Received my 2x 12" RE XXX... But...

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

That would make more sense, but it still wouldn't prove either the claim audioholic knows he can't prove, nor would it prove the claim he's attempting to masquerade as the first.
Increasing power will NEVER result in better SQ. Ever. With any driver. Period. It is undeniable, indisputable fact.

The XXX will sound better than the RE, SE, or SX at ANY power level, be 15, 150, or 1500 watts. It doesn't matter, the XXX will be more accurate in all instances.

Now will you be fully utilizing the potential of the XXX? No, obviously not, but that wasn't what we were debating. I said from the get go that that was the ONLY reason you would ever recommend the lower level drivers, because your average user wants to use whatever driver they purchase to the fullest extent possible. Most would be annoyed if they purchased a driver with a 32mm xmax and it only moved 8mm with the power that they had available.

That does NOT change the fact that the XXX will ALWAYS sound better, regardless of power level. That has been my point all along, and it is the erroneous claim made by RE's support.

No no, I'm not disagreeing with you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif I'm actually trying to figure out why Audioholic is still arguing with you (physics vs. audioholic, who will win?). Just pointing out that I don't think they were recommending to only increase power by 150w, but rather to double to the power to each sub.

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

um 2 be honest i would never buy a w7 ...dont get me wrong its a good speaker but i hate the fact that they cost to much...and everyone jump on that bandwagon real quick......its to the point where funk master flex is reppin for them.....to me the xxx would kill the w7 in sqas a matter of fact the re sx model is at the same level as the w7's sq and spl......do u guys agree?

80

Uh...wrong. The W7 walks all over the SX in terms of accuracy, distortion, and linear AND peak output. It's not even CLOSE. You're a fool to think otherwise. I'll break it down for ya since you seem so easily confused about the facts of the matter:

SX 12 Vd: 1.75L

12w7 Vd: 2.9L

So, the 12w7 is capable of producing about 4dB more linear output.

SX 15 Vd: 3.0L

13w7 Vd: 4.4L

So the 13w7 is capable of about 3dB more linear output.

You can keep living in a dreamworld I suppose, or realize the obvious fact that the SX cannot even TOUCH the W7 in terms of output or overall linearity.

The XXX is roughly equal to the W7 in terms of linearity and output, but it is NOT superior.

Gotta love people who don't have any idea what they are talking about...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

No no, I'm not disagreeing with you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif I'm actually trying to figure out why Audioholic is still arguing with you (physics vs. audioholic, who will win?). Just pointing out that I don't think they were recommending to only increase power by 150w, but rather to double to the power to each sub.

I guess physics don't apply in his world. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[HHawk 10+ year member]

Xmax is how far the subwoofer cone extends right? What use has it anyways? It's just for the show right?

Or is there a difference in sound as well?

Cause I don't care if it moves 10 mm or 32 mm...

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

Xmax is how far the subwoofer cone extends right? What use has it anyways? It's just for the show right?Or is there a difference in sound as well?

Cause I don't care if moves 10 mm or 32 mm...

Well, xmax dictates output for a given driver diameter. The driver with 32mm xmax is capable of getting about 10dB louder than the driver that moves 10mm. It's also going to have 1/3 or less of the distortion of the driver with 10mm of xmax, given similar topologies.

It's not just for show, and it's not just a number. Higher xmax (and displacement, more specifically, which is the product of xmax and Sd) means superior accuracy (less distortion), better power conversion (from less BL compression, so less power is wasted as heat), and more output (displacement dictates output).

Unlike other T/S specs, higher xmax is always better (again, especially with the same or a superior topology), because it results in superior power conversion, more output capability, and less distortion.

 

[HHawk 10+ year member]

Ah okay, thanks for the detailed information. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

No, my argument does not fall apart. In terms of the accuracy of the driver, the Brahma, XXX, or W7 will still be superior. Like I said, at ANY power level.
Now would I say it would necessarily provide the most output for that power level? Not necessarily, but I never made that claim.

You have been attempting to claim that a driver could "sound better" with more power, you failed miserably at that, and now you are trying to claim that a driver which is near it's RMS will sound better than a driver way below it's RMS, but that too is an idiotic, irrational, and poorly reasoned claim.

