# Best all Around 12" Sub



## sonic purity

I am just taking a poll as to the best all around daily use 12" sub. 650 watt to 1000 watt range. I am taking into account SPL, SQ, Build Quality and Price. The two that come to mind for me are.
RE Audio SE12
Fi Audio SSD12


----------



## ca90ss

JBL W12GTi


----------



## Oliver

IDMAX 12"
JL Audio 12W6v2


----------



## DonovanM

Considering that 'best' exists only in conversation, x2 on... all of the above 

Also, the Dayton HO might deserve a mention.


----------



## Oliver

sonic purity said:


> I am just taking a poll as to the best all around daily use 12" sub. 6500 watt to 1000 watt range. I am taking into account SPL, SQ, Build Quality and Price. The two that come to mind for me are.
> RE Audio SE12
> Fi Audio SSD12


So based on your list , "dirt cheap bump", ala tub thump !


----------



## alxmlr789

Hic said:


> IDMAX 12"
> JL Audio 12W6v2


i second the idmax, maybe a mag.


----------



## Kenny_Cox

i wish I could fit an IDmax in the new install, ive wanted one for a while. I had a 10 inch ssd, fed it with a pdx 1.1000 and it took it like a champ, sounded good too. I wouldnt expect anything less out of the 12 inch


----------



## 89grand

The RE Audio SE subs are outstanding subs. That's all I'll roll these days.


----------



## CrossFired

sonic purity said:


> I am just taking a poll as to the best all around daily use 12" sub. 6500 watt to 1000 watt range. I am taking into account SPL, SQ, Build Quality and Price. The two that come to mind for me are.
> RE Audio SE12
> Fi Audio SSD12


I've done a few Boston G5 subs and they Rock!

If your on the cheap? A Kicker CVX is not a bad choice and will play really loud.


----------



## sonic purity

Id Max is in a different category, like the w7


----------



## khail19

sonic purity said:


> Id Max is in a different category, like the w7


So you really aren't looking for the "best" then?


----------



## sonic purity

khail19 said:


> So you really aren't looking for the "best" then?


No, It not that hard to find a "the best sub" if you have plenty of money. ID max and W7 are some of the best sub available. But I dont want to spend that kinda money. Besides, I am just looking for opinions.


----------



## unpredictableacts

I think it is fair to consder the SSA ICON.
I also second the RE SE.


----------



## bobditts

no such thing as "the best". This is only sparking an opinion war. what good can actually come from this thread besides everyone expressing what THEY think is the best sub?


----------



## Sassmastersq

I've heard some very cool things about the critical mass subs... but $2k is a little steep for me.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

you're gonna think i'm crazy but the entry level premier subs are really nice sq woofers that can get fairly loud too. you'll have to trust me on this one.
http://www.onlinecarstereo.com/CarAudio/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=17682
yes i've heard them and couldn't believe my ears when i heard them.


----------



## Nuno Silva

From the ones that i heard (and liked) two of the bests all around:

12GTI

D9/TDX 12


----------



## rockondon

Like the ID Max. Just dont own one.


----------



## FoxPro5

Lotus, $235 @ MobileSQ.com, buy it.

Otherwise, check the Review section for objective data on "the best."


----------



## toolfan91

I have used SEs off and on as well as in various installs I've done, since 2003 or so... AWESOME subs for the money, I don't think they can be beat.


----------



## Antiwhy

Ascendant Arsenal or Diamond D6 for around $200,SoundSplinter RL-P $300+


----------



## 60ndown

any of the subs mentioned here installed correctly will provide lots of good bass, 

get the cheapest one 'used' you can find.


prolly less than $100.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

60ndown said:


> any of the subs mentioned here installed correctly will provide lots of good bass,
> 
> get the cheapest one 'used' you can find.
> 
> 
> prolly less than $100.


used is always goodi know i rarely buy new anymore


----------



## TampaIS250

I am partial to the Arc 12 myself...


----------



## BLD 25

Like it has already been mentioned, the Soundsplinter RL-p is a serious driver, which seems to have gone out of style a little bit. I have one for sale for $130 shipped if you are interested. I don't think there is much that can beat it for that price.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29063&highlight=arc


----------



## T3mpest

bld 25 said:


> Like it has already been mentioned, the Soundsplinter RL-p is a serious driver, which seems to have gone out of style a little bit. I have one for sale for $130 shipped if you are interested. I don't think there is much that can beat it for that price.
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29063&highlight=arc


avalanches are a great driver that is priced right used as well.


----------



## drocpsu

There's no such thing.


----------



## jrouter76

Hillbilly SQ said:


> you're gonna think i'm crazy but the entry level premier subs are really nice sq woofers that can get fairly loud too. you'll have to trust me on this one.
> http://www.onlinecarstereo.com/CarAudio/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=17682
> yes i've heard them and couldn't believe my ears when i heard them.


Hillbilly SQ thanks for the premier link just what I was looking for


----------



## unpredictableacts

jrouter76 said:


> Hillbilly SQ thanks for the premier link just what I was looking for


They dont sound bad, I was tossing around the idea of picking up a couple at one time, but got a arc flatline in a trade.


----------



## danssoslow

jrouter76 said:


> Hillbilly SQ thanks for the premier link just what I was looking for


Found one dirt cheap. Don't know the place, found it Googling.
http://stereoware.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=1711660


----------



## Oliver

RF punch
http://stereoware.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=1711632


----------



## steves74

How come not much was said about the 12" DIYMA?
I was think of buying one. Comes to about $170 shipped to CA w/ tax.
I guess I can get more for the money somewhere else ????


----------



## BEAVER

I guess most don't consider the DIYMA an "all around" sub.

From what I understand it's a SQ based driver that is not well suited to the abuse of the average user (thumper).


----------



## jrouter76

danssoslow said:


> Found one dirt cheap. Don't know the place, found it Googling.
> http://stereoware.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=1711660


shipping is 31.00 wow


----------



## OgreDave

I'd go w/TC9 based subs. Prices on those are pretty low for whatever reason. SQ-L-ish and pretty damn cheap these days.


----------



## Dangerranger

Second the W6v2 and ID Max. Peerless XXLS is a great one as well.


----------



## grampi

sonic purity said:


> Id Max is in a different category, like the w7


I think you'd have to include the W6 in that catagory as well, but I don't know if it can handle 1K on a daily basis. I think it's only rated for 400 watts or something like that. 1K on a pair though would be no problem.


----------



## danssoslow

jrouter76 said:


> shipping is 31.00 wow


EWW! Bad call.:blush:


----------



## CamCrazy42

ok so lets compile a list here...

RE SE
IDMAX or ID
FI SSD or Q
JBL W12GTi
JL W7 or W6
Dayton HO
Peerless XXLS
Stereo Integrity Mag or BM
Soundsplinter RL-i or RL-p
Ascendant Audio Arsenal, Havoc, or Avalanche
Boston G5 - (Which I wouldn't include but then I've never heard it perform)
PG RSD
SSA ICON
Critical Mass - (But this hardly counts due to it being expensive)
Pioneer Premier TS-W1207D4
Diamond Audio D9/TDX or D6
Polk SR
TC-9 or TC 12 OEM
Arc 12, Foose, or Flatline
Adire Audio Brahama - (Good luck finding one MKI or MKII)
Mach 5 Audio (Maw 12 or SPL12)
OZ Matrix Elite
PG Ti12
Incriminator Audio (Death Penalty or Lethal Injection) more SPL oriented I believe. I like there amps alot though
Audio Pulse (the new TC Sounds)



I could probably add more... but thats something to look at I suppose. Personally these are probably more along the lines that people would reccommend
As far as saying one is better then another, thats for you to decide. Also, as far as money goes... you could buy an amazing sub but it would all come down to your install as to how good it would sound (or at least its potential)

Honestly I think you could list subs for quite a long time if you really wanted to (considering the several different levels within each brand) (Not to mention the name brands, if you fel they were in the same class). All comes down to the price you wanna pay, and what kind of system you are shooting for, whether it be SPL oriented or SQ. 

So no really answer to your very broad question...


----------



## steves74

CamCrazy42 said:


> ok so lets compile a list here...
> 
> RE SE
> IDMAX or ID
> FI SSD or Q
> JBL W12GTi
> JL W7 or W6
> Dayton HO
> Peerless XXLS
> Stereo Integrity Mag or BM
> Soundsplinter RL-i or RL-p
> Ascendant Audio Arsenal, Havoc, or Avalanche
> Boston G5 - (Which I wouldn't include but then I've never heard it perform)
> PG RSD
> SSA ICON
> Critical Mass - (But this hardly counts due to it being expensive)
> Pioneer Premier TS-W1207D4
> Diamond Audio D9/TDX or D6
> Polk SR
> TC-9 or TC 12 OEM
> Arc 12, Foose, or Flatline
> Adire Audio Brahama - (Good luck finding one MKI or MKII)
> Mach 5 Audio (Maw 12 or SPL12)
> OZ Matrix Elite
> PG Ti12
> Incriminator Audio (Death Penalty or Lethal Injection) more SPL oriented I believe. I like there amps alot though
> Audio Pulse (the new TC Sounds)
> 
> 
> 
> I could probably add more... but thats something to look at I suppose. Personally these are probably more along the lines that people would reccommend
> As far as saying one is better then another, thats for you to decide. Also, as far as money goes... you could buy an amazing sub but it would all come down to your install as to how good it would sound (or at least its potential)
> 
> Honestly I think you could list subs for quite a long time if you really wanted to (considering the several different levels within each brand) (Not to mention the name brands, if you fel they were in the same class). All comes down to the price you wanna pay, and what kind of system you are shooting for, whether it be SPL oriented or SQ.
> 
> So no really answer to your very broad question...


Thanks for the list. Since I am on a budget, which one is the best $$$$
*BANG FOR THE BUCK.*.... thanks


----------



## FoxPro5

steves74 said:


> Thanks for the list. Since I am on a budget, which one is the best $$$$
> *BANG FOR THE BUCK.*.... thanks


I think you need to understand, that even if you budget was UNlimited, you still will not find the best sub. For the sound of the sub is much more dependent on YOU then the sub itself.

I didn't see the original JL sub on that list, yet you can go to the Member Install section right and see a truck that has two of them and was/is one of the best in the world (according to competition results.)


----------



## BLD 25

steves74 said:


> Thanks for the list. Since I am on a budget, which one is the best $$$$
> *BANG FOR THE BUCK.*....  thanks


My soundsplinter RL-P that is for sale in the for sale section for $130 shipped.


----------



## Kahooli

the problem I find with "the best XXX" and "this subwoofer made xx years ago was the best" is that, if something made 10 years ago was so spectacular, they wouldnt stop making them, or they would make them again now. no reason not to. slap a new name and logo on it and people WILL buy it.


----------



## thehatedguy

Bang for the buck- IDQ.


----------



## CamCrazy42

If I had to pick the best overall performance for lowest price from my list id say..

ID 12, or Arc 12 (same thing basically) - Around $150

RE SE - Around $160 on ebay

Dayton HO - $138 right now but tends to drop price from time to time

PG RSD - $114 on ebay and even states "Best bang for your Buck" lol 
^^ I know you can get this one for less though

Mach 5 Maw12 - little more than $60 I believe

TC-9 - $120-150?.. Usually not any brand new ones floating around anymore

Ascendant Audio Aresenal - $175 new from SSA, may be able to get Assassin or a used aresenal for cheaper. 

I'll throw in a used RL-p as they usually go for around these prices. - $180~


----------



## bigabe

thehatedguy said:


> Bang for the buck- IDQ.



^^ I'm with this guy...


Although I get dogged here every time I say anything good about the IDQ for some reason.

I'm sorry, I've had lots and lots of subwoofer setups in my life, and to me, nothing beats the all around goodness of a pair od IDQ10s. Deep, plenty loud, accurate, space saving.... and AFFORDABLE. Oh yeah... and IDQs are just about the only woofers I've ever encountered that can get plenty loud in small boxes with VERY little power.


----------



## BEAVER

> Although I get dogged here every time I say anything good about the IDQ for some reason.


It is dogged, quite regularly. It has such a great reputation everywhere else, I always wondered why it was treated as the proverbial redheaded stepchild here... I just figured it was too "maintream" and not as "cool" as DIY drivers.


----------



## thehatedguy

Bingo...and it doesn't have super dupper copper shorting rings It's not like you can hear that stuff with subwoofers anyways.



BEAVER said:


> It is dogged, quite regularly. It has such a great reputation everywhere else, I always wondered why it was treated as the proverbial redheaded stepchild here... I just figured it was too "maintream" and not as "cool" as DIY drivers.


----------



## bassfromspace

BEAVER said:


> It is dogged, quite regularly. It has such a great reputation everywhere else, I always wondered why it was treated as the proverbial redheaded stepchild here... I just figured it was too "maintream" and not as "cool" as DIY drivers.


There's quite a few members that use the IDQ here. I think the consensus is that there's nothing special about the sub and I'd have to agree with that.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

thehatedguy said:


> Bingo...and it doesn't have super dupper copper shorting rings It's not like you can hear that stuff with subwoofers anyways.


and cuz too many people think old technology souldn't sound good?

my arc 12 is built and looks similar to an idq. and i've heard they sound really close only with a little more throw. it's a good feeling when your sub blends in so seamlessly that you can't even tell it's there until you turn it on and off just to make sure it's still there


----------



## bigabe

bassfromspace said:


> There's quite a few members that use the IDQ here. I think the consensus is that there's nothing special about the sub and I'd have to agree with that.


I think that's what makes it so good... there's nothing special. The IDQ just makes bass. Nothing more. Nothing less. It does what it's supposed to without adding a bunch of crap to the mix. And it does for very little money in very little space.


----------



## tr0y_audi0

I would say

RE SE12 very nice

IDQ12 (Iv run afew of them..)
IDmax Great sub

SSA ICON (Installed one heard afew nice sub)

The Arc/ID Subs like great aswell

Thats my short list..lol


----------



## CamCrazy42

BTW 

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=286873

Pair of 10" IDQ's for $175 shipped


----------



## bigabe

CamCrazy42 said:


> BTW
> 
> http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=286873
> 
> Pair of 10" IDQ's for $175 shipped


Are you selling those??

PM me if you are.

I don't have an account at the CA forums.


----------



## thehatedguy

The IDQ must be doing something right to have so many people saying this and that are better than the IDQ is.

But people around here on this board like to talk technobabble a lot of times...without knowing or thinking for themselves. Lots of repeaters here.


----------



## CamCrazy42

"technobabble" as you put it, defines whether a woofer should and will perform in certain situations. Obviously people will tend to get something people reccommend. Nothing wrong with repeaters... proves whatever the equipment is, is definatly worth it. 




thehatedguy said:


> The IDQ must be doing something right to have so many people saying this and that are better than the IDQ is.
> 
> But people around here on this board like to talk technobabble a lot of times...without knowing or thinking for themselves. Lots of repeaters here.


----------



## CamCrazy42

No unfortunatly I'm not... Just make a name it doesnt take long.



bigabe said:


> Are you selling those??
> 
> PM me if you are.
> 
> I don't have an account at the CA forums.


----------



## thehatedguy

Repeaters are people who read a post or two and think they know it all...and go with the flavor of the day. Which, you'll see a lot of the flavor of the day stuff going on here.



CamCrazy42 said:


> "technobabble" as you put it, defines whether a woofer should and will perform in certain situations. Obviously people will tend to get something people reccommend. Nothing wrong with repeaters... proves whatever the equipment is, is definatly worth it.


----------



## bassfromspace

thehatedguy said:


> Repeaters are people who read a post or two and think they know it all...and go with the flavor of the day. Which, you'll see a lot of the flavor of the day stuff going on here.


Then what does that say about you, Mr. Almighty?


----------



## steves74

CamCrazy42 said:


> BTW
> 
> http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=286873
> 
> Pair of 10" IDQ's for $175 shipped


If not sold...send a PM and I will buy them thanks steve


----------



## WLDock

bassfromspace said:


> There's quite a few members that use the IDQ here. I think the consensus is that there's nothing special about the sub and I'd have to agree with that.


I think I would agree that IDQ's are nothing special compared to many subs here today in 2008 but there is not a damn thing anyone can say that disputes the obvious fact that the IDQ holds a SPECIAL place in car audio history. These subs were very effective bass solutions for many years in systems ranging from mild to wild. This was an easy to recommend choice for so many years....I am sure many are sick of the name coming up when there are so many more modern subs around....but even that can't twist history.

Fast forward.....
I think there are MANY subs that will work in a sealed or ported box and not require a ton of space and produce good clean bass with some impact that will shake the car. There are MANY "BEST" all around subs today in 2008! I am sure the IDQ v.3 will be good as well.


----------



## CamCrazy42

Almost wishing these were mine if there is this kind of want for them lol 



steves74 said:


> If not sold...send a PM and I will buy them thanks steve


----------



## bigabe

steves74 said:


> If not sold...send a PM and I will buy them thanks steve



Dibs... I already sent him a message yesterday.


----------



## npdang

Just my humble opinion, but the original IDQ and IDQ v2 was and continues to be one of the most overhyped subs out there. I'm not disputing that it can sound good, nor the fact that it was one of the first low q drivers made for car audio. However, I attribute most of it's reputation to 2 things. 

First, the fact that even today, it's still one of the only low q drivers in the market and thus to 99% of people out there who just throw their subs in a box and don't tune, it will sound "faster" and more "sq oriented" simply because it doesn't have as strong of a low end response, as does most higher q car drivers.

Second, you have a huge base of competitors and essentially people who can make ANY sub sound phenomenal using it. Then you get the fanboys who look up to these people saying "hey, I want one too", not realizing that it's tuning and not equipment that's responsible for what they're hearing.

When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO.


----------



## Class ey!

npdang said:


> Just my humble opinion, but the original IDQ and IDQ v2 was and continues to be one of the most overhyped subs out there. I'm not disputing that it can sound good, nor the fact that it was one of the first low q drivers made for car audio. However, I attribute most of it's reputation to 2 things.
> 
> First, the fact that even today, it's still one of the only low q drivers in the market and thus to 99% of people out there who just throw their subs in a box and don't tune, it will sound "faster" and more "sq oriented" simply because it doesn't have as strong of a low end response, as does most higher q car drivers.
> 
> Second, you have a huge base of competitors and essentially people who can make ANY sub sound phenomenal using it. Then you get the fanboys who look up to these people saying "hey, I want one too", not realizing that it's tuning and not equipment that's responsible for what they're hearing.
> 
> When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO.


I always thought they were good sounding


----------



## npdang

BEAVER said:


> It is dogged, quite regularly. It has such a great reputation everywhere else, I always wondered why it was treated as the proverbial redheaded stepchild here... I just figured it was too "maintream" and not as "cool" as DIY drivers.


Completely wrong. I wouldn't say it's dogged, just not hyped here because of the construction, design, performance, and unit to unit consistency.


----------



## npdang

Class ey! said:


> I always thought they were good sounding


Must not have read where I said I'm not disputing that


----------



## bigabe

npdang said:


> Just my humble opinion, but the original IDQ and IDQ v2 was and continues to be one of the most overhyped subs out there. I'm not disputing that it can sound good, nor the fact that it was one of the first low q drivers made for car audio. However, I attribute most of it's reputation to 2 things.
> 
> First, the fact that even today, it's still one of the only low q drivers in the market and thus to 99% of people out there who just throw their subs in a box and don't tune, it will sound "faster" and more "sq oriented" simply because it doesn't have as strong of a low end response, as does most higher q car drivers.
> 
> Second, you have a huge base of competitors and essentially people who can make ANY sub sound phenomenal using it. Then you get the fanboys who look up to these people saying "hey, I want one too", not realizing that it's tuning and not equipment that's responsible for what they're hearing.
> 
> When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO.



Their frequency response curves completely disagree with your opinion.


IDQs give very even low end in small enclosures, with very little power, for very little money. There is something to be said about that. And I'm sorry... there is something significant about the fact that it is pretty much the most decorated woofer in the the SQ competition world. How many champions have used DIYMA Refs???


----------



## bigabe

npdang said:


> Completely wrong. I wouldn't say it's dogged, just not hyped here because of the construction, design, performance, and unit to unit consistency.



The DIYMA Ref. 12 hasn't exactly been lauded for it's reliability, builtd quality and consistency either.


----------



## Class ey!

npdang said:


> Must not have read where I said I'm not disputing that


no mate, I did read what you said its just that you brought up factors that I didnt know about so now I look at this idq12 Ive got in my basement and i dont think I will look at it the same


----------



## yermolovd

Class ey! said:


> no mate, I did read what you said its just that you brought up factors that I didnt know about so now I look at this idq12 Ive got in my basement and i dont think I will look at it the same


don't worry, it's only a small freq region that the sub plays. 

i still think it sounds good, even though i've been through quite a bit of subs. most were better designed/higher priced than idq. i still can live with an idq.


----------



## BigRed

so npdang, if your view of a good subwoofer is "tuning" after materials etc., why make a "diyma" woofer, when you could have just picked a woofer with excellent craftmanship according to your standards, and told people to tune it on here?


----------



## Oliver

BigRed said:


> so npdang, if your view of a good subwoofer is "tuning" after materials etc., why make a "diyma" woofer, when you could have just picked a woofer with excellent craftmanship according to your standards, and told people to tune it on here?


Ba dump bump dah ,chizzz!


----------



## npdang

bigabe said:


> Their frequency response curves completely disagree with your opinion.
> 
> 
> IDQs give very even low end in small enclosures, with very little power, for very little money. There is something to be said about that. And I'm sorry... there is something significant about the fact that it is pretty much the most decorated woofer in the the SQ competition world. How many champions have used DIYMA Refs???


IDQ's are the are the only exception to Hoffman Iron's law.

Sound quality competitions are the ultimate determinant of a driver's performance and construction, regardless of how it's actually constructed and measured.

Frequency response curves will tell you if a sub is good or not. So subs with identical response curves will be equally good.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Oliver

What's not to love ?


----------



## npdang

bigabe said:


> The DIYMA Ref. 12 hasn't exactly been lauded for it's reliability, builtd quality and consistency either.


Consistency - You know this because you have impedance plots for how many of them? Or maybe you have large signal tests on a good sampling?

Build Quality - I guess a motor with such flat bl and cms curves, low inductance, massive 4 layer ccaw coil on black alum. former, multi-magnet motor, faraday rings, cast frame... all signs of a cheap build I guess. I should just start building drivers with cast frames, poly cones, cheap coils in a non ISO rated facility... 

Forgive my smart ass remarks, but when did this become about the DIYMA? 

BTW, anyone been to ID's forum? You see how many driver failures they've had? How long it takes to get repaired? How some driver's have been repaired? Hell, I love those guys over there and what they're trying to do which is why you rarely hear any of my comments... but sometimes when I see stuff like this posted I can't hold it in any loner.


----------



## npdang

BigRed said:


> so npdang, if your view of a good subwoofer is "tuning" after materials etc., why make a "diyma" woofer, when you could have just picked a woofer with excellent craftmanship according to your standards, and told people to tune it on here?


There is a small component that can't be tuned out, such as inductance and non-linear distortion, as well as compression. To my ears, it's definitely audible and for home use even more so. In a car, 99% of people out there have NEVER heard a properly tuned sub setup. To hear one, is like magic. When you hear a well tuned sub setup everyday though, then you start to pick out the nuances of driver design.


----------



## chongl

Is there anything that would negatively impact sound quality by inverting the DIYMA? Do you just mount it inverted (no need to adjust phase/polarity or anything)?

Thanks!


----------



## thehatedguy

But if the IDQ broke, you can get it fixed after 30 days...and they will be around for longer than 2 years.


----------



## Oliver

chongl said:


> Is there anything that would negatively impact sound quality by inverting the DIYMA? Do you just mount it inverted (no need to adjust phase/polarity or anything)?
> 
> Thanks!


Just flip it over and let your ears tell you if the synergy of the system is working.
If not reverse the leads 180 degrees


----------



## evan

Wow. I've never seen so much hate for the guy who made this website possible. Him saying he doesn't like your sub doesn't make it sound any better or worse than it did two days ago. I've seen enough BS on other forums to appreciate opinions that are actually based on fact.


----------



## thehatedguy

But he's talking about reliability problems of a speaker that out sells his 100 to one, one that has a legit warranty, one that is from a company that has been around for years and is planning on being around. Not to mention while an "old" technology, still sound great. To me it is important to buy products from people who stand behind said products- is why I have Zapco amps.

But to talk about QC problems when you yourself have known issues of cracked cones...and no way to fix the speakers seems odd. However, most of those posts got deleted.


----------



## Class ey!

wow I have to say Im a little shocked right now Ive been lurking around at many forums mainly caraudio, elitecaraudio and caraudioforum for a long time and I never wanted to join those places because most of the guys just are kind of rude and childish to each other. I joined last week thinking this seems to be a nice place to be people are nice but it seems that today people just want to fight, maybe its a monday thing but Im a little disappointed to find that this forum is only a little more mature than the other forums


----------



## evan

thehatedguy said:


> But he's talking about reliability problems of a speaker that out sells his 100 to one, one that has a legit warranty, one that is from a company that has been around for years and is planning on being around. Not to mention while an "old" technology, still sound great. To me it is important to buy products from people who stand behind said products- is why I have Zapco amps.
> 
> But to talk about QC problems when you yourself have known issues of cracked cones...and no way to fix the speakers seems odd. However, most of those posts got deleted.


I must have missed the part where he was comparing them to the DIYMA.


----------



## thehatedguy

You must have not read a few posts.


----------



## evan

thehatedguy said:


> You must have not read a few posts.


He shared his opinion about the ID subs based on fact and then, after bigabe brought it up, he responded to the comments about the DIYMA.

You seem aptly named.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> But he's talking about reliability problems of a speaker that out sells his 100 to one, one that has a legit warranty, one that is from a company that has been around for years and is planning on being around. Not to mention while an "old" technology, still sound great. To me it is important to buy products from people who stand behind said products- is why I have Zapco amps.
> 
> But to talk about QC problems when you yourself have known issues of cracked cones...and no way to fix the speakers seems odd. However, most of those posts got deleted.


WOW, that's just pure bs and you've just lost all credibility with me on this thread. I've never deleted ANY posts on this forum, minus spam and maybe one thread which had porn in it. Go back and search, and you'll find all those good yummy cracked cone threads. So I guess if I use an Accuton or Jordan, blow the cone, I guess those are just crappy poorly built drivers because their cones aren't bulletproof against anyone who wants to crank on em?? Or maybe you are just magnifying a problem of a bare dozen units to somehow apply to almost a thousand of them? Kudos.

Regardless, I stand behind my product. Find one person that says I haven't taken care of them WELL beyond what they expected, and most importantly promptly. Compare that to months with no word on a repair, can't even get t/s parameters, buzzing voice coils...


----------



## dogstar

Class ey, I wouldn't take this as the average thread on Diyma. 
You said you lurked for a while and it seemed nice here... why let one or two threads change your opinion.

Some people got a bug up their butt and attacked Npdang, but he seems to be able to hold his own and make reasonable points.

As for the IDQ, I got no opinion except that if they work well for most people, then that's great. The Diyma R12 was NEVER billed as the "be-all sub for everyone", it was a specialized SQ sub for SQ listening.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

doublepost


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

considering i'm running a sub that sounds a lot like the idq, i definately need more impact. the arc will go in the closet to be used for a more tame system in a vehicle that isn't rednecked out with pipes and roaring tires. my next sub will be an arsenal with a hefty digital designs 2-channel pushing over 600rms to ithowever, the arc sounds VERY nice.


----------



## bigabe

Nobody is getting hostile here... it's not like this is a flamewar or anything. As far as I'm concerned, some good points have been made about a wide variety of woofers.

Isn't that the whole idea behind a discussion about "SQ subwoofers"??


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ

dogstar said:


> Class ey, I wouldn't take this as the average thread on Diyma.
> You said you lurked for a while and it seemed nice here... why let one or two threads change your opinion.
> 
> Some people got a bug up their butt and attacked Npdang, but he seems to be able to hold his own and make reasonable points.
> 
> As for the IDQ, I got no opinion except that if they work well for most people, then that's great. The Diyma R12 was NEVER billed as the "be-all sub for everyone", it was a specialized SQ sub for SQ listening.


