# Is it really nostalgia, or is it efficiency?



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

Hi folks, I'm new to this forum, but none the less, I've been in the car audio business since 86. I've been hearing a lot of debates of which is better, Old School, or New School gear. Some of us say old school is better, and some might say we're nuts, and it's only nostalgia playing it's part. And @ some level they're right, I love my OS stuff 'cuz it makes me reminisce about what I had, and or wanted back then, but is it really all to it? What about efficiency? Back then you could achieve 140 - 150 dbs with 300 - 500 watts to a couple of subs, and you got to keep your factory alternator. I know it's nothing compared to the 180 + dbs some people are achieving now a days, but damm, wall of subs, 30000 + watts, 8 alternators and 20 batteries? C'mon, I think not a lot of efficiency here! And not Talking about sound quality yet! Not trying to stir up things here, but have you New School guys ever thought about that? I've been managing the same auto stereo shop for over 18 years, and I still haven't heard a sound system as I did back in the "yearly years" as some people call it! But That's just a car audio salesman point of view.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

I'm with you on this. It's just days gone by playing its part. I also agree, efficiency has gone to the waste side for power. To many other things to mention as well.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

You can still get really efficient subs..they are usualy the entry level stuff.

But efficiency also means big boxes so...

You can have efficiency but a huge box
or
a power hog that take slittle space.

since power has become so cheep and with the advent of class D amps, the choice is clear.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I agree with the OP although the best thing I owned in the '90s as a 17yr old was a pair of Cerwin Vega LE15s in my GN. Not exactly top of the line but they were surprisingly loud for under 100w.

I'm loving my current setup. A pair of efficient 15s IB that get rediculously loud off of a little 500w amp. I can never go back to a small box inefficient setup after experiencing this. Even though its probably impossible, the light cone efficient subs seem to have a unique sound.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I agree with the OP although the best thing I owned in the '90s as a 17yr old was a pair of Cerwin Vega LE15s in my GN. Not exactly top of the line but they were surprisingly loud for under 100w.
> 
> I'm loving my current setup. A pair of efficient 15s IB that get rediculously loud off of a little 500w amp. I can never go back to a small box inefficient setup after experiencing this. Even though its probably impossible, the light cone efficient subs seem to have a unique sound.



Exactly! If I'm not mistaken, those CVs were 98 dbs @1w/1m. Always been a fan of light weight paper cones. Not only for efficiency, but for that "unique sound" also. Good point!


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

As with the LANZAR Pro series subs, the LP12... 96dB sens 1w/1m. Still have 2 of them in my garage. But they're a friends.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> You can still get really efficient subs..they are usualy the entry level stuff.
> 
> But efficiency also means big boxes so...
> 
> ...


You have a point here, but i've seen and heard big dollar single 18s in enormous enclosures sounding weaker than what you could achieve with a 15 in a smaller box and not paying even half the price of those 18s. 

And yes, power has become cheaper but @ a certain level; the only "big power" amps that u can get for cheap are those claiming 2000 watts and really putting out half that. Don't get me wrong, I' sell "underground" amps putting lots of Real power, but they can only achieve that @ 16-18 volts. So i don't think it's real "efficient" when you have to spend more money to upgrade your electrical system also.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

smgreen20 said:


> As with the LANZAR Pro series subs, the LP12... 96dB sens 1w/1m. Still have 2 of them in my garage. But they're a friends.


 I know about mechanics lean, and I'm pretty sure there is something like that for an installer too! "Installer lean" maybe? LOL!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

Oldskull said:


> You have a point here, but i've seen and heard big dollar single 18s in enormous enclosures sounding weaker than what you could achieve with a 15 in a smaller box and not paying even half the price of those 18s.
> 
> And yes, power has become cheaper but @ a certain level; the only "big power" amps that u can get for cheap are those claiming 2000 watts and really putting out half that. Don't get me wrong, I' sell "underground" amps putting lots of Real watts, but they can only achieve that @ 16-18 volts. So i don't think it's real "efficient" when you have to spend more money to upgrade your electrical system also.


And besides... Doesn't it make more sense to buy (e.g.) a very efficient $80.00 12" to get 130 dBs with an $150.00 amp, than to buy a 12'' @ least 3 times higher price and an amp @ least twice as much to achieve the same output?
But try telling that to the average customer!


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Oldskull said:


> And besides... Doesn't it make more sense to buy (e.g.) a very efficient $80.00 12" to get 130 dBs with an $150.00 amp, than to buy a 12'' @ least 3 times higher price and an amp @ least twice as much to achieve the same output?
> But try telling that to the average customer!


I fully agree! But I'm still a relative noob when it comes to this stuff. I've never understood why there are so many threads with everything revolving around the sub's power rating. For example, how many threads have there been that have the topic "need a sub that can take 1000w rms". That just seems backwards to me. How about "need a sub that can produce 130db" or something focused on required SPL, not how much power it can handle, SPL be damned.

John over at AE has some great articles, you've probably seen them... And after talking about oldschool, my 92db 1w/1m subs don't sound all that efficient. I've put some serious thought into doing an entire system from AE. If I go with their 18" subs, along with any one of their midbass and midrange speakers, the least efficient speaker in the system is going to have a 96db efficiency.

Acoustic Elegance • View topic - Sound Quality Subwoofers (SQ)


*"Also keep in mind again that the lower the input power for a given output level, the lower the distortion. A woofer that needs 4000W to get the same levels as another woofer that only needs 1000W is not a good thing. While it can "handle" a lot of power, the distortion goes through the roof! Flux modulation is huge, thermal issues are huge, and the amp is working much harder than it needs to. Quite simply though, most woofers are not designed for low distortion and clean output. They're designed to take abuse. I could easily stack 4 spiders on an AV woofer to stiffen up the suspension so it would take 4x the power before hitting it's physical limits. However this then means that you also need 4x the power to get the same SPL levels that can be achieved with the single spider. IMO this is not a benefit."*


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I fully agree! But I'm still a relative noob when it comes to this stuff. I've never understood why there are so many threads with everything revolving around the sub's power rating. For example, how many threads have there been that have the topic "need a sub that can take 1000w rms". That just seems backwards to me. How about "need a sub that can produce 130db" or something focused on required SPL, not how much power it can handle, SPL be damned.


Thank you sir! It's good to know I'm not the only "crazy" person in this business.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> John over at AE has some great articles, you've probably seen them... And after talking about oldschool, my 92db 1w/1m subs don't sound all that efficient. I've put some serious thought into doing an entire system from AE. If I go with their 18" subs, along with any one of their midbass and midrange speakers, the least efficient speaker in the system is going to have a 96db efficiency.


I'll look into it. Tnx. And on the other hand, 96dBs 1w/1m is not bad for SQ. Remember, if your looking for sound quality you don't need crazy amounts of SPL for that. But if your thinking of 18s, maybe you're looking for Spl? Maybe you could have the best of both worlds but @ a certain level. Of all the cars i've seen being judged, i never seen a single one being judge for Spl and SQ at the same time. And if they did, maybe the highest they'll go is 140 dBs. If you planning on producing higher levels of Spl, I wouldn't worry about the efficiency on the rest of the speakers as you're not going to be able to hear them.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> *"Also keep in mind again that the lower the input power for a given output level, the lower the distortion. A woofer that needs 4000W to get the same levels as another woofer that only needs 1000W is not a good thing. While it can "handle" a lot of power, the distortion goes through the roof! Flux modulation is huge, thermal issues are huge, and the amp is working much harder than it needs to. Quite simply though, most woofers are not designed for low distortion and clean output. They're designed to take abuse. I could easily stack 4 spiders on an AV woofer to stiffen up the suspension so it would take 4x the power before hitting it's physical limits. However this then means that you also need 4x the power to get the same SPL levels that can be achieved with the single spider. IMO this is not a benefit."*



:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:


----------



## jcorkin (Jan 26, 2012)

tell me about it, i have a pair of old school eclipse 8122 12's for sale on craigslist, not the aluminum coned ones but the black ones, and i have had people inquire about them and ask about them and i tell them that they are very efficient drivers and only need 150rms to get nice and loud, and be clear and punchy, and then they say oh those much be garbage cause they have a pair of sonys that can handle 1200w, lol, i called the guy and idiot and told the guy bring over your sonys and ill hook them up to my rockford [email protected] and see if they can handle 360 watts, and of course the guy wont. everything aside im only asking $125 for 2 brand new eclipse 12's in a box already wired up and ready to go and everybody freaks out when i tell them they only need 150rms, 200 tops, people kids now days have no clue what they are doing, everything now days is about the bling factor, and whos is bigger and can handle more power...... it is very sad and i think this is why i love the old school stuff so much as you usually got more than what you paid for power wise, and the good old built in the usa amps are still running hard today where as with a lot of the china made bs amps you are lucky to get a year or two out of them, plus they just feel cheap and look horrible with all that "bling" on them, just stupid. and thats just my opinion


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldskull, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. On the one hand you talk about efficiency, but then you shrug off the impact that enclosure size has. Then you talk about power, but ignore the fact that amplification is cheaper, smaller, more efficient, and with a lot more products today than it was 15+ years ago.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Oldskull, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. On the one hand you talk about efficiency, but then you shrug off the impact that enclosure size has. Then you talk about power, but ignore the fact that amplification is cheaper, smaller, more efficient, and with a lot more products today than it was 15+ years ago.


Power is cheaper but he did mention charging system upgrades which might not be necessary with a more efficient system. I know class D amps help a bit but like the quote I posted by John at AE, there are advantages to not having to run a ton of power for the same output. For me, these types of subs are perfect because I'll probably never go back to a box unless the car won't allow it.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Yeah, I'm totally on board with improved efficiency, but how is that a failing with today's product line? AAAAAAAA (****, I don't know how many A's there are) cited Hoffman's iron law as an insurmountable obstacle. And although there has been an expansion of low efficiency small box subs (maybe?), there are still just as many if not MORE high efficiency speakers available today as there were before.

