# ARC Audio Black 6.0 Midwoofer Klippel Results



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

*Driver:*
ARC Audio Black Series 6.0
Arc AudioBlack 6.0

Full report attached via PDF.

*Pictures:*





























*T/S and Impedance:*









Re = 3.0664 ohms
Fs = 45.8727 Hz
Zmax = 50.8128 ohms
Qes = 0.5191
Qms = 8.0828
Qts = 0.4878
Le = 0.1292 mH (at 1 kHz)
Diam = 127.0000 mm ( 5.0000 in )
Sd =12667.6876 mm^2( 19.6350 in^2)
Vas = 17.8197 L ( 0.6293 ft^3)
BL = 5.1317 N/A
Mms = 15.4463 g
Cms = 781.7015 uM/N
Kms = 1279.2607 N/M
Rms = 0.5511 R mechanical
Efficiency = 0.3114 % 
Sensitivity= 86.9507 dB @1W/1m
Sensitivity= 91.1153 dB @2.83Vrms/1m

*Klippel Distortion Parameters:*

X Bl @ Bl min=82% 4.4 mm
X C @ C min=75% 2.4 mm

*Sample Klippel Data:*


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Looks almost exactly like the SB driver.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Looks almost exactly like the SB driver.


The 4" has more throw  

Kelvin


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Yes, and the offset differences are what drives that. The 4" has less offset in both K and Bl than the 6". Therefore, the % of those parameters is reached quicker on the 6" version.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

How much is this driver?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Link shows $489/pr MSRP.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

A lot more than the SBA driver...on the Arc Audio Store/site, they are about $500 a pair.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

I dunno, but I'm kinda "shocked".


----------



## EcotecRacer (Sep 16, 2008)

Which SB driver are these ?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

EcotecRacer said:


> Which SB driver are these ?


The only 6" that looks like it...  

Kelvin


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

The results are almost an identical copy to the SB. The slight deviation is easily production variance and it's so small any production line would be happy to see it. 

Buy the one that is cheaper DIYMA, the Klippel just saved you money!!

Naturally this will go towards some argument about how rebadged car audio drivers are somehow optimized for the car environment and that's why you pay the premium. Where is the difference in this driver?? I don't see it. Even the coil is 4 ohm in both drivers.


----------



## madmaxz (Feb 11, 2009)

maybe power handling? the FS is a little higher and the qts is a little more. but got daum 10 times the price of the SB..

i want to see the 4" data im trying to decide on the 4" SB ($90),ARC ($350) ,scan 12m ($600) or scan 3.5" 10f($250)


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

madmaxz said:


> *maybe power handling?* the FS is a little higher and the qts is a little more. but got daum 10 times the price of the SB..
> 
> i want to see the 4" data im trying to decide on the 4" SB ($90),ARC ($350) ,scan 12m ($600) or scan 3.5" 10f($250)


The information is all there. The SB reached a thermal temperature of 18k while the Arc got to 24k. Once you account for the excursion differences between the tests the thermal capabilities look the same. There is an overwhelming amount of similarities between the two.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I don't know what you are trying to decide on between the SB and the Arc...they are the exact same driver.



madmaxz said:


> maybe power handling? the FS is a little higher and the qts is a little more. but got daum 10 times the price of the SB..
> 
> i want to see the 4" data im trying to decide on the 4" SB ($90),ARC ($350) ,scan 12m ($600) or scan 3.5" 10f($250)


----------



## madmaxz (Feb 11, 2009)

i just wonder if anything changed spec wise that would help them work better in a really small a piller pod.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> I don't know what you are trying to decide on between the SB and the Arc...they are the exact same driver.


Maybe he's looking into buying speakers as a store of value. The ARC is higher price tag so upon resale you get more back. Honestly though, it's a really crappy investment given the depreciation rate of speakers. Then you have to rely on your used speaker buyer not knowing that he's paying for a sticker, they may be smarter than the buyer! It certainly wouldn't work on this site that well. 

It's not the first time "black" is used as a marketing tool. Look at the Mercedes black series, same chassis with a few improvements and the black edition moniker. At least the Mercs have improvements...


