# What is it that makes a sub an SQ sub or SPL sub?



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

I am currently looking for a sub and I really need to learn a lot more about them than I currently do. I would like an SQ sub over an SPL one, but I am not really sure what the difference is. Well, I am under the impression that SPL subs are louder. So, I guess that makes them more efficient? If so, what are the efficiency numbers that make it an SPL sub?

With SQ subs, does their frequency range go up higher than SPL subs? I just don't know. So, what is it that makes a sub an SQ sub? What is it that makes a sub an SPL sub?

Can someone clarify this for me?


----------



## RVA_LVER (Apr 28, 2016)

This should be a good thread... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Wider bandwidth, low noise, & lower distortion in general, but keep in mind the enclosure can make or break capabilities in what's intended. A good example of a SQ sub is a Dayton RS sub. High SPL is the last thing you can expect from one, but within it's limits they are super clean, can dig pretty deep, and have a well behaved upper response that is very easy to blend with a mid. Done right they can easily "disappear" even at close proximity.


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

The install.


----------



## diy.phil (May 23, 2011)

Dsw1204, with a good SQ sub that has proper control and in the appropriate enclosure, we can hear distinct low notes or frequencies as it varies in the music (not a one-note max-thump setup).


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

for me....low VC induction (LeVC), decent X-max and Fs, Low Q, light rigid cone, Alu speaker basket, shorting rings, strong motor,.... heavily braced/dampened box with smooth phase and impedance curve....
No wonder I prefer JBL GTI drivers, lol, but there are also several other drivers I would consider for my install - old KEF KAR subwoofers, JL W7, ID IDMAX, Morel, Brax...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

LBaudio said:


> for me....low VC induction (LeVC), decent X-max and Fs, Low Q, light rigid cone, Alu speaker basket, shorting rings, strong motor,.... heavily braced/dampened box with smooth phase and impedance curve....
> No wonder I prefer JBL GTI drivers, lol, but there are also several other drivers I would consider for my install - old KEF KAR subwoofers, JL W7, ID IDMAX, Morel, Brax...


This. And there are some ugly ducklings out there that sound way better than your think they should. Love my ugly duckling even though it's low xmax and looks cheaply built, but disappears into the stage effortlessly and is made in the USA.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Xmax isn't something that I would consider a detriment to SQ. Plenty of short throw subs (by today's standards) work well. That has a lot to do with output capabilities & enclosure constraints. Same as baskets... attributes to cast, yes, but there's plenty of stamped frame subs on the market that do well. Bass is the easiest thing to get right in a vehicle. You don't have to go far to get a decent bass engine that can meld with the front. It's the performance of mids & tweets that really need the most attention.


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

I agree it's the easiest part. 
Maybe I'm deaf but I honestly can't tell the difference between my last ported "SPL" branded 8 and my current "SQ" branded sealed 12. 
You can design the enclosure to do whatever you need. There is always give and take with any design. But you can always get what you want out of any sub.


----------



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

Interesting reading, so far. I am not looking for earth-shaking bass. Rather, I would just like to hear deeper bass than what I now have, which is no sub. And, yes, I know any sub will do this. My current setup really supplies me with a very satisfying sound when I am cranking the tunes. It is only when I am playing music at low-to-normal levels that I notice a lack of bass.

I really want a punchy bass. And, I need it to go down to lower frequencies than the midbass drivers of my front stage. I guess I am looking for an SQ sub, one that will disappear into the sound stage (if that is the correct terminology).

Question for you guys: Will a 10" sub give me a tighter, punchier bass response that a 12" sub of the same make and model?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

dsw1204 said:


> Interesting reading, so far. I am not looking for earth-shaking bass. Rather, I would just like to hear deeper bass than what I now have, which is no sub. And, yes, I know any sub will do this. My current setup really supplies me with a very satisfying sound when I am cranking the tunes. It is only when I am playing music at low-to-normal levels that I notice a lack of bass.
> 
> I really want a punchy bass. And, I need it to go down to lower frequencies than the midbass drivers of my front stage. I guess I am looking for an SQ sub, one that will disappear into the sound stage (if that is the correct terminology).
> 
> Question for you guys: Will a 10" sub give me a tighter, punchier bass response that a 12" sub of the same make and model?


Size doesnt make a difference like that. Its a bad myth. All things being equal except size, the larger one would be better.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## capea4 (Sep 2, 2010)

I'd say it's the music you listen to


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> Size doesnt make a difference like that. Its a bad myth. All things being equal except size, the larger one would be better.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Agreed

if a sub is designed well and you put the different sizes in the correct/equal enclosure. They should sound the nearly the same. the larger sub will simply be louder for the same power.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

another funny thing about "SPL" subs. they are ussualy designed to accept rediculous amounts of power. 4-5" voice coils, triple spiders, 30+ mm of xmax and a sensitivity in the high 70s low 80s.

take a sub that is 82db sensistive and another one that is 88db. all things being equal the 88db sub will be just as loud with 500watts as the 82 will be with 2000. so make sure you look at all the specs when making a decision.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

DC/Hertz said:


> The install.


This. The enclosure and boundary conditions dictate the low end. Room nodes and phase transition between the mids and sub dictate the higher end.


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

minbari said:


> another funny thing about "SPL" subs. they are ussualy designed to accept rediculous amounts of power. 4-5" voice coils, triple spiders, 30+ mm of xmax and a sensitivity in the high 70s low 80s.
> 
> take a sub that is 82db sensistive and another one that is 88db. all things being equal the 88db sub will be just as loud with 500watts as the 82 will be with 2000. so make sure you look at all the specs when making a decision.


They typically have 3in coils due to power handling vs weight.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

minbari said:


> another funny thing about "SPL" subs. they are ussualy designed to accept rediculous amounts of power. 4-5" voice coils, triple spiders, 30+ mm of xmax and a sensitivity in the high 70s low 80s.
> 
> take a sub that is 82db sensistive and another one that is 88db. all things being equal the 88db sub will be just as loud with 500watts as the 82 will be with 2000. so make sure you look at all the specs when making a decision.


This is so true. Sensitivity has to be the most over looked sub spec. You'll find that a lot of manufacturers don't even publish sub sensitivity. The main reason I used to surprise and beat most in my power class (when I used to be an SPL guy) was a high sensitivity sub. I used Eclipse 9152's and they have a sensitivity of 91. 

The less power to get loud, the less strain, less chance for distortion, and easier to blend with mids.


----------



## HAL3Y SRT (Jan 27, 2017)

RVA_LVER said:


> This should be a good thread...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:biggrinflip:


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

An SPL SUB will typically have a thicker, stronger cone, surround, and more excursion. They are all around just more beefy. They usually designed to play low frequencies loudly, but may those frequencies may sound more like noise, as opposed to:

a "Musical" SUB, which will have a cone that is thinner and more delicate. It is designed to play with fine detail all the little vibrations necessary to reproduce sound as it were originating from an actual instrument.


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

yes, but with bigger X-max you also get more distortion, on the other hand you have to quadruple x-max to reproduce lets say 20 Hz as loud as 40Hz which is one octave higher.


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

SPL subs are not ment to play low. That would be a sub. SPL subs are designed to play one frequency as loud as possible. Which are normally higher frequencies which do not require much Xmax. They barely move. 
There are very few SPL subs, most are purpose built per application.


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> This. And there are some ugly ducklings out there that sound way better than your think they should. Love my ugly duckling even though it's low xmax and looks cheaply built, but disappears into the stage effortlessly and is made in the USA.


Agree completely. Low Le, strong motor force, low moving mass, ridged cone, etc. are what I look for. 
And as far as "ugly ducklings" go, you can throw the Infinity Kappa 120.9w into that category as well. Most people either love or hate the cosmetics of that sub. But, IMO it's a diamond in the rough. Has a very nice, smooth presentation with the proper enclosure. I grabbed a couple of them before they completely disappeared. Still a few out there but, you gotta search.
I'd advise staying away from its replacement as its specs are far more "average" than the 120.9w. JMO. 

https://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_20027_Infinity-Kappa-120.9W.html


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

SPL is totally different story compared to SQ..... Drivers intended for SPL use all have extremely high power handling and big big x-max capability - this can see anybody - trend is to go to bigger spider that allow more x-max (less tear and stress at the cone/spider joint, then started to arise problems with upper gasket,.....). Also they use super strong magnets, and their durability MUST be high,.... back in the day some were designed so you could do recone in a few minutes.....I played with top SPL some 15 years ago and in that time we used drivers like DD 95/99 series, TREO SSX, RE MT, Atomic APX and APXX - stock drivers, and nowadays the same ****,...DD99 or Z, Alphard 300 and 400 series,...very few guys make their own drivers and be successful in this sport....Got friends that hold quite a few world records in dBDrag and they use more or less stock drivers - in last two seasons they use Alphard products. Drivers are one part of the story, the second part is box with tuning very close to vehicle transfer function/resonance, with silly big ports where everything is about getting the lowest impedance at burping frequency and the biggest possible box/driver efficiency. third part is electrical system with numerous runs of power cables for the least voltage drop and of course damping of the vehicle...... But lets leave SPL on the side and rather talk about SQ...


----------



## sapatel20 (Feb 4, 2017)

PPI_GUY said:


> Agree completely. Low Le, strong motor force, low moving mass, ridged cone, etc. are what I look for.
> 
> And as far as "ugly ducklings" go, you can throw the Infinity Kappa 120.9w into that category as well. Most people either love or hate the cosmetics of that sub. But, IMO it's a diamond in the rough. Has a very nice, smooth presentation with the proper enclosure. I grabbed a couple of them before they completely disappeared. Still a few out there but, you gotta search.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

sapatel20 said:


> PPI_GUY said:
> 
> 
> > Agree completely. Low Le, strong motor force, low moving mass, ridged cone, etc. are what I look for.
> ...


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

Making sure the enclosure is designed for the environment makes the sub an SQ sub. 

For example, if one's peak transfer function is around 40 Hz and one tunes their ported enclosure to 40 Hz, life will get interesting with anything played near the tuning frequency. For the record, I made that bonehead mistake a few times in the past.


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

ChrisB said:


> Making sure the enclosure is designed for the environment makes the sub an SQ sub.
> 
> For example, if one's peak transfer function is around 40 Hz and one tunes their ported enclosure to 40 Hz, life will get interesting with anything played near the tuning frequency. For the record, I made that bonehead mistake a few times in the past.


That is a little high. What were you aiming to achieve with that port tuning? SPL primarily? 
We have some amazingly loud SPL guys around my neck of the woods right now. A few mid to high 150's and even one system that has done a 160 in competition. Most of the bass output seems to be tuned pretty high (by my estimation). Of course, these systems are so skull crushingly loud, it's hard to tell exactly what I am hear half of the time. LOL!

BTW, I don't sit in most of these rides. I value my hearing a bit more than that. Some are so intense (higher tuning?) that they affect you even just standing beside the vehicle when it gets cranked up.


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

I want to throw another question that relates to the initial thread question.


for SQ would you suggest a sealed enclosure thats more controlled etc or a ported box tuned to play low frequencies also meant for SQ?


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

audiocholic said:


> I want to throw another question that relates to the initial thread question.
> 
> 
> for SQ would you suggest a sealed enclosure thats more controlled etc or a ported box tuned to play low frequencies also meant for SQ?


Whichever one fits the woofer you are using better. Both will have to be modeled.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

audiocholic said:


> I want to throw another question that relates to the initial thread question.
> 
> 
> for SQ would you suggest a sealed enclosure thats more controlled etc or a ported box tuned to play low frequencies also meant for SQ?


That depends on the sub - A high Q, high fs (or large VAS) sub will sound terrible in a small sealed enclosure (and probably sound terrible in a vented enclosure too because it's likely a terribly designed speaker, but that's beside the point). All things being equal: I think most people would prefer an appropriate sealed enclosure because the transfer function of a vehicle will naturally boost the low end anyway and the smoother phase transition seems to make an audible difference. You also eliminate the possibility of port noise and any mechanical noise from behind the speaker coming through the port. Having built and played around will all kinds of enclosures of various orders, I'm not sure what side I'm on, although I think I prefer ported alignments. In the real world there's too many other variables to pick one or the other though.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

PPI_GUY said:


> That is a little high. What were you aiming to achieve with that port tuning? SPL primarily?
> We have some amazingly loud SPL guys around my neck of the woods right now. A few mid to high 150's and even one system that has done a 160 in competition. Most of the bass output seems to be tuned pretty high (by my estimation). Of course, these systems are so skull crushingly loud, it's hard to tell exactly what I am hear half of the time. LOL!
> 
> BTW, I don't sit in most of these rides. I value my hearing a bit more than that. Some are so intense (higher tuning?) that they affect you even just standing beside the vehicle when it gets cranked up.


Most cars have a cabin peak freq of 40-50 hz. So you get a 3- 6db gain then they port it at the freq. another 3-6db gain, plus 40-50hz takes way less excursion than say 32 hz, so they can throw more power(thus the high powered 4'' VCs) and reach max excursion through sheer power at 45 hertz at insanely high DB levels. 

The old Honda Cr-X have had walls in them and they are such a small cabin they peak at 65hz and its hilariously loud midbass. You wanna talk about chest thumping, get in a walled CR-X.


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Most cars have a cabin peak freq of 40-50 hz. So you get a 3- 6db gain then they port it at the freq. another 3-6db gain, plus 40-50hz takes way less excursion than say 32 hz, so they can throw more power(thus the high powered 4'' VCs) and reach max excursion through sheer power at 45 hertz at insanely high DB levels.
> 
> The old Honda Cr-X have had walls in them and they are such a small cabin they peak at 65hz and its hilariously loud midbass. You wanna talk about chest thumping, get in a walled CR-X.


We get higher numbers from 3in coils. 4in is for that long time high power demo all day. Not worried about numbers but hair tricks and lowzzz


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

PPI_GUY said:


> Agree completely. Low Le, strong motor force, low moving mass, ridged cone, etc. are what I look for.
> And as far as "ugly ducklings" go, you can throw the Infinity Kappa 120.9w into that category as well. Most people either love or hate the cosmetics of that sub. But, IMO it's a diamond in the rough. Has a very nice, smooth presentation with the proper enclosure. I grabbed a couple of them before they completely disappeared. Still a few out there but, you gotta search.
> I'd advise staying away from its replacement as its specs are far more "average" than the 120.9w. JMO.
> 
> https://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_20027_Infinity-Kappa-120.9W.html


I agree on all points except the low-moving mass. Many times a very rigid cone will necessitate more mass if made from more "traditional" materials, and this can be overcome with a stronger motor. So long as the Qts is < 0.35 and the Fs is near 30Hz, I feel that there is sufficient motor force, regardless of cone mass. Of course this is not always the case (needing high mass for strength) with very high tech cones, usually made of a combination of materials such as Nomex honeycomb/Rohacell sandwiched between kevlar/glass fibre/carbon fibre. A lighter cone can be an advantage though, because you need less BL to achieve a target Qes, the main contributor to Qts. I like the additional damping of low Qts subwoofers because they work well for when I listen to _my_ music, which happens to have lots of lots of very very fast double-bass drum blasts. My favorite sub in terms of this highly damped sound are Cerwin-Vega Strokers which have Qts from about 0.19-0.26 in the ones I have personally measured. Are they the cleanest sounding? Nope, but you feel the double bass beats as if "you're there live". For clean my favorite are JBL WGTi's. While they don't have the super strong damping of the Strokers, their near-invisible inductance makes they super clean and blend very well into the upper bass ranges.

With regards to inductance, you want a low inductance, but Re also has to be taken into account, as anyone can parallel a pair of coils and get a lower Le, but it's not "free" because you increased the power going into the coils, and thus brings the energy storage back up in the grand scheme of things. I feel total Re/Le should be higher than about ~2.6. For a 4 ohm coil whose Re is on average 3.5ohms or so, Le should be less than ~1.5mH. The lower the Le for a given Re, the better. A really good Re/Le ratio IMO is >5.

I just recently picked up a 10" Morel Ultimate sub that I have very high hopes for, even if it's not an all out SPL monster.


----------



## RVA_LVER (Apr 28, 2016)

Oscar said:


> I agree on all points except the low-moving mass. Many times a very rigid cone will necessitate more mass if made from more "traditional" materials, and this can be overcome with a stronger motor. So long as the Qts is < 0.35 and the Fs is near 30Hz, I feel that there is sufficient motor force, regardless of cone mass. Of course this is not always the case (needing high mass for strength) with very high tech cones, usually made of a combination of materials such as Nomex honeycomb/Rohacell sandwiched between kevlar/glass fibre/carbon fibre. A lighter cone can be an advantage though, because you need less BL to achieve a target Qes, the main contributor to Qts. I like the additional damping of low Qts subwoofers because they work well for when I listen to _my_ music, which happens to have lots of lots of very very fast double-bass drum blasts. My favorite sub in terms of this highly damped sound are Cerwin-Vega Strokers which have Qts from about 0.19-0.26 in the ones I have personally measured. Are they the cleanest sounding? Nope, but you feel the double bass beats as if "you're there live". For clean my favorite are JBL WGTi's. While they don't have the super strong damping of the Strokers, their near-invisible inductance makes they super clean and blend very well into the upper bass ranges.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, great post 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

RVA_LVER said:


> Wow, great post
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks but I did have to make some typo corrections in my last paragraph.

In this pic you can see one of my many Strokers, a Stroker 15, in big ol' ported box with a huge port, tuned to low-30's. Lemme tell you, blasting Napalm Death through this thing makes you think Danny Herrera is in the same room with you! As you can see in the foreground, I have plenty of amplification available.


----------



## RVA_LVER (Apr 28, 2016)

Oscar said:


> Thanks but I did have to make some typo corrections in my last paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> In this pic you can see one of my many Strokers, a Stroker 15, in big ol' ported box with a huge port, tuned to low-30's. Lemme tell you, blasting Napalm Death through this thing makes you think Danny Herrera is in the same room with you! As you can see in the foreground, I have plenty of amplification available.




Are those Strokers hard to come by? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## diy.phil (May 23, 2011)

!


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

RVA_LVER said:


> Are those Strokers hard to come by?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The old-school ones are. Especially considering that I squandered all that I could find










I have a few more that didn't fit on that shelf.


The 60th Anniv. models that showed up a couple of years ago seem to have very good damping as well, but I don't own any though.


----------



## diy.phil (May 23, 2011)

!!


----------



## strong*I*bumpin (Oct 3, 2005)

Someone likes red surrounds


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

strong*I*bumpin said:


> Someone likes red surrounds


More like high SPL.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

High Resolution Audio said:


> a "Musical" SUB, which will have a cone that is thinner and more delicate. It is designed to play with fine detail all the little vibrations necessary to reproduce sound as it were originating from an actual instrument.


Sorry, but that is absolute non-sense. Since when do "musical" subs have cones made from Kleenex? "Little vibrations"?? What in the.....

Have you ever felt the cone on a JBL WGTi? Arguably one of the better SQ subs out there, even after all these years, and has a cone like concrete---heavy and stiff (not 'thin and delicate'), yet is one of the most transparent subs you will ever hear when implemented correctly. 

Please do some more research and see what's out there and how it actually performs.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

Well have you seen the jbl gti1500? 




Oscar said:


> High Resolution Audio said:
> 
> 
> > a "Musical" SUB, which will have a cone that is thinner and more delicate. It is designed to play with fine detail all the little vibrations necessary to reproduce sound as it were originating from an actual instrument.
> ...


----------



## DC/Hertz (Nov 27, 2011)

Cone should be strong enough to not add its own artificial and light enough to match the other suspension parts. 
The weight can change from non pressed paper to Kevlar to composite. It will change the FS slightly due to mms. 
I had a cool write up from DD that showed a few of there cone options and gave a break down of them. I couldn't find it a while ago but I'll try again.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

dcfis said:


> Well have you seen the jbl gti1500?


Hmm...I think so....Hmmm....you mean this one?





































Those are my actual photos  And it has a very stiff cone. Not thin and delicate.


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

Oscar said:


> Sorry, but that is absolute non-sense. Since when do "musical" subs have cones made from Kleenex? "Little vibrations"?? What in the.....
> 
> Have you ever felt the cone on a JBL WGTi? Arguably one of the better SQ subs out there, even after all these years, and has a cone like concrete---heavy and stiff (not 'thin and delicate'), yet is one of the most transparent subs you will ever hear when implemented correctly.
> 
> Please do some more research and see what's out there and how it actually performs.



No offense but I have owned more than a few gti's and there are not at all to be considered heavy in terms of cone material.

a 12gti mk2 has an mms of 183gr's thats pretty close to its rivals such as JL 12W6 at 183grs aswell and Focal 33KX purely designed for musicality and SQ at 229gr's.

are there lighter ones well yeah ofcourse there are a morel ultimo 12 is roughly 135grms but when you take into account the gti's strenght/power its power to weight ratio does infact make it a unique product that can easily be considered lightweight cone material wise (surely not heavy).


I aggree that dimension and stiffness wise the gentlement has it wrong but if he meant lightweight I'am totally with him, all the subs I have heard to be surprised with SQ wise had lightweight cones and/or a very good power to weight ratio.



all of you are probably going to laugh at this comment but one of the best Price performance subs I have listened to was a Alpine type r 8, it has a remarkable amount of power pushing very litte cone area and total weight and sounds amazing for what it is and what it costs.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

Good one, raise...









MMS of 119




Oscar said:


> dcfis said:
> 
> 
> > Well have you seen the jbl gti1500?
> ...


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

I think MMS on 1500 gti is somewhere near 180g, for his PA brother 2226 it is a little less - cca140g or slightly more


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

I see my point was entirely missed. _Most _cones that are stiff are rather heavy, but not all. Of course it also depends on one's particular definition of "heavy" My reference is more towards a cone being _stiff and rigid_, rather than flimsy and delicate as was suggested hi Hi-Res Audio. I do know that not all cones that are stiff have to necessarily be heavy, as in "lots of mass". There is usually a correlation between the two, but there are of course exceptions to the rule when a manufacturer does their homework and achieves a very high stiffness without resorting to a lot of extra mass by way of different cone-materials and manufacturing practices. The WGTi cone is by no means a lightweight , and of course I know it's not as heavy as an all-out SPL woofer cone either. My point is: it is not "thin and delicate" as was explicitly stated previously, and has top-notch, low-distortion performance.

Nice 1800GTi's. I have two 1800GTi baskets, but have yet to recone them. I have a few 1200GTi's, a couple 1500GTi's, and the 1800GTi baskets that I plan to recone with some kits, probably from Speaker Exchange. They will most likely be implemented in a bass-guitar rig that I have yet to build.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/284661/Jbl-1500gti.html




LBaudio said:


> I think MMS on 1500 gti is somewhere near 180g, for his PA brother 2226 it is a little less - cca140g or slightly more


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

Oscar said:


> Nice 1800GTi's. I have two 1800GTi baskets, but have yet to recone them. I have a few 1200GTi's, a couple 1500GTi's, and the 1800GTi baskets that I plan to recone with some kits, probably from Speaker Exchange. They will most likely be implemented in a bass-guitar rig that I have yet to build.


Nice, I am enjoying mine like this,


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Oscar said:


> I see my point was entirely missed. _Most _cones that are stiff are rather heavy, but not all. Of course it also depends on one's particular definition of "heavy" My reference is more towards a cone being _stiff and rigid_, rather than flimsy and delicate as was suggested hi Hi-Res Audio. I do know that not all cones that are stiff have to necessarily be heavy, as in "lots of mass". There is usually a correlation between the two, but there are of course exceptions to the rule when a manufacturer does their homework and achieves a very high stiffness without resorting to a lot of extra mass by way of different cone-materials and manufacturing practices. The WGTi cone is by no means a lightweight , and of course I know it's not as heavy as an all-out SPL woofer cone either. My point is: it is not "thin and delicate" as was explicitly stated previously, and has top-notch, low-distortion performance.
> 
> Nice 1800GTi's. I have two 1800GTi baskets, but have yet to recone them. I have a few 1200GTi's, a couple 1500GTi's, and the 1800GTi baskets that I plan to recone with some kits, probably from Speaker Exchange. They will most likely be implemented in a bass-guitar rig that I have yet to build.


You can believe what you wish to believe, and argue all day about it. 

Boston Acoustics Pro Subs .4 series subs ( Old School ) compare almost directly with Brax Matrix 10.4 ( New School ) subs. Both have a thin, light cone and are considered by many some of the best musical subs ever made. 

I own both and have compared them with many others. Even with the Boston Pro .5 series of subs, which have a much tougher, thicker cone. They sound muddy, murky and unclear when directly compared.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Oscar said:


> I agree on all points except the low-moving mass. Many times a very rigid cone will necessitate more mass if made from more "traditional" materials, and this can be overcome with a stronger motor. So long as the Qts is < 0.35 and the Fs is near 30Hz, I feel that there is sufficient motor force, regardless of cone mass. Of course this is not always the case (needing high mass for strength) with very high tech cones, usually made of a combination of materials such as Nomex honeycomb/Rohacell sandwiched between kevlar/glass fibre/carbon fibre. A lighter cone can be an advantage though, because you need less BL to achieve a target Qes, the main contributor to Qts. I like the additional damping of low Qts subwoofers because they work well for when I listen to _my_ music, which happens to have lots of lots of very very fast double-bass drum blasts. My favorite sub in terms of this highly damped sound are Cerwin-Vega Strokers which have Qts from about 0.19-0.26 in the ones I have personally measured. Are they the cleanest sounding? Nope, but you feel the double bass beats as if "you're there live". For clean my favorite are JBL WGTi's. While they don't have the super strong damping of the Strokers, their near-invisible inductance makes they super clean and blend very well into the upper bass ranges.
> 
> With regards to inductance, you want a low inductance, but Re also has to be taken into account, as anyone can parallel a pair of coils and get a lower Le, but it's not "free" because you increased the power going into the coils, and thus brings the energy storage back up in the grand scheme of things. I feel total Re/Le should be higher than about ~2.6. For a 4 ohm coil whose Re is on average 3.5ohms or so, Le should be less than ~1.5mH. The lower the Le for a given Re, the better. A really good Re/Le ratio IMO is >5.
> 
> I just recently picked up a 10" Morel Ultimate sub that I have very high hopes for, even if it's not an all out SPL monster.





Oscar said:


> I see my point was entirely missed. _Most _cones that are stiff are rather heavy, but not all. Of course it also depends on one's particular definition of "heavy" My reference is more towards a cone being _stiff and rigid_, rather than flimsy and delicate as was suggested hi Hi-Res Audio. I do know that not all cones that are stiff have to necessarily be heavy, as in "lots of mass". There is usually a correlation between the two, but there are of course exceptions to the rule when a manufacturer does their homework and achieves a very high stiffness without resorting to a lot of extra mass by way of different cone-materials and manufacturing practices. The WGTi cone is by no means a lightweight , and of course I know it's not as heavy as an all-out SPL woofer cone either. My point is: it is not "thin and delicate" as was explicitly stated previously, and has top-notch, low-distortion performance.
> 
> Nice 1800GTi's. I have two 1800GTi baskets, but have yet to recone them. I have a few 1200GTi's, a couple 1500GTi's, and the 1800GTi baskets that I plan to recone with some kits, probably from Speaker Exchange. They will most likely be implemented in a bass-guitar rig that I have yet to build.


thanks for the well thought out responses. i appreciate when people base their answer on the actual science behind it instead of making their post sound like a snippet of marketing literature


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

I'll admit to not having heard all of the modern elite "SQ focused" subs like the Morel's. I'm old and my experience is with the older gear. I've heard JBL's, Image Dynamics, actually run two IDQ10D4v2 subs in my daily driver, heard the GTi's and many more. But, still to this day the best sounding sub I've heard was the Oz Audio "Superman" subs. Their cone was "mineral filled somethingorother", voice coils were small at around 2"-2.5" and their power handling was low at 250 watts RMS. Nothing spectacular, not SPL monsters at all. But, on classical and jazz they were incredible! Hard to explain really.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

High Resolution Audio said:


> You can believe what you wish to believe, and argue all day about it.
> 
> Boston Acoustics Pro Subs .4 series subs ( Old School ) compare almost directly with Brax Matrix 10.4 ( New School ) subs. Both have a thin, light cone and are considered by many some of the best musical subs ever made.
> 
> I own both and have compared them with many others. Even with the Boston Pro .5 series of subs, which have a much tougher, thicker cone. They sound muddy, murky and unclear when directly compared.


Ah now I see what you are referencing. Well as it turns out, just because _those_ subs have thin/light cones and have great SQ performance (or as you call it "musical"), doesn't necessarily mean that _ALL _SQ subs will also. Case in point, my previous example. You reference that the BP subs with the tougher thicker cone that they sound muddy, murky, and unclear, ok sure I have no objection with your analysis, but that doesn't mean that _all_ subs with tougher thicker cones will exhibit the same characteristics. You are taking one sole example and extrapolating your specific findings and applying to all of car audio. 

"a "Musical" SUB, which _will_ have a cone that is thinner and more delicate. "

That's a very bold statement that you are suddenly requiring of the entire audio world for the requirements of a "musical" sub, or as I call it, a SQ sub. Yes I can believe what I wish to believe; so can you.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Oscar said:


> Ah now I see what you are referencing. Well as it turns out, just because _those_ subs have thin/light cones and have great SQ performance (or as you call it "musical"), doesn't necessarily mean that _ALL _SQ subs will also. Case in point, my previous example. You reference that the BP subs with the tougher thicker cone that they sound muddy, murky, and unclear, ok sure I have no objection with your analysis, but that doesn't mean that _all_ subs with tougher thicker cones will exhibit the same characteristics. You are taking one sole example and extrapolating your specific findings and applying to all of car audio.
> 
> "a "Musical" SUB, which _will_ have a cone that is thinner and more delicate. "
> 
> That's a very bold statement that you are suddenly requiring of the entire audio world for the requirements of a "musical" sub, or as I call it, a SQ sub. Yes I can believe what I wish to believe; so can you.


Your assesment sums up Gerald pretty accurately.. One example with no regard to other information makes up hisvmimd

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

People believe their opinion to be correct, otherwise they change their opinion.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Oscar said:


> Ah now I see what you are referencing. Well as it turns out, just because _those_ subs have thin/light cones and have great SQ performance (or as you call it "musical"), doesn't necessarily mean that _ALL _SQ subs will also. Case in point, my previous example. You reference that the BP subs with the tougher thicker cone that they sound muddy, murky, and unclear, ok sure I have no objection with your analysis, but that doesn't mean that _all_ subs with tougher thicker cones will exhibit the same characteristics. You are taking one sole example and extrapolating your specific findings and applying to all of car audio.
> 
> "a "Musical" SUB, which _will_ have a cone that is thinner and more delicate. "
> 
> That's a very bold statement that you are suddenly requiring of the entire audio world for the requirements of a "musical" sub, or as I call it, a SQ sub. Yes I can believe what I wish to believe; so can you.


This forum is just basically a bunch of people posting their opinions. I'm sharing my experiences based on my ears and past experience as well as knowledge of physics. 

The Boston .5 series is not the only other sub I have heard in my lifetime. I was using it as an example. Nor am I extrapolating as I have a knowledge and understanding of physics.


Lightweight paper cones have different vibration characteristics and articulate more detail than a thicker more rigid cone. 

That is why Scanspeak drivers, used in the finest high end speaker manufacturers all over the world. They feature thin sliced paper cones. 

My Boston Pro Mid-ranges are thin and lightweight and are more detailed than most car audio drivers made today. I've sat in enough cars to hear differences for myself. 

It's not physically possible for a thick strong cone to be super accurate with regards to recreating detailed minute vibrations.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> It's not physically possible for a thick strong cone to be super accurate with regards to recreating detailed minute vibrations.


Why? Wouldn't a transducer that remains more pistonic more accurately reproduce the waveform? If you're concerned about the inertia of a heavy cone, you're talking about energy storage in the capacitive range of the system, and energy storage is a function of Q. We can get into inductive behavior of the coil and how it relates to transient response but that's not what you're alluding to.

I'm not disagreeing that a lighter cone might sound better, but I'm disagreeing with your logic.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

A driver vibrates at many different frequencies at the same time. The lighter and thinner the cone material, the more finite details can be heard.

I always go to opposite extremes when trying to figure out things.

Take for example electrostatic speakers, like the legendary Quads, or Martan Logan for example. They vibrate air differently and sound different than conventional cone drivers. Details are amazing. They use a thin and lightweight material. It can start and stop quickly, thus giving extended detail.

Same goes for reproducing low frequencies. Have to use different material and design, because low frequencies have longer wavelengths and are harder to reproduce, but that same concept holds true, with regards to being accurate. There is not a magical cut off point where the physics no longer apply.


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

But Gerald, from your own statement regarding minute vibrations....

How many minute vibrations *should* exist in the sub frequency range? Wouldn't that be considered coloration in that range?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Gerald for the love of god, subscribe to voice coil magazine and pick up a few books like loudspeaker cookbook and some of the stuff by Floyd tool. 

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

High Resolution Audio said:


> A driver vibrates at many different frequencies at the same time. The lighter and thinner the cone material, the more finite details can be heard.
> 
> I always go to opposite extremes when trying to figure out things.
> 
> ...


What vibrations?
Where do they come from?
I would assume that a cross over would be reducing some high frequency nuance from rippling across the face of a subwoofer, (which is really rippling linearly).

The Martin Logan's are a planer or semi curved speaker.
A Piston speaker is a point source.
A semi curved or planar has a focus we'll behind it or at infinity, and created a wavefront that is less curved. Whether that makes any difference or not it is more like a far field wavefront.

I have a fantastic sounding set of tube Mono blocks. I can you that fidelity is not what they have with a lot of harmonic distortion. I like them, but the wife's old NAD is better in terms of high fidelity. The nuance of the music, and magical tube sound, is a Randian "double talk" for low fidelity.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

danno14 said:


> But Gerald, from your own statement regarding minute vibrations....
> 
> How many minute vibrations *should* exist in the sub frequency range? Wouldn't that be considered coloration in that range?


Lets start by looking at the diameter of the strings that make up those frequencies. Sub bass is considered 60HZ and below. We have piano, cello, bass guitar, ( both stand up and electric ), harp, pipe organ. 

Physics would tell me that if one was trying to reproduce those frequencies accurately, then one would only use a material whose diameter is equal to the largest diameter of the string in mentioned instruments. ( except pipe organ of course )

The largest diameter of a modern piano steel wire is .2" That's pretty thin and flexible. 

So it does not make any sense when trying to reproduce a sound made by a thin flexible wire to use something thick and heavy.

Common sense, here.


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

Gerald-
I'm going to counter with your own logic stream- 

A full length 64' pipe organ stop will reproduce bass and sub bass. It could easily weigh as much as 15,000 pounds. By your logic the speaker used to reproduce the sound spoken by such would need to be just as massive. 

Volley


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

danno14 said:


> Gerald-
> I'm going to counter with your own logic stream-
> 
> A full length 64' pipe organ stop will reproduce bass and sub bass. It could easily weigh as much as 15,000 pounds. By your logic the speaker used to reproduce the sound spoken by such would need to be just as massive.
> ...


What is the thickness of the metal used in the pipe organs pipe? It's pretty thin, probably the thickness of the piano wire or close to it.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Lets start by looking at the diameter of the strings that make up those frequencies. Sub bass is considered 60HZ and below. We have piano, cello, bass guitar, ( both stand up and electric ), harp, pipe organ.
> 
> Physics would tell me that if one was trying to reproduce those frequencies accurately, then one would only use a material whose diameter is equal to the largest diameter of the string in mentioned instruments. ( except pipe organ of course )
> 
> ...


Now you're wayy out of your own league. I can tell you don't have any formal training in physics. I have a degree in it, along with Mathematics. You're literally just making things up in your own head now. I sure hope others can see it as clear as I.

Carry on in your own world.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

What if I told you it's the air inside of the pipe that's responsible for the wavefront and not the pipe itself (although the pipe may sympathetically resonate and create higher order distortion)? Do you disagree with this?


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

But it's not the thickness of the metal that is causing the vibration.... "exciting" the air as it were. (I believe it would be the Helmholtz effect) Nor is it the weight/thickness of the ivory on the keys (stops) used to activate the windchest. And many, if not most, of the lower registers are made of wood. Generally not super thin pieces of wood either.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SPLEclipse said:


> What if I told you it's the air inside of the pipe that's responsible for the wavefront and not the pipe itself (although the pipe may sympathetically resonate and create higher order distortion)? Do you disagree with this?


No, it's the air. Vibrating air is sound. However, most of us don't listen to pipe organ music in our cars.......

And the pipe organ comment took us off topic. It's the small flexible thin strings that make up the bass frequencies. Those small vibrating strings are what we are trying to emulate.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Lets start by looking at the diameter of the strings that make up those frequencies. Sub bass is considered 60HZ and below. We have piano, cello, bass guitar, ( both stand up and electric ), harp, pipe organ.
> 
> Physics would tell me that if one was trying to reproduce those frequencies accurately, then one would only use a material whose diameter is equal to the largest diameter of the string in mentioned instruments. ( except pipe organ of course )
> 
> ...


Common sense? ................ I think not, as in, not even close 

Producing a sound, and reproduction of sound, are not one in the same. They most certainly dont require similar physical characteristics.

In an instrument we want resonance and color to create a specific tone and character, in a loudspeaker regardless of frequency we dont want resonance or other factors coloring the sound, as any added sound due to resonance of the diaphragm or other components, would not sound lilke the recording or original instrument. 

Any thoughts you are having or expressing in this way do not fit within the frame of common sense or any other form of logical thought.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Eric Stevens said:


> Common sense? ................ I think not, as in, not even close
> 
> Producing a sound, and reproduction of sound, are not one in the same. They most certainly dont require similar physical characteristics.
> 
> ...


The body of the instrument and how it effects the tonality of the vibrating wire is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that bass frequencies are made from thin lightweight flexible wire. Reproducing the exact sounds are done best with something thin, lightweight and flexible. 

Your argument only reinforces my point. Adding more mass and stiffness will add coloration and take away details from the original.


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> No, it's the air. Vibrating air is sound. However, most of us don't listen to pipe organ music in our cars.......
> 
> And the pipe organ comment took us off topic. It's the small flexible thin strings that make up the bass frequencies. Those small vibrating strings are what we are trying to emulate.




Lol! I don't dispute that most don't listen to pipe organ music at all, let alone in their car! I for one find that is the ONLY place I can do so without upsetting the WAF balance in life! 

Again, the same logic- If "Most of us" is the justification for a position, surely you must consider that the vast majority (nee 100%?) disagree with most positions you hold dear, and perhaps you should change yours instead of believing all of the "rest of us" should change ours?

*WAF - WIfe Acceptance Factor



This whole thread has turned onto an off topic diversion. Humorous to be sure, but still a diversion


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

High Resolution Audio said:


> The body of the instrument and how it effects the tonality of the vibrating wire is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that bass frequencies are made from thin lightweight flexible wire. Reproducing the exact sounds are done best with something thin, lightweight and flexible.
> 
> Your argument only reinforces my point. Adding more mass and stiffness will add coloration and take away details from the original.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

This is a good place for you to start your education on sound, I suggest you clear all that is currently cluttering your mind.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

danno14 said:


> Lol! I don't dispute that most don't listen to pipe organ music at all, let alone in their car! I for one find that is the ONLY place I can do so without upsetting the WAF balance in life!
> 
> Again, the same logic- If "Most of us" is the justification for a position, surely you must consider that the vast majority (nee 100%?) disagree with most positions you hold dear, and perhaps you should change yours instead of believing all of the "rest of us" should change ours?
> 
> ...


I believe that the thread topic has not diverted. It was my statement that a thin, light, flexible driver is better suited to reproduce music than a thicker, heavier, cone. ( which would be more suited for SPL)

I have given specific examples to prove my opinion. And others have agreed that the specific examples I provided, were congruent with my theory. 

I have also backed it up with common sense logic. 

Go to the opposite extreme any try and make a sub-woofer cone with a thick, heavy, dense, material.......and see how musical it sounds.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Well damn, with a mms of almost 300g there's no way my new sub will sound good.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

ca90ss said:


> Well damn, with a mms of almost 300g there's no way my new sub will sound good.


That's Professional Audio Driver......that would play well in a Hood SQ application. lol


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

ca90ss said:


> Well damn, with a mms of almost 300g there's no way my new sub will sound good.


Absolutely not. I have paypal ready to subdue the mental anguish you so surely are plagued and tormented with. Shall we say, $100 shipped? :laugh:


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

dcfis said:


> Good one, raise...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did I ever show you a pic of my 1500 GTi's next to the 1800GTi baskets?

Pointing at them with red arrows...









I see your raise. All in bro.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

How does the og stroker sound in terms of sq to the jbl? The 1500s shallow basket is one of the main reasons I decided to use it in terms of space savings




Oscar said:


> dcfis said:
> 
> 
> > Good one, raise...
> ...


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

dcfis said:


> How does the og stroker sound in terms of sq to the jbl? The 1500s shallow basket is one of the main reasons I decided to use it in terms of space savings


The much higher damping makes for a better transient performance. Fast, deep, double-bass drum blasts, sound and feel like exactly that. The WGTi can't compete since it's Qts is somewhere around the ~0.55 neighborhood. It still sounds good, but the individual drum "whacks" aren't as distinguished as with the CV Stroker. Can't compare with a Qts of ~0.20-ish of the Stroker. But the og stroker will suffer from the usual THD associated with a "typical" overhung motor topology, because it is. Where as the JBL blends sooo smoooooth into the upper bass because the differential drive motor topology effectively kills 2nd order distortion, and reverse-wound coils null out the inductance to practically nothing. The Stroker needs to be crossed over no higher than about 70Hz or so if it is being fed high power. At low-medium power, it can be crossed over higher like 90-100Hz because it is moving much less and generating much less distortion.

Look at the very low 2nd/3rd order harmonic distortion between 40Hz-350Hz for a W15GTi. 









I don't have my DATS software on this laptop yet, but when I measured my W12GTi, I think inductance was something like 0.4 mH.


----------



## rob feature (Nov 15, 2015)

Oscar said:


> D
> 
> Pointing at them with red arrows...


errhmergherrr :smart:


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

rob feature said:


> errhmergherrr :smart:


What's wrong Rob??? Everything, ok?


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

Excellent, any comparos to the original jbl gti1500? I'll shoot you a pm prolly tomorrow if you don't mind me picking your brain a bit as you own prolly my three favorite woofers ever



Oscar said:


> dcfis said:
> 
> 
> > How does the og stroker sound in terms of sq to the jbl? The 1500s shallow basket is one of the main reasons I decided to use it in terms of space savings
> ...


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I believe that the thread topic has not diverted. It was my statement that a thin, light, flexible driver is better suited to reproduce music than a thicker, heavier, cone. ( which would be more suited for SPL)
> 
> I have given specific examples to prove my opinion. And others have agreed that the specific examples I provided, were congruent with my theory.
> 
> ...


I would agree that a thin, light, flexible driver CAN sound musical. It can also sound like garbage. This is an example where the result is greater than a simple sum of its parts.... the correlation, as many have tried to explain to you, is not as simple and clear cut as you would profess. 

I will also agree with your comment that a thin, light cone is better for reproducing music than a dense, heavy cone, with the caveat that you seem to be referring to a much wider range of frequency reproduction than is considered bass or sub-bass. Ergo your comments about the scan speak *midbass* cones. 

I would suggest, as have others, that much of your theory is not congruent with what they are trying to help you understand, and if you are open to the possibility that you may not be entirely correct, additional knowledge could be gained.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

High Resolution Audio said:


> The body of the instrument and how it effects the tonality of the vibrating wire is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that bass frequencies are made from thin lightweight flexible wire...


Actually in a stringed instrument it is a combination of the strings and the bridge couples the vibration to the body. In an acoustic guitar the boys generally acts like a radiator to amplify or better couple more area to the air. In an electric guitar the body is not flexible.

In a pipe organ the thin metal is stiff. A physics book would be useful to find the reasoning frequency of the pipe, both in the long axis and circumferencially. You will probably find that none of those frequencies exist in real life. Either they are not excited unless one hits the pipe with a hammer, or have such high damping that they are dissipated to heat immediately.

The string's primary mode is like a jump rope session. There are also higher order modes such as the string moving left at the bridge side, pivoting around the halfway point, and then moving right at the far end... Etc.
The string is not vibrating back and forth in cross sectional egg shape. 

Whether the sound starts with a wire or string does not mean that the optimal speaker should be a wire shape... And if it did, then to produce a drum sound, one may be required to use a drum like structure. And wood winds would use a pipe structure. However there is no easy way to tune a pipe's length in a broad band sense without a servo on a trombone like mechanism.



High Resolution Audio said:


> ...
> Your argument only reinforces my point. Adding more mass and stiffness will add coloration and take away details from the original.


What coloration?
Assuming that the spectrum is filtered in a cross over to only be sending the frequencies that the speaker is capable of, then any information in the origional recording will be carried by the midrange or tweeters.

Normally one would compare the origional signal as truth, and take measurements of the output signal to derive harmonics, as well as any group delay (phase), and/or dispersion measurements. Any extra "musicality" or "coloration" would be considered not having fidelity that matches the true signal.

My main interest here is finding a decent SW, and few have been talked about.
I am sensing that a sealed box sub woofer is of higher sound quality as the output is more linear with a lower Q... Is this correct?


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

I think the topic has kind gotten carried away and we have begun giving extreme examples and have exaggerrated it.



are we talking about a generalisation of SQ subs or are we giving out extreme examples?



usually a car turns a corner better the lighter it is aswell as accellerate better too but are we going get into tires with 365 tread width,suspension valued at standard car prices,engines with +1000hp power and give the Veyron as a competing example just for the heck of it?



all in all in general the lighter the cone material and the better the power to weight ratio the better the sub becomes a SQ orientaded sub wouldnt be a miss guiding statement as a generalisation if you ask me.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

audiocholic said:


> all in all in general the lighter the cone material and the better the power to weight ratio the better the sub becomes a SQ orientaded sub wouldnt be a miss guiding statement as a generalisation if you ask me.


The concern with your statement is you're just thinking about _physical _aspects and have not yet even begun to consider electro-mechanical aspects. BTW, a speaker is not an engine and doesn't have a power-to-weight ratio, although many do consider the power coupling coefficient BL²/Re to be important. (see what I mean about electro-mechanical?) Inductance and it's role in generating distortion needs to be addressed. BL variation needs to be addressed. You can have the most "powerful motor" and the "lightest cone" in a great box, but _you can't tune out distortion_, whether it be BL-induced, Le-induced, Kms-induced. Once you crank up the power, not to all-out SPL competition levels but simply to moderately-high levels that are tolerable by the human ears, you'll be left there scratching your head wondering just what the hell happened to your paper-thin feather light *subwoofer *(not midbass,midrange, etc, etc) that was supposed to sound just so great?!?!


----------



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

Man, there's been a lot of interesting reading (for me) in this thread. I thank all that have contributed.

I ran across these the other day and was wondering if anybody knew anything about them or the manufacturer:


NKO-12 - Dark Audio Industries

NKO-12 - Dark Audio Industries

Never heard of these guys, but some pretty good prices, here. My guess is that they are not SQ subs.


----------



## Garcbomber (May 26, 2017)

Don't understand the infatuation with old sub technology. 

That's like bragging you have a first generation C1 corvette to guys that can afford a C7 which is leaps and bounds ahead in every single aspect. 

"It handles better though." Sure it does, old timer... Your music is still slow as **** compared to mine.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

Pssss, there is no "New" technology



Garcbomber said:


> Don't understand the infatuation with old sub technology.
> 
> That's like bragging you have a first generation C1 corvette to guys that can afford a C7 which is leaps and bounds ahead in every single aspect.
> 
> "It handles better though." Sure it does, old timer... Your music is still slow as **** compared to mine.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

dsw1204 said:


> Man, there's been a lot of interesting reading (for me) in this thread. I thank all that have contributed.
> 
> I ran across these the other day and was wondering if anybody knew anything about them or the manufacturer:
> 
> ...


Seem like typical, run-of-the-mill subs to me. Nothing seems to stand out, but that doesn't mean that they won't sound good of course.


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

Oscar said:


> The concern with your statement is you're just thinking about _physical _aspects and have not yet even begun to consider electro-mechanical aspects. BTW, a speaker is not an engine and doesn't have a power-to-weight ratio, although many do consider the power coupling coefficient BL²/Re to be important. (see what I mean about electro-mechanical?) Inductance and it's role in generating distortion needs to be addressed. BL variation needs to be addressed. You can have the most "powerful motor" and the "lightest cone" in a great box, but _you can't tune out distortion_, whether it be BL-induced, Le-induced, Kms-induced. Once you crank up the power, not to all-out SPL competition levels but simply to moderately-high levels that are tolerable by the human ears, you'll be left there scratching your head wondering just what the hell happened to your paper-thin feather light *subwoofer *(not midbass,midrange, etc, etc) that was supposed to sound just so great?!?!






Oscar its obvious you know your stuff but mate seriously it might be a coincedence but literally all of the truely SQ subs I have either owned or had the chance to listen to had seriously lightweight cones.


you guys need to break the mms to sd and find out what the grams are per cm2.


a few I now that are obvious leaders in this area (sq sub)

Morel ultimo 12 : 0.28gr per cm2

Focal 33wx : 0.25gr

Dynaudio Esotar2 1200: 0.27gr

Rainbow Vanadium 12 : 0.26gr

Brax ML10 : 0.25gr


the last example is actually a great one as to me Audio Fischer is at the top end of the list of SQ manufacturing.


Audio Fisher made a SQ sub with 89gr mms, 10inch size and a 600rms power rating and placed it in its SQ offering.

while the same manufacturer has an offering in SPL called the SPLX12 with a 12 inch size, gigantic power rating at 1500rms , still considerably low cone weight per rms rating but its still considered by them a SPL sub with a 0.46 gr per cm2 according to them I guess as its not there SQ offering?



all in all I find it very hard to believe that a manufacturer could pull off a superlightweight figure as low as 0.25gr per cm2 and stupidly supply it with a worthless electrical force?

its much easier to pull off putting a strong magnet,coil etc then it is pulling off such lightweight results if it was the opposite we would be seeing thickass material subs with just stupidly high power behind it and call it a day?

https://www.focal.com/sites/www.focal.fr/files/shared/catalog/document/ft-33wx.pdf

http://www.morelhifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Ultimo-TI-Ultimo-TI-SC-manual-for-web.pdf

http://dynaudio.ack-web.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Esotar2_1200_NEU.pdf

http://www.samodelka.ru/pictures/rainbow/vanadium.pdf

BRAX MATRIX ML10

HELIX SPXL 12



I aggree that there are several aspects of a sub to consider if evaluating it to be a SQ orientated one but lightweight or low MMS per SD would be the first I would have my eyes on as does profressionals also guide this way on other forums and websites too.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

audiocholic said:


> Brax ML10 : 0.25gr
> 
> 
> the last example is actually a great one as to me Audio Fischer is at the top end of the list of SQ manufacturing.
> ...


weird.. i know of a few people that have switched from that sub, to another 10" sub with an mms of 173 grams and have all said the same thing. they liked the sub with the heavier cone much better. its all coincidence. as oscar said before, you cant take MMS into account without taking BL and other parameters into account and how they all effect each other.


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> weird.. i know of a few people that have switched from that sub, to a sub with an mms of 173 grams and have all said the same thing. they liked the sub with the heavier cone much better. its all coincidence. as oscar said before, you cant take MMS into account without taking BL and other parameters into account and how they all effect each other.




please note thats a 10. people can seek more output and want a 12, your 173 could also be a 12 and have a %50 higher SD figure than a 10 so 173gr mms really doesnt mean much if its a 12 as even then you would fall into a 0.3gr to 0.35gr figure per cm2 which is still considered very lightweight 



as mentioned in my previous post I completely aggree you cant go and judge a sub just on one particular TS parameter but mms per SD would be my first eye catcher sir.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

audiocholic said:


> please note thats a 10. people can seek more output and want a 12, your 173 could also be a 12 and have a %50 higher SD figure than a 10 so 173gr mms really doesnt mean much if its a 12 as even then you would fall into a 0.3gr to 0.35gr figure per cm2 which is still considered very lightweight
> 
> 
> 
> as mentioned in my previous post I completely aggree you cant go and judge a sub just on one particular TS parameter but mms per SD would be my first eye catcher sir.


sorry i didnt make it clear. the other sub is also a 10


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> sorry i didnt make it clear. the other sub is also a 10



which make / model I'am curious to know who would trade a brax 10 for which other 10 and state that other is better especially with a mms per sd with 0.5grams (10s usually have 350cm2 sd)


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

audiocholic said:


> which make / model I'am curious to know who would trade a brax 10 for which other 10 and state that other is better especially with a mms per sd with 0.5grams (10s usually have 350cm2 sd)


Of rather not even bother because it's seems your minds already made up over s simple ts spec

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> Of rather not even bother because it's seems your minds already made up over s simple ts spec
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk





mate we are all friends here and should be supporting one another I by no means at all want to come accross as a know it all and claim I know better then you or Oscar as its obvious you both have tremendous more experience.


but that doesnt mean I'am wrong either does it , after all we are all sharing on this platform and learning.


I would greatly appreciate if you can share your experience as I genuinely and simply want to know and appologize if I came accross in a different manner mate!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Oscar said:


> What's wrong Rob??? Everything, ok?


Probably one of the most iconic subwoofers ever made and seeing so many of them in one picture gave him an orgasm:surprised:


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> Of rather not even bother because it's seems your minds already made up over s simple ts spec
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk





SEAS L26RO4Y ?


RF P3SD2-10 ?


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

audiocholic said:


> Oscar its obvious you know your stuff but mate seriously it might be a coincedence but literally all of the truely SQ subs I have either owned or had the chance to listen to had seriously lightweight cones.
> 
> 
> you guys need to break the mms to sd and find out what the grams are per cm2.
> ...


Please note:


> "Of course this is not always the case (needing high mass for strength)"


As you can see, you're arguing a point that need not be argued!  I know that they can be light-weight in certain circumstances, but as per my example, the WGTi series, they need not always be. If you evaluated it based on your criteria, it wouldn't make the cut, even though it's a top-contender!  Do you perhaps now see a bit into how I think?


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

We were just discussing thin flexible wires recreating bass frequencies. Well look what was posted today on facebook. Someone took my idea and incorporated it into speaker design.

Interesting........

Speakers Towers Af-s8 | Audiofilia AF-Speakers

This ^^^^^ is a new link directly to the speaker manufactures page instead of the facebook group.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

High Resolution Audio said:


> We were just discussing thin flexible wires recreating bass frequencies. Well look what was posted today on facebook. Someone took my idea and incorporated it into speaker design.
> 
> Interesting........
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/hifimusiclub/permalink/1880433895610904/


I haven't read the link but just because more than one person has the same bad idea it doesn't mean it's not still a bad idea.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

Facebook link takes me to a closed group so I can see the post.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

I changed the link to the speaker designer instead of the facebook group.

It features Morel drivers and a Fountek Ribbon tweeter.

Speakers Towers Af-s8 | Audiofilia AF-Speakers


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

ca90ss said:


> I haven't read the link but just because more than one person has the same bad idea it doesn't mean it's not still a bad idea.


Go take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Go take a long walk off a short pier.


Lol dont be upset because your logic is way off. Learn from it. 

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Go take a long walk off a short pier.


Don't get mad at me because you have no idea what you're talking about, it's not the first time and definitely won't be the last. Multiple people have tried to educate you in this thread and instead of listening to people with vastly more experience than you you choose to ignore them and remain willfully ignorant.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

So...they put guitar/bass strings on a cabinet. That's one of the dumber ideas I've seen, but hey - marketing is marketing.

Not only are strings HIGHLY resonant and almost completely non-damped, but if they are supposed to be tuned to "extend to the 13th harmonic"...why would you want added harmonics? Not only that, but equal-tempered tuning (on an instrument) doesn't sound "right" as you rotate your scales around the circle of fifths because the fractional ratio relative to each key is different. That's why modern instruments use just temperament/intonation to account for the stretching of ratios as you move keys. So... what...do the strings only sympathetically vibrate at in a specific key? Is their impulse response so fast that they can magically stop when the key is switched? Why that one key? of course, this is all just theory because those stings don't do anything. Nothing.

Might was well take the extra money and buy an actual instrument and lean it up against the speakers. It would be cheaper that way to learn that it's not going to do anything.

Might want to hire a copy editor too. This is an actual quote from their BS marketing:

'The listener will experience of a sound real, natural, deep and material, never heard before from a "normal" speakers system, with sounds, as someone said, "that never ending".'


----------



## Viggen (May 2, 2011)

A few months back I watches a few videos from Genesis who developed and was showing (I think at CES2017) a new speaker where they designed the speaker enclosure to resonate with the speakers themself. As we all know it's always been said a rigid solid box with zero vibration/resonance is ideal... they tried a different approach where they allowed the enclosure to resonate the speakers frequencies to broaden the soundstage

No clue if it works or not.,,


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

There has been not a lot of significant change in technology with regards to loudspeaker design over the last 70 years or more. It is very good to have people come up with fresh, new ideas. 

People have made fun of others that think outside the box ( no pun intended ).
Some of those people came up with inventions that we use every day. 

There are optimists and pessimists in this world. I feel bad for people that always look at something with a negative perspective. It seems like many people on this forum focus on the negative. What a horrible life it must be to live.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

High Resolution Audio said:


> ...Someone took my idea and incorporated it into speaker design.
> ...


Did you give away the idea, or did they have the same idea, or did they read your mind, or did they hack your computer.

How did they take it?




High Resolution Audio said:


> There has been not a lot of significant change in technology with regards to loudspeaker design over the last 70 years or more.
> ...


There is a reason why there has not been change.

There are a finite number of distance forces:
- Strong, weak, gravitational, electrical, magnetic

If you find other forces that the good lord gave us, then you most certainly will be invited to Stockholm.


There are a finite number of force generating mechanisms to put air into motion:
- Mechanical
- Electrical

It is possible to have an Ozone creating thing like a static charge electrical fan, but most all speakers work by mechanically coupling a membrane or piston to the air.

More than generous amounts of optimism are needed to come up with new methods.




High Resolution Audio said:


> There are optimists and pessimists in this world. I feel bad for people that always look at something with a negative perspective. It seems like many people on this forum focus on the negative. What a horrible life it must be to live.
> ...


Your'e ticking al the boxes that I like:
1) You feel bad for them (Benevolent condescendence)
2) It must be a horrible life. (Judgement)

I am pretty comfortable knowing that I have a decent grasp on reality and understanding of the basic physics, as well as an engineering understanding of how the science gets translated into application.

Belief that through super optimism one can mitigate the physics that the good lord gave us, is a bit of a fantasy.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

Viggen said:


> A few months back I watches a few videos from Genesis who developed and was showing (I think at CES2017) a new speaker where they designed the speaker enclosure to resonate with the speakers themself. As we all know it's always been said a rigid solid box with zero vibration/resonance is ideal... they tried a different approach where they allowed the enclosure to resonate the speakers frequencies to broaden the soundstage
> 
> No clue if it works or not.,,



As old as audio itself from the first field coil housings to altec, jbl, tannoy, bbc, to modern day triangle, tannoy, audio note, harbeth, and more.


----------



## dcfis (Sep 9, 2016)

High Resolution Audio said:


> There has been not a lot of significant change in technology with regards to loudspeaker design over the last 70 years or more. It is very good to have people come up with fresh, new ideas.


I disagree, there are modern materials and manufacturing but seriously, nearly everything is repackaged and remarketed stuff done 50-100 years ago.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> There has been not a lot of significant change in technology with regards to loudspeaker design over the last 70 years or more. It is very good to have people come up with fresh, new ideas.
> 
> People have made fun of others that think outside the box ( no pun intended ).
> Some of those people came up with inventions that we use every day.
> ...


This is not "thinking outside the box". This is a company that figured they could make money selling speakers with instrument strings on/in them. As if their incoherent audiophool babbling wasn't enough, when they attempt to make sense it's technically and logically wrong. It's one thing to talk about resonance and the time domain as it pertains to energy storage and another thing to pull stuff out of your ass. Defending it doesn't make you esoteric, it makes you look stupid.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SPLEclipse said:


> This is not "thinking outside the box". This is a company that figured they could make money selling speakers with instrument strings on/in them. As if their incoherent audiophool babbling wasn't enough, when they attempt to make sense it's technically and logically wrong. It's one thing to talk about resonance and the time domain as it pertains to energy storage and another thing to pull stuff out of your ass. Defending it doesn't make you esoteric, it makes you look stupid.


First off, you are attacking an Italian speaker manufacturer. So some things might be lost in translation and/or interpreted incorrectly ( specifically the technical descriptions and grammar error you picked up on. )

You have not heard them personally, so you are guessing weather or not they sound any different. 

To form an opinion without even listening to them shows you have no real world experience, and that you are not intelligent enough to have an open mind. People like you will never learn anything because your mind is already made up. 

I have no idea if this speaker sounds any different than others, as I wait to hear things for myself before forming an opinion. So I cannot defend nor denounce their claims. I just thought it was an interesting idea. That's all. 


You probably don't even have a sound system and live in your parent's basement. Armchair audiophile. Everything you say and do is all based on your theory and opinion rather than actual listening and experience. 

Put a complete sound system together,and then get back to me. Part of your screen name "SPL" shows that you probably wouldn't recognize a Sound Quality system if it slapped you in the face. 

Go back to your parent's free internet and complain some more.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> There are optimists and pessimists in this world. I feel bad for people that always look at something with a negative perspective. It seems like many people on this forum focus on the negative. What a horrible life it must be to live.


no one here is being either optimistic or pessimstic. There are only people being realistic and some being ridiculous


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> First off, you are attacking an Italian speaker manufacturer. So some things might be lost in translation and/or interpreted incorrectly ( specifically the technical descriptions and grammar error you picked up on. )
> 
> You have not heard them personally, so you are guessing weather or not they sound any different.
> 
> ...


again, no need to attack and get personal because your offended that someone knows more than you.. accept it and learn from it


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> no one here is being either optimistic or pessimstic. There are only people being realistic and some being ridiculous


Reality is created in one's mind. What is real to you is real to you. If you can convince other people that the same thing you think is real is actually real, then they will believe it too.

It seems like a lot of that goes on here, and in life in general. 

Not too many people form opinions for themselves it seems.


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

Gentlemen,




I truely believe with the background and knowledge you guys have you are more than aged then the average Joe and most likely in or over your 30's correct?



well then I kindly ask for either one side to be the mature one and simply let the topic go cause it really doesnt contribute to the initial topic which some can perhaps learn from in the future.



I hate when I see these good topics on Diyma with a few quality sometimes remarable feedback/advises that are lost in several pages of who's middle leg is larger


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

audiocholic said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Davranišiniz çirkin ve çok kaba için ozûr dileminisiniz! Just kidding!


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

audiocholic said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem very intelligent. You articulated and brought forth many fine examples which supported the idea that a thinner, lighter cone was more SQ oriented, and were disrespected as your valid points were left unanswered, by the naysayers. 

Unfortunately, for some reason, there is an opinion here on this forum that any thing that comes out of my mouth is completely made up. It could be the way that I come across, which may offend others as I have been known to come across as condescending at times, for which I am sorry. But that does not take away from my points being valid. 

I, for one, would have like to have seen the discussion continue as you took the time to bring forth very valid and interesting information that contributed positively and constructively to this thread.


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

Oscar said:


> Davranišiniz çirkin ve çok kaba için ozûr dileminisiniz! Just kidding!




Oscar you should be ashamed of yourself , why on earth would you type in Turkish that you dont like most of the members here but me ,

just kidding 2 




but dude joking aside I truely wouldnt use the web to translate! some languages (I speak 5 including Japanese) are really nothing but trouble using such programs.



I saw a lady with a tatoo whom thought she had written Faith in Japanese when in reality it was written apartment


----------



## audiocholic (Dec 5, 2016)

High Resolution Audio said:


> You seem very intelligent. You articulated and brought forth many fine examples which supported the idea that a thinner, lighter cone was more SQ oriented, and were disrespected as your valid points were left unanswered, by the naysayers.
> 
> Unfortunately, for some reason, there is an opinion here on this forum that any thing that comes out of my mouth is completely made up. It could be the way that I come across, which may offend others as I have been known to come across as condescending at times, for which I am sorry. But that does not take away from my points being valid.
> 
> I, for one, would have like to have seen the discussion continue as you took the time to bring forth very valid and interesting information that contributed positively and constructively to this thread.





Mate thank you very much for the kind statement,


truth be told I honestly am not as experienced as any of you and simply listened to my installers as a guide and watched them do the work.

I do have tremendous interest to the field and have been reading for a few years and do believe the lightweight cones would have a positive effect.


but I'am a mechanical engineer (graduated from Toronto also born there but half Turkish) and have learned throughout the years that sometimes practice proves theory to be wrong so knowing that I could be wrong I decided to back off on the topic as I'am not certain and dont want to lie.


I appologize if I have let you down which I do feel I'am kind of doing so but again I'am not well enough experience nor stating your wrong either and quite the contrary I still believe that lightweight cones do have a positive effect.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

audiocholic said:


> Mate thank you very much for the kind statement,
> 
> 
> truth be told I honestly am not as experienced as any of you and simply listened to my installers as a guide and watched them do the work.
> ...


No need for an apology. Very nice of you to do so. Sometimes it's better just to let things go......... 

There could be some merit with regards to that theory. Right or wrong, I guess it does not matter at this point. 

But I appreciate the fact that you did bring forth some hard data with facts and figures, and an inquisitive and open mind. Makes for interesting discussion and conversation. 

As far as feeling let down, I'm not, as I was just grateful that you brought forth a worldly perspective and that you included sentiment from others from different forums as well as professionals in the field. Thank you for doing so.


----------



## Garcbomber (May 26, 2017)

dcfis said:


> Pssss, there is no "New" technology


Looking at this JL Audio TW3 sitting on my bench as well as being a hands-on design and manufacturing engineer, I take this comment as 100% sarcasm.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

Garcbomber said:


> Looking at this JL Audio TW3 sitting on my bench as well as being a hands-on design and manufacturing engineer, I take this comment as 100% sarcasm.


I'm pretty sure that what he means, is that even though there are different "designs" out there, such as your TW3, for a _moving-coil electrodynamic _loudspeaker, you still have the basic function of a stationary magnet with a moving coil that generates force against/towards that of the stationary magnet, with some kind of suspension system. Yes there are many different geometries and variations of this, but even your TW3 uses that same exact principle at it's very core. 

Stationary magnet: check.
Moving coil: check
Suspension system: check.









Perhaps is just a case of semantics where one considers one thing "new technology" and another can see it as simply a small twist on an existing technology.


----------



## Garcbomber (May 26, 2017)

I understand there are 3 main components, but there will always be compression, spark, and fuel in a recipricating combustion engine. Different strokes for different folks...


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> First off, you are attacking an Italian speaker manufacturer. So some things might be lost in translation and/or interpreted incorrectly ( specifically the technical descriptions and grammar error you picked up on. )
> 
> You have not heard them personally, so you are guessing weather or not they sound any different.
> 
> ...



Looks like I hit a nerve. I'm gonna go tell my mom on you.

You aren't paying attention to what people are telling you. I didn't say anything about whether or not the speaker you linked to sounds good or not. Maybe the designer came up with a fantastic sounding speaker but they knew the marketing and design departments threw on this extra crap on there to increase their profit margin. I have no idea, but that's irrelevant because the presumption that the strings are doing anything is incorrect. If you tell me 2+2=5 because you are "thinking outside the box" you are still wrong. It's OK. I'm wrong too sometimes.

Anyway, this is all pedantic BS and you know it. Just close the thread.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> Lol dont be upset because your logic is way off. Learn from it.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


My logic is not "way off".

This theory of mine makes perfect sense. Today, I came across a speaker designer/manufacturer that has the same exact viewpoint as I do with regards to moving mass of a driver and having the cone thin and lightweight in order to replicate and articulate micro details.


If one takes the time to read the reviews on these speakers, my points are well validated by esteemed reviewers in the audio world. 


The following is a quote from this particular designer/manufacturer and a link to the speaker web sight, and lastly a link to a write up from Home Theater Review:

"Simply put, if the moving mass of the speaker cone is not the same or less than the original source (i.e. the violin, guitar, trumpet, etc.), the musical instrument’s upper overtones and upper harmonics when played back through the loudspeaker system will sound diminished, lowered in volume, progressively damped, and lower in sensitivity when compared to the original sound source or musical event. In my mind, I see this relationship as a mathematical algorithm and I design loudspeakers in a new and innovative way that keeps this in mind."


Double Impact - TektonDesign LLC


Tekton Design Double Impact Floorstanding Speaker Reviewed


Good luck with your research.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Subjective reviews and marketing literature.. Yeah, that definitely proves your argument 

Also, it took you over a month to find something (something subjective none the less) that backs your argument? Lol

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> Subjective reviews and marketing literature.. Yeah, that definitely proves your argument
> 
> Also, it took you a month to find something (something subjective none the less) that backs your argument? Lol
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


I guess all the ducks can be flying in the wrong direction......


----------



## sapatel20 (Feb 4, 2017)

dayton-audio-um10-22-10-ultimax-dvc 
Not having permission to post link.

Some one suggested and I bought , not knowing anything about this sub weather its fall in a SPL or SQ category.
Planning to install instead of kappa 100.9 in hutchback .
Please suggest enclosure dimensions of sealed so my PDX v9 can drive without stress.
Sorry if i asked any silly questions as knowledge about sub is almost zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sapatel20 said:


> Please suggest enclosure dimensions of sealed so my PDX v9 can drive without stress


Read it's product description

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## sapatel20 (Feb 4, 2017)

Its say 500 rms @ 2 and 4 ohms but little confused because low sensitivity of sub. Is sensitive is really matters if rms power match 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> Subjective reviews and marketing literature.. Yeah, that definitely proves your argument
> 
> Also, it took you over a month to find something (something subjective none the less) that backs your argument? Lol
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Yup, completely agree.

Wouldn't it be great to just, and easily, say "well the laws of physics prove....." and stake our claim as gospel! Must be great to assume one's place among the brightest of all physicists and tell people your way is the holy grail without any empirical data.. 

I for one have _actually heard_ those tekton speakers. They have them at the Raven Audio showroom in Onalaska, Tx where I visited in July to audition Legacy Audio speakers. No, people are not returning their top of the line Legacy Audio speakers to "upgrade" to Tektons. 

Some things seem to make sense in this world, until you generalize the concept and analyze it scientifically. That's actually part of the scientific method itself. People with a formal education in physics know this. Talk is cheap. I want to see a "white paper" with calculus, partial differential equations, numerical approximation methods, you know, the things that actual scientific researchers/engineers/physicists use. Then we can begin to see the actual analysis.


----------



## thornygravy (May 28, 2016)

The dust cap! If it's an outtie, you got yourself a SPL sub, if it's an innie that baby's gonna SQ your balls off. /thread


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

thornygravy said:


> The dust cap! If it's an outtie, you got yourself a SPL sub, if it's an innie that baby's gonna SQ your balls off. /thread


So what are these?


----------



## geshat00 (Jun 1, 2016)

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I have yet to a shallow mount SPL subwoofer.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

Oscar said:


> So what are these?


That's a lot of Strokers! You rebuild them? The review I read the "Doctor" couldn't come up with a nice way of saying we couldn't get the thing to sound good in any box we tried. A similar review was of the IDW sub. The IDW and the CV subs were a professional high efficiency sub adapted for Car Audio use. Both are completely different animals, but in the right installer's hands with the appropriate box and know-how they have been used in SQ shows. The CV was primarily used in SPL because of it's steep high frequency roll-off and mid bass bump. I am rambling and you guys are going to give me the true story, but this is what (I) have gathered through reading magazines for years.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

knever3 said:


> That's a lot of Strokers! You rebuild them? .


Only if I must. That is my own personal collection. Mine sounds great for heavy metal. About 4 ft³ tuned to 32Hz or so. In-room response down to about 27Hz or so. I use DSP to fine tune everything, but then again I'm powering my 15 in-home with a Peavey CS800X bridged, that thing has a slew-rate of something like 250V/µs, IIRC. Together with a 0.25 Qts = Massive control over the low-end.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Garcbomber said:


> I understand there are 3 main components, but there will always be compression, spark, and fuel in a recipricating combustion engine. Different strokes for different folks...


Diesels have no spark...

And they come in 2 stroke or 4 stroke.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Oscar said:


> Yup, completely agree.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great to just, and easily, say "well the laws of physics prove....." and stake our claim as gospel! Must be great to assume one's place among the brightest of all physicists and tell people your way is the holy grail without any empirical data..
> 
> ...


So what is your honest opinion of those Tektons? I'm curious if it is just marketing hype or do they actually sound a little different. 

I have heard Legacy Audio SE not in person, but with my cans and I can tell you they play music really well. One of the best sounding speakers I have auditioned. 

I would rather hear your opinion and listening impressions rather than looking at numbers on a piece of paper. I understand we are all different and I respect your preference, however how does one convey a listening experience with numbers and calculations on a piece of paper? Makes no sense to me.

These speakers sound incredible......( hands me a piece of paper )

See?

No, I don't !........ I listen with my ears and not with my eyes.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

High Resolution Audio said:


> So what is your honest opinion of those Tektons? I'm curious if it is just marketing hype or do they actually sound a little different.
> 
> I have heard Legacy Audio SE not in person, but with my cans and I can tell you they play music really well. One of the best sounding speakers I have auditioned.
> 
> ...


My honest opinion is that I did not go to audition Tekton anything. I went to audition the Legacy Audio Calibre, which I subsequently purchased. But along the way, Dave Thomson the owner of Raven audio let me listen to pretty much everything in his shop, the Aeris, the Focus SE, the Calibre, and the Tekton. The Tekton was just there as a lower-cost alternative to the creme-de-la-creme Legacy Audio stuff. He turned it on for about 5min as he gave me a tour of his showroom. Even then, during those 5min I heard them, I paid attention, as I always do. They sounded good, but didn't come close to the Focus SE's, let alone the Aeris system. I'm not one to use audiophilery lingo, so I'll just leave it at that. I thought the Focus SE sounded that much better.

If you ask me, after having seen that one in person, and the rest of the models in their line-up, my first impression is that he is using pro-audio drivers for the lows-mids, and some decent ring-radiators for the top end. The low-mid drivers look undoubtedly Eminence (to me). The Double-Impact model that I heard has 10" woofers and claims frequency response down to 20Hz. I would be willing to bet money they would be struggling to play a real 20Hz tone at an appreciable level without nearing self-destruction. That's not to say they didn't sound good. Did they sound like a $3000 pair of speakers? I can't say with 100% certainty because I did not play my music at the levels that I listen to it (which is basically speaker torture), but they sounded like they _might _be capable of being worth $1000 a pair. If I ever go back to the Raven Audio showroom, I'll be sure to take my Dayton Omnimic to get some measurements if Dave allows me to. Call it a hunch, but I doubt I would spend $2k on those speakers. But that's not to say it's not a good speaker. Dave Thomson sells hand-made vacuum tube amps that top out at about $50k for a monobloc. He doesn't play around, so I'll give Tekton that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/54tm7g/holy_tweeters_batman/


Oh and I read their patent. It's a joke. 

If you really have heard Legacy loudspeakers, you heard the real deal. There is a reason Legacy Audio just fulfilled one of the largest orders in their history for one of the largest record companies in the world (Sony). They (Sony) just upgraded their reference monitors in their recording studios to Legacy Audio, _not Tektons_. Universal Music Group let Legacy build them a speaker to duke it out with the best of the best for their top recording conference room. Tekton was likely not even in the line-up. Re-mastering engineer Steve Hoffman produced re-mastered albums of Elvis Presley, Nat King Cole, and Frank Sinatra. Remastered on Legacy speakers. _Not Tektons_. Geffen Record's used Legacy speakers to release the Eagle's "Hell Freezes Over" album. _Not Tektons_. The Stradivarius Violin Society uses Legacy as their reference monitors. _ Not Tektons_. There are likely countless others. I guarantee you *none* of these people listen with spec's, only with their ears, _just like you said_. So why is Tekton touting so much fuss with regards to their claims? I would bet money you would have a very difficult time making any of those organizations/people give up their Legacy speakers. Makes you wonder why people/organizations who really need good speakers don't use Tektons......and I am not affiliated with Legacy. Just been a long-time fan since I was a teen in the mid-90s, and now over twenty years later, a happy customer. I work at a school, so you know I'm not rich, and even though I do look for _reputable _, _verifiable_ spec's, I still listen with my ears, and Legacy Audio made me _eager _to write the check that I did for the Legacy speakers. Not the Tektons.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I have heard Legacy Audio SE not in person, but with my cans and I can tell you they play music really well. One of the best sounding speakers I have auditioned.


lol.


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> lol.


I missed that. Yeah. You can't audition speakers with recordings through headphones, not _any_.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Oscar said:


> I missed that. Yeah. You can't audition speakers with recordings through headphones, not _any_.


whats wrong with listening via youtube? :laugh:


----------



## Weightless (May 5, 2005)

So you listened to a pair of speakers through....a pair of speakers? Woah....

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Weightless said:


> So you listened to a pair of speakers through....a pair of speakers? Woah....
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


he listened to a highly compressed video of speakers hes unfamiliar with placed in a room hes unfamiliar with recorded on a (most likely) ****ty cell phone (which also compresses the ever living **** out of the audio/video) mic through his headphones. he compared it to other videos of different speakers hes unfamiliar with placed in other rooms hes unfamiliar with recorded with different ****ty cell phones and compression methods, also through his headphones. pretty legit, huh?

gerald, wasnt it proven to you that you couldnt tell what was good from bad with this method of yours in another thread and you admitted you were wrong? why is this still a thing that you do?


----------

