New SI Mag

[Brassler07 10+ year member]

I personally LOVED the looks of the prototype, and I have plent of room so, it wouldn't matter to me if you changed the recommended box specs. I would like to see more powere handling, and possibly an 18 inch line. Those lows woul dbe devastating!

 

[90accordman 5,000+ posts]

^ i dunno about more power handling, i kinda like not having to run a generator to get decent output

 

[Electrodynamic 10+ year member]

Well...you're going to get your wish. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

I've been tossing around a few different designs and I'm going the route of a shallower driver, equally as efficient (if not more efficient), same power handling, and considerably improved SQ compared to our current Mag. Peak-to-peak excursion is going down by 0.6" but I think that's a small price to pay for how many improvements are being made to the Mag line.

Basically what's going to happen is this:

Improved SQ.

Smaller, more specific enclosure requirements.

Equal low-end capability to the current Mag.

Equal SPL ability.

Shallower mounting depth (by a full inch!)

Improved moving parts (cone, suround, spiders, vc leads, are all being upgraded with new, more linear, stronger, components)

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Well...you're going to get your wish. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
I've been tossing around a few different designs and I'm going the route of a shallower driver, equally as efficient (if not more efficient), same power handling, and considerably improved SQ compared to our current Mag. Peak-to-peak excursion is going down by 0.6" but I think that's a small price to pay for how many improvements are being made to the Mag line.

Basically what's going to happen is this:

Improved SQ.

Smaller, more specific enclosure requirements.

Equal low-end capability to the current Mag.

Equal SPL ability.

Shallower mounting depth (by a full inch!)

Improved moving parts (cone, suround, spiders, vc leads, are all being upgraded with new, more linear, stronger, components)

Wait, enclosure size is going down, same low-end output as old mag, and the same if not better efficiency than old mag?
This is the heart of the changes I see you listing from the old mag. So baiscally you've started from scratch to basically make it perform the same, yet require a smaller box? Not what i was expecting after seeing a rather successful subwoofer 'pulled' and redesigned for the sake of improvement. Was the old Mag's enclosure requirmenets a big problem? I dont recall hearing people complain about that before.

Keeping the same low-end output, same (or better) efficiency, and yet lowering enclosure size requirements... doesn't that violate Hoffman's Iron Law?

 

[CrazedCat 10+ year member]

**** I missed the prototype pic. Anyone have it to post?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

**** I missed the prototype pic. Anyone have it to post?

It was of a design they decided not to go with, in case you didn't realize that. I dont think there are any pics of the new, shallower design/prototype released yet are there?

 

[Electrodynamic 10+ year member]

Wait, enclosure size is going down, same low-end output as old mag, and the same if not better efficiency than old mag?
This is the heart of the changes I see you listing from the old mag. So baiscally you've started from scratch to basically make it perform the same, yet require a smaller box? Not what i was expecting after seeing a rather successful subwoofer 'pulled' and redesigned for the sake of improvement. Was the old Mag's enclosure requirmenets a big problem? I dont recall hearing people complain about that before.

Keeping the same low-end output, same (or better) efficiency, and yet lowering enclosure size requirements... doesn't that violate Hoffman's Iron Law?

With the same driver in the same enclosure, yes, that's a violation of Hoffman's law. A completely different driver, however, is another story. I'm not bending the laws of physics...I'm just re-designing a successful subwoofer to perform better. I constantly work to improve all of my products, and if it's necessary to re-designing from scratch, I'm willing to go as far as necessary if not further than necessary. Sure I could have stuck with the current design, but why not improve it if I have the capability?

And yes, enclosure size has been a problem. Many of our customers want a die-hard enclosure volumes to work with.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

With the same driver in the same enclosure, yes, that's a violation of Hoffman's law. A completely different driver, however, is another story. I'm not bending the laws of physics...I'm just re-designing a successful subwoofer to perform better. I constantly work to improve all of my products, and if it's necessary to re-designing from scratch, I'm willing to go as far as necessary if not further than necessary. Sure I could have stuck with the current design, but why not improve it if I have the capability?
And yes, enclosure size has been a problem. Many of our customers want a die-hard enclosure volumes to work with.

Yes, I understand this. But for the past few months it seems you haven't even been able to decide what needed to be improved on the Mag (ie: which direction to head). Just seems odd, with the Mag as wildly successful as it was becoming (and kudos to you for that) that you guys would just up and decide to change it, without seemingly knowing exactly what your goals were. Or, was the other, bigger prototype meant to go in a different direction that just didn't pan out?
Hoffman's Iron Law applies even to totally redesigned subs doesn't it? I realize you know more about speakers than I, but Im just not getting that part. Everything Ive read states that due to hoffmans iron law, there HAS to be a compromise between enclosure size, efficiency, and low-end output. It seems you are saying you are making a sub that improves on one of these aspects, with absolutely no detriment to one of the other two. What am I missing here?

 

[CrazedCat 10+ year member]

It was of a design they decided not to go with, in case you didn't realize that. I dont think there are any pics of the new, shallower design/prototype released yet are there?

