MTX: The best company ever?
- Thread starter bumpinthanite
- Live activity
- Replies 23
- Views 2K
i am constantly impressed by mtx, i love the 8000 series and although i think their amps look like ***, they are pretty strong...
i had some 6000's a while back and never once had a problem, they were loud with only 1/2 the power recommended...
p.s. limitkid7....lovin the avitar!!!!!
i had some 6000's a while back and never once had a problem, they were loud with only 1/2 the power recommended...
p.s. limitkid7....lovin the avitar!!!!!
see while u say you love mtx, i say i hate it..... i've always hated it...
i think what caused me to hate is was how much props this mexican was giving his 3 mtx 4000 10's in the sealed box that they were in....
i had 1 jl audio 12w3 ported (old school) in that brown box that's int he gallery.... i still sounder louder and had better quality than him
i think i'll end up respecting this new sub that they made, but tehn again i thought i'd end up having respect for an edk and as we ALL KNOW...... that isn't going to happen
if this back fires on mtx, it will be hard to come back from. to me it seems like its going to be a good sub but until i see some unbias reivews and test from magazines or other folks i wouldnt start a big add compain like that. but hey i dont own a buisness either. i dont know for sure but arent their other subs with better xmax and can take more power and still cant touch the jlw7. but hey if it knocks the w7 out maybe jl will lower prices.. i aint holding my breath thou. but hey i still think the eclipse ti is the closest sub to the w7 i have heard or heard of........
mtx is my opinion has always been a lower line than JL in my eyes. Its whole demographic is the circuit city kids who think they have loud systems. I personally have never been impressed by an MTX sub or amp. The amps have high distorion, and are not as strong or solid as a JL amp. The sheer fact that they compare themselves to the w7 in an ad campaign, is just their acknoledgement that the w7 is the shit, and they want people to look at their product. The MTX rep came by my shop talkin all this smack about how the 9500 has a bigger magnet and thicker surround than a w7 blah blah blah, but that all doesnt mean anything. I mean hey, even kenwood is making a 13inch sub. (i wonder who gave them that idea). So finally i heard an mtx 9500 in an SUV. Not bad...not bad at all..but far far far from the w7. I think people will believe what they want to believe..but we metered both of them, and the 9500 was about 2 DB less, which is pretty significant, and didnt sound as good. As i ramble on and on, let me end with this. If a company has to compare themselves to another this aggressivley..they are scared..plain and simple...or they really do have the balls..which i personally have witnessed that they dont... just my two cents
taken from CAF posted by Justin W
"Well this is an interesting comparison in that they chose the 10's to compare... why? Because the 12's (most common size of sub driver in a car) the 12W7 beats the 9512 in many of the comparison categories, while the 13W7 beats the 9515 in many categories…
Looking at the comparisons... they also chose the 10 - it is the smallest W7 that would be a "fair" comparison... for a completely fair comparison they should have compared all sizes.
The pictures give the false impression that the MTX is far larger since they use the smaller 10W7 in the pictures... of course the 12W7 and 13W7 are considerably larger - around the same overall size as the larger MTX 9500's. The 9500's all use the same motor so really only the 10 is significantly larger... and fact is... is this much of a selling point? I realize that it is to many people… but should it be?
Stating specs... starting with Xmax:
They state .9" (22mm) for the 10W7... yet it's been DUMAXed up around 26-27mm, which is higher than the MTX (which is only rated using overhang).
If using that overhang rating the 12W7 (29mm) and 13W7 (32mm) surpass the 25mm (1") Xmax rating of the entire line of MTX 9500's. It would still be interesting to see if MTX can turn that coil length into excursion with a DUMAX test to show extended motor strength over excursion. Of course this would also verify that there is no restriction at the suspension as well.
Xmech:
The MTX clearances are impressive to say the least assuming the suspension can handle it. The other question is whether or not there is sufficient motor to push the driver that far in the first place. How usable is the excursion in other words.
Power handling:
These figures are likely derived in different ways and are recommendations so they mean very little. They claim that the peak power rating of the 10W7 is 1000W. This is not true. JL doesn't specify peak power. It is the maximum warrantied (RMS) wattage to the driver. Of course the 12W7 is 1500W and the 13W7 is 2000W. These are equal to or higher than the 9500's.
Should mention here that if anything I wouldn't question the W7's power handling, they have been shown to be able to take ungodly amounts of power with little issue.
Enclosure size:
Again a recommendation by MTX, they can say whatever they want as far as recommended enclosures. For the most part no matter how you look at it the W7's are just as much or more suited for smaller enclosures than the 9500's... whether you look at F3's, Qtc, EBP or whatever.
I'd add that some of the 9500's have some VERY high Q's which would certainly put some concern on going with tiny sealed enclosures.
Voice coil diameter:
The 10W7 has a Ø2.75"...
12W7 - Ø3.00"
13W7 - Ø3.55"
While the entire 9500 family has a 3.5" coil.
It's how the parts and design work together that makes the product not one single aspect. Power handling shouldn't be a concern for either the W7 or 9500.
Cone and surround material:
Same applies as above... it's how the design works not the parts individually. MTX touts a lightweight and stiff cone compared the JL yet moving mass is higher on the MTX drivers... and the stiffness of the W7 cone has never been much of a concern.
Rubber versus treated foam? There are plenty of compelling arguments either way. Rubber needs to be thicker/stiffer to have the strength that foam does… the compliance is also affected by the environment more… cold weather makes it stiffer. Rubber does seem to still have an advantage in overall length of life in a harsh environment with extreme temperatures and varying humidity.
Shorting Ring/Heatsink:
It’s nice to see that MTX is addressing induction related distortion (about 10% of all distortion) by the use of minimizing induction. JL also addressed lowering induction by using less coil winding layers, although not to the extent that the 9500’s have with their ultra low Le.
JL, on the other hand did extensively address BL compression induced distortion (60% of all distortion) by optimizing the motor by various methods of steel removal in the pole. At face value MTX appears to have not addressed this.
Installation:
Sure the W7 is a bit more complex… but it was for the purpose of getting back valuable cone area. The complexity of the mounting is no big deal if you’ve ever installed a W7. We are talking an extra 5 minutes (at the most) to install it. MTX also addressed cone area… by making an EROM-type surround, which allows the cone area to be larger. As far as installation issues - the MTX is a bit deeper which causes issues too… but needs no vent pole clearance which allows the depth to be slightly shallower.
Price:
Well, they list MSRP… they aren’t that different price-wise when you figure in street prices… if you are spending $500 or more on a sub – IMO – you should get what you want regardless if you are forced to spend a little more to get it…
Well… so there it is… is the MTX a good sub? It sure looks like it will be. So far, I’m impressed. I’d like to have one to check out. It may sound like I’m making excuses for the W7… but my attempt is only to show that the comparison was obviously specifically written to cherry-pick the advantages of the 9500’s compared to the W7’s. JL could write up an equally scathing comparison against the 9500… but why don’t they?
It’s not JL’s style.
They don’t need to… as the W7 merits have been proven already.
It’s just too bad that MTX couldn’t have highlighted their product without trying to take down the competition in the process but that’s a valid marketing approach… and is common when a company needs to gain attention for their product.
For comparison let’s compare how JL features their W7 technologies:
http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7_Technologies.html
"
"Well this is an interesting comparison in that they chose the 10's to compare... why? Because the 12's (most common size of sub driver in a car) the 12W7 beats the 9512 in many of the comparison categories, while the 13W7 beats the 9515 in many categories…
Looking at the comparisons... they also chose the 10 - it is the smallest W7 that would be a "fair" comparison... for a completely fair comparison they should have compared all sizes.
The pictures give the false impression that the MTX is far larger since they use the smaller 10W7 in the pictures... of course the 12W7 and 13W7 are considerably larger - around the same overall size as the larger MTX 9500's. The 9500's all use the same motor so really only the 10 is significantly larger... and fact is... is this much of a selling point? I realize that it is to many people… but should it be?
Stating specs... starting with Xmax:
They state .9" (22mm) for the 10W7... yet it's been DUMAXed up around 26-27mm, which is higher than the MTX (which is only rated using overhang).
If using that overhang rating the 12W7 (29mm) and 13W7 (32mm) surpass the 25mm (1") Xmax rating of the entire line of MTX 9500's. It would still be interesting to see if MTX can turn that coil length into excursion with a DUMAX test to show extended motor strength over excursion. Of course this would also verify that there is no restriction at the suspension as well.
Xmech:
The MTX clearances are impressive to say the least assuming the suspension can handle it. The other question is whether or not there is sufficient motor to push the driver that far in the first place. How usable is the excursion in other words.
Power handling:
These figures are likely derived in different ways and are recommendations so they mean very little. They claim that the peak power rating of the 10W7 is 1000W. This is not true. JL doesn't specify peak power. It is the maximum warrantied (RMS) wattage to the driver. Of course the 12W7 is 1500W and the 13W7 is 2000W. These are equal to or higher than the 9500's.
Should mention here that if anything I wouldn't question the W7's power handling, they have been shown to be able to take ungodly amounts of power with little issue.
Enclosure size:
Again a recommendation by MTX, they can say whatever they want as far as recommended enclosures. For the most part no matter how you look at it the W7's are just as much or more suited for smaller enclosures than the 9500's... whether you look at F3's, Qtc, EBP or whatever.
I'd add that some of the 9500's have some VERY high Q's which would certainly put some concern on going with tiny sealed enclosures.
Voice coil diameter:
The 10W7 has a Ø2.75"...
12W7 - Ø3.00"
13W7 - Ø3.55"
While the entire 9500 family has a 3.5" coil.
It's how the parts and design work together that makes the product not one single aspect. Power handling shouldn't be a concern for either the W7 or 9500.
Cone and surround material:
Same applies as above... it's how the design works not the parts individually. MTX touts a lightweight and stiff cone compared the JL yet moving mass is higher on the MTX drivers... and the stiffness of the W7 cone has never been much of a concern.
Rubber versus treated foam? There are plenty of compelling arguments either way. Rubber needs to be thicker/stiffer to have the strength that foam does… the compliance is also affected by the environment more… cold weather makes it stiffer. Rubber does seem to still have an advantage in overall length of life in a harsh environment with extreme temperatures and varying humidity.
Shorting Ring/Heatsink:
It’s nice to see that MTX is addressing induction related distortion (about 10% of all distortion) by the use of minimizing induction. JL also addressed lowering induction by using less coil winding layers, although not to the extent that the 9500’s have with their ultra low Le.
JL, on the other hand did extensively address BL compression induced distortion (60% of all distortion) by optimizing the motor by various methods of steel removal in the pole. At face value MTX appears to have not addressed this.
Installation:
Sure the W7 is a bit more complex… but it was for the purpose of getting back valuable cone area. The complexity of the mounting is no big deal if you’ve ever installed a W7. We are talking an extra 5 minutes (at the most) to install it. MTX also addressed cone area… by making an EROM-type surround, which allows the cone area to be larger. As far as installation issues - the MTX is a bit deeper which causes issues too… but needs no vent pole clearance which allows the depth to be slightly shallower.
Price:
Well, they list MSRP… they aren’t that different price-wise when you figure in street prices… if you are spending $500 or more on a sub – IMO – you should get what you want regardless if you are forced to spend a little more to get it…
Well… so there it is… is the MTX a good sub? It sure looks like it will be. So far, I’m impressed. I’d like to have one to check out. It may sound like I’m making excuses for the W7… but my attempt is only to show that the comparison was obviously specifically written to cherry-pick the advantages of the 9500’s compared to the W7’s. JL could write up an equally scathing comparison against the 9500… but why don’t they?
It’s not JL’s style.
They don’t need to… as the W7 merits have been proven already.
It’s just too bad that MTX couldn’t have highlighted their product without trying to take down the competition in the process but that’s a valid marketing approach… and is common when a company needs to gain attention for their product.
For comparison let’s compare how JL features their W7 technologies:
http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7_Technologies.html
"
Im sure they DID compare the 12 and the 13 and they just totally destroyed the 9500 in every aspect or darn close.... so they chose to pick their puniest driver with the smaller aspects of performance seeing how MTX did their drivers equally for the 9500 line.
Its a common advertising scam where they go for the lowest line product.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Similar threads
- Started by RichM
- General Car Audio
About this thread