Another point AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA made was that even if you use a speaker that's less efficient than an earlier design, the marked improvement in today's amplifier efficiency can still mean that you can achieve the same output levels with the same electrical consumption. But Oldskull seemed to dismiss that fact, and insinuated that improvements in amplifier efficiency and watts-per-dollar are only a mirage.

Edit: But I agree with you guys that some of the trends on this site and on other sites are slightly different. People tend to be leaning towards more power rather than more efficiency. But this isn't an indictment of products, it's an indictment of installers/DIYers.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Yeah, I'm totally on board with improved efficiency, but how is that a failing with today's product line? AAAAAAAA (****, I don't know how many A's there are) cited Hoffman's iron law as an insurmountable obstacle. And although there has been an expansion of low efficiency small box subs (maybe?), there are still just as many if not MORE high efficiency speakers available today as there were before.
> 
> Another point AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA made was that even if you use a speaker that's less efficient than an earlier design, the marked improvement in today's amplifier efficiency can still mean that you can achieve the same output levels with the same electrical consumption. But Oldskull seemed to dismiss that fact, and insinuated that improvements in amplifier efficiency and watts-per-dollar are only a mirage.
> 
> Edit: But I agree with you guys that some of the trends on this site and on other sites are slightly different. People tend to be leaning towards more power rather than more efficiency. But this isn't an indictment of products, it's an indictment of installers/DIYers.


Lol at the AAAAs. Being obsessed with infinite baffle I don't pay attention to box size but obviously that would concern others. I guess my biggest problem with the current products is most of the high end offerings are low efficiency subs. Most of the low end subs don't have that much excursion. I would love to see a high efficiency 15 with 30mm xmax for those that don't care about box size. Maybe that's a blanket statement and I haven't looked around enough. Probably going to do that today.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Yeah. I use the w15gti mkii in an IB arrangement, which is 92dB/w/m and 20mm one-way, with great thermal power handling. One of the major drawbacks to this sub in the car is mounting depth, but most people running IB don't care so much.


----------



## jcorkin (Jan 26, 2012)

ive always wanted to try one of the jbl mkii subs but havent got my hands on one yet, these was one for sale around me for cheap buy i missed out on it by a couple of hours, all i ever hear is good about them, how would they compare to say an alumapro alchemy mx, or a focal 33kv2? or what are they similar to?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I also have always wanted to try a pair out especially infinite baffle. They sound like they do everything well. I like stealth but a pair of those 15s IB showing off the massive finned motor would look pretty neat.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> Oldskull, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. On the one hand you talk about efficiency, but then you shrug off the impact that enclosure size has. Then you talk about power, but ignore the fact that amplification is cheaper, smaller, more efficient, and with a lot more products today than it was 15+ years ago.


Hello MarkZ, let me explain what I'm saying, when talking about efficiency, I mean a couple of things, you probably know that long time ago we used to have woofers needing low to moderate power to reach high Spls. and most amp companies supplied that. as time went by, more sub manufacturer started focusing on power handling and ignoring efficiency, thats the main reason why we have todays subs needing (e.g.) 2000 + watts to reach the same output as a 15 yr old sub from back then. And second, needing more watts means bigger amps,(powerwise), and of course, better electrical systems. The comment about box size was in response to AAAAAAA saying that efficiency meant a bigger box. Just told him that I know a lot of todays subs also need to have huge boxes and are not efficient at all. Follow me? And yes, we have a lot of powerful amps today, but that doesn't really mean cheaper! Remember, you always get what you pay for; If you want a "real" powerful amp, then you need to go with an "In house" or "underground" brand, and be willing to spend big bucks for their quality. And not to mention the electrical system upgrade. Or, you can go with a cheaper and "popular" brand amp claiming 5000 watts and come back in a couple of days to the store you purchased it wanting a refund cuz its's just not what you expected!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> Power is cheaper but he did mention charging system upgrades which might not be necessary with a more efficient system. I know class D amps help a bit but like the quote I posted by John at AE, there are advantages to not having to run a ton of power for the same output. For me, these types of subs are perfect because I'll probably never go back to a box unless the car won't allow it.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

jcorkin said:


> tell me about it, i have a pair of old school eclipse 8122 12's for sale on craigslist, not the aluminum coned ones but the black ones, and i have had people inquire about them and ask about them and i tell them that they are very efficient drivers and only need 150rms to get nice and loud, and be clear and punchy, and then they say oh those much be garbage cause they have a pair of sonys that can handle 1200w, lol, i called the guy and idiot and told the guy bring over your sonys and ill hook them up to my rockford [email protected] and see if they can handle 360 watts, and of course the guy wont. everything aside im only asking $125 for 2 brand new eclipse 12's in a box already wired up and ready to go and everybody freaks out when i tell them they only need 150rms, 200 tops, people kids now days have no clue what they are doing, everything now days is about the bling factor, and whos is bigger and can handle more power...... it is very sad and i think this is why i love the old school stuff so much as you usually got more than what you paid for power wise, and the good old built in the usa amps are still running hard today where as with a lot of the china made bs amps you are lucky to get a year or two out of them, plus they just feel cheap and look horrible with all that "bling" on them, just stupid. and thats just my opinion


LMAO! Sorry jcorkin, I just couldn't help it to crack up! (to what you said to the sony guy I mean) don't get worked up for nothing, I mean, Don't really know when you grew up as a kid, but when I was growing up older guys used to tell me that their 40w 6x9s were the sh** and I laughed! LOL! and I'm pretty sure that in 15-20 years that sony guy is going to get in a thread like this one claiming that his old school 1200w sonys were the Sh** and some younger guy is gonna laugh too! 
GLWS. I'm pretty sure the right guy will buy your Eclipse subs. Nice ones there :thumbsup:!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> Another point AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA made was that even if you use a speaker that's less efficient than an earlier design, the marked improvement in today's amplifier efficiency can still mean that you can achieve the same output levels with the same electrical consumption. But Oldskull seemed to dismiss that fact, and insinuated that improvements in amplifier efficiency and watts-per-dollar are only a mirage.


So what's the point of having to buy a 10000w amp to push a 10000w sub that's only going achieve the same output level as a 250w sub pushed by a 250w amp?


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> Yeah. I use the w15gti mkii in an IB arrangement, which is 92dB/w/m and 20mm one-way, with great thermal power handling. One of the major drawbacks to this sub in the car is mounting depth, but most people running IB don't care so much.


hey MarkZ, me again, Remember that for every 3dB gain you have to double the power. So in comparison to a 98dB w/m sub, you have to multiply the watts for your w15gti by 4 to achieve the same output level as the other sub mentioned.


----------



## jcorkin (Jan 26, 2012)

i sold them to the first person who actually came and looked at them, the guy couldnt believe how loud they got off of so little power, he just had to have them and couldnt get his money out fast enough, he was younger, 20ish, and he was skeptical at first but once he heard me throw around 250 rms at them he was sold. its amazing what a well built and sealed box with the right subs and little power can do.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldskull said:


> Hello MarkZ, let me explain what I'm saying, when talking about efficiency, I mean a couple of things, you probably know that long time ago we used to have woofers needing low to moderate power to reach high Spls. and most amp companies supplied that. as time went by, more sub manufacturer started focusing on power handling and ignoring efficiency, thats the main reason why we have todays subs needing (e.g.) 2000 + watts to reach the same output as a 15 yr old sub from back then. And second, needing more watts means bigger amps,(powerwise), and of course, better electrical systems. The comment about box size was in response to AAAAAAA saying that efficiency meant a bigger box. Just told him that I know a lot of todays subs also need to have huge boxes and are not efficient at all. Follow me? And yes, we have a lot of powerful amps today, but that doesn't really mean cheaper! Remember, you always get what you pay for; If you want a "real" powerful amp, then you need to go with an "In house" or "underground" brand, and be willing to spend big bucks for their quality. And not to mention the electrical system upgrade. Or, you can go with a cheaper and "popular" brand amp claiming 5000 watts and come back in a couple of days to the store you purchased it wanting a refund cuz its's just not what you expected!


I see. I don't really agree with any of that.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldskull said:


> hey MarkZ, me again, Remember that for every 3dB gain you have to double the power. So in comparison to a 98dB w/m sub, you have to multiply the watts for your w15gti by 4 to achieve the same output level as the other sub mentioned.


Can you give me an example of an "old school" sub that would work better in my application?


----------



## jcorkin (Jan 26, 2012)

the whole efficiency thing is going to go back and forth both sides make some valid points, at the end of the day it all just comes down to preference, i personally like the old school stuff, it just seems better built and its what i know, i will buy new stuff if i can get it cheap and then use it to trade to some kid cause he wants a big new amp and all he has is some old school amp that he thinks is junk. Now when you look at headunits i will say hands down that modern headunits are far superior to the older ones, however there are some old ones that are better suited in some applications than newer ones, but with all the features built into newer ones you would have to buy an nicer older headunit and a decent dsp to be on the same ground as a mid level unit today. as i said before there will never be a "real" winning side in the new vs old debate its all preference.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Oldskull said:


> So what's the point of having to buy a 10000w amp to push a 10000w sub that's only going achieve the same output level as a 250w sub pushed by a 250w amp?


That is such a rediculous example pulled out of your ass.

It's not just loudness and box size either, it's how low it can get...

So you have three things that count

low end extention
small box size
loudness (efficiency)

So you are all about efficiency right?

This means you can then either have one of 2 other things.