----------



## Knobby Digital (Aug 17, 2008)

madmaxz said:


> i just wonder if anything changed spec wise that would help them work better in a really small a piller pod.


On the 6", the slight difference in published T/S were shown, it's just that it doesn't equate to much in terms of actual performance.

On the 4", the specs are exactly the same.



cvjoint said:


> Maybe he's looking into buying speakers as a store of value. The ARC is higher price tag so upon resale you get more back. Honestly though, it's a really crappy investment given the depreciation rate of speakers. Then you have to rely on your used speaker buyer not knowing that he's paying for a sticker, they may be smarter than the buyer! It certainly wouldn't work on this site that well.


Not much room to go down on a $90/pair of speakers. If you gave them away, you'd still lose less than if you sold the Arcs for 1/2.


----------



## Knobby Digital (Aug 17, 2008)

BP, another member mentioned that the cone and surround materials seemed much beefier and stout on the Arc. What's your take on that? -From memory if you don't have the SB around any longer.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Knobby Digital said:


> On the 6", the slight difference in published T/S were shown, it's just that it doesn't equate to much in terms of actual performance.
> 
> On the 4", the specs are exactly the same.
> 
> ...


I meant in the drug dealer way of storing value in Rolex watches. A used ARC audio speaker still would cost more than the used SB even though it's the same damn speaker. You can wash money by buying expensive items and reselling as needed.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Knobby Digital said:


> On the 6", the slight difference in published T/S were shown, it's just that it doesn't equate to much in terms of actual performance.
> 
> On the 4", the specs are exactly the same.
> 
> ...


Agreed 

Kelvin


----------



## Knobby Digital (Aug 17, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> I meant in the drug dealer way of storing value in Rolex watches. A used ARC audio speaker still would cost more than the used SB even though it's the same damn speaker. You can wash money by buying expensive items and reselling as needed.


You can also boost your reputation by giving away turkeys on Thanksgiving!


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Edit.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Knobby Digital said:


> BP, another member mentioned that the cone and surround materials seemed much beefier and stout on the Arc. What's your take on that? -From memory if you don't have the SB around any longer.


I'll be completely honest here: holding the two drivers in my hand, I saw no physical differences at all. If they are there, I sure didn't see it. Nor did any of the other 7+ people I let compare the two.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> I'll be completely honest here: holding the two drivers in my hand, I saw no physical differences at all. If they are there, I sure didn't see it. Nor did any of the other 7+ people I let compare the two.


+1. I was one of those 7 and after looking at them, I actually tried to put one in the wrong box! :shrug:


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

pionkej said:


> +1. I was one of those 7 and after looking at them, I actually tried to put one in the wrong box! :shrug:


It looks like a duck and talks like a duck, but it said it was a Black Lab. I'm not sure which to believe.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

wow, just what I thought but damn im shocked to be right LOL


----------



## GLN305 (Nov 2, 2007)

highly said:


> It looks like a duck and talks like a duck, but it said it was a Black Lab. I'm not sure which to believe.


C'mon we all know black labs quack and walk like ducks....they cost more like that.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

Thanks for the testing again, easy decision to make on these if you liked SB 6's also.


----------



## Schizm (Jun 12, 2011)

So because I don't know SB product lines in the least, which of their 3 way sets is identical to the arc black series?


----------



## JoeHemi57 (Mar 28, 2006)

Schizm said:


> So because I don't know SB product lines in the least, which of their 3 way sets is identical to the arc black series?


SB Acoustics :: 6" SB17NRXC35-4

This one i would think...


----------



## Schizm (Jun 12, 2011)

Thank you so much joe!


----------



## AUDIO_GOD (Jul 15, 2011)

what about the 8" and the other woofers???


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

AUDIO_GOD said:


> what about the 8" and the other woofers???


Where did you see a black 8"? And even if there was one, how many 8" drivers does SB Acoustics have? 

Kelvin


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

As lame as it seems that Arc just slaps their name on something and then sells it 5x the value, at least its usually good stuff. 

