PDA

View Full Version : Soundsplinter VS. Dayton



HotCarl
12-17-2005, 10:30 AM
ill be movin into my own place after i graduate this spring...prolly move in around June-ish

im looking into gettin some HT stuff...and ive been browing subs and whatnot.

what would you guys take, off a 500 watt plate amp, for movies/music?

a 15'' SS Rl-p, or a 15'' dayton MKIII?

squeak9798
12-17-2005, 10:32 AM
Personally, I'd take the Rl-p

trevor87
12-17-2005, 10:34 AM
x2 ^^

HotCarl
12-17-2005, 10:39 AM
Personally, I'd take the Rl-p

hm, i think thats what im leaning towards


if i had the cash though, id def shell it out for a bigger amp and that RL-s. a bit out of my price range though.

PV Audio
12-17-2005, 11:06 AM
i'd even say take the RL-P, i'm even looking to change up drivers myself. don't take this without my meaning, the sub gets ****ing LOUD, but the lows aren't there as much as the RL-P. when i bought the dayton the rl-p let alone the entire ss line wasn't out yet, so had i seen those (i almost bought a 12" rli 3 months back to try it), i would have bought them instantly. but now they're the same price, so i'll replace her soon...

adio
12-17-2005, 11:55 AM
i vote for the dayton. it's cheaper & has great specs

hayden
12-17-2005, 12:04 PM
Specs-wise I would take the Dayton as well. Don't even bother with the SS Supreme series, the specs are not at all conducive to a HT sub design. In fact, I am perplexed at the Supreme's specs in general - as they don't lend themselves to any reasonable box and the power it takes to drive these LMT subs negates many other positive attributes.
JP

adio
12-17-2005, 12:12 PM
Specs-wise I would take the Dayton as well. Don't even bother with the SS Supreme series, the specs are not at all conducive to a HT sub design. In fact, I am perplexed at the Supreme's specs in general - as they don't lend themselves to any reasonable box and the power it takes to drive these LMT subs negates many other positive attributes.
JP
x 2. price wise, i would take the dayton too

adio
12-17-2005, 12:14 PM
i'd even say take the RL-P, i'm even looking to change up drivers myself. don't take this without my meaning, the sub gets ****ing LOUD, but the lows aren't there as much as the RL-P. when i bought the dayton the rl-p let alone the entire ss line wasn't out yet, so had i seen those (i almost bought a 12" rli 3 months back to try it), i would have bought them instantly. but now they're the same price, so i'll replace her soon...
how would you compare the lows of the dayton titanic to the SS RL-p??

PV Audio
12-17-2005, 01:11 PM
how would you compare the lows of the dayton titanic to the SS RL-p??
never having heard the rl-p in a HT, and knowing that it is comprable to the avanalnce, i'd say it gets lower, but i don't know for sure. it doesn't need as much power though, and probably has more output. but these are spec guesses, so i have no idea as to what they really perform like.

adio
12-17-2005, 04:14 PM
never having heard the rl-p in a HT, and knowing that it is comprable to the avanalnce, i'd say it gets lower, but i don't know for sure. it doesn't need as much power though, and probably has more output. but these are spec guesses, so i have no idea as to what they really perform like.
oh :)

skmfkr
12-17-2005, 05:26 PM
i dont think the rlp gets low like the ava

kuijo
12-17-2005, 05:28 PM
Specs-wise I would take the Dayton as well. Don't even bother with the SS Supreme series, the specs are not at all conducive to a HT sub design. In fact, I am perplexed at the Supreme's specs in general - as they don't lend themselves to any reasonable box and the power it takes to drive these LMT subs negates many other positive attributes.
JP


are you kidding me... ? :eyebrow:

hayden
12-17-2005, 10:35 PM
No, I am not kidding. Look at the Qts of the RL-S 15 - .945!!!! Look at the relatively high Fs - 25 hz. The moving mass is high, the reference eff. is low. Do I need to go on? These specs are very odd, to say the least. So what if the driver has 45mm one-way xmax. There are other parameters to think about when designing a subwoofer. If you think I am crazy visit some the HT forums, and see what some very smart guys (with driver design experience) say about these drivers.
JP