You can either have a driver that plays low, but this means it will need a huge box, or one that is in a small box but will not play low. No one wants a sub that doesn't play low so you get efficiency at the cost of box size.


For most people the 2 things they value most is that it plays low but doens't take room. This means we loose efficiency and thus need to use up a lot of power.

Well 
1)power is rediculously cheep so getting a 1000watt amp is no problem for anyone.
2)amps are much more efficient and thus electrical upgrades are no longer necessary for a 1000watt amp.



When we look at the gap between a 250 watts "efficient" sub VS a 1000watt (small box driver) one, the efficient driver would need to be 6db more efficient for them to play equally. Even if it was 9db more efficient the perceived difference to the ear would be really small, simply noticable.

Here are 2 examples
Dayton Audio TIT320C-4 12" Titanic Mk III Subwoofer 4 Ohm 295-404
89db

2.5cubes 25hz

Goldwood GW-412D 12" Poly DVC Subwoofer 290-367
94db

12cubes 24hz



Yeah sure you can save yourself from buying a 1000watt amp (save maybe 50$) haha
but you will have to get a freaking cube van to fit your box in it if you want the same low end.

Most people choose the sane thing, get the 1000watt amp and save your space and it will be just as loud.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

AAAAAAA said:


> That is such a rediculous example pulled out of your ass.
> 
> It's not just loudness and box size either, it's how low it can get...
> 
> ...


No need for the attitude. 

Your 12 cube box example is not the norm and you know it.

I posted the other advantages of lower power as mentioned in the article I quoted earlier on.

For me personally, I don't care how big the box needs to be, the more efficient the better. More and more people seem to be going IB so there may be a larger interest in more efficient subs now than before though I would guess that the people on this board are much more likely to try IB than the general public. 

We all know the compromises. Some have no problem giving up space, some do. I'm not going any farther to upgrade my charging system than replacing the battery on my daily driver so efficiency is important to me. I also won't give up space so IB naturally takes care of both issues. 

I would still love to see a very efficient 15 or 18 with 30mm xmax for IB use.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

BuickGN said:


> More and more people seem to be going IB so there may be a larger interest in more efficient subs now than before though I would guess that the people on this board are much more likely to try IB than the general public.


Heh, you just refuted yourself there before I got a chance to.

Nobody's going IB. Most consumers don't even know it's an option. I wholeheartedly agree with AAAAAAA that the trend is towards small enclosures, so the trend towards more power makes a lot of sense.

Actually, I'm not even sure that small enclosures is a trend. I think people have always opted for that, but now they can actually get them to perform. And without having to spend a zillion dollars and make modifications to the car.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> No need for the attitude.


We all have attitudes  



> Your 12 cube box example is not the norm and you know it.


Of course, the norm is a small box. 

I wanted to put something Substantive out there as oposed to "So what's the point of having to buy a 10000w amp to push a 10000w sub that's only going achieve the same output level as a 250w sub pushed by a 250w amp?"

Stuff like that is pointless and is what this thread is filled up with.

If there is a really efficient driver and it needs to play low, then the norm will be a big box, there is no getting around that.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

AAAAAAA said:


> We all have attitudes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, but I don't think anyone is talking about 100db efficient subs in 15' enclosures either. I'm sure the trend to smaller enclosures will continue, no doubt. You have one group that needs a small enclosure and another group that only cares about how much power the sub can handle without a thought about efficiency and will stay away from lower power handling efficient subs. 

But again, I have different motives than most since I'm doing the IB thing. I'm happy with what I have now and the performance with only 250w each. It surprises most people but if I were doing another IB setup it would be neat to try out a more efficient sub with good xmax. Some people like the wow factor they get from a small single sub doing a lot of work, I like the wow factor from good output with low power.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> This means you can then either have one of 2 other things.
> 
> You can either have a driver that plays low, but this means it will need a huge box, or one that is in a small box but will not play low. No one wants a sub that doesn't play low so you get efficiency at the cost of box size.


The way you talk one would think that you know all about subwoofers and amps, but just looking @ the examples you gave, we now know you really don't know anything about what's out there and specially nothing @ all about old subs. Who ever said we didn't have subs that needed a smaller than common box,(e.g. .75 to 1.5 cubic feet for a 12"), play low, and didn't need a ton of power @ the same time? we had 'em back then, and we have 'em now.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> For most people the 2 things they value most is that it plays low but doens't take room. This means we loose efficiency and thus need to use up a lot of power.
> 
> Most people choose the sane thing, get the 1000watt amp and save your space and it will be just as loud.


Sounds just like a costumer I had not too long ago... " I have a friend that has 2 =Square= 15s with a 2000 watt amp in his tahoe and it sound awsome. I want the same thing installed in my single cab F150 please!" :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> Here are 2 examples
> Dayton Audio TIT320C-4 12" Titanic Mk III Subwoofer 4 Ohm 295-404
> 89db
> 
> ...


Since you like giving out examples, can you give me an example of a kind of music with 24hz in it? Unless you're trying to communicate with whales, I don't really see the need for this. Don't get me wrong, If it can be useful in your set up, go for it, but I bet you're not even going to know its even there!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

AAAAAAA said:


> If there is a really efficient driver and it needs to play low, then the norm will be a big box, there is no getting around that.


Is this really what you think? C'mon AAAAAAA, We all know better than that! Peace Out!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> We all know the compromises. Some have no problem giving up space, some do. I'm not going any farther to upgrade my charging system than replacing the battery on my daily driver so efficiency is important to me. I also won't give up space so IB naturally takes care of both issues.


 Finally someone who knows what he wants, and not just trying to get what someone has or says! :thumbsup:


----------



## Jonny Hotnuts (Mar 15, 2011)

I must be getting old.....

I remember back in the day when I was doing the SPL thing it was all about 'more'. 

Now I have 2 Morel Ultimo 10" powered with 3000watts......its just too much. It overwhelms the inside of my DC Tundra to the point of absurdity with all program material. I dont give 2 poops about SPL anymore, I just want to listen to music. 

That being said.....I can remember a system I had back in the day with 4 kicker comp 10" powered by a SS MC300. Its true the Morels sound really nice.....better then the kicker but as well as I can remember the output of the old school Kicker-SS (150 watts per) was about the same as the 2 Morels with 1500w each. 

.....OK, the 2 Morels take up less room......BFD, not that much less. 


Basically how many watts do you really need to play music at a satisfying level??? Unless you are a dumbass kid thinking driving around with his windows down playing bass tones (90's BS) is cool. 

I say 100-300 (true) watts for your front stage & 300-1000w for bass equals a loud, balanced system. 


If I could do it again I would use 1 Morel 10" and waaaay less amp. 


~JH


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> You have one group that needs a small enclosure and another group that only cares about how much power the sub can handle without a thought about efficiency and will stay away from lower power handling efficient subs.


Exactly BuickGN, You did get the point! That's the reason why of this thread, So people would put more attention to all the subs specs and not only its power handling alone! :thumbsup:


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

jcorkin said:


> the whole efficiency thing is going to go back and forth both sides make some valid points, at the end of the day it all just comes down to preference, i personally like the old school stuff, it just seems better built and its what i know, i will buy new stuff if i can get it cheap and then use it to trade to some kid cause he wants a big new amp and all he has is some old school amp that he thinks is junk. Now when you look at headunits i will say hands down that modern headunits are far superior to the older ones, however there are some old ones that are better suited in some applications than newer ones, but with all the features built into newer ones you would have to buy an nicer older headunit and a decent dsp to be on the same ground as a mid level unit today. as i said before there will never be a "real" winning side in the new vs old debate its all preference.


I'm with you here, it all depends on preference. All this was just to let some (not all) folks know about sub woofer efficiency, that's all. Totally agree with the HU thing!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

jcorkin said:


> i sold them to the first person who actually came and looked at them, the guy couldnt believe how loud they got off of so little power, he just had to have them and couldnt get his money out fast enough, he was younger, 20ish, and he was skeptical at first but once he heard me throw around 250 rms at them he was sold. its amazing what a well built and sealed box with the right subs and little power can do.


:2thumbsup:


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> Heh, you just refuted yourself there before I got a chance to.
> Nobody's going IB. Most consumers don't even know it's an option. I wholeheartedly agree with AAAAAAA that the trend is towards small enclosures, so the trend towards more power makes a lot of sense.


Exactly, the 90% of the customers need to know there are more options!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

Jonny Hotnuts said:


> I must be getting old.....
> 
> I remember back in the day when I was doing the SPL thing it was all about 'more'.
> 
> ...


Hello Jonny Hotnuts... i don't think there's really a way to answer that question, but you may remember SQ was judged @ around 128 dBs. So I guess it would all depend on the efficiency of the system. And of course, a more efficient system will need less power than a not so efficient system to achieve that.

And I wish we would have some more IASCA events, so we could show what we're talking about and kids would know more than just woofer flexing and playing a single tone for 20 secs. 
I mean, I rather hear 2 hours of Music @ high SPL before going deaf, than a single tone for a really short period of time!


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

Isn't the industry standard for woofers sensitivity rating given for 1000 hertz? How is that relevant to low end output. Also having also grown up in the heyday of "Old School" equipment, the SPL meters back then ran hot As compared to Current meters and technology. So your pair of Soundstream SS12r subs off the Class A 10.0 Would not meter as loud today off a termlab as it did off the Audiocontrol it was measured on back then. Or compare the CV Stroker 18's to the monster 18's of today (DD,Sundown,TC etc). You will find the new "monster" subs will dominate on low end.

Sub 30 hertz in music? dubstep

As for IB install it's easy, requires little power and provides comparable sonic performance to sealed. I understand what you are wanting, But what if I want to hit 150 DB at 35 hertz? Can you do that with your windows up. Can you guarantee within 5db that you can provide that in the trunk of a sedan and still have a trunk with a pair High efficiency 12's? What if I am not as concerned with the gentle transition of the sub bass to midbass but want a concert in my car? The IB will not work for me in my application. My high excursion low sensitivity, 9mH sub will. And sound just as good doing it.

Not trying to be a dick here. But this argument has been argued ad nauseam. There are rules to getting low end with a sub. Hoffman's pretty much explains it all. Thanks to modeling software, we can get a pretty good idea of what a sub will do in a particular enclosure and environment. 

Let's be honest here and logical. Db's is the name of the game to selling the lion's share of car audio related subs. IF some version of technology in a 1985-99 woofer broke some sort of law of physics and produced low end louder than what is out there today in similar enclosures, then it would be used.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cubdenno said:


> Isn't the industry standard for woofers sensitivity rating given for 1000 hertz? How is that relevant to low end output. Also having also grown up in the heyday of "Old School" equipment, the SPL meters back then ran hot As compared to Current meters and technology. So your pair of Soundstream SS12r subs off the Class A 10.0 Would not meter as loud today off a termlab as it did off the Audiocontrol it was measured on back then. Or compare the CV Stroker 18's to the monster 18's of today (DD,Sundown,TC etc). You will find the new "monster" subs will dominate on low end.
> 
> Sub 30 hertz in music? dubstep
> 
> ...


Why would IB not work for concert levels and why would you not use a high sensitivity, high excursion sub in IB? My current IB setup blows away my old sealed setup in every possible way.


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> Why would IB not work for concert levels and why would you not use a high sensitivity, high excursion sub in IB? My current IB setup blows away my old sealed setup in every possible way.


What was your old sealed set up? Is it the same cone area as your IB set up?

Depends on what we agree on as concert levels.:laugh: i run single 15 hit 140's on music. Way hotter than any concert i have been to. So maybe a wrong determination. An adequately displaced IB sub set up will get loud enough down low. But it still usually takes more cone area to get as loud.

as for high sensitivity, you are of course referring to a higher fs as well correct?


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

cubdenno said:


> Isn't the industry standard for woofers sensitivity rating given for 1000 hertz? How is that relevant to low end output. Also having also grown up in the heyday of "Old School" equipment, the SPL meters back then ran hot As compared to Current meters and technology. So your pair of Soundstream SS12r subs off the Class A 10.0 Would not meter as loud today off a termlab as it did off the Audiocontrol it was measured on back then. Or compare the CV Stroker 18's to the monster 18's of today (DD,Sundown,TC etc). You will find the new "monster" subs will dominate on low end..


Hi cubdeno, you are right, this thread was about efficiency. Don't know how it escalated to a "how low can your woofer go thread".


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

I compared my TC 15 to a B&C 15NW100 in WinISD
3 cubed tuned to 30 hertz. 

50 hertz down my sub models more efficient
50 hertz and up the 95db sensitive B&C is more efficient

IB >100cu ft

The B&C is more efficient at 40 and up the TC gets the nod below 40

Using 30 hertz as a stopping point, in IB, 250 watts is the max to hit Xmax for the B&C With an 18 hertz LR4 highpass. The TC can receive 2500 and is the required 10db louder


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

Oldskull said:


> Hi cubdeno, you are right, this thread was about efficiency. Don't know how it escalated to a "how low can your woofer go thread".


Well if we can all keep civil (which we are I believe) I think a lot can be learned. I love old school gear. I WANT to try a Pro audio sub in my car. I looked at IB as a solution. I have run the SS12r. I just want us all to try to keep as close to an apples to apples comparison as possible. If the end result is we agree to disagree I am cool. it's just a hobby after all for me.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

cubdenno said:


> Well if we can all keep civil (which we are I believe) I think a lot can be learned. I love old school gear. I WANT to try a Pro audio sub in my car. I looked at IB as a solution. I have run the SS12r. I just want us all to try to keep as close to an apples to apples comparison as possible. If the end result is we agree to disagree I am cool. it's just a hobby after all for me.


Yeap! I guess to each his own! There's a saying that says ... "There's no blinder man, than one who does not wish to see!" 
With this being said, I guess This Thread can now be closed.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldskull, I think you would be doing yourself a favor by reading AAAAAAA's posts more closely instead of adhering to this odd point of view. You're making some obvious errors that demonstrate that you don't know all the facts. For example, post 36 and post 38. My suggestion would be to familiarize yourself with Hoffman's Iron Law and some of Richard Small's work from the 70s.

Edit: Here's a general primer: http://www.salksound.com/wp/?p=56



excerpt said:


> A few decades ago, amplifiers were limited in terms of power, so speakers had to be efficient. They didn’t play particularly low and the cabinets were generally quite large. Today, most speaker manufacturers want to offer small speakers with extended bass response. So driver manufacturers put most of their R & D efforts into low sensitivity drivers that can play deep in a small cabinet. Since today’s drivers tend to be less sensitive, so do today’s speakers. While perhaps these lower sensitivity ratings are less than many people would like, the wide availability of high-power amplifiers make the trade-off a reasonable one.
> 
> In the end, speaker design is all about trade-offs. If you are willing to sacrifice bass extension and live with a relatively large speaker cabinet, high sensitivity drivers are still available. But spouses don’t have much tolerance for large speakers and most consumers prefer speakers with reasonable bass extension.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cubdenno said:


> I compared my TC 15 to a B&C 15NW100 in WinISD
> 3 cubed tuned to 30 hertz.
> 
> 50 hertz down my sub models more efficient
> ...


I understand what you're saying I think. My argument is if you put a highpass filter on the more efficient IB sub so that it matches the sealed box's rolloff, were able to apply the same power, why wouldn't it get just as loud while still being more power efficient? Obviously assuming equal displacement. This is more of a sealed vs IB question but it's still kind of relevant.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Oldskull said:


> ... There's a saying that says ... "There's no blinder man, than one who does not wish to see!" ...


There is an ironic post right there... 

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Oldskull said:


> Is this really what you think? C'mon AAAAAAA, We all know better than that! Peace Out!


Prove him different.. Notice he roughly mentioned the passband, also note at what frequency your sensitivity rating was taken at.


----------



## Audiophyle (Aug 8, 2009)

AAAAAAA said:


> If there is a really efficient driver and it needs to play low, then the norm will be a big box, there is no getting around that.


The answer to the thread, plain & simple. Its nostalgia, because the availability of power has proven far more important than efficiency. With power we get much louder low end, much smaller enclosure options, and with only a little added distortion due to the beefy suspensions.





BuickGN said:


> why would you not use a high sensitivity, high excursion sub in IB? My current IB setup blows away my old sealed setup in every possible way.


Without details on your old system, it means nothing to anyone.
& by all means please share this high excursion high sensitivity sub you speak of, and do remember that efficiency & sensitivity are actually different ratings. Does this high sensitivity, high excursion sub also have a high efficiency?





Oldskull said:


> Hi cubdeno, you are right, this thread was about efficiency. Don't know how it escalated to a "how low can your woofer go thread".


Because efficiency is directly tied to freq, and while efficiency climbs so does the resonant freq of the speaker, which is a very valid concern for choosing a sub and the reason WHY sub efficiencies have dropped over the years. (for better low end)




BuickGN said:


> I understand what you're saying I think. My argument is if you put a highpass filter on the more efficient IB sub so that it matches the sealed box's rolloff, were able to apply the same power, why wouldn't it get just as loud while still being more power efficient? Obviously assuming equal displacement. This is more of a sealed vs IB question but it's still kind of relevant.


I think you dont because that WAS with a highpass, which he pretty clearly stated. Everything that makes the TC less efficient is what makes it more capable down low in the freq production, you cannot have your cake & eat it too, and this is exactly what the difference is between OS and new.

& the argument is not sealed vs IB because the efficient sub doesnt stand a chance in a sealed box, unless the box is either huge or the sub is given lots of power. Do we see a pattern emerging here? The good example provided by AAAAAAAAA was precisely a sealed vs sealed comparison, and quickly dismissed for reasons I do not understand.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Audiophyle said:


> With power we get much louder low end, much smaller enclosure options, and with only a little added distortion due to the beefy suspensions.


Power compression, it's a nasty and very audible thing. But when you are beating the streets, nobody cares, or when you are listening to music at somewhat sane levels it's not there. But given the influx of people and the "what do you listen to threads," and "what is loud threads," and "how loud do you listen threads".... I tend to sway that sane levels is now a rarity around here, especially at 70MPH.

If what you said was true I'd be filling performance venues at motorhead levels with a PA that will fit in a 18' Uhaul.

It's not true, it's people pouring tons of power into a motor design that has not improved since the 80's, (whereas other facets of the audio industry HAVE improved motor design for cooling) shoving said driver in a shoebox, and praying for reprieve from the transfer function gods and the somehow endless supply of current they feel that their stock electrical system can put out.


Sorry to say it, but sensitivity/efficiency still rules, you cannot defy the laws of physics.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Good post. My example though is ported vs ported.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Audiophyle said:


> The answer to the thread, plain & simple. Its nostalgia, because the availability of power has proven far more important than efficiency. With power we get much louder low end, much smaller enclosure options, and with only a little added distortion due to the beefy suspensions.



Did you not read the link I provided regarding distortion and efficiency?

Power is more important than efficiency to some, maybe even to most but not to everyone. I'm not going to turn my TL into some ghetto unreliable setup with multiple batteries and a high output alternator. I highly doubt the stock electrical system would allow full excursion of a pair of 85db efficient subs in a small sealed box but right now I'm doing it with only 500w.


Audiophyle said:


> Without details on your old system, it means nothing to anyone.
> & by all means please share this high excursion high sensitivity sub you speak of, and do remember that efficiency & sensitivity are actually different ratings. Does this high sensitivity, high excursion sub also have a high efficiency?


Old system- A pair of 12W6s sealed on 1,200w. New system- A pair of IB15s IB on 500w. More displacement so I can run a 20hz/6db highpass and retain good output and there's the "why not" factor as well with IB.



Audiophyle said:


> I think you dont because that WAS with a highpass, which he pretty clearly stated. Everything that makes the TC less efficient is what makes it more capable down low in the freq production, you cannot have your cake & eat it too, and this is exactly what the difference is between OS and new.



I know it's imperative that you jump in here and begin thowing your .02 in but sit back and read a bit. I said to use a high pass that would match the sealed sub's rolloff, not just any highpass. In other words, if you run a filter that would match the excursion of the sealed box sub down low at the same power, why wouldn't you have the same output up top? 



Audiophyle said:


> & the argument is not sealed vs IB because the efficient sub doesnt stand a chance in a sealed box, unless the box is either huge or the sub is given lots of power. Do we see a pattern emerging here? The good example provided by AAAAAAAAA was precisely a sealed vs sealed comparison, and quickly dismissed for reasons I do not understand.


Car IB is a large sealed box. As I stated: "This is more of a sealed vs IB question but it's still kind of relevant". So again, calm down. I was pointing out that I can have my cake and eat it too.

I fully understand the compromises we make. I wanted a system with as few compromises as possible while accomplishing MY goals. My goals might be different from others goals.

Requires very little power to get loud, check.
Gets low with authority, check.
Plays well into the midbass when needed, check.
Sounds good, check.
Power compression.... what's that lol.
Low excursion/linear operation during normal playback, check.
Takes up very little space, check.

If it weren't for trying to save space I would probably have a bandpass enclosure for even greater efficiency.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

BuickGN said:


> More displacement so I can run a 20hz/6db highpass and retain good output and there's the "why not" factor as well with IB.


ESP - The Linkwitz Transform Circuit

Actually that link works well with others in this thread, including the small box, low crossover and tons of power tribe.


----------



## chuyler1 (Apr 10, 2006)

When it comes to amplifiers, it is most definitely nostalgia. Those old amps ran incredibly hot and were very inefficient. They probably had the same current draw as today's amps but produced half the power, or even less. However some high end amps of the past will still sound better than today's budget amps, even if they don't produce as much power.

With subwoofers, the new technology has improved things, but only in an effort to keep up with today's music. Back in the 80's 140db at 60-80Hz was great. Today people want 140db at 20Hz and that requires more power and more excursion.

If your music doesn't require authoritative bass below 40Hz then often times the old subwoofers are just fine and may even sound better given their higher efficiency and lower power requirements.

My home system runs on 10 watts and blows away any car audio system I've heard...but it won't play down to 20Hz. With my music, I rarely notice though.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

chad said:


> ESP - The Linkwitz Transform Circuit
> 
> Actually that link works well with others in this thread, including the small box, low crossover and tons of power tribe.



That is the best reading I've done in a long time. I've been trying to explain that with little success and especially why IB is not as loud with no filter but how it has the potential to be just as loud as a sealed box and with less power with the correct filter. I've heard of the LT before but never bothered to read up on it.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I'm either doing LT in my studio or IB very soon. The current subwoofer is large and inconvenient.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

I'm amazed at how simple questions/thoughts turn into ticking time bombs. 

Informative none-the-less.


----------



## Audiophyle (Aug 8, 2009)

I am pretty familiar with power compression. There are technically 3 types, which are constant across ALL woofer designs (high efficiency is not immune). It takes an increase in VC temp of almost 400* to double the impedance of the woofer (causing a 3db drop in spl), so while the larger woofers may require more power they are also designed to dissipate their higher heat levels, and all woofers will suffer from thermal compression when applying more power. Power is relative, so where a 1000w sub may begin to really suffer when pushed to 1200w, a 250w sub is just as susceptible & will begin to suffer when reaching 300w. (20% over power on both) What you DONT get with OS subs is the design & tech implemented over the years to try and combat power compression, and while the Alpine Type R will run just fine to full capacity at 300w, it will also happily extend out with very little increase in power compression due to its overbuilt & optimized design.

& lets be a little more realistic, no you cannot just get massive amounts of sound by simply adding more power, but for a high efficiency sub to reach a little deeper it never hurts to apply a little more power. Im not talking 50,000w+ PA systems, but you can always add a little more to that no? lol




BuickGN said:


> I've been trying to explain that with little success and especially why IB is not as loud with no filter but how it has the potential to be just as loud as a sealed box and with less power with the correct filter. I've heard of the LT before but never bothered to read up on it.


Then youve been doing a horrible job, because that is nothing like a "highpass" and if you HAD read that link you would have seen this little part

_"It is then providing boost at the lower frequencies at a rate that is equal to the natural roll off of a sealed enclosure. Instead of rolling off at 12 dB an octave, the speaker is being forced to maintain a flatter response due to the amplifier giving it a lot more power at the lower frequencies. For example at 20 Hz, the amplifier is giving the speaker an additional 12 dB of gain, or 16 times more power than at frequencies above 50 Hz."_
It is essentially an EQ boosting the input freq to try to negate the natural roll off of the sealed enclosure. You try to run an IB sub like that & it will shred itself in no time.





BuickGN said:


> Did you not read the link I provided regarding distortion and efficiency?
> 
> Power is more important than efficiency to some, maybe even to most but not to everyone. I'm not going to turn my TL into some ghetto unreliable setup with multiple batteries and a high output alternator. I highly doubt the stock electrical system would allow full excursion of a pair of 85db efficient subs in a small sealed box but right now I'm doing it with only 500w.


So do you think an 8" Alpine type R cannot reach full excursion? because it is a 150-300w rms sub & with an even lower sensitivity at 83.5db. 
Pretty sure the TL stock electrical can handle even an old school inefficient 300w amp, my TL ran a Xenon 600.1 without any issues.




BuickGN said:


> I know it's imperative that you jump in here and begin thowing your .02 in


Im sorry, do I know you? Last I checked this was an open forum, & you sure seem to be doing a great job yourself throwing around your $2.50.
Perhaps you can post some evidence to support your claims? Because all Im hearing from you is "blah blah, high efficiency is gawd, blah".





BuickGN said:


> Car IB is a large sealed box. As I stated: "This is more of a sealed vs IB question but it's still kind of relevant". So again, calm down. I was pointing out that I can have my cake and eat it too.
> 
> I fully understand the compromises we make. I wanted a system with as few compromises as possible while accomplishing MY goals. My goals might be different from others goals.


Then why even say its a comparison at all? & do you not see the contradiction of your statement?
_"...I can have my cake and eat it too. I fully understand the compromises we make....."_

Every system will have compromises, which is actually in the opening paragraph of YOUR link. You may be completely happy with your system and that is awesome, I wish I felt the same for my current system but dont fool yourself into thinking you made no sacrifices for it because that is just ignorance. So no, you dont have your cake & you cant eat it too.





BuickGN said:


> Requires very little power to get loud, check.
> Gets low with authority, check.
> Plays well into the midbass when needed, check.
> Sounds good, check.
> ...


Ambiguous claims passed off as facts, check.

All of that is purely subjective, and like pizza toppings you will be hard pressed to find someone with the same tastes. Fact is your compromises may be unacceptable to someone else, while you are happy with them. Nothing wrong in that, but you have to at least acknowledge that.

Your original link was informative, thanks for that. I still dont think it proved your point though.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Audiophyle said:


> I am pretty familiar with power compression. There are technically 3 types, which are constant across ALL woofer designs (high efficiency is not immune). It takes an increase in VC temp of almost 400* to double the impedance of the woofer (causing a 3db drop in spl), so while the larger woofers may require more power they are also designed to dissipate their higher heat levels, and all woofers will suffer from thermal compression when applying more power. Power is relative, so where a 1000w sub may begin to really suffer when pushed to 1200w, a 250w sub is just as susceptible & will begin to suffer when reaching 300w. (20% over power on both) What you DONT get with OS subs is the design & tech implemented over the years to try and combat power compression, and while the Alpine Type R will run just fine to full capacity at 300w, it will also happily extend out with very little increase in power compression due to its overbuilt & optimized design.


Oliver?

Power compression, blah, blah, blah.


Audiophyle said:


> & lets be a little more realistic, no you cannot just get massive amounts of sound by simply adding more power, but for a high efficiency sub to reach a little deeper it never hurts to apply a little more power. Im not talking 50,000w+ PA systems, but you can always add a little more to that no? lol


More Power:thumbsup:


Audiophyle said:


> Then youve been doing a horrible job, because that is nothing like a "highpass" and if you HAD read that link you would have seen this little part
> 
> _"It is then providing boost at the lower frequencies at a rate that is equal to the natural roll off of a sealed enclosure. Instead of rolling off at 12 dB an octave, the speaker is being forced to maintain a flatter response due to the amplifier giving it a lot more power at the lower frequencies. For example at 20 Hz, the amplifier is giving the speaker an additional 12 dB of gain, or 16 times more power than at frequencies above 50 Hz."_
> It is essentially an EQ boosting the input freq to try to negate the natural roll off of the sealed enclosure. You try to run an IB sub like that & it will shred itself in no time.


Sloooow down and read there speedy. Don't get in such a hurry to throw out insults that you miss the point. No one said you should try and run an IB setup like that.... In fact it was just the opposite. Read again.




Audiophyle said:


> So do you think an 8" Alpine type R cannot reach full excursion? because it is a 150-300w rms sub & with an even lower sensitivity at 83.5db.


Probably not. You're going to have to prove it with a video or it didn't happen. Now, for the more serious question, do you think that 8" type R is going to have the same output as my more efficient pair of 15s at the same power level in the same enclosure?


Audiophyle said:


> Pretty sure the TL stock electrical can handle even an old school inefficient 300w amp, my TL ran a Xenon 600.1 without any issues.


Lol. Did you mention the "inefficient" old school amp to try and get under my skin? My entire involvement with old school was a pair of Cerwin Vegas and a Kenwood amp that I never hooked up, so yeah. 




Audiophyle said:


> Im sorry, do I know you? Last I checked this was an open forum, & you sure seem to be doing a great job yourself throwing around your $2.50.
> Perhaps you can post some evidence to support your claims? Because all Im hearing from you is "blah blah, high efficiency is gawd, blah".


You go girl! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!





Audiophyle said:


> Then why even say its a comparison at all? & do you not see the contradiction of your statement?
> _"...I can have my cake and eat it too. I fully understand the compromises we make....."_


See below.


Audiophyle said:


> Every system will have compromises, which is actually in the opening paragraph of YOUR link. You may be completely happy with your system and that is awesome, I wish I felt the same for my current system but dont fool yourself into thinking you made no sacrifices for it because that is just ignorance. So no, you dont have your cake & you cant eat it too.


What sacrifices did I make?




Audiophyle said:


> Ambiguous claims passed off as facts, check.


Do most consider 500w or 250w each low power, especially for the output it has, I think most people would.

Does it get lower than any musical content, yes. Will it shake the car apart and piss normal people off, yes.

Plays well into the midbass region, I'm not sure how this is subjective. Check out the inductance though.

Sounds great? Possibly subjective but the Klippel points out why it *should* sound good and the reviews confirm it.

Low/no power compression? Check out the Klippel section.

Cone does not visibly move when I play music at normal listening levels, yes. Again, not sure what's subjective unless normal listening levels are 140db to you.

Takes up little space? It's IB, you can figure that one out.




Audiophyle said:


> All of that is purely subjective, and like pizza toppings you will be hard pressed to find someone with the same tastes. Fact is your compromises may be unacceptable to someone else, while you are happy with them. Nothing wrong in that, but you have to at least acknowledge that.


Okaaay. Thanks for that, you opened my eyes to the fact that people have different tastes. I must change my whole system now. Off topic, does anyone have a"5000w" sub for sale?


Audiophyle said:


> Your original link was informative, thanks for that. I still dont think it proved your point though.


:mean:

Looking forward to chatting again, Audiopile.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Audiophyle said:


> Then youve been doing a horrible job, because that is nothing like a "highpass" and if you HAD read that link you would have seen this little part
> 
> _"It is then providing boost at the lower frequencies at a rate that is equal to the natural roll off of a sealed enclosure. Instead of rolling off at 12 dB an octave, the speaker is being forced to maintain a flatter response due to the amplifier giving it a lot more power at the lower frequencies. For example at 20 Hz, the amplifier is giving the speaker an additional 12 dB of gain, or 16 times more power than at frequencies above 50 Hz."_
> It is essentially an EQ boosting the input freq to try to negate the natural roll off of the sealed enclosure. You try to run an IB sub like that & it will shred itself in no time.


Fair point, but too general. My IB sub has a ~ +7dB boost <40Hz with no problems. This, I believe, is why BuickGN is so adamant about finding really high output subs for his install.

But I agree with you that there are always compromises. It's just that certain compromises are more palatable than others for certain applications. I believe that a lot of people who are like us -- who devote a lot of effort and money (relatively speaking) on car audio -- overlook IB as a viable alternative. In my view, some of the major downfalls of IB come down to the extra money it costs to use high excursion subs, and the extra effort it takes to outfit your car for IB (rather than buying prefab boxes like most consumers). Those drawbacks are non-issues for a lot of the folks around here.


----------



## Audiophyle (Aug 8, 2009)

BuickGN said:


> Sloooow down and read there speedy. Don't get in such a hurry to throw out insults that you miss the point. No one said you should try and run an IB setup like that.... In fact it was just the opposite. Read again.


Uh you did big guy, remember?


BuickGN said:


> I understand what you're saying I think. My argument is if you put a highpass filter on the more efficient IB sub so that it matches the sealed box's rolloff, were able to apply the same power, why wouldn't it get just as loud while still being more power efficient? Obviously assuming equal displacement. This is more of a sealed vs IB question but it's still kind of relevant.


Or was that just another misunderstanding? I fully understood the link's application in a sealed enclosure. The comparison between the 15's had the 15" at its mechanical limits at 250w and 30hz, that means there is nothing left for it to give, but you were the one talking about some "highpass filter" to extend its range. You need to get your **** straight if you want people to know WTF you are talking about, because you make no sense contradicting yourself left & right. Maybe you are right, but until anyone understands what the hell it is exactly you are trying to say, who knows.





BuickGN said:


> Power compression, blah, blah, blah.


Sorry, ask nice & Ill dumb it down for ya.





BuickGN said:


> Probably not. You're going to have to prove it with a video or it didn't happen. Now, for the more serious question, do you think that 8" type R is going to have the same output as my more efficient pair of 15s at the same power level in the same enclosure?


Seriously? You have yet to give any factual info to support your claim, and quickly shat on anyone else's attempts to prove you wrong. Its like arguing with a brick wall, and I refuse to even try anymore. Until you bring something OTHER than your biased opinion, you are not helping.

& you really want to compare an 8 to two 15's? Or do you mean a pair of 8's vs a pair of 15's? Eat a lot of paint chips as a child?
The whole point of the Type R was to refute your bogus claim that an electrical system couldnt handle a low efficiency sub, but I think you failed to realize that there are low power, high output, subs with low efficiency too, not just mega woofers. & youve already proved it capable every time you pound your 500w sub system, that is greater than 300w and 500w could easily push the 8" R past its limits, so with simple deduction & a little common sense, If car can handle 500w, and Type R can handle 300w, then Car can easily handle Type R.
You shouldnt need a video for proof because you are driving the proof smart guy.

(he fades back..... nothing but net!)





BuickGN said:


> Lol. Did you mention the "inefficient" old school amp to try and get under my skin? My entire involvement with old school was a pair of Cerwin Vegas and a Kenwood amp that I never hooked up, so yeah.


Conceited much? Not hardly, I mentioned that because this is an OS thread, and part of that is OS amps & the higher electrical demands they put on systems due to class A & class AB systems.





BuickGN said:


> You go girl! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!


Run out of bogus claims so its down to name calling?
Classic E-bully 




BuickGN said:


> What sacrifices did I make?


Maybe your setup is somehow special or magical. Or you simply just dont understand. Everything in life has compromises, which is the whole point of that claim "you cant have your cake & eat it too".





BuickGN said:


> Do most consider 500w or 250w each low power, especially for the output it has, I think most people would.
> Does it get lower than any musical content, yes. Will it shake the car apart and piss normal people off, yes.
> Plays well into the midbass region, I'm not sure how this is subjective. Check out the inductance though.
> Sounds great? Possibly subjective but the Klippel points out why it *should* sound good and the reviews confirm it.
> ...


Yes all of that is subjective, and perhaps you should look up that word.
Ive heard 500w systems that were mediocre, and I currently have a 250w system that is quite loud, but its all relative. The 500w seemed low power because it wasnt that impressive, and my 250w seems pretty high power because it is unusually loud.
The bold part is exactly what you should have taken from that, because for some reason you are ignoring it to try to prove your point.
Your system makes YOU happy and thats great, but the **** you are trying to claim as facts is NOT fact for everyone but instead just opinion. So while you blindly dismiss/ignore any compromises you made because the system sounds good to you, Im sure there are plenty of people on here who could gladly prove you wrong.




BuickGN said:


> Looking forward to chatting again, Audiopile.


This is my last reply for you in this thread, hostility and name calling are unwarranted, childish, and something forums need to get rid of. So grow up, and good day.





MarkZ said:


> Fair point, but too general. My IB sub has a ~ +7dB boost <40Hz with no problems. This, I believe, is why BuickGN is so adamant about finding really high output subs for his install.
> 
> But I agree with you that there are always compromises. It's just that certain compromises are more palatable than others for certain applications. I believe that a lot of people who are like us -- who devote a lot of effort and money (relatively speaking) on car audio -- overlook IB as a viable alternative. In my view, some of the major downfalls of IB come down to the extra money it costs to use high excursion subs, and the extra effort it takes to outfit your car for IB (rather than buying prefab boxes like most consumers). Those drawbacks are non-issues for a lot of the folks around here.


I am in agreement with you, and Ive wanted to try an IB setup. I think the biggest limiting factor is its not easily removed, and while it may not take up much trunk space it does eliminate the pass through capability of the trunk with fold down seats. 
(not a compromise with BuickGN though, I guess his TL was a rarity & didnt have that option?)

& I think that if BuickGN does find a higher output sub (ie longer excursion) he will find that the extended throw will come at the cost of efficiency, which is exactly what the difference is between OS subs & new school. While I still love OS subs, I cannot ignore the higher capability of some of the new sub designs out there. Doesnt mean Ill give up on my OS subs though, they just moved to the HT system where box size doesnt matter as much. lol


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Audiopile said:


> Uh you did big guy, remember?


:cwm13: Read again.


Audiopile said:


> Or was that just another misunderstanding? I fully understood the link's application in a sealed enclosure. The comparison between the 15's had the 15" at its mechanical limits at 250w and 30hz, that means there is nothing left for it to give, but you were the one talking about some "highpass filter" to extend its range. You need to get your **** straight if you want people to know WTF you are talking about, because you make no sense contradicting yourself left & right. Maybe you are right, but until anyone understands what the hell it is exactly you are trying to say, who knows.


Yes, nothing left to give *at 20hz*. Plenty left to give *above 20hz*... or whatever frequency it's hitting xmech. One last time:

If you're at the sub's xmech at say 20hz and let's pretend it takes 300w to push the sub to xmech but the thermal power handling is 500w. You're losing SPL at everything higher than 20hz since power is limited to 300w to protect the sub at 20hz. Let's imagine this filter that can cut power at 20hz and ramp up the power as frequency increases all the way up to the sub's 500w thermal rating. You would get more output in the upper frequencies. Basically the same as a sealed box does, just much more efficient on the low end. Is that simple enough for you? The LR does the opposite and what I was getting at is IB with some exceptions, application specific of course, is a lot like what the LR filter does to a sealed box, only a lot more efficient. Instead of adding a ton of power, you've got a huge "box" that gives the same effect. Understanding this means you can understand why IB won't handle as much power as sealed down low but also what you can do to make output equal so sealed but with much less power required in the low frequencies. Starting to make sense? If it doesn't, read again but this time slowly and without foaming at the mouth.




Audiopile said:


> Sorry, ask nice & Ill dumb it down for ya.


 
No need.




Audiopile said:


> Seriously? You have yet to give any factual info to support your claim, and quickly shat on anyone else's attempts to prove you wrong. Its like arguing with a brick wall, and *I refuse to even try anymore*. Until you bring something OTHER than your biased opinion, you are not helping.



Ok.



Audiopile said:


> & you really want to compare an 8 to two 15's? Or do you mean a pair of 8's vs a pair of 15's? Eat a lot of paint chips as a child?
> The whole point of the Type R was to refute your bogus claim that an electrical system couldnt handle a low efficiency sub, but I think you failed to realize that there are low power, high output, subs with low efficiency too, not just mega woofers. & youve already proved it capable every time you pound your 500w sub system, that is greater than 300w and 500w could easily push the 8" R past its limits, so with simple deduction & a little common sense, If car can handle 500w, and Type R can handle 300w, then Car can easily handle Type R.



You brought up the 8. We're talking about efficiency. The pair of 15s, even the single 15 is much more efficient than the 8 so yes, my question stands. 


Audiopile said:


> You shouldnt need a video for proof because you are driving the proof smart guy.


I don't have a Type R 8".


Audiopile said:


> (he fades back..... nothing but net!)



:sleeping:





Audiopile said:


> Conceited much? Not hardly, I mentioned that because this is an OS thread, and part of that is OS amps & the higher electrical demands they put on systems due to class A & class AB systems.



There are no modern AB amps? Yes, a little conceited.:laugh:




Audiopile said:


> Run out of bogus claims so its down to name calling?
> Classic E-bully



I was attempting to help.


Audiopile said:


> Maybe your setup is somehow special or magical. Or you simply just dont understand. Everything in life has compromises, which is the whole point of that claim "you cant have your cake & eat it too".



Thank you. Magical describes my system well. All systems should be modeled after it. 

On a slightly more serious note, tell me how I compromised my goals? If it sounds good enough, gets loud enough, uses little power with no electrical upgrades needed, with a total cost of $333 shipped to my door, and takes up less space than a single 10" in a box, where did I compromise?




Audiopile said:


> Yes all of that is subjective, and perhaps you should look up that word.
> Ive heard 500w systems that were mediocre, and *I currently have a 250w system that is quite loud, but its all relative. The 500w seemed low power because it wasnt that impressive, and my 250w seems pretty high power because it is unusually loud.*


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't go all subjective on me lol.


Audiopile said:


> The bold part is exactly what you should have taken from that, because for some reason you are ignoring it to try to prove your point.
> Your system makes YOU happy and thats great, but the **** you are trying to claim as facts is NOT fact for everyone but instead just opinion. So while you blindly dismiss/ignore any compromises you made because the system sounds good to you, Im sure there are plenty of people on here who could gladly prove you wrong.



Point out my compromises.

I'm glad your efficient 250w system is loud. :thumbsup: 



Audiopile said:


> This is my last reply for you in this thread, hostility and name calling are unwarranted, childish, and something forums need to get rid of. So grow up, and good day.



I think it's for the best. You're going to burst an artery if you keep this up.




Audiopile said:


> I am in agreement with you, and Ive wanted to try an IB setup. I think the biggest limiting factor is its not easily removed, and while it may not take up much trunk space it does eliminate the pass through capability of the trunk with fold down seats.
> (not a compromise with BuickGN though, I guess his TL was a rarity & didnt have that option?)



I thought you've owned a TL in the past? TLs do not have fold down sets..... no compromise there.


Audiopile said:


> & I think that if BuickGN does find a higher output sub (ie longer excursion) he will find that the extended throw will come at the cost of efficiency, which is exactly what the difference is between OS subs & new school. While I still love OS subs, I cannot ignore the higher capability of some of the new sub designs out there. Doesnt mean Ill give up on my OS subs though, they just moved to the HT system where box size doesnt matter as much. lol


My subs have 19mm xmax, 25mm xmech. It's not huge throw but it's definitely above average. They also have more cone area than most other 15s. If you have any more questions about my subs, google AE IB15.


----------



## Complacent_One (Jul 2, 2009)

It is all about efficiency, and just to clear something up...There is pretty much nothing efficient about a car audio amplifier at full tilt, regardless of class. Class D is more efficient from 10-80 percent output than a class A A/B but not when your are putting the coals to it. If you can get there with 100Watts, then by all means that is the best way...hell I will take the 8-15amp strain on my electrical all day over 100 plus. 

If you are competing SQ...ie...studio on wheels then that is a whole different market, but if nice, clean, loud is what you are going for....the cheapest simplest route is to utilize very high efficiency drivers. I am backing away from the pursuit of nirvana car audio for awhile. Chasing this dream of having a perfect studio on wheels is enough to drive the typically sane, absolutely Crazy!!

Once I fire back up, the old 1994 Bronco will not get sound deadening, but will get a set of Horns and some 10-12" PA Midranges in the floorboards, and a single 18 in a big effin box...Yup I have a bronc so I can do it. Cool part is that with the top down, i will be able to piss people off from blocks away with ..... "that little ******* got his own jet airplane, that little ****** he is a millionaire." Or put the top on and have a well balanced, tonally accurate, blah...blah...blah...with just a couple hundred watts....Hell the 8 gauge power will probably be overkill!!


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Complacent_One said:


> It is all about efficiency, and just to clear something up...There is pretty much nothing efficient about a car audio amplifier at full tilt, regardless of class. Class D is more efficient from 10-80 percent output than a class A A/B but not when your are putting the coals to it. If you can get there with 100Watts, then by all means that is the best way...hell I will take the 8-15amp strain on my electrical all day over 100 plus.
> 
> If you are competing SQ...ie...studio on wheels then that is a whole different market, but if nice, clean, loud is what you are going for....the cheapest simplest route is to utilize very high efficiency drivers. I am backing away from the pursuit of nirvana car audio for awhile. Chasing this dream of having a perfect studio on wheels is enough to drive the typically sane, absolutely Crazy!!
> 
> Once I fire back up, the old 1994 Bronco will not get sound deadening, but will get a set of Horns and some 10-12" PA Midranges in the floorboards, and a single 18 in a big effin box...Yup I have a bronc so I can do it. Cool part is that with the top down, i will be able to piss people off from blocks away with ..... "that little ******* got his own jet airplane, that little ****** he is a millionaire." Or put the top on and have a well balanced, tonally accurate, blah...blah...blah...with just a couple hundred watts....Hell the 8 gauge power will probably be overkill!!


Lol well said. I've always wanted to do a rediculously efficient system like that. After looking around, I found an Acoustic Elegance 18" sub thats 98db efficient, one of their 10" midbasses thats 97db and a set of horns. You're talking about a system that will be loud enough for normal listening with just a few watts.


----------



## Complacent_One (Jul 2, 2009)

exactly...that my idea of what car audio should be. Why reinvent the wheel to up the voltage or available current in the car when you can utilize what is there.....

I want huge dynamics...so the pluck of the guitar string damn near levitates me to the back seat....I will sacrifice some "insert whatever here" for that!!


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

Oldskull said:


> Back then you could achieve 140 - 150 dbs with 300 - 500 watts to a couple of subs, and you got to keep your factory alternator.


Back then they also had an AudioControl unit to measure SPL and it was easy to cheat it. I know someone who figured out the frequency it was most sensitive at, and built bandpass enclosures tuned to said frequency. He hit some amazing numbers, until the TermLab came along.:laugh:

I know someone else who carried over from the AC days with his four 18s... His truck that broke the 150s on the AudioControl, didn't even hit 140 on the TermLab. He ended up getting out of SPL competition all together.

But hey, if you want to run a ported box for a 10" subwoofer that requires 2 or more cubic feet of airspace to get loud on 150 watts RMS, be my guest.:laugh: I wish you luck in finding 20 year old subs that didn't lose their surrounds to dry rot by now.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

ChrisB said:


> \
> But hey, if you want to run a ported box for a 10" subwoofer that requires 2 or more cubic feet of airspace to get loud on 150 watts RMS, be my guest.:laugh: I wish you luck in finding 20 year old subs that didn't lose their surrounds to dry rot by now.


I have these 10s








and these









Also have some 12s

















and some 15s also


















I just can't decide which to use with my real efficient OS HiFonics amp.


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

MarkZ said:


> Oldskull, I think you would be doing yourself a favor by reading AAAAAAA's posts more closely instead of adhering to this odd point of view.


MarkZ, you gave me this example: 

"Today, most speaker manufacturers want to offer small speakers with extended bass response. So driver manufacturers put most of their R & D efforts into low sensitivity drivers that can play deep in a small cabinet. Since today’s drivers tend to be less sensitive, so do today’s speakers."

