# JL Audio W6v3 release date?



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

Does anyone out there know when the JL Audio 10/12W6v3's are going to hit the market?


----------



## huggy54 (Apr 13, 2012)

i'm curious too, bet it wont be cheap though


----------



## ZAKOH (Nov 26, 2010)

Does this mean the v2 ones will be sold cheap?


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

So I just got off the phone with JL customer support where I posed this same question...the customer service person said 'I have no idea'.

Looks like the bulk of JL's "2012" product line-up might show up some time in 2013.


----------



## Mike West (Nov 17, 2011)

We're still targeting the end of the year for the release of several new products, including the W6v3.


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

Mike West said:


> We're still targeting the end of the year for the release of several new products, including the W6v3.


Cool thanks for the info! How close will the v3 model to the v2 in terms of enclosure requirements? Do you know what the recommended enclosures will be? The reason I ask is that I would like to try one of the v3's when released, but I live in New Hampshire and need to build the enclosure now while its still relatively warm.


----------



## Mike West (Nov 17, 2011)

nstaln said:


> Cool thanks for the info! How close will the v3 model to the v2 in terms of enclosure requirements? Do you know what the recommended enclosures will be?


All I know so far is that the sealed enclosure recommendations are the same as those for the W6v2 (0.625 cubic foot for the 10, and 1.25 for the 12). Ported recommendations have not yet been released, but I doubt they'll be much different from the v2s as well.

JL Audio » header » News » CES 2012: JL Audio W6v3 Subwoofer Drivers: The Sound Quality Gods are Smiling


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

Mike West said:


> All I know so far is that the sealed enclosure recommendations are the same as those for the W6v2 (0.625 cubic foot for the 10, and 1.25 for the 12). Ported recommendations have not yet been released, but I doubt they'll be much different from the v2s as well.
> 
> JL Audio » header » News » CES 2012: JL Audio W6v3 Subwoofer Drivers: The Sound Quality Gods are Smiling


Thanks...

A bit off subject but...I have a pair of 8W7ae's (an amazing little sub!) though I'm only using one at the moment. Do you have any ported enclosure recommendations that differ from the published specs? 

After a bit of poking around on the web and doing a bit of box modeling I was thinking of trying 1.5 cubes @27 with 15-16 inches of port area. This seems to model well with appropriate filtering (highpass @20hz 24db). Any thoughts?


----------



## finfinder (Apr 15, 2006)

huggy54 said:


> i'm curious too, bet it wont be cheap though


From the JL Website ....

10W6v3

Availability: Second Quarter 2012
*Suggested Retail: USD $599.00/ each*

12W6v3

Availability: Second Quarter 2012
*Suggested Retail: USD $699.00/ each*

Ouch.


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

Im holding off buying a w6v2 since these are coming. Anyone have any more info? Their youtube video says Q2 2012 as well. Now it's Q4 and they still aren't out. 

Also does anyone else think that they reduced the Sd? The overall cone looks smaller due to the thicker surround, although I'm sure it's offset somewhat by the 20% increase in excursion. Also the bullet design inside the pole looks very interesting. They say it increases cool capabilities and increases power handling while also increase sound quality. Does anyone know why it would increase sound quality?

I know the w6v2 are among the best for SQ and would be disappointed if the v3 are not as good SQ, or have slower transients.


----------



## juanchibiris (Jan 15, 2012)

I think we are in the Q3, yet not release from JL, I see they already launched the 13TW5-V2, I hope someone is interested in sell a 13TW5 for a good price


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Now they need two more things...an 8w6v3 and a dsp.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

With Mark on the team, I can only imagine what kind of DSP they'd come up with.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

For real.

Just need to convince them there is a market for one.


----------



## Richv72 (May 11, 2012)

They need w8's. 18w8 and ill buy 2 of them first day.


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

I just hope the w6v3 is awesome. They look pretty cool, but again I'm kind of concerned they sacrificed some effective cone area for the huge surround. Also wonder if they did anything to further improve inductance (not that it's at all bad right now). Looking forward to these!!


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

hypnoz said:


> Im holding off buying a w6v2 since these are coming. Anyone have any more info? Their youtube video says Q2 2012 as well. Now it's Q4 and they still aren't out.
> 
> Also does anyone else think that they reduced the Sd? The overall cone looks smaller due to the thicker surround, although I'm sure it's offset somewhat by the 20% increase in excursion. Also the bullet design inside the pole looks very interesting. They say it increases cool capabilities and increases power handling while also increase sound quality. Does anyone know why it would increase sound quality?
> 
> I know the w6v2 are among the best for SQ and would be disappointed if the v3 are not as good SQ, or have slower transients.


I have yet to see JL claim better performance in a new model and then have it fall short of expectations.


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> I have yet to see JL claim better performance in a new model and then have it fall short of expectations.


