RL-p vs XXX

[mrray13 10+ year member]

You are comparing a 1600 watt sub and a 500 watt sub, running a 750 watt amp. Much closer to the optimum power range of the RL-p. Clearly you are underpowering the XXX. XXX's are not the most efficient drivers in the world, they want well over 1000 watts to do their thing properly.

well, i've got a memphis 1500d...i'll run it at one ohm and give it 3000wrms...whatcha think?

btw..how will extra power help it reach lower? louder yes, lower?? explain this to me...

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The lower the freq, the more displacement it takes to reproduce at the same output level. Hence large excursion subs tend to be low end monsters, when powered sufficiently to push the cone/suspension properly.

The XXX has a very stiff suspension (part of why its not too efficient). It has tons of excursion/displacement, but it takes alot of power to get em wanging. How many people do you see running XXX's at less than 1000 watts? Not too many. Point is, considering the power specs of each driver, you are right in the SS's sweet spot (slightly overpowered), but not even in the ballpark for the XXX's needs, especially considering its a relatively small sealed box (despite RE's recommendations).

Put the right power to the XXX's then compare them. SQ will go up (as it will once the sub's suspension loosens up), low end extension will perform better, and output will obviously increase. Why would you even compare output's considering how underpowered the XXX was? You said you thought the XXX had the edge but required a mic to really decide. Again you seem to ignore you were drastically underpowering the XXX, and not the SS, while trying to compare output's? That doesn't make common sense to me. If you double or even triple the power to the XXX, and put it in its sweet spot as the RL-p is at the 750, output will be dramatically higher for the XXX. If its even close at 750, the xxx will stomp it at 1800-2500 watts (way out of the SS's range).

This is not intended to disrespect the RL-p, nor the tester and his test. Im just trying to put a bit of perspective on things here, as they are a bit slanted in the RL-p's favor. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[jellyfish420 10+ year member]

say we stepped up power to 1500w to the XXX, and added a second RL-p(1500w to the pair) would the swept volume of the 2-15's blow away the XXX or would it be close?

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

The lower the freq, the more displacement it takes to reproduce at the same output level. Hence large excursion subs tend to be low end monsters, when powered sufficiently to push the cone/suspension properly.
The XXX has a very stiff suspension (part of why its not too efficient). It has tons of excursion/displacement, but it takes alot of power to get em wanging. How many people do you see running XXX's at less than 1000 watts? Not too many. Point is, considering the power specs of each driver, you are right in the SS's sweet spot (slightly overpowered), but not even in the ballpark for the XXX's needs, especially considering its a relatively small sealed box (despite RE's recommendations).

Put the right power to the XXX's then compare them. SQ will go up (as it will once the sub's suspension loosens up), low end extension will perform better, and output will obviously increase. Why would you even compare output's considering how underpowered the XXX was? You said you thought the XXX had the edge but required a mic to really decide. Again you seem to ignore you were drastically underpowering the XXX, and not the SS, while trying to compare output's? That doesn't make common sense to me. If you double or even triple the power to the XXX, and put it in its sweet spot as the RL-p is at the 750, output will be dramatically higher for the XXX. If its even close at 750, the xxx will stomp it at 1800-2500 watts (way out of the SS's range).

This is not intended to disrespect the RL-p, nor the tester and his test. Im just trying to put a bit of perspective on things here, as they are a bit slanted in the RL-p's favor. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

The 500w power rating is pretty conservative for the RL-p. It uses a 2.3" long 4 layer 3" diameter VC, so it's thermal powerhandling is honestly going to be just as good as the XXX's.

1 watt efficiency of the drivers is pretty close. The XXX does have the advantage for maximum linear output, but admittedly would require more power to reach that point.

The RL-p isn't going to be at xmax in that box until you dip well below 20Hz. The XXX is actually going to be at pretty similar excursion levels, it just has more excursion left to give.

Technically, the XXX should have slightly better extension, since it has a higher Qes and higher Mms, and consequently, a lower F3 for any given alignment.