Yeah I read it was scrapped but I was just interested in seeing what they came up with. Curiousity killed the cat //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[sundownz Pro Seller]

Yes, I understand this. But for the past few months it seems you haven't even been able to decide what needed to be improved on the Mag (ie: which direction to head). Just seems odd, with the Mag as wildly successful as it was becoming (and kudos to you for that) that you guys would just up and decide to change it, without seemingly knowing exactly what your goals were. Or, was the other, bigger prototype meant to go in a different direction that just didn't pan out?
Hoffman's Iron Law applies even to totally redesigned subs doesn't it? I realize you know more about speakers than I, but Im just not getting that part. Everything Ive read states that due to hoffmans iron law, there HAS to be a compromise between enclosure size, efficiency, and low-end output. It seems you are saying you are making a sub that improves on one of these aspects, with absolutely no detriment to one of the other two. What am I missing here?

The Iron law is only applicable in a simple manner to small signal performance. Without telling you too much about the driver... lets say that this driver retains it's efficiency better as power is applied and x-max increases. So, on a large signal scale Nick was able to increase efficiency while simultaneously achieving his other goals.

If Nick wants to say more, he can //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif But thats all I can say.

 

[Electrodynamic 10+ year member]

Yes, I understand this. But for the past few months it seems you haven't even been able to decide what needed to be improved on the Mag (ie: which direction to head). Just seems odd, with the Mag as wildly successful as it was becoming (and kudos to you for that) that you guys would just up and decide to change it, without seemingly knowing exactly what your goals were. Or, was the other, bigger prototype meant to go in a different direction that just didn't pan out?

The larger driver that we have had on the back burner is always a possibility for the future. The need for a driver like that isn't where I want to take the Mag right now though. Sure it's nice to see something that moves 4" peak-to-peak and can handle 2000 watts, but it's not that musical. What I'm working on now is improving the sound quality while keeping as many of the other attributes as possible.

Hoffman's Iron Law applies even to totally redesigned subs doesn't it? I realize you know more about speakers than I, but Im just not getting that part. Everything Ive read states that due to hoffmans iron law, there HAS to be a compromise between enclosure size, efficiency, and low-end output. It seems you are saying you are making a sub that improves on one of these aspects, with absolutely no detriment to one of the other two. What am I missing here?

The lower peak excursion part. Sheer displacement is going down, so output in the subsonics will go down over the high power territory for a specified enclosure. For the intended power application and frequency bandwidth, the new driver is a tad more efficient than our current driver. The current Mag can handle a LOT of power (we have given single 12's 2800 watts on burps multiple times on the same driver), whereas the new Mag's won't handle that kind of abuse. If you want to throw that kind of power at a driver, get something else besides a Mag because SQ is out the window at that point.

For what I want the Mag to focus on (the perfect driver for an audio connoisseur who likes the ability to SLAM when he wants), the new driver excells over the current Mag.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The Iron law is only applicable in a simple manner to small signal performance. Without telling you too much about the driver... lets say that this driver retains it's efficiency better as power is applied and x-max increases. So, on a large signal scale Nick was able to increase efficiency while simultaneously achieving his other goals.
If Nick wants to say more, he can //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif But thats all I can say.

Sounds like you are talking about a BL optimized driver. Unless Im misunderstanding you. That would be nice. But it would likely sound very different than the original Mag.
Thanks for the info.

 

[Electrodynamic 10+ year member]

The Iron law is only applicable in a simple manner to small signal performance. Without telling you too much about the driver... lets say that this driver retains it's efficiency better as power is applied and x-max increases. So, on a large signal scale Nick was able to increase efficiency while simultaneously achieving his other goals.
If Nick wants to say more, he can //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif But thats all I can say.

Nah, I'd rather show people what it will do and let them come back on here to tell about it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The larger driver that we have had on the back burner is always a possibility for the future. The need for a driver like that isn't where I want to take the Mag right now though. Sure it's nice to see something that moves 4" peak-to-peak and can handle 2000 watts, but it's not that musical. What I'm working on now is improving the sound quality while keeping as many of the other attributes as possible.


The lower peak excursion part. Sheer displacement is going down, so output in the subsonics will go down over the high power territory for a specified enclosure. For the intended power application and frequency bandwidth, the new driver is a tad more efficient than our current driver. The current Mag can handle a LOT of power (we have given single 12's 2800 watts on burps multiple times on the same driver), whereas the new Mag's won't handle that kind of abuse. If you want to throw that kind of power at a driver, get something else besides a Mag because SQ is out the window at that point.

For what I want the Mag to focus on (the perfect driver for an audio connoisseur who likes the ability to SLAM when he wants), the new driver excells over the current Mag.

Thanks for the info. Definitely have my attention with this driver. I just have one more question... whats the price gonna be? lol
Only thing that pisses me off is, I really didnt want to be changing subs any time soon. *sigh* //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[Electrodynamic 10+ year member]

Thanks for the info. Definitely have my attention with this driver. I just have one more question... whats the price gonna be? lol
Only thing that pisses me off is, I really didnt want to be changing subs any time soon. *sigh* //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

LOL! I know the feeling. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Price is going to stay exactly the same if I can help it.