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

do any of the sb tweets directly cross over from the SB?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

eprater1 said:


> do any of the sb tweets directly cross over from the SB?


Don't understand your question... 

Kelvin


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

please forgive my ignorance in asking the question but in comparing the numbers on the SB provided in the link below and looking at the results by the kippel testing on this site the numbers are all different Qts, BL, ect. are the differences so nominal that they would never be noticed or whats going on here? im considering the Black series and looking for justification that the SB would be just as good. i am not up to date on what all the varring parameters tested equate to in sound quality. i do however know what i like in my drivers and im sure its much like most other people. i prefer my tweets to sound very natural and not bright, example....my neighbor has a set of focal poly componets and his tweeters seem to more or less hissssssss alot of times (driven off of an arc audio ks 400.4) where as mine seem to make a ka-chssss. what im getting at is that my ring radiators just sound more like the real sound of a cymble and not so ssssssssssss. i want the same in my next set of tweets. mids i want to have a full bodied but not boomy sound. i currently have the hertz millie and have been very happy with them just dont want to spend that money again for a second vehicle. my dealer is getting me a bit.one for 650 and arc ks900.6 for 550. both are new and from a legit dealer with warranty but i will not name him in order to protect him. he is getting me the arc 6.0 drivers and 1.0 tweets for 500.00 if i choose them but looking for some justification in gettting the SB's and recomendations on SB tweeth that is the same as the Arc.

SB Acoustics SB17NRXC35-4, 6.5" Woofer: Madisound Speaker Store


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

eprater1 said:


> please forgive my ignorance in asking the question but in comparing the numbers on the SB provided in the link below and looking at the results by the kippel testing on this site the numbers are all different Qts, BL, ect. are the differences so nominal that they would never be noticed or whats going on here? im considering the Black series and looking for justification that the SB would be just as good. i am not up to date on what all the varring parameters tested equate to in sound quality. i do however know what i like in my drivers and im sure its much like most other people. i prefer my tweets to sound very natural and not bright, example....my neighbor has a set of focal poly componets and his tweeters seem to more or less hissssssss alot of times (driven off of an arc audio ks 400.4) where as mine seem to make a ka-chssss. what im getting at is that my ring radiators just sound more like the real sound of a cymble and not so ssssssssssss. i want the same in my next set of tweets. mids i want to have a full bodied but not boomy sound. i currently have the hertz millie and have been very happy with them just dont want to spend that money again for a second vehicle. my dealer is getting me a bit.one for 650 and arc ks900.6 for 550. both are new and from a legit dealer with warranty but i will not name him in order to protect him. he is getting me the arc 6.0 drivers and 1.0 tweets for 500.00 if i choose them but looking for some justification in gettting the SB's and recomendations on SB tweeth that is the same as the Arc.
> 
> SB Acoustics SB17NRXC35-4, 6.5" Woofer: Madisound Speaker Store


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/114396-sb-acoustics-17nrxc35-4-klippel-data.html


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

t3sn4f2 said:


> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/114396-sb-acoustics-17nrxc35-4-klippel-data.html


thanks so much for the quick response.....but im still confused. dont mean to argue at all just want to understand better. (all calculations are estimites)

Fs Difference of 21%
Zmax diff of 62%
Qes diff of 9.5%
Qms diff of 43%
Qts diff of 9% 

that was just the first few parameters and again it could be a nominal difference but to the unknowing it seems kinda like a lot. note the Vs and BL are very similar.


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> Don't understand your question...
> 
> Kelvin


the sb driver in question is supposed to be the same as the Arc, which SB tweet is also the same as the Arc? if any at all. typically the tweet is setup to work well harmonicly with the mid and wondering if any particular SB tweet pairs well with the particular driver. My current tweet is a legatia ring radiator L2V2 (or something like that i forget all the fancy lingo) by HAT. i have them mounted in spherical pods about 3/4 of the way up in my pillars on my f350, in an active setup and controlled by a hru.4/bit.one and can honestly say to me they sing like no other. i want to get close to that level of performance and not spend that kind of money again if poss. again i do not like bright hisssssssssy tweets at all also in the new 2012 Passat the tweets fire upwards off the glass which will complicate the issue even further.


----------



## Knobby Digital (Aug 17, 2008)

eprater1 said:


> thanks so much for the quick response.....but im still confused. dont mean to argue at all just want to understand better. (all calculations are estimites)
> 
> Fs Difference of 21%
> Zmax diff of 62%
> ...


Those differences are nominal. Some of the values are unitless and the others are logarithmic functions, so simple percentages are an invalid way of qualifying the differences.

Here's the comparable SB tweet.


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

Knobby Digital said:


> Those differences are nominal. Some of the values are unitless and the others are logarithmic functions, so simple percentages are an invalid way of qualifying the differences.
> 
> Here's the comparable SB tweet.


gotcha....so what are good values to look for in kippel testing?seems like the best test would be to play the speaker accross its frequency range and measure how accurately it reproduced each frequency and how level the output was at each frequency......i think this is already done though.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

eprater1 said:


> gotcha....so what are good values to look for in kippel testing?seems like the best test would be to play the speaker accross its frequency range and measure how accurately it reproduced each frequency and how level the output was at each frequency......i think this is already done though.


That's not an easy question to give an answer for. I suggest reading this sub forum's stickys at the very least.


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

t3sn4f2 said:


> That's not an easy question to give an answer for. I suggest reading this sub forum's stickys at the very least.


Thx for the direction on the stickys, getting a better understanding if the data but still not sure about them being the same....too many wide varriants it seems like.

Why could you not use test tones to test each frequency on the driver and see how well it reproduced that frequency? Do it on a say 40hz to 4000hz range for mids.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

eprater1 said:


> Thx for the direction on the stickys, getting a better understanding if the data but still not sure about them being the same....too many wide varriants it seems like.
> 
> Why could you not use test tones to test each frequency on the driver and see how well it reproduced that frequency? Do it on a say 40hz to 4000hz range for mids.


Output or level (flat frequency response in the driver's passband) is not what's most important. 
Distortion is quite important but is not absolute either... 

There's really quite some infos in the stickys (as suggested earlier) and there's really no right or wrong answer to your question... 
We need to understand first how figures and graphs correlates to what we hear <-- that's the hard part  Some form of distortion is actually needed to sound natural - which one is up to you 

Kelvin


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

subwoofery;Some form of distortion is actually needed to sound natural - which one is up to you :)
Kelvin[/QUOTE said:


> Come again? I have heard people make that argument but never successfully. Why is distortion in a playback system necessary to sound natural?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> Come again? I have heard people make that argument but never successfully. Why is distortion in a playback system necessary to sound natural?


Tubes  It is known knowledge that tube sounds sweeter to most people even though it introduces 2nd order distortion (or 3rd depending on design) that sounds more natural even though it is not "true" to the recording... 

Reference for Valve sound - Search.com 

Regarding subwoofers, a lot of people in the CAR audio community don't like hearing a low distortion subwoofer. Some of my friends find it funky that they can only hear the sub or whenever they feel it, it comes from in front of them when the SI Mag v.4 is mounted in the trunk  lol

Kelvin


----------



## eprater1 (Dec 13, 2010)

would this combo of SB woofer and tweeter work well in a convertible? putting a system in my boss' international scout and considering them. he only uses it on nice days and has the top on about 80% of the time. it is completely restored and sealed up well, not a trail rig where everything needs to be marine grade. what i am conserned about is volume vs distortion need a clean and loud speaker.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

subwoofery said:


> Regarding subwoofers, a lot of people in the CAR audio community don't like hearing a low distortion subwoofer. Some of my friends find it funky that they can only hear the sub or whenever they feel it, it comes from in front of them when the SI Mag v.4 is mounted in the trunk  lol
> 
> Kelvin



to me that is the one of the ultimate goals of a sound quality build. i love having my bass sound like its coming out of the front dash when the sub is in the trunk. if i can localize a sub is in a car i consider it a spl setup


----------