People also tend to grossly overestimate the mechanical powerhandling of the XXX in many enclosures. The XXX would hit xmax slightly below 25Hz in that box if you gave it a full 1.5-1.6kW, so you can't just keep piling on power and expect to keep gaining, at least not below 30Hz.

Lastly, remember, the XXX 12 only has about 18% more displacement than the RL-p, so it's only capable of about 1dB more linear output, at most.

The XXX will have lower overall distortion throughout it's excursion range, but to say it will "kill" the RL-p in linear output is just blatantly false...

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

say we stepped up power to 1500w to the XXX, and added a second RL-p(1500w to the pair) would the swept volume of the 2-15's blow away the XXX or would it be close?

The pair of RL-p's would have a LOT more output, and they'd have less distortion as well, since there would be a pair of them. You'd be looking at about 4.6L vs 2.8L, so the RL-ps would be capable of getting a bit over 2dB louder than the single XXX.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The 500w power rating is pretty conservative for the RL-p. It uses a 2.3" long 4 layer 3" diameter VC, so it's thermal powerhandling is honestly going to be just as good as the XXX's.
1 watt efficiency of the drivers is pretty close. The XXX does have the advantage for maximum linear output, but admittedly would require more power to reach that point.

The RL-p isn't going to be at xmax in that box until you dip well below 20Hz. The XXX is actually going to be at pretty similar excursion levels, it just has more excursion left to give.

Technically, the XXX should have slightly better extension, since it has a higher Qes and higher Mms, and consequently, a lower F3 for any given alignment.

People also tend to grossly overestimate the mechanical powerhandling of the XXX in many enclosures. The XXX would hit xmax slightly below 25Hz in that box if you gave it a full 1.5-1.6kW, so you can't just keep piling on power and expect to keep gaining, at least not below 30Hz.

Lastly, remember, the XXX 12 only has about 18% more displacement than the RL-p, so it's only capable of about 1dB more linear output, at most.

The XXX will have lower overall distortion throughout it's excursion range, but to say it will "kill" the RL-p in linear output is just blatantly false...

Thermal and mechanical power handling will be the same? I find it hard to believe they would rate the sub at 500 watts, if its capable of 1600 watts continuous as the XXX is rated for. But Im merely going by specs, have you tested one of these subs, or know anyone who has, to prove the specs are off by 300% as you seem to be saying..?

Im not saying to just pile on power to gain below 30hz. We were talking about music here, not test tones. Look at the material used, 'everything from outkast to def leppard'. You wont find alot of 25hz notes in there. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif You could go above 1.6kw in that box to increase the 'low end' to the music, you just wouldn't want to play 20hz test tones at full power.

As for whether or not one would 'kill' the other being 'blatantly false', that would depnd on one's definition of 'kill', and the criteria used. Blatantly false gives the impression of a objective arguement, when in fact its subjective isnt it. You saying its blatantly false is just as much an opinion as someone saying it would kill it. Frankly I see no proof that is false, let alone blatantly. If you are referring to my comment about 'stomping' it, that was in fererence to mrray saying the xxx seemed to have the edge even at 750 watts, well below what the xxx wants to run at.

 

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

Thermal and mechanical power handling will be the same? I find it hard to believe they would rate the sub at 500 watts, if its capable of 1600 watts continuous as the XXX is rated for. But Im merely going by specs, have you tested one of these subs, or know anyone who has, to prove the specs are off by 300% as you seem to be saying..?
Im not saying to just pile on power to gain below 30hz. We were talking about music here, not test tones. Look at the material used, 'everything from outkast to def leppard'. You wont find alot of 25hz notes in there. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif You could go above 1.6kw in that box to increase the 'low end' to the music, you just wouldn't want to play 20hz test tones at full power.

As for whether or not one would 'kill' the other being 'blatantly false', that would depnd on one's definition of 'kill', and the criteria used. Blatantly false gives the impression of a objective arguement, when in fact its subjective isnt it. You saying its blatantly false is just as much an opinion as someone saying it would kill it. Frankly I see no proof that is false, let alone blatantly. If you are referring to my comment about 'stomping' it, that was in fererence to mrray saying the xxx seemed to have the edge even at 750 watts, well below what the xxx wants to run at.

