12" vs 15"

[VWBobby 10+ year member]

I agree with most of your points in your post. I cannot stress enough that a lightweight cone will out perform a heavy weight cone and suspension design.

Examples: Older JL audio, SoundStream, PG Titanium, Eclipse Ti, etc. These subs have lighter cones and suspensions and sound more "clear"/clean with lower power requirements.

Have you ever seen the cone distortion videos on Youtube that show cones flexing and flapping all over the place in slow motion? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Some is bad videography, others are using good quality cameras and documenting the visible distortion in the cone. This distortion comes from high motor force that's required to control the heavier cone or overcome stiff suspension.

Examples: DC Audio, FI BTL, possibly some DD 9500 or higher series.

Better motor control, split coils, etc definitely help reduce introducing distortion. A well designed motor does not have to be so strong as it must be linear throughout the excursion. Examples of bad motor designs would be the double-stacked DD motors or other smaller motors with all of the motor force in the center of the coil travel. Very little control outside of the "sweet spot" in the BL curve.

The home audio and pro audio speakers I was referring to are component type speakers. mostly 3-way, in a single cabinet. I have also heard very good sounding Polk audio 2-way tower speakers that had a 30-20K range, right at ear level. The subwoofer LPF was tuned to 50hz. All of these higher end speakers used reinforced paper, not poly or aluminum cones.

I think we're on the same page, so I don't want to beat a dead horse any longer. Just saying that I believe there is a lot more to do with speaker design in the cone and suspension than most people give merit to. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[Bettr n' Revrse 5,000+ posts]

Bad analogy. If this was true then running ****** brakes from Pep Boys would yeild the same results as ceramic brakes on race cars, which is definitely not true.

Actually yes it will yield about the same results if thats all you change cus all ceramic brakes do is dissipate heat faster lol... it still takes the the same amount of time for any moving to stop no matter the breaks it does a lot to do suspension and tires more so then breaks...

But anyway OP just go listen to some different setups and pick what you like...

 

[bhsdriller 10+ year member]

my 8's played lower/louder than multiple bigger sub setups i've heard...4 10's, 2 12's

 

[THATpurpleKUSH 5,000+ posts]

Actually yes it will yield about the same results if thats all you change cus all ceramic brakes do is dissipate heat faster lol... .

Different materials have different friction coefficients. Some are more resistant to high heat. Excess heat in braking causes fade and longer stopping distances. Ceramic brakes work better because they dissipate heat faster and they can work more effectively than others at a higher temp, allowing them to maintain friction. You really only see them on race cars because they work better when hot and the cost is very high. Different pad and rotor material can change stopping distance although tire grip, weight distribution, center of gravity, downforce and suspension orientation all play a role.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I agree with most of your points in your post. I cannot stress enough that a lightweight cone will out perform a heavy weight cone and suspension design.Examples: Older JL audio, SoundStream, PG Titanium, Eclipse Ti, etc. These subs have lighter cones and suspensions and sound more "clear"/clean with lower power requirements.

Have you ever seen the cone distortion videos on Youtube that show cones flexing and flapping all over the place in slow motion? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Some is bad videography, others are using good quality cameras and documenting the visible distortion in the cone. This distortion comes from high motor force that's required to control the heavier cone or overcome stiff suspension.

Examples: DC Audio, FI BTL, possibly some DD 9500 or higher series.

Better motor control, split coils, etc definitely help reduce introducing distortion. A well designed motor does not have to be so strong as it must be linear throughout the excursion. Examples of bad motor designs would be the double-stacked DD motors or other smaller motors with all of the motor force in the center of the coil travel. Very little control outside of the "sweet spot" in the BL curve.

The home audio and pro audio speakers I was referring to are component type speakers. mostly 3-way, in a single cabinet. I have also heard very good sounding Polk audio 2-way tower speakers that had a 30-20K range, right at ear level. The subwoofer LPF was tuned to 50hz. All of these higher end speakers used reinforced paper, not poly or aluminum cones.

I think we're on the same page, so I don't want to beat a dead horse any longer. Just saying that I believe there is a lot more to do with speaker design in the cone and suspension than most people give merit to. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

You are confusing cone distortion with audible distortion. And, if your cone warps regularly, it will fail very quickly. I dont know what videos you are referring to, but that is not normal speaker operation.

Pressed pulp paper cones are still one of the most, if not the most common cone material car audio subs use. The main difference usually boils down to a water proof coating on car audio cones.

The PG Titanium and Eclipse Ti used metal cones so Im not sure why you included them in your examples of light cones. The old Jl's and Soundstreams (like the Exacts I assume) used simple pressed pulp paper cones, again very common in car audio. Even many subs like the old RE XXX appear to have a poly cone, but in reality its a paper cone with a poly dustcap.

 

[VWBobby 10+ year member]

What would be the difference between cone distortion and audible? Its all going to be audible, distortion is distortion.

Example: The Subwoofer DIY Page - Subwoofer Distortion

This is probably mostly camera distortion, but I bet there is a lot of audible distortion along with it....


I used the PG and Eclipse Ti speakers as examples because the cones are extremely lightweight aluminum and paper construction. They are lighter than most reinforced pulp fiber cones. I have seen some pulp cones aproach 1/4" in thickness. Poly cones are good in this aspect because you can keep them light and waterproof, however they have a very "hard" and unnatural tone to them compred to a paper or wool cone, IMO.