Not ad fuel to the fire, but IDQ vs.DIYMA, on the build quality issues, I've always thought the IDQ's build quality was cheap looking. I've used many ID products. The new IDQ V.3 is out, and in all honesty, the V.3 should be what the IDQ "is". The IDQ hasn't been upgraded in years....but yet the V.3 is out, and they have the nerve to charge more for it over the IDQ V.2, which they are still offering. I don't see the point. 
Hands down the DIYMA has better build quality than the IDQ V.2, and it's coming from a small ran project headed by Np. I would think ID would do better in this area considering they are mass corp company.


----------



## npdang

evan said:


> He shared his opinion about the ID subs based on fact and then, after bigabe brought it up, he responded to the comments about the DIYMA.
> 
> You seem aptly named.


Thank you. And I even said it could sound good!

I figure it's much easier to take cheap shots at me, than to talk about a cheap coil that isn't centered properly, no venting, stamped basket, cork gasket, and poly cone as the pinnacle of loudspeaker design as some would believe.


----------



## bigabe

npdang said:


> Regardless, I stand behind my product. Find one person that says I haven't taken care of them WELL beyond what they expected, and most importantly promptly. Compare that to months with no word on a repair, can't even get t/s parameters, buzzing voice coils...



You're referring to a few isolated problems that have occurred with products that are sold by the THOUSANDS.

Me, personally, I've never had any issues with a single Image Dynamics woofer. I've used all of them too. Not one buzzing coil, no inconsistencies in frequency response (yes, I have taken the time to fully test and plot all of my woofers). And come to think of it, I don't actually know anybody who has. And the few times I've called ID for tech support purposes, they have been MORE than helpful. Hell, most of the time, I ended of talking to the owner of the company. That's always nice. Anybody who has problems with their customer service is obviously too lazy to pick up a phone because if you call during business hours, they answer every time.

I've seen a few posts here and there regarding problems with ID woofers, and I've seen one person complaining about not being able to get T/S parameters for one driver that almost nobody would actually need T/S parameters for... and if you are so in to things that you do, you could easily measure them yourself. 

How does a few isolated incidents among thousands and thousands of woofers sold indicate problems??? If you ask me, it looks like the ID woofers are pretty damn reliable. Especially considering I've owned over 10 of them in my lifetime with zero problems, and the two DIYMAs I've had rattled, buzzed, popped, and finally blew completely after very little use.


----------



## unpredictableacts

Class ey! said:


> wow I have to say Im a little shocked right now Ive been lurking around at many forums mainly caraudio, elitecaraudio and caraudioforum for a long time and I never wanted to join those places because most of the guys just are kind of rude and childish to each other. I joined last week thinking this seems to be a nice place to be people are nice but it seems that today people just want to fight, maybe its a monday thing but Im a little disappointed to find that this forum is only a little more mature than the other forums


Understand this before you pass judgement....Diyma is full of inforative people, and most have been around the audio industry a long time, However even with this there will be disagreements. The great thing is thatthis tthread will not get locked over a simple disagreement. I think that simple purpose puts diyma leaps and bonds over others. Just sit back and enjoy and take in valuable info.


----------



## Class ey!

unpredictableacts said:


> Understand this before you pass judgement....Diyma is full of inforative people, and most have been around the audio industry a long time, However even with this there will be disagreements. The great thing is thatthis tthread will not get locked over a simple disagreement. I think that simple purpose puts diyma leaps and bonds over others. Just sit back and enjoy and take in valuable info.


hey mate you are right but I didnt mean to come off that way out of all the forums this is still the best one as far as knowledgeable people and people that will go out of the way to help you. and overall people just seem friendly more than other forums I could never join caraudio or the other forums because Ive seen how they treat new members but my arrival here has been pretty good many people are nice overall, it just urks me a little that there are people just arguing over something like this small thngs. but I do like the forum overall I guess you cant have it all

cheers!


----------



## tyroneshoes

npdang said:


> Thank you. And I even said it could sound good!
> 
> I figure it's much easier to take cheap shots at me, than to talk about a cheap coil that isn't centered properly, no venting, stamped basket, cork gasket, and poly cone as the pinnacle of loudspeaker design as some would believe.


There is no doubt that the DIYMA is a more advanced sub as far as technology and measurements go.

The one thing that keeps the IDQ around is that its fairly idiot proof. You can basically toss the 12 in any box from .75 to 1.5cuft and get what most people think is a great response. And give it anywhere from 200-600 watts and work well. And they can sound good and have when I ran them. Same goes for ported designs with it. It even works IB. It holds up to clipping and lasts pretty long when abused. Not too costly either.

But you cant compare it to a diyma which is not meant for idiot proof installs. Its aimed for a specific community that is going for a transparent type of sound and is more fragile due to the strength of the motor and cone. And to be honest 80% of car audio people are not looking for that. People who are looking for that specific type of sub have a great deal with the diyma. It's not a one-for-all type of design like the IDQ. 

The IDQ is so big because it is a great all-around sub. It doesnt excel in any specific area but does it all pretty well in most and is idiot proof. It can be a transparent or spl based driver. Its not the most impressive looking, actually it's among the least IMO, but its reliable and easy to work with and has a good rep.

But it is apples and oranges. Id still install one for a friend in a budget install but since you can get something like the dayton HO for less, I wouldnt unless I had under 250 watts. But not many people know about the dayton or cant imagine it being as good as the IDQ so thats still their best selling sub.


----------



## thehatedguy

When did a cork gasket have anything to do with how a woofer sounds?

And talking about poly cones...I would like for you to take that up with Per Skaaning, the good folks at Dynaudio, and JL Audio to name a few companies who use poly cones in HIGHLY successful SQ speaker systems. Atleast poly won't crack and shatter...

Stamped baskets? When did that affect the sound of a driver. Again, see the afoward mentioned companies who use stamped baskets. As long as the basket is strong enough to support the motor without twisting, who cares what the basket material is?

IDQs- made in USA by a company who has been around for 15 years. Have a warranty and is able to be fixed.

DIYMA? I don't think you can say any of that stuff about it.


----------



## CMR22

unpredictableacts said:


> Just sit back and enjoy and take in valuable info.


That is true 99% of the time but this thread is full of ca.com-type cheap shots.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

do i need to post pics of kittens to lighten the mood in here?


----------



## Neil

Everything I have heard from ID has been way over-hyped with the exception of their horns. Everything else (IDMAX included) has never struck me as amazing "SQ" (whatever the hell that means) products. Fine products with a good pedigree, but nothing exceptional...definitely not on-par with all the hype they receive online.

edit: And this is not to say that they are bad products or that the DIYMA sub is better (I haven't bought one....not sure about reliability based on what I have read) but I am saying that there are a large number of drivers out there that will compete or beat everything from ID.


----------



## npdang

bigabe said:


> You're referring to a few isolated problems that have occurred with products that are sold by the THOUSANDS.
> 
> Me, personally, I've never had any issues with a single Image Dynamics woofer. I've used all of them too. Not one buzzing coil, no inconsistencies in frequency response (yes, I have taken the time to fully test and plot all of my woofers). And come to think of it, I don't actually know anybody who has. And the few times I've called ID for tech support purposes, they have been MORE than helpful. Hell, most of the time, I ended of talking to the owner of the company. That's always nice. Anybody who has problems with their customer service is obviously too lazy to pick up a phone because if you call during business hours, they answer every time.
> 
> I've seen a few posts here and there regarding problems with ID woofers, and I've seen one person complaining about not being able to get T/S parameters for one driver that almost nobody would actually need T/S parameters for... and if you are so in to things that you do, you could easily measure them yourself.
> 
> How does a few isolated incidents among thousands and thousands of woofers sold indicate problems??? If you ask me, it looks like the ID woofers are pretty damn reliable. Especially considering I've owned over 10 of them in my lifetime with zero problems, and the two DIYMAs I've had rattled, buzzed, popped, and finally blew completely after very little use.


Problem is both you and I are speculating. You don't know the problem is isolated, nor do I know it's not. Looking at their forum, it would not seem so isolated to me. Regardless of whether they sell 100 or 1000's of drivers, there are alot of unhappy people. I also actually keep an accurate accounting of my own drivers, so in that regard I can speak without speculation whereas you cannot.

Personally, between my friends and I we've owned probably close to a hundred ID products. I couldn't get t/s specs within 20% for any of them or a centered coil on any of the dozen or so I've measured... admittedly a small sample, but more than anyone else including probably ID have measured. Not a big deal, and only one in the sense that you believe without offering any evidence that this is the case that their drivers are all exactly on spec. And personally, I've had both of my Idmax's (owned over 2yrs apart) critically fail. Ask Dual700, he had them repaired for me. And you guys know I'm no bass head. And almost everyone I know has sworn off the cx drivers, which had bent formers or mis-aligned coils that buzzed like crazy. Again this doesn't tell us anything, but for every story you've got I've got one too, and probably many more. 

The whole point I'm trying to make is let's not get too carried away representing our experiences as "facts" about any brand or driver. Someone asked for an opinion and I gave it. I would have stayed well out of this, until someone posted that us diy'ers somehow shun the almighty IDQ because of some elitist notion. Next thing you know there's a bandwagon of people agreeing with this statement, as if we turn our noses down at anything that doesn't come from a fancy European name. Total bs, which is why I posted my reasons and prefaced it with a IMHO for good measure!


----------



## skylar112

I can say this about the DIYMA if something happens npdang has given new ones in place of the damage one. Thats better than any warranty I can think of. For the price what else is close in SQ? And the diyma is hands down the more transparent sub I've ever heard.


----------



## kappa546

well i'll stick to the thread question. i freaking love my diyma but i've also really liked my ascendant audio atlas, avalanche and arsenal 12's, Dayton 12HO, and loved my w12gti and Aura NS12.


----------



## tyroneshoes

DevilDriver said:


> Everything I have heard from ID has been way over-hyped with the exception of their horns. Everything else (IDMAX included) has never struck me as amazing "SQ" (whatever the hell that means) products. Fine products with a good pedigree, but nothing exceptional...definitely not on-par with all the hype they receive online.
> 
> edit: And this is not to say that they are bad products or that the DIYMA sub is better (I haven't bought one....not sure about reliability based on what I have read) but I am saying that there are a large number of drivers out there that will compete or beat everything from ID.


Id agree with that. Lots of hype on the IDQ but there is a sub that will outperform it in whatever setup you choose. But really, all attitudes and internet hype and good name involved, the idq is on par with mid price range woofers from MTX and the like. Idiot proof and easy to work with. My old installer (who is respected and well known) dropped Image due to problems with getting warranty replacements and actually was the one to compare the IDQ to the MTX 6000 and state that the MTX is an overall better sub, just that mtx looks cheesy and people associate ID with SQ. After hearing the MTX car he did, I was impressed. Still, I wouldnt replace my IDQ for one. Just dont want anything made by MTX as stupid as that is.


Also, ID support has always been very helpful and easy to get in touch with in my experience so I dont want to badmouth their products or service at all.


----------



## 89grand

I have to say this: I've been probably one of the most, if not the most vocal members with my experiences with the DIYMA and discussions have gotten heated at times, but I've never had a thread or post deleted, I've never been threatened to be banned, so any accusations of anything like that happening to anyone or any thread it toal BS!

Also, I was promtly given a new sub after the first one took a ****, and when I offered to pay shipping, npdang didn't even accept. Granted, in the end the sub obviously wasn't the right sub for me, but I doubt even a company as big as ID would have treated me any better, and more than likley, not as good.


----------



## thehatedguy

No one defending the IDQ is having an "elitist" attitude. In fact, it would be the other way around from where I sit.

But how do gasket materials and stamped baskets effect the woofer's performance? Never mind that Per Skaaning seems to really like poly cones...as does JL. I don't know how many of yuo guys have read the Stereophile review of the Phantom...but it was excellent- poly cone and all.

I've owned ID products since probably 1995 and yet to have one fail on me, and I DO bang on the product.

And if I have a woofer fail next year, I can get it fixed. There will be no more getting new DIYMA 12s when the supply runs out...there will not be any getting them fixed with aftermarket parts either. What value is there in having an already obsolete (in terms of repair) speaker? And resale value has gone down the toilet since being sold brand new on eBay for close to what he has in them.


----------



## Neil

tyroneshoes said:


> Still, I wouldnt replace my IDQ for one. Just dont want anything made by MTX as stupid as that is.


I don't think that's stupid at all (well, I guess it is, but I understand it). Humans need identification more than sensoric satisfaction (per psychology) and we all do it, all the time. And that's the reason many people try to justify how great ID products are...because they enjoy being a part of the ID "SQ" cool club and not necessarily because ID are in fact the best products.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> When did a cork gasket have anything to do with how a woofer sounds?
> 
> And talking about poly cones...I would like for you to take that up with Per Skaaning, the good folks at Dynaudio, and JL Audio to name a few companies who use poly cones in HIGHLY successful SQ speaker systems. Atleast poly won't crack and shatter...
> 
> Stamped baskets? When did that affect the sound of a driver. Again, see the afoward mentioned companies who use stamped baskets. As long as the basket is strong enough to support the motor without twisting, who cares what the basket material is?
> 
> IDQs- made in USA by a company who has been around for 15 years. Have a warranty and is able to be fixed.
> 
> DIYMA? I don't think you can say any of that stuff about it.


If the driver didn't have IMAGE DYNAMICS stamped on it I know you wouldn't be lauding the merits of stamped baskets, cork gaskets, and poly cones!  

Regardless, still doesn't answer alot of questions about bl/cms linearity, venting, voice coil, etc. I think you know also that the stuff Skaanig is using is in an entirely different league than the poly cones on an IDQ.

C'mon, many of us have been to the ID factory. Don't try to spin it off as some high tech production facility. I know the last time I was there that I saw no Q/C equipment in the production area. Even DST has moved alot production to China... and the pics of their facility show a very modern facility with tons of nice equipment. Alot of these overseas factories are iso certififed too... can't say the same here.

I agree with you though, it does have a warranty and it is able to be fixed. Good points, good guys, and makes me shed a tear to say these things but I think you are just being completely biased here.


----------



## thehatedguy

I would have said the same thing about JL or any other driver there.

You said poly...as in all poly cones.

I'm not being biased, I'm supporting a product that I believe in...like a few other people here. I would do the same thing for ANY other product I believe in- I love me some Genesis amps, Audisons are nice, RF were nice, Memphis builds a good product for the general consumer, DD woofers are incredible, as are JBL. Yet I don't own ANY of that product.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> No one defending the IDQ is having an "elitist" attitude. In fact, it would be the other way around from where I sit.
> 
> But how do gasket materials and stamped baskets effect the woofer's performance? Never mind that Per Skaaning seems to really like poly cones...as does JL. I don't know how many of yuo guys have read the Stereophile review of the Phantom...but it was excellent- poly cone and all.
> 
> I've owned ID products since probably 1995 and yet to have one fail on me, and I DO bang on the product.
> 
> And if I have a woofer fail next year, I can get it fixed. There will be no more getting new DIYMA 12s when the supply runs out...there will not be any getting them fixed with aftermarket parts either. What value is there in having an already obsolete (in terms of repair) speaker? And resale value has gone down the toilet since being sold brand new on eBay for close to what he has in them.


Why you keep talking about the DIYMA? Makes me wonder if you have some agenda or bias.


----------



## thehatedguy

Why are you talking about the IDQ, makes me wonder the same thing.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> I would have said the same thing about JL or any other driver there.
> 
> You said poly...as in all poly cones.
> 
> I'm not being biased, I'm supporting a product that I believe in...like a few other people here. I would do the same thing for ANY other product I believe in- I love me some Genesis amps, Audisons are nice, RF were nice, Memphis builds a good product for the general consumer, DD woofers are incredible, as are JBL. Yet I don't own ANY of that product.


Never seen it from you honestly... but mention ID and you're right there. Are you affiliated with them in anyway? Received any free product, advice? Friends with the owner/employees?

Like I said, it can sound good. Why not leave it at that? Was anything I said about it so far where I did not state that it was my personal opinion, not true?


----------



## Neil

thehatedguy said:


> Why are you talking about the IDQ, makes me wonder the same thing.


Could you not defend the IDQ on it's own merit? What does the DIYMA sub have to do with how good the IDQ is (or isn't)?


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> Why are you talking about the IDQ, makes me wonder the same thing.


Lol you kill me man... I only posted my opinion on it like anyone else is entitled to. You're responding to my opinoin on it, and then somehow sneaking in shots at the DIYMA.


----------



## niceguy

Perhaps threads like these should be entirely ignored before becoming more CAF/Termpro like....


----------



## thehatedguy

I'm no more sneaking shots at the DIYMA 12 than you are with the IDQ.

I'm on the ID team, but I receive no free product nor do I have a vested interest in sales of any product. I don't get a commission check when someone buys ID.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ

Maybe he is getting some type of check directly from ID......makes me wonder when people are so die hard set for certain products. 
I stand for what is right and what is good. It has to be earned, not based off of the ideas of the masses.
Keep in mind though, this forum is not for the masses either. If that was such the case, we wouldn't need a review forum. Our review forum has quality information on all levels, and not that "it sounds nice". Our reivew forum is 4x as deep as CA.com. I'm not putting CA down, but just stating the facts. In the world of DIY, some of the cheapest drivers have warmed the hearts of many here. 
We're not against ID or the IDQ. We're just all in agreement that other drivers are just as good or better than the IDQ when price,performance,and other factors are given into the measure as well. Personally, I'd take a $60 JBL GTO 12" over an IDQ and save $150. I'd take a Dayton HO 12 over an IDMAX.


----------



## thehatedguy

I wish I got paid from selling product. I sure could use the money so I can save up for a JBL MS-8 when it comes out.


----------



## chadillac3

niceguy said:


> Perhaps threads like these should be entirely ignored before becoming more CAF/Termpro like....


This is significantly more civilized than the type of thread typically found on those type of forums.


----------



## thehatedguy

Come on now...Termpro isn't THAT bad. But if it isn't DD, Fi, or T3 then it probably isn't talked about that much.


----------



## durwood

Let's face it. No one likes to hear any negative comments about a specific product they like to use or prefer or even designed.

I've seen some stamped steel baskets warped or bent from the factory (not mentioning any company).


----------



## Neil

People should stop being so paranoid about this forum "turning" into something else.


----------



## chadillac3

thehatedguy said:


> Come on now...Termpro isn't THAT bad. But if it isn't DD, Fi, or T3 then it probably isn't talked about that much.


Actually, you're right...I have no idea, but I do remember what CAF was like a few years ago.  But you may have been referring back to the dude I quoted.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> I'm no more sneaking shots at the DIYMA 12 than you are with the IDQ.
> 
> I'm on the ID team, but I receive no free product nor do I have a vested interest in sales of any product. I don't get a commission check when someone buys ID.


Lol c'mon am I going crazy or am I just talking to 5 different people? I'm talking about the IDQ, I'm not talking about JBL and then somewhere in there oh yeah the IDQ sucks btw.

I forget which hated guy you are, but I coulda swore you guys don't pay for your audio toys.


----------



## 89grand

npdang said:


> I forget which hated guy you are, but I coulda swore you guys don't pay for your audio toys.


There were some rumors...


----------



## skylar112

89grand said:


> There were some rumors...


x2


----------



## dogstar

chadillac3 said:


> This is significantly more civilized than the type of thread typically found on those type of forums.


Poison is more civilized than blunt impact trauma, but murder is murder. 

Some backhanded shots have been taken from both sides I'd say.


----------



## thehatedguy

Speaking of which, how's Jeff's Klippel machine been?


----------



## Rudeboy

npdang said:


> Completely wrong. I wouldn't say it's dogged, just not hyped here because of the construction, design, performance, and unit to unit consistency.


So if I understand you (and I'm sure I do since like most forum participants I read every third word and fill in the blanks myself) you are planning to drive Image Dynamics out of business in the same way you crushed Hybrid Audio Technologies by flooding the market with DIYMA 3" mid?

Come on people, npdang provided an informed opinion that sound pretty reasonable and non-confrontational. It's almost obvious - the IDQ has been around forever. Perfect sacred cow. By any standard it is a very successful product. ID is updating their product line so they apparently agree that they haven't yet created timeless perfection. I myself have 2 Arc 10s in the trunk that are apparently some sort of ID product. His comment didn't make me question thinking they sound good to me or make me want to insult him. I want to hear MORE from people who know enough about any topic to show me why something I take on faith is actually open for discussion.

I don't mean any disrespect when I say that the DIYMA 12 looks more like an experiment or project more than a business. I don't think ID or any other manufacturers are holding late night meetings to come up with strategies to deal with the DIYMA 12 threat. Being the man behind the DIYMA 12 gives npdang the kind of practical experience that most of us will never have and INCREASES his credibility on related topics. Things might be different if DIYMA 12s weren't starting at $.01 on eBay. As it is, I don't see the conflict of interest and want to encourage him and others to speak freely. Those who disagree have every right to offer countering evidence on the same point. WTF is so hard about that?


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> Speaking of which, how's Jeff's Klippel machine been?


At least it was something that benefitted everyone... and not just myself. Hell, I worked my ass off on and it was more like a second job than a toy I was given and sold when I was bored with it and needed some cash...

My last post as this is getting far too off topic.


----------



## evan

Unsubscribed.


----------



## thehatedguy

I don't recall me every selling something he has given me. I have given a lot of people stuff that he has given me.

Speaking of his Klippel, you still have it?


----------



## dogstar

Rudeboy said:


> I don't mean any disrespect when I say that the DIYMA 12 looks more like an experiment or project more than a business. *I don't think ID or any other manufacturers are holding late night meetings to come up with strategies to deal with the DIYMA 12 threat.* Being the man behind the DIYMA 12 gives npdang the kind of practical experience that most of us will never have and INCREASES his credibility on related topics. Things might be different if DIYMA 12s weren't starting at $.01 on eBay. As it is, I don't see the conflict of interest and want to encourage him and others to speak freely. Those who disagree have every right to offer countering evidence on the same point. WTF is so hard about that?


No, all the other manufacturers are coming up with conspiracies to counter the elemental designs threat. 

OOOOOOOoooooooOOOOO FEAR the 13A that keeps getting paper-released.


----------



## npdang

evan said:


> Unsubscribed.


You had to make a post just to say this? I'm tempted to delete it, except that's not my style.

Besides, what's your problem? We're just having a difference of opinion, not flaming each other.

We're just playing around anyway. Those guys know I got love for em.


----------



## thehatedguy

Now that's funny I don't care who you are.


----------



## thehatedguy

Same here, much respect for you here too.



npdang said:


> You had to make a post just to say this? I'm tempted to delete it, except that's not my style.
> 
> Besides, what's your problem? We're just having a difference of opinion, not flaming each other.
> 
> We're just playing around anyway. Those guys know I got love for em.


----------



## chadillac3

Deleted for lack of being funny.


----------



## WLDock

Man...You guys blew this post way out of proportion. Both sides make good points but neither can dispute or add what we all know.......That the IDQ is an undisputed car audio legend....even if it was not the best built or best looking sub (My old Boston Pro looked much better I hated the way the IDQ looked).

Does not matter if one guy loves them and one guys thinks otherwise. Those subs were a big part of car audio history.

Anyway, who brought the DIYMA into this topic? Definitely not the "Best all around 12" sub" and I have yet to run one. As far as quality issues....name me a car audio company that never had those?

This forum is still the best around..... If you like to do it yourself and you are open to hearing what others have to say. There is just too much gear around to get "Caught Up" thinking one knows what's "Best" for everyone.


----------



## evan

npdang said:


> You had to make a post just to say this? I'm tempted to delete it, except that's not my style.
> 
> Besides, what's your problem? We're just having a difference of opinion, not flaming each other.
> 
> We're just playing around anyway. Those guys know I got love for em.


I knew I would regret it, but I looked again. 

...All the things you could delete and this is what tempts you??? I posted that to show that this is exactly what I don't like about forums. Stupid bickering that takes useful threads off topic. The topic isn't IDQ vs. DIYMA, and I'm pretty sure we've covered both of them enough to count them out as "Best all around 12". If I had the power I would have been tempted to delete a lot of this thread.

Your criticism is interesting, especially since after I finished posting I noticed that you had said:


npdang said:


> My last post as this is getting far too off topic.


Anyway, it feels like you just pissed in my Cheerios so I'm going to go take the dog for a walk.


----------



## npdang

evan said:


> I knew I would regret it, but I looked again.
> 
> ...All the things you could delete and this is what tempts you??? I posted that to show that this is exactly what I don't like about forums. Stupid bickering that takes useful threads off topic. The topic isn't IDQ vs. DIYMA, and I'm pretty sure we've covered both of them enough to count them out as "Best all around 12". If I had the power I would have been tempted to delete a lot of this thread.
> 
> Your criticism is interesting, especially since after I finished posting I noticed that you had said:
> 
> 
> Anyway, it feels like you just pissed in my Cheerios so I'm going to go take the dog for a walk.


You're taking it way too hard. Honestly, I was just playing with you. I can't poke some fun now and then  Trust me, no one's bickering over anything, plus I hope "some" useful info came out of this for someone. Chalk it up to "a slow day at work".


----------



## FoxPro5

Wow, there are threads WAY worse than this one. IIRC the L3 thread got nasty and was locked. But other than that I don't recall another one ever being locked or a thread deleted. 

Glad to see NPD is still hanging out at the Do Second Skin Yourself Mobile Audio Forum/Enterprise, though.


----------



## Abmolech

It has got to be one of the more amusing threads for a while. I like passion, especially if it is tempered. 
I still vote for a separate "sub" forum.

I can't see subs are hard to get right in a car.
Just me.
Considering these devices play below room axial modes, are in the best format possible (Mono), they couldn't be easier to get right. 

Try something more interesting like mid bass, and then we might have something worth debating.

Leave the sub woofers for the noobs.


----------



## ws6 beat

tc2+


----------



## MiniVanMan

Abmolech said:


> It has got to be one of the more amusing threads for a while. I like passion, especially if it is tempered.
> I still vote for a separate "sub" forum.
> 
> I can't see subs are hard to get right in a car.
> Just me.
> Considering these devices play below room axial modes, are in the best format possible (Mono), they couldn't be easier to get right.
> 
> Try something more interesting like mid bass, and then we might have something worth debating.
> 
> Leave the sub woofers for the noobs.


Okay, answer this one then smarty pants. 

My midbass is extremely lacking. 

Here's my equipment.

Alpine Head Unit
(2x) RL-p 12's D4
Sundown 1500D
Phoenix Gold RSD 6.5" components
Sundown 100.2

I really want my midbass to be able to keep up with my subs. My PG components can't do it. Can you recommend me something that will. I don't want to spend more that $150.00.


----------



## Abmolech

An 8" with at least 12mm of xmax.

Consider upgrading the power amplifier mandatory

(Nothing less than 300 watts)


----------



## ca90ss

Abmolech said:


> An 8" with at least 12mm of xmax.


Any recommendations?


----------



## MiniVanMan

ca90ss said:


> Any recommendations?


Yeah, that takes 300 watts in a basically IB configuration. Even if it's only dynamically.


----------



## Abmolech

I stopped recommending specific drivers a long time ago.
I found myself moaning (OK whining ) about various offerings.
Took the plunge and got some ones made to my custom specifications.

So now I only have myself to blame.:blush: 

Anyhow, look for the usual, 
Low inductance (OK shorting rings, possibly multiple)
Low Qts
Large motor (yes I know the efficiency drops)
neodymium magnets (Easier to install) Preferably in a half sphere to maximise BL
I always go for high impedance, but that is because I use arrays, but it also helps to reduce inductance, and forms a natural roll off (no need for a bandpass)

Personally I favour cone and surround performance criteria (Modal lines and cone breakup) over motor design.
IE that is the prime determiner of harmonic distortion performance once the basic motor design has been attended to.


----------



## Abmolech

> 300 watts in a basically IB configuration


I don't like IB (2 times VAS).
Sure when the driver is new it is fine, but have a test of that suspension compliance once you have (AB)used it for a while.
Air as a non linear compliance is superior in the long term in my opinion. Sure you have acoustic loading in the enclosure, and that causes group delay in the response. (Rear wave back through the cone) I am yet to be convinced the superior re-centring of the voice coil ability of air, is matched by a suspension compliance alone.
IE the suspension compliance of a high QTS driver is not in the game, in the long term.


----------



## durwood

I'd say that new CSS 7" with the adire motor might be a contender, but it will cost you $200.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26325


----------



## dbiegel

This is a decent 12" sub, and only costs $6.99.










Seriously though, I've heard a few IDQ 12s setup infinite baffle and they all sounded fantastic. Another sub worth considering that noone seems to have mentioned is the OZ Audio Matrix Elite 12. The DIYMA would definitely be near the top of my list too, especially at the prices they're going for right now.


----------



## Eric Stevens

npdang said:


> Just my humble opinion, but the original IDQ and IDQ v2 was and continues to be one of the most overhyped subs out there. I'm not disputing that it can sound good, nor the fact that it was one of the first low q drivers made for car audio. However, I attribute most of it's reputation to 2 things.
> *
> Not over hyped just well loved*
> 
> First, the fact that even today, it's still one of the only low q drivers in the market and thus to 99% of people out there who just throw their subs in a box and don't tune, it will sound "faster" and more "sq oriented" simply because it doesn't have as strong of a low end response, as does most higher q car drivers.
> *
> There is a lot more to the IDQ subs than the low "Q" . *
> 
> Second, you have a huge base of competitors and essentially people who can make ANY sub sound phenomenal using it. Then you get the fanboys who look up to these people saying "hey, I want one too", not realizing that it's tuning and not equipment that's responsible for what they're hearing.
> *
> Funny most of the IASCA winning cars I have tuned "back in the day" had very little equalization below 80 hz and only about 1 of those had the benefit of time alignment. Oh and to throw another wrench in the works back then you were not allowed to make adjustments to the system between RTA , SPL and sound quality judging and you did SPL and RTA first!!! So it had to be able to get loud and sound good at the same time! Imagine that*
> 
> When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO.


The look of the IDQ V.2 wasn't much, that part you are correct on. There is no rocket science or ground breaking technology, what the IDQ V.2 has is a good design that works.

The merits of the construction?? Care to tell me specifically where the construction of the subwoofer was sub par?

Materials used? Care to tell me specifically what was wrong with the materials used?

Production consistency? We have been building the drivers the same way for too many years  and they consistently measured with the parameters we advertised. Since you have some experience you will know that spider compliance has a total +\- tolerance of 30% which will get reduced to about 10% after breaking in. Care to share some specific details on production inconsistencies?

Yes the IDQ V.2 is and was a dated design when I started to design the V.3 in 2001. To many things got in the way of that being completed and they continued as is for another 6 years. I think this is a testament to the quality of the product. 

While I am biased I do know how to look objectively and I will be the first to admit fault or defeat. What do you have against people voicing there opinions on the IDQ?

Opinions are like ******** everyone has got one. They all tend to be different also. Please give your opinion and leave it at that without the attacks on the product.

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## Neil

How does someone give an opinion on a product without being negative if they are unimpressed with that product? Should it be sugar-coated because someone who likes the product might read it?


----------



## ///Audience

Eric Stevens said:


> What do you have against people voicing there opinions on the IDQ?
> Please give your opinion and leave it at that without the attacks on the product.
> 
> Eric Stevens
> Image Dynamics


Since i am no expert on driver design, i will avoid that debate.. however, NPdang never attempted discouraging people from voicing their own opinions nor did he ever insult people for their opinions.

His "attacks" were well researched and his "OPINIONS" (that you claim he needs to allow more of) were of intentions only to inform the readers of DIYMA, not send out personal attacks on a product.

I have personally been a big fan of ID products, however when a company cant take harmless criticism and has to bash someone else on a forum to justify their products, that company goes down a few notches in my book.


----------



## avaxis

DevilDriver said:


> How does someone give an opinion on a product without being negative if they are unimpressed with that product? Should it be sugar-coated because someone who likes the product might read it?


lol. which is funny, quite a number of people go around with the "i have it so it must sound good" attitude. personally i couldn't care less. it may not sound good in your car cause you're lousy at tuning or installation. but hell, mine sounds great.

personally i believe if you have never owned/used it you have no right to make any negative remarks about it (with the exception of looks maybe). but if you did own it, then you do. that being said i think my JL 10w6v2 sucks! (not, actually i highly recommend it for a small enclosure like 0.7cuft).


----------



## bigabe

DevilDriver said:


> How does someone give an opinion on a product without being negative if they are unimpressed with that product? Should it be sugar-coated because someone who likes the product might read it?



Dang is saying things about the drivers and the manufacturing behind them that are simply not true... in fact, it's bordering on libel. 

It's not a "bad review" or somebody "offering their opinion"... it's needless and unfounded product bashing. Especially considering that it's coming from someone that offers a product with reliability issues itself.

Notice he's gone now that Mr. Stevens showed up.


----------



## mvw2

HOLY ****!!! @ this thread. What happened?! 


By the way, Hi Eric, welcome to DIYMA. This isn't, um, normal. 


This thread should probably get moved to off topic now with the way it went... Then people can listen to themselves all they want spamming someone else's thread.


----------



## cvjoint

I think the debate is very informative and I hope all parties continue to strengthen their arguments. I feel there has been a bit of personal attack here and there but it's hard to keep in back with such devoted personalities to the car audio world not to mention that they both believe in their product which is awesome. 

This should make any subscribed viewer a believer in both the DIYMA 12 and the IDQ.


----------



## 89grand

bigabe said:


> Dang is saying things about the drivers and the manufacturing behind them that are simply not true... in fact, it's bordering on libel.


That's a bit over the top.


----------



## dogstar

bigabe said:


> Dang is saying things about the drivers and the manufacturing behind them that are simply not true... in fact, it's bordering on libel.
> 
> It's not a "bad review" or somebody "offering their opinion"... it's needless and unfounded product bashing. Especially considering that it's coming from someone that offers a product with reliability issues itself.
> 
> Notice he's gone now that Mr. Stevens showed up.


I imagine that Dang and Eric are having a chat through PMs or some other discrete method and hashing out their differences like mature adults.

Either that or they are plotting to counter the mighty elemental designs.


----------



## npdang

Eric, let me be clear I'm not attacking your sub. Go through all my posts you won't find one where I ever said it was a BAD SUB. Just unremarkable. I clearly prefaced all my statements with IMHO, and I even said it can sound good. I've also said at least 2x already how great you guys are. I've also done the courtesy of NOT posting my comments in years past over the many issues or inconsistencies I've come across out of pure respect for your company. However, when some one makes allusions to the fact that there are no valid reasons some one might not recommend, but not necessarily not like a product then I have to step in and say something. And the more people want to avoid talking about the product and start talking about me, the more I will continue to ask questions.

Ok... on with the rant...

Am I alone in seeing that some people have very poor reading comprehension? Or that the response to every single one of my comments was to either attack me, talk about sq competitions, or otherwise avoid answering any of the issues I brought up? Or that the burden of proof lies solely on me to somehow prove my opinions and experiences?

I've already stated that my impressions on build consistency were completely anectdotal, but that perhaps I did have some experience experience in measuring ID drivers. I am not ID, so like I said I can only speak from MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, which I've clearly stated many times. But I have yet to understand how a company can't get t/s parameters for their driver, yet claims to q/c their drivers to perform within published spec. I'd also be interested to know how, or at least hear confirmation that the coils are checked for centering. All these people saying I'm wrong.. but a simple explanation and I would have shut up long ago and chalked up my experiences to a bad pick of the litter.

I'd also like to know specifically what's in the makes this driver so special. Am I alone in seeing this? Or does anyone else see a plain jane motor with a stamped basket, and poly cone that almost every company used 20 years ago? If there's some special aspect of it's design, materials, or build that I'm unaware of PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME! I can only say that my past inspection and measurements do not bear that out.


----------



## npdang

89grand said:


> That's a bit over the top.


I agree. How can it be libelous when I've clearly stated that everything is solely based on my experience? Plus, I've yet to hear anyone come forth and say ok you're wrong, we don't use a stamped basket or poly cone... or that no, our motor was designed taking these things into account and does so forth and so on and it's completely different from anything else you'll find.

BigAbe... you say these things, but let's be more specific. What exactly did I say that was wrong, and why/what is wrong about it? That's all I ask, please don't misrepresent me or my words.


----------



## 89grand

Purely from a visual standpoint, it appears to be a run of the mill sub.


----------



## thehatedguy

And DIYMA looks like an Audiobahn...so.


----------



## 89grand

thehatedguy said:


> And DIYMA looks like an Audiobahn...so.



Actually, all I said was that appears to be run of the mill sub and it does. I don't see anything that warrants the price tag, therefore I've never used one.

I don't believe I've ever seen a Audiobling that looks like a DIYMA. 

Anyway, looks can be deceiving, I'm not saying the IDQ sucks because I've never used one, I'm saying it appears to be a run of the mill sub. Maybe there is some hidden magic somewhere.


----------



## GlasSman

mvw2 said:


> HOLY ****!!! @ this thread. What happened?!
> 
> 
> By the way, Hi Eric, welcome to DIYMA. This isn't, um, normal.
> 
> 
> This thread should probably get moved to off topic now with the way it went... Then people can listen to themselves all they want spamming someone else's thread.


Yeah I said the same thing. The last I checked it was 2 pages long and a dup post from over on ECA.


----------



## thehatedguy

I'm not saying the DIYMA is bad b/c it is blinged out.

The point of both is not to judge a book by it's cover...which is what a lot of you guys like to do with the stamped basket and cork gasket comments.


----------



## skylar112

I can't believe people are getting crucified for their experiences. Thats what supposedly made this hobby so fun. You want a real look at slander go to pete_euro's forum. That where real libel and slander exists. What went on on this thread is a simple mere exchange of opinions, thats what makes forums great in general.


----------



## thehatedguy

Might be why your sub was brought into he mix...when you started taking swipes at the IDQ on page 8 and then started comparing your woofer to it. Maybe my reading comprehension is bad...but I didn't see anyone other than you start with the negative swipes at another product.



npdang said:


> Consistency - You know this because you have impedance plots for how many of them? Or maybe you have large signal tests on a good sampling?
> 
> Build Quality - I guess a motor with such flat bl and cms curves, low inductance, massive 4 layer ccaw coil on black alum. former, multi-magnet motor, faraday rings, cast frame... all signs of a cheap build I guess. I should just start building drivers with cast frames, poly cones, cheap coils in a non ISO rated facility...
> 
> Forgive my smart ass remarks, but when did this become about the DIYMA?
> 
> BTW, anyone been to ID's forum? You see how many driver failures they've had? How long it takes to get repaired? How some driver's have been repaired? Hell, I love those guys over there and what they're trying to do which is why you rarely hear any of my comments... but sometimes when I see stuff like this posted I can't hold it in any loner.





npdang said:


> Eric, let me be clear I'm not attacking your sub. Go through all my posts you won't find one where I ever said it was a BAD SUB. Just unremarkable. I clearly prefaced all my statements with IMHO, and I even said it can sound good. I've also said at least 2x already how great you guys are. I've also done the courtesy of NOT posting my comments in years past over the many issues or inconsistencies I've come across out of pure respect for your company. However, when some one makes allusions to the fact that there are no valid reasons some one might not recommend, but not necessarily not like a product then I have to step in and say something. And the more people want to avoid talking about the product and start talking about me, the more I will continue to ask questions.
> 
> Ok... on with the rant...
> 
> Am I alone in seeing that some people have very poor reading comprehension? Or that the response to every single one of my comments was to either attack me, talk about sq competitions, or otherwise avoid answering any of the issues I brought up? Or that the burden of proof lies solely on me to somehow prove my opinions and experiences?
> 
> I've already stated that my impressions on build consistency were completely anectdotal, but that perhaps I did have some experience experience in measuring ID drivers. I am not ID, so like I said I can only speak from MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, which I've clearly stated many times. But I have yet to understand how a company can't get t/s parameters for their driver, yet claims to q/c their drivers to perform within published spec. I'd also be interested to know how, or at least hear confirmation that the coils are checked for centering. All these people saying I'm wrong.. but a simple explanation and I would have shut up long ago and chalked up my experiences to a bad pick of the litter.
> 
> I'd also like to know specifically what's in the makes this driver so special. Am I alone in seeing this? Or does anyone else see a plain jane motor with a stamped basket, and poly cone that almost every company used 20 years ago? If there's some special aspect of it's design, materials, or build that I'm unaware of PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME! I can only say that my past inspection and measurements do not bear that out.


----------



## thehatedguy

He wouldn't let anyone other than himself register and reply...and you know that was funny and probably true too.



skylar112 said:


> I can't believe people are getting crucified for their experiences. Thats what supposedly made this hobby so fun. You want a real look at slander go to pete_euro's forum. That where real libel and slander exists. What went on on this thread is a simple mere exchange of opinions, thats what makes forums great in general.


----------



## skylar112

thehatedguy said:


> He wouldn't let anyone other than himself register and reply...and you know that was funny and probably true too.


why would he do that 

hes probably the most fair person on this whole forum, sounds out of character.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> Might be why your sub was brought into he mix...when you started taking swipes at the IDQ on page 8 and then started comparing your woofer to it. Maybe my reading comprehension is bad...but I didn't see anyone other than you start with the negative swipes at another product.


Damn man, you left out the part where he slammed the DIYMA first!!! I didn't bring the DIYMA into it until AFTER he said my sub had "poor build quality"... out of the blue. So I can't just let that sit. And if you read carefully, you'll see I never mentioned the IDQ at all... I was only illustrating a point. In fact, I only mentioned the Q/C issues not as an attack, but as a rebuttal that on the internet Q/C issues tend to be blown out of proportion. And that's what I mean by you're not reading carefully what I'm saying.


----------



## thehatedguy

No, I read what you said and what you were implying...and later went on to say. 



npdang said:


> Damn man, you left out the part where he slammed the DIYMA first!!! I didn't bring the DIYMA into it until AFTER he said my sub had "poor build quality"... out of the blue. So I can't just let that sit. And if you read carefully, you'll see I never mentioned the IDQ at all... I was only illustrating a point. In fact, I only mentioned the Q/C issues not as an attack, but as a rebuttal that on the internet Q/C issues tend to be blown out of proportion. And that's what I mean by you're not reading carefully what I'm saying.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> I'm not saying the DIYMA is bad b/c it is blinged out.
> 
> The point of both is not to judge a book by it's cover...which is what a lot of you guys like to do with the stamped basket and cork gasket comments.


Cork gasket doesn't last as long, and I had problems with mine peeling off and then the surround separating. Stamped baskets typically limit airflow and don't form as rigid of a base for the driver. There's a reason why the v3 and the Max I'm sure don't use either of these.

In any case, yeah you do have a point. I can't really take back anything I said though because I still believe them to be true unless someone wants to add something new, but I want to go on record as saying again, I don't think it's a bad sub, but it's just not in my humble opinion the great miracle, pinnacle of sound quality and loudspeaker design that I often see it mentioned as. And by now, I'm sure everyone knows why I don't push this sub on this forum, and it's not out of a sense of elitism as some people would believe.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> No, I read what you said and what you were implying...and later went on to say.


I don't imply, I say what I mean. You're just cutting and pasting things out of context and then making them imply whatever you want it to. Look what he said before that, and see what I'm actually saying not what you think I'm saying.


----------



## thehatedguy

No one ever said it was the be-all-end-all sub...just one that sounds really good, takes abuse, works in a small box, has a good warranty, good factory support...and doesn't cost an arm and leg.


----------



## chad

Makes one wonder how this would have played out if there were no DIYMA sub to somehow "reference" against, for whatever that may mean. If there were no DIYMA and 'Dang simply said he was un-impressed.... whould 'Dang's mother been brought into the conversation?


----------



## thehatedguy

You said you were speaking solely from your personal experience...then went on to talk about all of the drivers failing that your friends had. You went from personal direct experience to 2nd hand experience. And then you didn't stifle the QC/driver failing issue...you kept going back to those jabs. 



npdang said:


> I don't imply, I say what I mean. You're just cutting and pasting things out of context and then making them imply whatever you want it to. Look what he said before that, and see what I'm actually saying not what you think I'm saying.


----------



## BEAVER

> I have personally been a big fan of ID products, however when a company cant take harmless criticism and has to bash someone else on a forum to justify their products, that company goes down a few notches in my book.


I don't believe Mr. Stevens "bashed" anyone, or anyone's product, for that matter. He was merely defending his own... and rightfully so.

I feel bad for the direction that this thread has went, since I'm the one who first suggested the IDQ's lack of popularity here may be related to it's mainsteam following, and for that I am very sorry.


----------



## durwood

thehatedguy said:


> And DIYMA looks like an Audiobahn...so.





thehatedguy said:


> I'm not saying the DIYMA is bad b/c it is blinged out.


SO since your tube amp is all "blinged out" should we call it audiobahn?  

the DIYMA was referenced at posts 31/32 (not by npdang) and there was some attitude from someone at post 48 at what makes a good motor.



DOMN8R said:


> This is a decent 12" sub, and only costs $6.99.



Now that's funny.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> No one ever said it was the be-all-end-all sub...just one that sounds really good, takes abuse, works in a small box, has a good warranty, good factory support...and doesn't cost an arm and leg.


I don't think I would have jumped in, if that's all someone said but I swear something someone said kind of tickled me funny  Usually I know better than to get involved in anything involving Buwalda, ID, or PHASS.


----------



## skylar112

chad said:


> Makes one wonder how this would have played out if there were no DIYMA sub to somehow "reference" against, for whatever that may mean. If there were no DIYMA and 'Dang simply said he was un-impressed.... whould 'Dang's mother been brought into the conversation?


I would probably say if there was no such thing as the diyma then no, but since there is the himalaya mountains are born from ant hills.


----------



## cvjoint

Can someone explain the relevance of the IDQ frequently being found in competition cars? From what I understand this is the least important component in sq. judging. It is very hard to get the subwoofer contribution wrong. Placement is of little importance and like Abmolech mentioned it is a mono source.

I've sat in many competition cars and more than once the owner claimed "I threw in the sub at the last moment." How hard is it to get any mediocre sub to adorn a competition front stage? Based on the listening levels these guys like to play at you need very little linear throw and power. I believe an Infinity Kappa Perfect could do the job just as well.

I'm throwing this in the mix since it seems to be the major supporting point of the IDQ subjectively. Objectively I see no support. Why is that?


----------



## thehatedguy

When did Audiobahn make tube amps?



durwood said:


> SO since your tube amp is all "blinged out" should we call it audiobahn?
> 
> the DIYMA was referenced at posts 31/32 (not by npdang) and there was some attitude from someone at post 48 at what makes a good motor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's funny.


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> You said you were speaking solely from your personal experience...then went on to talk about all of the drivers failing that your friends had. You went from personal direct experience to 2nd hand experience. And then you didn't stifle the QC/driver failing issue...you kept going back to those jabs.


Yes, because when people want something measured they come to me. Or when their driver fails, they also come to me. By personal, I mean I at least saw it in person and touched it. I don't mean a friend told me over the internet. Sorry for the confusion. 

Yes, I will drop the QC issues. I only bring it up because someone keeps wanting to talk about how I'm talking out of my ass... or bringing the DIYMA into it, when there are many people out there that have personally witnessed me measuring their drivers. Which as I said doesn't mean squat, but I find it funny that my integrity was brought into question rather than facts presented. Now, 5 years later unfortunately I don't have any data so I'm not going to continue talking about it.

I think you're just not seeing it from both sides though... you're only reading what I'm writing and not seeing what's being said against me, and no wonder you think I'm going way out there.


----------



## thehatedguy

Back in the day there was no changing RTA/SQ/SPL settings, so you had to tune for everything at once.

You haven't sat in any serious competition car where they "just threw the sub in at the last moment." You might have sat in some local cars that compete, but there are no cars on a national level that were built like that AND do well.



cvjoint said:


> Can someone explain the relevance of the IDQ frequently being found in competition cars? From what I understand this is the least important component in sq. judging. It is very hard to get the subwoofer contribution wrong. Placement is of little importance and like Abmolech mentioned it is a mono source.
> 
> I've sat in many competition cars and more than once the owner claimed "I threw in the sub at the last moment." How hard is it to get any mediocre sub to adorn a competition front stage? Based on the listening levels these guys like to play at you need very little linear throw and power. I believe an Infinity Kappa Perfect could do the job just as well.
> 
> I'm throwing this in the mix since it seems to be the major supporting point of the IDQ subjectively. Objectively I see no support. Why is that?


----------



## durwood

thehatedguy said:


> When did Audiobahn make tube amps?


Sounds as ridiculous as comparing a sub with a crome backplate and highly technical data out in the open for the public to see to a sub with basic data and chrome basket.

"Blinged out" = chrome. That is what you meant right? Is your amp not chromed? Or maybe it polished.


I could go on to quote you to show that you act in the same ways you rag on other people about. (reading something on the internet about a few rare cases of product destruction and repeating it as fact that it's poorly designed).

That was my point. Cheap shots that = nothing.


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> Back in the day there was no changing RTA/SQ/SPL settings, so you had to tune for everything at once.
> 
> You haven't sat in any serious competition car where they "just threw the sub in at the last moment." You might have sat in some local cars that compete, but there are no cars on a national level that were built like that AND do well.


I will hold that the Kappa Perfect from the same time would have done equally good RTA/SQ/SPL and I would rather have that one due to its advanced cone design and ease of access to spec sheets. 

I fail to see how you'd know in which cars I've sat. I know cars that have scored exceptionally well on the international level with little subwoofer built innovation.


----------



## thehatedguy

You do that. Never mind I was a professional installer for 5 years and still work part time at a shop. I think my basis of personal experience is a touch larger than most on this forum. And I rarely talk about product that I haven't used.

It's no more of a cheap shot to talk about the chrome basket as it is to talk about a stamped basket in relation to the performance of a driver. Seems like people only want to see one way down the road, but you should look both ways. That comment was an illustration of the ludicrous nature of the stamped basket and cork gasket in terms of how a driver performs.

Or did anyone else not get that? 

And about the amp...when you start seeing them on eBay starting out for $1, then you might could say something. But nice red herring.



durwood said:


> Sounds as ridiculous as comparing a sub with a crome backplate and highly technical data out in the open for the public to see to a sub with basic data and chrome basket.
> 
> "Blinged out" = chrome. That is what you meant right? Is your amp not chromed? Or maybe it polished.
> 
> 
> I could go on to quote you to show that you act in the same ways you rag on other people about. (reading something on the internet about a few rare cases of product destruction and repeating it as fact that it's poorly designed).
> 
> That was my point. Cheap shots that = nothing.


----------



## thehatedguy

It would help then to name the peoples cars who you'e sat in who have "just thrown a woofer in" and who have done well on an international level. I have been competing since 2001 and have been to every Final but 1...and I haven't seen any IASCA cars that fit that description.



cvjoint said:


> I will hold that the Kappa Perfect from the same time would have done equally good RTA/SQ/SPL and I would rather have that one due to its advanced cone design and ease of access to spec sheets.
> 
> I fail to see how you'd know in which cars I've sat. I know cars that have scored exceptionally well on the international level with little subwoofer built innovation.


----------



## GenPac

ThehatedGuy: Could you stroke your ePenis on another thread and get _this _thread back on topic?
I've had decent results using a PPI flatcone, ported to 38Hz back in '00. They're getting kinda rare nowadays.


----------



## thehatedguy

What? I can't answer back to comments made to me?

Someone took it of topic by bringing up an amp I own.

Then someone asked about the competition thing.

How did I take the post off topic any more than you just did?

GTFU.


----------



## chad

thehatedguy said:


> Never mind I was a professional installer for 5 years and still work part time at a shop.


I'm not going to get into a pissing match over piddly **** but to make that sound more credible you could have lost the 5 year thing, 5 years is not that long of a time in any industry, and in some signifies the end of an apprenticeship 

To replace 5 years with "far longer than I care to mention" would be more appropriate IMHO. It's not a lie, but... you know.....

Chad


----------



## 89grand

thehatedguy said:


> And I rarely talk about product that I haven't used.


So you'd admit that have talked about products you haven't owned, like most people have. I thought you took offense to people that did that. 



thehatedguy said:


> It's no more of a cheap shot to talk about the chrome basket as it is to talk about a stamped basket in relation to the performance of a driver. Seems like people only want to see one way down the road, but you should look both ways. That comment was an illustration of the ludicrous nature of the stamped basket and cork gasket in terms of how a driver performs.


I don't think npdang said the woofer didn't perform because it had a cork gasket, he said they don't last that long, and I can see that being true. Also, about the stamped basket, again, he never said it caused poor performance, but they are cheap, low tech, and certainly aren't used much these days, and probably for a good reason. There have to be drawbacks or more companies would use them if they offered the same strength, cooling etc as cast frames since they certainly are cheaper. I think npdangs is mainly saying the driver uses rather cheap off the shelf parts and therefore is not some God of subwoofers that many people claim they are. 

Personally, I think they should cost less considering the parts used. I feel the same way about some of JL Audio's offerings too. I would think stamped baskets are only suitable for subs with light cones and small motors. That doesn't mean a sub sucks because it has those traits, but times have certainly changed. Of course, I'd keep selling the driver too as long as people kept buying if I were running ID. Can't knock them for that at all.

I doubt you'd buy a new car with a carburetor for the same price as other cars with FI, even if it did perform just fine. These days, most people expect better than a stamped frame, just as everyone expects fuel injection.


----------



## thehatedguy

5 years as a pro full time, then there has been about 3 years since then part time...then there was 10 years before that as a DIYer. Which is more time than I would like to recall.

5 years as a pro these days is a decent tenure considering how the pay scale has tanked...and I would probably still be in it full time if I didn't have such bad carpal tunnel.



chad said:


> I'm not going to get into a pissing match over piddly **** but to make that sound more credible you could have lost the 5 year thing, 5 years is not that long of a time in any industry, and in some signifies the end of an apprenticeship
> 
> To replace 5 years with "far longer than I care to mention" would be more appropriate IMHO. It's not a lie, but... you know.....
> 
> Chad


----------



## ///Audience

thehatedguy said:


> and I would probably still be in it full time if I didn't have such bad carpal tunnel.


Im gonna go crazy the day that happens to me.... which should be soon


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> It would help then to name the peoples cars who you'e sat in who have "just thrown a woofer in" and who have done well on an international level. I have been competing since 2001 and have been to every Final but 1...and I haven't seen any IASCA cars that fit that description.


I think he's referring to Eric's comment.


----------



## thehatedguy

I said that to cover the one time that I forgot that I said something and someone goes digging up posts to try to prove me wrong on one occasion. But no, I don't really recall doing that.

No one claimed they were the god of woofers. Most people do say they sound really good, take abuse, work well in smaller boxes, and don't cost an arm and a leg. Nor are the prices artificially deflated to make a fast sale.

The prices are fair considering ID isn't an internet only company- they have stores, people working for them..and given the retail competition (you know what most people buy, not some isolated internet forum), they stack up really well.

The IDQ is more of a mass market sub that does really well. Then you have the DIYMA which is a niche sub marketed to a niche market on a niche forum. So yeah, there will be differences in what you get for the dollar.

Me, I'd rather have the carb since I can work on those...new fangled computers in cars are a bastard for the average DIYer to work on. But I get your point.

But do you see mine?

There is a whole world of audio that exists outside of the internet, off of this and any forum. One speaker happens to be doing well in both, while one is marketed solely at the smaller market.



89grand said:


> So you'd admit that have talked about products you haven't owned, like most people have. I thought you took offense to people that did that.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think npdang said the woofer didn't perform because it had a cork gasket, he said they don't last that long, and I can see that being true. Also, about the stamped basket, again, he never said it caused poor performance, but they are cheap, low tech, and certainly aren't used much these days, and probably for a good reason. There have to be drawbacks or more companies would use them if they offered the same strength, cooling etc as cast frames since they certainly are cheaper. I think npdangs is mainly saying the driver uses rather cheap off the shelf parts and therefore is not some God of subwoofers that many people claim they are.
> 
> Personally, I think they should cost less considering the parts used. I feel the same way about some of JL Audio's offerings too. I would think stamped baskets are only suitable for subs with light cones and small motors. That doesn't mean a sub sucks because it has those traits, but times have certainly changed. Of course, I'd keep selling the driver too as long as people kept buying if I were running ID. Can't knock them for that at all.
> 
> I doubt you'd buy a new car with a carburetor for the same price as other cars with FI, even if it did perform just fine. These days, most people expect better than a stamped frame, just as everyone expects fuel injection.


----------



## thehatedguy

I feel for you. Keep your hands and wrists stretched during the day and sleep with braces on. Right now I can't sand a panel for more than 15 minutes without having to soak my hands in ice water. Got to be so bad that it was hard to grip the steering wheel to drive home.

Take care of your hands.



BassBaller5 said:


> Im gonna go crazy the day that happens to me.... which should be soon


----------



## ///Audience

thehatedguy said:


> I feel for you. Keep your hands and wrists stretched during the day and sleep with braces on. Right now I can't sand a panel for more than 15 minutes without having to soak my hands in ice water. Got to be so bad that it was hard to grip the steering wheel to drive home.
> 
> Take care of your hands.


man thats miserable. Everything i do involves my hands.... audio, Drumming, hockey, and guitar... i would hate life!


----------



## thehatedguy

I used to play guitar alot...was decently fast...not any more. Used to play Slayer, now I'm doing good to play AC/DC.


----------



## 89grand

Thehatedguy, I do get your point. You really aren't the one that claims that the IDQ's are some super sub. Your opinion of them seems reasonable.

I think what got npdang started on this is the sheer number of times people bring up the IDQ as if it is some magical sub, when it reality it's just a normal old school sub of decent quality.

I'm sure they sound good, but there isn't really anything unique or special about them the way many people make it seem. I've used a lot of JL Audio woofers since my first one in 1993, a 12W1, 10W1's, 10W3's and 10W0's. I thought those woofers were the ****. They weren't bad, and I still run the 10W0's in my jeep, but they are pretty dated by todays standards.

The IDQ's remind me of old JL subs. Not ****ty by any means, but pretty much an average sub.


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> You do that. Never mind I was a professional installer for 5 years and still work part time at a shop. I think my basis of personal experience is a touch larger than most on this forum. And I rarely talk about product that I haven't used.


Is that another personal insult? How would you know I haven't used an IDQ before? Truth: I have played with IDQs, I have played with Kappa Perfects, Kappa Perfects VQ and I currently use 3 IdMaxes. I can attest to the hype on the IDQ because I've been there too. I replaced the Kappas with these and was rather disappointed to find out they didn't improve any aspect of the setup. I would have loved to have somebody explain to me the build materials in between the two, lay out spec sheets before spending the $. Unfortunately I relied on "IDQ the epitome of SQ.", "competition design" etc. Honestly the IDQ is riding the wave. If we were to talk about an ID product that deserves all around best award it would be the IdMax. The IDQ is not better than the Max anymore than a Camaro is better than a Corvette. Yet I could swear there is a mass movement who believes the IDQ is inherently better at anything SQ.



thehatedguy said:


> It would help then to name the peoples cars who you'e sat in who have "just thrown a woofer in" and who have done well on an international level. I have been competing since 2001 and have been to every Final but 1...and I haven't seen any IASCA cars that fit that description.


At this point I see no reason to disclose any personal identifiers. I don't see the need to. Definitely not when there is a void of objective material to work with.


----------



## thehatedguy

How is that an insult? I think you are trying to find something that wasn't there. I was providing my back ground in car audio in relation to my talking about stuff that i have used and not used.

But I really didn't think you would or could come up with any names. If you are going to start throwing out I've heard this world class car that did this and this...and when I haven't seen such a car compete on the level you describe, maybe some names would help provide you with some room to argue. So, I stand by what I said, there are no cars competing on the national level that have done what you are claiming.



cvjoint said:


> Is that another personal insult? How would you know I haven't used an IDQ before? Truth: I have played with IDQs, I have played with Kappa Perfects, Kappa Perfects VQ and I currently use 3 IdMaxes. I can attest to the hype on the IDQ because I've been there too. I replaced the Kappas with these and was rather disappointed to find out they didn't improve any aspect of the setup. I would have loved to have somebody explain to me the build materials in between the two, lay out spec sheets before spending the $. Unfortunately I relied on "IDQ the epitome of SQ.", "competition design" etc. Honestly the IDQ is riding the wave. If we were to talk about an ID product that deserves all around best award it would be the IdMax. The IDQ is not better than the Max anymore than a Camaro is better than a Corvette. Yet I could swear there is a mass movement who believes the IDQ is inherently better at anything SQ.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I see no reason to disclose any personal identifiers. I don't see the need to. Definitely not when there is a void of objective material to work with.


----------



## WLDock

thehatedguy said:


> It would help then to name the peoples cars who you'e sat in who have "just thrown a woofer in" and who have done well on an international level. I have been competing since 2001 and have been to every Final but 1...and I haven't seen any IASCA cars that fit that description.


"Just thrown a woofer in" is not really what the guy probably actually meant. However, I do know of an install that was put together in two or three days supposedly and won its class at IASCA Finals back in 1999.


----------



## thehatedguy

That I can believe...seen it happen...lol. Mic and I used to be working on our cars IN the lanes. But I never won- 2nd and 3rd was the best I could muster.

But to CVjoint...you want to prove me wrong so badly, I know you do. Well, here is your chance to do it in front of the whole forum.

Do it.


----------



## tyroneshoes

Can someone point out the cork gasket on the idq. I recall it always being rubberish. 

You are talking about the cork gasket thats used on the older soundstream subs that would break often right?

Am I missing something?


----------



## the other hated guy

WLDock said:


> "Just thrown a woofer in" is not really what the guy probably actually meant. However, I do know of an install that was put together in two or three days supposedly and won its class at IASCA Finals back in 1999.


if u r talking about B-Mo then u r correct.....


----------



## chad

thehatedguy said:


> 5 years as a pro these days is a decent tenure considering how the pay scale has tanked...


There inlies an answer to a lot of complaints heard on here everyday, without good pay you lose good people to other career paths, which in turn, makes it rough for the gear makers because of the high rate of warranty returns by ID10T errors from incompetent installers that are happy working for peanuts.



thehatedguy said:


> I feel for you. Keep your hands and wrists stretched during the day and sleep with braces on. Right now I can't sand a panel for more than 15 minutes without having to soak my hands in ice water. Got to be so bad that it was hard to grip the steering wheel to drive home.
> 
> Take care of your hands.


I'll tell you what, the surgery is brutally ugly, but I've seen people recover from it with remarkable results. May be worth looking into.


----------



## thehatedguy

Starting with the v2s, they have had the unisurround where the surround and the gasket are one piece.



tyroneshoes said:


> Can someone point out the cork gasket on the idq. I recall it always being rubberish.
> 
> You are talking about the cork gasket thats used on the older soundstream subs that would break often right?
> 
> Am I missing something?


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> How is that an insult? I think you are trying to find something that wasn't there. I was providing my back ground in car audio in relation to my talking about stuff that i have used and not used.
> 
> But I really didn't think you would or could come up with any names. If you are going to start throwing out I've heard this world class car that did this and this...and when I haven't seen such a car compete on the level you describe, maybe some names would help provide you with some room to argue. So, I stand by what I said, there are no cars competing on the national level that have done what you are claiming.


3rd strike. You talk about national level, I said international level. There are competitions going on outside U.S. you know. Can I assume you know everyone competing in EMMA?

I could throw this ball back in your court. Prove that everyone that ever competed on a national level had an extensive subwoofer setup. What DO you need to have a competition worthy sub setup? What sets it apart from what a Kappa can do? I wouldn't be surprised if using a IDQ to begin with would give you some points in competitions. I'm not about do dry clean my wiring to compete.


----------



## thehatedguy

I am working on the surgical option. Have to free up some money for that...and some time off from school so I can be down a hand or two. Right now it's not so bad, but I have been taking it easy on them...most of my install is wood and covered in a textile material so sanding is minimal. Guitar playing has taken 2nd place to school, girl, and a little one.



chad said:


> There inlies an answer to a lot of complaints heard on here everyday, without good pay you lose good people to other career paths, which in turn, makes it rough for the gear makers because of the high rate of warranty returns by ID10T errors from incompetent installers that are happy working for peanuts.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what, the surgery is brutally ugly, but I've seen people recover from it with remarkable results. May be worth looking into.


----------



## BigRed

so I am curious: What is the best all around 12" sub according to The Hated guy, npdang, according to them? If you could'nt use a DIYMA sub or an ID sub? who is next in line?


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeah see, you are loosing it again. EMMA? You have seen the level or workmanship in EMMA cars? Nothing is thrown in/together in those cars.

No, I don't know too many people competing in EMMA, but do know a couple.

But your lack of names...man, you are looking bad claiming something as the truth without ANY support.

Um, you've never been to a competition have you? Much less been judged at one. You won't win if you have a bad install...nothing is simply thrown in a car (outside of MECA).

Who has said anything about a Kappa perfect? That's just another red herring you have thrown in there to detract from your otherwise straw argument.

You won't name names b/c you CAN'T. Period.



cvjoint said:


> 3rd strike. You talk about national level, I said international level. There are competitions going on outside U.S. you know. Can I assume you know everyone competing in EMMA?
> 
> I could throw this ball back in your court. Prove that everyone that ever competed on a national level had an extensive subwoofer setup. What DO you need to have a competition worthy sub setup? What sets it apart from what a Kappa can do? I wouldn't be surprised if using a IDQ to begin with would give you some points in competitions. I'm not about do dry clean my wiring to compete.


----------



## BEAVER

> so I am curious: What is the best all around 12" sub according to The Hated guy, npdang, according to them? If you could'nt use a DIYMA sub or an ID sub? who is next in line?


----------



## durwood

So I must go back to being a car audio installer for my comments about a steel basket to count? I admit I have not used some of the products mentioned in this thread. Therefore I can only comment on poorly worded arguments-which is all I have done.

The combination of materials CAN add up to a great product or they can also add up to ****ty product.

From an engineering standpoint, an aluminum basket provides better strength, and better cooling than a steel basket. Next time you torque down a flimsy steel basket and it mis-aligns a voicecoil with a tight tolerance, I bet you won't be saying that a aluminum basket offers no advantage over a steel basket.

I have to agree, those cork gaskets have pissed me off more than once during an install. The second a screw catches it and cause it come unglued then rattling later on is enough to drive anyone nuts.

I'd be surprised as an installer of 5 years you have never had that happen.


----------



## thehatedguy

JBL, Focal, Aura, I've had a pair of Scan Rev 10s that I liked. I have liked DDs for the general getting down on (not too bad sounding either). JL W3s used to surprise a lot of my customers.

If you had the space and budget, the WGTI JBL would be my pick.



BigRed said:


> so I am curious: What is the best all around 12" sub according to The Hated guy, npdang, according to them? If you could'nt use a DIYMA sub or an ID sub? who is next in line?


----------



## thehatedguy

No, I've never tweaked a basket by over tightening screws...that's why the drills have variable clutches on them. Use it an you won't have that problem.

And again no, I have never had that problem with the gaskets on an ID speaker...b/c the gaskets are not like what was described.

I have had that problem once with some Sony subs.



durwood said:


> So I must go back to being a car audio installer for my comments about a steel basket to count? I admit I have not used some of the products mentioned in this thread. Therefore I can only comment on poorly worded arguments-which is all I have done.
> 
> The combination of materials CAN add up to a great product or they can also add up to ****ty product.
> 
> From an engineering standpoint, an aluminum basket provides better strength, and better cooling than a steel basket. Next time you torque down a flimsy steel basket and it mis-aligns a voicecoil with a tight tolerance, I bet you won't be saying that a aluminum basket offers no advantage over a steel basket.
> 
> I have to agree, those cork gaskets have pissed me off more than once during an install. The second a screw catches it and cause it come unglued then rattling later on is enough to drive anyone nuts.
> 
> I'd be surprised as an installer of 5 years you have never had that happen.


----------



## Vestax

BigRed said:


> so I am curious: What is the best all around 12" sub according to The Hated guy, npdang, according to them? If you could'nt use a DIYMA sub or an ID sub? who is next in line?


I'll give you the answer if you can tell me the best all around sedan is for under 50k!


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> That I can believe...seen it happen...lol. Mic and I used to be working on our cars IN the lanes. But I never won- 2nd and 3rd was the best I could muster.
> 
> But to CVjoint...you want to prove me wrong so badly, I know you do. Well, here is your chance to do it in front of the whole forum.
> 
> Do it.


I'm not here to prove you wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to call names out about something like this. Maybe the guys don't want people to know it was a last minute thing. Heck simply telling people you tuned your car without touching it usually gets a better impression. 

What I do want to see is some ID product test sheet. I own the Maxes, I want to see how they look on paper. I don't mind either ID or Np disclosing them


----------



## thehatedguy

You can PM me if you don't want to make it public.

But last I heard about testing speakers was that the Klippel was supposed to be going back to Texas and hasn't made it back there yet. From what I understand the person really wants it back too, and has asked for it back on more than one occasion.


----------



## durwood

thehatedguy said:


> No, I've never tweaked a basket by over tightening screws...that's why the drills have variable clutches on them. Use it an you won't have that problem.


Screw clutches, I want to be able to torque that sucker down. I use an impact driver. Veering slightly OT, not in regards to subs, but I've seen some smaller speakers that you can bend the steel mounting tabs with your bare hands. Hell I can even find a post on here about it.



> And again no, I have never had that problem with the gaskets on an ID speaker...b/c the gaskets are not like what was described.
> 
> I have had that problem once with some Sony subs.


Fair enough. But that is what I think of when someone says cork gasket. If a cast aluminum basket is used, no need for gluing any kind of gasket on the surround.


----------



## npdang

I think the 12w7 is the best sub I've played with. It's clean, it's effortless, it sheds heat like no other, and it's robust. It's also remarkably noise free even at peak displacement. 

If you use the "sine wave test", that is just playing level matched pure tones from 20-80hz, or even hit it with a multi-tone burst spaced 1 octave apart... it just sounds so much cleaner and more effortless than anything I've played with.

Why don't I use one then? Box size, physical size, I don't need that level of output, high inductance, and low efficiency when you consider how much of the low end you have to chop out to balance it out in a car.


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> You can PM me if you don't want to make it public.


Are you going to PM about the undisclosed special competition worthy qualities of the IDQ?


----------



## thehatedguy

When did I ever state there were special properties in the IDQ?

I did not.

You DID state something else and constantly fail to provide any evidence...and now once you got called out on it not once but TWICE you are trying to weasel your way out of providing any evidence to support your claims. You will not provide names b/c there are NO names to provide...and you know it.


----------



## mvw2

sonic purity said:


> Id Max is in a different category, like the w7





khail19 said:


> So you really aren't looking for the "best" then?





sonic purity said:


> No, It not that hard to find a "the best sub" if you have plenty of money. ID max and W7 are some of the best sub available. But I dont want to spend that kinda money. Besides, I am just looking for opinions.


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



steves74 said:


> How come not much was said about the 12" DIYMA?
> I was think of buying one. Comes to about $170 shipped to CA w/ tax.
> I guess I can get more for the money somewhere else ????





BEAVER said:


> I guess most don't consider the DIYMA an "all around" sub.
> 
> From what I understand it's a SQ based driver that is not well suited to the abuse of the average user (thumper).


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



bassfromspace said:


> There's quite a few members that use the IDQ here. I think the consensus is that there's nothing special about the sub and I'd have to agree with that.





bigabe said:


> I think that's what makes it so good... there's nothing special. The IDQ just makes bass. Nothing more. Nothing less. It does what it's supposed to without adding a bunch of crap to the mix. And it does for very little money in very little space.


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



thehatedguy said:


> The IDQ must be doing something right to have so many people saying this and that are better than the IDQ is.
> 
> But people around here on this board like to talk technobabble a lot of times...without knowing or thinking for themselves. Lots of repeaters here.





CamCrazy42 said:


> "technobabble" as you put it, defines whether a woofer should and will perform in certain situations. Obviously people will tend to get something people reccommend. Nothing wrong with repeaters... proves whatever the equipment is, is definatly worth it.


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



WLDock said:


> I think I would agree that IDQ's are nothing special compared to many subs here today in 2008 but there is not a damn thing anyone can say that disputes the obvious fact that the IDQ holds a SPECIAL place in car audio history. These subs were very effective bass solutions for many years in systems ranging from mild to wild. This was an easy to recommend choice for so many years....I am sure many are sick of the name coming up when there are so many more modern subs around....but even that can't twist history.
> 
> Fast forward.....
> I think there are MANY subs that will work in a sealed or ported box and not require a ton of space and produce good clean bass with some impact that will shake the car. There are MANY "BEST" all around subs today in 2008! I am sure the IDQ v.3 will be good as well.


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

Normal comments. IDQ is good (sound) but not special (build). There was a comment about many of use here preferring technobabble (specs/test data).

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



npdang said:


> Just my humble opinion, but the original IDQ and IDQ v2 was and continues to be one of the most overhyped subs out there. I'm not disputing that it can sound good, nor the fact that it was one of the first low q drivers made for car audio. However, I attribute most of it's reputation to 2 things.
> 
> First, the fact that even today, it's still one of the only low q drivers in the market and thus to 99% of people out there who just throw their subs in a box and don't tune, it will sound "faster" and more "sq oriented" simply because it doesn't have as strong of a low end response, as does most higher q car drivers.
> 
> Second, you have a huge base of competitors and essentially people who can make ANY sub sound phenomenal using it. Then you get the fanboys who look up to these people saying "hey, I want one too", not realizing that it's tuning and not equipment that's responsible for what they're hearing.
> 
> When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO.





bigabe said:


> Their frequency response curves completely disagree with your opinion.
> 
> 
> IDQs give very even low end in small enclosures, with very little power, for very little money. There is something to be said about that. And I'm sorry... there is something significant about the fact that it is pretty much the most decorated woofer in the the SQ competition world. How many champions have used DIYMA Refs???





npdang said:


> IDQ's are the are the only exception to Hoffman Iron's law.
> 
> Sound quality competitions are the ultimate determinant of a driver's performance and construction, regardless of how it's actually constructed and measured.
> 
> Frequency response curves will tell you if a sub is good or not. So subs with identical response curves will be equally good.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


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

Npdang's opinion pretty much states what most have already said. They sound good but are basic in design. He mentions a couple things about why the ID subs are well liked and widely used. Bigabe counter-argues repeating what npdang said (good low frequency response). It's like two people arguing over a blue car, both saying the car's blue. Then npdang makes a sarcastic remark about frequency response being the only important measurement (my take on it). Maybe the sarcasm wasn't understood. Again, there's no direct attack on ID beyond what has been said by others, good sound, normal sub.

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



BEAVER said:


> It is dogged, quite regularly. It has such a great reputation everywhere else, I always wondered why it was treated as the proverbial redheaded stepchild here... I just figured it was too "maintream" and not as "cool" as DIY drivers.





npdang said:


> Completely wrong. I wouldn't say it's dogged, just not hyped here because of the construction, design, performance, and unit to unit consistency.





bigabe said:


> The DIYMA Ref. 12 hasn't exactly been lauded for it's reliability, builtd quality and consistency either.





npdang said:


> Consistency - You know this because you have impedance plots for how many of them? Or maybe you have large signal tests on a good sampling?
> 
> Build Quality - I guess a motor with such flat bl and cms curves, low inductance, massive 4 layer ccaw coil on black alum. former, multi-magnet motor, faraday rings, cast frame... all signs of a cheap build I guess. I should just start building drivers with cast frames, poly cones, cheap coils in a non ISO rated facility...
> 
> Forgive my smart ass remarks, but when did this become about the DIYMA?
> 
> BTW, anyone been to ID's forum? You see how many driver failures they've had? How long it takes to get repaired? How some driver's have been repaired? Hell, I love those guys over there and what they're trying to do which is why you rarely hear any of my comments... but sometimes when I see stuff like this posted I can't hold it in any loner.


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

Some attacks (observations) start directly about the quality control/damage of both the ID and DIYMA subs. Basically npdang pointed out consistency issues, bigabe referenced the DIYMA in the same way, barking consistency, build quality, and reliability. Npdang refuted and pointed to the ID forums for sources on ID complaints/broken subs.

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



Class ey! said:


> I always thought they were good sounding





npdang said:


> Must not have read where I said I'm not disputing that





Class ey! said:


> no mate, I did read what you said its just that you brought up factors that I didnt know about so now I look at this idq12 Ive got in my basement and i dont think I will look at it the same


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

Npdang reiterates that he never said the ID subs were bad sounding.

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



BigRed said:


> so npdang, if your view of a good subwoofer is "tuning" after materials etc., why make a "diyma" woofer, when you could have just picked a woofer with excellent craftmanship according to your standards, and told people to tune it on here?





npdang said:


> There is a small component that can't be tuned out, such as inductance and non-linear distortion, as well as compression. To my ears, it's definitely audible and for home use even more so. In a car, 99% of people out there have NEVER heard a properly tuned sub setup. To hear one, is like magic. When you hear a well tuned sub setup everyday though, then you start to pick out the nuances of driver design.


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



thehatedguy said:


> But if the IDQ broke, you can get it fixed after 30 days...and they will be around for longer than 2 years.


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



thehatedguy said:


> But he's talking about reliability problems of a speaker that out sells his 100 to one, one that has a legit warranty, one that is from a company that has been around for years and is planning on being around. Not to mention while an "old" technology, still sound great. To me it is important to buy products from people who stand behind said products- is why I have Zapco amps.
> 
> But to talk about QC problems when you yourself have known issues of cracked cones...and no way to fix the speakers seems odd. However, most of those posts got deleted.





evan said:


> I must have missed the part where he was comparing them to the DIYMA.





npdang said:


> WOW, that's just pure bs and you've just lost all credibility with me on this thread. I've never deleted ANY posts on this forum, minus spam and maybe one thread which had porn in it. Go back and search, and you'll find all those good yummy cracked cone threads. So I guess if I use an Accuton or Jordan, blow the cone, I guess those are just crappy poorly built drivers because their cones aren't bulletproof against anyone who wants to crank on em?? Or maybe you are just magnifying a problem of a bare dozen units to somehow apply to almost a thousand of them? Kudos.
> 
> Regardless, I stand behind my product. Find one person that says I haven't taken care of them WELL beyond what they expected, and most importantly promptly. Compare that to months with no word on a repair, can't even get t/s parameters, buzzing voice coils...


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


thehatedguy basically now steps into the arguement in place of bigabe. I'm not sure why. There is an attack on deleted threads. No threads get deleted on this forum other than spam and porn. They are all still here and can be read freely. There is an attack on warranty of the ID subs versus the DIYMA subs. For anybody who knows npdang, this is just stupid. Npdang stands behind his products and will _happily_ replace any damaged sub, out of his own pocket. I don't think people get this. npdang is losing money supporting his sub, and he will happily do it for your satisfaction. npdang repeats basic stuff he said before about consistency. Again, remember this is from ID subs he's used AND has tested personally. It's not just random talk.

The next 10 pages is more of the same, really saying nothing new with primarily npdang and thehatedguy going back and forth. Also note that npdang NEVER ONCE said the ID subs sounded bad or were "bad subs." Not even in all 20 pages. He simply says they are generic in build and "nothing special" in terms of build/specs/test results. Thehatedguy, I don't know. You were never attacked by npdang, but you seem very adamant about defending ID. Maybe you just like to talk. Realize nobody is arguing about how good the ID subs sound, not even npdang.

There's more fun arguing about cork gaskets, stamped baskets, and poly cones. Again I don't know why. Mechanically, there are reasons why these materials are or are not used. It doesn't make a woofer good or bad, just basic in design and perhaps with some limitations (longevity, air flow, cone flex, etc. as npdang stated). I really don't know why thehatedguy is arguing with npdang. It's good that you've been in the business for a long time doing a lot of hands-on work, building, competing, and so on. However, npdang's not new to audio either, and he's been doing this stuff for a long, long time too and has probably heard and tested magnitudes more speakers than you have. He probably has considerably better knowledge about speaker design and material choice than you as well. From an engineering and testing standpoint, the ID subs are basic. There just isn't anything to argue there. As well, there's no arguement for them sounding good or bad, cause there was never an arguement there to begin with. Npdang has repeatedly mentioned that.

Yes we here at DIYMA do tend to ignore a lot of car audio products. However, that's part of the appeal of this board, since the beginning. Many car audio products are, well, crap. Most are very basic in design, cheaply made, and cheaply produced. There is also virtually no technical data on any car audio products. Here comes home audio, and you get a wide selection of extremely well designed and built drivers as well as tons of spec/test data. There is a very appealing nature to this. Many of us ignore car brands simply because we feel home audio provides better products that are well engineered, well built, and affordabley priced. 

I've been a long time member of CAF. There ID is basically god, well that and TC Sounds/Sound Splinter. I've never owned an ID sub simply because I couldn't justify owning one over something else, despite the hype and mass liking. If the OEM Ebay sale was going on at the right time, I probably would have run one of those.


----------



## cvjoint

thehatedguy said:


> When did I ever state there were special properties in the IDQ?
> 
> I did not.
> 
> You DID state something else and constantly fail to provide any evidence...and now once you got called out on it not once but TWICE you are trying to weasel your way out of providing any evidence to support your claims. You will not provide names b/c there are NO names to provide...and you know it.


Then it is done. We don't have anything to argue about. We agree there is nothing special about the IDQ and we move on. 

I don't see why you need names so bad. It's almost like you have an obsession for them. Nothing I would say would be the equivalent of competing for 5 years anyways. You've attacked me personally several times without having a point to prove.


----------



## Class ey!

hey mate thanks for that post I got caught up to speed pretty fast though my head is spinning but wow is it clear now. I see this forum has many educated players here I can respect that sometimes heads bump and they keep bumping Im sorry I didnt mean to say anything bad about the idq I will still keep it but it is a simplistic sub. I guess theres no argument just gotta read the thread mates!


----------



## mvw2

Vestax said:


> I'll give you the answer if you can tell me the best all around sedan is for under 50k!


Ditto.

The whole thing about car audio is "best fit." There is no universal best, just what fits my setup best.

For example, I have Sonicraft's SC12NRT sub. It's a sub I've enjoyed listening to a lot. However, it's a big box sub, requiring 2-3 cu.ft. sealed or 3+ cu.ft. ported tuned low. This sort of restricts it to in-home use more so. I would _like_ to use it in my car with an appropriate box, but I can't without losing my trunk. I've used it in a couple boxes in my car, but both are essentially half the volume they should be for the sub, and the sub shows its constraint on the low end. The sub has a lot of good properties like Aura's NRT motor with copper above and below for low distortion. It has a decent amouont of excursion to work with, and the cone is very rigid and light. Sensitivity is also decent. Yet, it's a hard fit in a car environment, well unless you did sort of a free air setup with a couple in the rear deck(which I don't have - wagon). It's a fitment thing.


----------



## thehatedguy

No, I asked you to support your claims...but you can not do so. You brought up the several competitors...I asked who. You said er...nothing.


----------



## mvw2

Class ey! said:


> hey mate thanks for that post I got caught up to speed pretty fast though my head is spinning but wow is it clear now. I see this forum has many educated players here I can respect that sometimes heads bump and they keep bumping Im sorry I didnt mean to say anything bad about the idq I will still keep it but it is a simplistic sub. I guess theres no argument just gotta read the thread mates!


That's only around the first 10 pages. However, it sort of aimlessly continues on from there. Still, a lot of peoples main gripes is how all this started and about 10 pages is enough to get the feel for how this big mess began.


----------



## thehatedguy

mvw2...you have the wrong hatedguy listed there.

Plus you basically discredit what I know about speaker design.


----------



## Class ey!

mvw2 said:


> That's only around the first 10 pages. However, it sort of aimlessly continues on from there. Still, a lot of peoples main gripes is how all this started and about 10 pages is enough to get the feel for how this big mess began.



it just seems like weve got a few stubborn blokes you know what I mean mate? we're arguing over a couple of woofers not a very big part of sound. lets argue about splits then maybe there would have a real argument at this pace things will never end and you get some pissy people that just like to hear themselves talk kind of pointless to me, but maybe im crazy


----------



## BigRed

Well thanks Npdang and thehatedguy for responding to my question. Kudos to you guys.


----------



## thehatedguy

The W7 is a damned nice sub too, I like the W6v2 a touch better though in terms of sound.

W6v2 is one damned fine woofer.


----------



## thehatedguy

I heard Dave and Scott like the T3 woofers. Dave had the IDQs in at ESN and IASCA Finals (I think) and the T3s in at MECA Finals. And, well you've heard about his truck.

Jonathan Demuth knows how to build subwoofers, and I trust Dave and Scott...so they might be another great choice as well.



BigRed said:


> Well thanks Npdang and thehatedguy for responding to my question. Kudos to you guys.


----------



## bigabe

I had honestly never heard of T3 Audio until just now. I just looked it up...

Interesting. The T.S 12" might just be what I'm looking for right now... anybody have T/S parameters on that one?? PM me if you do... they're not on the T3 website.


----------



## mvw2

thehatedguy said:


> mvw2...you have the wrong hatedguy listed there.
> 
> Plus you basically discredit what I know about speaker design.


Fixed the name. I forgot there's two of you. 

I can't discredit what hasn't been said. You've never stated your knowledge about speaker design. I know you've been in the hobby for a long time and compete, but that is no indication of the actual knowledge of design and materials. You will be familiar with products but not the build unless you've actually went further with your education of the concepts behind speaker design and material design. If you have kudos. However, I would expect that you'd better understand why npdang is saying what he is as far as materials and design go.

I am on the understanding that materials don't make a speaker great. For example, I love the little Mach 5 MLI-65 midwoofers. I think they're great. It's not because they are particularly special in any way. They are well built, but the design isn't cutting edge in any way. It's just that there are a lot of good qualities that make the driver, overall, very easy to work with and good sounding. 

I see the same idea behind ID subwoofers. It's not the materials alone but rather the overall package as a whole. The ID subs seem to be easier to work with than many others. Again, npdang actually mentioned this early on stating that ID was well liked because of it's low Q and ease of use. As well, npdang always said they sounded good and never said they were bad woofers, just not special or godly as people make them out to be. 

I don't think of the Mach 5 midwoofers as godly. However, I do find them extremely likable and easy to use, which to me makes them desirable even over some more expensive, more technically advanced hardware. For example, Seas W18NX is pretty much "godly" in the home audio world. I've used a pair of these for some months. I decided to go 3-way and sold them off. Prior to stepping to 3-way, I purchased a pair of Mach 5 woofers as temporary drivers to use(actually had final plans for them in a PC subwoofer setup). The W18NX is a better woofer is most reguards, but I found the Mach 5 easier to work with and very user friendly. I would even go as far as to say that I actually prefer them over the W18NX. There is a loss of sound quality to some degree, but at the same time, there is a gain on ease of function and forgiveness that makes them more of a main stream winner. This is how I see the ID subs fit into the subwoofer market. However, I also see the DIYMA sub as the W18NX, more advanced, with better technology and build. Now the DIYMA doesn't suffer from ease of use though. It's actually very easy to use. However, I wouldn't want to dent the cone. Thin metal acts kind of like paper. Once there's a crease or something in it the thing can crumple/fold easily. Basically the sub should be handled maturely, and to some, this may be undesirable as they would rather not care and just beat the snot out of it without worry.


----------



## thehatedguy

mvw2, I respect that.


----------



## BigRed

I've personally only heard the T3's in spl competitions, so I have no reference with that sub in a good sq setup. Scott from my conversations really favors the JL subs 

I've only heard the Diyma sub once, and it blended nicely from my limited listening experience.

I've heard many Id subs in sq vehicles, and well, they were nice.


----------



## haibane

Of all the subs I have heard I like the IDmax the best and the RE XXX the least out of the super subs.


----------



## tyroneshoes

Excellent play by play review by mvw2. While it looks like this battle has cooled down and no team ended up victorious, we all here can look forward to another heated match between these two in the up and coming season.

Lets go to Howie on the sidelines. Howie...










Thanks guys. Well there was no clear winner, it's safe to say that the IDQ will always be known of one of the best, if not most loved car audio subwoofers of all time. I think when the new roster of IDQ comes out, we can look froward to even more great matches like this one. And by looking at this match, who is to know how long the next one might be.










Thanks Howie and I think thats something all of us agree with over here. Stay tuned for Sports Center for a discussion on corked gaskets and their effect in the pro circuit. Have a great week and we'll see you all Sunday.


----------



## bigabe

No Ollie Williams??



Boo.....


----------



## tyroneshoes

POLY CONE BLACK LIKE ME


----------



## thadman

Whoever asserted that npdang had any malicious intent towards the IDQ...or any forum members for that matter in his posts is beyond ridiculous. I couldn't say the same for several members on the other side of the argument. Personal attacks and taking quotes out of context are not welcome on this forum, neither is blatant arrogance.

I'm not sure why npdang or the diyma was personally attacked, he merely stated his experiences and some objective data regarding the IDQ from an engineering perspective. The IDQ is a simple driver regarding construction and materials used, whats to debate here? For those who feel the need to fuel their egos, I'd recommend caraudio.com or one of its counterparts. They are filled with subjective ignorance and invite personal attacks willingly.


----------



## mvw2

Thanks Ollie, back to you Diane.


----------



## Eric Stevens

DevilDriver said:


> How does someone give an opinion on a product without being negative if they are unimpressed with that product? Should it be sugar-coated because someone who likes the product might read it?


Doesn't require sugar coating. 

An opinion is prefaced by the word " I " followed by the opinion. I.E. *I* don't like the over the top bling of Audiobahn products!

It was put that we used poor materials, had poor build quality, and poor product consistency. This puts it in a way that says they are inferior, at which point it is more attack than opinion, more passing judgment than just expressing opinion. To add further, he didn't state specifics he only made generalizations.

I am all for an open exchange of opinions and would never question anyone about their opinion other than wanting to learn why they think a particular way.

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## chad

Well guys, it looks as if the feild has not cooled off yet.


----------



## chad

tyroneshoes said:


> Stay tuned for Sports Center for a discussion on corked gaskets and their effect in the pro circuit.


Ironiclly they are used in the pro world all the time, still as a rear gasket on a well known 3 letter brand and I believe certain older recones are still shipped with a cork front gasket. Have not had a poblem with them yet but we use te most wicked 3M glue (at least to remove) even used for cork gluing.

Chad


----------



## Eric Stevens

BassBaller5 said:


> Since i am no expert on driver design, i will avoid that debate.. however, NPdang never attempted discouraging people from voicing their own opinions nor did he ever insult people for their opinions.
> 
> His "attacks" were well researched and his "OPINIONS" (that you claim he needs to allow more of) were of intentions only to inform the readers of DIYMA, not send out personal attacks on a product.
> 
> I have personally been a big fan of ID products, however when a company cant take harmless criticism and has to bash someone else on a forum to justify their products, that company goes down a few notches in my book.


I am not bashing him, I am calling him out for his post about our products. I never bashed him or said anything bad. I can take criticism, and welcome it now and always. What was said was not a simple criticism though. He made what I term as negative statements without qualifying or explaining them.

"Criticism is the activity of judgement or informed interpretation and, in many cases, can be synonymous with "analysis." ""

He didnt state an opinion in my reading of his post, he comes across like h is stating facts. There is a big difference between fact and opinion. See the below definition of opinion

"An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact. Accordingly, all information on the web, from a surfer's perspective, is better described as opinion rather than fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Eric Stevens


----------



## thadman

You know Eric, It'd be great if you guys would actually "quote" npdang bashing your products. That would be an excellent addition to your case.

Taking things he said out of context and suggesting their meaning is very unprofessional imo.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

eric-npdang was simply stating that the idq is old technology and a more advanced driver can be had for the same or less money. i along with a lot of others on here could care less how old the technology is as long as it does everything i need it to do. i really like the simplicity of the idq personally. it's up there on my list of olskool favorites with the original round solosince i have your attention, does the new v3 idq have more impact than the v2? the old v1 idq was incredible when i heard one in a friends ram.


----------



## thadman

This isn't junior high, this thread is over 26 pages...excuses are out the door at this point. Eric and the whole image dynamics gang are plenty capable of reading npdang's posts correctly...they sure look legible to me...nobody needs to read them anything. The only case presented against npdang so far was some "gossip, omgzorz did you hear what he said political BS"

I can only thank npdang for keeping his cool and representing the true diy'er admirably. He has provided the DIY community with an irreplaceable resource, and for the many who quickly turned against him with personal attacks over something so fickle are being beyond ridiculous.


----------



## thehatedguy

You mean like where I quoted him 2x? There is nothing taken out of context...you have the inability to comprehend another side of the argument is all.



thadman said:


> You know Eric, It'd be great if you guys would actually "quote" npdang bashing your products. That would be an excellent addition to your case.
> 
> Taking things he said out of context and suggesting their meaning is very unprofessional imo.


----------



## avaxis

well here's an opinion

I've heard an IDMAX 12" driven by an Orion HCCA 250G4 amp @ 1ohm, and it sound like ripples of fat on an overgrown thigh. flabby, uncontrolled and all over the place. plenty of output though. i don't know about the install, tuning, or setup, but based on what i heard its pure crap. 

and i think its a moot point for npdang to reply further, he's been trying to deliver his point and never "bashed" a product and always responded with much love and taking things positively. while other people take his statements out of context and interpret it the way they want to.


----------



## thadman

thadman said:


> You know *Eric*, It'd be great if you guys would actually "quote" npdang bashing your products. That would be an excellent addition to your case.
> 
> Taking things he said out of context and suggesting their meaning is very unprofessional imo.





thehatedguy said:


> You mean like where I quoted him 2x? There is nothing taken out of context...you have the inability to comprehend another side of the argument is all.


Your name is Eric too? If so, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## 60ndown

many of you need to find a new hobby that makes you happy, 

this one obviously isnt.


----------



## thehatedguy

No, but that "whole Image Dynamics gang" sort of generalized me into what you were saying.



thadman said:


> Your name is Eric too? If so, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## MiniVanMan

Eric Stevens said:


> I am not bashing him, I am calling him out for his post about our products. I never bashed him or said anything bad. I can take criticism, and welcome it now and always. What was said was not a simple criticism though. He made what I term as negative statements without qualifying or explaining them.
> 
> "Criticism is the activity of judgement or informed interpretation and, in many cases, can be synonymous with "analysis." ""
> 
> He didnt state an opinion in my reading of his post, he comes across like h is stating facts. There is a big difference between fact and opinion. See the below definition of opinion
> 
> "An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact. Accordingly, all information on the web, from a surfer's perspective, is better described as opinion rather than fact."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
> 
> Eric Stevens


One of the things I've always liked about Npdang is his "analysis". He can be critical, even when he thinks he isn't. He's aggravated more than a few builders and designers with his "analysis". What his "analysis" offers us, the casual DIYer, car audio enthusiast is a fairly (I use that term loosely) unbiased opinion on his findings with a particular driver. With that of course, you have to consider the source, as with anybody. Npdang has definite preferences, and opinions on what he likes and dislikes. Most of these preferences are based personal experience and personal taste, and with time you learn these biases, and can take them into account. 

That being said, what Npdang stated could be seen as attacks on your product, but most of us here don't see it that way. Most of us are very objective, and take things in the whole context of our experience here on DIYMA. Very, very seldom has any driver been tested or critiqued that hasn't had drawbacks reported. There have been builders that have been offended by this (Chad of Ascendant Audio is one of them). However, it's the information that we crave here so we can educate ourselves, and when it comes time to make a purchase, we feel more confident in it. That's why we have gravitated over here from other forums where product recommendations are very often based on heresy and "flavor of the week". 

It's okay to ask why a product is so well liked, and offer opposing arguments. If you offer a good product, the pros will outweigh the cons. However, any informed consumer knows there is no perfect product. ID does not make any perfect product. They have however made outstanding products for a very long time. I've always liked where ID stands in the marketplace, and is where I personally cut my teeth in car audio when I took the jump from Circuit City brands to high end. They offer a great product, at a relatively reasonable price, and in my case was my gateway drug into a true audioholic. 

Nothing Npdang has said will cause me to ever talk bad about ID. However, I can take his criticism and use it for my own personal knowledge, and possibly learn a bit more than I did before. 

I understand that word of mouth really drives sales. Especially in this market. ID wouldn't be where it is without some very happy customers. Npdang has stated one of the reasons ID has been successful, making a good product, that's easy to use, and sounds good with minimal effort. However, it is fair to say that something that's been around for ages is somewhat dated by now. I don't blame ID for continuing to put the IDQ out there. Hell I would. That doesn't change the fact that it is a rather unremarkable sub by today's standards. Doesn't make it bad, and it still has it's customer appeal.


----------



## mvw2

Eric Stevens said:


> I am not bashing him, I am calling him out for his post about our products. I never bashed him or said anything bad. I can take criticism, and welcome it now and always. What was said was not a simple criticism though. He made what I term as negative statements without qualifying or explaining them.
> 
> "Criticism is the activity of judgement or informed interpretation and, in many cases, can be synonymous with "analysis." ""
> 
> He didnt state an opinion in my reading of his post, he comes across like h is stating facts. There is a big difference between fact and opinion. See the below definition of opinion
> 
> "An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact. Accordingly, all information on the web, from a surfer's perspective, is better described as opinion rather than fact."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
> 
> Eric Stevens





npdang said:


> Personally, between my friends and I we've owned probably close to a hundred ID products. I couldn't get t/s specs within 20% for any of them or a centered coil on any of the dozen or so I've measured... admittedly a small sample, but more than anyone else including probably ID have measured. Not a big deal, and only one in the sense that you believe without offering any evidence that this is the case that their drivers are all exactly on spec. And personally, I've had both of my Idmax's (owned over 2yrs apart) critically fail. Ask Dual700, he had them repaired for me. And you guys know I'm no bass head. And almost everyone I know has sworn off the cx drivers, which had bent formers or mis-aligned coils that buzzed like crazy. Again this doesn't tell us anything, but for every story you've got I've got one too, and probably many more.
> 
> The whole point I'm trying to make is let's not get too carried away representing our experiences as "facts" about any brand or driver. Someone asked for an opinion and I gave it. I would have stayed well out of this, until someone posted that us diy'ers somehow shun the almighty IDQ because of some elitist notion. Next thing you know there's a bandwagon of people agreeing with this statement, as if we turn our noses down at anything that doesn't come from a fancy European name. Total bs, which is why I posted my reasons and prefaced it with a IMHO for good measure!


This is one of his earlier posts. It seems he was sharing his experiences/opinions on the various ID products he's owned (about 100) and have tested about a dozen of them in the process. He does specifically state that this was his opinion and his small sampling doesn't necessarily represent ID. He also explicitly states NOT to take his comments as "facts" for this reason. Npdang isn't one to blindly bash people/products or say much of anything about well anything unless he's actually used and/or tested the hardware. He's not really bashing, just relaying his experiences. If people choose to ignore this. So be it. If people want to take this out of context, so be it.


----------



## durwood

You see what makes a great subwoofer is that it can play low, because subwoofers play low and we know that if they don't play low we don't have a subwoofer. So it's pretty simple you see. Subwoofers play low in the sub woofer region.


----------



## Class ey!

I don't know mates it seems like the hated 1 and 2 are they the same people? they've earned their name those blokes need to just let it go neednt to always instigate its only subwoofers lets not get our panties in an uproar

think peace fellas


----------



## npdang

This is originally what I said *" When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO."*

Doesn't say BAD in it anywhere... and while not glowing, it certainly isn't all that negative. I also said IMHO.

I honestly don't know where you (ERIC) are getting half the stuff you're accusing me of, although I don't blame you for not wanting to read carefully through 7 pages of this lengthy mess. Like every other manufacturer though that didn't like what I've said, you've done a great job of ducking the actual questions or speaking to the matter at hand, and dissapointingly resorted to lashing out at my credibility. All it takes are a few (valid/provable) statements of fact on your end, and this conversation would be over long ago.

I have nothing else to add.


----------



## Class ey!

npdang said:


> This is originally what I said *" When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO."*
> 
> Doesn't say BAD in it anywhere... and while not glowing, it certainly isn't all that negative. I also said IMHO.
> 
> I honestly don't know where you (ERIC) are getting half the stuff you're accusing me of, although I don't blame you for not wanting to read carefully through 7 pages of this lengthy mess. Like every other manufacturer though that didn't like what I've said, you've done a great job of ducking the actual questions or speaking to the matter at hand, and dissapointingly resorted to lashing out at my credibility. All it takes are a few (valid/provable) statements of fact on your end, and this conversation would be over long ago.
> 
> I have nothing else to add.


hey mate, you have nothing to post I think youve been a classy fellow thru all this


----------



## FoxPro5

durwood said:


> You see what makes a great subwoofer is that it can play low, because subwoofers play low and we know that if they don't play low we don't have a subwoofer. So it's pretty simple you see. Subwoofers play low in the sub woofer region.


You sonofabitch! You gave me the worst side ache ever!! hahahhhahhahahhh    

But yea, if you have carpal tunel syndrome try vibration therapy...say at 60 hz...say from a quality subwoofer like the DIYMA Reference 12.


----------



## ///Audience

i was WAITING for Madden to be brought into this! 

Success


----------



## thehatedguy

Nope, not close on any counts.



Class ey! said:


> I don't know mates it seems like the hated 1 and 2 are they the same people? they've earned their name those blokes need to just let it go neednt to always instigate its only subwoofers lets not get our panties in an uproar
> 
> think peace fellas


----------



## Class ey!

thehatedguy said:


> Nope, not close on any counts.


hey mate no harm done we're all passionate about the same thing
lets all be awesome and just rock on you know


----------



## Buzzman

Class ey! said:


> no mate, I did read what you said its just that you brought up factors that I didnt know about so now I look at this idq12 Ive got in my basement and i dont think I will look at it the same


Why? It amazes me how people can place such stock in the opinions of one person that they would no longer place any value on a piece of equipment they acquired or purchased for, presumably, a good reason.


----------



## dbiegel

I remember when I first came upon this site what really amazed me was that npdang was posting speaker measurements and his objectiveness and fairness in evaluating products, as well as that of other members. This was in a world of car audio which I'd always seen as having a lot of "beliefs," "myths," and companies taking advantage of the technical ignorance of the average car audio consumer. I said wow, finally a site where people are willing to think outside the box and try and figure things out for the way they really are, trying to get a better understanding of the scientific truths behind this elusive thing we call acoustics.

Are we no better than the chumps who buy $30k speaker cables because they "sounded good" and "won competitions"? This thread came out of nowhere and is surprisingly disappointing. I'd like to think that we've moved beyond purely anecdotal, faith based evaluation of products. If not maybe I should just run an all-Audiobahn system, there are plenty of reviews online telling me how awesome they sound and how the amps and subs pound so hard.

I'd love to hear WHY a certain sub is good or bad, other than "it sounds good." Npdang stated real reasons for his opinion attacking certain characteristics of the ID sub's build and reasons why the DIYMA is built properly. We have some very knowledgable and talented people here and I'd love to hear WHY the IDQ is well built, or WHY the DIYMA isn't. 

Tell me about the T/s parameters, the motor, etc. I'm no expert in this stuff but I love to hear it from someone who can explain it.


----------



## mvw2

Nah, that's a good thing. It means Class ey! is learning.

However, I think people put too much emphasis on certain things. Some basic things like cone material, foam vs. rubber surround, if a motor has copper or not (in a sub), cast vs stamped frames, etc. In the end, what does it matter?

I want to go back to my Mach 5 MLI-65 midwoofer example. It's a simple woofer, clean and well built but simple. It has a somewhat flimsy paper cone, no copper in the motor, and there's no venting behind the spider. Compared to a quality Seas or Peerless model, it doesn't exactly tout greatness. However, when played, it shows a very likable woofer. The frequency response is broad and flat and extremely easy to work with. There's good clarity and effortless presence providing an open sound. Detail is a bit soft/rounded off, my only gripe. It shows no real weakness in excursion, despite only measuring 5.5mm, only indicating limits by a gradual loss of low end sensitivity(compression), never bottoms. It handles lots of power and gets quite loud. Both upper end and lower end response is usable enough not to use a single filter if desired. But, it's a pretty basic woofer. 

The other side would be asking could it benefit from copper in the motor? Could it benefit with venting below the spider? Could it benefit from a more rigid cone, perhaps composite/metal? Probably. Could some of these changes make it worse? Maybe. Something like a metal cone could introduce higher frequency resonances and poor high frequency use. Instead of doing 4kHz easy, you might only be able to do 2kHz. What about price? What if the woofer costs $100 now? Is it worth it?


----------



## Eric Stevens

npdang said:


> This is originally what I said *" When you take all that away, and look at the sub on it's own merit in terms of construction, materials used, production consistency, measured performance, etc... what you have is a rather dated and unremarkable design IMHO."*
> 
> Doesn't say BAD in it anywhere... and while not glowing, it certainly isn't all that negative. I also said IMHO.
> 
> I honestly don't know where you (ERIC) are getting half the stuff you're accusing me of, although I don't blame you for not wanting to read carefully through 7 pages of this lengthy mess. Like every other manufacturer though that didn't like what I've said, you've done a great job of ducking the actual questions or speaking to the matter at hand, and dissapointingly resorted to lashing out at my credibility. All it takes are a few (valid/provable) statements of fact on your end, and this conversation would be over long ago.
> 
> I have nothing else to add.


Npdang I apologize! I over reacted, I got a different message when I read the post the first time. I took your statement out of context and that is why I asked questions of you. Nowhere did I accuse you of something other than making statements not based in fact.

However your responses to the people touting the IDQ, did and still do come across to me like you had a bone to pick with the IDQ, and didnt want to let people just express their opinions. In the end I was just protecting one of my children.

I am sorry you feel I lashed out at your credibility and apologize for this as well that was not what I was doing. I read your post and took from it that you were making statements about the product without basing them in fact or prefacing them as your personal opinion. I then answered a couple of posts to that effect. No where did I resort to trying to discredit you or your opinions I simply asked questions and responded incorrectly to other posts

I haven't ducked any questions! there weren't any direct questions in the first 16 pages I read last night. There are still about 10 pages of this thread I haven't read yet, maybe there are some questions there. As for addressing the matter at hand I thought I did a good job of that then and now. I even agreed with points you made about the IDQ subwoofers. 

I still stand by my response that there is alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. If you would like too we can carry on a separate discussion about this, it would be informative and I believe I would learn from an exchange like that.

You as a moderator have to hold yourself to a higher level of credibility than the average poster on a forum. For a moderator to state negative opinions of a product is something that should done very carefully and in some instances not at all. I never put down another companies product as you appear to in your post about the IDQ. 

Just as long as neither of us act like "Mover" we will be Ok


----------



## Eric Stevens

Hillbilly SQ said:


> eric-npdang was simply stating that the idq is old technology and a more advanced driver can be had for the same or less money. i along with a lot of others on here could care less how old the technology is as long as it does everything i need it to do. i really like the simplicity of the idq personally. it's up there on my list of olskool favorites with the original round solosince i have your attention, does the new v3 idq have more impact than the v2? the old v1 idq was incredible when i heard one in a friends ram.


The V.3 has a significant increase in xmax and linearity of suspension and motor force along with a large increase in thermal power handling for less power compression. 

These all add up to more output which is where the impact comes from.


----------



## mvw2

^we like to see that sort of stuff here.

You both live in Cali. Maybe you guys can get together for drinks or something and shoot the breeze and discuss nerdy speaker sort of stuff.


----------



## cvjoint

DOMN8R said:


> I'd love to hear WHY a certain sub is good or bad, other than "it sounds good." Npdang stated real reasons for his opinion attacking certain characteristics of the ID sub's build and reasons why the DIYMA is built properly. We have some very knowledgable and talented people here and I'd love to hear WHY the IDQ is well built, or WHY the DIYMA isn't.
> 
> Tell me about the T/s parameters, the motor, etc. I'm no expert in this stuff but I love to hear it from someone who can explain it.


X2 ID came on defending their "child" by heart only with little technical support. We knew about the Q spec from Npdang, the only extra information we got was "there is more to it, but it's not for show." I am disappointed to say the least. 



mvw2 said:


> The other side would be asking could it benefit from copper in the motor? Could it benefit with venting below the spider? Could it benefit from a more rigid cone, perhaps composite/metal? Probably. Could some of these changes make it worse? Maybe.


I don't understand what you are arguing for sometimes. Why wouldn't you want the best materials and build techniques? Copper keeps inductance low, a rigid cone gives piston like behavior. Sure you will have to pay more for it, don't you always have to pay more bucks for the better stuff? I personally prefer to spend $ if it's technically justified, not so much for marketing expenses (think Bose).


----------



## avaxis

Eric Stevens said:


> Npdang I apologize! I over reacted, I got a different message when I read the post the first time. I took your statement out of context and that is why I asked questions of you. Nowhere did I accuse you of something other than making statements not based in fact.
> 
> However your responses to the people touting the IDQ, did and still do come across to me like you had a bone to pick with the IDQ, and didnt want to let people just express their opinions. In the end I was just protecting one of my children.
> 
> I am sorry you feel I lashed out at your credibility and apologize for this as well that was not what I was doing. I read your post and took from it that you were making statements about the product without basing them in fact or prefacing them as your personal opinion. I then answered a couple of posts to that effect. No where did I resort to trying to discredit you or your opinions I simply asked questions and responded incorrectly to other posts
> 
> I haven't ducked any questions! there weren't any direct questions in the first 16 pages I read last night. There are still about 10 pages of this thread I haven't read yet, maybe there are some questions there. As for addressing the matter at hand I thought I did a good job of that then and now. I even agreed with points you made about the IDQ subwoofers.
> 
> I still stand by my response that there is alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. If you would like too we can carry on a separate discussion about this, it would be informative and I believe I would learn from an exchange like that.
> 
> You as a moderator have to hold yourself to a higher level of credibility than the average poster on a forum. For a moderator to state negative opinions of a product is something that should done very carefully and in some instances not at all. I never put down another companies product as you appear to in your post about the IDQ.
> 
> Just as long as neither of us act like "Mover" we will be Ok


notice how eric didn't address, didn't disagree nor deny what npdang said in bold. interesting isn't it? yet he makes a very well written post that transfers the discussion about a product to the people who participates in the discussion. 

not to mention his responses are vague and not specific. e.g. alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. yeah..so..? exactly what?

its like making a post that offers no actual value to the discussion. sounds like PR to me. well, goes to show ID hires very good people, that is for sure.


----------



## Rudeboy

avaxis said:


> notice how eric didn't address, didn't disagree nor deny what npdang said in bold. interesting isn't it? yet he makes a very well written post that transfers the discussion about a product to the people who participates in the discussion.
> 
> not to mention his responses are vague and not specific. e.g. alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. yeah..so..? exactly what?
> 
> its like making a post that offers no actual value to the discussion. sounds like PR to me. well, goes to show ID hires very good people, that is for sure.


I have to agree with this and not exclusively regarding Eric Stevens. This is once again coming down to science versus religion with the implication that we are too stupid draw conclusions from the facts and need to bow our heads to a priesthood and their special skills and understanding. Very un-DIYMA-like.


----------



## GlasSman

avaxis said:


> notice how Eric didn't address, didn't disagree nor deny what npdang said in bold. interesting isn't it? yet he makes a very well written post that transfers the discussion about a product to the people who participates in the discussion.
> 
> not to mention his responses are vague and not specific. e.g. alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. yeah..so..? exactly what?
> 
> Its like making a post that offers no actual value to the discussion. sounds like PR to me. well, goes to show ID hires very good people, that is for sure.


Eric designs the speakers.......so whats *YOUR* point? I doubt anyone hired him. And why wouldn't he come on here and defend his company? Is he suppose to lie down like a dog and let people drag his company through the mud? Eric is nothing but professional on any post I've ever read on any forum.

It's great that we have people that will shoot a guy down that is the head of a company that will answer the phone and have a conversation. Customer.....or not.


----------



## Class ey!

mvw2 said:


> Nah, that's a good thing. It means Class ey! is learning.


thanks mate we're all learning Id like to think I had many good times with my idq12 no matter what anyone says about it those good times wont change. I didnt actually mean what I said so much it was more of a joke I mean I own the sub its just sitting in me basement Im not going to throw it away that would be ridiculous I just prefer my 10w6x2 a little more. me thinks a couple of you blokes might be a little hard on Eric he seems nice and sincere in his apologies the rest might be a little unnecessary but at least he apologized and hopefully this squabble of id vs the local sub here will go to rest and hopefully no one comes in to instigate

cheers!