It's fine if you don't realize your errors, but my arguments are flawless, and they are entirely based upon science, whereas yours are based upon nothing at all.

Remember, the claim being refuted was not "You might be happier with X driver because your power levels are are closer to the maximum of that driver than driver Y." The claim was "Use driver X because it will sound better than driver Y, because driver X is closer to xmax at the power level specified."

You cannot refute the latter claim, which is blatantly false, by attempting to prove the former claim. That is precisely what you are trying to do.

You have no chance of winning this. Give up.

Blah blah blah. Same old warbleed, condescending as ever. I wonder, are you this arrogant in real life? This is why I hate debating you, even on an issue Im genuinely interested in learning about, you make it such an ordeal with your high and mighty 'my facts are indisputable!' attitude and use putting people and their ideas down as a tactic to attempt to 'win' the debate. You really need to change your tune, this one is getting old.

You are boring me at this point, you only want to come back to 'accuracy' in terms of distortion output. My fingers are tired from trying to explain to you that there is more to a driver's 'sound' than simply raw distortion output graphs. Sorry I dont seem to be able to get that point through to you. *shrug*

Again, if what you say were true, RE would recommend XXX's for every situation, no matter the power input. Adire would recommend tummults for everything where budget isn't a concern. Clearly these drivers, even being their top of the line and arguably their most accurate drivers in terms of distortion, are not the best driver to use in every situation, even if they would reproduce less distortion in some test criteria.

You only want to come back to one thing, distortion output. Tell me, is distortion output the only thing YOU consider when deciding on a speaker? Go ahead, try to tell us you do, because we both know you dont.

I like this part:

"Now would I say it would necessarily provide the most output for that power level? Not necessarily, but I never made that claim."

No, you haven't made that claim. You are being very careful to only address the distortion levels, as you know this is your only winning arguement here. I on the other hand am talking about the full range of whats expected out of a subwoofer, not just distortion output levels. Does the sub play the lows with authority. Does it play a relatively linear across its entire bandwidth? How is its transient response? Etc. Yet all you want to talk about is distortion, as you know that is a winning arguement. Unfortunately, its not the topic at hand here. Again, please show me where I have stated distortion will not go up.

If the picture were so black and white as you state it, sub A has less distortion output than sub B, why do we not simply measure the distortion output of all the subs, and declare one sub the grand champion and best sub ever? Because we all know that there is more to a sub and how it sounds/performs than raw distortion numbers.

"Remember, the claim being refuted was not "You might be happier with X driver because your power levels are are closer to the maximum of that driver than driver Y." The claim was "Use driver X because it will sound better than driver Y, because driver X is closer to xmax at the power level specified."

You cannot refute the latter claim, which is blatantly false, by attempting to prove the former claim. That is precisely what you are trying to do."

That's some pretty twisted logic. All Im trying to say is the sub with the least distortion output isn't necessarily the sub that will sound best to the listener in every circumstance, which is what you are trying to say. If a guy only has 400 watts to work with, I see no reason why the XXX will have a decided advantage in how the system 'sounds'. I totally agree the XXX will technically have less distortion output than the SE at any given excursion level, but again this is a more complicated situation than simply 'which sub has less distortion'. Keep in mind, many people actually prefer the sound of a non BL optimized driver because they are so use to hearing that distortion inherant in traditional designs. But wait, according to you the sub that technically is putting out less distortion always sounds 'better'. Getting it yet?

Increasing power will NEVER result in better SQ. Ever. With any driver. Period. It is undeniable, indisputable fact.

This is the crux of our disagreement, the statement you made above. Again you are only going by the strict definition of SQ in terms of distortion output. When someone reviews a sub, do they simply chart out its distortion levels then move on to the next sub? No, they -actually listen- to it, and critique its performance in various areas.

You should be more careful with your blanket statements, you are getting a bit too overconfident with your 'my arguement is irrefutable' attitude. Adding power will NEVER result in better SQ eh? Im sure anyone that listens to a system at 1 watt (or some low amount that does not allow the details of the music to be play with enough authority to be perceived), then turns the power up to be able to hear those highs better, to feel the low notes as they were intended (rather than some little bump bump bump that's barely even audible) would disagree with you.

The problem is your rigid definition of 'SQ', only wanting to attach the distortion output level to this term. Only in this arguement, Im sure you argue 'SQ' is a culmination of many things (to many people) in some other thread that wouldn't make it appear as though you are changing your story. Or, are you trying to convince us 'SQ' is nothing more than measuring distortion output levels? With all your talking here, you still have not addressed this point.

Now will you be fully utilizing the potential of the XXX? No, obviously not, but that wasn't what we were debating. I said from the get go that that was the ONLY reason you would ever recommend the lower level drivers, because your average user wants to use whatever driver they purchase to the fullest extent possible. Most would be annoyed if they purchased a driver with a 32mm xmax and it only moved 8mm with the power that they had available.

Not to mention, they'd be mad if they realized they could have bought an SE that probably would have gotten more excursion than 8mm with that low powered amp, and sounded 'better' (due to more output, more authority in the low end, etc) doing it. Yes you can (and Im sure will) say the XXX would be putting out less distortion, but again that's not the only issue at hand here (just the only one you want to address).

No no, I'm not disagreeing with you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif I'm actually trying to figure out why Audioholic is still arguing with you (physics vs. audioholic, who will win?). Just pointing out that I don't think they were recommending to only increase power by 150w, but rather to double to the power to each sub.

Why is this attitude from you not surprising to me at all? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif Show me where Im arguing -against- physics smart guy.

warbleed, Im truely interested in learning here. Im not saying my reasoning here is right, I may be wrong and a XXX would sound 'best' in any power level over any other RE sub, but frankly your reasoning of it just coming down to distortion levels jsut isn't cutting it for me. I dont see thigs being that black and white. I would like to continue this further (and maybe have some other people join in, other than peanut gallery comments like the one from squeak), but if you wish to continue to talk to me lusing terms like 'idiotic' or 'irrational', I'll simply stop posting. I certainly agree you know more about speaker designs than I do, but this does not give you the right to talk down to me in such a manner. Being a moderator at CAF, Im surprised to see you still have this attitude still. Winning? Im not here to win (unlike you?), Im here to learn. Get off your high horse, you aren't all that and the bag of chips you make yourself out to be. Have a nice day.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Why is this attitude from you not surprising to me at all? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif Show me where Im arguing -against- physics smart guy.

Why, thank you for the compliment //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsupwink.gif.129404938effda6ad9cca39e7f4b58a3.gif

Here's the difference (IMO). Warbleed is talking solely about the output from the driver. Audioholic, you are talking about listener perception. Two totally different things. What sounds best to the listener isn't necessarily what is the most accurate (as to true music reproduction). Warbleed's saying that increasing power will make the sub less accurate because distortion will increase (we all know this). It is impossible to say that the sub will be more accurate (better "sound quality") with more power, because distortion will increase. We all know this, and it can not be disputed. But you keep bringing listener perception into the mix ("sounds best"), which really has no bearing on how accurately a sub is reproducing the bass.

At those power levels, the XXX will still be amazingly accurate, and increasing power levels will increase it's output as well as it's distortion, making the sub less accurate and decreasing it's "true" sound quality (accurate reproduction of the music with the lowest amount of distortion).

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Why, thank you for the compliment //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsupwink.gif.129404938effda6ad9cca39e7f4b58a3.gif

Here's the difference (IMO). Warbleed is talking solely about the output from the driver. Audioholic, you are talking about listener perception. Two totally different things. What sounds best to the listener isn't necessarily what is the most accurate (as to true music reproduction). Warbleed's saying that increasing power will make the sub less accurate because distortion will increase (we all know this). It is impossible to say that the sub will be more accurate (better "sound quality") with more power, because distortion will increase. We all know this, and it can not be disputed. But you keep bringing listener perception into the mix ("sounds best"), which really has no bearing on how accurately a sub is reproducing the bass.

At those power levels, the XXX will still be amazingly accurate, and increasing power levels will increase it's output as well as it's distortion, making the sub less accurate and decreasing it's "true" sound quality (accurate reproduction of the music with the lowest amount of distortion).

Hey, great reply squeak. I think you summed up both sides pretty well. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif Yes, Im talking about listener perception. After all, when someone decides if they like or sub or not, do they read distortion graphs, or sit and perceive how it sounds. Its just surprising to me, people can compare a BL optimized driver like the XXX to a non BL optimized sub like the RL-p, and yes the XXX will output less distortion. But nobody said this when the two were compared, only the listener's perception was discussed (which is fine, I consider that most important to the overall performance). But now when I try to address this aspect of testing subs (or whatever you want to call it), some people only want to refer back to actual distortion output levels. Maybe warbleed is right, seems I can't win. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

And I agree the XXX will still remain accurate, especially at lower levels. Im simply making the point that that doesn't necessarily make it the best sub for every application within its power range (1-1600watts), even when ignoring price. Im not convinced a xxx would sound 'better' at 10 watts than another sub that is actually designed to run at that power level, simply due to distortion levels. Can I prove it? I suppose I could run out and buy some low power sub, and try both it and one of my XXX's at some very low power levels, then give my -opinion-, but that's alot of work for a fairly pointless arguement that could/would be dismissed as one guy's opinion of what 'better' is. *shrug*

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

What you PREFER is NOT the same as what is most accurate. I've tried explaining that for 5 pages. I cannot help but be condascending towards someone who is so thickheaded that they aren't willing to accept the simple cold hard truth, simply because it doesn't paint the picture they wish it did.

Oh well. I don't care. I just don't want some kid on here believing the misinformation you're trying to spread...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

What you PREFER is NOT the same as what is most accurate. I've tried explaining that for 5 pages. I cannot help but be condascending towards someone who is so thickheaded that they aren't willing to accept the simple cold hard truth, simply because it doesn't paint the picture they wish it did.
Oh well. I don't care. I just don't want some kid on here believing the misinformation you're trying to spread...

Im being thick headed? Oh that's rich, after hearing you say "What you PREFER is NOT the same as what is most accurate. I've tried explaining that for 5 pages." How many times have I said Im not arguing the strict terms of distortion output, but 'listener perception' as squeak put it? How many times have you dodged that and blindly returned to the subject of distortion versus excursion? Even now you are still trying to imply Im refuting that, when Ive said at least ten times in this thread I am not. Im thick head? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

As for me trying to spread misonformation, gotta get in some last little dig dont ya? What misinformation am I trying to spread? To the contrary, Ive stated (multiple times) that Im not even sure Im right, and that Im here to learn, but that your black/white explanation of things doesn't fit for me? But nooooo, that's not good enough for warbleed, aparently I have to bow down and kiss your feet while shouting I was wrong and you were right before I can avoid your little barbs like the misinformation comment. Whatever.

BTW, you've been condescending since the day I met you, towards just about anyone who disagree's with you. Your little justification here makes me laugh.

Unless I see this discussion move beyond the back and forth you and I have gotten into, Im done here. See you in another thread.

 

[HHawk 10+ year member]

Oh well. I don't care. I just don't want some kid on here believing the misinformation you're trying to spread...

Ehrm... I am not a kid. :S

I am 25 years old; maybe I type like a kid or my English sounds a bit 'kiddish', but I am an adult.

 

[HHawk 10+ year member]

Okay one final thing, then I am dropping this conversation. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

I got the following advice (when running each subwoofer at 750W RMS approx.) from the Am Singh dude over at Blade ICE.

For SQ and SQL he recommends the following:

"If you wish to load into a sealed enclosure run a box of approx 1 cu. ft. with a QTC of 0.623 with a QL of 6.651"

Is that a good advice? Or does anyone else have different recommendations? Or is this good?

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Find the thread by mrray on here between the XXX and the Rl-p. He had his 12" XXX in a 1.25cuft sealed enclosure and wasn't very happy with the low frequency extension. Seems like 1cuft would be too small for sealed based on most subjective reviews I've seen. And since you are on the "low power" side of the XXX, you'd want to go with a bigger sealed box anyways (better efficiency).

EDIT:

Here you go: http://forums.caraudio.com/vb/showthread.php?t=83356 - See what Mrray13 says about how his 12" XXX performed in 1.25cuft with 750w.

 

[HHawk 10+ year member]

Thanks I already contacted him for some information, he is a really nice dude. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif