# Interesting lil 'subs' ...



## 6spdcoupe (Jan 12, 2006)

From Critical Mass. Figured I would share.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-832


----------



## Robdoggz (Sep 16, 2007)

Wow that spec sheet is a clone of the tb. Hell they even copied/pasted the drawing of dimensions lol. What worries me is the bloated Cm's price and the poor saps who buy them


----------



## tomtomjr (Apr 24, 2008)

A neo sub... LOVE IT!
Are there bigger ones than this that are Neo ? Or Cobalt?


----------



## Lothar34 (Oct 6, 2006)

TB also has an 8" neo:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-833

and their slim 10" is too:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-862


----------



## lyttleviet (Sep 11, 2008)

wow lol


----------



## tophatjimmy (Dec 16, 2005)

here we go.....is this gonna be the TB/eD thing all over again??


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

We'll ther is defenetly family resemblance here. Now quite a few params are different - SD, XMax, MM, QTS, etc... But most importantly FS and power handling is much better on Critical Mass - at least on paper. From pictures it also seems what they have a different cone. Let's see them in real action


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

Oh yes - and stated sencitivity is 6 db higher - with double power handlining they could play 9 db lowder(equiwalent of feeding them 8 times more power) and 10 Hz lower. Let's just hope CM is not going to bluntly lie on their spec. - but that's easy to measure. ))))


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

LCat said:


> We'll ther is defenetly family resemblance here. Now quite a few params are different - SD, XMax, MM, QTS, etc... But most importantly FS and power handling is much better on Critical Mass - at least on paper. From pictures it also seems what they have a different cone. Let's see them in real action





LCat said:


> Oh yes - and stated sencitivity is 6 db higher - with double power handlining they could play 9 db lowder(equiwalent of feeding them 8 times more power) and 10 Hz lower. Let's just hope CM is not going to bluntly lie on their spec. - but that's easy to measure.



Yep I was about the post the same thing. It is quite a few differences in the drivers, but same basket. Not that if matters, but the positive and negative speaker terminals are on opposite sides of each other on the CM UL6.


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

Well - nothing wrong with using mass production baskets or base your design on somebody else base driver, as long as you trully perform as the speck states. If they capable of stated performance - to me they worth theyir weight in gold  - no other 6.5" comes close at any price.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Not the Hi-jack, but here is another little beast I found when looking around at some other drivers.

Raptor 6










http://www.monacor.de/typo3/index.php?id=62&L=1&act=8&act_sub=21&artid=4418&spr=EN&typ=u


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

Nice driver but FS is too high to use in IB


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

The only question remains, was the TB sticker taken off or the new sticker just went over it


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> The only question remains, was the TB sticker taken off or the new sticker just went over it


Well - I do not think TB puts a stickers on the raw basket 
It is obviosly not an original TB driver at all


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

Robdoggz said:


> Wow that spec sheet is a clone of the tb. Hell they even copied/pasted the drawing of dimensions lol. What worries me is the bloated Cm's price and the poor saps who buy them


Hmmm. Critical Mass knocking off a Tang Band product? Isn't that like suggesting Mercedes Benz would knock off Kia automobile design? Given where Tang Band is located, and the amount of infringement that occurs there, it might be reasonable to suggest that if there was any copying it would be the other way around. Particularly since this sub appears to be derivative of CM's UL 12 and 10, for which they have numerous worldwide patents on the motor design, etc. In any event, I will leave the issue of copying to those more in the know. 

With regard to the "bloated" price of CM products and the "poor saps" who buy them, by all accounts, those "poor saps" are as happy as pigs in you know what.  So, they need no sympathy. By the way, I am about to become one of those "poor saps" too.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Buzzman said:


> Given where Tang Band is located, and the amount of infringement that occurs there, it might be reasonable to suggest that if there was any copying it would be the other way around.


Doubtful since the Tang Band has been out for quite a while already and the CM is a new driver. Tang Band does a lot of oem work. It's not so hard to believe a small company like CM would have something like this oem'd by someone like Tang Band.


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

ca90ss said:


> Doubtful since the Tang Band has been out for quite a while already and the CM is a new driver. Tang Band does a lot of oem work. It's not so hard to believe a small company like CM would have something like this oem'd by someone like Tang Band.


That's my gut feeling too


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

ca90ss said:


> Doubtful since the Tang Band has been out for quite a while already and the CM is a new driver. Tang Band does a lot of oem work. It's not so hard to believe a small company like CM would have something like this oem'd by someone like Tang Band.


Fair point. I can buy that. But, even though the CM is a new driver, its predecessors are not, and the family resemblance is obvious. Anyway, the drivers look similar physically, but as others have noted, there appear to be significant performance and materials differences. I am confident that if you buy the CM, you are not paying more for simply a rebadged Tang Band product.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Buzzman said:


> Fair point. I can buy that. But, even though the CM is a new driver, its predecessors are not, and the family resemblance is obvious. Anyway, the drivers look similar physically, but as others have noted, there appear to be significant performance and materials differences. I am confident that if you buy the CM, you are not paying more for simply a rebadged Tang Band product.



I'm not saying it's an exact copy. CM probably has it built to their specs. Is the difference enough to justify the price difference? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think it's stupid to call a 6.5" driver a sub woofer in the first place.


----------



## yermolovd (Oct 10, 2005)

geah mane, you gon see me slidin by on the ave in my slab wid 50 of dees slammin in ma trunk naahmsayin.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

ca90ss said:


> I'm not saying it's an exact copy. CM probably has it built to their specs. Is the difference enough to justify the price difference? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think it's stupid to call a 6.5" driver a sub woofer in the first place.


I'm guessing you thought the same of these at 5"

quote>

Re: Anyone use the Focal 5WS\' in any install? whaddya think? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Focal calls it a subwoofer. I call it a competent midbass. 




Have you tried?

I used to have those in my foci. Nice elements, but noway those can be defined as midbass. I used to think those are midbass elements, but then I traded those to Focal 6k3 midbass... now I now what midbass means!!!!!! 

So 5WS are lovely & very good for soft deep bass production, but you need plenty of those if you need SPL. And you can't get the real midbass kickin' out of those. For SQ front sub, those work fine (I'd rather take 4 of those instead of 2 in front anyway). 

quote>

Subbass is defined by the frequency !


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

I can't believe there are people here trying to justify that the CM product is anything but a very SLIGHTY modified (if that) version of the TB driver, because CM sure wouldn't build there own drivers and most likely don't do a lot of there own design work either I'd be betting.

Lets look at the build 

Frames The same
Cone The same (if you look at a better pic of the TB it appears to be the same cone material)
Terminals Appear to be the same layout

Now for specs



Nom impedance 
TB 4 ohm 
CM 4 ohm

Sensitivity 
TB 83db 
CM 89db 
(different measuring equip or even 1w/1m vs 2.83v)

Freq Response 
TB38-800hz 
CM28.5-1281hz (TB could be -3db CM could be -6db)

FS 
TB 38hz 
CM 27.9hz (who knows again could be different measuring technique)

VC Dia 
38.5mm 
1.75" (only main difference I see but again could be measuring from different points because externally there identical)



Music Power  
TB 100w 
CM 200w (maybe ones being a little optomistic plus TB tend to rate there drivers very low power wise probably gives them an excuse to deny warranty claims)

Force Factor 
TB 8.67TM 
CM 9.00TM (looks like CM rounded up to me)

Moving Mass 
TB 39.91g 
CM 31.1 (different measuring equipment or even production tolerance differences)


Levc 
TB 0.34mH 
CM 0.34

Zo 
TB 33 ohm 
CM33 ohm

x-max 
TB 13mm 
CM 14mm (looks like one rounded up the other rounded down)

VAS 
TB 11.78Litr 
CM 12.28 (production tolerance?)

Qts 
TB 0.40 
CM 0.41 (rounding again)
Qms 
TB 2.65 
CM 2.63 (what was that about rounding)


So essentially they are the same driver with possibly some very minor differences.


----------



## Brian Steele (Jun 1, 2007)

Luke352 said:


> Sensitivity
> TB 83db
> CM 89db
> (different measuring equip or even 1w/1m vs 2.83v)


Efficiency and sensitivity (two different things) can be calculated from the other T/S parameters.

E.g. efficiency = 112+10*LOG(9.64*10^-10*(Fs^3*Vas)/Qes)

The efficiency of the CM driver works out to 79.4dB/1W/1M, Sensitivity @ 82.8dB/2.83V/1M. The only way it can reach a standard sensitivity rating of 89dB/2.83V/1M is if it has a 1 ohm voice coil  .


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Steele said:


> Efficiency and sensitivity (two different things) can be calculated from the other T/S parameters.
> 
> E.g. efficiency = 112+10*LOG(9.64*10^-10*(Fs^3*Vas)/Qes)
> 
> The efficiency of the CM driver works out to 79.4dB/1W/1M, Sensitivity @ 82.8dB/2.83V/1M. The only way it can reach a standard rating of 89dB/1W/1M is if it has a 1 ohm voice coil  .



Well there you go guys looks like CM is full of fluff with some of there specs, so it would't surprise me if there FS and Freq response claims are BS aswell.


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

What is the story with Critical Mass anyway? Why are there a bunch of Asian products branded with the CM name? Are these just straight copyright infringements? There are several tube preamps branded as CM and other products.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Mooble said:


> What is the story with Critical Mass anyway? Why are there a bunch of Asian products branded with the CM name? Are these just straight copyright infringements? There are several tube preamps branded as CM and other products.


I would wager a guess that TB OEM's just like Eminence and will build/give you rights to whatever the hell you want 

Money talks!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I as well as a few others on here have heard what 4 tang 6.5's can do in a sealed box. They are VERY competent for sub duty and the 4 I heard could give a pair of standard 10's a run for the money. Definately a fun setup.

As for the CM sub, what is it selling for anyway?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> As for the CM sub, what is it selling for anyway?


Prolly about Chree.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

chad said:


> Prolly about Chree.


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

Buzzman said:


> With regard to the "bloated" price of CM products and the "poor saps" who buy them, by all accounts, those "poor saps" are as happy as pigs in you know what.  So, they need no sympathy. By the way, I am about to become one of those "poor saps" too.


I just became one of those poor saps... UL12...in the closet..


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> I just became one of those poor saps... UL12...in the closet..


You did not get in on that argument a couple months ago did you? 

