New Stereo Integrity Mag / BM Proto Pictures!

[lilmaniac2]

I don't think you could be more wrong if you said, "The sky is bright yellow and it is raining anvils."

Big motor does not = SQ (so why would Nick use a bigger than needed motor?)

Goal for Mag = SQ (read above)

This basket does not = big and flashy (the driver is shallower than the prior model)

Also, do you understand the concept of a heat-sink? The basket is acting like a pretty big one -- the wrap around style has even more thermal mass. Helps keep the thermal compression down further once heat starts getting out into the motor / basket of the woofer.

In any event... you fail to understand even basic concepts of what is going on in this design. It has lower distortion than the previous Mag, it works better in sealed enclosures than the previous Mag, it goes lower than the previous Mag, it is more efficient than the previous Mag, has a far more advanced motor design, AND it costs less than the previous Mag. So where is Nick making "bigger profits" and going for "looks over performance"?!

What else did you want? To wipe your butt for you?

LAWL

[type[s5]]

Meh, ya can't please everyone man. I wouldn't let it get to ya.

One more dissapointed person = one more available speaker to someone who wants one

Any updated release date or anything, btw??

[audioholic]

I think some of you are taking this abit too personal. A pic of a new sub was posted, people comment on the aesthetics. I doubt anyone is suggesting a 'candy red bowl' looking frame necessarily diminishes performance. I dont think anyone is suggesting the enclosed frame design of the new Mag will hurt performance. We dont know, all we have is a pic. So all these comments based merely on aesthetics seem fair to me, critical or not.

People complained about the look of the old mag, people complain about the look of the new mag. Only difference is who exactly is complaining. Im confident these drivers will be solid performers, and their PERFORMANCE will speak for itself. In the mean time, dont get so upset people dont like the look. I dont like the look, at all, to be honest. But I also dont care, if/when Im looking for a new sub, Id still consider the Mag just as much as I would if it were gold plated and had big beautiful tits. But they dont, so if I ever buy one, I'll just stare at my g/f's tits while I listen to the Mag.

This is not directed at anyone specifically.

[Pl8er]

If it sounds good, I could care less what it looks like. How many of you actually invert your subs to show the motor and such off?

I want a sub that plays well. Whatever the appearance needed to achieve this, is ok with me.

[koolwhipman]

i dont care about looks.

I absolutely loved/miss the mag 15 i had.

I absolutely loved/miss the mag 15 i had.

I still miss it.

I do care about the diameter.

Its great to have 4 subs in a 2 cubic box, but that box has to have a big face to accomodate 12s. ya know?

[Electrodynamic]

I do care about the diameter.

Its great to have 4 subs in a 2 cubic box, but that box has to have a big face to accomodate 12s. ya know?

It's all about volume really.

Why would you want to have four 10's in 2 cubes when you can fit four 12's in 2 cubes? You end up taking up a much longer/wider portion of your trunk vs. a narrower footprint. And if you can't fit the extra width for four 10's, you end up making it taller or deeper to accomodate the extra volume, which goes right back to why wouldn't you do 12's if you now have a face that's 13" tall?

Lets take a look at a few enclosures shall we? We'll use 0.5" material to make things easy and I'll also work with external dimensions but I'll post the actual internal volume. Afterall, it's external dimensions we're concerned with, right?

Four 10's in 2 cubic feet. I want a 10" because I want a short enclosure. Lets use a 10" tall enclosure (Every 10" sub is larger than 10", but I'm going to use 10" just for demonstration purposes only). So a 10" tall enclosure that is 10" deep has to be 43.6" long to get 2 cubic feet internally. The key thing to notice there is the width - a 43" long enclosure. 43" of width takes up a good bit of trunk space when your goal is a small enclosure.

Now lets look at four 12's in 2 cubic feet. Say we shoot for a 12" tall enclosure (again, 12's are larger than 12.0" but just bare with me for demonstration purposes). A 12" tall enclosure that is only 24" wide (putting both 12's next to each other) ends up being 13" deep. Much smaller footprint for the goal of 2 cubes. That's an enclosure that is 1.7 times shorter for only 2" more height and 3" more depth.

Going with four 12's over four 10's provides you with a great solution for a small footprint enclosure. Those extra 2" in height and depth make the enclosure width considerably smaller. Intead of having a box that stretches across the back of your trunk (remember 43" wide), you can have an enclosure that rests anywhere you want to put it and has twice the output with the same amount of power (double the surface area). When you draw out the box dimensions, four 12's in 2 cubes affords you more useable trunk space than four 10's in 2 cubes when you try to stick with a small front face on your enclosure.

[koolwhipman]

It's all about volume really.

Why would you want to have four 10's in 2 cubes when you can fit four 12's in 2 cubes?

I bared thought the rest of this post, even though you spoke of 10x10x43 and 12x24x13, and ?BOTH? 12s next to each other?, wheres the other two? And what is the point? Because, if there was a ten inch version of THIS speaker, would it use the same size box as the twelve?

No offense, but I'm going to read thought your post again, and see if I can make any more sense outta it.

[koolwhipman]

...small front face on your enclosure.

When you talk of front face, you don't mean the surface with the subs mounted, do you?

[Electrodynamic]

I bared thought the rest of this post, even though you spoke of 10x10x43 and 12x24x13, and ?BOTH? 12s next to each other?, wheres the other two? And what is the point? Because, if there was a ten inch version of THIS speaker, would it use the same size box as the twelve?

No offense, but I'm going to read thought your post again, and see if I can make any more sense outta it.

Sorry, the other 10's and 12's in both examples are on the back side of the enclosure.

I could design 10's to fit in 0.5 or smaller, but the point is that even the shallow mount 10's require 0.5 cubes. The new BM 12's require 0.5 cubes. So why not have the extra output from a 12" sub instead of a 10" sub if the depth and enclosure requirements are the same?

[Electrodynamic]

When you talk of front face, you don't mean the surface with the subs mounted, do you?

Yes, I do mean the surface that the subs are mounted to.

[koolwhipman]

Sorry, the other 10's and 12's in both examples are on the back side of the enclosure.

hmmm...

So ANYWAY, in the real world, the ten inch version should use a smaller box, and should have less displacement. SO...

How would that equal = larger box/footprint?

[lilmaniac2]

the 10" version of the bm/mag would have the same box requirements...

[koolwhipman]

Sorry, the other 10's and 12's in both examples are on the back side of the enclosure.

I could design 10's to fit in 0.5 or smaller, but the point is that even the shallow mount 10's require 0.5 cubes. The new BM 12's require 0.5 cubes. So why not have the extra output from a 12" sub instead of a 10" sub if the depth and enclosure requirements are the same?

You have added since I read it three minutes ago...

But I still like your sig.

[koolwhipman]

the 10" version of the bm/mag would have the same box requirements...

Well that is a fail. Why would you make them that way?

[lilmaniac2]

they wouldnt, which is why the mag is in 12" only