Need opinions on Image Dynamic subs

[5er Guy 10+ year member]

This is off the top of my head.

The idmax handles over 1kw and has an xmax of 26mm. The idq10v3 handles a little over 400w and has an xmax of 19mm. The idq12v2 handles a little over 350w and has an xmax of 13mm. Someone please correct my info if I'm wrong. I have an idq10v3 in a .8 enclosure on 400w, and it's the best sounding sub I've had to date. If you want really loud while still musical, the Max is where it's at. In my opinion, two idq10v3s would be the best of both worlds (sealed of course). The idq12v3 is dropping any day now too.

 

[Ekeko 10+ year member]

I only have experience with the IDQ 10.

The IDQs sealed sound great with less power than other subs; however they do end up "hitting plate" a bit sooner than other higher powered subs.

THE FOLLOWING IS JUST THEORY, take it with a grain of salt:

The v2 in a ported enclosure are about 7.5 db more efficient than the v3s in a sealed enclosure. Amp power usually comes at a sonic cost if all other things are equal.

So, up to a certain point, your v2s have slightly more SQ potential, just because they make better use of amp power. Of course, if paired to a much (much) bigger amp, the v3swill eventually sound louder but you better have a VERY good quality amp.

Of course, there are other variables so you will only know for sure by testing a v2vs. a v3 side to side...anyone done that yet?

 

[lastcall 10+ year member]

hmm interesting. well if i had the id maxs i would use the kicker 1500.1 and if i had either the 12v2s or 10idqv3 i would use a memphis mc1000d. i like the id maxs but the moutning depth is 7.6" and the total mounting depth on ported box i have is 8". would that be enough room for the sub to perform?

 

[Ekeko 10+ year member]

Hi,

I found this equation for calculating desired power for a given SPL:

dBW = Lreq - Lsens + 20 * Log (D2/Dref) + HR

W = 10 to the power of (dBW / 10)

Where:

Lreq = required SPL at listener

Lsens = loudspeaker sensitivity (1W/1M)

D2 = loudspeaker-to-listener distance

Dref = reference distance

HR = desired amplifier headroom

dBW = ratio of power referenced to 1 watt

W = power required

If I run the V3 at 2mt (ap.7ft) for 85 db and 1005 W I get about 106 db (you would need to add cabin gain, but because is constant for both we can just ignore it...)

The v2 (splo 89.5 + 3 from porting) at the same loudness (106 db) uses only 179 watts.

That's why proffesional speakers usually have to be very sensitive (think Electrovoice).

It seems to me that giving up 7.5 db will demand an amp that is about 5 times bigger for the same spl...now, the v3's only handle 2X as much power than the v2s...I must be missing something because many people report that v3's play louder than v2s but it would seem to me that they would need to be of MUCH higher power handling do so...any engineers here know what could I be missing?

 

[lastcall 10+ year member]

you lost me there

 

[Ekeko 10+ year member]

It seems to me that a PORTED v2 will play as loud/louder at it's given RMS handling (250W) vs. a SEALED v3. at it's given RMS (500W).

With the v3 you do get a flatter curve, the ported v2 has a 3-4db "bump"in the 30-40HZ region... but that is how most people set their systems anyway (loudness compensation)...so it could even be a good thing, depending on your tastes.

There is couple things that I don't know how to account for (the v3 has a larger piston area, for example) but I wouldn't overlook at the sensitivity reading in favor of the power handling...I am sure both play a role in your spl and the trick is to figure out which one plays a more important role in your setup.

The v2s MIGHT work better with your current setup (volume and amp power/headroom*). The best way to really find out would be to call ID or run a garage experiment.

And please post your findings, I am curious about this too...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

ANY SOUND ENGINEERS OUT THERE TO EXPLAIN THIS BETTER?

*a system that has from 1.6 to 2.5 times larger amp power than speaker power handling can sound better as long as you stay below the given rms of the speaker by using some type of limiter.

PS. This might explain better (what I am trying to say):

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0907/

I follow him almost to the end but I've heard conflicting toughts about the last bit...

 

[Ekeko 10+ year member]

Using this formula:

10 x log10(Power) + Efficiency = Maximum Output

I came up with 116.5 db for the ported v2 and 112 db for the sealed v3.

For the IDMAX10D4 V.3 in a sealed .9cu/ft is 116 db, but you need at least 1000 W per speaker

Counterintuitive, isn't it?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wow.gif.23d729408e9177caa2a0ed6a2ba6588e.gif

The reason why I say to call ID is because there are parameters that are not published that could help determine what works better (i.e. how much power handling you loose by porting). But, I am inclined to believe that you will get your best "bang for the buck" from ported v2s. To get the most of IDMAX's (119db ported) you will need over 2kw amps and there is no warranty that they will sound better than the IDQ's at your regular listening levels...

 

[5er Guy 10+ year member]

What about a v2 ported vs. a v3 ported? It seems that in order for the v2 to perform better, it can only be ported to the v3's being sealed.

 

[animalbmx 10+ year member]

I had some IDQs when I was in HS. Those thing got loud ans sounded great I loved them. They got stolen My roomate ran 2 IDMAX 10s in his ext chev pick-up. I was impressed. Those little guys sound great! Oh yeah and my mom is running an IDQ v2 10" in her corvette. Awesome subs and everyone that I have recommended that company to has been pleased!

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

I used to run an IDQ10v2. It's output was not great to say the least, but the SQ was good (from what I could hear). In fact, I still have it but I have not even put it up for sale here because I am not confident that any buyer would be satisfied with the volume.

 

[Ekeko 10+ year member]

Same disclaimer as before, there are other variables, but from what I can see from the specs:

For a ported IDQ10 v3 in a 1 cu/ft box you have the -3db point at 34 hz, so you aren't gaining too much (you get +3db usually from porting).

A ported IDQ10v3 in a 1.2-1.5 cu/ft box does better: 115 db.

A IDMAX, ran at 2 ohms, in a 1.68 cu/ft ported enclosure:10xlog(1000)+90.9=120.9 db!!! Add +3db for pairs, +12 db cabin gain for 135.9 dB!!!...but you would need a 2 kw , stable at 1 ohm amplifier to run both.

The thing with this equations is that they only give you a guideline, in reality other factors (xmax, xmech, thermal handling) will affect the output. But proper planning and amplifier-enclosure-driver matching can give you great gains without spending a kilobuck or making a super-complicated system (2 kw will probably want an electrical system upgrade)...do you want to get the extra 5 db? if so, it will cost you an extra amp, kit & electrical upgrades...

Sealed IDQ are normally very flat, so most people hear this as "weak"; that's why when the port them they report a perceived improvement: the subs aren't so flat anymore but now you are getting loudness compensation (our ears are not as sensitive for low freq).

If you are set on using IDMAX, you could use 1 ported at 1.68 cu/ft . You could also run 2 sealed at 1.8 cu/ft (but you should use both of your amps for 2 kw at 2 ohm each) this last setup will give you your largest power handling & SPL(126db/141incar) ...

The IDMAX is 7.6" deep.

BEST!

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

My IDQv2 10's sounded awesome in ID's recommended ported box. Sounded very very good... and output wasn't that bad either. They wouldn't have won any SPL comps, but I have a few buddies with cvx/cvr systems that say my IDQ's were way louder. Theirs are all sealed tho. I recently sold the IDQ's to one of those guys, who doesn't know jack about SQ, but bought them cuz they blow his old system away in output. lol

Someone linked to an article above, I assume the 'last part' referred to was this:

"The lesson in all this is that you can never have too much power, and that big amplifiers rarely damage speakers. Little amplifiers driven into clipping burn out speakers. In the scheme of high fidelity, that last barrier to realism is having enough power and being able to approximate real-life loudness levels."

I find that comment to be deceiving, at best. Either the author doesn't know enough about the subject to expand upon his much-too-simple point, or he was just too lazy to do so. A 'big amplifier' can damage a speaker just as easily as a small one... easier in many cases. Im experienced enough to get the guys point, dont clip small amps, and you can run big amps with 'headroom'... but the way he worded it is just plain bad. Watts are watts, it doesn't matter if it takes a small amp being clipped to reach a certain wattage, or a huge amp being turned down to reach that wattage level. If one setup's output would blow a particular speaker, the other setup running the same amount og power/watts would blow it just the same. And, you certainly can have too much power... if you dont know how to use it (by not using it).

People want to take a somewhat complex issue like speaker power handling, and over-simplify it with a one or two liner like the author did above. In doing so, they twist the truth around until the final wording is almost completely incorrect, as displayed in that article's summary. Dang, maybe I should start getting published... if that's the best reference material we have these days. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[lastcall 10+ year member]

what would get louder. 2 12" idqv2s ported, or 2 10 idq v3s ported? or sealed. i found this company that makes sealed and ported enclosures for both