You make a good point!!


----------



## juanchibiris (Jan 15, 2012)

These are suppose to be launched somwhere in December, I'm just waiting it's release to buy a W6v2 for cheap


----------



## topperge (Jul 19, 2009)

Bumpity, doesn't anyone know when these are coming?


----------



## Jroo (May 24, 2006)

Did I see that right? They are saying those subs will 6 and 7 hundred bucks? Ouch is not the word.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

Jroo said:


> Did I see that right? They are saying those subs will 6 and 7 hundred bucks? Ouch is not the word.


That's pretty much the price of the V2's.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

Where is the TW3's? They were supposed to be out by now.


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

BeatsDownLow said:


> Where is the TW3's? They were supposed to be out by now.



WoofersEtc.com - 13TW5V2-2 - JL Audio 13.5" 2-Ohm 600W Shallow Mount Car Subwoofer


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

nstaln said:


> WoofersEtc.com - 13TW5V2-2 - JL Audio 13.5" 2-Ohm 600W Shallow Mount Car Subwoofer


This is the sub I was talking about

JL Audio » header » News » CES 2012: JL Audio TW3 Subwoofer Drivers: Suddenly, other subwoofers just look fat


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

BeatsDownLow said:


> This is the sub I was talking about
> 
> JL Audio » header » News » CES 2012: JL Audio TW3 Subwoofer Drivers: Suddenly, other subwoofers just look fat



My bad...


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Jroo said:


> Did I see that right? They are saying those subs will 6 and 7 hundred bucks? Ouch is not the word.


But people won't bat an eye at the price of a Dyn or Morel...


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> But people won't bat an eye at the price of a Dyn or Morel...


You got that right. People know value.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> But people won't bat an eye at the price of a Dyn or Morel...


Most would.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

BuickGN said:


> You got that right. People know value.


The W6s are just as good as the Dyn or Morel and cost less. I'd call that a much better value.


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

I wonder if there will be an appreciable difference in actual output and sound quality between the V2 and the V3.


----------



## Lunchmeat (Jun 12, 2012)

*I cant wait for them to come out.*


----------



## TrickyRicky (Apr 5, 2009)

Am running my pair if 12w6v2 in a probox on a mono load of 4 ohms, my amp is only feeding them 300 watts TOTAL. They pound with little power, i would not dare trying to give them 600 a piece. 

The thing i notice about the w6v2 is their surrounds deteriorate with time. Which is no biggy because you can always refoam them for 55 bucks a pair. I just did mine and it was a walk in the park, very easy and very simple....as long as you have patience.



The only down side is the huge enclosure.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> The W6s are just as good as the Dyn or Morel and cost less. I'd call that a much better value.


They're different subs. I love the W6/7 subs but the Morel has its own unique sound. Not for me but I can definitely see how some would like it better. The Dyn is in a league of its own, doing everything better. I'm still kicking around the idea of 3 of them but I'll probably do a pair of 13W7s instead which is a small compromise in sq but with lots more output. Still not sure though. The Dyns are worth the money but I might end up single if I spend that kind of money on subs with a wedding in the future. The W6 and the Morel couldn't sound more different so I don't think "just as good" applies here because the Morel sounds great in its own way. I would take a W6 over the Morel just because I like the W6 unique sound. Most wouldn't agree with me but I think the 1200 has a similar sound to the W6 but better.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

It's definitely preference. The 1200 does have a weight to it that I really like that I've only ever heard in that and the GTi's. unfortunately my GTi showed up damaged from shipping. I want to pick up another one but it's hard to swallow retail on them. Maybe if I can sell off my other 7 subs. lol


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> They're different subs. I love the W6/7 subs but the Morel has its own unique sound. Not for me but I can definitely see how some would like it better. The Dyn is in a league of its own, doing everything better. I'm still kicking around the idea of 3 of them but I'll probably do a pair of 13W7s instead which is a small compromise in sq but with lots more output. Still not sure though. The Dyns are worth the money but I might end up single if I spend that kind of money on subs with a wedding in the future. The W6 and the Morel couldn't sound more different so I don't think "just as good" applies here because the Morel sounds great in its own way. I would take a W6 over the Morel just because I like the W6 unique sound. Most wouldn't agree with me but I think the 1200 has a similar sound to the W6 but better.


GN, how would you characterize the "sound" difference between the W6 and Morel? I had a W6 prior to my first install and opted for an ML3000 then went with the Ultimo on the final system redux...

Are we talking a more solid presence and less transparency with the W6? or something different? I ask because I've ran an Ultimo for over two years now and it is very transparent and articulate but also not as present as I would like throughout the spectrum from 70 and down. My next venture will likely be a 12w7...I just have to try it once ha...