----------



## Oliver

Subs are kewl , all uniquely different , they will perform according to the person using the subwoofer's understanding of how to use them  

Now this thread had various posters doing what you see below


----------



## avaxis

GlasSman said:


> Eric designs the speakers.......so whats *YOUR* point? I doubt anyone hired him. And why wouldn't he come on here and defend his company? Is he suppose to lie down like a dog and let people drag his company through the mud? Eric is nothing but professional on any post I've ever read on any forum.
> 
> It's great that we have people that will shoot a guy down that is the head of a company that will answer the phone and have a conversation. Customer.....or not.


my point? pointing out that he isn't making a point. if you want to discuss about something, then address the topic, not who's involved in the topic. just address the topic and get on with the discussion.

i don't see him very professional while addressing npdang's post (which in actual fact, like i said, he didn't address at all.) its plain obvious, it was simple dodge, maneuver and change the reader's attention to something else.

*nobody* said anything was wrong with the company. in fact, its not even relevant to the topic. does it mean having good customer support, great warranty and dedicated staff and owner automatically makes the product good? that's a stupid logic. as far as i've noticed, npdang was talking about the product here, and this topic is regarding subs, not which company has good customer support. we're talking about the product here, period.


----------



## GlasSman

avaxis said:


> my point? pointing out that he isn't making a point. if you want to discuss about something, then address the topic, not who's involved in the topic. just address the topic and get on with the discussion.
> 
> i don't see him very professional while addressing npdang's post (which in actual fact, like i said, he didn't address at all.) its plain obvious, it was simple dodge, maneuver and change the reader's attention to something else.
> 
> *nobody* said anything was wrong with the company. in fact, its not even relevant to the topic. does it mean having good customer support, great warranty and dedicated staff and owner automatically makes the product good? that's a stupid logic. as far as i've noticed, npdang was talking about the product here, and this topic is regarding subs, not which company has good customer support. we're talking about the product here, period.


No when you start attacking the person who owns the company and designs the speakers we're no longer discussing the product. 

This thread has no topic. It just turned into a free- for - all. I'm really sick of people acting like thread police and telling people to stay on topic. Seems a common response from some.

Look at the OP...thread seemed to go WAY OT. Did I chime in and say "Get back on topic? No I didn't. 

And Eric was nothing *BUT* professional.


----------



## mvw2

cvjoint said:


> I don't understand what you are arguing for sometimes. Why wouldn't you want the best materials and build techniques? Copper keeps inductance low, a rigid cone gives piston like behavior. Sure you will have to pay more for it, don't you always have to pay more bucks for the better stuff? I personally prefer to spend $ if it's technically justified, not so much for marketing expenses (think Bose).


It's a question of need. Sure, you'd like to have all these features designed into a driver, but is it needed? For example, if someone builds a good motor design and the inductance peak is outside of the normal operating range(enough so that there isn't a ton of variation), is copper really needed? Sure it will help, but is it needed? If the woofer is already 95% of what it could be, is there a credible point to adding copper? Is it worth another $20 on the woofer? Consider if you're building a home theater setup and you've got 6 of these woofers. Is it worth another $20 per woofer?

I bring this up because there is a lot of variety in woofer design. Yes, some are built cheap and junky, some affordable but good, and some with all the little bits and pieces that make engineers drool. In the end, we still get a lot of good sounding woofers despite many not having all the techno-gadgetry.

This covers all aspects, like stamped versus cast frames. So there's a gain in airflow and an improvement in build tolerances. Ok. What if the stamped frame is overbuilt well enough that flow isn't an issue. What if it's processed well enough that tolerances are a non-issue. It's not like the woofer can't be loosely designed so that it can easily handle small variations. Tighter tolerances are nice, but there's only so much accuracy that's needed in order for normal operation and enough consistency to not have issues after building 1000 woofers.

These are design choices made when developing a woofer design and build process. There's ideas like ease of manufacture, speed of manufacture, and cost associated with the process.

The whole point is we look at the DIYMA sub with all this techo-gadgetry and say "why shouldn't all subs be that way?" We look at something plain jane looking like the ID subs (no offense to Eric and his products) and say "why can't it include all the techo stuff like the DIYMA?" My point is why should it?

I say all of this because the whole arguement has been about the ID being a basic design. The QC and consistency is in there too, but that's simply a manufacture issue or choice in parts. These can be addressed more easily on a small scale while not changing the overall woofer design. It's also something easier to miss without regular testing which may have to be increased in frequency or started if issues arise/exist.

To the average consumer, many of these aspects are not all that important. I'm willing to forgive some cheapness as long as the woofer behaves and sounds the way I want it to. Some of us want more, and that's fine too. That's why there's a 1000 different subs out there for us to choose from.


----------



## Rudeboy

mvw2 said:


> I say all of this because the whole arguement has been about the ID being a basic design.


Your post is very reasonable but I have to disagree with this single point. I really think the argument has been about npdang's right, qualifications and motivation to make that statement.


----------



## BTA

GlasSman said:


> And Eric was nothing *BUT* professional.


Personally, I dont find somebody representing a business, getting into a pissing contest on a forum, professional at all.


----------



## BEAVER

> Personally, I dont find somebody representing a business, getting into a pissing contest on a forum, professional at all.


I did not see this at all. I saw a man defending his product and his companies name. Period.


----------



## BTA

BEAVER said:


> I did not see this at all. I saw a man defending his product and his companies name. Period.


I just have to wonder if say, Microsoft, would employ someone to watch tech forums and respond to people who think their products suck?


----------



## BEAVER

> I just have to wonder if say, Microsoft, would employ someone to watch tech forums and respond to people who think their products suck?


Do you honestly think Eric sits around watching internet forums all day?
...Or is it possible that a member here, who also happens to know Eric, could have brought this to his attention?


----------



## BigRed

well, I remember when the government tried to imply that microsoft was a monopoly, and Bill Gates definately defended his product.  He hired himself


----------



## thehatedguy

So npdang should have stayed out of this and not have said anything about any competing drivers then? 

Cause you can't go both ways. He is selling a product too. And he got in on the thread...and he said a few bad things (could be taken as hersay) about the QC "issues" at ID.



BTA said:


> Personally, I dont find somebody representing a business, getting into a pissing contest on a forum, professional at all.


----------



## dogstar

Imo, comparing the Diyma to the IDQ is foolish as they are NOT in the same market. People may consider both subs when looking at a purchase, but everything I know of both subs says they are designed for very different uses and very different customers.

Why did a large argument erupt over apples and oranges?

As for professionalism, I believe that both Eric and Npdang have been on a similar level. Some things were said that were taken out of context, or were taken to be more insulting than they were meant to be, but no one has been poked in the eye with a stick nor have insults been hurled back and forth.
No harm, no foul I'd say.


----------



## mvw2

BTA said:


> Personally, I dont find somebody representing a business, getting into a pissing contest on a forum, professional at all.


He's actually been very mature about the whole thing. And I do feel he apologized when he really didn't have to. I think he's being a _very_ stand up guy.



Rudeboy said:


> Your post is very reasonable but I have to disagree with this single point. I really think the argument has been about npdang's right, qualifications and motivation to make that statement.


Does anyone actually question npdang's qualifications? I think people are taking things out of proportion simply because he is _so_ qualified. He's really only in this mess because someone attacked his DIYMA sub stating false generalities. The comments about the ID subs were somewhat universal in the sense that not only npdang said it, and he wasn't the first either. I agree it was a bit of an attack in the sense that if your child was fat, someone would comment that he was fat. Sure he's fat and that may not be the most desirable. However, maybe that fat kid beats up your skinny kid and takes his lunch money, lol. So now your desirable(physique) skinning kid is a wuss. There are other things involved that are unknown. It is worse off to say that you are not raising your child right and that you're a bad parent. No comments have been brought to this level, thankfully. Heck, even if this was said, you still have to understand that it is merely opinion perhaps based off some level of experience/fact but also potentially very much based off speculation.


----------



## npdang

Eric Stevens said:


> Npdang I apologize! I over reacted, I got a different message when I read the post the first time. I took your statement out of context and that is why I asked questions of you. Nowhere did I accuse you of something other than making statements not based in fact.
> 
> However your responses to the people touting the IDQ, did and still do come across to me like you had a bone to pick with the IDQ, and didnt want to let people just express their opinions. In the end I was just protecting one of my children.
> 
> I am sorry you feel I lashed out at your credibility and apologize for this as well that was not what I was doing. I read your post and took from it that you were making statements about the product without basing them in fact or prefacing them as your personal opinion. I then answered a couple of posts to that effect. No where did I resort to trying to discredit you or your opinions I simply asked questions and responded incorrectly to other posts
> 
> I haven't ducked any questions! there weren't any direct questions in the first 16 pages I read last night. There are still about 10 pages of this thread I haven't read yet, maybe there are some questions there. As for addressing the matter at hand I thought I did a good job of that then and now. I even agreed with points you made about the IDQ subwoofers.
> 
> I still stand by my response that there is alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. If you would like too we can carry on a separate discussion about this, it would be informative and I believe I would learn from an exchange like that.
> 
> You as a moderator have to hold yourself to a higher level of credibility than the average poster on a forum. For a moderator to state negative opinions of a product is something that should done very carefully and in some instances not at all. I never put down another companies product as you appear to in your post about the IDQ.
> 
> Just as long as neither of us act like "Mover" we will be Ok


I apologize as well. I simply took your statements questioning the validity of my opinions as a roundabout way of calling me a liar, when now I see it was simply a misunderstanding. 

I've also refrained from commenting further on this driver, however I disagree with you that I have actually said anything strongly negative about the IDQ. The best thing anyone can say about any driver is that it sounds good, and that is something I've re-iterated many times. If I find there are other faults based on my own personal knowledge and experience, I preface it as such and leave it for others to judge.

The reason I've continued to press the matter, and it may appear as if I'm putting down the IDQ (when I'm not), is because I'm being personally attacked, and I'm only looking for an answer to my statements which never seem to be directly addressed.


----------



## cvjoint

Rudeboy said:


> Your post is very reasonable but I have to disagree with this single point. I really think the argument has been about npdang's right, qualifications and motivation to make that statement.


Since when are we talking about Npdang's qualifications? And who's to say what his rights of speech are? You? 

If you are honest about your business and in your critique I see no reason why you couldn't juggle several things at once. Np has nothing too hide, his cards were on the table long before he sold the first subwoofer. 

A manufacturer that comes and truthfully defends his drivers gets respect. It is the shut doors that make me wonder if the rumors are true  



mvw2 said:


> It's a question of need. Sure, you'd like to have all these features designed into a driver, but is it needed?
> (...)
> That's why there's a 1000 different subs out there for us to choose from.


I'm not going to disagree with you that new techonology needs to be used accordingly. However, most often than not they do what they are supposed to. I think it's an excellent market signal when you are about to make your purchase. What other information are you going to use to make a decision? Hearsay and subjective recommendations? I've been there and done that, I've made enough CA.com buys to make any forum boner worthy of objective inquiry. How do you pick from 1000 different subs?


----------



## Rudeboy

cvjoint said:


> Since when are we talking about Npdang's qualifications? And who's to say what his rights of speech are? You?
> 
> If you are honest about your business and in your critique I see no reason why you couldn't juggle several things at once. Np has nothing too hide, his cards were on the table long before he sold the first subwoofer.
> 
> A manufacturer that comes and truthfully defends his drivers gets respect. It is the shut doors that make me wonder if the rumors are true


I was saying other people were questioning these things and I was criticizing THEM for doing it. If they can refute his statements, then do so, but don't change the topic, call him names or impugn his integrity in lieu of presenting facts that support their position.


----------



## cvjoint

Rudeboy said:


> I was saying other people were questioning these things and I was criticizing THEM for doing it. If they can refute his statements, then do so, but don't change the topic, call him names or impugn his integrity in lieu of presenting facts that support their position.


My feelings the same. Sorry Rudeboy - didn't read like that to me. 
Pointing the finger somewhere else...


----------



## Boostedrex

Wow, that was one LONG read. I'm glad to see that things are calmed down now. And I'm glad to see that NPDang and Eric are seeing eye to eye as well. I also think that they should both be commended for how they acted on here. They were both mature and respectful, VERY MUCH unlike several other members who came across quite differently.

And thanks for the NFL commentary, that had me in tears laughing. Good call!


----------



## Eric Stevens

cvjoint said:


> X2 ID came on defending their "child" by heart only with little technical support. We knew about the Q spec from Npdang, the only extra information we got was "there is more to it, but it's not for show." I am disappointed to say the least.


I try not to get involved in the discussion of what product is best because I obviously have a slanted opinion and because based upon my position any reasonable person would question my motives. 

So I didn't offer up anything technical about our products relative to the discussion, I only asked questions and made statements in regards to Npdang's post.

I will get more technical that most people can handle!! That is given the opportunity and the time available to type it all. 

I even offered to carry on a technical discussion about what affects subwoofer performance and sound quality in a separate thread so that we could all learn from it.


----------



## Neil

Well start it up then, Eric. Please.


----------



## Eric Stevens

avaxis said:


> notice how eric didn't address, didn't disagree nor deny what npdang said in bold. interesting isn't it? yet he makes a very well written post that transfers the discussion about a product to the people who participates in the discussion.
> 
> not to mention his responses are vague and not specific. e.g. alot more to the IDQ subs beside low Q that contributes to the overall performance. yeah..so..? exactly what?
> 
> its like making a post that offers no actual value to the discussion. sounds like PR to me. well, goes to show ID hires very good people, that is for sure.


??? What post were you reading??? My whole post and apology was addressing and answering Npdangs post. Whether I agreed or disagreed is of no real merit here. The original discussion should be carried on by the members of this forum without the involvement of someone like myself. My only involvement should be of a pure technical nature to answer questions not provide opinions. 

No my post had no direct value to the original discussion as it was not directed at the actual discussion, it was a response to Npdang's post about the discussion.

I wasn't making a technical response because that needs to be a separate discussion not a part of this one. Go back and re read my post and you will notice that I invited Npdang start a separate discussion in this regard.

There were no ulterior motives in my post, only the information being directly posted. 

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## dogstar

I'd wager to say that if you are buying a Diyma specifically for what it can do or how it is built, you probably aren't looking at more average/mundane subwoofers because they may not fit your needs or wants. 

Please don't take my comment as some kind of personal dispute, if I were looking to refute your post directly, I would have quoted you and clarified my statement.


----------



## kappa546

DevilDriver said:


> Well start it up then, Eric. Please.


X2!

oh and lock this tread up already.


----------



## mvw2

Lock not necessary, but it should get back on track or put in the off-topic section.


----------



## cvjoint

Eric Stevens said:


> I try not to get involved in the discussion of what product is best because I obviously have a slanted opinion and because based upon my position any reasonable person would question my motives.
> 
> So I didn't offer up anything technical about our products relative to the discussion, I only asked questions and made statements in regards to Npdang's post.
> 
> I will get more technical that most people can handle!! That is given the opportunity and the time available to type it all.
> 
> I even offered to carry on a technical discussion about what affects subwoofer performance and sound quality in a separate thread so that we could all learn from it.


I see nothing wrong with any of the things you refrained from doing. People want to know what the Best all Around 12" sub is and you tell them what bells and whistles it needs. That is fine with me. I think people have a lot to learn from it. You want to lay it out in a separate thread, that is fine too.

Your motives can and will be questioned whether it's technical or subjective. It's the nature of the beast when you are Eric Stevens. Do I think that should stop you? NO, not at all. Let people learn, give them more than they can handle. The nature of this forum is to learn, in time people will understand. I will personally be happy to know that there was a lot of thought and love put into designing my IDMax.


----------



## thadman

cajunner said:


> I find that these products carry the distinction of being niche market products, where the idea is that you are getting something extra from the product, compared to the mass market.


*
This is all IMHO*

These drivers simply aren't in the same market. I'm going to conjecture that the average person who buys a product from Image Dynamics is probably associated with the car audio movement and isn't familiar with all of the technical nuances of loudspeaker design or the acoustics of the traditional automobile. They typically use component sets with passives already provided. The variables associated with its respective bandwidth aren't expected to be controlled and thus its design must be compromised to allow for a wide range of alignments and user error (ie it must be idiot proof, Image Dynamics can't hold every noobs hand). Image Dynamics provides a good product with reference to the car audio market.

The DIYMA on the other hand was designed by a person who has experienced excellent home audio and wanted to capture that experience in the automobile environment. From my perspective, it seems as if npdang was more interested in the "experimenting with driver design" aspect rather than manufacturing, selling, and earning a profit aspect. Home Audio drivers aren't held to stringent box size requirements and aren't gifted with the huge boundary gain of the traditional cabin. A driver with different mechanical properties would have to be designed if it was to reproduce the audio signal in the car audio environment optimally and if vast electrical manipulation was to be avoided. BS in the technical design was also to be avoided as the users were expected to be able to tune their setup (ie flat frequency response), such that non-linear distortion performance was the only significant factor that could be attributed to its sound quality.

They are designed with an output level in mind that is complimentary to the front stage (ie they aren't designed for abusive, ground pounding 150dB sub-bass). Even 120dB is beyond excessive if we disregard transients. If you listened at 120dB full-range for an extended period of time, ...speakers wouldn't be necessary...you'd be deaf. These speakers weren't designed to be idiot proof...they were designed to sound good. 

Would Accuton be hanging their heads if you busted one of their cones? Sorry, you'd be SOL. 

With all this taken into consideration, the IDQ has significantly more roots in the mass produced side of the continuum while the DIYMA lies closer to the NICHE side. They do not occupy the same region of the market.

Who even brought up the "market" BS? Npdang has nothing invested in the IDQ, I fail to see how his opinion as it applies to the IDQ is any different than his opinion as it applies to a Seas Excel for example. What does he care either way if you like the IDQ? He merely stated his opinion and promptly defended himself, whereas the Image Dynamics Crew and "the hated dudes" had an agenda the entire time. If anything should be called into question, it should be their motives.



cajunner said:


> I'd wager that if you had a couple hundred, give or take a few bucks, to spend on a subwoofer that was sq-oriented, both the IDQ and the DIYMA could be candidates in that pool, wouldn't you?


I personally would not consider the IDQ a candidate for discussion and neither would the great majority that view loudspeaker design as an objective science. The IDQ is simply not cost competitive with drivers of equal performance. We are not confined to choosing between only drivers of its quality level. 

Why should I pay for the Image Dynamics name when I could pay for no BS performance?

$240 for a 15 of the IDQ's technical level is borderline audacious from a pure assessment of its constituents. You are paying for the Image Dynamics name, not the performance. Npdang would be lauded if he designed a driver of that caliber and expected people to pay that price.


----------



## Neil

The only thing I disagree on is the price thing...the sub is worth as much as someone will pay for it. That is not the price I would pay but many consumers do. Maybe there are better values out there but if they are able to sell it at that price, all the power to them.


----------



## dogstar

cajunner said:


> I'd wager that if you had a couple hundred, give or take a few bucks, to spend on a subwoofer that was sq-oriented, both the IDQ and the DIYMA could be candidates in that pool, wouldn't you?
> 
> I find that these products carry the distinction of being niche market products, where the idea is that you are getting something extra from the product, compared to the mass market.
> 
> I don't see that as foolish at all, but your statement saying they aren't in the same market does seem, well...
> 
> all apologies accepted.


I see your point, but thadman says it MUCH better than I was able to.



thadman said:


> *
> This is all IMHO*
> 
> These drivers simply aren't in the same market. I'm going to conjecture that the average person who buys a product from Image Dynamics is probably associated with the car audio movement and isn't familiar with all of the technical nuances of loudspeaker design or the acoustics of the traditional automobile. They typically use component sets with passives already provided. The variables associated with its respective bandwidth aren't expected to be controlled and thus its design must be compromised to allow for a wide range of alignments and user error (ie it must be idiot proof, Image Dynamics can't hold every noobs hand). Image Dynamics provides a good product with reference to the car audio market.
> 
> The DIYMA on the other hand was designed by a person who has experienced excellent home audio and wanted to capture that experience in the automobile environment. From my perspective, it seems as if npdang was more interested in the "experimenting with driver design" aspect rather than manufacturing, selling, and earning a profit aspect. Home Audio drivers aren't held to stringent box size requirements and aren't gifted with the huge boundary gain of the traditional cabin. A driver with different mechanical properties would have to be designed if it was to reproduce the audio signal in the car audio environment optimally and if vast electrical manipulation was to be avoided. BS in the technical design was also to be avoided as the users were expected to be able to tune their setup (ie flat frequency response), such that non-linear distortion performance was the only significant factor that could be attributed to its sound quality.
> 
> They are designed with an output level in mind that is complimentary to the front stage (ie they aren't designed for abusive, ground pounding 150dB sub-bass). Even 120dB is beyond excessive if we disregard transients. If you listened at 120dB full-range for an extended period of time, ...speakers wouldn't be necessary...you'd be deaf. These speakers weren't designed to be idiot proof...they were designed to sound good.
> 
> Would Accuton be hanging their heads if you busted one of their cones? Sorry, you'd be SOL.
> 
> With all this taken into consideration, the IDQ has significantly more roots in the mass produced side of the continuum while the DIYMA lies closer to the NICHE side. They do not occupy the same region of the market.
> 
> Who even brought up the "market" BS? Npdang has nothing invested in the IDQ, I fail to see how his opinion as it applies to the IDQ is any different than his opinion as it applies to a Seas Excel for example. What does he care either way if you like the IDQ? He merely stated his opinion and promptly defended himself, whereas the Image Dynamics Crew and "the hated dudes" had an agenda the entire time. If anything should be called into question, it should be their motives.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally would not consider the IDQ a candidate for discussion and neither would the great majority that view loudspeaker design as an objective science. The IDQ is simply not cost competitive with drivers of equal performance. We are not confined to choosing between only drivers of its quality level.
> 
> Why should I pay for the Image Dynamics name when I could pay for no BS performance?
> 
> $240 for a 15 of the IDQ's technical level is borderline audacious from a pure assessment of its constituents. You are paying for the Image Dynamics name, not the performance. Npdang would be lauded if he designed a driver of that caliber and expected people to pay that price.


Thank you, this is pretty much what I was attempting to say, in a clumsy round about manner.


----------



## thadman

DevilDriver said:


> The only thing I disagree on is the price thing...the sub is worth as much as someone will pay for it. That is not the price I would pay but many consumers do. Maybe there are better values out there but if they are able to sell it at that price, all the power to them.


You are correct in that assertion and I'm sorry if I wasn't explicit. I was stating that from my personal perspective (taking the position that audio reproduction is an objective science) it was an audacious price...I occupy a different part of the consumer market than most who are looking for a subwoofer driver. Compared to other car audio drivers, $240 is perfectly acceptable. There are far better examples of price gouging in the market...its car audio where rebadging (and marking up) and bling take precedence! Look at what Resonant Engineering has done for example, their prices are simply ridiculous!


----------



## Eric Stevens

cajunner said:


> So if I have this right, ID uses a business topology that exists in reputation, subjective interpretation, and superlatives that need no numerification to substantiate the quality of the sound, the best in the business use and promote our products,
> 
> 
> while DIYMA operates on number crunching, graph displaying, good numbers mean good performance, don't take our word for it... we've got this and that stuffed behind the dustcap, and the parameters were customized specifically for small box, high power applications...
> 
> now is this really about whether Eric wishes to disclose company modeling profiles, or perhaps this is about the nature of the forum, where bones are laid bare in the hands of competent operators, and judgements are made based on the use of known technologies in the face of whatever the respective advertising depts decides is the current lingo?


Wow what prompted this post? Are you suggesting that numbers will some how magically tell you how something will perform and sound? While parameters and the resulting numbers that are derived and calculated can give insight into the performance and sound potential of a driver they are by no means the best measure of a particular drivers merits or its potential for good performance.

I shun superlatives and marketing hype and baseless claims to sell our product, I encourage people to try them and listen to them and decide for themselves. My speakers are a far better salesman than I could be and also do better than any literature or marketing plan to promote themselves.

Read my two previous post to this one, I didn't come into this discussion to promote my products or even talk about them technically. I came into it to address a particular post *NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.*

I am all for an open technical exchange of driver design and features! However this thread is not the proper place.

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## Neil

So do it already Eric. I think that's the third time you offered and you've been asked to do so twice.

Don't mean to sound rude but walk the walk already here.


----------



## Eric Stevens

DevilDriver said:


> Well start it up then, Eric. Please.





kappa546 said:


> X2!
> 
> oh and lock this tread up already.


Somebody start a new thread and begin with a few questions relating driver design to performance. Or any other question bouncing around in your gray matter for that fact.

Eric


----------



## Honda07

My vote Seas Lotus SW 300 is best 12" Sub


----------



## Honda07

Honda07 said:


> My vote Seas Lotus SW 300 is best 12" Sub


2nd runner up will be Image Dymanic


----------



## DS-21

Honda07 said:


> 2nd runner up will be Image Dymanic


Really? Over stuff like the Peerless XLS12, TC Sounds TC1000, JBL W12GTI, Aura NS12, etc?


----------



## thehatedguy

Thadman...your distortion of reality is amusing.

DS-21- he may not have heard those particular drivers you have mentioned, so how could he comment on how much/little he would like them? Sounds like he is going off of personal experience.

But the JBL and Aura are kill butt speakers.


----------



## 89grand

The Funky Pup is definitely up there with some of the best.


----------



## Aaron Clinton

89grand said:


> The Funky Pup is definitely up there with some of the best.


*Boom like so.*


----------



## rcurley55

sterlingsharp1 said:


> The IDQ hasn't been upgraded in years....but yet the V.3 is out, and they have the nerve to charge more for it over the IDQ V.2, which they are still offering.


ahhh yes, the NERVE of a company charging more for an upgraded product  

You must really get your panties in a bunch when companies must increase their prices on the SAME product


----------



## thadman

cajunner said:


> no need for disclaimers....
> 
> !
> 
> I am sure you mean well, as this went sour simply because Eric considers Npdang to be held to a higher standard than the average poster, and it is true, he should not compare his sub, nor have to compare his sub, to offerings by ID, and that was an unfortunate thread turn.


Npdang did not originally compare the IDQ to his DIYMA. He merely stated his experiences and his technical assessment of the driver. Others suggested that he had an agenda and brought up the DIYMA.



cajunner said:


> I find your assessment of ID-affiliated personnel as agendized, to be somewhat misleading. I believe that if someone held my products to be simply unremarkable, after building for many years a marquee reputation, I would be tempted to defend my product, regardless of whether there's been equity in technical specifications to judge from.


What are you saying exactly here? You'd be upset too if someone critiqued your design? 



cajunner said:


> I disagree with you, on users of ID products being less technically savvy than those who buy DIYMA woofers based on some notion of a 'car audio movement', what is that? Because they use a product that has some notoriety in competition circles, it means they're not worthy of the 'sounds good' label?


No. The car audio movement was meant to describe people whose main experience and connection to audio reproduction was associated with the automobile environment, it has no elitist notion. The reference for car audio is much lower than the reference for home audio simply because the car is such a mess acoustically. 

I'm going to generalize and say that most of the people who purchase Image Dynamics products are not on the same level as far as understanding automobile acoustics or sound reproduction as the people who purchase home audio drivers and place them in the car environment.

Would you say the average consumer who purchases from SoundDomain is on the same technical level as the average consumer who purchases from Madisound?



cajunner said:


> erpretations.
> I can't agree on the last issue either, people buy TAD to put into their systems, and it's a very dated design, but does that mean it's going to be put into its place by a company that pushes a bunch of numbers at you? I do understand the fundamental rift, but it's just an example of how this conduit for information can be skewed in misinterpretations


The TAD is a very high performance driver, just because the design is dated doesn't mean it uses low quality components or performs poorly. The issue isn't whether the design is dated, but rather is it high performance by todays standards.



cajunner said:


> This idea that the IDQ doesn't have merit in today's existing technological markets is absurd. There is a premium paid for the name, I agree, but to wholesale dismiss the driver from consideration based on technological wizardry available elsewhere is to also remove from consideration several venerated drivers, can you say the SD-1 motor is "hip" enough to survive this scrutiny? Is any driver not substantiated by FEA and numerous other computer-generated subtleties considered at all in the end?


This isn't communism man. The market rewards innovation, we shouldn't be forced to choose a certain driver just because some people have nostalgic experiences regarding it or bathe it in a certain "aura". The IDQ is a dated design and it is simply cannot compete with other offerings in any category today other than being user friendly. It is both outrageously overpriced (compared to home audio offerings), is deficient in performance, and is not very high quality in construction, build quality, or associated constituents. 

I certainly wouldn't pay for the IDQ when drivers like the DIYMA 12, Aurasound NS12-513-4A, Peerless XLS, Dayton RSS390HF, etc are of higher build quality and construction and exhibit much higher levels of performance while being cheaper.

I guess the question is, why should someone buy an IDQ?

If you're haphazardly tossing a system together and paying little attention to system Q, FR, and integration with the front stage the differences between said drivers (technically advanced designs vs lower quality designs) become less critical and the acoustic environment dominates the reproduction aspect. In that scenario, the IDQ would probably suffice.

FYI The Scanspeak SD1 motor is still excellent by today's standards. The Revelator series consistently provides some of the best non-linear distortion performance. The issue isn't if the designs dated, its whether it competes with todays offerings.


----------



## BEAVER

> If you're haphazardly tossing a system together and paying little attention to system Q, FR, and integration with the front stage the differences between said drivers (technically advanced designs vs lower quality designs) become less critical and the acoustic environment dominates the reproduction aspect. In that scenario, the IDQ would probably suffice.


So the IDQ is only useful for people who are "haphazardly tossing a system together"? 

That's pretty harsh, not to mention, completely untrue.


----------



## bdubs767

Doesn't matter in a car if you know what xover points, slopes, phase, polarity, and eqing to use.

Just find what works best for you in terms of box size and woofer size for your trunk , impedance for you amp, and $ value. After that pick the driver based on size aka surface area, excursion, efficiency, build quality, durability, warranty and distortion performance.

Just my opinion, but its always fun to play with them straight out of box.


For my car I picked the JL 13w6v2...why because it fit best in my trunk and w/ my amp, not because it's considered an SQ sub. I have a part of my trunk that is 2 cu ft but only 14" high. Thus I cant fit a 15" there, and a 13" driver has more cone area than a 12", and the 2 cu ft could fit the box size w/ a Q of nearly .707 for the 13w6v2. Also the woofer can have a 8 ohm load which works well off the rear channels of my x200.4.

In the home it's whoel different story, thats why I have the Aura NS15.


----------



## thadman

BEAVER said:


> So the IDQ is only useful for people who are "haphazardly tossing a system together"?
> 
> That's pretty harsh, not to mention, completely untrue.


No, but the differences between drivers are small such that the driver you choose is of much less consideration as compared to the system Q and resulting frequency response.

It's the same way with speaker design. If you haphazardly tossed a Seas Excel into a design and paid little attention to crossover design (ie specifically suppressing its breakup node or controlling power response), it probably wouldn't sound much better (and probably worse) than some much cheaper designs. But once you start to control the other variables in the design (power response, proper crossovers, driver summation, cabinet construction, system Q, room placement, etc) it becomes much easier to differentiate it from the cheaper speaker. That is the flaws are much more pronounced when other aspects of the design no longer mask them. At that point, driver choice becomes a much larger consideration.


----------



## thehatedguy

Like I said, his distortions of reality are amusing.

Go read some of his older posts...he's gone from not knowing a lot to being all knowing in a very short time period. Probably a lot of reading and not a lot of doing.


----------



## tyroneshoes

thadman said:


> I certainly wouldn't pay for the IDQ when drivers like the DIYMA 12, Aurasound NS12-513-4A, Peerless XLS, Dayton RSS390HF, etc are of higher build quality and construction and exhibit much higher levels of performance while being cheaper.
> 
> I guess the question is, why should someone buy an IDQ?



For one reason, the IDQ gets much louder than a Peerless xls. The xls and Diyma are similar in some ways, low distortion and pretty transparent. But the average customer has bassboost turned on as well as "loudness" and the idq will take it, those will create noise when given a clipped signal and it will be very noticable. The XLS just isnt a very loud sub. Very accurate and sweet in HT, but not what most people in car audio want. An the posters of DIYMA are not "most" people. 

Id take a Dayton over the IDQ as well, but most dont know about it and the name Dayton is unknown.

Not many people have the depth to fit a GTI but they sound great and a better sub than the IDQ objectivly.

Never had experience with the Aura.

Tell you what, my friend wants some bass to blast his E-40 with, the IDQ is a better choice than the xls or diyma. Most people are not audiophiles but even audiophiles agree that the IDQ can sound good. 

Dated sure, but still a good sub.


----------



## bdubs767

thehatedguy said:


> Like I said, his distortions of reality are amusing.
> 
> Go read some of his older posts...he's gone from not knowing a lot to being all knowing in a very short time period. Probably a lot of reading and not a lot of doing.


I respect both of you guys...but I say lay off him some. You both have valid points.

Just imagine if you combine his knowledge w/ yours or Randy's listening experience..............


----------



## thehatedguy

I will lay off when he lays off of the sweeping false generalizations he is making.


----------



## bdubs767

thehatedguy said:


> I will lay off when he lays off of the sweeping false generalizations he is making.



you both are to an extent...

Hes using science of speaker design he's learned to back his claims up and your using your ears to back up your claims.


Combine the both and you both will get a much more valid conclusion to your statements.


----------



## thehatedguy

I know the science and I understand it. And I know that without ever hearing things first hand, you can only get a partial picture on how things "should" perform in a perfect world. He likes to comment and lay down the law with subjects he has never touched must less have actually have heard.


----------



## chad

tyroneshoes said:


> Id take a Dayton over the IDQ as well, but most dont know about it and the name Dayton is unknown.
> 
> Not many people have the depth to fit a GTI but they sound great and a better sub than the IDQ objectivly.


I love my Dayton but I'd be all over a GTi or W7 if I could fit it depth wise. I have yet to figure out why the design calls for such depth. I guess I have never seen a cross section of one to warrant a bling callout or an actual reason.


----------



## Neil

chad said:


> I love my Dayton but I'd be all over a GTi or W7 if I could fit it depth wise. I have yet to figure out why the design calls for such depth. I guess I have never seen a cross section of one to warrant a bling callout or an actual reason.


The GTi naturally requires a little deeper design based on the motor topology. The W7 could go with a shorter magnetic stack in terms of BL, but it would have to use a heavily bumped back plate to keep the mechanical clearance in the rear and that would put it just as deep.


----------



## Fellippe

thehatedguy said:


> I know the science and I understand it. And I know that without ever hearing things first hand, you can only get a partial picture on how things "should" perform in a perfect world. He likes to comment and lay down the law with subjects he has never touched must less have actually have heard.


Hearing is believing....

I think guys like David Navone or Richard Clark are just two of the very, very few human beings who might have a true grasp of the entire acoustical engineering field. I'm told those two are very bright guys....yet I bet you they'd be more humble of their knowledge than most guys on this forum, LOL. Such is the nature of having more knowledge....(RC's amp challenge excepted...which I hear uses test tones only to ensure his victory...anyways . 

I've always felt that the science is still too immature to be a fully developed science. There's still quite a bit of "art" to it all...

I mean, aren't tube amps supposedly inferior on paper to solid state? How do you explain the ass kicking they give in real life?  

Scott Buwalda said it best once...."There are a lot of theories in audio, but no LAWS".


----------



## ca90ss

Fellippe said:


> Scott Buwalda said it best once...."There are a lot of theories in audio, but *no LAWS*".


http://www.soundsolutionsaudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7115


----------



## FoxPro5

thehatedguy said:


> Like I said, his distortions of reality are amusing.
> 
> Go read some of his older posts...he's gone from not knowing a lot to being all knowing in a very short time period. Probably a lot of reading and not a lot of doing.


Not before we stop by some of your old posts for some amusement. Like a ferris wheel, they are. I do enjoy them, very much so. 

Fell the love DIYMA, feel it!


----------



## Fellippe

ca90ss said:


> http://www.soundsolutionsaudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7115


Always one to find the exception... 

There are LAWS for certain things....the quantitative stuff like SPL, bass response, etc. Hoffman's Iron Law as you point out is about this. 

However when it comes to the finer nuances of imaging, staging, and what pleases human beings on an emotional level...

No laws.


----------



## Abmolech

This thread is getting better.

At least someone is posting reality.
IE even with better motors and design, most people cannot notice the difference because it is a sub woofer.
Should these other designs have a greater potential to reproduce a more a accurate result?
Yes.
Could you hear it, maybe.. 

Point sub woofers are reproducing a mere two octaves, where stepped response and group delay are relatively forgiving.

Accurate music reproduction is a science.
Reproducing music the way you like it may not be science.
 

Got to love this, my ears are better than yours argument, especially around reproduction of sub 60 Hz.
  
I rate it up there with this pearl of wisdom from a audiophile who CLAIMED to of installed more gear than just about anyone.


"I can SEE the dampening difference of power amplifiers in my sub woofer"

I dined on that one for weeks.
Can he see is incandescent lamp going on and off 50 times per second?

Point
Does someone who has installed ONE more sub woofer than you have, make him more of an expert than you?

Does someone who has been installing ONE more day, sub woofers than you have, make him more of an expert than you?

Does someone who has attended ONE more competition, make him more of an expert than you?

If so, then you should believe my quote.


----------



## Eric Stevens

thadman said:


> The IDQ is deficient in performance, and is not very high quality in construction, build quality, or associated constituents.


Care to actually quantify your statements? 

They are pretty bold and over the top and they certainly aren't presented as an "Opinion" they are being presented as facts. The problem is you did not offer up proof with your assertions to actually be able to qualify them as fact.

The one thing the IDQ V.2 is not short on or deficient in is performance, it has excellent output in fact I would put it up against many drivers costing significantly more. It is assembled with care and attention to detail and has an virtually non-existent failure rate which is a product of its quality construction and build quality.

While it might cost more than some offering's from direct merchandisers such as the drivers you mentioned it will certainly hold it's own performance wise against those. The design is old and dated but that does not make it ineffective. The cosmetics need updating to bring it up to what you are comparing it to, like its stamped frame and inexpensive fast on style terminals but both of those don't contribute to the performance of the driver.

In a direct head to head blind listening evaluation combined with controlled testing the IDQ12 V.2 would hold its own it might not win outright but it would not be out classed.

I await your treasured response and brilliant and technical analysis that will substantiate your statement regarding the IDQ subwoofers.

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## bdubs767

Eric Stevens said:


> Care to actually quantify your statements?
> 
> They are pretty bold and over the top and they certainly aren't presented as an "Opinion" they are being presented as facts. The problem is you did not offer up proof with your assertions to actually be able to qualify them as fact.
> 
> The one thing the IDQ V.2 is not short on or deficient in is performance, it has excellent output in fact I would put it up against many drivers costing significantly more. It is assembled with care and attention to detail and has an virtually non-existent failure rate which is a product of its quality construction and build quality.
> 
> While it might cost more than some offering's from direct merchandisers such as the drivers you mentioned it will certainly hold it's own performance wise against those. The design is old and dated but that does not make it ineffective. The cosmetics need updating to bring it up to what you are comparing it to, like its stamped frame and inexpensive fast on style terminals but both of those don't contribute to the performance of the driver.
> 
> In a direct head to head blind listening evaluation combined with controlled testing the IDQ12 V.2 would hold its own it might not win outright but it would not be out classed.
> 
> I await your treasured response and brilliant and technical analysis that will substantiate your statement regarding the IDQ subwoofers.
> 
> Eric Stevens
> Image Dynamics



now thats how you present an argument...about time some one does it right. Very classy yet confronting.


----------



## Abmolech

Would it win a kippel head to head test?

Point

It is a sub woofer. 
Agreed on a blind test it would be hard to pick the differences, but that is something most of us would know.

If you used step response, harmonic distortion and modulation as a guide would it be in the same game?

Who cares, its a sub woofer.



Putting a fine motor on a sub woofer is like putting a gold ring through a pigs snout.


----------



## npdang

Abmolech said:


> Would it win a kippel head to head test?
> 
> Point
> 
> It is a sub woofer.
> Agreed on a blind test it would be hard to pick the differences, but that is something most of us would know.
> 
> If you used step response, harmonic distortion and modulation as a guide would it be in the same game?
> 
> Who cares, its a sub woofer.
> 
> 
> 
> Putting a fine motor on a sub woofer is like putting a gold ring through a pigs snout.


It's not that atypical for many of us to use subwoofers for well beyond 2 octaves in the home, or located upfront in a car.


----------



## Abmolech

Point taken,

Although I suggest in a car with the steradians load change and the tangential axial mode approximately 70 Hz, I suggest this is a mistake.
It is quite probable that requiring a sub woofer to maintain frequency response up to 80 Hz in a car, is the primary reason for the supposed audible differences, which the room as far more effect on than any sub woofer characteristic.

I suggest in the 60 Hz plus range the greatest audible difference will be the cone mass (if any) between the sub woofers. (In a car)
More-so than driver inductance.

Whoops, I just reread what you said, "driver upfront in a car", I presume you mean a 12" in the dash?

I might consider that unusual.


----------



## npdang

Eric Stevens said:


> Care to actually quantify your statements?
> 
> They are pretty bold and over the top and they certainly aren't presented as an "Opinion" they are being presented as facts. The problem is you did not offer up proof with your assertions to actually be able to qualify them as fact.
> 
> The one thing the IDQ V.2 is not short on or deficient in is performance, it has excellent output in fact I would put it up against many drivers costing significantly more. It is assembled with care and attention to detail and has an virtually non-existent failure rate which is a product of its quality construction and build quality.
> 
> While it might cost more than some offering's from direct merchandisers such as the drivers you mentioned it will certainly hold it's own performance wise against those. The design is old and dated but that does not make it ineffective. The cosmetics need updating to bring it up to what you are comparing it to, like its stamped frame and inexpensive fast on style terminals but both of those don't contribute to the performance of the driver.
> 
> In a direct head to head blind listening evaluation combined with controlled testing the IDQ12 V.2 would hold its own it might not win outright but it would not be out classed.
> 
> I await your treasured response and brilliant and technical analysis that will substantiate your statement regarding the IDQ subwoofers.
> 
> Eric Stevens
> Image Dynamics


In all fairness, he shouldn't have to quantify his statements when you still have not  

Although I most certainly appreciate and sympathize with your position, I'm not certain you can make a convincing argument to many in this community until you can show some large signal performance measurements, and/or further clarify some aspect of the design.

Or perhaps you might want to agree with Ablomech, about gold rings and pigs snouts


----------



## npdang

Abmolech said:


> Point taken,
> 
> Although I suggest in a car with the steradians load change and the tangential axial mode approximately 70 Hz, I suggest this is a mistake.
> It is quite probable that requiring a sub woofer to maintain frequency response up to 80 Hz in a car, is the primary reason for the supposed audible differences, which the room as far more effect on than any sub woofer characteristic.
> 
> I suggest in the 60 Hz plus range the greatest audible difference will be the cone mass (if any) between the sub woofers. (In a car)
> More-so than driver inductance.
> 
> Whoops, I just reread what you said, "driver upfront in a car", I presume you mean a 12" in the dash?
> 
> I might consider that unusual.


Completely agree, although I don't know what a steradian load change is. 

But wouldn't you think that significant higher order distortion products would interfere with the lower midrange, a region we are in a way quite sensitive to?

Or that significant coil inductance would impact the sensitivity of the driver near the crossover region that is audible for many people who do not have access to an eq?

Personally, I'm with you though. Just look at my sig!


----------



## Abmolech

I would, excepting with the acoustic load change, we are now 8 dB down on our frequency output.
I think the most audible difference would be the phase difference caused by the network system (If any)

Our first major axial mode is around 80 Hz, and this is far more likely to be audible than coil inductance issues.

I also suspect the driver cone modal break-up might be more significant (depending on cone geometry) and surround step response.

Also peoples predilection for 6.5" woofers (IE the need to extend the sub woofer to 80 Hz) and the requirement to play close to or through the Fs of that driver, would be more audible.


----------



## Abmolech

> However when it comes to the finer nuances of imaging, staging, and what pleases human beings on an emotional level...
> 
> No laws.


Hmm
This one deserves a little questioning.. 

Define how a monophonic sub woofer contributes to the "finer nuances of imaging, staging"

   

Hey if you were at a live concert, I would agree with you, but in a car.
Seriously?
 
The use of panned monophonic for our fronts in a car, I might also question just how "fine" do you expect them
to be.


----------



## Rudeboy

Abmolech said:


> Accurate music reproduction is a science.
> Reproducing music the way you like it may not be science.
> 
> 
> Got to love this, my ears are better than yours argument, especially around reproduction of sub 60 Hz.
> 
> I rate it up there with this pearl of wisdom from a audiophile who CLAIMED to of installed more gear than just about anyone.
> 
> 
> Point
> Does someone who has installed ONE more sub woofer than you have, make him more of an expert than you?
> 
> Does someone who has been installing ONE more day, sub woofers than you have, make him more of an expert than you?
> 
> Does someone who has attended ONE more competition, make him more of an expert than you?
> 
> If so, then you should believe my quote.


Thank you sir for finding a non-confrontational way to make that point. "Because I say so and I now better" should be abandoned once the child being corrected reaches adolescence.


----------



## Eric Stevens

Abmolech said:


> Would it win a kippel head to head test?
> 
> Point
> 
> It is a sub woofer.
> Agreed on a blind test it would be hard to pick the differences, but that is something most of us would know.
> 
> If you used step response, harmonic distortion and modulation as a guide would it be in the same game?
> 
> Who cares, its a sub woofer.
> 
> 
> I guess I
> Putting a fine motor on a sub woofer is like putting a gold ring through a pigs snout.


It measures well on a Klippel with good linearity and symmetry for suspension compliance , Bl vs X is pretty symmetrical as well with a typical curve for an overhung style motor with some errors that are inherent in the motor topology.

Step / impulse response and IM distortion is where the IDQ does well and yes it would be in the same game, in my opinion THD for sub is not as important though in a subwoofer.

I guess I like gold rings in some ways  , I do want a fine motor but the weighting of what I find important in a fine motor for a subwoofer is certainly different than in a fine motor midrange driver. Let me put it this way I like a subwoofer to be motor dominated rather than suspension dominated, where as a midrange speaker tends to perform better when suspension dominated in proper balance to the motor strength. Doing motor additions to improve linearity/symmetry of inductance versus excursion while beneficial carry less weight on my priority list than optimizing the motor for less flux modulation and symmetrical B in the gap. So in addition my opinion is that when the motor is designed in this way with a subwoofer the addition of shorting rings inside and or outside of the VC have very little impact on the sound quality, yes I have tested this and quantified it as best I could. As the required frequency range gets expanded above 80 hz inductance and its effects starts to impact the sound quality a whole bunch more. and when you get into the lower midrange area it is easy to hear the effects of non linear inductance versus X problems.

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## Eric Stevens

npdang said:


> In all fairness, he shouldn't have to quantify his statements when you still have not
> 
> Although I most certainly appreciate and sympathize with your position, I'm not certain you can make a convincing argument to many in this community until you can show some large signal performance measurements, and/or further clarify some aspect of the design.
> 
> Or perhaps you might want to agree with Ablomech, about gold rings and pigs snouts



Please help me by explaining or demonstrating to me which of my statements I have made require me to quantify them? or were not quantified as a part of the statement. I would like to make sure that everything I say is clearly understood and proper stated and supported.

While I don't own Klippel, I have done derivation measurements with LEAP to measure large signal performance. I have more of this information on the new V.3 from the development of the motor and suspension. Let me know what clarifications you think would be helpful, I don't want to come across like a snake oil salesman so I tend to wait for people to present questions.

Thanks

Eric Stevens
Image Dynamics


----------



## npdang

Eric Stevens said:


> Please help me by explaining or demonstrating to me which of my statements I have made require me to quantify them? or were not quantified as a part of the statement. I would like to make sure that everything I say is clearly understood and proper stated and supported.
> 
> While I don't own Klippel, I have done derivation measurements with LEAP to measure large signal performance. I have more of this information on the new V.3 from the development of the motor and suspension. Let me know what clarifications you think would be helpful, I don't want to come across like a snake oil salesman so I tend to wait for people to present questions.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Eric Stevens
> Image Dynamics


For example: 

"The one thing the IDQ V.2 is not short on or deficient in is performance, it has excellent output in fact I would put it up against many drivers costing significantly more. It is assembled with care and attention to detail and has an virtually non-existent failure rate which is a product of its quality construction and build quality."

"It measures well on a Klippel with good linearity and symmetry for suspension compliance , Bl vs X is pretty symmetrical as well with a typical curve for an overhung style motor with some errors that are inherent in the motor topology."

You have yet to offer any evidence to support these claims. I think there maybe a few more as well buried in this thread.

The only thing is why should people who have a negative opinion be held to a different standard of evidence than those who have a positive one? 

But the only question I had asked was what aspect of the motor design or materials used would quality as being either not dated, or in some way remarkable? In essence, the opposite of what I had originally stated in my opinion what I believed the construction and design of the driver to be.


----------



## thehatedguy

So why is Eric needed to provide proof to back his claims when thadman does not?


----------



## npdang

thehatedguy said:


> So why is Eric needed to provide proof to back his claims when thadman does not?


Because why should he have to when Eric does not


----------



## thehatedguy

I'm sure Eric can and will. I'm not so sure thadman can back his claims up with any unique data.


----------



## dbphelps

One sub that was not mentioned, which I just found out how good they are because I was given a pair as a gift, is the Boston Acoustic Pro 12.5LF drivers...

I got a pair of the 4 ohm versions and I must say that they are some of the most musical, accurate and best subs I have ever owned...

I am using a pair in a large conversion van, powered by a Zed Minilith (2 ohm load) and they blend with the 3-way JL Audio front stage completely, have great extension and are as 'transparent' of a sub I have ever heard...

I thought my TCSounds TC2+ (essentially a TC1000) 12" subs had great response with good impact, but I must say I think the Boston Pro 12s get a bit lower (now that may be install, considering a large conversion van is quite a bit larger of an interior than a late-model Trans-Am, where the TC2+ subs are), and for 2 12s I have unbelieveable output as well...


----------



## kevin k.

thehatedguy said:


> So why is Eric needed to provide proof to back his claims when thadman does not?


If Thadman jumps off a bridge, should Eric?

The two have nothing to do with one another. I believe *anyone* making claims for this, that, or the other should be held to backing them up. If one person chooses to back up, or not back up, his or her claims that has nothing to do with whether or not another individual should back theirs up.

Btw, I like my Focal Utopia 33WX's... they work alright for my tastes.


----------



## Boostedrex

Since the main topic is being addressed again...

I personally LOVE my DIYMA R12. It suits my tastes just fine and is the most transparent sub I've heard to date. It doesn't have huge impact and it isn't a super loud sub. But if you're looking for SQ at moderate volumes, it would be hard to beat this sub. Especially at the price point. I'm about to pick up one of the new Hertz Mille 12's though so I'll be sure to post a review after I get it installed and broken in.

I've also spent time listening to several other subs in the past 6 months or so. Two subs in particular that got my attention were the JBL WGTi as well as the IDMax. Both of those subs were simply incredible at both SQ and at achieving rediculous volume levels. In all honesty though, there are so many solid performers out there that I really don't think that you could classify any one sub as "The best 12", but you could list exactly what you want/like/listen to/expect and then the people here could help you to figure out what's "The best 12" for you." 

Zach


----------



## Fellippe

You know what guys???

The only way to settle this is to do a double blind listening comparison of all of these subs in question:

ID subs
JL subs
DIYMA 12
KEF subs

If I heard 4 of these subs back to back to back , I could rank them most likely. Certainly if given over a longer period of time. 

The W7 will be fast to judge. It is literally a love/hate sub...no in between.

As far as the comment about "accurate music reproduction is a science, getting it to sound the way you like it an art"...well, who here truly EQs their system for totally flat response? (if that's considered "accurate").

The way a lot of people EQ systems is unnatural. Accentuated highs, attenuated mids, and exagerrated low ends is quite common...irregardless of what equipment is chosen.

As far as the subs themselves and the difference in sound...."speed", and 
accuracy of reproducing instruments like double basses, cellos, etc. are where subs separate themselves...not listening to 50 hz bass heavy rap music (although I like this stuff a lot too!). 

There's certain music where subs are very similar, and others where the differences are quite pronounced, IMHO. 

Obsessing over accuracy shouldn't be a priority. Obsessing over "natural" should be.


----------



## Rudeboy

Fellippe said:


> You know what guys???
> 
> The only way to settle this is to do a double blind listening comparison of all of these subs in question:
> 
> ID subs
> JL subs
> DIYMA 12
> KEF subs


The practical problems of doing such a comparison seem insurmountable to me, even if you eliminate the car environment. I think of subs like a sculptor's marble - you pick based on the characteristics you need but they don't really amount to much until you make something out of them by integrating them into a system.


----------



## Eric Stevens

npdang said:


> For example:
> 
> "The one thing the IDQ V.2 is not short on or deficient in is performance, it has excellent output in fact I would put it up against many drivers costing significantly more. It is assembled with care and attention to detail and has an virtually non-existent failure rate which is a product of its quality construction and build quality."
> 
> "It measures well on a Klippel with good linearity and symmetry for suspension compliance , Bl vs X is pretty symmetrical as well with a typical curve for an overhung style motor with some errors that are inherent in the motor topology."
> 
> You have yet to offer any evidence to support these claims. I think there maybe a few more as well buried in this thread.
> 
> The only thing is why should people who have a negative opinion be held to a different standard of evidence than those who have a positive one?
> 
> But the only question I had asked was what aspect of the motor design or materials used would quality as being either not dated, or in some way remarkable? In essence, the opposite of what I had originally stated in my opinion what I believed the construction and design of the driver to be.


Thanks for the input.

Very hard to provide factual data to substantiate statements that are of a subjective nature. I can provide verifiable objective data like T/S parameters and excursion related data which large signal performance can be calculated from but performance in many respects especially sound quality is more subjective than objective.

Performance purely related to sound pressure level is easy to quantify and provide repeatable and accurate measurements for. An example would be a pair of V.2 IDQ12's ported in most hatchbacks will hit somewhere in the 142 to 146 dB range and sealed in the 138 to 142 range. 

A virtually non existent failure rate surely supports the claim that they are well built with quality construction dont ya think? 

Sorry I don't have the reports posted, the intent of the statement was to answer a direct question about the IDQ, it was not submitted as proof of purported performance.

I agree all should be held to the same set of standards. However opinions don't require evidence or substantiation. Statements of fact if in question do however.

The motor design is unremarkable in other than it works and is a tried and true design that is proven to be effective. The cone is nothing special but it is a rigid and non-resonant piston. A subwoofer is the sum of its parts and how they work together. I agree the basket has gone beyond its useful lifespan as have the old school terminals but they still provide the same function as something more beautified other than additional cooling of a die cast basket. But I don't understand the assertion that the build quality and construction are not up to todays standard, maybe you could expand on that part, as I think I am interpreting this different than it was originally meant.

Eric Stevens


----------



## JayBee

Rudeboy said:


> The practical problems of doing such a comparison seem insurmountable to me, even if you eliminate the car environment. I think of subs like a sculptor's marble - you pick based on the characteristics you need but they don't really amount to much until you make something out of them by integrating them into a system.


agreed.


----------



## Oliver

Rudeboy said:


> The practical problems of doing such a comparison seem insurmountable to me, even if you eliminate the car environment. I think of subs like a sculptor's marble - you pick based on the characteristics you need but they don't really amount to much until you make something out of them by integrating them into a system.


Bingo !!!! [ where the hell are those cupie dolls  }


----------



## Abmolech

We could work out the systems total inductance, (Both mechanical and electrical) and then decide if the stepped response is within the audible range.
From this we could extrapolate the modulation.
We could test the BL curve and the suspension.
We could examine the harmonics, and decide if they are audible.

The fact that people are happy with an overhung motor with no shorting rings, low impedance, cone geometry that is somewhat flat (lower frequency modal breakup, although not as harsh), and a surround that is hardly tuned to facilitate decoupling of an open termination device, should remonstrate the futility of audible improvement in this frequency bass-band.

Its a sub woofer.

the sub woofer is so important, that a number of people will happily do without one. 
Point
Once you reach a certain level of performance there is not much audible gain to be procured. On a sub woofer that level is remarkably low.


