XXX Comps or Zapco C2K

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

seasoned veteran that has been here longer than you my child. the thing that is so funny about car audio is that it is simple. it isnt rocket science. if any of you could contribute less to porn subscriptions and more to the car audio industry you would realize that. the only math you need is simple ohms law, and how to calcuate box information. dont turn car audio into something it isnt. people like you give the car audio industry a bad reputation.

All I see is a noob, with an 07 tag, talking ********, and saying he's been here a long time. Okay...? If you are so proud of your credentials, Id LOVE to see them. You are full of it, we all know it.
And yes, people 'like me' who get all technical n stuff are ruining this industry for simpletons like yourself. Maybe you should take up knitting instead.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Oh, and the fact you are STILL avoiding any specifics on your experience with xxx's, has not gone unnoticed. I originally suspected you were 'educating' based solely upon internet heresay you've read, looks like I was right.

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

how about this...you want all out brutal output....yes the xxx drivers will give you that...andthey do it with ease

you want tonal definition...then the xxx is not for you... in no way should it or will it ever be considered and sq driver

 

[MTXThunder9500 10+ year member]

wow way to keep on topic........ thanks guys //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

how about this...you want all out brutal output....yes the xxx drivers will give you that...andthey do it with ease
you want tonal definition...then the xxx is not for you... in no way should it or will it ever be considered and sq driver

Again, if we are talking about the old XXX, I disagree. Is it a "SQ" driver? No. I doubt any true SQ driver requires 32+mm of excursion. But to imply its tonial inaccurate, lacks definition, etc... is simply not true in my experience.
Its amazing how often I see people touting the SQ of their BTL's or MT's here, yet the xxx is considered a brutal output driver only? Makes zero sense to me.

 

[W8 a minute 10+ year member]

I think some of you are confusing component sets with subwoofers.

I don't think the XXX components were ever considered SQ.

The XXX subs did a good job of SQL though. The mixed martial artist of woofers. Good all around sub.

 

[alxmlr789 10+ year member]

I think some of you are confusing component sets with subwoofers.
I don't think the XXX components were ever considered SQ.

The XXX subs did a good job of SQL though. The mixed martial artist of woofers. Good all around sub.

Interesting..

The XXX comps you are getting sounded pretty **** good to me.. (well, for the 12 seconds i tested them before i shipped them..heh. )

 

[W8 a minute 10+ year member]

Interesting..
The XXX comps you are getting sounded pretty **** good to me.. (well, for the 12 seconds i tested them before i shipped them..heh. )

I hope so. LOL

I guess I should clarify. If you're going to do critical listening I think the XXX components will fail on pure SQ alone. At least compared to a set geared for SQ from the start. That doesn't mean they sound bad at all. What the XXX's will do that the SQ drivers won't is an ungodly amount of SPL before breaking up. Most SQ drivers are loud enough for me anyway. This is the first time I'm building a system geared towards knocking down trashcans and peeling back toupees as I drive down the street while still having a somewhat "balanced" sound.

 

[bass_lover1 10+ year member]

he said, "An XXX", ****face.

And if you pronounce "XXX" as "EX EX EX," then saying an XXX would be correct...****face.

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

Again, if we are talking about the old XXX, I disagree. Is it a "SQ" driver? No. I doubt any true SQ driver requires 32+mm of excursion. But to imply its tonial inaccurate, lacks definition, etc... is simply not true in my experience.
Its amazing how often I see people touting the SQ of their BTL's or MT's here, yet the xxx is considered a brutal output driver only? Makes zero sense to me.

in regards to your btl..mt comment...most people don't have any idea on what sq really is... the sub plays the smallest part in an sq system.. we are talking about a driver that plays less than 2 octaves and really it's sole purpose is to only give the frontstage added low end ext...that's it..nothing more...

in regards to your comment on the xxx mids...no way in hell dude...to much moving mass for it to have definition...kind of like autocrossing with an 18 wheeler....

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

in regards to your btl..mt comment...most people don't have any idea on what sq really is... the sub plays the smallest part in an sq system.. we are talking about a driver that plays less than 2 octaves and really it's sole purpose is to only give the frontstage added low end ext...that's it..nothing more...
in regards to your comment on the xxx mids...no way in hell dude...to much moving mass for it to have definition...kind of like autocrossing with an 18 wheeler....

Huh? First of all, how many octaves the speaker plays has nothing to do with this discussion, does it? Or, does a speaker that's only required to play 2 or 3 octaves allowed to sound bad? My point was I read around here all the time how 'good' MT's and BTL's sound, yet when having a discussion about XXX's its stated they are basically just an extreme output driver not geared towards SQ. Its ridiculous. Id have to ask, do any of you stating that xxx subs dont sound good, have direct experience with them? The only person Ive seen make any specific comments on their performance couldn't have been further off if he'd tried.
So you tell me, playing 2 octaves or not, why do you think a XXX sounds bad?

