# VERY limited review: Perfect VQ Vs W6v2



## evangelos K (Aug 27, 2005)

I personally own both subs; JL was acquired recently. VQ is in 1.1CF w/ mid Q insert (as per Infiniti's recomendation), JL in a 1.25CF, as per JL's. Both enclosures stuffed moderetaly w/ Polyfill.

Well, seriously, the VQ is by far superior (to clarify things, it is the Perfect VQ, w/ the inserts that modify the Q of the sub, and not the "regular" perfect). Low extension on the VQ is unparalled; that sucker goes low. *Relatively* speaking, *compared* to the VQ, the JL *seemed as if* it started to play at 40Hz and above, while the VQ extends all the way to the verry bottom. The VQ is louder in terms of output too. 

That is it  IMO, The VQ is seriously the best SQ sub *I* have heard.


----------



## ocuriel (Oct 7, 2005)

How are you liking it so far? I used to have 2 10 vq's. I sold them to my neighbor & he loves them. Great sq subs.


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

may I ask what other subs you have used or heard?


----------



## ocuriel (Oct 7, 2005)

I'm assuming the above question is for evangelos.


----------



## flakko (Mar 11, 2006)

word... i agree with evangelos... VQ > w6v2... the w6's didnt have thump the vq had... and the musicality (is that even a word?) was slightly better than the 6, not to mention the "q" inserts 

subs i compare them to are best to worst IMO....OZ 300L prototype, XXX, Brahma, SS RL-p, IDqv2, w6v2, .... id say the VQ's are between the RL-p and the IDq.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I couldn't stand the vq's. annoying lows, I couldn't listen to them for more than 20 minutes. They did sound like great sq drivers, reproducing nuances I've never heard on other subs, but they seemed like the surround material was too elastic and had little cone control at high volumes. I sold them and kept my perfect 12.1's that I've tried to replace with the vq's. I run xxx's now, missin the sq out of the infiitys but loving the authority of the re.


----------



## evangelos K (Aug 27, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> I couldn't stand the vq's. annoying lows, I couldn't listen to them for more than 20 minutes. They did sound like great sq drivers, reproducing nuances I've never heard on other subs, but they seemed like the surround material was too elastic and had little cone control at high volumes. I sold them and kept my perfect 12.1's that I've tried to replace with the vq's. I run xxx's now, missin the sq out of the infiitys but loving the authority of the re.



Did you make sure you used the recommented Q insert according to the box size?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

yep .85 ft3 sealed with mid insert I believe. I used the table that came in the owner's manual to match it. They are the opposite of re xxxs imo. Can do alot with little amplifier power, faithfull to the tinyest bass note varariation but bottom out very fast and it is very noticeable, low end is soo good it was irritating after 3 songs or less, whereas xxxs lack in the bootom end. They seemed like they were the epitomy of the sq sub and I whish I could stand the lows. Very clean sub as far as tinsel slap goes too, almost no internal noise with the trunk open. If it doesn't bug you it's hard to beat. My friend still runs these and he doesn't get fatigued he says, but at times he turns off subs completely, so I have my doubts. He also loved my 12.1s at least as much as the vqs.


----------