Edit, oh wait, you certainly did!


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

chad said:


> You did not get in on that argument a couple months ago did you?


nevermind...wrong wrx:blush:


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

As far as who copied who or who built what... Who cares? Seriously, who cares?

I see it this way, people know that TB makes some decent quality stuff. People also know that CM offers up some decent quality stuff. Whether they are the same exact product or not, so what. Some people are willing to pay more for name brand over house brand. Others want to pay less for the house brand because they don't want to pay more for just a name. 

Either way, everyone is happy with their purchase and go their merry way. 

Also, keep in mind the many EOM companies out there that make generic speaker baskets and speaker magnet structures for any company to buy and use. I can't even begin to count all of the different companies out there that used the same exact baskets and magnet structures for their drivers. All the buying companies do is add their own cones, suspension systems, voice coils, surrounds, etc, etc that are to their own design that fit those generic baskets and magnets.

Anywho, that's just my 2 cents.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

SQ_Blaze said:


> As far as who copied who or who built what... Who cares? Seriously, who cares?
> 
> I see it this way, people know that TB makes some decent quality stuff. People also know that CM offers up some decent quality stuff. Whether they are the same exact product or not, so what. Some people are willing to pay more for name brand over house brand. Others want to pay less for the house brand because they don't want to pay more for just a name.
> 
> ...


Yeppers! Well said. 

Many don't even do their own coils cones, soft parts, etc. It's all doen at the OEM place. It would cost a HUGE amount of monet to do the re-tooling for a different basket/motor so in a specialized market it makes more sense to utilize a proven existing design and change the parameters of the soft parts. as you said, it's done all the time. But again, so is re-badging


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

When it comes to midrange drivers those "soft" parts can make or break a design. However when it comes to subwoofers most of that doesn't matter and when placed in the trunk I doubt anyone could tell the difference between these two fine specimens.

But it all comes down to the fact that very few people are going to run 6.5" subwoofers so I'm not even sure why I read this thread. 6.5" subs are interesting...but not many people stray from their 10"s and 12"s to experiment with them.


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

chad said:


> You did not get in on that argument a couple months ago did you?
> 
> Edit, oh wait, you certainly did!


I don't remember... if it's beyond a month at best... gone, unless I subscribe to a particular thread.. Ones that involve people arguing, I usually steer clear of... Keeps me out of all the day-to-day DIYMA BS... lol.. 

I guess i'm just not as harcore as some... that, or I know others know more than I... I stay passive..


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

ca90ss said:


> I'm not saying it's an exact copy. CM probably has it built to their specs. Is the difference enough to justify the price difference? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think it's stupid to call a 6.5" driver a sub woofer in the first place.


I donno... Envisionelec and his Jeep made me wonder what he had in the back, when I listened to his system, I already knew what his set-up was, then I herd it.... BUT, I also don't claim to be an expert and I got to hear 10000000th the cars most of you do... 











What was most interesting was it sounded like the subs were mounted UNDER THE DASH... up-front-bass for days... 

Can't say it did great on the lowest of lows, but even with some bass heavy rap,which he demoed just to show that they COULD keep up, they kept up comendibly.. I know a lot of tricks were happening through his Berringer unit, but it was a rather nice sound considering he wasn't even running tweeters at the time (it wasn't brilliant, but it was difficult to tell)


----------



## Aaron Clinton (Oct 17, 2006)

Robdoggz said:


> Wow that spec sheet is a clone of the tb. Hell they even copied/pasted the drawing of dimensions lol. What worries me is the bloated Cm's price and the poor saps who buy them


*There are a few of those "poor saps" that buy into the elevated price on CA.com.*


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

Well - looks like we have been send wrong drivers. Drivers and their specs belong to the early prototype according to CM. Newewst driver is revision C (4 revisions up) and they do not have them rioght now. Production has gotten delayed by 3 weeks more - soi I have to go with some different drivers. - I'm in the world of pain now as it drasticly changes our install plans.


----------



## Mooble (Oct 21, 2007)

People say my door enclosures are big. How were you going to put two of those in your doors? Were you doing them IB?


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

mounting depth seems kind of deep for door-mounting. People have trouble fitting in 2.7" deep speakers, and this one is 4"? That's going to require a baffle over an inch thick.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Another 6.5-inch subwoofer... built in USA... real numbers, no B.S.










Info here:
http://mobile.jlaudio.com/products_subs.php?series_id=29


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

Greate - same 80db sencitiviry with much higher FS - LOL - what's a point. Even TB subs will preform much better


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

http://www.criticalmassaudio.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=3

... Are these sure enough US dollars??!?!

Ah c'mon.. I guess if you stood on the corner, propositioned every hotalicious gal, you'd get slapped.. A lot! You'd get a lot of lovin' too I guess by at least one that for some strange reason didn't slap ya. Same principle. Audicity vs logic.


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

Babs said:


> http://www.criticalmassaudio.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=3
> 
> ... Are these sure enough US dollars??!?!
> 
> Ah c'mon.. I guess if you stood on the corner, propositioned every hotalicious gal, you'd get slapped.. A lot! You'd get a lot of lovin' too I guess by at least one that for some strange reason didn't slap ya. Same principle. Audicity vs logic.


Today is the very first day I've ever heard of CM. After just looking at the above link, I have come to realize that they are grossly overpriced and I wouldn't give you 2 cents for any of it. Certainly nowhere close to being worth what they are asking. Sorry, just my opinion.


----------



## boarder124 (Mar 16, 2006)

i used to have a pair of those 6.5 TB in sealed door pods for midbass use and they did pretty good. I could turn my subs off and use these as the subs when i wanted to and they sounded good.. I never had a lot of power on them but they were loud for what i was sending them


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

ca90ss said:


> http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-832


Special Price: $29.00 EA


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

LCat said:


> Greate - same 80db sencitiviry with much higher FS - LOL - what's a point. Even TB subs will preform much better


If you say so! 

Just like that flat TB woofer that mechanically crashes short of its Xmax claim, right?


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

SQ_Blaze said:


> Today is the very first day I've ever heard of CM. After just looking at the above link, I have come to realize that they are grossly overpriced and I wouldn't give you 2 cents for any of it. *Certainly nowhere close to being worth what they are asking.* Sorry, just my opinion.


If today was the first time you ever herd of them, how the hell would you know? Your opinion, keep it to yourself...


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

LCat said:


> Nice driver but FS is too high to use in IB


Come again?

Everyone builds for everyone else. I see no problem with that. If Alpine, Phass, Xetec all use ScanSpeak, for ex, and charge more for that, good for Alpine. CM doesn't owe anyone any explanation.

On the flip side, DIYMA used to be a budget-conscious group of DIY guys who used the best objectively-tested drivers and rocked them out. So in the true nature of that, put em on the Klippel.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> If today was the first time you ever herd of them, how the hell would you know? Your opinion, keep it to yourself...


Com on man, the sub you have, do you really think it's worth it's retail pricing?


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

chad said:


> Com on man, the sub you have, do you really think it's worth it's retail pricing?


Oh hell no.... Never said it was... But, for someone to make such a strong, biased opinion, on something they JUST herd of, TODAY.... yeah... :unamused: <we need that emocon...lol..

I've been secretly watching CM, since the day I saw Shaq's van loaded down with the planers and UL's back in the mid/late 90's planning out my moves toward having one of them... I recently got lucky... Hell, it's the most expensive thing in my system.. lol..


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

The first day I saw it and it's specs i blew it out of the water  Or tried


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

chad said:


> The first day I saw it and it's specs i blew it out of the water  Or tried


How so, and with what did you try?? I wonder what they would do in your realm of expertise????


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> How so, and with what did you try?? I wonder what they would do in your realm of expertise????


I think he had an issue with the rated power handling as well as the sensitivity rating.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44181


----------



## Robdoggz (Sep 16, 2007)

Wtf is this **** i stopped reading it when it said it was the only true 5.1 system and was the most expensive in the world i see how this company sells marketing to celebs.

http://www.criticalmassaudio.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=33


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

Robdoggz said:


> Wtf is this **** i stopped reading it when it said it was the only true 5.1 system and was the most expensive in the world i see how this company sells marketing to celebs.
> 
> http://www.criticalmassaudio.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=33


Yeah, that IS a bit retarded isn't it... Can't say i'm all about anything they do... but, when you lay your hands on a UL12, it's a naughty feeling...

It's funny, because it come's in a regular box, no special "bracing" or packing.. I mean it's got packing, but it's not like an Aura, that encased in custom molded foam or anything... It's really rather modest... I just wish I could do something about the cones logo... it's just gaudy.. I scuurred to mess with the cone in fear of really messing something up...


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> If today was the first time you ever herd of them, how the hell would you know? Your opinion, keep it to yourself...


Don't get your panties in a wad. It's not like it was a personal attack on you.

Yes, it's my opinion, and I don't have to keep it to myself if I don't want to. 

I mean, seriously... $8k for an amp?, $500 for a pair of 6x9's?, $2k for a 12" driver?, $259,000 of 5.1 kiss my a$$?!?! 

Dude, I'm not doubting some of their stuff might be good quality, but none of it with worth close to anything they are asking. I don't need to know the company to figure that one out. They are just raping people, legally no less! I hope they at least supply a complementary bottle of K.Y. with their equipment.

But hey, to each their own.


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

SQ_Blaze said:


> Dude, I'm not doubting some of their stuff might be good quality, but none of it with worth close to anything they are asking. I don't need to know the company to figure that one out. They are just raping people, legally no less! I hope they at least supply a complementary bottle of K.Y. with their equipment.


This kind of rant, like much of what has been stated in this thread, is ridiculous. How do you know the product is not "worth close to anything they are asking?" Had you said that YOU would never spend what is asked for CM equipment because YOU had used or listened to the products, and concluded that the benefits do not equal or exceed the cost, then I would respect your opinion. Based on your own words, it's clear that you have never owned or heard the equipment. Yet you purport to have an opinion about the value of the equipment for *everyone*. Value is a relative thing, that varies from one person to the next. A car can be viewed as merely transportation to get from point A to point B. But to some it's more than just transportation. The driving experience and even the status of a particular automobile is of paramount importance to them. That's why some people are perfectly satisfied with a Kia, and some couldn't be satisfied with anything less than a Ferrari, even if to others the Ferrari is considered overpriced "transportation." And, in many cases, some people (like me) would love to own the Ferrari, if they could afford it, because they know that it delivers in huge quantities what makes driving fun. But we don't disparage the Ferrari because we couldn't afford it, or when we have no first hand knowledge about its virtues. 

I am always amazed by the large number of people on this forum who get on a soapbox and pontificate about things they have no first hand experience with or knowledge of. The purpose of this forum should be to educate and share information that will benefit others. Opinions that are not based on first hand experience do not serve that purpose, unless that opinion is qualified by the person making it. So, rather than spout off about things you have no first hand experience with, you should seriously consider keeping such opinions to yourself.


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

Buzzman said:


> This kind of rant, like much of what has been stated in this thread, is ridiculous. How do you know the product is not "worth close to anything they are asking?" Had you said that YOU would never spend what is asked for CM equipment because YOU had used or listened to the products, and concluded that the benefits do not equal or exceed the cost, then I would respect your opinion. Based on your own words, it's clear that you have never owned or heard the equipment. Yet you purport to have an opinion about the value of the equipment for *everyone*. Value is a relative thing, that varies from one person to the next. A car can be viewed as merely transportation to get from point A to point B. But to some it's more than just transportation. The driving experience and even the status of a particular automobile is of paramount importance to them. That's why some people are perfectly satisfied with a Kia, and some couldn't be satisfied with anything less than a Ferrari, even if to others the Ferrari is considered overpriced "transportation." And, in many cases, some people (like me) would love to own the Ferrari, if they could afford it, because they know that it delivers in huge quantities what makes driving fun. But we don't disparage the Ferrari because we couldn't afford it, or when we have no first hand knowledge about its virtues.
> 
> I am always amazed by the large number of people on this forum who get on a soapbox and pontificate about things they have no first hand experience with or knowledge of. The purpose of this forum should be to educate and share information that will benefit others. Opinions that are not based on first hand experience do not serve that purpose, unless that opinion is qualified by the person making it. So, rather than spout off about things you have no first hand experience with, you should seriously consider keeping such opinions to yourself.



Thats all fine EXCEPT as shown in this case CM have simply rebadged TB's product and will most likely ask up to 10 times the price you can buy the TB product for. I mean they haven't even changed a thing, the only thing they have done is fluff up some of the specs which was proven at the bottom of page 1.

I don't care that the product is being made by somone else I'd hazard a guess that 70% of all car audio gear is made by other companies then the name it sells under but for the premium price I pay I expect to get something more then a direct rebadge of a product I can buy from the OEM for a lot less as in this case.

To use your analogy it would be like Ferrari buying a Corvette and pulling off the corvette badge and putting a Ferrari one in it's place without changeing anything else and then asking 6 times the price, because thats exactly what we are talking about here.

Luke


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

Luke352 said:


> Thats all fine EXCEPT as shown in this case CM have simply rebadged TB's product and will most likely ask up to 10 times the price you can buy the TB product for. I mean they haven't even changed a thing, the only thing they have done is fluff up some of the specs which was proven at the bottom of page 1.


Gys I'm not trying to defend CM - I got bad part of the deal and looking for drivers in the middle of install - but it is not same driver. Different cone part, different spider with different terminals(CM mounted on opposit sides and TB on one side)

Now TB defenetly did basket and might have OEMd drivers but it is NOT TB


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

LCat said:


> Gys I'm not trying to defend CM - I got bad part of the deal and looking for drivers in the middle of install - but it is not same driver. Different cone part, different spider with different terminals(CM mounted on opposit sides and TB on one side)
> 
> Now TB defenetly did basket and might have OEMd drivers but it is NOT TB


Actually the cones are the same, and the terminals on the TB are mounted on opposite sides like the CM, and although it's hard to tell from pics the spider looks the same aswell.


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

The TB




The CM




The TB




The CM






So lets go back over this, the frame is the same, the cone is the same, the surround is the same, the terminals are the same, the spider looks the same from these pics, oh and the specs are almost identical and any spec differences can be put down to rounding, different measuring procedures, production tolerances or in some cases CM making up ******** as Brian Steele already showed with there sensitivity rating being about 8db or so out.


But hey if this isn't the final build model, maybe the final model you will actually get something different to justify the cost difference.

If some people still think these drivers are different, then at least I know where CM gets the gullible idiots who buy some of the seriously overpriced products they have at full retail. I mean seriously $8k for a 4 x 150rms amp who the hell is that stupid, you can probably buy several thousand Zapco watts for that kind of money. 

But if your lucky and pick up some of there products 2nd hand good for you, I know I would never buy my JBL W15Gti at full retail (serious markup here in Aus) but I got mine at roughly a third of retail so it was a good deal in that aspect.


----------



## lyttleviet (Sep 11, 2008)

Man, I want to see someone do a test side by side. Anyone care to donate


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

OK, granted, those mids look identical... But what about the UL12, where is the twin of that? 

I mean Car Audio represents it as being the "end all" of subs... where is the TB version? 

Again, i'm not in this for the ethics of CM's claims or build process... I'm souly in this for the love of this quirky/lovely driver... You gotta admit, it's like a Bulldog, ugle to the point of beauty.. lol.. 

To fight this fight based on price is foolish, there are people out there that can and WILL spend the money... I'm not one of them, I traded some amps for mine.. 700$ worth mind you, but that is sometimes the price you pay to try something "off the wall" right? 

I used to work in a high end home audio shop (Speaker Shop, Buffalo NY) and the esoteric high end was rather big business... It was nothing for a doctor to come in, spend 3-4 days in the listening room, and cut a check for 90k on a system... To me, completely retarded, but to someone with 7 figures in the bank, what the hay... 




> This kind of rant, like much of what has been stated in this thread, is ridiculous. How do you know the product is not "worth close to anything they are asking?" Had you said that YOU would never spend what is asked for CM equipment because YOU had used or listened to the products, and concluded that the benefits do not equal or exceed the cost, then I would respect your opinion. Based on your own words, it's clear that you have never owned or heard the equipment. Yet you purport to have an opinion about the value of the equipment for everyone. Value is a relative thing, that varies from one person to the next. A car can be viewed as merely transportation to get from point A to point B. But to some it's more than just transportation. The driving experience and even the status of a particular automobile is of paramount importance to them. That's why some people are perfectly satisfied with a Kia, and some couldn't be satisfied with anything less than a Ferrari, even if to others the Ferrari is considered overpriced "transportation." And, in many cases, some people (like me) would love to own the Ferrari, if they could afford it, because they know that it delivers in huge quantities what makes driving fun. But we don't disparage the Ferrari because we couldn't afford it, or when we have no first hand knowledge about its virtues.
> 
> I am always amazed by the large number of people on this forum who get on a soapbox and pontificate about things they have no first hand experience with or knowledge of. The purpose of this forum should be to educate and share information that will benefit others. Opinions that are not based on first hand experience do not serve that purpose, unless that opinion is qualified by the person making it. So, rather than spout off about things you have no first hand experience with, you should seriously consider keeping such opinions to yourself.



Very well stated Sir.... Hopefully, sometime in the spring, we will see more of what this can do... i'm going to run my UL12 in IB and as soon as possible, I will have Geo, run the numbers and plot the graphs through the RTA... AND give a section of the community a chance at hearing it for themselves... Car Audio did the Klipple on it... the report is in the review, the subjective is there to... We will see what a small cross-section of the community has to say.. IF, everything goes as planned...


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

msmith said:


> If you say so!
> 
> Just like that flat TB woofer that mechanically crashes short of its Xmax claim, right?


Interesting comment it seems no one has read...I take it JL has personally tested the TB/CM woofer then and had less than stellar results? It was refreshing to see just how much better the original 6W0 performed compared to specs back in the day.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

chadillac3 said:


> Interesting comment it seems no one has read...I take it JL has personally tested the TB/CM woofer then and had less than stellar results? It was refreshing to see just how much better the original 6W0 performed compared to specs back in the day.


A lot of people on this and other forums are making assumptions based on published specs and, unfortunately, many of these specs are complete crap. Just because something measures a certain way in terms of T/S parameters does not mean it's any good. It would be quite possible to make a speaker with T/S parameters identical to a ScanSpeak Revelator, for example... but this doesn't make it a ScanSpeak Revelator. It would be even easier to buy some POS from China and ship it with a spec sheet that matches the specs of a ScanSpeak Revelator.

In my earlier post, I wasn't referring to the TB/CM 6.5-incher, but rather the low-profile, TB 10-inch subwoofer. After reading a few comments here and other places that it was a decent driver and should be compared against our TW5, I ordered a pair and had our engineers test them. Not very impressive. It measured differently than the claimed specs in just about every important parameter and it looked pretty horrible on the Klippel, too. It was particularly interesting that its physical Xmax exceeded its mechanical clearance... a sure recipe for disaster in a subwoofer. Despite the preceding, some forum-dwellers were comparing that speaker to our TW5 and commenting that the TB "had more Xmax and was cheaper" so why were we "ripping people off"?. That TB speaker isn't within any kind of spittin' distance of a TW5, no way in hell... but those that just look at specs don't know any better.

So, the point of my comment is that specs need to be verified and the actual driver needs to be tested... and when it comes to Xmax specs in particular, be very wary of making judgments about a speaker's real excursion envelope from them, unless you have solid reasons to trust the mfr's specs.

Another example of 'specsmanship'... Take the differences between the TB and CM specs for the apparently identical 6.5-inch driver being discussed in this thread... one says the Fs is 28 Hz, the other claims 38 Hz and the one claiming the lower Fs also claims higher sensitivity. Anybody who knows the first thing about speakers knows that this is impossible. I also find it highly doubtful that this speaker has an Fs of 28 Hz, yet some people are taking that to the bank (and thinking it is an advantage).

As for the other argument going back and forth here... it seems pretty clear that CM is private-labeling that driver from TB... this doesn't mean they do this for all their speakers, but it appears to be true for this one. Even the sloppy neck-joint and surround glue beads match up. 

Now, don't get me wrong... there is a place in the world for inexpensive speakers and some of the TB stuff is actually quite decent for the money... I've played with a few of them and some represent really good value.... others aren't very good at all... but you can't tell that from their published specs.

Also, there are some very interesting notions of what constitutes a good IB driver... and again, specs don't tell the whole story. In general terms, you want a higher Qts and a higher Fs in an IB driver than in a woofer designed for small enclosures. But, you also have to consider the mechanical package of the speaker and whether the suspension and clearances will result in good real-world IB performance. It's NOT just a matter of looking at specs.

Hope I haven't ruffled any feathers.

Manville Smith
JL Audio, Inc.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

Thanks for the insight Manville....i personally appreciated your input


----------



## TheDavel (Sep 8, 2006)

^ Good write up ^ I have notices with many speakers, that each one varies... take 2 of the identical model speakers even from say the same componet set and run them on the klippel side by side and you will probably see slight to moderate differences... a more basic test of just measureing impedance has even given me different numbers woofer to woofer...


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

TheDavel05 said:


> ^ Good write up ^ I have notices with many speakers, that each one varies... take 2 of the identical model speakers even from say the same componet set and run them on the klippel side by side and you will probably see slight differences... a more basic test of just measureing impedance has even given me different numbers woofer to woofer...


You are correct... it is not uncommon for T/S parameters to "wobble" as much as 10-15% from speaker to speaker, and that is with good process control and parts qualification.

Failing good QC, the specs can be all over the place from unit to unit.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

azngotskills said:


> Thanks for the insight Manville....i personally appreciated your input


Yeah, it was pretty much the most awesomest today thus far.


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

Buzzman said:


> This kind of rant, like much of what has been stated in this thread, is ridiculous. How do you know the product is not "worth close to anything they are asking?" Had you said that YOU would never spend what is asked for CM equipment because YOU had used or listened to the products, and concluded that the benefits do not equal or exceed the cost, then I would respect your opinion. Based on your own words, it's clear that you have never owned or heard the equipment. Yet you purport to have an opinion about the value of the equipment for *everyone*. Value is a relative thing, that varies from one person to the next. A car can be viewed as merely transportation to get from point A to point B. But to some it's more than just transportation. The driving experience and even the status of a particular automobile is of paramount importance to them. That's why some people are perfectly satisfied with a Kia, and some couldn't be satisfied with anything less than a Ferrari, even if to others the Ferrari is considered overpriced "transportation." And, in many cases, some people (like me) would love to own the Ferrari, if they could afford it, because they know that it delivers in huge quantities what makes driving fun. But we don't disparage the Ferrari because we couldn't afford it, or when we have no first hand knowledge about its virtues.
> 
> I am always amazed by the large number of people on this forum who get on a soapbox and pontificate about things they have no first hand experience with or knowledge of. The purpose of this forum should be to educate and share information that will benefit others. Opinions that are not based on first hand experience do not serve that purpose, unless that opinion is qualified by the person making it. So, rather than spout off about things you have no first hand experience with, you should seriously consider keeping such opinions to yourself.


Okay, so I should have said that "some" of CM's products aren't worth the asking price, not all of them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for spending more on something I want if I can afford it. Even if I can't, I'll save up for it to get it. Hell, I'm about to drop over $1k on a pair of subs myself. I'm very well known for blowing... urr, I mean, "_investing_" money into stereo equipment. 

I'm not trying to start any arguments, and I don't want to piss anyone off. That's NOT what I'm here for. 

However, I do want to add that I have been in the audio business (as a hobby/obsession) for quite a few years myself, going on 20+ years. You learn to read between the lines on a lot of this stuff and know what to go for or stay away from. Yes, there are some really great deals out there, and there are some really terrible rip-offs out there. To me (and apparently others as well), CM seems to have a decent balance of both on hand. So in that respect, they are capable of catering to both the frugal and elite which is a good thing.


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

msmith said:


> Also, there are some very interesting notions of what constitutes a good IB driver... and again, specs don't tell the whole story. In general terms, you want a higher Qts and a higher Fs in an IB driver than in a woofer designed for small enclosures. But, you also have to consider the mechanical package of the speaker and whether the suspension and clearances will result in good real-world IB performance. It's NOT just a matter of looking at specs.
> 
> Hope I haven't ruffled any feathers.
> 
> ...


I've done quite a bit of research on IB setups over the years, even designed and built a few myself. To me, there's nothing better than IB bass. It's the most precise, most natural sounding bass one can get. And with a big enough baffle, one can as much deep bass extension out of an IB setup as any sealed or ported enclosure without the need of EQ'ing.

I do have one thing to question though about what you said about IB drivers. It is true that a higher Qts is desired, usually 0.6 and higher, although going too high can make the detail suffer. But, with drivers suitable for IB, you want them to have a lower Fs, not higher. The lower the Fs you can find, the less EQ you will have to use to get low bass. Granted, you don't want the Fs much lower than say 25Hz or so, but you also don't want it much higher than 40hz either. Again, the size of the baffle and Qts plays into this factor as well and will determine how much EQ you will need, if any. This is based on the many emails I've had with Siegfried Linkwitz, one that is definitely in the "know" about IB designs.

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. Far from it. Maybe there's something new that I don't know about in IB design as I haven't looked into it much in the last year or so.


----------



## Mr Marv (Aug 19, 2005)

msmith said:


> It's NOT just a matter of looking at specs.
> 
> Hope I haven't ruffled any feathers.
> 
> ...


That pretty much sums it up IMO.  On more than one occasion I have posted my comments on how something *sounded to me* and had someone disagree *not because they actually listened to it themselves* (which would be cool) rather because their contention was the "specs" say it should sound like this or worse yet "such and such" said the "specs" say it should sound like that.  In any case the specs are confusing enough to me without people "fudging" them so I prefer to just go buy it and try it. 
BTW, my *actual listening* impressions of the 13TW5 coming  HERE soon.


----------



## Aaron Clinton (Oct 17, 2006)

*Excellent thread.*


----------



## the other hated guy (May 25, 2007)

Manville.... are you actually suggesting that people actually listen to drivers? Say it aint so..... In my up and comming install... instead of putting speakers in the car, I planned on just taping klippel tests in various locations....

What kills me is that half if not more people on this and other forums couldn't pick out a certain frequency if played and yet they base purchasing a driver off specs and response plots....


----------



## TheDavel (Sep 8, 2006)

the other hated guy said:


> What kills me is that half if not more people on this and other forums couldn't pick out a certain frequency if played and yet they base purchasing a driver off specs and response plots....


Sad but true-


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

Luke352 said:


> Thats all fine EXCEPT as shown in this case CM have simply rebadged TB's product and will most likely ask up to 10 times the price you can buy the TB product for. I mean they haven't even changed a thing, the only thing they have done is fluff up some of the specs which was proven at the bottom of page 1.
> 
> I don't care that the product is being made by somone else I'd hazard a guess that 70% of all car audio gear is made by other companies then the name it sells under but for the premium price I pay I expect to get something more then a direct rebadge of a product I can buy from the OEM for a lot less as in this case.
> 
> ...


Yo, Luke, you just don't get it. Where is the proof that CM simply rebadged the TB woofer? All I have seen is pure supposition. And what I find objectionable is supposition stated as fact. And too many people on this forum do this. If you were to say I had both items, took them apart, tested them, etc., and they are identical, then you have a case. If you had said I "think" they simply rebadged the product for the following reasons, I would respect and accept your opinion. In either case your opinion may be subject to rebuttal based on facts, if such facts exist. In the audio world there are numerous examples of products that look similar, even identical, on the outside, but are remarkably different on the inside. So, where is the *EVIDENCE *that CM simply rebadged the product?


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> . . .
> Very well stated Sir.... Hopefully, sometime in the spring, we will see more of what this can do... i'm going to run my UL12 in IB and as soon as possible ...


Thanks, Aaron. And, good luck with your UL12. If you want some tips on how to ensure the best fidelity from your IB set-up, let me know. 

I am awaiting a pair of CM MB82's.


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

msmith said:


> . . .
> As for the other argument going back and forth here... it seems pretty clear that CM is private-labeling that driver from TB... this doesn't mean they do this for all their speakers, but it appears to be true for this one. Even the sloppy neck-joint and surround glue beads match up.
> Manville Smith
> JL Audio, Inc.


Hey Manville, having read prior posts from you, I concluded that you are a pretty fair and intelligent guy. This statement troubles me, however, because it might be interpreted differently than I think you intended. Are you suggesting that the two drivers are "identical" mechanically and in terms of performance? Or, are you opining that CM is using TB to build a driver to CM's specs, tolerances, etc., that just happens to "look" similar physically to a TB driver?


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

Buzzman said:


> Hey Manville, having read prior posts from you, I concluded that you are a pretty fair and intelligent guy. This statement troubles me, however, because it might be interpreted differently than I think you intended. Are you suggesting that the two drivers are "identical" mechanically and in terms of performance? Or, are you opining that CM is using TB to build a driver to CM's specs, tolerances, etc., that just happens to "look" similar physically to a TB driver?


If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck...


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Buzzman said:


> Hey Manville, having read prior posts from you, I concluded that you are a pretty fair and intelligent guy. This statement troubles me, however, because it might be interpreted differently than I think you intended. Are you suggesting that the two drivers are "identical" mechanically and in terms of performance? Or, are you opining that CM is using TB to build a driver to CM's specs, tolerances, etc., that just happens to "look" similar physically to a TB driver?


I'm suggesting that it is highly likely that CM buys that speaker from TB and puts their label on it. This is hardly uncommon in the speaker industry, especially for smaller companies that can't afford to engineer and tool up unique designs for all their products. At one time, JL Audio did the very same thing (with our early component speakers).

As I said before, I don't know that CM private labels all their speakers in this manner or from this source.

I'm not trying to be rude about it. Just stating my honest opinion.


----------



## exmaxima1 (May 31, 2007)

SQ_Blaze said:


> I do have one thing to question though about what you said about IB drivers. It is true that a higher Qts is desired, usually 0.6 and higher, although going too high can make the detail suffer. But, with drivers suitable for IB, you want them to have a lower Fs, not higher. The lower the Fs you can find, the less EQ you will have to use to get low bass. Granted, you don't want the Fs much lower than say 25Hz or so, but you also don't want it much higher than 40hz either.


In a car environment, you have to sum the considerable cabin gain to the woofer response. If you use a low Fs driver in an IB application, you will get overly bloated bass. Using a driver with an Fs of about 40-50 Hz (the smaller the car the high the Fs), results in a flatter response, and more seamlessly complements the front stage.

For IB, Qts > .6 (and less than 1.0)
Fs = 40-50 Hz

Matthew


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

SQ_Blaze said:


> I've done quite a bit of research on IB setups over the years, even designed and built a few myself. To me, there's nothing better than IB bass. It's the most precise, most natural sounding bass one can get. And with a big enough baffle, one can as much deep bass extension out of an IB setup as any sealed or ported enclosure without the need of EQ'ing.


There is no question IB setups can work very well if they are well executed (which isn't as simple as many people think).



> I do have one thing to question though about what you said about IB drivers. It is true that a higher Qts is desired, usually 0.6 and higher, although going too high can make the detail suffer. But, with drivers suitable for IB, you want them to have a lower Fs, not higher. The lower the Fs you can find, the less EQ you will have to use to get low bass. Granted, you don't want the Fs much lower than say 25Hz or so, but you also don't want it much higher than 40hz either.


We may be in more agreement than you think. The vehicle's transfer function will more than make up for an Fs in the mid to high 30's, provided the Q of the system is in the happy zone (I like 0.6-0.8) as a general target range. I've never had a problem getting absolutely subterranean extension from setups like this... low bass is never the problem. The bigger challenge seems to be getting the lower to upper octave balance right and the overall amplitude reliably high enough. I was not recommending Fs's in the 40's or 50's... although in some vehicles you might be able to make that work, depending on the q and the cabin size. 



> Again, the size of the baffle and Qts plays into this factor as well and will determine how much EQ you will need, if any. This is based on the many emails I've had with Siegfried Linkwitz, one that is definitely in the "know" about IB designs.


No doubt that Dr. Linkwitz knows his stuff, but keep in mind that in a car there are two cavities and a much different acoustical impedance matching scenario than with a home IB.



> I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. Far from it. Maybe there's something new that I don't know about in IB design as I haven't looked into it much in the last year or so.


No offense was taken. good points.


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

if c.m. do nothing but place a new label on the t.b. driver and then charge a lot more (10x) money for it, 

*isnt that illegal?*

plagerism false advertising etc etc?


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

Buzzman said:


> Yo, Luke, you just don't get it. Where is the proof that CM simply rebadged the TB woofer? All I have seen is pure supposition. And what I find objectionable is supposition stated as fact. And too many people on this forum do this. If you were to say I had both items, took them apart, tested them, etc., and they are identical, then you have a case. If you had said I "think" they simply rebadged the product for the following reasons, I would respect and accept your opinion. In either case your opinion may be subject to rebuttal based on facts, if such facts exist. In the audio world there are numerous examples of products that look similar, even identical, on the outside, but are remarkably different on the inside. So, where is the *EVIDENCE *that CM simply rebadged the product?


Look I'm not trying to say the UL you own is just a cheap driver rebadged, because you seem to be taking it personally almost. But the evidence and FACTS seem to be pointing that this particular CM 6.5" driver is just a rebadged driver. You really seem to be the only person in this thread with some issue of understanding that, so CM have just happened to produce a driver after TB have had there's released for sometime, that not only looks but also has the same specs, and the ones that don't aren't correct anyway, sensitivity is not what they are stating, the FS wouldn't be correct with the sensitivity they are claiming, they also say there cone is lighter yet has a lower FS, that also tends to go against common speaker design principles (not all the time), so CM is bullshitting up some of there specs.

Look I'm NOT claiming CM just rebadges cheap drivers for all there speakers, most of there products are probably very good products whether there worth the money they ask for some of it or not is subjective, some people just have bigger wallets so fair enough (well those who buy new anyway lol, but in this particular case, the FACTS aka identical specs and build seem to be saying otherwise.


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

exmaxima1 said:


> In a car environment, you have to sum the considerable cabin gain to the woofer response. If you use a low Fs driver in an IB application, you will get overly bloated bass. Using a driver with an Fs of about 40-50 Hz (the smaller the car the high the Fs), results in a flatter response, and more seamlessly complements the front stage.
> 
> For IB, Qts > .6 (and less than 1.0)
> Fs = 40-50 Hz
> ...





msmith said:


> There is no question IB setups can work very well if they are well executed (which isn't as simple as many people think).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, sorry guys. I was basing my thoughts off of home audio only, since that's the only place I've been able to play around with IB's. They are a great way to get great, natural sound. 

I also failed to mention that IB midrange is also hard to beat. My home system is a hybrid setup. The front three channels use (2) 6" drivers in roughly 2cf sealed enclosures, then two more of those same exact 6" drivers on an open baffle, on either side of a 1" soft dome tweeter.

The setup before that was a DIY monster OB using (2) Usher 15HM 15" drivers, one above and one below an Altec Voice Of The Theater (VOTT) 511B horn and 902-8B driver. The baffles stood 7' tall and were 24" wide. They were actively crossed over around 500Hz and EQ'ed a bit on the bottom end, measuring flat down to 22Hz. 

Anyway, back on topic now.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

the other hated guy said:


> Manville.... are you actually suggesting that people actually listen to drivers? Say it aint so..... In my up and comming install... instead of putting speakers in the car, I planned on just taping klippel tests in various locations....
> 
> What kills me is that half if not more people on this and other forums couldn't pick out a certain frequency if played and yet they base purchasing a driver off specs and response plots....


I have said this before, As I look at specs and graphs and I do like to see the independent testing which gives you a better idea of what the driver is doing, but in no way does it tell me how it will sound, so at the end of the day I could care less what they say. I'm a hands on or should a say ears on type of person. I gotten bashed for saying this a few times around here. I do take the word of a few person on how something sounds, because I respect their opinion and trust their ear and even then I buy it and do my own listening.

And Manville great posts.


----------



## TheDavel (Sep 8, 2006)

I think CM and Diamond are sharing a sub these days also-


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

TheDavel05 said:


> I think CM and Diamond are sharing a sub these days also-


No fuggin way! It's impossible, there has to be engineers trading designs or a run on machining designs, I mean ****, the CM is the holy grail there is no reason for ANYONE to copy them because they use a special pixie dust that is closely guarded by Chuck Norris, a Flying Velocirapotor with scissors, and an ARMY of Pygmy Indians! 

I mean hell, if that were to happen, then ****, they can certainly get the Hadron Collider up and running before winter energy season if they put them face to face and ran them in phase to temporarily replace the damaged magnet sections. 

Look man, NOBODY uses build houses, it's an alien force that descends on engineers during the evening that causes bunches of them to make the same design, hell, don't you know this? Where the hell has everyone been? You better wear you tinfoil hats because tis the season for these mind-abducting thoughts!


----------



## rc10mike (Mar 27, 2008)

Hahahaha, look at the price now!, it was 7k!

http://icondealerservice.com/catalog/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=29

edit: The UL12 is now 3k!

msmith: What do you think of the UL12?


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

60ndown said:


> if c.m. do nothing but place a new label on the t.b. driver and then charge a lot more (10x) money for it,
> 
> *isnt that illegal?*
> 
> plagerism false advertising etc etc?


LOL, no, it's not illegal... it's called commerce.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

tvrift said:


> msmith: What do you think of the UL12?


I haven't tested them or had any kind of extended listening session with them, so I really can't say. It seems to be an interesting design.


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

msmith said:


> I haven't tested them or had any kind of extended listening session with them, so I really can't say. It seems to be an interesting design.


Ever the polite businessman huh Manville.  LOL!

There are some very interesting posts in this thread.

And while I haven't seen both of the speakers in person, I have seen the TB mini sub and this CM sure does look a lot like it!


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

Klippel for the CM UL12 is in here... http://www.caraudiomag.com/0607_cae_critical_mass_test_report/index.html

Does that change anything? Are those figures bloated and veiled in mystery....?


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2006)

tvrift said:


> Hahahaha, look at the price now!, it was 7k!
> 
> http://icondealerservice.com/catalog/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=29
> 
> ...


Did you notice the amp you just linked too is $100k?

Sheesh


----------



## Brian Steele (Jun 1, 2007)

msmith said:


> A lot of people on this and other forums are making assumptions based on published specs and, unfortunately, many of these specs are complete crap. Just because something measures a certain way in terms of T/S parameters does not mean it's any good.


True, but in the absence of anything better, the T/S parameters, and to some extent the Xmax, particularly if Klippel-measured, can give a good idea of what the driver is capable of below 200 Hz or so.




msmith said:


> It would be quite possible to make a speaker with T/S parameters identical to a ScanSpeak Revelator, for example... but this doesn't make it a ScanSpeak Revelator. It would be even easier to buy some POS from China and ship it with a spec sheet that matches the specs of a ScanSpeak Revelator.


Of course, but then we're talking about a midbass/midrange driver here, not a subwoofer. The T/S parameters are not going to give any idea of how this driver is going to reproduce the vast majority of the spectrum it's going to be used for.




msmith said:


> In my earlier post, I wasn't referring to the TB/CM 6.5-incher, but rather the low-profile, TB 10-inch subwoofer. After reading a few comments here and other places that it was a decent driver and should be compared against our TW5, I ordered a pair and had our engineers test them. Not very impressive. It measured differently than the claimed specs in just about every important parameter and it looked pretty horrible on the Klippel, too.


And there's the thing - its MEASURED parameters were different than the published ones, and the measured parameters predicted a response that wasn't particularly spectacular, right? 




msmith said:


> So, the point of my comment is that specs need to be verified and the actual driver needs to be tested... and when it comes to Xmax specs in particular, be very wary of making judgments about a speaker's real excursion envelope from them, unless you have solid reasons to trust the mfr's specs.


An excellent point. In fact, I think there might be an untapped marketing opportunity for independent testing and verification of subwoofer driver parameters. Like a Klippel stamp of approval . I would certainly like to see a movement away from considering "Xmax" as just how much coil is above te gap. In fact, I remember one particular company INSISTING in their ads some time ago that that was the only way to really measure Xmax - I won't mention any names   . 




msmith said:


> Another example of 'specsmanship'... Take the differences between the TB and CM specs for the apparently identical 6.5-inch driver being discussed in this thread... one says the Fs is 28 Hz, the other claims 38 Hz and the one claiming the lower Fs also claims higher sensitivity.


Yeah, that was hilarious. I think CM definitely got the FS number wrong, and they probably have their own way of defining efficiency - perhaps they're fudging the reference efficiency a bit to come up with an expected "in-car efficiency" value. 




msmith said:


> In general terms, you want a higher Qts and a higher Fs in an IB driver than in a woofer designed for small enclosures. But, you also have to consider the mechanical package of the speaker and whether the suspension and clearances will result in good real-world IB performance. It's NOT just a matter of looking at specs.


Yup, the T/S params, being small-signal in nature, will not tell you how the driver will behave at the limits of its excursion. But a MEASURED Xmax spec is better than nothing at all to give an idea of what output the driver is capable of before hitting its excursion limits.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> Klippel for the CM UL12 is in here... http://www.caraudiomag.com/0607_cae_critical_mass_test_report/index.html
> 
> Does that change anything? Are those figures bloated and veiled in mystery....?


It still ain't gonna shag 5KW of heat RMS


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Just finding stuff on the UL-12 to post 

quote>
UL-12

---------------------------------------------------------------------

8/12/08

Here are some patent numbers and summaries by the designer of this driver:


6,917,690
Electromagnetic Transducer Having Multiple Magnetic Air Gaps Whose Magnetic Flux is in a Same Direction


The “Dual Gap” patent. A transducer motor with a yoke, magnet, plate, magnet, plate assembly. Both magnets are polarized in the same axial direction, and the magnetic flux flows in the same radial direction over the two magnetic air gaps. Huge Xmax is achieved by handing off a voice coil or voice coil pair from one gap to the other, to produce extremely high SPL with absolutely minimized distortion.

6,940,992
Push-Push Multiple Magnetic Air Gap Transducer
The “Dual Gap Return Path” patent. A transducer motor with two drive magnetic air gaps over which the magnetic flux flows in a first radial direction, and a low reluctance return path gap over which the flux flows in the opposite radial direction. A bucking magnet between the dual gap structure and the return path plate increases the flux density in the two drive gaps, and the return path gap lowers the reluctance of the magnetic circuit. 

6,996,247


Push-Push Multiple Magnetic Air Gap Transducer
Another “Dual Gap” patent. A transducer motor with a yoke, magnet, plate, steel spacer, plate assembly. Magnetic flux flows in the same radial direction over both magnetic air gaps. A voice coil or a voice coil pair is handed off from one gap to the other, to produce very high SPL and minimal distortion.

7,006,654


Push-Pull Electromagnetic Transducer with Increased Xmax
A transducer motor of the “push-pull” variety in which magnetic flux flows in opposite directions over two air gaps, and the voice coils are wound in opposite directions or one is driven 180° out of phase. The motor uses the “hand-off” technique of the Dual Gap motor, to achieve large Xmax with extremely low motor‑induced distortion.

7,065,225
Electromagnetic Transducer Having a Low Reluctance Return Path
A cup / internal magnet transducer motor with one or more drive air gaps and a low reluctance return path gap. Magnetic flux flows in a first radial direction over the drive air gaps, and in the opposite radial direction over the return path gap. Increased flux density with lower reluctance, resulting in higher efficiency.

20050041831
Electromagnetic Transducer Motor Structure with Radial Thermal Extraction Paths
A transducer in which a heatsink (which can also serve as the frame) includes spokes which extend radially through the motor, to get the heatsink as close to the voice coil heating area as possible, and provide a highly thermally conductive path extending radially out of the motor.


20050190946
Dual-Gap Transducer with Radially-Charged Magnet
A Dual Gap motor in which the magnetic flux flows in a same radial direction over the magnetic air gaps and is provided by radially-charged magnets.

20040131223
Electromagnetic Transducer Having a Hybrid Internal/External Magnet Motor Geometry
A transducer motor with both an internal magnet (inside the voice coil) and an external magnet (outside the voice coil). Some configurations permit post-assembly charging of both magnets in the same direction. Some configurations use the Dual Gap technology. Some configurations use the Return Path technology.

20040212254
Tube Geometry Motor for Electromagnetic Transducer
A transducer motor with an elongated steel tube for a yoke. The elongated shape enables the motor to fit into spaces where a conventional, round motor would not fit. Very high magnetic flux density can be achieved. The yoke can be made from inexpensive, off-the-shelf tubular steel stock.

20040213430
Laminated Motor Structure for Electromagnetic Transducer
A transducer motor in which some or all of the steel components are formed as laminated layers of steel separated by thin layers of electrical insulation. Eddy currents, inductive heating, thermal compression, and induced opposing flux are minimized.

20050190945
Shorting Ring Fixture for Electromagnetic Transducer
A transducer motor in which an aluminum shorting ring serves double duty to sink eddy currents and to hold other motor components in correct coaxial alignment.

20060039578 Audio Speaker with Graduated Voice Coil Windings An audio speaker driver having a voice coil with graduated windings such that different sections of the voice coil have different electrical resistances and/or lengths per unit of height of the voice coil. A center portion of the voice coil gives a greater BL, while outer portions give a lower overall electrical resistance. 

quote>


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi, Brian. Thanks for the comments.



Brian Steele said:


> True, but in the absence of anything better, the T/S parameters, and to some extent the Xmax, particularly if Klippel-measured, can give a good idea of what the driver is capable of below 200 Hz or so.


Sure, it is a starting point for determining if the speaker will fit the application, particularly if the specs are reasonably accurate and from a trusted manufacturer. (Not if the T/S parameters are wrong and not if the Xmax is poorly calculated or compromised by mechanical or suspension limits.) 



> Of course, but then we're talking about a midbass/midrange driver here, not a subwoofer. The T/S parameters are not going to give any idea of how this driver is going to reproduce the vast majority of the spectrum it's going to be used for.


Perhaps I chose a bad example... Substitute any woofer you want for the ScanSpeak Revelator in my example and my statements still stand, though. Small signal parameters are but a very limited look at the real behavior of a low frequency driver. And, poorly calculated ones mean even less.  As soon as the cone starts to move and current flows across the coil, the stability and linearity of the motor and suspension are what really matter. 



> And there's the thing - its MEASURED parameters were different than the published ones, and the measured parameters predicted a response that wasn't particularly spectacular, right?


Well... the measured parameters were way off from the published ones which, of course means that the box recommendations would need to be re-evaluated, but its dynamic issues were really the big problem. The thing crashes mechanically before reaching its claimed Xmax... in my book, that's a pretty serious design problem.



> An excellent point. In fact, I think there might be an untapped marketing opportunity for independent testing and verification of subwoofer driver parameters. Like a Klippel stamp of approval . I would certainly like to see a movement away from considering "Xmax" as just how much coil is above te gap. In fact, I remember one particular company INSISTING in their ads some time ago that that was the only way to really measure Xmax - I won't mention any names   .


Sure... guilty, but with mitigating circumstances... 

Back in the day, we were one of the first, if not the first ones to talk about excursion and teach the car audio industry what Xmax was and why it mattered. Soon after, other companies started using peak-to-peak (without disclosing it), one company added an arbitrary correction factor (+20%, IIRC), others simply pulled numbers out of thin air. As classically defined, Xmax was strictly an overhang (or underhang) measurement simply because good tools for measuring actual motor behavior didn't really exist. It is still a useful figure that is easily verifiable, but should not be considered a good guideline unless you trust the source of the spec. and it certainly helps to have Klippel data on top of it.



> Yeah, that was hilarious. I think CM definitely got the FS number wrong, and they probably have their own way of defining efficiency - perhaps they're fudging the reference efficiency a bit to come up with an expected "in-car efficiency" value.


Who knows... but it's just wrong.



> Yup, the T/S params, being small-signal in nature, will not tell you how the driver will behave at the limits of its excursion. But a MEASURED Xmax spec is better than nothing at all to give an idea of what output the driver is capable of before hitting its excursion limits.


I would modify that to read: "the T/S params, being small-signal in nature, will not necessarily tell you how the driver will behave in actual use. Their ability to predict performance relies heavily on the speaker's motor and suspension linearity."

I hope we're not boring everyone with all this nitpicking, but it is a pretty important topic and an interesting discussion.

Best regards,

Manville Smith
JL Audio, Inc.


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

chad said:


> It still ain't gonna shag 5KW of heat RMS


Ok, but what does it say to you?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX said:


> Ok, but what does it say to you?


That somebody took a strange driver, that is VERY innovative in design and cool, that in it's recommended enclosure would never have a flattish response, slapped on a VERY bloated power handling number, and sold it for WAY too much. It's so Aura'ish it's not even funny  Ask the hatedguys about aura  Or me about Aura's pro stuff, Or me about Aura OEM's in a few weeks.

In your app it should do well, buy another, feed them till they beg for mercy and have fun with them


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

chad said:


> feed them till they beg for mercy and have fun with them


you know my last girlfriend?


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

chadillac3 said:


> If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck...


It's Austin Powers!


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

60ndown said:


> you know my last girlfriend?


Your last girlfriend was my ex wife?!


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

chad said:


> Your last girlfriend was my ex wife?!


mebbe 

she was damn good at twisting nobs.


----------



## XC-C30 (Jul 24, 2007)

chad said:


> Your last girlfriend was my ex wife?!


He passed her through to me.... Married her..... Now she's ready to be passed along....


Any takers?


BTW chad YGPM (2x100 would be nice.... And yes, I know it will be slurping power)


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

Buzzman, check your PM's...


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

60ndown said:


> mebbe
> 
> she was damn good at twisting nobs.


Nope, not her, she was tonedeaf 



XC-C30 said:


> BTW chad YGPM (2x100 would be nice.... And yes, I know it will be slurping power)


Got it, Gotta wait to sit down, cuttin metal now


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

msmith said:


> I'm suggesting that it is highly likely that CM buys that speaker from TB and puts their label on it. This is hardly uncommon in the speaker industry, especially for smaller companies that can't afford to engineer and tool up unique designs for all their products. At one time, JL Audio did the very same thing (with our early component speakers).
> 
> As I said before, I don't know that CM private labels all their speakers in this manner or from this source.
> 
> I'm not trying to be rude about it. Just stating my honest opinion.


I am not suggesting that you are being rude. My point is that "private labeling," as you put it, does not mean the same thing as "re-badging" another company's product. I agree that "private labeling" is not uncommon. In fact, many companies (small and large) in a myriad of industries take advantage of the economies of scale a large established manufacurer offers, and have products made to _*their *_specifications using already established designs. But, from everything I have read on this post, it's clear that none of the people that have posted here work for CM, work for Tang Band, or have examined BOTH products (inside and out), to know whether the sub in questions is *identical *in *all * respects, which to me is "rebadging," or whether the CM product is a derivative of the TB product, and has distinct mechanical and technical features. That, to be is "private labeling," and I assume the early JL products you referred to fall into this catefory. My point, again, is that without anyone having the requisite knowledge, I think it's grossly unfair to publicly malign a product by calling it an expensive "re-badge."