 

[IonRL205 10+ year member]

You can't base how a system sounds in person by judging it from a youtube video...

 

[Pborcich 10+ year member]

Lol just take a look at todd zeirs work on an SQ ride with 18's

ull **** a brick :-D

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

What would be the difference between cone distortion and audible? Its all going to be audible, distortion is distortion. Example: The Subwoofer DIY Page - Subwoofer Distortion

This is probably mostly camera distortion, but I bet there is a lot of audible distortion along with it....

That video does not show a cone warping. Most of what you are seeing is tricks from the camera. The surround dimpling is however real. If the cone warped even half as much as you think that video suggests, the coil would become misaligned.

No, distortion is not distortion. Even if that cone in the video was 'distorting' as you think it is, that is a far cry from audible distortion. In terms of talking about stereos, distortion refers to deviation from the original recording. The cone distortion you are referring to is deviation from the original shape. Two completely different topics. Its like suggesting that if a speaker cone is 'warping' its shape, its also 'warping' time and space.

Paper cones still tend to be lightest, followed by poly, and metal cones coming in last (yes, even titanium). So again, using the PG or Ti are bad examples of light weight cone designs.

 

[T.I.K. 10+ year member]

Conjecture and false logic ITT

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Conjecture and false logic ITT

Except this isn't the thunderdome. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[T.I.K. 10+ year member]

Except this isn't the thunderdome. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Too true, however, I think all this technical jargon could have been avoided if the OP's question had been approached from the angle of "will a SA-10 sound tighter and punchier than a SA-15?" which, yes probably it will considering that it is easier for that motor and suspension to accommodate a 10" cone than a 15" cone... gnomesayin' ?

It's very safe to say that an 18" Maelstrom would sound better than a kicker comp 12" on all counts simply due to quality of build.

I'm not about to try to talk beyond my knowledge base, which is admittedly very limited, but it just seems that most 'problems' with larger woofers can be designed out through motor, suspension and cone design.

 

[VWBobby 10+ year member]

That video does not show a cone warping. Most of what you are seeing is tricks from the camera. The surround dimpling is however real. If the cone warped even half as much as you think that video suggests, the coil would become misaligned.

As I pointed out before, most of the distortion in the video is from the camera. However, some of the distortion is in the cone itself. I have been to a lot of competitions and owned or auditioned more equipment than I care to count. I can tell you for a fact that when most equipment is pushed to 75-100% of its capability, it will distort and sound like poo. Next time you push your equipment, pay attention to how clean it sounds compared to how it sounds at 75% or higher. My hearing is not what it used to be, and I don't have "golden ears", but I can certainly hear a huge difference.

If you have ever cut or taken apart several sets of subs, you would see that most of the pulp fiber cones are in fact the heaviest of the designs. My PG Ti subs are less than 19 gauge, paper and aluminum included (the Ti is a plating) and much lighter design than some of the SoundStream Pros, Celestron and other pulp fiber speakers I've owned. This horse is beaten, so I'll leave now, but I stand firm in what I stated above. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[zako 10+ year member]

Most properly done 15 inch subwoofers are not suited for car audio use simply due to box size requirements. Most sound best in sealed boxes much bigger than 2cu ft, and for ported they need even more space. There is also the woofer size issue. My car trunk, the subwoofer box can't be taller than exactly 13 inches. So this rules out the 15 inch subs in back firing position. Perhaps because of this a lot of SQ sub manufacturers do not make 15 inch sub version of their subs. Though, you can find a 15inch sub if you wish. For example, Dayton Reference HO15, which is basically as SQ as it gets and will work in a reasonably small box.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

As I pointed out before, most of the distortion in the video is from the camera. However, some of the distortion is in the cone itself. I have been to a lot of competitions and owned or auditioned more equipment than I care to count. I can tell you for a fact that when most equipment is pushed to 75-100% of its capability, it will distort and sound like poo. Next time you push your equipment, pay attention to how clean it sounds compared to how it sounds at 75% or higher. My hearing is not what it used to be, and I don't have "golden ears", but I can certainly hear a huge difference.If you have ever cut or taken apart several sets of subs, you would see that most of the pulp fiber cones are in fact the heaviest of the designs. My PG Ti subs are less than 19 gauge, paper and aluminum included (the Ti is a plating) and much lighter design than some of the SoundStream Pros, Celestron and other pulp fiber speakers I've owned. This horse is beaten, so I'll leave now, but I stand firm in what I stated above. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

You are clouding the discussion with your "75%" theory. As you turn the stereo higher, yes obviously distortion increases. That's not the point here. The point here is, is it caused by the cone deforming. No, it is not (or, very very little of it is).

Round coned speakers are inherently centered. The force is exerted evenly from the vc former, to the cone, and up through the cone to the surround. The suspension also helps prevent rocking. So if your subs experience a rocking issue like you think that video suggests, you have bigger problems than what your cones are made of.

I will say once more, the cone was not warping in that video. A cone that warped like that on every cycle, would fail very very fast due to material fatigue. That is NOT normal speaker operations, and you assuming it is has only lead you to false conclusions. No offense to you, but it has.

If you want to believe metal cones are inherently lighter than paper, nothing I say will change your mind. But maybe what this guy had to say 2 days ago will change your mind:

This is because the speakers are generally made from lighter materials, paper or wool cones, and generally have much lighter suspensions.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif