious as to why you believe the less eq the better? I do believe it holds true in many cases such as improper use, and of course the less you need to correct the better... but in a subjective test I often feel it's important to control for extraneous variables such as spl, frequency response, and mid/bass integration. Without that, you often get huge differences in sound which are often not attributable to the subs performance itself, but rather the test environment.

Just my humble opinion, but in nearly all subwoofer comparisons that I've done the only audible differences I've been able to detect apart from efficiency, low end sensitivity, things of that nature:

1. low frequency distortion performance - fuzzy, hazy bass
2. power compression - loss of low frequency dynamics as volume is increased
3. mechanical noise - rattling, chuffing, buzzing, etc.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

Maybe I made that statement to general....Ill pose a question to you to get my point across.


If money was not an issue what would you choose? 

A woofer that natrually plays how you like or a woofer that needs more eqing to play to your liking?



One thing I have never been able to get woofers to do through eqing is play quicker. And also IMHO when you eq the low end for a woofer like the alumapro RX (which I did try to fix after I tested because it liked it up high so much) it never will sound the same down low as a woofer like the RSd which naturally rolls off @ ~35hz. But through box design I've been able to change that.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

once im done w/ the gti and xls vs the rsd Ill send it to yea


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

bdubs767 said:


> I also have a peerless XLS 12" on the way


So you plan on finally discovering what a well-designed 12" woofer sounds like, rather than wasting your time with overpriced underperformers. Good for you. 

Once you see and experience the XLS12, a cheesy stamped basket, no-Faraday ring woofer for $180 won't sound like such a giant-killer any more.

Also, what our gracious host wrote above is generally true. However, there's one other factor I'd like to add: pre-EQ Qtc. It is my experience that a sub enclosure built to a given well-damped Qtc (say, 0.5-0.6) will sound cleaner than an undersized box EQ'ed to the same Qtc and F3. Admittedly, some of that difference can be explained as one of the three listed factors (power compression, which will be higher in a small Vbox + EQ situation) but even in well-done Linkwitz Transforms I can generally hear something amiss vis a vis the driver in a natively low-Qtc enclosure. Not in every case, admittedly - there was one recent trial I did with a JBL W15GTi where I couldn't - but generally.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

DS-21 said:


> So you plan on finally discovering what a well-designed 12" woofer sounds like, rather than wasting your time with overpriced underperformers. Good for you.
> 
> Once you see and experience the XLS12, a cheesy stamped basket, no-Faraday ring woofer for $180 won't sound like such a giant-killer any more.
> 
> Also, what our gracious host wrote above is generally true. However, there's one other factor I'd like to add: pre-EQ Qtc. It is my experience that a sub enclosure built to a given well-damped Qtc (say, 0.5-0.6) will sound cleaner than an undersized box EQ'ed to the same Qtc and F3. Admittedly, some of that difference can be explained as one of the three listed factors (power compression, which will be higher in a small Vbox + EQ situation) but even in well-done Linkwitz Transforms I can generally hear something amiss vis a vis the driver in a natively low-Qtc enclosure. Not in every case, admittedly - there was one recent trial I did with a JBL W15GTi where I couldn't - but generally.



I wanted a XXLS but only could get the xls due to returning of the scan 21ws but owell.


How did you like the w15gti over all?


----------



## 300Z (Mar 20, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> Not in every case, admittedly - there was one recent trial I did with a JBL W15GTi where I couldn't.


Care to elaborate about your experience with the GTi?

Leo


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

bdubs767 said:


> How did you like the w15gti over all?


Well, let's just say that if I ever had to downsize my primary home sub - currently a Tannoy B475 with some electrical assistance to give me in-room extension into the low 20's - a W15GTi in a 2.5 ft^3 sealed enclosure with a Linkwitz Transform and way too much power would be my posion of choice.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I do agree about the comment ds-21 made regarding high q enclosures... although in a car the threshold of audibility is greatly diminished Imho.

As far as using less eq, I do agree it's better in that sense to have a driver that performs well out of the box all things being equal (I'd rather have a well built driver/lower distortion driver that needs more eq, than to use the opposite). However, it's somewhat deceptive imho to compare drivers that way... as every install is drastically different as well as user preferences.

I have had great results making woofers sound "quicker" by the use of eq to remove significant peaks/dips in the response, level matching, and good integration with the midbass.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

300Z said:


> Care to elaborate about your experience with the GTi?


My most recent (ca. last November) experience with it is as follows: In the fall sometime, a friend of mine decided he needed a reference-level sub before he got married. I told him that he could assemble an elite-class sub for less than buying a mediocre one, something we all know to be true. He asked me about parts, and I suggested he hunt eBay for an NIB W15GTi. (I thought long and hard about it, because I have a 15" Oaudio TC2+ sitting in my closet, but ultimately decided not to risk the potential conflict of interest.) Sometime in late October or early November, he acquired one. He also bought one of those PE Class G rack amps and a Velodyne SMS (or whatever their processor is called; I told him to get the Velodyne sole because I wanted to play with it. Secondarily, I knew he'd recoil from the appearance of the Behringer FD.)

I knew a proper vented cabinet for this driver would be insanely large, so I suggested a 5 cube sealed cabinet. When stuffed would give us a Qtc in the 0.6 range, with an F3 in the high 30's. Room response could then be shaped as desired. Well, we built a rough model box out of MDF and he was shocked by how large a properly-braced 5 cubic foot sub cabinet ended up being. (The final cabinet was done in Corian and synthetic quartz countertop material by a local kitchen cabinet shop.) So we added scrap wood and bricks to the box, adjusting the in-room FR and level with the Velodyne processor. I expected a subtle but distinctive gloss to come over the sound of tympani rolls and the like by the time we shrunk the box down to ~2 cubes and a Qtc of over 0.8, but it just didn't happen that was as low as we could go in the test box. To test if it was the processor, I tried the same with my BFD, and it took longer but basically the same result. I don't know why it sounded equally good at reasonable and very high (by my standards) values of Qtc, but it did. Some weeks later I tried the same thing but used the Dayton Titanic 15 I bought for my mom's HT, and what I expected happened; the bass turned sour with rising Qtc, despite the use of a Linkwitz transform.

(As for that Velodyne processor, I almost want one. It makes everything so damn easy. But I won't fork over ~$600 for it when I already have a decent mic and a BFD.)

Also, with regard to our gracious host's comment about the threshold for audibility of subwoofer damping in a moving car, fair point. And integration between subbass and midbass is definitely the key factor affecting the overall sound quality of the deep bass.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> Well, let's just say that if I ever had to downsize my primary home sub - currently a Tannoy B475 with some electrical assistance.....


It's not very often that you find a pro enclosure diping down to the high 20's, pretty cool. Although I feel I would shread them in my apps (unless there were a BUNCH of them) it's awesome nonetheless. The power handling and sheer output is simply not there for live apps other than small gigs where the lowest octave is REALLY needed.


How does the EQ assist affect power handling of a vented enclosure? or are you "mechanically assisting" the sub?

As for large scale EQ assistance on a grand scale. I used some bag end subs live a few weeks ago. Baaaah! Talk about power guzzling thus causing power compression! Although they played very low (And I will use a sub as low as it will go) I had to throw a TON of power (multiple Crown MA5000VZ's)at them to get them to play at any considerable levels and THEN the power compression killed me. I mean going low is nice but the integrator would not let me raise the LF cutoff to try to regain the "meat and potatoes" of the low end. I ended up just putting a HPF on the sub send (subs on an aux). The ELF is pricey enough that I should not have to do that. Although the gig sounded OK, I felt the low end was never "right." We can conclude that Chad will not be specing those for a gig unless it's a rather small low volume gig and I have AC power to spare!


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

chad said:


> It's not very often that you find a pro enclosure diping down to the high 20's, pretty cool.


The enclosure is actually tuned to below 30Hz, which shocked me when I measured it. I assumed that the "29Hz" figure was some dream-world spec.



> Although I feel I would shread them in my apps (unless there were a BUNCH of them) it's awesome nonetheless. The power handling and sheer output is simply not there for live apps other than small gigs where the lowest octave is REALLY needed.


I agree with you. I have no idea why Tannoy released these subwoofers. They do seem to me to be pretty useless for most pro use except when used in large multiples. Then again, obviously Tannoy's found a little pro sub niche, because their current model (mine was discontinued when I bought it) use the same model 4505 driver in an enclosure that's slightly larger and tuned slightly lower. (From what I've been able to gather, the driver is OEM'ed for Tannoy by Fane. Fane apparently builds most Tannoy stuff now.) For low-dynamic-compression home audio/HT, though, it's very hard to beat. I'll keep mine unless a Cabasse 55ND comes up cheap on eBay or that forthcoming 21" B&C driver with a claimed 15mm xmax (!!!!!) ends up being reasonably-priced. 

Excuse the tangent, but thinking of the B&C 21NW160 led me to put it through a quickie virtual spin in Unibox for the first time. In a 320L box (the size of my old 2235H's enclosures combined) tuned to 22Hz, it models pretty incredibly. Think an F3 south of 22Hz, re: 80Hz. Moreover, with 1500W input you still don't exceed xmax until below 20Hz. Oh, and at 20Hz with said 1500W you'll have 120dB of output before any room augmentation, or about 10dB more than my old twin 2235H setup. At 24Hz, think 124dB. Add B&C's top notch build quality and ruthless attention to sonic detail, and I think I'm in love...



> How does the EQ assist affect power handling of a vented enclosure? or are you "mechanically assisting" the sub?


I lowered the tuning a little bit, so there's some mechanical assist, too. But still, the boost goes (slightly) under the box tuning, with a sharp cut below 25Hz. It does not outperform my old setup (link x2), but it comes quite close and takes up a little bit more than half as much space. Also, I'm not giving it as much power as it would really want right now. It would perform better with more, but truth be told I don't need it to so unless a Crown K2 somehow falls in my lap it probably won't be getting more power.

Keep in mind that I don't often listen at extremely loud overall levels in general. I just like to have it in reserve.



> As for large scale EQ assistance on a grand scale. I used some bag end subs live a few weeks ago. Baaaah! Talk about power guzzling thus causing power compression!


Alas, that seems par for the course for them. I've never thought much of the ELF concept. They look great on paper, but when one hears them, not so much.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

HINT, One wants to keep their eyes on K2 pricing in the very near future.

Chad

Oh, and I'm going to get a recone kit today for a casuality, reconer says there are a couple 2245's there he wants me to look at for a possible "deal" Hmmmmmm.


----------



## bkoepp2 (Mar 16, 2007)

Where the heck can I buy these RSd Subs???

I've been searching for hours and can't find them. 

PS. Beside Crutchfield, they charge too much.


----------



## petern23 (Oct 9, 2006)

I went with Crutchfield cuz I had a gift card, but...

http://www.cardiscountstereos.com/catalog%20page.asp?Product+%23=RSD12


----------



## bkoepp2 (Mar 16, 2007)

Thanks,

Has anyone else heard these subs vs. some other "high-end" subs? What did you think? Also, has anyone done some box experimenting, I'd like to milk all of the quality out of these but 1.8 cu. ft. a piece is one giant box IMO.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

bkoepp2 said:


> Thanks,
> 
> Has anyone else heard these subs vs. some other "high-end" subs? What did you think? Also, has anyone done some box experimenting, I'd like to milk all of the quality out of these but 1.8 cu. ft. a piece is one giant box IMO.


The RSd12d actually needs 5 cu ft for a qtc of .707


----------



## Jiggad369 (Aug 18, 2006)

Sorry to bring this thread fro the grave, but if the RSD12 needs 5cuft., would it be ideal for a IB setup?


----------



## vwtoby (Oct 28, 2005)

is this its 10" brother?

http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Gold-...ic&qid=1179900057&sr=1-8#moreAboutThisProduct

cheap no?


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Yup.

Doesn't goes as deep, but is a great performer especially in small boxes. 
0.7 cu.ft in a smaller sized car and Robert is your mother's bother.


----------



## boogiem0nst3r (Aug 24, 2008)

for the box for the RSD?

what were the dimensions? im interested in building a 1.8 ft3 box for it to maximize the sound

would be interested in dimensions if you had any.


----------