There's the answer, in the same example you gave me! thanks!
Nothing personal, but I think you need to read this thread more carefully, specially at the beginning, and understand what is about; *Efficiency*!


----------



## Oldskull (May 16, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't EFFICIENCY in a subwoofer means to get the most dBs with the least amount power?
And all this time I always thought efficiency in a speaker was measured in dBs!
But thanks to you guys, now I know Efficiency is also measured in Hertz, and in cubic inches!
And to all of you who took it personal, No hard feelings! As a matter of fact, you are more than welcome to my store and spend your big money for a voltage hungry amp, a subwoofer producing frequencies that only whales can hear, and an enclosure the size of a shoe box! Thanks for the laughs also. Laterz!


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldskull said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't EFFICIENCY in a subwoofer means to get the most dBs with the least amount power?
> And all this time I always thought efficiency in a speaker was measured in dBs!
> But thanks to you guys, now I know Efficiency is also measured in Hertz, and in cubic inches!


I can't tell if you're being intelligent or sarcastic.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

If all you're going to do is close your mouth and blow bubbles then i'm going to stop spoon feeding you.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

So much hostility in this thread.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Oldskull said:


> I have these 10s
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What!!!! no M & M'S....:laugh:


----------



## NucFusion (Nov 28, 2010)

Not to bring back any hostilities raised in this thread, just wanted to comment that, while the old school subs I ran may not have been the the 20hz monsters around today, they were more than capable of playing fairly low in a smaller box with a reasonable amount of power.

I ran Kicker solobarics early on and then switched over to a JL Audio 12w6 in a small sealed box running off a RF punch 100 bridged @3 ohms. I have to say that every sub I've had in recent years just doesn't measure up. Sure, I'm getting a little more output from a medium size ported box, with more power, but what little low end gained really isn't enough to account for the loss of SQ.

I do miss the days when 150-300 watts could produce a loud and great sounding car. Sure some of the amps were underrated (well, at least by todays measurements), but even accounting for the true output of the amps and the better charging systems in newer cars, it is very difficult to get great sound using comparable wattage. The efficient stuff now is usually entry level and just lacks the true sound quality. As you go up the quality chain, the power requirements start to get quite large, not only for subs, but for all the speakers. You know its crazy when the highest scoring car in IASCA is running JL HD 750/1's to each driver! And thats just the SQ vehicle..hahah.

Oh well, maybe it is nostalgia for me, but nothing will ever beat the old school subs and amps in my opinion. Now, its just too bad that my 12w6 foam surround has completely rotted off!


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

That's why I like these so much. Pretty efficient, require a large box, very low moving mass, very low inductance. Similar to old school subs but far from entry level. They were only $333 delivered for the pair. I have them on 250w each and it way more than I'll ever need even on 20hz test tones.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

I learned that it was just nostalgia when I was in my nostalgia phase from 2008 to 2009. Granted, I mostly sought out old school amplifiers, but regardless, nearly every single old piece I purchased exhibited some sort of issue. Some were minor, others were major.

Amps, sorry but amplifiers from the late 80s and early 90s can't hold a candle to the modern day powerhouses when it comes to sheer power and efficiency. My favorite amp back in the day was the Punch series amplifiers prior to the HD line, mainly the Punch 150. The 900/5 that I ran in my 2006 mustang GT outperformed it in every way. In fact, one 900/5 from today would easily THREE Punch 150s from back in the day.

I also had a few older processors pass through my hands during my nostalgic phase, mainly the Coustic XM1, XM3, and a Nakamichi EC200. Those yesteryear processors couldn't hold a candle to my Alpine 9887 or my Clarion DXZ785USB.

I won't even consider old school speakers brand new in box, much less something that was previously installed and subjected to the heat and humidity encountered by a vehicle. Untreated paper cones and foam surrounds from back in the day can stay back in the day... Finally, for anyone who mentions the Kicker Solobarics for great sounding small box subwoofers from back in the day, just note that small box technology subwoofers have come a LONG way since then.

Finally, I welcome the new technology versus the twin shaft pioneer supertuner III cassette deck connected to a multitude of speakers and amplifiers that I ran back in the day. I think even Bluetooth streaming has a better frequency response than most cassettes from back in the day.


----------



## Gary S (Dec 11, 2007)

Is efficency really an issue in car audio? You can put more than a thousand watts after market system in an OEM car.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Can you give me an example of an "old school" sub that would work better in my application?


The Stroker 15D2 was 95db and Fs 36Hz, xmax a little low maybe, at 11.5mm 0.45"

Used to run the 18D2 in 3.5cf 33Hz tune and get 2-3" of travel on my steering wheel off a DEi 1100D and a 90a alt-never known anything like it, damn ex made me sell


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

The w15gti has twice the xmax then. And none of the "issues" that used to accompany the strokers.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> The w15gti has twice the xmax then. And none of the "issues" that used to accompany the strokers.


Ok, never bothered to check the Gti's spec

What were the issues? Mine was built like a tank-my muppet installer velcro'd my comp crossovers above the driver and they duley fell off and bounced around for some time before I pulled over to see what the noise was-sub was fine.


----------



## inuyasha.rules (Jun 23, 2012)

well there's alot to be said about this topic. old amps tended to be lower wattage because old alternators were lower amps. my 95 jeep came with a 95amp alternator from the factory, compaired to my 80s honda only put out 45amps or so. i know its not quite apples to apples, but if anyone can prove me wrong im all ears. theres also the fact that the old amps were built like tanks, mostly made in usa, and look good. would i run an old sub? probably not due to modern advances. would i run old school amps? definitely. and for everyone who doesnt believe modern advances can be good, throw your cds away and go back to 8 track


----------



## bamelanc (Sep 13, 2009)

AAAAAAA said:


> If all you're going to do is close your mouth and blow bubbles then i'm going to stop spoon feeding you.


I thought Norm Macdonald was the only funny Canadian. This thread has everything!


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

I used to own and love a 1972 VW Baywindow bus, my 1st car I travelled Europe in it and loved everything about it. Drove one the other day-I cannot believe I enjoyed driving one at all!

Nostalgia is a powerful emotive force!


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Guido said:


> We all had a HUGE bump at 65Hz and loved it. Until the original double stiched Kicker Solo-Barics came out and showed us what Sub bass was all about.


When I do sound for a local 80's retro hair band I voice the PA with a little bump..... 



right at 63 cycles (if looking at it with ISO centers)


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

inuyasha.rules said:


> well there's alot to be said about this topic. old amps tended to be lower wattage because old alternators were lower amps. my 95 jeep came with a 95amp alternator from the factory, compaired to my 80s honda only put out 45amps or so. i know its not quite apples to apples, but if anyone can prove me wrong im all ears. theres also the fact that the old amps were built like tanks, mostly made in usa, and look good. would i run an old sub? probably not due to modern advances. would i run old school amps? definitely. and for everyone who doesnt believe modern advances can be good, throw your cds away and go back to 8 track


My '87 vintage car has a 120a alternator. My TL has a 130a alternator. The GN has a ton of headroom, the TL has much less. New cars may have more alternator output but modern cars require more power as well. I wonder what the actual differnce in headroom is when the only electrical power the car requires to run is for the ignition system vs ECU, fuel pump, injectors, ignition, fans, and any of the many power accessories that you might be using at any given time like seat heaters, rear window defoggers, etc.

Just throwing it out there, I'm sure there are many other variables.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

There were some large amps that drew a lot of current back in the day. The alternator doesn't really matter. As long as it's keeping the battery charged. I don't think manufacturers care much about headlight dimming. Their target demographic probably prefers that they dim.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

BuickGN said:


> My TL has a 130a alternator.


In another thread we were talking about the Pilot/Ridgline/Odyssey alternators. When my wife had a pilot I was really eyeballing it and it eyeballed out to be the same physical size as mine.

Namely the Odyssey, I mean it has more options for entertainment and cooling than my damn house.

One must wonder if it would not be a viable drop-in replacement for someone that does not want to do a re-wind and keep it stock-ish.



MarkZ said:


> Their target demographic probably prefers that they dim.


The same people that fill the structural voids of their trunk lids about 15% full of BB's?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

_"Our amps are so powerful, it will make your headlights dim!"_

That **** is da bomb, yo.

[Trying to use old school car audio lingo]


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

MarkZ said:


> There were some large amps that drew a lot of current back in the day. The alternator doesn't really matter. As long as it's keeping the battery charged. I don't think manufacturers care much about headlight dimming. Their target demographic probably prefers that they dim.


I can't tell you how many times I robbed my grandfather's boat batteries, all deep cycle marine, to keep my three punch 150s going in my 1981 Malibu Classic. This brings back memories of MCADE and DJ Magic Mike on cassette tape through my twin shaft Pioneer in-dash with a SuperTuner III.

His boat ran two batteries, and I had one in my car... In order to keep them fresh, I'd either charge the one in the car, or swap them out with a freshly charged one from his boat. Ahh, the good old days.

Finally, I've said it in other threads and I will say it in this one... ONE JL Audio HD900/5 would easily replace my old school amplifier setup AND be more efficient at doing so!


----------



## for2nato (Apr 3, 2012)

Guido said:


> this thread reminds me of my first bumpn system in the 80's.
> 18" Sub IB in a 442 Ols with a 250W Bass Amp. I feel all happy inside thinking about it. I think I'm gonna find an old 442 and an 18" and a 250W amp again.
> 
> Its Nostalgia! 100% Nostalgia.
> ...


I dont know, i had 2 original kicker 18's in 4ft3 each and my sub bass response was off the hook. That was with a Linear 5002 pushing em walled in a hatchback. It would make you brain hurt around 35hz. Damnt I miss that!


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

ChrisB said:


> in my 1981 Malibu Classic.


I was the fuken master at landing those on all 4 wheels.


----------