kuijo
12-17-2005, 10:43 PM
No, I am not kidding. Look at the Qts of the RL-S 15 - .945!!!! Look at the relatively high Fs - 25 hz. The moving mass is high, the reference eff. is low. Do I need to go on? These specs are very odd, to say the least. So what if the driver has 45mm one-way xmax. There are other parameters to think about when designing a subwoofer. If you think I am crazy visit some the HT forums, and see what some very smart guys (with driver design experience) say about these drivers.
JP

Have you seen the bass response curve? Maybe odd to you, but mike spent a very long time looking at every possibility and said these were specifically geared for HT operation. I don't know why he would lie to everyone. :wow:

adio
12-17-2005, 10:57 PM
Have you seen the bass response curve? Maybe odd to you, but mike spent a very long time looking at every possibility and said these were specifically geared for HT operation. I don't know why he would lie to everyone. :wow:
who's mike?

HotCarl
12-18-2005, 01:16 AM
the main man at SoundSplinter.

hayden
12-18-2005, 01:54 AM
I'm not saying that he is lying, but I am saying that these subs seem to be an odd compromise. The ongoing "race" for the highest excursion in subs leads to some of these issues. These new super-subs have to have massive magnets, heavy coil/cone/spider assemblies/surrounds/etc. The efficiency is very low, thus you need massive power to drive the subs. Since most of this power is converted to heat, the Qts of the subs rise even further (making decent sounding alignments harder to achieve). Add the relatively high cost of these, plus the amps to drive them, and I just don't see why you can't get the same performance for less money using multiple traditional drivers and cheaper amplification. I totally respect the engineering in these beasts, but the common sense portion of my brain screams - why?
JP

kuijo
12-18-2005, 02:45 AM
I'm not saying that he is lying, but I am saying that these subs seem to be an odd compromise. The ongoing "race" for the highest excursion in subs leads to some of these issues. These new super-subs have to have massive magnets, heavy coil/cone/spider assemblies/surrounds/etc. The efficiency is very low, thus you need massive power to drive the subs. Since most of this power is converted to heat, the Qts of the subs rise even further (making decent sounding alignments harder to achieve). Add the relatively high cost of these, plus the amps to drive them, and I just don't see why you can't get the same performance for less money using multiple traditional drivers and cheaper amplification. I totally respect the engineering in these beasts, but the common sense portion of my brain screams - why?
JP

For a better bass response.

azbass
12-18-2005, 02:48 AM
who's mike?

:wave:

hayden
12-18-2005, 07:21 PM
For a better bass response.

With all due respect, do you have any idea what you are arguing? You look at the specs, and ask people who really know driver/subwoofer design, then get back to me:rolleyes:

JimJ
12-18-2005, 07:28 PM
I would say HT application is the only use that makes any shred of sense for the Supreme series. That being said, I agree with hayden in thinking that "excursion at all cost" is not the way to build the best driver. Too many compromises must be made (Qts in the .9 range, anyone? :laugh: )

As far as bass response, I doubt the RL-s is really that much better than a pair of RL-p 15"'s in a low tuned bass reflex enclosure, with much more reasonable amplification and enclosure specs :)

But this is pretty much OT anyway...

squeak9798
12-19-2005, 09:43 AM
who's mike?


Mike Jones!

Who?

Mike Jones!

Who?

Mike Jones!

Mike = owner of Soundsplinter



Anyways.....as everyone else said; the Rl-s is only really an option for the HT market with it's box size and enclosure recommendations. Does that mean it's the best option? IMHO no....like Jack said; pair of 15" Rl-ps will cost approximately the same, have more output and need less amplifier power while using a smaller enclosure.


But all of this is OT to the original question......in which my verdict still stands of taking the Rl-p over the Titanic :p: