Menu
Forum
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Car Audio Discussion
General Car Audio
Car Audio Build Logs
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Help
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Wanted
Classifieds Member Feedback
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Join
Test
Forum
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
12" vs 15"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 7372285" data-attributes="member: 549629"><p>Efficiency and transient response do not go hand in hand. The fact that you compare the 'sensitivity' of an efficient driver with a less efficient driver only serves to show you are confused about this topic. Dont get me wrong, Im not bad mouthing you, this can be a somewhat complex issue, you have a better understanding than the average enthusiast does. But your conclusions about efficiency, transient response, and mms are simply incorrect. I posted a link to an expert that tested it, and proved inductance is a much bigger factor than moving mass, but you conclude that Dan Wiggins, speaker designer and inventor of xbl^2, doesn't know as much as you do and thus his test is 'stupid'.</p><p></p><p>The best way I can end this reply, is to simply quote the expert: "<em>Mass isn't the problem - inductance is. So if you want faster transient response, ignore that moving mass</em></p><p></p><p><em>parameter that some manufacturers push - look at the inductance!</em>". Common sense suggests your conclusion is correct, scientific testing proves it is wrong. Your response to that is to fall back on your common sense based conclusions. If you want to believe you are correct, go ahead. But that doesn't mean you are.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 7372285, member: 549629"] Efficiency and transient response do not go hand in hand. The fact that you compare the 'sensitivity' of an efficient driver with a less efficient driver only serves to show you are confused about this topic. Dont get me wrong, Im not bad mouthing you, this can be a somewhat complex issue, you have a better understanding than the average enthusiast does. But your conclusions about efficiency, transient response, and mms are simply incorrect. I posted a link to an expert that tested it, and proved inductance is a much bigger factor than moving mass, but you conclude that Dan Wiggins, speaker designer and inventor of xbl^2, doesn't know as much as you do and thus his test is 'stupid'. The best way I can end this reply, is to simply quote the expert: "[I]Mass isn't the problem - inductance is. So if you want faster transient response, ignore that moving mass[/I] [I]parameter that some manufacturers push - look at the inductance![/I]". Common sense suggests your conclusion is correct, scientific testing proves it is wrong. Your response to that is to fall back on your common sense based conclusions. If you want to believe you are correct, go ahead. But that doesn't mean you are. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
12" vs 15"
Top
Menu
Home
Refresh