# Focal VS Alpine Subwoofer



## K20Z2 (Apr 12, 2007)

Guys, I'm about changing my Alpine Type-X 12" subwoofer to Focal 27V2 (Polyglass). I have a PDX 1.1000 that I used to power up the subwoofer. 

My local installed told me that the sealed box that I use is too small for the type-x. I feel that the current setup does not satisfy my expectation because the sub response is a bit slow and punch too hard for Jazz musics. I feel like my heart is being punched every time the sub pound. 

I asked my installed and he recommends me to go with Focal Polyglass V2 since I do not need to be loud, I want to have an accurate and deep low bass.

Do you guys think that I should swap the type-x for focal? Or just change the box?

FYI, my car is a civic so don't compare it with SUV setup.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

What size is the box? It sounds like the DIYMA 12 is right up your alley. I used one before, it's a great sounding sub, very accurate. My only problem was the opposite of yours, I wanted something louder. 

It sounds like the perfect sub for you, depending on your enclosure size. The DIYMA 12 works well in a very small enclosure, I'd say ideally between .5-1 ft3.


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

K20Z2 said:


> Guys, I'm about changing my Alpine Type-X 12" subwoofer to Focal 27V2 (Polyglass). I have a PDX 1.1000 that I used to power up the subwoofer.
> 
> My local installed told me that the sealed box that I use is too small for the type-x. I feel that the current setup does not satisfy my expectation because the sub response is a bit slow and punch too hard for Jazz musics. I feel like my heart is being punched every time the sub pound.
> 
> ...


The overall Q of the system is going to determine the overall sound more than the individual woofer, typically. 

So your Alpine in the current enclosure is obviously too high a Q. Curious, what are the QTS specs for the Alpine woofer and Focal woofer? 

An easier way to determine is to look at the recommended enclosure size for both woofers, and aim for the woofer whose "large enclosure size" is closer to what you have now. 

I'd imagine that in ideal enclosures the Focal woofer would sound better than the Alpine, especially for the type of music you're listening to. 

Give us the data.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

What do you have for midbass?

IMO, You'd be downgrading your subwoofer going from the Type-X to the Focal.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

If he listens to jazz or classical, the type x is just not the right sub for him. The focal will have less output most likely but it might be a better fit. Id also consider the Dayton HO for the price


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

tyroneshoes said:


> If he listens to jazz or classical, the type x is just not the right sub for him. The focal will have less output most likely but it might be a better fit. Id also consider the Dayton HO for the price


I disagree. 

CLEAN Bass is almost purely a function of the amount of air that can be moved with each stroke and the Type-X has the Focal beat by a mile.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Id agree with that statement, but if the box isnt correct for the sub, (in his case too small) its not going to sound as good as a sub in the proper box.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

tyroneshoes said:


> Id agree with that statement, but if the box isnt correct for the sub, (in his case too small) its not going to sound as good as a sub in the proper box.


True indeed.

I guess I'm assuming the guy can change boxes.

I'd be willing to bet the xover on his sub is too high in order to compensate for weak midbass.


----------



## K20Z2 (Apr 12, 2007)

I'm using the sealed box with 1 ft3 size. I thought the type-x is an SPL sub and Focal has better Q than type-x even though it's power handling is way smaller than the type-x (1000W VS 300W RMS). So far I haven't change all the speakers but I'll have focal 130KF with Audison LRx series on the front and leave stock on the rear. 

If Focal is considerably a downgrade of type-x, what about the JL W6? Most people agree that JL sells way better sub than Alpine. I just need a right sub to handle the bass of my musics as I listen to more Jazz kind of song rather than hip hop. I know that the type-x is great when I listen to Fast and Furious OST, just like my car has 4 subwoofer while I'm only running one sub. 

Another thing, I didn't set the gain all the way up on my amp since the items are pretty new so the installer said that they have to get break-in period first before I pound them hard (never heard such a thing before but it's ok, I can handle it)


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

K20Z2 said:


> I'm using the sealed box with 1 ft3 size. I thought the type-x is an SPL sub and Focal has better Q than type-x even though it's power handling is way smaller than the type-x (1000W VS 300W RMS). So far I haven't change all the speakers but I'll have focal 130KF with Audison LRx series on the front and leave stock on the rear.
> 
> If Focal is considerably a downgrade of type-x, what about the JL W6? Most people agree that JL sells way better sub than Alpine. I just need a right sub to handle the bass of my musics as I listen to more Jazz kind of song rather than hip hop. I know that the type-x is great when I listen to Fast and Furious OST, just like my car has 4 subwoofer while I'm only running one sub.
> 
> Another thing, I didn't set the gain all the way up on my amp since the items are pretty new so the installer said that they have to get break-in period first before I pound them hard (never heard such a thing before but it's ok, I can handle it)


have to put this out there , do not max your gains out on your amplifiers , if you need a bit of boost use the eq to compensate , otherwise long term clipping can decrease the life span of your driver and amp .


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

I think 1000 watts is way too much for the Focal sub. I have a feeling it wont last very long.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I'll put my Velodyne DF10sc against a Sony 10 that has more stroke...and I will bet money the Velodyne will sound better.

Your statement is true to a point though.



bassfromspace said:


> I disagree.
> 
> CLEAN Bass is almost purely a function of the amount of air that can be moved with each stroke and the Type-X has the Focal beat by a mile.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> I'll put my Velodyne DF10sc against a Sony 10 that has more stroke...and I will bet money the Velodyne will sound better.
> 
> Your statement is true to a point though.


The Velodyne is a servo system though, isn't it? That's cheating.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yes sir...but all we are doing is moving air, so it shouldn't matter. Right?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Sounds like a tuning issue. Type-x subs are generally high q drivers. If the bass sounds too slow, try eq'ing some of the excess low end out ~40hz. You could also try turning the output down a bit as well. Try experimenting with the phase and different crossover points. Moving from a Type-x to a Focal polyglass is a big downward move Imho with respect to linear output and low distortion.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

MarkZ said:


> The Velodyne is a servo system though, isn't it? That's cheating.


BINGO!!!!

That comparison was ridiculous at best.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

Type-X is a better sub than it's given credit for. It has good linear output and is actually designed to work best in largish sealed enclosures with it's higher Q. That, IMO, is a good thing. Most subs are designed for "both" (neither, IMO) types of enclosures, those being sealed and ported.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Not according to your critera it is not. You simply stated that clean bass is dictated by displacement. I was illustrating the absurdity of your statement by comparing a low excursion sub like the Velodyne to a cheaper sub with more excursion.



bassfromspace said:


> BINGO!!!!
> 
> That comparison was ridiculous at best.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Every review I've read of Focal subs has lead me to the conclusion that they're useless if you know what a subs job is. Transient response is one thing but output shouldn't be compromised as a result. Maybe they need to re engineer. They got the cones right. It's just the rest of the sub they need to work on.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Since everyone didn't like the Velodyne example...I would do the same comparo with my Phase Linear Alante 10s and a Sony 10. It's not servo controlled but is one damned fine sounding sub...just no balls to it.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

GlasSman said:


> Every review I've read of Focal subs has lead me to the conclusion that they're useless if you know what a subs job is. Transient response is one thing but output shouldn't be compromised as a result. Maybe they need to re engineer. They got the cones right. It's just the rest of the sub they need to work on.



That's exactly how I feel. I'd like their equipment a lot better if they focused more on the motors in their drivers, but their sole emphasis seems to be in materials technology. That especially isn't the deciding factor in a subwoofer, or at least takes a large step back compared to a solid motor design.


----------



## Whiterabbit (May 26, 2006)

bassfromspace said:


> I disagree.
> 
> CLEAN Bass is almost purely a function of the amount of air that can be moved with each stroke and the Type-X has the Focal beat by a mile.


I just KNEW that 36" Audiobahn subwoofer could be counted on in an SQ competition!


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

thehatedguy said:


> Not according to your critera it is not. You simply stated that clean bass is dictated by displacement. I was illustrating the absurdity of your statement by comparing a low excursion sub like the Velodyne to a cheaper sub with more excursion.


Agreed, although I did state "almost" in my original statement. Other factor's are definately in play in the creation of clean bass.

What if we took 5 of those Sony 10's and ran it against your (1) Phase Linear ?


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

Whiterabbit said:


> I just KNEW that 36" Audiobahn subwoofer could be counted on in an SQ competition!


or a stir fry dinner in the cone after the loss?


----------



## Whiterabbit (May 26, 2006)

and someone should ask alphakenny1 what the bottom octave sounded like in my car running an aura 8" with a claimed 6mm of xmax! 

of course, if you rely on the "almost" as a get out of jail free card, one wonders why the displacement was stressed instead of the "almost!"


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

Whiterabbit said:


> and someone should ask alphakenny1 what the bottom octave sounded like in my car running an aura 8" with a claimed 6mm of xmax!
> 
> of course, if you rely on the "almost" as a get out of jail free card, one wonders why the displacement was stressed instead of the "almost!"


That would be pretty simple, sir. I didn't want to run down the entire list of everything necessary to make a sub produce clean bass. No benefit in it for me or you.

BTW, according to Geolemon (if my memory serves me correctly) that 36" sub put out some damn clean bass and I'd take him purely at his word.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> Since everyone didn't like the Velodyne example...I would do the same comparo with my Phase Linear Alante 10s and a Sony 10. It's not servo controlled but is one damned fine sounding sub...just no balls to it.


What are the conditions of the test? Can we overdrive your Phase Linear sub while we operate the Sony within its linear excursion?


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

MarkZ said:


> What are the conditions of the test? Can we overdrive your Phase Linear sub while we operate the Sony within its linear excursion?


Might as well throw price into the mix as well. You could probably get 4 or 5 Sony subs for the price of 1 Alto.


----------



## Tdx_Kid (May 16, 2007)

Hobestly, i would say go with focal buddy, its a better sub in general, it would sound better too


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Tdx_Kid said:


> Hobestly, i would say go with focal buddy, its a better sub in general, it would sound better too


I doubt it.


----------



## Fiercetimbo17 (May 17, 2007)

I know your deciding between these two but i would throw an idmax into the mix as well


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

i always like to go the least expensive route first. if you can spare the room, i would try a well built larger box. any sub that you put into an application tht isn't designed for is likely going to yield unsatisfactory results.


----------



## KingSVT (Jul 30, 2006)

http://www.carstereo.com/help/Articles.cfm?id=30 this could be a good place to start?


----------



## niceguy (Mar 12, 2006)

If it's too loud, turn it down 

I agree on playing w/enclosure sizes and making sure the sub xover isn't too high......If the midbass/front stage is weak, then you have a whole new problem (or adventure depending on how you look at it)....

Jeremy


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Tdx_Kid said:


> Hobestly, i would say go with focal buddy, its a better sub in general, it would sound better too



I would SERIOUSLY doubt it. He might as well run a few of those Focal 5" subs. He'd just as much of a chance.


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

Get an Orion HCCA 250 amp, and you'll get bass SPL out of a tweeter...


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

Fellippe said:


> Get an Orion HCCA 250 amp, and you'll get bass SPL out of a tweeter...


OK , TIME TO SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN


----------