----------



## monkeyboy

Rudeboy said:


> The practical problems of doing such a comparison seem insurmountable to me, even if you eliminate the car environment. I think of subs like a sculptor's marble - you pick based on the characteristics you need but they don't really amount to much until you make something out of them by integrating them into a system.


Sounds like we need a Richard Clark sub challenge to me...


----------



## backwoods

it's like picking new shoes.

You pick them based on need. Whether they are for dress, running or playing basketball, then pick a color you like, one that feels comfortable, and get your size...

Basically, you choose the output you need, the size of the enclosure you can fit, the power you have available, and the most important frequ range you need to match efficeincy.

Easy nough....

You give me a list of those items, and I can give you a "best sub"...


----------



## cvjoint

backwoods said:


> it's like picking new shoes.
> 
> You pick them based on need. Whether they are for dress, running or playing basketball, then pick a color you like, one that feels comfortable, and get your size...
> 
> Basically, you choose the output you need, the size of the enclosure you can fit, the power you have available, and the most important frequ range you need to match efficeincy.
> 
> Easy nough....
> 
> You give me a list of those items, and I can give you a "best sub"...


Ha! But I would pick a Puma shoe over a Nike any day. Build quality is much better and I can support that.


----------



## Eric Stevens

monkeyboy said:


> Sounds like we need a Richard Clark sub challenge to me...


How does that go?

"" if they have the same frequency response you cant hear any difference""


----------



## 89grand

Richard Clark..haaa haaa.

Honestly, that guy seems a little off. I did have the pleasure of hearing his Grand National at the 1990 IASCA finals in Tempe AZ, and it was an experience I'll never forget, still to this day the best car audio system I've ever heard. 

Of course...it was basically the Speaker Works car with whatever "magic" RC claimed he did. In fact, I think the more he messed with it, the more he ****ed it up, or so I've heard.


----------



## Diru

Best all Around 12"

In my pants..........


----------



## jaypine

Diru said:


> Best all Around 12"
> 
> In my pants..........


You mean 1.2? jk


----------



## drake78

My vote goes to the diyma reference 12'.


----------



## FoxPro5

Ummm Type R anyone?? It's straight dope **** at -.27 ohmz, playa.


----------



## jaypine

12" reviews http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1118512&highlight=rainbow
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28045&highlight=subwoofer
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5698&highlight=Phoenix+Gold+RSD12d


----------



## Powers

My vote goes for the Morel Ultimo 12.


----------



## typericey

I just read this thread today :blush: and my eyes watered from reading all 38 pages of it. Here's my take on the (off) topic, if anybody still cares:

1. numbers, tech specs and klippel graphs tell only 1/4th of the story on how the speaker sounds, IMO...

2. materials and technology used tell only 1/4th of the story on how the speaker sounds, IMO...

What's the other half of #1 and #2? Auditioning. Listen to a well installed example of a sub you're interested in and if the sub sounds good to you and fits your needs well, then bring one home, be happy and call it a day! Heck, dare I say that auditioning even makes #1 and #2 totally irrelevant! 

3. Reading this thread was very informative, and guess what, after all this, my feelings for this forum hasn't changed. It still is, for me, the best car audio forum in the world, in history!  I still have much respect for npdang (he obviously got irritated back there, but hey, he's human like the rest of us, so I forgive him. haha!) Retained the respect for the members too... 

At the end of the day, I'd rather be here than our local forum, where the bassheads are swinging their dicks left and right with their SPL meter records, and the retards spamming with dumdum comments like "nice sub you got there" or "cool amp, dude, wow! how much is that?" 

4. And here's the big one: Incidentally, I am also in the market for "the best 12" sub and my mind was set on the IDMax. And even through 38 pages of this thread, guess what, I didn't change my mind. I'm picking up my IDMax tomorrow. Why? Simply because so many owners have been raving about it, I'm fully convinced. And Eric, in reading his replies here and in the ID Forum, made me trust the guy, his company, and his products. Kudos to you, Eric, you've just sold one more sub without you knowing. (Yaiks, I'm getting all too mushy here). Next to the IDMax, I could've gotten a DIYMA, but I guess it's now unobtainable...


----------



## jaypine

I cut and pasted the above 3 reviews



> Cut and pasted from Realm of Excursion:
> 
> First off, I'd like to thank Loyd Lowry, Chad Hicks, Sean Belanger, Nick Morgan, Ramos, Nick Lemons, Jake from Sundown Audio, and anyone else I missed...you guys really made this possible and I'm still amazed we were able to get done what we got done in such a short amount of time. Glad I could be a part of it! Let's get to the results.
> 
> Background:
> 
> Drivers were reviewed in no specific order...all testing was conducted in an E-150 full-size cargo van, with power being provided by a PG Tantrum 1200.1. Power was constant from 2 to 4 ohms, so 2 and 4 ohm DVC drivers received the same amount of power. The subwoofer preout voltage was not adjusted during testing to remove that as a variable. Listening material included the following:
> 
> Harry Gregson-Williams - Chronicles of Narnia OST - The Battle
> Eva Cassidy - Wayfaring Stranger
> Deanna Bogart - OK, I'll Play the Blues
> Dream Theater - Stream of Consciousness
> The Doors - Back Door Man
> The Eagles - Hotel California (HFO)
> IASCA demo disc - track 7
> John Williams - Theme from Superman II
> Henry Mancini - Theme from the Pink Panther
> Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
> Chris Izaak - Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing
> 
> Individual Observations:
> 
> Note: due to time constraints, not all woofers that were tested for SPL were subjectively tested. I tried to get as many that most people would use for SQ or SQ-like applications.
> 
> Dayton Reference 12
> 
> * Lacked low end presence - weak on the lower registers. On Gregson-Williams’ “The Battle”, there’s a thundering drum passage @ 36 seconds into the track and again at about a minute; on a proper substage it should be resounding but controlled, and give the recording a sense of being in a large orchestral space...with the Dayton, it made some feeble noises and that was it. Disappointing.
> * Transient response was acceptable, although not particularly impressive on very dynamic material
> * The loss of a confident lower octave noticeable on tracks such as "Brothers in Arms".
> 
> Elemental Designs e12a.22
> 
> Did a respectable job on the test material, good handling of complex passages – its drawback is a lack of relative output compared to some of the other woofers on very low subbass, such as the 16Hz infrasound in Williams’ Superman II score.
> 
> Rainbow Vanadium
> 
> One of the (many) things I enjoyed about this woofer was its "punchiness"; on upright bass notes it had a strong "pluck" from the instrument, and it wasn't overbearing at all to the front stage. Handled double bass with aplomb. Its one shortcoming, if it had one, was relatively low output compared to "beefier" drivers such as the Mag D2 or W6v2. However, for a pure SQ application it'd be hard to go wrong here. It’s also a very visually appealing speaker with excellent build quality.
> 
> Rainbow Profi 12
> 
> Not quite as adept as the Vanadium for LFE, but the Profi put up quite a fight. Kickdrums were solid and well-defined, but once again, if you have a lot of power on tap for your substage, these might not be the drivers to choose.
> 
> Aura Sound MR 12.4
> 
> From a cosmetic standpoint, probably the best-looking driver all weekend – if not the most unique. But it's not all looks - this thing came to play. I played the rapid double bass of "Stream of Consciousness", and it just laughed, begged for more. The kettle drums of "The Battle" were deafening, but never out of place. I found myself just enjoying the music, instead of nitpicking over the driver's mistakes...because there weren't any! I'm really hard-pressed to find any faults with this woofer sonically - the price is the only drawback
> 
> Soundsplinter RL-P
> 
> Honestly, I was a little disappointed with the RL-p. On "Wayfaring Stranger", the bass line was "lazy", for lack of a better term - it seemed to pick and choose the notes it wanted to play, and the results weren't pleasing. "The Battle" lacked command on the bottom octave, sounding a lot like the weak LFE of the Dayton Reference.
> 
> Fi Audio Q12
> 
> The Fi wasn't as punchy as the Aura or Rainbows with fast kickdrums, but it wasn't sloppy either. Unlike the RL-p, it had much better low end extension, and you could tell it was really reaching down into those low notes to fill out the music. For anyone that thinks the Q and the Mag D2 are the same driver, you obviously haven't listened to both of them side by side The Q is a good driver, don't get me wrong - but the Mag simply brings more of the music out. The price differential might have something to do with it, though
> 
> Orion XTR3
> 
> Nothing really remarkable about this speaker...boomy and unrefined on the low end, and couldn't keep up with fast transients well. Avoid for SQ use.
> 
> Pioneer Premier 2000SPL
> 
> This woofer struck me as an SPL-based driver that just happens to sound decent. While it commanded the low drums in orchestral pieces, the top end was sloppy and unimpressive - stand up bass suffered as the timbre just wasn't quite there. But it didn't hold back when called upon to reproduce the 16Hz rumble in the finale of "Superman II" - a track that paralyzed other woofers. Just don't have your LP crossover set too high.
> 
> Durabrand 12
> 
> For $40, this one sucked. I think I heard two distinct notes out of it, and that was that...it died in SPL testing with 50 watts after I was done with it. Even the Q Power we tested previously put up more of a fight.
> 
> DIYMA 12
> 
> From DIY Mobile Audio, I was expecting more. The cone was already dented before testing even started, just an omen of the build quality problems this driver had during the weekend. I never felt "right" with this - it seemed like it was missing the fundamental notes, like it was "glossing over" complex bass lines. It wasn't overbearing or difficult to blend with the front stage, but it wasn't very musical either. And by the end of the test, it looked like it got beat up pretty badly - all in the course of 48 hours. Durability is not this speaker's forte, and neither is sounding particularly good.
> 
> Resonant Engineering SR 12
> 
> Just an all-around good performer - not quite as sonically "quick" as the Aura/Rainbows, nor as deep or commanding as the 2000SPL, but not lacking in either of those departments either. But with RE's move to dealer sales, the price of this woofer is not competitive compared to offerings from other companies.
> 
> JL W6v2
> 
> Say what you want about CA&E reviewers being idiots (and after reading their "review" of the SI Mag D2, I'm not sure idiot is a strong enough word), but Tom Nousaine was right - this is a damn fine woofer at any cost. It didn't do any one thing perfectly, but it did everything excellently. The timbre and musicality of a single kickdrum was dead-on, as well as the thundering gut-wrenching shake of large orchestral drums. It was just a fun driver to listen to...I even strayed a little from my designated test material to play some KMFDM and Junkie XL, and it performed admirably. Put this in a low-tuned ported enclosure, give it power, and you can't go wrong.
> 
> Crystal COMPX 12
> 
> * Lagged on the fast transients of "Stream of Consciousness"
> * Did have a powerful low end, but overall not a driver suited for SQ applications
> 
> Mass Destruction Sidewinder
> 
> Sonically, very similar to the Orion XTR 3 - a sloppy, one or two-noted speaker that's better suited for street beating than SQ reference material. This was the second time I had heard the MD Sidewinder, and I wasn't impressed for musicality.
> 
> db Drive PLW12D2
> 
> Notes that should have been tight and clearly defined, weren't on this speaker. Mancini's "Pink Panther" theme has two distinct notes in the introduction, one higher and one lower - on a good system these have a very defined boundary in which they need to be placed. On this driver, like the MD Sidewinder and even RL-p to some degree, the notes "bled over" those limits and sounded bloated.
> 
> Funkin Audio MothaFunkin 12
> 
> It may be able to handle four strapped Sundown SAZ-1500D's, but I'd avoid this driver unless rap is part of your daily playlist. Distinct notes were slurred together, and it was very localizable in the soundstage. I did appreciate the terminal setup, especially for a DVC driver - there are four sets of terminals, so each coil gets two spring-loaded posts per lead.
> 
> Oz Audio ME
> 
> The little cousin to the P (which had problems of its own during SPL testing), the Me was a competent driver in the subjective tests, with LFE to spare. Very good sense of pace and timing, with a mastery of all kinds of instruments from the guitar of "Back Door Man" to kicks to kettle drums. Recommended.
> 
> Stereo Integrity BM 12:
> 
> I was eagerly waiting to test this driver, and with Nick Lemons in the passenger seat, we took it for a spin. I was impressed with its handling of complex material, it didn't shy away from material that humbled other woofers. Excellent transients, confident sub-30Hz response, and just melted right into the stage. If there's anything lacking from the Mag, it would be overall output - but for the cost, I'm not complaining one bit.
> 
> Stereo Integrity Mag D2
> 
> What can I say about this driver that hasn't already been said? One of the best offerings out there...although after this weekend I think there are a few strong competitors in its price range The reason why I chose the Aura over it had to do with tonal quality – I just felt that the Aura was a more natural-sounding driver, but it was a really close call.
> 
> Top choices:
> 
> 1. Aura Sound MR 12.4
> 2. Stereo Integrity Magnum D2
> 3. Rainbow Vanadium
> 4. JL W6v2
> 5. Stereo Integrity BM/Fi Q – hard to pick a clear favorite here
> 
> Honorable mention goes to the Rainbow Profi.
> 
> That's all, folks! Remember, all of this is subjective and it's just in my very humble and sometimes idiotic opinion. YMMV, offer not valid in all 50 states, void where prohibited, do not remove label under penalty of law, etc, etc...


http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1118512&highlight=rainbow



> I had this elsewhere but felt it would be appropriate for the review section as a little mini review of all the subs I've used. These are the subs I've used in the order of use, recent to oldest.
> 
> Now I've modeled all of these subs up on paper but the DIYMA and PRS subs are the only ones that I've built specific boxes for. I've used the TC2+ and SC12NRT in my 2.6 cu.ft. @ 26Hz ported box along with my PRS. I've used all but the DIYMA in my 1.5 cu.ft. sealed, well stuffed box.
> 
> This being said, not all the subs were in their ideal enclosures, but none were significantly compromised either. Also realize that low end response will be dependent on the enclosure and my ranking is hopefully based off relative ability instead of box bias. I'm not certain what areas I should cover, but I'll go with this:
> Low/Mid/High usability (say <50Hz/50-100Hz/>100Hz)
> Sound
> Coloration
> Level of Detail
> Impact
> Comments
> 
> I may add some later. I don't really want to use numbers but rather comment on the areas.
> 
> DIYMA 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usability with a F3 of 30Hz ported, 50Hz sealed, and easy use well above 100hz
> Sound - neutral/natural
> Coloration - none
> Level of Detail - very high
> Impact - medium
> Comments - very invisible, non-offending sub. It doesn't have any perceivable faults in sound.
> 
> Pioneer PRS 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usablity with a F3 of 25Hz ported, 40Hz sealed, and easy use well above 100Hz
> Sound - neutral/dry/bite
> Coloration - slightly dry
> Level of Detail - very high
> Impact - high
> Comments - Clean, quick with good perception of power, extremely efficient, very powerful and authoritative loud, a slightly unnatural bite to the notes.
> 
> Sonicraft SC12NRT 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usability with a F3 of 20Hz ported, 35Hz sealed, and easy use well above 100Hz
> Sound - neutral/slightly soft/quick kick
> Coloration - slightly unnaturally punchy
> Level of Detail - high
> Impact - very high, chest pounding
> Comments - near transparent, slightly softened detail but very punchy with impact you can feel in the chest, the only sub I've used that does this.
> 
> Phoenix Gold RSD12d 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - very low sealed F3 of 30Hz, not that usable above 60Hz due to lack in detail/speed, very incoherent above 100Hz
> Sound - warm, very smooth, muddy/slow at higher frequencies
> Coloration - warm/smooth
> Level of Detail - low, medium at lower frequencies
> Impact - medium, good authority but smoothed.
> Comments - good, small sealed, low frequency performer but not what I'd consider a "musical" sub, very low Xmax for clean low frequency output. It had good weight and presence at lower frequencies. 30Hz in a 1.5 cu.ft., sealed box is a nice attribute but needs to be paired with a good midbass woofer so you can cross low.
> 
> Dayton Reference HF 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usabilty with a F3 of 20Hz ported, 40Hz sealed
> Sound - squeaky clean/crisp/light.
> Coloration - squeaky clean
> Level of Detail - very high
> Impact - quick but short, powerful at high frequencies, slightly weak in feel in lower frequencies
> Comments - slightly unnatural squeaky clean sound but fun to listen to, very light and crisp sound. It has somewhat low Xmax for high output sealed use. There was a strange muddy/disconnected feel in low end notes, not really dependent on volume level and not sure why. This sub loves the higher frequency notes.
> 
> TC Sounds TC2+ 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - ported gives a somewhat high F3 of 40Hz, sealed 60Hz, mid and high end usability is very good, just lacks low end sensitivity
> Tonality - warm/natural
> Coloration - warm/heavy
> Level of Detail - medium
> Impact - medium/powerful
> Comments - overly heavy notes, almost seeming muddy and slow in detail but clean at the same time, think covered in a blanket sort of loss. It has a bit early of a sensitivity roll off for my liking, pretty much requiring porting or EQing boost. This is the Oaudio version which is geared for smaller enclosures, losing around 10Hz on low end sensitivity versus TC spec. The sub feels powerful and strong but thick.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28045&highlight=subwoofer




> All these results are my opinion. I had some others around me that have been in the car audio business for ~15 years and there thoughts were for the most part in synic with my own. Take that for what is worth. All boxes were built to manufactory specs and built with the same style of bracing. The amp used for the test was one half of the Phoenix Gold MS1000ta, its specs are...
> 250x2 @ 4ohms
> 500x2 @ 2ohms
> 1050x1 @ 4ohms
> Car tested in Dodge Intrepid 2002. All subs were crossed at 80hz with a 30db slope off my alpine pxa h701. Speakers were dyn mw 160 and dyn md 100.
> 
> SUBWOOFERS REVEIWED
> IDMAX 12d4 v.3
> 1.5 cu. ft sealed
> Retail: $450
> run @ 8ohms
> 
> What can I say, I have read all this hype about the sub through the forums over and over. looking at the sub lived up to it, it's build quality on this sub is amazing, and its looks o so sexy. Once I got it powered up it met all of that hype. The subwoofer was the smoothest sounding next to my old IDQ 15", but had a little more upmh to it. The bass dropped amazingly low, but yet recreated the high range 60hz-80hz incredibly well, and got incredibly loud off of only 500 watts. It is the type of woofer when you want can play seamlessly with your midbass and then when you get in those moods make your chest thump. Build quality on this sub is amazing, and its looks o so sexy.
> 
> JL W6v2 12"
> 1.4 cu ft. sealed
> Retail: $400
> run @ 8ohms
> 
> W6v2, another well hyped sub that I had heard in a few "not so great" install before, but I have to say when installed properly this sub impressed me. It played tight and blended with my mids great, the bass sounded as if it was upfront. It also dropped pretty low, but not with the authority of the IDMAX, FLATLINE, or RSd. Also didn’t quite have the output of the three other woofers I mentioned. But as a pure SQ woofer this would be at the top of my list.
> 
> Arc Audio Flatline 12D2
> 1.25 cu ft sealed
> Retail: $500
> run @ 4ohms
> 
> This sub to be honest disappointed me. It was the loudest sub out of the bunch most likely because it was run at 4 ohms obviously, but I felt it was lacking quite a bit. I feel that it wasn’t happy off the 1000 watts and that it wanted more, and the 50hz-80hz on this woofer was terrible, it was sounded like a sub and did not blend well with the mids. It was boomy and missed many notes that the other woofers were hitting. Under 50hz its response was about the same as the IDMAX, but the IDMAX at half the power sounded a little better and almost got as loud. My impression of this sub is an inefficient version of the IDMAX.
> 
> Alumapro Alcemey RX sq version 12D4 (newest version)
> 1.4 cu ft sealed
> Retail:$375
> run @ 8ohms
> 
> This sub was by far the best in the 60hz-80hz range. Sub was awesome up there, I previously said the other woofer blended seamlessly with the mids, well after this sub the others didnt compare. But 45hz on down I was disappointed with this sub, the output was very weak compared to the other woofers. IMO this sub reminded me a lot of Boston speakers or seas speakers, very neutral, and I think could make some on into that "neutral" sound would be extremely happy with this sub.
> 
> Phoenix Gold RSd12d
> 1.8 cu ft sealed
> Retail:$170
> run @ 8ohms
> This sub, I had hanging around, from PG and figured why not add it in. It was the prototype model that went into production, thus no magnet boot and dust cap not labeled. Well when you look at this sub verus the other you almost laugh I put it into the test, and I was thinking the same thing. Any how I powered it up, and I WAS SHOCKED, to simply put it. This woofer was amazing, it output was neck and neck with the IDMAX, it was very tight in the 50hz-80hz range, and hit low with authority. The sub is in the same league as the other and was better then most all-round actually.
> 
> Since the subs were listened to all in one day and changed constantly throughout two weeks I think I can do a fair number rating. I will also add RF p1 12"(worst woofer I ever had), and JL w3v2 12" for people to have an idea where these subs lay.
> 
> On scales 1-10(1 as the lowest, 10 the highest)
> 50hz-80hz
> Alumapro RX=10 (tight, extremely tight, and played every note)
> IDMAX=8 (hit every note with uphm but not as tight pro and rsd)
> RSd=8.5 (hit the notes very tight not as tight as the pro, but had a ti bit more uphm with the notes)
> Flatline=4(Was not great, just your avg woofer)
> w6v2=8(very similar response to IDMAX)
> w3v2=4 (your avg woofer and to me little boomy)
> p1=1.5 (p1 enough said)
> 
> 20hz-50hz
> Alumapro RX=5.5 (hit the notes just didnt have the outpute of the other woofer here)
> IDMAX=9.5 (great down here hit all the notes, accurate, and hit em hard)
> RSd=9.25 (right there with the MAX but was just barley a little behind)
> Flatline=9(great down here but not quite as accurate as the max and rsd)
> w6v2=7.5(accurate, but didnt have the output of the rsd max and flatline)
> w3v2=5(decent down here but not in the league of the other woofers)
> p1=1 (look above)
> 
> The winner of the bunch with no price involved would be the IDMAX and the RSd. When you look at price the RSd is hands down the winner. The max wins in build quality. The only difference in the woofers sonically is the RSd hits a little tighter and more neutral where as the IDMAX has a more of a robust sound. Which one would I choose many will ask well, the RSd it is less the 1/2 the cost of the MAX, and performs just as well so id go that route, but if prestige is your thing then go with the max.
> 
> fyi I ordered 2 RSd at the end of this test.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5698&highlight=Phoenix+Gold+RSD12d


----------



## npdang

typericey said:


> I just read this thread today :blush: and my eyes watered from reading all 38 pages of it. Here's my take on the (off) topic, if anybody still cares:
> 
> 1. numbers, tech specs and klippel graphs tell only 1/4th of the story on how the speaker sounds, IMO...
> 
> 2. materials and technology used tell only 1/4th of the story on how the speaker sounds, IMO...
> 
> What's the other half of #1 and #2? Auditioning. Listen to a well installed example of a sub you're interested in and if the sub sounds good to you and fits your needs well, then bring one home, be happy and call it a day! Heck, dare I say that auditioning even makes #1 and #2 totally irrelevant!
> 
> 3. Reading this thread was very informative, and guess what, after all this, my feelings for this forum hasn't changed. It still is, for me, the best car audio forum in the world, in history!  I still have much respect for npdang (he obviously got irritated back there, but hey, he's human like the rest of us, so I forgive him. haha!) Retained the respect for the members too...
> 
> At the end of the day, I'd rather be here than our local forum, where the bassheads are swinging their dicks left and right with their SPL meter records, and the retards spamming with dumdum comments like "nice sub you got there" or "cool amp, dude, wow! how much is that?"
> 
> 4. And here's the big one: Incidentally, I am also in the market for "the best 12" sub and my mind was set on the IDMax. And even through 38 pages of this thread, guess what, I didn't change my mind. I'm picking up my IDMax tomorrow. Why? Simply because so many owners have been raving about it, I'm fully convinced. And Eric, in reading his replies here and in the ID Forum, made me trust the guy, his company, and his products. Kudos to you, Eric, you've just sold one more sub without you knowing. (Yaiks, I'm getting all too mushy here). Next to the IDMax, I could've gotten a DIYMA, but I guess it's now unobtainable...


Well, yes and no 

If all you're interested in is how it sounds in a given application, and you have the luxury of trying it first, then all you need to do is audition it right?

But what if you don't have that luxury... are you really going to trust any random person out there? Especially if they have a different car, setup, tuning, and listening preference than you? And then there are just some people out there with lead ears.

My experience has generally shown me that cold, hard data is much more useful to me. Especially if you know how to interpret it correctly (which not many people do) and correlate it with past listening experiences. I use specs to narrow down the field before I make a purchase, and then I let my ears decide what I'm going to keep.


----------



## jrwalte

Check out RD Audio.

I have their 15" Elite (which was discontinued this year) in a sealed box and really like the balance between SQ and SPL.


----------



## jaypine

The first review I posted (post #382) was from "Realm of Excursion". They gave poor ratings to Dayton and DIYMA. These subs seemed to be liked by most. What do you know about "Realm of Excursion"? What do you think of this review?


----------



## 60ndown

jaypine said:


> The first review I posted (post #382) was from "Realm of Excursion". They gave poor ratings to Dayton and DIYMA. These subs seemed to be liked by most. What do you know about "Realm of Excursion"? What do you think of this review?


'realm of excursion' = (we like subs that move a lot)

or 

'the ultimate in sound quality' = (we like subs that sound great)



who do you believe knows a good sounding sub from a bad sounding sub?


----------



## freeride1685

i am exhausted from reading this post.


how ironic that 90% of useful review material was located RIGHT AT THE END



thank goodness i learned more about the human ego and also about the technical prowess of a few specific members of this forum, who are already widely known as reputable individuals.

i need to take a walk.


----------



## DS-21

backwoods said:


> it's like picking new shoes.
> 
> You pick them based on need. Whether they are for dress, running or playing basketball, then pick a color you like, one that feels comfortable, and get your size...


That's a great way to end up with bad quality shoes that won't last long. A smart shoe-buyers looks to things like mode of construction (glued vs. Blake-stitched vs. Goodyear-welted, etc.), quality of the hides used, naturalness of the patination (if any), consistency of the stitching in the upper, etc. Even if they're the same color, same initial comfort level, and same dimensions and given the collapse of the dollar compared to the euro and quid, a pair of JM Westons or Edward Greens is worth every penny over a pair of Kenny Coles. (Even though I give KC bonus points for having a superior undergrad alma mater, his shoes are crap.)

Likewise, if you choose a subwoofer without thinking about things such as "did the designers take any steps to reduce and linearize inductance," "what kind of thermal management is employed," "does it employ any BL-linearization technology," etc., then you're rarely going to end up with a driver that rises above mediocre.



cvjoint said:


> Ha! But I would pick a Puma shoe over a Nike any day. Build quality is much better and I can support that.


Depends, some of the Pumas (especially the Neil Barrett-designed "96 Hours" line and the old Puma x Jil Sander lines) are really great shoes, which use high quality leather or suede (my 96 Hours sneaks from a few seasons ago are yearling, or kangaroo-leather) and are carefully made. Others are just the same pleather/cheap leather mass market stuff like Nike, Prada, Reebok, Gola, Converse, Gucci, etc. 

Adidas and New Balance probably make the highest quality mass market sneakers right now. Highest quality sneakers period would be the Reiter Sport line (pg. 18; see also the tasteful quote atop pg. 26) by the Austrian shoemaker Ludwig Reiter, who also for a time made Helmut Lang's sneaker line. They use the same grade of hides for the inner socks that they use on their everyday-wear shoes (which is to say, their leather-soled, Goodyear-welted models), full-grain calfskin (or other materials; I have one pair in raw denim and suede, for instance) uppers, and they stitch them together rather than gluing them. Truly superlative sneakers.


----------



## dftnz7

SE > SSD, IMO

Altho the SE is a little bottom heavy for me. If you have dedicated midbass drivers or your comps can go really low, then this is okay. But if you need to highpass your mids at 80hz, look elsewhere, I don't like the SE crossed much above 50hz.


----------



## fallbrookchris

I like the Exodus Shiva-X and Dayton HO, I don't have a huge amount of experience with a lot of different brands but have been happy with these two


----------



## sublime_ac

Alumapro Alchemy is my favorite all around sub


----------



## slomofo

this post is a year old, why are we still posting in it


----------

