10's or 8's...worried about low end.

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

wrong... your psycobable with the intent of once again making me look stupid is what fails... the first time you contradicted me i said that you misunderstood me...so don't try to play dumb like you thought i was setting down a law of car audio... (that all 8"s are inferior to all 10's)

if you had been interested in helping op like i was you would've understood everything i said or at least questioned and i would explain...

but instead your aim seems to be to prove simple warranted generalizations wrong to make yourself look like a god of car audio...

my logic is twisted?...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

i was taught to go by the rule, not the exceptions to the rule...

Uh oh, I think I struck a nerve. lol
Instead of listening to you drone on about what you want us to believe you said, lets just paste it shall we...

yes you can get just as much low-end from 8's as 10's but it is gunna be easier to get the low bass performance from 10's...
it's just natural that the bigger the sub, the better it plays low... granted a ported box can minimize or eliminate the advantage, but since space seems such a restriction, i would say you are going to go sealed, in which case you are gunna have a hard time emphasizing any lows from 8's

whereas you could go 10's, and get more natural lows without sacraficing output or clarity at higher levels...

imo... just because you CAN get just as much performance out of a smaller sub doesn't mean you should if you don't have to...

i'd say normally if its a choice between sizes, go with the bigger...

it (most of the time) just makes more sence

also i have a single 10w6v2 in a sealed box in my mom's car's trunk and it slams the lows

Clearly you were trying to generalize that 8's sealed cannot perform well in the lowest octaves. Where oh where in any of that, Cotjones, is there any mention of speaker Fs? There is none, only generalizations based upon cone diameters. maybe because you googled Fs some time between that reponse, and these past few? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
I do not need to make you look stupid, nor do I set out to. I merely respond to what I read from you. And in case you haven't noticed, your quotes are all over this board in people's sigs. Making you look bad is like slinging mud at a pig.

 

[almond 10+ year member]

lol or as bad as an alabama hot pocket, yeah google that shit!!

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

wow, no... F/S is the resonance frequency of the sub in free air. Below this frequency the sub will lose effeciency. At F/S inductance is at it's highest and effeciency peaks.
Secondly, you've said it about 100x in this thread and your still wrong. Multiple subs are more effecient than 1 larger one, for a variety of reasons. Assume aa single sub off off Y watts hits Xdecibels. Then add another sub without adding power, you're output is now X+3 decibels. By adding a sub, you gained output without adding power, secondly, since each driver is seeing less power, you can actually gain more than 3 decibels, if the first sub was having power compression issues. More potential output with with the same power is more effecient.

Third a large speaker can play as high as a smaller one if they design it to, it's not a god given inherent part of the speaker. Inductance play a MUCH bigger role than cone area.

except that the figures i gave were the power required to drive a sub to Xmax

at which level the bigger subs are more efficient

a smaller sub takes x amount of power to move a certain amount of air

a larger sub at x power has a higher output

i don't see how you are saying 8's are more efficient then 10's

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

dude i didn't say they are allways superior, you are putting words in my mouth or at least taking my words out of context...
my setup was about as efficient as a midget running track ...

in many subs the advantages of 2 10's outweigh the advantages of a single 12

again don't play stupid and act like i was laying down a law of car audio... you know very well i was making a generalization instead of giving advice based on exceptions as it seems you would have me do

You seem to be of the opinion I want you to give advice, based on generalizations, or otherwise. You are mistaken.
And Id like to know why you consider a pair of 8's inferior to a single 10 as a rule, but that a pair of 10's is superior to a single 12.

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

except that the figures i gave were the power required to drive a sub to Xmax
at which level the bigger subs are more efficient

a smaller sub takes x amount of power to move a certain amount of air

a larger sub at x power has a higher output

i don't see how you are saying 8's are more efficient then 10's

I'm not, I'm saying multiple subs are more effecient than a single larger one. Add a second sub, keeping power constant you gain output. Per given amount of excursion a larger cone will move more air, this isn't the be all end of of getting loud or low though.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Uh oh, I think I struck a nerve. lol
Instead of listening to you drone on about what you want us to believe you said, lets just paste it shall we...

Clearly you were trying to generalize that 8's sealed cannot perform well in the lowest octaves. Where oh where in any of that, Cotjones, is there any mention of speaker Fs? There is none, only generalizations based upon cone diameters. maybe because you googled Fs some time between that reponse, and these past few? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

I do not need to make you look stupid, nor do I set out to. I merely respond to what I read from you. And in case you haven't noticed, your quotes are all over this board in people's sigs. Making you look bad is like slinging mud at a pig.

boy you said it look at that one more time

yes you can get just as much low-end from 8's as 10's but it is gunna be easier to get the low bass performance from 10's...
it's just natural that the bigger the sub, the better it plays low... granted a ported box can minimize or eliminate the advantage, but since space seems such a restriction, i would say you are going to go sealed, in which case you are gunna have a hard time emphasizing any lows from 8's

whereas you could go 10's, and get more natural lows without sacraficing output or clarity at higher levels...

imo... just because you CAN get just as much performance out of a smaller sub doesn't mean you should if you don't have to...

i'd say normally if its a choice between sizes, go with the bigger...

it (most of the time) just makes more sence

also i have a single 10w6v2 in a sealed box in my mom's car's trunk and it slams the lows

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You seem to be of the opinion I want you to give advice, based on generalizations, or otherwise. You are mistaken.
And Id like to know why you consider a pair of 8's inferior to a single 10 as a rule, but that a pair of 10's is superior to a single 12.

8's generally are less suited to sub-bass then 10's or 12's the difference between 10's and 12's is usually marginal compared to the difference between 10's and 8's...

you don't see people comparing 1" tweets to 6.5 mid's

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

i'm done with this BS for now cause i gotta work in the morning and take a mid term in the afternoon...

but since everyone seems to think i'm wrong about this.... i guess fact is, i just am and can't understand why... so OP listen to these guys most of them do have more experience than me, what i was saying just seemed to make sence to me //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

8's generally are less suited to sub-bass then 10's or 12's the difference between 10's and 12's is usually marginal compared to the difference between 10's and 8's...
you don't see people comparing 1" tweets to 6.5 mid's

so again, it's simply an ignorant bias that big speakers cant' play high and smaller speakers can't play low. No real basis in physics or reality. I've got 15's in my basement that wont' make it below 250hz with any output, even with no crossover.

Not all your points are completely wrong. Given the choice of 1 10 or 1 8 sealed, if I had room and power for both I'd take the 10 assuming they were about the same quality. Given the choice of 2 8's or 1 10, In the real world, I'd look at available space for overall q factor (most important spec for lfe), power available to see if power compression might be an issue, as well as my available budget.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

exaclty!!! thats my point, he's acting like he can get 4 8's to sound just like a 15 just because of Sd

And you're arguing the opposite just because of Sd. You're just as wrong.

you are still not getting it...
picture this... we compare 2

subs free-air...

the Fs is the value for their peak responce

Fs sub A > Fs sub B

now we put them in proportional encloures and the peak responce will probly change slightly, but proportionally... thus,

peak responce of sub A enclosed > peak responce of sub B enclosed

No, that is simply not true. While efficiency drops quite a bit below Fs, it is a lot more complicated. Heck, there is even such a thing as power compression.

edit: Point is...it's a lot more complicated than a simple comparison of the effective piston area.....a LOT more complicated.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

so again, it's simply an ignorant bias that big speakers cant' play high and smaller speakers can't play low. No real basis in physics or reality. I've got 15's in my basement that wont' make it below 250hz with any output, even with no crossover...

no it's generalization... although they EXSIST you are gunna have a hard time going to a car audio shop and buying a 15 that won't do below 250 hz...

again this is another perfect example of going by the exceptions instead of the rule

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

And you're arguing the opposite just because of Sd.

no i wasn't... i was argueing the opposite because of many factors

No, that is simply not true. While efficiency drops quite a bit below Fs, it is a lot more complicated. Heck, there is even such a thing as power compression.
edit: Point is...it's a lot more complicated than a simple comparison of the effective piston area.....a LOT more complicated.

yes it is more complicated but those specs do give you somewhat of an idea to go by

 

[Fast1one 10+ year member]

This thread is really funny....

O BTW...http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=215164&highlight=Assassin+low

FS of 47hz and it was hitting 20s???? Blasphemy!!!!!!

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

boy you said it look at that one more time

Two can play that game. lets highlight a couple things you forgot to...

yes you can get just as much low-end from 8's as 10's but it is gunna be easier to get the low bass performance from 10's...
it's just natural that the bigger the sub, the better it plays low... granted a ported box can minimize or eliminate the advantage, but since space seems such a restriction, i would say you are going to go sealed, in which case you are gunna have a hard time emphasizing any lows from 8's

whereas you could go 10's, and get more natural lows without sacraficing output or clarity at higher levels...

imo... just because you CAN get just as much performance out of a smaller sub doesn't mean you should if you don't have to...

i'd say normally if its a choice between sizes, go with the bigger...

it (most of the time) just makes more sence

also i have a single 10w6v2 in a sealed box in my mom's car's trunk and it slams the lows

This was my reply:
"Sd is only one portion of the equation in displacement potential. If you dont know what that means, or how it relates to what ive quoted... you should."

In other words, you stating the speaker with the larger piston naturally plays lows better is an over generalization. Which still holds true, even after the pages of excuses and techo-babble from you.

Notice, for example, the last comment of yours I quoted... "you are gunna have a hard time emphasizing any lows from 8's". No where do you mention an 8 with a high Fs, you simply say that 8's are incapable of reproducing low bass well. What was the word you used later... struggled. An over generalization.

Only later, after its brought to your attention, do you google Fs and a few other jewels of info and weave it into your logic. And we see how well that turned out for you... "the Fs is the value for their peak responce". Nice little jewel of information that was.

Lastly, your sentenses would make more sence, and people might take your responces more seriously, if you were to work on enhansing your spelling skillses.

In conclusion, we do still agree that your mom's trunk bangs. (yes helo, Im implying Ive had anal secks with her, big time)

 

[IgnoreMe 5,000+ posts]

well instead of ****ing off and flaming lets test your theory
OP says either 2 10's sealed or 4 8's sealed

lets try the w1v2.

4 8w1v2's would have a linear displacement potential of 39.209 in^3

@ 400watts

2 10w1v2's would have a linear displacement potential of 40.1415 in^3

@ 300watts

on woofersetc right now...

4 8w1v2's will cost you $400

2 10w1v2's will cost you $220

did i mention that the 8's not only lose in over-all potential but fail in lower-end because of a ((((10 hz difference)))) in Fs?

there is one example of a fail, the first one i compared, i shall continue:crazy:

my 15" btl has an FS of 36hz. was in 4.5 cubes @ 33hz

my 15" SI mag had an FS of 22hz. was in 4 cubes @ 33 hz

my BTL got a LOT lower than my mag did...