Further more, what comment on the XXX mids? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif I believe you are confused, I never made any such comment. Not that I ever made the comment in this thread, I think your notion of too much moving mass is silly. Did you miss Dan Wiggins article on inductance versus moving mass? Do you have any specific reason why you think xxx mids have substantially more moving mass than competing mids?

You appear to have misunderstood my stance here entirely.

 

[johnson 10+ year member]

Huh? First of all, how many octaves the speaker plays has nothing to do with this discussion, does it? Or, does a speaker that's only required to play 2 or 3 octaves allowed to sound bad? My point was I read around here all the time how 'good' MT's and BTL's sound, yet when having a discussion about XXX's its stated they are basically just an extreme output driver not geared towards SQ. Its ridiculous. Id have to ask, do any of you stating that xxx subs dont sound good, have direct experience with them? The only person Ive seen make any specific comments on their performance couldn't have been further off if he'd tried.
So you tell me, playing 2 octaves or not, why do you think a XXX sounds bad?

Further more, what comment on the XXX mids? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif I believe you are confused, I never made any such comment. Not that I ever made the comment in this thread, I think your notion of too much moving mass is silly. Did you miss Dan Wiggins article on inductance versus moving mass? Do you have any specific reason why you think xxx mids have substantially more moving mass than competing mids?

You appear to have misunderstood my stance here entirely.

The discussion is about the XXX components. Why do you keep bringing up the XXX subwoofer?

The mention of octaves was brought up when you mentioned what you read people saying about the BTL and MT subwoofers. Again, why are you bringing up subwoofers?

 

[Hebrew Hammer 10+ year member]

Huh? First of all, how many octaves the speaker plays has nothing to do with this discussion, does it? Or, does a speaker that's only required to play 2 or 3 octaves allowed to sound bad? My point was I read around here all the time how 'good' MT's and BTL's sound, yet when having a discussion about XXX's its stated they are basically just an extreme output driver not geared towards SQ. Its ridiculous. Id have to ask, do any of you stating that xxx subs dont sound good, have direct experience with them? The only person Ive seen make any specific comments on their performance couldn't have been further off if he'd tried.
So you tell me, playing 2 octaves or not, why do you think a XXX sounds bad?

Further more, what comment on the XXX mids? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif I believe you are confused, I never made any such comment. Not that I ever made the comment in this thread, I think your notion of too much moving mass is silly. Did you miss Dan Wiggins article on inductance versus moving mass? Do you have any specific reason why you think xxx mids have substantially more moving mass than competing mids?

You appear to have misunderstood my stance here entirely.

hold on there a minute .... you are the one constantly bringing up the subs...yes i have played with the first gen xxx ... I would not consider this in any way a sq driver... sql sure...and even then that's such a broad term...

and in regards to dan...his Brahma which was his holy grail of subs was the largest pig of any sub I have ever owned....

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The discussion is about the XXX components. Why do you keep bringing up the XXX subwoofer?
The mention of octaves was brought up when you mentioned what you read people saying about the BTL and MT subwoofers. Again, why are you bringing up subwoofers?

Please refer to post #2 of this thread:

are you serious? that isnt even a close comparison. and why the hell are you using that woofer if you want a SQ oriented system?

So as you can see, the thread has revolved both the subs, and the comps, since the beginning. I fail to see how you've missed that, after reading the thread. Im not even the one who brought up xxx subs to begin with, heck I got in on the discussion rather late. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif
How many octaves was brought up due to me mentioning MT's and BTL's? Again, what does how many octaves the driver play have to do with whether or not it sounding good or bad is acceptable? And again, Im not the one who brought up subwoofers. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

hold on there a minute .... you are the one constantly bringing up the subs...yes i have played with the first gen xxx ... I would not consider this in any way a sq driver... sql sure...and even then that's such a broad term...
and in regards to dan...his Brahma which was his holy grail of subs was the largest pig of any sub I have ever owned....

Interesting. I would like to know how the XXX failed in the SQ department, in your opinion. Im genuinely curious.
As for the comment about Dan and his 'pig', 1) what does the Brahma have to do with Dan's conclusions on inductance? 2) I guess the overwhelming amount of people who have used/listened to Brahma's seeming to regard them highly means nothing since you think they are a pig, 3) are you suggesting Dan is wrong in hhis claims/facts/figures/charts and graphs on the role of inductance? If so, Id like to hear your counter-theories.

Lastly, I will bring up subs any time I want, so long as it pertains to this discussion. I did not start the discussion here on subs, Ive merely continued it. if that bothers you, well Im truely sorry, but too bad. People want to make broad and generalized comments about products or their performamce, and then seem to get all bent when asked to back up their own words with any form of substance. I have asked for nothing more than that in this thread, and that's not asking for too much.