# Alpine Sub Question... 10" Type-R, new vs old



## SpacemanSpiff (Apr 3, 2009)

Long ago I bought a 10" Alpine Type-R, and far as my pedestrian ears can tell, it's been a wonderful sub. I'm currently moving my system into a new car, and naturally, I'm looking at my components. In passing, I've noticed very different specs between the new and old 10" Type-R's:

The old:








Alpine SWR-1041D 10" subwoofer with dual 4-ohm voice coils at Crutchfield.com

The new:








Alpine SWR-10D4 Type-R 10" subwoofer with dual 4-ohm voice coils at Crutchfield.com

Most specifically, these specs interest me:
Old:
•frequency response 28-1,000 Hz 
•power range 100-300 watts RMS 
•peak power handling 1,000 watts 

New:
•frequency response: 26-200 Hz
•power handling: 300-1,000 watts RMS (500 watts per coil)
•peak power: 3,000 watts

Am I just seeing how ratings have changed over time, or do you think the old sub is that much more capable (the suspiciously wide frequency response) with that much less power? I know efficiency/amplitude will roll off on the limits of the driver, but I can't seem to find any response plots to compare. Thoughts? I'm not really looking to replace my sub, but was more curious if I ever _had_ to replace it, how it's newer model would perform. Looking at the numbers (which I know can be misleading) it would appear they are different animals.


Question two: I currently run a PDX-5, which provides 300W for the sub. Looking at the above spec sheet, I have always assumed I was well provisioned. I have been contemplating an upgrade to the PDX-V9 for other reasons however, which has a 600W sub channel. Would having the extra power available for the sub help keep the signal cleaner, or are these amps pretty good at pushing full value without an issue? Next you'd probably ask how often I run things at max, and I couldn't really answer (though gun to my head, I'd probably guess I'm just not that guy, so never).

My main goal is sound quality, not waking the neighbors. I listen to a wide range of music, but it almost always centers back around rock and alternative-type stuff. The rest of my system (for reference) will involve a stock HU feeding an H800 processor and 720PRS components in all 4 doors.

Opinions appreciated!


----------



## qwertydude (Dec 22, 2008)

With an emphasis on rock music you're likely still better served with the old Type R. What you consider suspiciously wide frequency response was considered normal back in the day. Efficient subwoofers generally had a wide frequency response due to the nature of their designs. They also tended to have less power handling.

Nowadays people just seem to want to "kill the lows" ie burp at 20hz. Well this leads to subwoofers with very high displacements, low efficiency and limited upper frequency response.

Rock music tends to focus more on kick drums and bass guitar. Those kicks and bass notes tend to emphasize midbass output which the older sub is more capable of. You might be happier sticking with your old sub.

That doesn't mean you're stuck with limited performance just because of the lower power handling. Build a properly designed box and it's entirely possible for your old subwoofer to have more output than the newer one on less watts too. It really is all about your install and box design.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Yup. I hate these super band-limited subs with sky-high power handling, loads of excursion, and smaller cones. I don't want to buy. "10-inch" sub with a 6" cone and 3" of excursion that needs 1000Watts to sound worth a crap. I miss the old Alpine ZR subs. Those things sounded phenomenal and only needed a .3cf enclosure. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

Of the many things you should not take for gospel with speaker specs, you listed three, lol. Power handling will depend on the enclosure type and size, frequency response will depend on the enclosure type and size as well as the effect of the car's interior*, and peak power is just useless and doesn't really mean anything.

Looking over the specs for the two, the newer R has about 15mm more mechanical throw p-p, which is quite a bit. You shouldn't really ever be playing with so much excursion that you risk damaging the driver, so for most applications it's not going to be useful. Linear excursion is also quite a bit higher, going from 14mm to 20mm, which is a good amount. The coil and motor on the newer R seem beefier, which is nice. I modeled up both of them both in closed and vented enclosures and the response is virtually identical, but the newer R will have the edge on total output levels if you give it more power. If you're using a smaller enclosure with just a few hundred watts it shouldn't make much difference which one you use assuming you're staying withing the linear limits of the driver.

There's no doubt in my mind that the newer R (at least on paper) should be a slightly better performer. I just don't know if it would be worth it to me to spend a bunch of money on a sub that's a bit better, but not drastically different unless I was pushing the boundaries of what the older R was capable of and needed more output with more power. Which brings me to...

As for your question about power: if you're able to get it loud enough for your liking and you aren't clipping the signal you shouldn't need any more power. No point in getting a bigger amp if you're only going to use a small fraction of its output. That being said, most people who upgrade to more power seem to like it because frankly everyone, even SQ guys, like bass. 

*Note: inductance for both speakers is pretty high, which will limit the high-frequency extension to well below 1khz. The newer R actually has about 25% _lower_ inductance, even though its listed frequency response is more narrow.


----------



## I Love BMW (Sep 7, 2013)

I just recently blew both of my old type r 12's... They were great subs. Dont know much about the new ones but ive heard the new type s and it sounds pretty good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpacemanSpiff (Apr 3, 2009)

Thanks for the help guys. It's good to hear that my current sub is probably still plenty adequate. I had a feeling if it wasn't just newer ways to display the same specs, that they had probably just tuned it more for the low and loud crowd.



SPLEclipse said:


> Of the many things you should not take for gospel with speaker specs, you listed three, lol.


Yeah, I kind of knew they shouldn't be taken as gospel, I was just trying to use them as a relative measure. Still probably not a good idea, but it was where I started. 

Now to see if I can get it all put together and sounding respectable!


----------



## bose301s (Dec 8, 2008)

The new type r will probably have more linear BL as it uses their CRC pole design. Alpine has stepped it up somewhat in the last few years imo.


----------



## EP1995 (Nov 24, 2013)

I built a box for 2 of the new type r 12s for a friend and tested em with everything from Metallica to Young Jeezy and they hit the lows pretty well and were quite punchy on the higher frequencies, had em crossed at 100hz running of an "2000" watt Hifonics brutus. No clue as to the older models sound.


----------



## TheDavel (Sep 8, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> Yup. I hate these super band-limited subs with sky-high power handling, loads of excursion, and smaller cones. I don't want to buy. "10-inch" sub with a 6" cone and 3" of excursion that needs 1000Watts to sound worth a crap. I miss the old Alpine ZR subs. Those things sounded phenomenal and only needed a .3cf enclosure.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


ZR's FTW!!!


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> Yup. I hate these super band-limited subs with sky-high power handling, loads of excursion, and smaller cones. I don't want to buy. "10-inch" sub with a 6" cone and 3" of excursion that needs 1000Watts to sound worth a crap. I miss the old Alpine ZR subs. Those things sounded phenomenal and only needed a .3cf enclosure.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk



Seems a bit of a dim view. Are things really like that?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Have you looked at most of the sub market? Most of the "high end" subs are built like this. There are some superb exceptions, but it's not like it was in the 90s. I LOVE high efficiency drivers. The only subs I really like with a lot of excursion are the IDMax and the W7 and that's because they didn't jus slap a huge surround on a sub. They thought outside the box, so to speak. Ground Zero was the first that I can remember that went with a smaller cone and wider surround. 

I would love to run some old Harts, or Lanzars, or Cerwin-Vegas (their "regular" or Strokers) KEF KARs, or Kicker Competition, Alpine ZR subs, and so many others from that era. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> Have you looked at most of the sub market? Most of the "high end" subs are built like this. There are some superb exceptions, but it's not like it was in the 90s. I LOVE high efficiency drivers. The only subs I really like with a lot of excursion are the IDMax and the W7 and that's because they didn't jus slap a huge surround on a sub. They thought outside the box, so to speak. Ground Zero was the first that I can remember that went with a smaller cone and wider surround.
> 
> I would love to run some old Harts, or Lanzars, or Cerwin-Vegas (their "regular" or Strokers) KEF KARs, or Kicker Competition, Alpine ZR subs, and so many others from that era.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


I though back in the day, subs weren't that efficient, hence the need for larger boxes, Isobaric and other nifty, chambered enclosures?

In the UK especially, the trend has moved towards SPL i think, or at least that's what the retailers told me. However I still think there is plenty of options out there, one just has to look outside the 'Now' main brands. 

Admittedly I was flicking around the DD site today. Although they do have customizable options, the surrounds are still fairly ... moderate, by today's standards. 

But it all seems to be xmax, xmax, xmax nowadays.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Typically, really efficient subs need a ton of space. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------

