Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Matt Overpeck" data-source="post: 58373" data-attributes="member: 544285">aber --quote:&quot;wow, that is the biggest bunch of bullsh*t i have ever heard in my whole life. For one, a cv stroker 15 has the capability to have way more spl than a mass 12, and two, where do you get your info from? seriously, that stroker would desimate that mass in a second. Another thing, how come ive only heard complaints about your subs? heck, my friend said your sub was bottom heavy compared to the idmax, doesn&#039;t sound like a good sub to me!!!!!!&quot;_______________________________Exactly HOW old are you?&nbsp; I mean, is it really the &#039;biggest bunch&quot;...in your whole life?WE only deal in facts my friend and in this case, back issues of Car Stereo Review (now Mobile Ent.).&nbsp; If you want to disagree with the facts (and data) of the matter, well I guess that is your perogative.According to CSR (as tested by Tom Nousaine) when they tested a CV &#039;Stroker&#039; 15&quot; (in a CV custom-built 3.2&#039; ported box) it did 129.0 dB peak SPL output.&nbsp; This is matter of published record.The MASS 2012 prototype (with about 5 mm less Xmax then production units), in a tiny 1.0&#039; sealed box, did 129.1 dB!&nbsp;&nbsp; This is also a matter of public record (Jan 2000 issue of CSR).&nbsp; This is why it was crowned &quot;the new stroke (Xmax) and SPL champion.&quot;Heres a few more facts for you.&nbsp; While the CV 15 has about 50% more cone area then a MASS 12 has, all this means is that the MASS needs to have 50% more Xmax (given the power available) to match the output of the CV.&nbsp; The proto MASS had 19 mm of Xmax, while the CV has about&nbsp; 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) of Xmax.&nbsp; So 1.5 X (50% more) then 12.7 is....Ta Da!&nbsp; .....19 mm!Only &quot;complaints&quot; huh?&nbsp;&nbsp; OK....How about this for a rebuttal:<a href="http://www.AudiomobileInc.com/testimonials.htm" target="_blank">http://www.AudiomobileInc.com/testimonials.htm</a>And regarding being &quot;bottom-heavy&quot;?&nbsp; That would be indicative of using too large a box, as the lower Fs (22 Hz.) stronger motor and the lower VAS (on the MASS 2012), means the driver needs a smaller enclosure (like 1.0 - 1.2&#039;).&nbsp; Put it in a larger box and it will produce &quot;too much&quot; output under 40 Hz.&nbsp; This is easy to fix, unlike a sub that is &quot;boomy&quot; in a very small box.But your &quot;right&quot; (since it is your opinon here), the MASS is not a &quot;good sub&quot;....it&#039;s a GREAT sub! (according to both CAE -- June 2000 and CSR/ME -- Jan 2000)....So there you go...Cheers!MattAudiomobile</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Matt Overpeck, post: 58373, member: 544285"] aber -- quote: [B]"wow, that is the biggest bunch of bullsh*t i have ever heard in my whole life. For one, a cv stroker 15 has the capability to have way more spl than a mass 12, and two, where do you get your info from? seriously, that stroker would desimate that mass in a second. Another thing, how come ive only heard complaints about your subs? heck, my friend said your sub was bottom heavy compared to the idmax, doesn't sound like a good sub to me!!!!!!"[/B] _______________________________ Exactly HOW old are you? I mean, is it really the 'biggest bunch"...in your whole life? WE only deal in facts my friend and in this case, back issues of Car Stereo Review (now Mobile Ent.). If you want to disagree with the facts (and data) of the matter, well I guess that is your perogative. According to CSR (as tested by Tom Nousaine) when they tested a CV 'Stroker' 15" (in a CV custom-built 3.2' ported box) it did 129.0 dB peak SPL output. This is matter of published record. The MASS 2012 prototype (with about 5 mm less Xmax then production units), in a tiny 1.0' sealed box, did 129.1 dB! This is also a matter of public record (Jan 2000 issue of CSR). This is why it was crowned "the new stroke (Xmax) and SPL champion." Heres a few more facts for you. While the CV 15 has about 50% more cone area then a MASS 12 has, all this means is that the MASS needs to have 50% more Xmax (given the power available) to match the output of the CV. The proto MASS had 19 mm of Xmax, while the CV has about 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) of Xmax. So 1.5 X (50% more) then 12.7 is.... Ta Da! .....19 mm! Only "complaints" huh? OK.... How about this for a rebuttal: [URL="http://www.AudiomobileInc.com/testimonials.htm"]http://www.AudiomobileInc.com/testimonials.htm[/URL] And regarding being "bottom-heavy"? That would be indicative of using too large a box, as the lower Fs (22 Hz.) stronger motor and the lower VAS (on the MASS 2012), means the driver needs a smaller enclosure (like 1.0 - 1.2'). Put it in a larger box and it will produce "too much" output under 40 Hz. This is easy to fix, unlike a sub that is "boomy" in a very small box. But your "right" (since it is your opinon here), the MASS is not a "good sub".... it's a GREAT sub! (according to both CAE -- June 2000 and CSR/ME -- Jan 2000).... So there you go... Cheers! Matt Audiomobile [/QUOTE]

Verification