BB --
quote:
"it wasn't a great review.. Considering Tom tore up one woofer.. and both woofers sent to him to Test.. were glued 11 mm forward of center... "
___________________________________________________
LOL!
Funny, I have never seen a reviewer use the words "fantastic" so much in any other car review...
Let me set you straight on a few facts:
The first driver submitted was tested to make sure it worked properly. This driver managed to SMASH the SPL records EVER recorded by Mobile Ent. (set by the 12 W7) by 2 - 3 dB!!!!! (both for peak SPL and for output from 25 - 62 Hz, with low-distortion).
And the EVO-R managed that in an identical 1.5's box (as used to test the JL 12).
And IF the sub had been tested in a 30 - 50% larger box, it would have had added another 2 - 3 dB under 25 Hz. (or if the JL was tested in a smaller box, it would have done a couple of dB less under 25 Hz).
The EVO-R also managed to have a flatter frequency response (in-car) then the JL W7 did (not bad for a 15 in a small box). And for most people, 130 dB, 'flat' to 10 Hz., is more then adequate.
It is hard to imagine how you can call this anything less then a stellar review...
http://www.AudiomobileInc.com/reviews.htm
The fact that Tom managed to put a hole in the surround, which resulted in a frantic call from them to overnite a second sample for DUMAX testing. So we did not have the time to test that sub properly....
quote:
"that it must be a problem limited to just those two drivers...... but that would be a lie... "
And how would YOU even have any idea? You don't...you just like to spread baseless rumors....
The first sample was offset a much smaller amount, or else it could NOT have achieved the SPL numbers (especially the low-distortion / test-tone output) UNLESS it had comparable linear Xmax to the JL (26 mm). As the cone area difference will account for 2 - 3 dB (as mentioned in the article), but ONLY if the linear excursion envelope is similar.
Those subs were submitted last year, prior to production units being built, all of which have featured our new manufacturing proceedure/jig, which insures that the VC is properly centered.
The fact that DUMAX independently measures the Xmag (motor behavior) and the Xsus (suspension) travel, BOTH of which confirmed a linear travel of 28 mm, just goes to validate what the EVO-R subs can do. As mentioned, with the VC properly centered (within 5 - 6 mm) the Xmax will certainly meet our published specs.
Just so you have your facts straight...
Matt
Audiomobile
quote:
"it wasn't a great review.. Considering Tom tore up one woofer.. and both woofers sent to him to Test.. were glued 11 mm forward of center... "
___________________________________________________
LOL!
Funny, I have never seen a reviewer use the words "fantastic" so much in any other car review...
Let me set you straight on a few facts:
The first driver submitted was tested to make sure it worked properly. This driver managed to SMASH the SPL records EVER recorded by Mobile Ent. (set by the 12 W7) by 2 - 3 dB!!!!! (both for peak SPL and for output from 25 - 62 Hz, with low-distortion).
And the EVO-R managed that in an identical 1.5's box (as used to test the JL 12).
And IF the sub had been tested in a 30 - 50% larger box, it would have had added another 2 - 3 dB under 25 Hz. (or if the JL was tested in a smaller box, it would have done a couple of dB less under 25 Hz).
The EVO-R also managed to have a flatter frequency response (in-car) then the JL W7 did (not bad for a 15 in a small box). And for most people, 130 dB, 'flat' to 10 Hz., is more then adequate.
It is hard to imagine how you can call this anything less then a stellar review...
http://www.AudiomobileInc.com/reviews.htm
The fact that Tom managed to put a hole in the surround, which resulted in a frantic call from them to overnite a second sample for DUMAX testing. So we did not have the time to test that sub properly....
quote:
"that it must be a problem limited to just those two drivers...... but that would be a lie... "
And how would YOU even have any idea? You don't...you just like to spread baseless rumors....
The first sample was offset a much smaller amount, or else it could NOT have achieved the SPL numbers (especially the low-distortion / test-tone output) UNLESS it had comparable linear Xmax to the JL (26 mm). As the cone area difference will account for 2 - 3 dB (as mentioned in the article), but ONLY if the linear excursion envelope is similar.
Those subs were submitted last year, prior to production units being built, all of which have featured our new manufacturing proceedure/jig, which insures that the VC is properly centered.
The fact that DUMAX independently measures the Xmag (motor behavior) and the Xsus (suspension) travel, BOTH of which confirmed a linear travel of 28 mm, just goes to validate what the EVO-R subs can do. As mentioned, with the VC properly centered (within 5 - 6 mm) the Xmax will certainly meet our published specs.
Just so you have your facts straight...
Matt
Audiomobile
