RL-p 15 or the Avalanche 15

[macbethpoe]

Each will see like 1000 watts. And will be in optimum box. I am looking for 50/50 spl sq

Click to read more...

 

[cobra65427289 10+ year member]

RL-p. it is equally sexy and will give basically the same performance for less.

al

 

[saywhat? 5,000+ posts]

rl-p's dont like 1000 watts, just dont turn the gains up. id like to see more RL-P setups, i just received my sub and have yet to install. will later.

 

[SoundSplinter 10+ year member]

Sure RL-p's like 1000 watts!

..They don't need 1000 watts, but that's another story

Going ported on an RL-p would be optimal with anywhere from 300-900wrms.

Going sealed on an RL-p would be optimal with anywhere from 350-1200wrms.

*Note: If you're running more than 750wrms on an RL-p, you should contact us to confirm that your enclosure is appropriate.

Nice pic's in your other thread there saywhat

 

[eric77 10+ year member]

Don't know if it makes any difference to you but I am getting an rl-p and am going to be sending it 1000w in a ported box.

 

[macbethpoe]

do they have the S logo on them or are all the cones just plain?

 

[nosaj070 10+ year member]

If you order one from them now it will hvae the logo...

 

[ANeonRider 10+ year member]

rl-p's dont like 1000 watts, just dont turn the gains up. id like to see more RL-P setups, i just received my sub and have yet to install. will later.

Hmm, mine likes 1500W.

 

[bigbirney420 10+ year member]

Don't know if it makes any difference to you but I am getting an rl-p and am going to be sending it 1000w in a ported box.

I just got one this week that is going to get 1000 watts //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/yumyum.gif.0556df42231b304b9c995aefd13928a8.gif

Just like anything else the gain is not a volume knob, so tune accordingly //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[dave777 10+ year member]

lol, I like how there wasnt 1 post about Avalanche.

x45 on the Rl-p

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

I would chose avalanche IMHO it's a better woofer. I've used a TC9 driver with 1000 watts, and the avalanche is louder...and well, it sounds SO nice down REALLY LOW.

Either is a great choice, I however, would go avalanche...and actually, I just did while making a decision between the two last week.

 

[SoundSplinter 10+ year member]

Ok ok, I'mma stop whorin' it up around here pretty soon, but I just wanted to comment on one last thing //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/yumyum.gif.0556df42231b304b9c995aefd13928a8.gif

I've used a TC9 driver with 1000 watts, and the avalanche is louder...and well, it sounds SO nice down REALLY LOW.

First off, I don't doubt that the Avalanche is a nice woofer. I haven't heard it, but based on hearsay, it sounds to be a solid contender. My purpose in this post is to point out that the old eD TC9's were different than the RL-p TC9. The old eD TC9 flat cones were even more different.
Our RL-p line uses dual spiders for one, which the original TC9 OEM drivers did not offer. Additionally, as recent as last month we found a way to improve upon the RL-p15's by manipulating the suspension yet again. The spider and spider spacer (a ring located between the lower and upper spiders) dimentions were changed ever so slightly to improve upon the design. These changes included going from a 8.9" spider to a 8.5" spider, as well as reducing the spacer size to 0.258" from 0.35". As a result the clearance between the spider and cone has increased, and will allow for a slight increase in overall cone movement.

Carry on..

 

[jellyfish420 10+ year member]

Ok ok, I'mma stop whorin' it up around here pretty soon, but I just wanted to comment on one last thing //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/yumyum.gif.0556df42231b304b9c995aefd13928a8.gif
First off, I don't doubt that the Avalanche is a nice woofer. I haven't heard it, but based on hearsay, it sounds to be a solid contender. My purpose in this post is to point out that the old eD TC9's were different than the RL-p TC9. The old eD TC9 flat cones were even more different.

Our RL-p line uses dual spiders for one, which the original TC9 OEM drivers did not offer. Additionally, as recent as last month we found a way to improve upon the RL-p15's by manipulating the suspension yet again. The spider and spider spacer (a ring located between the lower and upper spiders) dimentions were changed ever so slightly to improve upon the design. These changes included going from a 8.9" spider to a 8.5" spider, as well as reducing the spacer size to 0.258" from 0.35". As a result the clearance between the spider and cone has increased, and will allow for a slight increase in overall cone movement.

Carry on..

quit mike, quit!!!

imma definatly have to get new ones now

i'm giving my dual 15's between 7-800watts in a 5ft net box tuned @36 w/ 70in port. i'm positive that these could handle well over 1000 (if your not stupid with it) //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Just look at the RL-p and the Avalanche's Fs to see part of why the AV15 has more of a low end impact...although IMO, the RL-p is a much better looking driver (even though they both look very clean/sexy)

 

[swimfreak26 10+ year member]

Just look at the RL-p and the Avalanche's Fs to see part of why the AV15 has more of a low end impact...although IMO, the RL-p is a much better looking driver (even though they both look very clean/sexy)

Very true statement. I personally like the ability to play so low...comes in partially because it's designed as a home theatre woofer as well. The rl-p's are quite sexy, and both are great drivers....I just perfer the extra emphasis on the lower notes.