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

Luke352 said:


> Look I'm not trying to say the UL you own is just a cheap driver rebadged, because you seem to be taking it personally almost.


I never said I own a UL. I DON'T. I don't presently own ANY CM products. I just know how to be objective and fair.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Buzzman said:


> I never said I own a UL. I DON'T. I don't presently own ANY CM products. I just know how to be objective and fair.


But outrightly lack skepticism


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

Buzzman said:


> That, to be is "private labeling," and I assume the early JL products you referred to fall into this catefory.


Actually, as far as I know, all of JL's earlier stuff was designed and built right here in Florida by them. In fact, I used to know one of the guys that worked for them. I'm not too sure what he did there, but he did in fact work there.

If anything, the speaker baskets might have been outsourced since they looked very similar to other brands, but that's typical with most companies.


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

chad said:


> But outrightly lack skepticism


Actually, I am a skeptic. A skeptic questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. Throughout this post, I have been skeptical about the assertions made (without FACTUAL support) that the CM sub in question is simply a "rebadge" of the TB product.


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

SQ_Blaze said:


> Actually, as far as I know, all of JL's earlier stuff was designed and built right here in Florida by them. In fact, I used to know one of the guys that worked for them. I'm not too sure what he did there, but he did in fact work there.
> 
> If anything, the speaker baskets might have been outsourced since they looked very similar to other brands, but that's typical with most companies.


Manville himself said otherwise in the post I responded to with respect to the JL components. Check it out.


----------



## SQ_Blaze (Sep 29, 2008)

Buzzman said:


> Manville himself said otherwise in the post I responded to with respect to the JL components. Check it out.


Like I said, "as far as I knew". I didn't say definitely.  But I was referring to their subs back when they first came out.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Buzzman said:


> Actually, I am a skeptic. A skeptic questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. Throughout this post, I have been skeptical about the assertions made (without FACTUAL support) that the CM sub in question is simply a "rebadge" of the TB product.


Fair enough, BUT you realize the similarities, and that ANY extreme pricing could be classified as either an extremely overpaid engineer or pure ********?


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

chad said:


> Fair enough, BUT you realize the similarities, and that ANY extreme pricing could be classified as either an extremely overpaid engineer or pure ********?


I don't know that the pricing is "extreme." In fact, noboby knows the pricing. The assumption has been made that it WILL BE "extreme." Plus, I don't even know what the differences are, if any (giving the benefit ofthe doubt to those on this thread who claim there are none). Any differences may well justify the price, or not. But, in the end, that will be determined by the consumer. Basic economics will dictate whether the pricing structure will survive. If consumers don't buy it, what do you think will happen?


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

SQ_Blaze said:


> Like I said, "as far as I knew". I didn't say definitely.  But I was referring to their subs back when they first came out.


This is what happens when you debate a lawyer, especially a former trial lawyer.


----------



## Aaron'z 2.5RS/WRX (Oct 24, 2007)

Yeah, but this don't sound like a trial debate, much more of a mass debate..


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

msmith said:


> There is no question IB setups can work very well if they are well executed (*which isn't as simple as many people think*).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Manville, can you please elaborate on this bolded statement? What are the critical factors that many seem to "simplify" or not correctly address?


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Dillyyo said:


> Manville, can you please elaborate on this bolded statement? What are the critical factors that many seem to "simplify" or not correctly address?


The major difficulty is creating a very good separation (seal) between the cabin and the trunk compartment. Many who attempt IB's end up with leaky ones that are compromised by cancellation. 

Woofer reliability is also a major concern. The woofer's suspension has to be robust and the user has to be aware of the system's limitations in order to avoid exceeding them and damaging the drivers.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Buzzman said:


> I don't know that the pricing is "extreme." In fact, noboby knows the pricing. The assumption has been made that it WILL BE "extreme." Plus, I don't even know what the differences are, if any (giving the benefit ofthe doubt to those on this thread who claim there are none). Any differences may well justify the price, or not. But, in the end, that will be determined by the consumer. Basic economics will dictate whether the pricing structure will survive. If consumers don't buy it, what do you think will happen?


Fair enough, we agree


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

msmith said:


> The major difficulty is creating a very good separation (seal) between the cabin and the trunk compartment. Many who attempt IB's end up with leaky ones that are compromised by cancellation.
> 
> Woofer reliability is also a major concern. The woofer's suspension has to be robust and the user has to be aware of the system's limitations in order to avoid exceeding them and damaging the drivers.


Oh ok. I knew that. I thought your telling me an industry secret!  BTW, why doesn't JL make anymore IB specific drivers? I have always loved your older models and used the original 12W3 up until just recently. Unfortunately space contraints forced me in another direction and I went IB with 2 Dyn 190's. I absolutely love them! Always wondered why though, JL strayed from the IB drivers. Market demand?


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Dillyyo said:


> Oh ok. I knew that. I thought your telling me an industry secret!  BTW, why doesn't JL make anymore IB specific drivers? I have always loved your older models and used the original 12W3 up until just recently. Unfortunately space contraints forced me in another direction and I went IB with 2 Dyn 190's. I absolutely love them! Always wondered why though, JL strayed from the IB drivers. Market demand?


We actually have a 10-inch IB woofer in the current marine line and it is very good... but it's deep in mounting depth.

When we had the IB4's, nobody bought them (okay, we did sell some, but not a lot)... then the factory that made the lightweight pulp cones went under... so we discontinued them. Now that we don't have them anymore, a lot of people ask us why we discontinued them.


----------



## the other hated guy (May 25, 2007)

I'm sure internet boards like this one and previous preach the gospal of IB goodness which is why your are getting more and more people interested



msmith said:


> We actually have a 10-inch IB woofer in the current marine line and it is very good... but it's deep in mounting depth.
> 
> When we had the IB4's, nobody bought them (okay, we did sell some, but not a lot)... then the factory that made the lightweight pulp cones went under... so we discontinued them. Now that we don't have them anymore, a lot of people ask us why we discontinued them.


----------



## Dillyyo (Feb 15, 2008)

msmith said:


> We actually have a 10-inch IB woofer in the current marine line and it is very good... but it's deep in mounting depth.
> 
> When we had the IB4's, nobody bought them (okay, we did sell some, but not a lot)... then the factory that made the lightweight pulp cones went under... so we discontinued them. Now that we don't have them anymore, a lot of people ask us why we discontinued them.




HA HA! Isn't that the way shat seems to work?! I remember back in the day IB setups in vehicles just weren't that big. Since I have gotten back in the game (less than a yr) it seems like everyone and their brother uses an IB setup! Go figure.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

It's funny that economics came into discussion. Let's start at there is no free lunch. A sufficient amount of information has been disclosed linking the provenience of two drivers, that is if you trust your own eyes, believe in science and use a bit of logic. The price for this valuable information is the opportunity cost of reading this thread on DIYMA. 

*Scenario 1*: you buy the TB driver and you pay the TB cost plus the cost of researching on DIYMA valued in time you could have worked and payed an insignificant amount towards the CM badged driver. 

*Scenario 2*: take home the CM driver that performs the same with the hefty price tag and save yourself the time you would need to research and make sure there is a difference among the two. 

Now here's the catch. Given you make enough money (we're talking Bill Gates status here) Scenario 2 is far cheaper, 10 minutes of searching on DIYMA may very well be too expensive to make Scenario 1 a real bargain.

But, you've already discovered this thread so you paid that cost. Scenario 2 is not really an option anymore. Sure you might say I have not performed a dissection of the drivers or listened to them side by side, but what difference does it make. Scientifically speaking 90db is almost unheard of for a 6.5 high excursion subwoofer so CM's variance form the specs should already be questioned, nor do most of us own $20k equipment and a related degree to test them out. With the realistic specs on the CM driver I'd be surprised if you could use your golden ears to tell them apart even if they were different drivers.

*My point*, if you are a rational user and have read this thread you should no doubt buy the TB driver if the choice needs to be made. If you are not rational then you have no right to invoke economics in the discussion.


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Scientifically speaking 90db is almost unheard of for a 6.5 high excursion subwoofer so CM's variance form the specs should already be questioned,
> 
> With the realistic specs on the CM driver I'd be surprised if you could use your golden ears to tell them apart even if they were different drivers.


Around 90db is not unheard of for 6.5" sub - DD is 91db, Hemp is 87, VMPS is 89. Theoretical limit whith current cone technology on 6.5" high x-max drivers is around 95-96db - just put motor strong (and expencive enough). What prevents it is typical supply and demand law  - ther is not enough of demand on the small high sencetivity/high output subs with high cost. Majority of people would just go with 8/10 or bigger subs if needed for a fraction of price. I was hoping what CM - especialy since the service niche marketswill build such a driver. Their asking price is defenetly can let them do it. According to CM drivers we got is a earlier protoype - latest prototype is a revision C - 4 reavisions ahead. Things they told me C has is a bigger and stronger magnet - #38 instead of #35, slitly stiffer suspention and importantly much smaller gap = much stronger magnetic field and much stornger moving force . Yes itwill work butit will require better build tolerances as any small gap driver. Unfortunatly this driver would not be availiable for at least 4 more weeks. CL also measures sencetivity at 2.83V and beeing 4 ohm driver it would bring their target sencetivity to 86Db for a 28Hz FS driver - very attinable specs. (Scanspeak also measures sencetivity using same method - and bunch of others)

So if CM could produce a driver with clammed specs nobody would have a problem difirenciating betheen CM and TB 

Now - I ended up going with VMPS drivers(was lucky enough to be have some connections), recived them this morning and thouse are little monster. Let's just say they weight more then big Seas L22RNX/Pand build like tanks. My only suprise was use of the stamped baskets - and it was explaned to me by Brian Cheney - stamped baskets have higher resonance but it in much higher freq rangen and works well for a low woofer. 

I'll be taking them to Don tonight so pictures will follow - stay tuned. 
If they work well I might be able to convince Brian to start selling raw drivers for automotive market


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Are we still talking about subwoofer frequencies? I have no doubt a 6.5 can reach 90db in breakup frequencies over 1khz but down low? If that was the case than my 15's should only require 1w to reach the threshold of pain.

Bl looks very similar, and given the stamped basket I can logically assume that the company did not follow the best there is mentality.


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> It's funny that economics came into discussion. Let's start at there is no free lunch. A sufficient amount of information has been disclosed linking the provenience of two drivers, that is if you trust your own eyes, believe in science and use a bit of logic. The price for this valuable information is the opportunity cost of reading this thread on DIYMA.
> 
> *Scenario 1*: you buy the TB driver and you pay the TB cost plus the cost of researching on DIYMA valued in time you could have worked and payed an insignificant amount towards the CM badged driver.
> 
> ...


George, you've drinking too much of that Sarah Palin juice, man.


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Are we still talking about subwoofer frequencies? I have no doubt a 6.5 can reach 90db in breakup frequencies over 1khz but down low? If that was the case than my 15's should only require 1w to reach the threshold of pain.
> 
> Bl looks very similar, and given the stamped basket I can logically assume that the company did not follow the best there is mentality.


We are absolutley talking about sub frequncies. And sure some 15's can reach sick levels withas little as 10 watts -look at some of the TAD finest, look at the Sunny Audio 18"s, McEllis, etc...

As far as BL - yep its same but MMS is exactly 2 times lower. Which equals to guess what - 4 times sencetivity  - 6 db higher. 

As far as stamped basket goes - well to have less distortion at the lower freq from cast basket, such busket has to be a true monster. Resonance of the stamped basket is somewhat higher then cast(depends on the wheight of the basket) but lays in the higher frequncy range. In case of Midwoofer resonance of the basket would lay in the vocal range and be in the higher amplitude - bad. In case of the woofer which is buld to reproduce only low freq stamped basket with resonance in the 500-700 HZ range is almoust not going to ring - you playing driver 2-3 octaves bellow, so stamped basket is actualy was specificly chosen for this driver.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

LCat said:


> Around 90db is not unheard of for 6.5" sub - DD is 91db, Hemp is 87, VMPS is 89. Theoretical limit whith current cone technology on 6.5" high x-max drivers is around 95-96db - just put motor strong (and expencive enough). What prevents it is typical supply and demand law  -


What prevents it is Hoffman's Iron Law 

Only way you're going to get a 6.5" driver with a true 90-ish db sensitivity to produce any respectable low end is to throw it in a huge ported box tuned low, basically a box so large you could've just gone with a 10" sub in a higher Q sealed box and called it a day.



LCat said:


> As far as BL - yep its same but MMS is exactly 2 times lower. Which equals to guess what - 4 times sencetivity  - 6 db higher.


Lowering MMS with same BL increases sensitivity, but also lowers Qts and possibly Fs if the suspension hasn't been made tighter to compensate. It's exactly why high efficiency drivers have no low end output whatsoever, lower the MMS, increase BL, etc, you lower the Q to the .25 or so region and the driver is around 12db down at Fs, opposed to a .7 Q that will be 3db down at Fs, or a .5 Q that will be 6db down at Fs. No free lunch in audio.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Dangerranger said:


> What prevents it is Hoffman's Iron Law
> 
> Lowering MMS with same BL increases sensitivity, but also lowers Qts and possibly Fs if the suspension hasn't been made tighter to compensate. It's exactly why high efficiency drivers have no low end output whatsoever, lower the MMS, increase BL, etc, you lower the Q to the .25 or so region and the driver is around 12db down at Fs, opposed to a .7 Q that will be 3db down at Fs, or a .5 Q that will be 6db down at Fs. No free lunch in audio.


Add to that MMS is not that different. Maybe my math is wrong but CM 31.1, TB 34.9 grams. That is a difference of 3.8, in percentages 3.8/34.9~10% less weight. How is that 2 times lighter? Enough to justify 6db difference...? or maybe a slight variation in production.

Imo a cast basket has less resonance intrinsic in its geometric stiffness. Any literature available on why stamped basket would work better?


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Add to that MMS is not that different. Maybe my math is wrong but CM 31.1, TB 34.9 grams. That is a difference of 3.8, in percentages 3.8/34.9~10% less weight. How is that 2 times lighter? Enough to justify 6db difference...? or maybe a slight variation in production.
> 
> Imo a cast basket has less resonance intrinsic in its geometric stiffness. Any literature available on why stamped basket would work better?


Guys let's move off of TB/CM - I was talking about VMPS


----------



## LCat (Jul 28, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Imo a cast basket has less resonance intrinsic in its geometric stiffness. Any literature available on why stamped basket would work better?


You are absolutley correct - Like I've sad cast basket has less resonance and it's lower in Freq range LOL. 

So let me give you a sample - lets say you cast basket resonance causes you extra - 5db in S/N ratio at 100Hz freq and stamped gives you horrable -15db but at 700Hz. If you going to play driver well below 700Hz - lets say at 200Hz down - well guess what - you never play driver in the region there it's noisy  

Got it?


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

As you increase efficiency for a given piston area you lose low freq. extension. Can't get around that.

For example: I have a 4.5 inch speaker that is 94dB @ 1W/1m, but it won't play lower than 400 Hz happily. I also have a 10-inch cone driver that is 101dB @ 1W/1m, but it starts rolling off at 100 Hz or so.

So, if the specs are accurate, the efficiency of a woofer is a good indication of its low freq. extension. and how much box volume will be needed to get it to extend low.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

I think the main reason to run a cast basket from an engineering perspective isn't really strength as much as it is for thermal reasons and provide a clear path of airflow for the backwave of the driver. Many of the manufacturers using cast baskets also have proprietary methods of venting the driver around the voice coil, and providing a path for air to flow under the spider. That can be done with a stamped basket, but getting the strength in addition to that is harder to do from a stamped mold. 

A stamped basket can be just as strong as a cast basket if it's made thick enough. Maybe not per density of material, but it can be made to be plenty strong.


----------



## rc10mike (Mar 27, 2008)

I think someone should burn down Critical Mass.

I have 2 UL12s and they are great, but I still think they should be burned down...jmo.


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

tvrift said:


> I think someone should burn down Critical Mass.
> 
> I have 2 UL12s and they are great, but I still think they should be burned down...jmo.



Fully agree. Companies like CM are just like the 5 gazillion home audio companies clogging up magazine articles trying to sell you a tube amp for $1000 per watt.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

msmith said:


> As you increase efficiency for a given piston area you lose low freq. extension. Can't get around that.
> 
> For example: I have a 4.5 inch speaker that is 94dB @ 1W/1m, but it won't play lower than 400 Hz happily. I also have a 10-inch cone driver that is 101dB @ 1W/1m, but it starts rolling off at 100 Hz or so.
> 
> So, if the specs are accurate, the efficiency of a woofer is a good indication of its low freq. extension. and how much box volume will be needed to get it to extend low.


That's also the reason companies like B&C make the same driver in several versions, the bass version always with a lower sensitivity. If sensitivity at any frequency was the goal we'd all be using ribbons and PA tweeters full range.



Dangerranger said:


> I think the main reason to run a cast basket from an engineering perspective isn't really strength as much as it is for thermal reasons and provide a clear path of airflow for the backwave of the driver. Many of the manufacturers using cast baskets also have proprietary methods of venting the driver around the voice coil, and providing a path for air to flow under the spider. That can be done with a stamped basket, but getting the strength in addition to that is harder to do from a stamped mold.
> 
> A stamped basket can be just as strong as a cast basket if it's made thick enough. Maybe not per density of material, but it can be made to be plenty strong.


A+ post


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Dangerranger said:


> I think the main reason to run a cast basket from an engineering perspective isn't really strength as much as it is for thermal reasons and provide a clear path of airflow for the backwave of the driver. Many of the manufacturers using cast baskets also have proprietary methods of venting the driver around the voice coil, and providing a path for air to flow under the spider. That can be done with a stamped basket, but getting the strength in addition to that is harder to do from a stamped mold.
> 
> A stamped basket can be just as strong as a cast basket if it's made thick enough. Maybe not per density of material, but it can be made to be plenty strong.


Not to mention a strong frame reduces rattles and buzzing from the driver, although perhaps not such a big deal if your driver has proper airflow to begin with.


----------



## cwk132 (Nov 12, 2008)

Hey guys! I am new here (my brother linked me to here as he has been looking a lot into car audio as well, although I can't remember his user name) and I have been looking for something to put into my pathfinder for a little more bass. Since I can't post a thread this seems like the best place to ask for a little help. It seems like a 6.5 driver would be my best choice for either putting it in a door or in this little cargo cubby in the back. I was wondering if any of you guys had seen this one before, its a shallow mount which is nice for what I would be using it for and was just wondering what you guys thought?

http://www.woofersetc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=6597

I might also be looking into an 8 inch sub if I can fit it in the back...


----------



## cwk132 (Nov 12, 2008)

Hey guys! I am new here (my brother linked me to here as he has been looking a lot into car audio as well, although I can't remember his user name) and I have been looking for something to put into my pathfinder for a little more bass. Since I can't post a thread this seems like the best place to ask for a little help. It seems like a 6.5 driver would be my best choice for either putting it in a door or in this little cargo cubby in the back. I was wondering if any of you guys had seen this one before, its a shallow mount which is nice for what I would be using it for and was just wondering what you guys thought?

http://www.woofersetc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=6597

I might also be looking into an 8 inch sub if I can fit it in the back...


----------



## Electrodynamic (Nov 27, 2007)

Sorry to chime in late, but if you estimate Qes you can get a good feel for the actual efficiency of the CM unit, which is closer to 80 dB instead of the 89 dB they claim. We have a neat little efficiency calculator here that you guys can play around with. 

I know I missed about 4 pages of this thread but I know that TB didn't "borrow" "steal" or whatever from CM. That's as ridiculous as saying Chevrolet "stole" the 350 block from Pontiac. Oh, and you can get a percentage shift in parameters as demonstrated by the two units in question just buy sampling the same driver back to back. Measurement techniques, air pressure, temperature, etc, all play a role in the outcome of T/S testing.


----------



## tspence73 (Oct 14, 2008)

tophatjimmy said:


> here we go.....is this gonna be the TB/eD thing all over again??


Ditto on that. Looks like a Tang Band ripoff design. 

Edit...Didn't realize how big the thread was already before I posted, looks like the TB comparison has already been explored ad-nauseum. Carry on.


----------

