Help on the SOLOX

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Just what we need ...



- steve

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

"There are many problems with a square sub design. The subs were designed with surface area in mind for SPL, but the square design limits the excursion capabilities by a large factor. There are subs out there with twice the excursion of the Solo X and the surface area that round cones lack isn't as drastic as the loss of excursion that the Solo suffers from. Also, a square cone has uneven pressure points, requiring large structural reinforcement (added mass) and a strong surround to keep the sub intact. You'll also hear a few people mention lead slap being an issue. It also suffers from cone flex and added distortion for those concerned with both a sound quality and durability standpoint. For SPL and durability, a square cone architecturally is not the best choice in subs to have. For SQ, you can definately forget square subs entirely as a comparably built round cone sub will ALWAYS sound better."

Not disagreeing with you or anything........but who said that? You put them it quotation marks, so it appears they aren't your words.

 

[Moe Lester 10+ year member]

actually kicker is trash, so are the solo x.see most of you do not see the down fall of a square sub. less excrusion, uneven pressure points, lack of spl and lack of sq. trust me there are much better subs out there than the solo x!! or L7's. dont give too much hype towards a sub that does not seserve it.

"There are many problems with a square sub design. The subs were designed with surface area in mind for SPL, but the square design limits the excursion capabilities by a large factor. There are subs out there with twice the excursion of the Solo X and the surface area that round cones lack isn't as drastic as the loss of excursion that the Solo suffers from. Also, a square cone has uneven pressure points, requiring large structural reinforcement (added mass) and a strong surround to keep the sub intact. You'll also hear a few people mention lead slap being an issue. It also suffers from cone flex and added distortion for those concerned with both a sound quality and durability standpoint. For SPL and durability, a square cone architecturally is not the best choice in subs to have. For SQ, you can definately forget square subs entirely as a comparably built round cone sub will ALWAYS sound better."

I dunno about all that, but the L7 sub seems to be somewhat SPL capable... XMAX isnt everything either.

 

[Alpine CDA-9815 10+ year member]

actually kicker is trash, so are the solo x.see most of you do not see the down fall of a square sub. less excrusion, uneven pressure points, lack of spl and lack of sq. trust me there are much better subs out there than the solo x!! or L7's. dont give too much hype towards a sub that does not seserve it.

"There are many problems with a square sub design. The subs were designed with surface area in mind for SPL, but the square design limits the excursion capabilities by a large factor. There are subs out there with twice the excursion of the Solo X and the surface area that round cones lack isn't as drastic as the loss of excursion that the Solo suffers from. Also, a square cone has uneven pressure points, requiring large structural reinforcement (added mass) and a strong surround to keep the sub intact. You'll also hear a few people mention lead slap being an issue. It also suffers from cone flex and added distortion for those concerned with both a sound quality and durability standpoint. For SPL and durability, a square cone architecturally is not the best choice in subs to have. For SQ, you can definately forget square subs entirely as a comparably built round cone sub will ALWAYS sound better."

I've heard and seen some L7's hit some very high numbers. I believe they got what 13mm of XMAX, XMAX is not everything when it comes to SPL. On top of that I've also heard some very nice sounding L7's.

 

[Polecat 5,000+ posts]

actually kicker is trash, so are the solo x.see most of you do not see the down fall of a square sub. less excrusion, uneven pressure points, lack of spl and lack of sq. trust me there are much better subs out there than the solo x!! or L7's. dont give too much hype towards a sub that does not seserve it.

"There are many problems with a square sub design. The subs were designed with surface area in mind for SPL, but the square design limits the excursion capabilities by a large factor. There are subs out there with twice the excursion of the Solo X and the surface area that round cones lack isn't as drastic as the loss of excursion that the Solo suffers from. Also, a square cone has uneven pressure points, requiring large structural reinforcement (added mass) and a strong surround to keep the sub intact. You'll also hear a few people mention lead slap being an issue. It also suffers from cone flex and added distortion for those concerned with both a sound quality and durability standpoint. For SPL and durability, a square cone architecturally is not the best choice in subs to have. For SQ, you can definately forget square subs entirely as a comparably built round cone sub will ALWAYS sound better."

whomever wrote this, equals no real education.

 

[ighettoboyi 10+ year member]

i hope so cuz comments like that make me wanna toss my l5's

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

"The subs were designed with surface area in mind for SPL, but the square design limits the excursion capabilities by a large factor."

Square cones do make for some engineering problems, but one of them is not a lack of excursion. Cone shape has nothing to do with the xmax of the driver. Im not square sub fan, but this is just a ridiculous statement.

 

[Polecat 5,000+ posts]

well we have been making them since 2000, and yet see an engineering issue, the rolls done right in the corner help alieve that. And just because of a woofers cone shape doesn't effect how much Xmax a woofer can do, I have spoken to a few woofer designers out there (that don't work here) and they know Xmax could be increased dramatically.

But Xmax is not and should not be the determining factor when selecting any driver on the market.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Im not going to get into a debate with you over it all Polecat, but square subs do have engineering issues. Im talking about basic engineering headaches and problems that are based around the cone being square shaped. The ridges in the cone are there to add strength for the square cone in its corners, as that's where the most stress will be. Cone flex is a concern inherited by square cone speakers due to uneven stress around the surface of the cone. Round subs dont have this issue. The surround has another clue to an obvious engineering issue. The corrugated surround as it goes around each of the four corners is another dead give away to an uneven stress area on the moving mass.

Square cones have their advantages. The most obvious of which is maximizing cone area in an array type of setup. I frankly dont get it for daily users who run 1-2 of the subs, as up-sizing a round sub to get the desired cone area is always an option.

The marketing advantages of using square cones is enormous. In today's world of bigger and more is always better, its an easy sell.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

The marketing advantages of using square cones is enormous. In today's world of bigger and more is always better, its an easy sell.

I remember that being a big selling point when they first came out. Had me interested up until I actually heard one..........

 

[Polecat 5,000+ posts]

Im not going to get into a debate with you over it all Polecat, but square subs do have engineering issues. Im talking about basic engineering headaches and problems that are based around the cone being square shaped. The ridges in the cone are there to add strength for the square cone in its corners, as that's where the most stress will be. Cone flex is a concern inherited by square cone speakers due to uneven stress around the surface of the cone. Round subs dont have this issue. The surround has another clue to an obvious engineering issue. The corrugated surround as it goes around each of the four corners is another dead give away to an uneven stress area on the moving mass.
Square cones have their advantages. The most obvious of which is maximizing cone area in an array type of setup. I frankly dont get it for daily users who run 1-2 of the subs, as up-sizing a round sub to get the desired cone area is always an option.

The marketing advantages of using square cones is enormous. In today's world of bigger and more is always better, its an easy sell.

if there are issues, there are no appearant SQ or SPL, or logivity issues as I see 2000 L7's playing all the time. So, if a driver has a designed issue, or failure, don't you think those would have been addressed? The ridges are to make the corbners flex within proper alignment for Xmax. The backbrace and the design of the cone, actual has less cone flex than your everage round 10". Check them out, and see for yourself... and if they had a 'dead give-away' of stress points, do you think us, the actual manufacture of the driver would see a growing issue with this? Well, we don't, and many are actually trying to copy the inherent advantages of making it work. Something other speaker designers see, and are aware of.

Sure you can upsize drivers for daily usage, but why have the mounting space for a 15" when a 12" will work. Some poeple do use round 15's, and I personally am fine with that....up to the end user, IMHO.

I also don't need to debate what is better, because we all know there are no 'best' drivers for each installation. But I can say, is after many years of reseach, and design upgrades, and logivity test, they seem to be doing fine, and making many rearview mirrors shake.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I believe its true a kicker square 10 is more rigid than a round, due to the ridges. But the corner problem will only get worse as cone size increases.

When I stated dead give-away stress points it was in regards to what kicker has obviously done to combat the square design problems: ridges on the cone, corrugated surround. Kicker added those things because it knows the design issues with the shape used (better than me Im sure).

 

[Polecat 5,000+ posts]

I believe its true a kicker square 10 is more rigid than a round, due to the ridges. But the corner problem will only get worse as cone size increases.
When I stated dead give-away stress points it was in regards to what kicker has obviously done to combat the square design problems: ridges on the cone, corrugated surround. Kicker added those things because it knows the design issues with the shape used (better than me Im sure).

the same designs MTX couldn't get worked out in R&D (straight from Lloys mouth)..but seems the design our R&D guys did, seems to be doing the trick.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

the same designs MTX couldn't get worked out in R&D (straight from Lloys mouth)..but seems the design our R&D guys did, seems to be doing the trick.

I agree, in 10 chars or more.

 

[FX_RYEN_04 10+ year member]

to get back to the main question i have the solo x, it is deff not for daily. if you intend to listen to it other than at comps i would say dont get it, but for strictly comps with only short burts hell yeah i do not know any sub besides the jackhammer that has an obvious advantage, but that comes with a lot of know how, theirs a lot more than just putting a sub in a random box with a high powerd amp. hopefully you knew that already if not //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif