Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Discussion
Subwoofers
Overpeck, Please explain this too me...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Matt Overpeck" data-source="post: 76667" data-attributes="member: 544285"><p>We NEVER threatened anyone...about anything (what utter nonsense). But there is one extreme source for that kind bizarre of dribble...</p><p></p><p>We did suggest to one nit-wit that if he should refrain from making false allegations that we "stole" (that was the word used) our technology from another company (because there is a term for that -- and it is NOT protected by the First Amendment). And he promptly shut-up...end of story.</p><p></p><p>And as far as the accuracy of our specs, the EVO-R test that has been purported to show that we are not accurate in our Xmax specs, only shows that the rearward travel of the suspension is not as it should be (likely due to a spider with excessive resin on it). So this impacted the X-MAX number.</p><p></p><p>However, as with EVERY other EVO-R test report over the past year, the Xmag (which is really the most important thing in looking at the linear capability of the motor) was still 25 - 26 mm. This is well within a 10% tolerance for production units, vs. our published specification of 27 mm.</p><p></p><p>By the way, then the JL 12 W7 was tested, it failed to meet it's published specification by 10% (26.2 DUMAX measured vs. 29.2 published X-MAX). So we are hardly guilty of having committed any transgressions.</p><p></p><p>And the recent test of the EVO-R 2315 showed that the Xmag (linear motor travel) and the Xsus (linear suspension travel), which are independently tested, BOTH were 28 mm (though the unit sent for DUMAX testing was a proto that unfortunatly had the VC offset by a huge amount. Properly centered (even off by just half a s much, would have resulted in the spec being met. So this just further illustrates that the product will perform as advertised.</p><p></p><p>It is worth noting that the EVO-R also SMASHED the SPL output for in-car SPL, both with low-distortion (test tones from 25 - 62 Hz.) as well as in peak SL output, by 2 - 3 dB!!! (and did this in only a 1.5' sealed box -- same as that used to test the 12 W7).</p><p></p><p>The EVO-R tested in-car could not have bested the numbers put up by the JL 12 W7 by such a huge amount (2 - 3 dB), UNLESSS it had comparable Xmax. As the difference in the cone area would amount to 2 - 3 dB, but ONLY if the linear excursion is similar.</p><p></p><p>And the EVO-R also had a flatter frequency response (1.8 dB tolerance), down to 10 Hz.! If you put that sub in a 33 - 50% larger box, then it would have added another 2 - 3 dB output under 25 Hz. Larger boxes result in more output in the bottom octave.</p><p></p><p>So while some do not understand the actual technical aspects of what DUMAX numbers mean, let's just say that the linear behavior of the suspension is FAR less important then the behavior of the motor (as it the VC exiting the gap, that determines the onset of audible distortion).</p><p></p><p>Hope that clears a few things up....</p><p></p><p>Cheers!</p><p></p><p>Matt</p><p></p><p>Audiomobile</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Matt Overpeck, post: 76667, member: 544285"] We NEVER threatened anyone...about anything (what utter nonsense). But there is one extreme source for that kind bizarre of dribble... We did suggest to one nit-wit that if he should refrain from making false allegations that we "stole" (that was the word used) our technology from another company (because there is a term for that -- and it is NOT protected by the First Amendment). And he promptly shut-up...end of story. And as far as the accuracy of our specs, the EVO-R test that has been purported to show that we are not accurate in our Xmax specs, only shows that the rearward travel of the suspension is not as it should be (likely due to a spider with excessive resin on it). So this impacted the X-MAX number. However, as with EVERY other EVO-R test report over the past year, the Xmag (which is really the most important thing in looking at the linear capability of the motor) was still 25 - 26 mm. This is well within a 10% tolerance for production units, vs. our published specification of 27 mm. By the way, then the JL 12 W7 was tested, it failed to meet it's published specification by 10% (26.2 DUMAX measured vs. 29.2 published X-MAX). So we are hardly guilty of having committed any transgressions. And the recent test of the EVO-R 2315 showed that the Xmag (linear motor travel) and the Xsus (linear suspension travel), which are independently tested, BOTH were 28 mm (though the unit sent for DUMAX testing was a proto that unfortunatly had the VC offset by a huge amount. Properly centered (even off by just half a s much, would have resulted in the spec being met. So this just further illustrates that the product will perform as advertised. It is worth noting that the EVO-R also SMASHED the SPL output for in-car SPL, both with low-distortion (test tones from 25 - 62 Hz.) as well as in peak SL output, by 2 - 3 dB!!! (and did this in only a 1.5' sealed box -- same as that used to test the 12 W7). The EVO-R tested in-car could not have bested the numbers put up by the JL 12 W7 by such a huge amount (2 - 3 dB), UNLESSS it had comparable Xmax. As the difference in the cone area would amount to 2 - 3 dB, but ONLY if the linear excursion is similar. And the EVO-R also had a flatter frequency response (1.8 dB tolerance), down to 10 Hz.! If you put that sub in a 33 - 50% larger box, then it would have added another 2 - 3 dB output under 25 Hz. Larger boxes result in more output in the bottom octave. So while some do not understand the actual technical aspects of what DUMAX numbers mean, let's just say that the linear behavior of the suspension is FAR less important then the behavior of the motor (as it the VC exiting the gap, that determines the onset of audible distortion). Hope that clears a few things up.... Cheers! Matt Audiomobile [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Discussion
Subwoofers
Overpeck, Please explain this too me...
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