----------



## TrickyRicky (Apr 5, 2009)

I remember a cousin of my brother in law had two 13w7 when they first came out. The eff'ed up pat about it was he was feeding them Audiobahn power, lol. He had some big chrome audiobahn amps, which back then some people thought the flea market was actually high end, lol.


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

Just spoke to my local authorized JL dealer. He confirmed that he has been able to order the V3 but has yet to actually receive them. He does anticipate having them in stock by the end of the month. He was also able to confirm the retail price of $500 for the 10 and $600 for the 12.


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

Nice to see that they will be out soon.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

nstaln said:


> I wonder if there will be an appreciable difference in actual output and sound quality between the V2 and the V3.


Um NO, sorry to tell you that the actual output will be determined by the size of the diaphragm.

sound quality is another matter, there are many things that can be done to improve this aspect.


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

Oliver said:


> Um NO, sorry to tell you that the actual output will be determined by the size of the diaphragm.
> 
> sound quality is another matter, there are many things that can be done to improve this aspect.



Um MAYBE, sorry but I understand that the overall output and sound quality would be a result of the overall design of the speaker. Two speakers can easily have the same cone area and xmax but have vastly differing characteristics that could make one louder or more accurate than the other.

My question wasn't just comparing apples to apples, I was inquiring about the differences between applesV2 to applesV3. The motor force is supossedly increased as is the excursion capability, also the new cooling design may help decrease power compression...all of these things _may_ lead to an increase in output and/or linearity of the speaker....I was simply wondering if the 'benefits' of the new driver will be noticeable or significant enough to justify the price tag.


----------



## burks95 (Dec 11, 2012)

Okay so any info on when we will be able to purchase? Also when would you think some of the sites online will be receiving some?

I just placed an order for a v2 and am wanting to cancel it if they will be able to be purchased pretty soon.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Looking forward to this. I'm waiting on the 13W7s just in case a V2 comes out. 

In regards to an above post, if two subs have the same displacement and are able to hit their displacement limits in a sealed enclosure, how can one be louder than the other?


----------



## nstaln (Feb 11, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> In regards to an above post, if two subs have the same displacement and are able to hit their displacement limits in a sealed enclosure, how can one be louder than the other?


If the subs are the _*exact same*_ sub then you're correct, in theory they should be just the same. Same motor, same displacement, same efficiency, same response. 

However if the subs are _*different*_ even if they have the same displacement sub A may only require 1 cube and 200watts to hit xmax, sub B may require 2 cubes and 400watts. The QTC and F3 of each sub system could be much different...if sub A has a much lower F3 in 1 cube then sub B does in 2 cubes then sub A may be able to reproduce the lower end with *more* output than sub B even with less applied power.

My point is that there are too many variables to make a blanket statement that output is determined by cone area and xmax alone, especially when comparing two different drivers.

Different designs _will_ yield different results. I was merely speculating on the _differences_ between the two models and what, if any, audible difference there will be.

I think a great example would be this review/comparisson found right here on DIYMA:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...anspeak-discovery-30w-4558t-12-subwoofer.html

12w3v3 with 13mm linear xmax, and Scanspeak Discovery 12 with 12.5mm linear xmax...roughly same diaphragm size and displacement capabilities but much different sound characteristics.


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

So much for V3's becoming available in 2012? 

Oh well, perfection takes time 

I got impatient and bought a W6V2 recently. I'd swap it out for a V3 happily if I got a nice price on my used V2. For now I'm sure the W6 will be a big improvement over my W3 so that should keep me pretty happy (still installing, it's taking forever)

IMO the W6V2 is really pretty but damn those concepts look beautiful too 

I'm a fan of the switch to more durable rubber surround. What do you guys think? Anyone worried about rubber surround degrading/affecting sound quality?

My old W3's foam surround wore away and eventually separated. Granted it took a long time (~8 years), but frustrating nonetheless. I like how the V2 addresses this by having easily available surround replacement kits but I think the prevention by switching to rubber is a better solution. Plus I feel a high priced woofer should be durable enough to not need a surround repair, under proper usage of course.

Anyway I really hope the mounting depth is the same on the V3 because my custom enclosure cannot handle a deeper woofer and I'd really love to try one.


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

JL Audio W6v3 Subwoofer Drivers | 12 Volt News

According to these numbers... It would fit!


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

It'd probably release right after CES 2013 which isn't far from now.


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

JL says they are now shipping!!!!


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

We have just begun shipping the 10W6v3 and 12W6v3. Retailers who have ordered them should be receiving them in the next few weeks.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Anyone else notice the cone shaped object in the pole piece? Interesting.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> Anyone else notice the cone shaped object in the pole piece? Interesting.



Here it is, from the other side.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Heat sink?


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

Looks awesome! Going to have to get one....


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Looks like a venturi cone of some sort, atleast from the back.


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

I will definitely take a look at these when they hit the shops around here.


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

Anyone hear one yet??


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

They're up on the site. I was a bit shocked on the ported specs...
Car Audio - Subwoofer Drivers - W6v3


----------



## Rothric (Dec 10, 2012)

I know the Custom Sounds in both El Paso and San Antonio have them in stock now. Hoping to get mine installed in the next week or so once I get my amp in.


----------



## D-Bass (Apr 27, 2012)

adrenalinejunkie said:


> They're up on the site. I was a bit shocked on the ported specs...
> Car Audio - Subwoofer Drivers - W6v3


seriously. no specs. just not recommended for ported enclosures. I'd stick with a v2 and ported box..


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

D-Bass said:


> seriously. no specs. just not recommended for ported enclosures. I'd stick with a v2 and ported box..


Huh? I see specs for everything. 

Free Air Resonance (Fs) 26.919 Hz
Electrical “Q” (Qes) 0.487
Mechanical “Q” (Qms) 9.365
Total Speaker “Q” (Qts) 0.463
Equivalent Compliance (Vas) 1.920 cu ft / 54.37 L
One-Way Linear Excursion (Xmax)* 0.75 in / 19 mm
Reference Efficiency (no) 0.11%
Efficiency (1 W / 1 m)** 85.4 dB SPL
Effective Piston Area (Sd) 75.338 sq in / 0.0486 sq m
DC Resistance (Re)*** 6.493 Ω


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

BeatsDownLow said:


> Huh? I see specs for everything.
> 
> Free Air Resonance (Fs) 26.919 Hz
> Electrical “Q” (Qes) 0.487
> ...



He's referring to the ported section having no specs as in not recommended for ported use. . According to the JL FB page, they said, "Doing ported alignments becomes very tricky and requires a lot of real-world testing. Computer modeling is not likely to yield very good results. We will be working on some ported options for multiple drivers and may publish a few of these as specific ported designs for the W6v3's."


----------



## spyders03 (Jan 5, 2013)

Can't wait to see these in person! I guess I will have to decide between this and the 12w7 I was thinking about, just don't know if I want to sacrifice the trunk space for the w7  Maybe a shallow but wide box for the w7? Or maybe this will give me the extra push that I was needing from my single w6v2!


----------



## SQHemi (Jan 17, 2010)

Arrived


----------



## myhikingboots (Oct 28, 2010)

SQHemi said:


> Arrived


Cool! How do they sound?


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

Very curious how they sound compared to the w6v2 & w7!


----------



## spyders03 (Jan 5, 2013)

SQHemi said:


> Arrived


I have a nice JL box if you want to send it my way, I'll test it out for you!


----------



## Coppertone (Oct 4, 2011)

I don't have a JL box, but send it my way anyhow lol.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

That is a LOT of surround.


----------



## spyders03 (Jan 5, 2013)

quality_sound said:


> That is a LOT of surround.


^^^ What he said!

Maybe to combat the surround degradation the v2's had in the long term?


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

spyders03 said:


> ^^^ What he said!
> 
> Maybe to combat the surround degradation the v2's had in the long term?


The V2 already has plenty of surround. In fact Id go off to say its beyond the amount of surround needed and well into the range of oversize-look good type surround for marketing gimmick. Simply changing its material type from foam to rubber should solve the long term durability problem as foam does disentegrate over time. The extra size wasnt a necessary add IMO, i think their losing cone area for no reason now. But they originally chose foam for a reason. It performs well and consistent despite temperature changes. In the winter the rubber will stiffen. 

Anyway not sure if i like the oversize surround trend. Are we too believe more surround = more bass?


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

I will say it looks amazing. New style and beefy surround and all!! I would love to get my hands on one and swap it in my V2's place.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

SuMb0dY said:


> The V2 already has plenty of surround. In fact Id go off to say its beyond the amount of surround needed and well into the range of oversize-look good type surround for marketing gimmick. Simply changing its material type from foam to rubber should solve the long term durability problem as foam does disentegrate over time. The extra size wasnt a necessary add IMO, i think their losing cone area for no reason now. But they originally chose foam for a reason. It performs well and consistent despite temperature changes. In the winter the rubber will stiffen.
> 
> Anyway not sure if i like the oversize surround trend. Are we too believe more surround = more bass?


A lot of people buy a sub based on excursion rather than the total volume of air it can move.


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

SuMb0dY said:


> The V2 already has plenty of surround. In fact Id go off to say its beyond the amount of surround needed and well into the range of oversize-look good type surround for marketing gimmick. Simply changing its material type from foam to rubber should solve the long term durability problem as foam does disentegrate over time. The extra size wasnt a necessary add IMO, i think their losing cone area for no reason now. But they originally chose foam for a reason. It performs well and consistent despite temperature changes. In the winter the rubber will stiffen.
> 
> Anyway not sure if i like the oversize surround trend. Are we too believe more surround = more bass?



Not sure if you've heard of Sundown audio, but they have a new SPL sub that has a huge surround...


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

The surround did indeed remove some effective piston area, which you can find by searching v2 Sd and comparing to v3 Sd. I'm not sure why they decided to go this route. One would think they could have made the surround taller if they required additional material, or simply replace the old with rubber. Perhaps Manville can chime in. I hope they are not sacrificing performance for appearance.

Overall, I highly doubt you'd notice an audible difference though since the change isn't all that significant.

Edit: Curious to know if the increased xmax trumps the loss in Sd or not. Either way if it were possible to just increase the surround material and keep the same Sd then that would be more ideal.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

hypnoz said:


> The surround did indeed remove some effective piston area, which you can find by searching v2 Sd and comparing to v3 Sd. I'm not sure why they decided to go this route. One would think they could have made the surround taller if they required additional material, or simply replace the old with rubber. Perhaps Manville can chime in. I hope they are not sacrificing performance for appearance.
> 
> Overall, I highly doubt you'd notice an audible difference though since the change isn't all that significant.
> 
> Edit: Curious to know if the increased xmax trumps the loss in Sd or not. Either way if it were possible to just increase the surround material and keep the same Sd then that would be more ideal.


You would be surprised to know what a "small" change like a surround upgrade can do to your sound... 

Kelvin


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> You would be surprised to know what a "small" change like a surround upgrade can do to your sound...
> 
> Kelvin


I don't doubt you. When I found the Sd on the W7 i was really surprised. Compared to most high excursion subs it has MUCH higher effective piston area. Especially compared to the w6v3.


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

That is true they increased/improved excursion to the V3 so this surround change may have simply been part of that design.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Excursion*sd = displacement. 
(like multiplying height with length and width gives you volume)

If you want to know if the decrease in sd vs the increase in Xmax was a fair trade off do the math. 


The surround is responsible for holding the suspension in place as it moves. It's possible the surround design here allowed for higher linear Xmax by keeping the symmetry more consistent throughout its stroke. Of course this is just a guess.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

It absolutely is a function of increased excursion. We're just wondering if that incread in Xmax more than makes up for the decrease in cone area.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Yes. I know that. Like I said, do the math. Compare it against the w6v2 to see if the extended excursion results in a higher displacement even with the lowered surface area.


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

12w6v2 
0.65 in / 17mm
77.8sq in / 0.0502 sq m
0.65*77.8 = 50.57


12w6v3
0.75 in / 19mm
75.338 sq in / 0.0486 sq m
0.75 * 75.338 = 56.5035

Does that look correct?


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

hypnoz said:


> I don't doubt you. When I found the Sd on the W7 i was really surprised. Compared to most high excursion subs it has MUCH higher effective piston area. Especially compared to the w6v3.


The W7 is awesome, those impressive stats have to be from that design. Their surround extends over the mounting bolts so they can have more effective piston area & retain a surround capable of high excursion yet the same nominal mounting circle. Very impressive and smart move by JL


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

hypnoz said:


> 12w6v2
> 0.65 in / 17mm
> 77.8sq in / 0.0502 sq m
> 0.65*77.8 = 50.57
> ...


The excursion numbers we give are linear, one-way. Displacement is usually expressed using peak-to-peak (two-way) excursion. 

Xmax * 2 * Sd = linear displacement


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

msmith said:


> The excursion numbers we give are linear, one-way. Displacement is usually expressed using peak-to-peak (two-way) excursion.
> 
> Xmax * 2 * Sd = linear displacement


Gotcha. Thank you for the correction. So the 12w6v3 does indeed displace more than the v2.

Since you're here, how does the w6v3 sound compared to the v2 as far as SQ? I know it's a somewhat subjective but I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

hypnoz said:


> The surround did indeed remove some effective piston area, which you can find by searching v2 Sd and comparing to v3 Sd. I'm not sure why they decided to go this route. One would think they could have made the surround taller if they required additional material, or simply replace the old with rubber. Perhaps Manville can chime in. I hope they are not sacrificing performance for appearance.


The surround is bigger to handle the additional excursion capability reliably and with good linearity. Our testing has found that tall-profile surrounds are simply not as linear as conventional ones, and we're sticklers for suspension linearity. The tradeoff to go with the smaller piston also needs to be considered relative to box volume targets. The v3 is designed for a smaller box than the v2. 



> Overall, I highly doubt you'd notice an audible difference though since the change isn't all that significant.
> 
> Edit: Curious to know if the increased xmax trumps the loss in Sd or not. Either way if it were possible to just increase the surround material and keep the same Sd then that would be more ideal.


12W6v2 linear displacement: 101 cu.in.
12W6v3 linear displacement: 113 cu.in. (11.9% more)

The additional excursion overcomes the slight drop in Sd, assuming more power is applied. Watt for watt, the v2 is more efficient, but it needs a larger enclosure for equivalent low-frequency extension (classic Hoffman's Iron Law tradeoff.)


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

hypnoz said:


> Gotcha. Thank you for the correction. So the 12w6v3 does indeed displace more than the v2.
> 
> Since you're here, how does the w6v3 sound compared to the v2 as far as SQ? I know it's a somewhat subjective but I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts.


I don't have a lot of seat time with the 12W6v3, but I have listened to the 10W6v3 at length... it has amazing low end in a very small sealed enclosure. The basic balance of the sound is very much like the v2, but the v3 can do it in the smaller enclosure. I ran it with an XD600/1 (600W at 2 ohms) and it was PLENTY loud for this old man.


----------



## hypnoz (Sep 29, 2009)

So Bikinpunk was correct, it is for linearity. Thanks for the explaination Manville! Love that you frequent the forums and can answer our nit-picky questions.


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

Manville, may I ask what vehicle that 10" W6v3 was in? Curious to know if it'd have a decent amount of punch for a SUV like a '01 Blazer.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

adrenalinejunkie said:


> Manville, may I ask what vehicle that 10" W6v3 was in? Curious to know if it'd have a decent amount of punch for a SUV like a '01 Blazer.


My 2011 Ford Flex. Bigger than your Blazer.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

MAnville, are these going to be made available in the stealthbox option or will they fit/work in the current stealthbox options already available for (x) car?


----------



## SuMb0dY (Oct 23, 2012)

IIRC I saw specs indicating a slight decrease in mounting depth which should mean it can be a drop in replacement for any enclosure that fits a V2

Edit: The JL Website also mentions requiring 0.5 Inch clearance for the new pole vent. I assume this means in super tight/shallow mounting situations it may in fact not be compatible in an enclosure that once housed the V2 successfully. Let's see what Manville says


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

We are going through each and every Stealthbox that uses a W6v2 and adjusting them as needed for the v3 or, in some cases, for a different driver altogether (TW3's mostly).


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

msmith said:


> We are going through each and every Stealthbox that uses a W6v2 and adjusting them as needed for the v3 or, in some cases, for a different driver altogether (TW3's mostly).


Do you have atimeframe for this? I'm thinking about a SB for my Golf.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Do you have atimeframe for this? I'm thinking about a SB for my Golf.


The Golf will be moving to a TW3-based design that sticks out a lot less. I've already tested this one and approved the engineering change. It will take 60-90 days to reach market, though. The mold has to be completely redone.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Will it be ready by mid-June?
Any cost change on it? A drop would be great.


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Will it be ready by mid-June?
> Any cost change on it? A drop would be great.


Should be ready before June... not sure about price yet.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

Where are those Tw3's at? The coming out soon also?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

hypnoz said:


> I don't doubt you. When I found the Sd on the W7 i was really surprised. Compared to most high excursion subs it has MUCH higher effective piston area. Especially compared to the w6v3.



Because of the surround. Yes, it's wide, but it overlaps the frame so it doesn't lose any cone area like most high-excursion subs.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

msmith said:


> Should be ready before June... not sure about price yet.



Sweeeeet. I'll hold out hope for a price drop.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

For the past 3 hours I've been obsessing about these subs. Just thought everyone should know. Lol. Almost enough to make me ditch the IB setup. I need a box setup so I can remove it as needed to have a fully functional trunk.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> For the past 3 hours I've been obsessing about these subs. Just thought everyone should know. Lol. Almost enough to make me ditch the IB setup. I need a box setup so I can remove it as needed to have a fully functional trunk.



The IB setup can't be costing you that much space, can it?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Yes. And, contrary to popular belief, IB has its own set of problems that require attention that I don't want to give. Lol.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

msmith said:


> The Golf will be moving to a TW3-based design that sticks out a lot less. I've already tested this one and approved the engineering change. It will take 60-90 days to reach market, though. The mold has to be completely redone.





msmith said:


> Should be ready before June... not sure about price yet.


----------



## Fountain (Mar 12, 2011)

Does anyone know when the 12w6v3 will be released. I was told by two JL reps today that only the 10' was released and do not have any time frame on the 12".


----------



## Angrywhopper (Jan 20, 2010)

Fountain said:


> Does anyone know when the 12w6v3 will be released. I was told by two JL reps today that only the 10' was released and do not have any time frame on the 12".


Nope no release date on when the 12w6v3 will be out..


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Fountain said:


> Does anyone know when the 12w6v3 will be released. I was told by two JL reps today that only the 10' was released and do not have any time frame on the 12".


The 12W6v3 should be hitting store shelves around March 1st.

Best regards,

Manville Smith
JL Audio, Inc.


----------



## Fountain (Mar 12, 2011)

Thanks


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

I had the pleasure of hearing the 10w6v3 today at a local JL Dealer in Hayward Ca.,
One of the installers had it in the trunk of a Volvo S60 in a prefab 1cu.ft sealed box that he just threw in for testing the night before. BTW, when I demoed it he said it was the first time he had heard it as well...as he had'nt even had the speaker terminals connected when we went to his car. The sub was seeing about 400 watts, no tuning, no EQ and I must say that it sounded really really good for the initial power up with no special adjustments or break-in time. The 10w6v3 looked more like a large 8" lol.. but the low end extension was very solid and the notes it reproduced were very tight and full. Not bloated or boomy in any sense of the word... I am impressed. I look forward to hearing the 12" version...


----------



## msmith (Nov 27, 2007)

Bluenote said:


> I had the pleasure of hearing the 10w6v3 today at a local JL Dealer in Hayward Ca.,
> One of the installers had it in the trunk of a Volvo S60 in a prefab 1cu.ft sealed box that he just threw in for testing the night before. BTW, when I demoed it he said it was the first time he had heard it as well...as he had'nt even had the speaker terminals connected when we went to his car. The sub was seeing about 400 watts, no tuning, no EQ and I must say that it sounded really really good for the initial power up with no special adjustments or break-in time. The 10w6v3 looked more like a large 8" lol.. but the low end extension was very solid and the notes it reproduced were very tight and full. Not bloated or boomy in any sense of the word... I am impressed. I look forward to hearing the 12" version...


Thanks for the comments, Bluenote... 1 cu.ft. is almost twice the size of the recommended 0.55 cu.ft. enclosure, by the way.  It would likely sound far more balanced in a smaller enclosure.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Thanks Manville, I was just guessing on the size but it was a pretty small box. But still sounded good Classic Rock and a few quick bass tracks. yep!


----------



## Angrywhopper (Jan 20, 2010)

Amazing how little space the W6 subwoofers need while still sounding great.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

^ True and it's sounds great right out of the box! no dsp etc..


----------



## PPI_GUY (Dec 20, 2007)

Would love to see the new W6 subs in a a/b test versus Image Dynamics IDQ's. Looks like JL has another winner.


----------



## noop (Jan 18, 2009)

Can't wait to hear a demo of the new w6's. I really hoped JL would go back to the same look as the first version. I don't know why, but they just look better. To me anyways.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> For the past 3 hours I've been obsessing about these subs. Just thought everyone should know. Lol. Almost enough to make me ditch the IB setup. I need a box setup so I can remove it as needed to have a fully functional trunk.


Why not use these IB? If they're anything like the v2 I think you will be very happy with their performance. I still believe the W6 sounded as good or better than the IB15s when I had it infinite baffle and it was flat out easier to tune. This is what is making me consider a pair if 13W7s. 

You definitely have my interest, what IB specific problems have you come across?


----------



## HK_M3 (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm interested in this as well. I'd like to do a 10W6v3 IB in my existing setup. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

I just picked up 2 10W6V3's to replace a single 12W6v2 in my infniti M. I cannot wait to her them in the car.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Please report your findings! Looking at 2 12's...


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

Bluenote said:


> Please report your findings! Looking at 2 12's...


Nothing to report really. You have to hear them for yourself to see if you will like them. I heard 2 10W6v2 in a GTI with 2k watts and I was sold. The bass was awesome so I jumped to buy 2 of the newer ones to replace one of my 12w6v2 in my Infiniti M. I heard them at a local shop that where being installed in a customers car.


----------



## Jcharger13 (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd like to hear your impressions on the new 10w6v3's vs your 8w7's. Just curious. 
I'd like to hear the new w6's someday.

Man you got nice stuff in both cars. You putting a bit one in the infinity? Should be a nice setup.


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

Jcharger13 said:


> I'd like to hear your impressions on the new 10w6v3's vs your 8w7's. Just curious.
> I'd like to hear the new w6's someday.
> 
> Man you got nice stuff in both cars. You putting a bit one in the infinity? Should be a nice setup.


Thanks for the compliment. Yes I am also putting a BitOne.1 in the Infiniti. I really like the BitOne.1 after playing with it in my Tundra.


----------



## peenemunde (Aug 31, 2013)

I'm very highly leaning towards a single 12W6v2. It will be running at 2 ohms from my Q1-1200 seeing roughly 800watts RMS. It's going in a 2002 Trailblazer so I planned on doing a big ported box. Anyone have any recommendation for my setup? 

P.S~ a Zapco Z8 will be doing my processing but from what I've heard, the w6v2 doesn't much need extra tuning


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

Jcharger13 said:


> I'd like to hear your impressions on the new 10w6v3's vs your 8w7's. Just curious.
> I'd like to hear the new w6's someday.
> 
> Man you got nice stuff in both cars. You putting a bit one in the infinity? Should be a nice setup.


Finally got around to making a fiberglass box for my new subs and man it sounds AMAZING. It is too much bass just with the slash 500/1 to both 10's. What I like about JL subs they are very efficient and do not need a lot of power to make them sound awesome. The only problem is my Infiniti M is so well built that to get the sound from the rear trunk to the cabin it is not easy. I just removed the stock 10inch Bose sub that was in my car to let the air come through their and that made a difference. I could not believe how ****ty the Bose 10' looks..lol 

I might make a bandpass for the 2 10's with a 6" port firing into the cabin. 
All in all I am very happy with the clean bass I am now getting. Also keep in mind I had a 12w6v2 in my car in a w7 poweredge box. The 10's sound much better than my 2 8W7's in my truck. Don't get me wrong the 2 8w7'w in my truck freaking rock but it is a different sound with the 2 W6's in my Infiniti. The 10's hit so damn low it is nuts and fast kick drum when the music hits .


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Thank U! I knew you would come through with a report. Much appreciated


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

Bluenote said:


> Thank U! I knew you would come through with a report. Much appreciated


Here is a pic of the box



And in the M


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

Sweet...Nice finish!


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> Why not use these IB? If they're anything like the v2 I think you will be very happy with their performance. I still believe the W6 sounded as good or better than the IB15s when I had it infinite baffle and it was flat out easier to tune. This is what is making me consider a pair if 13W7s.
> 
> You definitely have my interest, what IB specific problems have you come across?


I would be very interested to hear what msmith has to say about the topic of running JL Audio W6 & W7 series subs in IB?


----------



## JoeHemi57 (Mar 28, 2006)

subterFUSE said:


> I would be very interested to hear what msmith has to say about the topic of running JL Audio W6 & W7 series subs in IB?


They won't recommend it for warranty concerns just like many other companies but that doesn't mean they won't perform. I like the look of it, would like to try one or the Tw3.


----------



## Jcharger13 (Jul 12, 2013)

luisc202 said:


> Finally got around to making a fiberglass box for my new subs and man it sounds AMAZING. It is too much bass just with the slash 500/1 to both 10's. What I like about JL subs they are very efficient and do not need a lot of power to make them sound awesome. The only problem is my Infiniti M is so well built that to get the sound from the rear trunk to the cabin it is not easy. I just removed the stock 10inch Bose sub that was in my car to let the air come through their and that made a difference. I could not believe how ****ty the Bose 10' looks..lol
> 
> I might make a bandpass for the 2 10's with a 6" port firing into the cabin.
> All in all I am very happy with the clean bass I am now getting. Also keep in mind I had a 12w6v2 in my car in a w7 poweredge box. The 10's sound much better than my 2 8W7's in my truck. Don't get me wrong the 2 8w7'w in my truck freaking rock but it is a different sound with the 2 W6's in my Infiniti. The 10's hit so damn low it is nuts and fast kick drum when the music hits .


Nice. Thanks for the input. Are the 2 10w6's & the 8w7s both in sealed boxes? 

I'm about to try sealed on my 2 12w7's and possibly IB if I don't like them sealed. Sealed was easier in the cold weather for now.


----------



## luisc202 (Oct 29, 2013)

Jcharger13 said:


> Nice. Thanks for the input. Are the 2 10w6's & the 8w7s both in sealed boxes?
> 
> I'm about to try sealed on my 2 12w7's and possibly IB if I don't like them sealed. Sealed was easier in the cold weather for now.


The 2 8w7 are in JL stealthboxes. The 2 10w6's are sealed as in the pic. I bought one and copied it . We all love pics hahaha The original is the gray box on the right. The copies are the white boxes. I was originally going to go with 3 8W7's in my Tundra but 2 is plenty for me.


----------



## Jcharger13 (Jul 12, 2013)

Nice work!


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

JoeHemi57 said:


> They won't recommend it for warranty concerns just like many other companies but that doesn't mean they won't perform. I like the look of it, would like to try one or the Tw3.


I emailed JL a long time ago about running my 12W6s IB and they said not to, that they wouldn't work that way. I did it anyway and absolutely loved them, probably the best sounding IB setup I've heard.

I should have mentioned in my original email that they were long out of warranty, the answer might have been different.


----------



## liljohn30 (Jan 11, 2012)

luisc202 said:


> The 2 8w7 are in JL stealthboxes. The 2 10w6's are sealed as in the pic. I bought one and copied it . We all love pics hahaha The original is the gray box on the right. The copies are the white boxes. I was originally going to go with 3 8W7's in my Tundra but 2 is plenty for me.


That's some nice fab work.i wanted to use one of those in my dodge ram center console,it was just a little to wide,13 is max I could do to remount the upper console


----------