But it IS objective. It isn't possible for one driver which has a 1dB advantage for linear output at best to "kill" the other, given the same alignments. No need to be subjective about it at all, actually...

You need look no further than the linear displacement of the drivers and the coils they have.

TC's 2.3" long 4 layer alum roundwire 3" diameter coil can take a hell of a lot more than 500w. You could easily hook a 1-1.5kW amp to it and not damage the coil. You might hit xmax and beyond in the right box with a lot less power, but of course thermal powerhandling doesn't change much with the box, unlike mechanical.

The XXX will definitely have less distortion, but it will NOT get noticeably louder...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

But it IS objective. It isn't possible for one driver which has a 1dB advantage for linear output at best to "kill" the other, given the same alignments. No need to be subjective about it at all, actually...
You need look no further than the linear displacement of the drivers and the coils they have.

TC's 2.3" long 4 layer alum roundwire 3" diameter coil can take a hell of a lot more than 500w. You could easily hook a 1-1.5kW amp to it and not damage the coil. You might hit xmax and beyond in the right box with a lot less power, but of course thermal powerhandling doesn't change much with the box, unlike mechanical.

The XXX will definitely have less distortion, but it will NOT get noticeably louder...

What exactly is subjective about saying one sub 'killed' another one? Can you graph it out? Of course not, you are injecting your opinion as much as the guy who says the sub got 'killed'. If a guy wants to say a 1db difference is a killing, who are you to say that's blatantly false as if your opinion is fact and his is not? Personally I agree a 1db difference isn't much generally (depending on the circumstances of course), but I find your reply of calling someone elses -opinion- blatantly false a bit hypocritical.

As for the thermal versus mechanical handling, it all goes together, does it not? We are not talking about just thermal limits, are we? Im still trying to figure out if you are saying the RL-p is underrated by 300%. Not just thermally, for power handling capabilites (which includes mechanical limits). And if so, if you have any tests or links to show this, because that's a large pill to swallow. You allude to it, thermally, yet you wont come right out and answer me.

As for the XXX not getting 'noticeably' louder, what are you basing that on? You usually dont use such open ended statements warbleed.

 

[theCybe 5,000+ posts]

Did I mention how happy this thread makes me? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[jellyfish420 10+ year member]

so if i get a pair of 15's am i gonna be able to power them both of 1500w, or an i gonna need 1500w apiece? i was told that i could get them both to xmax with 750 apiece...

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

audioholic...

i understand what ur trying to say, as well as warbleed...

the rl-p's are way underrated..mike is throwin 3000wrms at a pair of rl-i's..which are rated 300 a piece....of course, i, nor mike or even u for that matter, would recommend that for most ppl on this forum. if he did, mike would be getting quite a few drivers back. he underrates for consumer as well as his own, protection.

again, as far as output went..that was as subjective as the sq...like i stated, a mic would be needed to tell the tale. yes, i did feel as though the xxx got louder, but i can't prove it one way or the other.

i still don't understand how more power would have helped it out in this box..when it kept up with the rlp everywhere else. the xxx sounded suffocated at the lowend...but once the frequencies started to climb, the xxx did fine. i still think box was more of an issue then power.

i will be building a 2.1-2.5ft^3 enclosure with 36in^2 of port, tuned somewhere in the neighborhood of 28-35hz(i haven't really decided yet) and run both subs again. i might even run 3000wrms on them from my 1500d...but most of the testing will be at 750wrms..from the 1500d @4ohm...

regardless..both of these subs are excellent drivers...like i said. like i also said, and this is the part everyone seems to be forgetting...in this application the rl-p was the better driver because of it's ability to get lower and keep up in both sq and spl...

there is no definite winner as both subs have a particular enviroment they want to live in...and that should be the deciding factor....unless price is an issue.

smaller area to work with or smaller budget..get the rl-p

more money or more room...the xxx might be the better choice.

btw, if someone wants to send me an amp that produces 1500 wrms or so at one ohm, i'd be more then happy to use it in both the ported box and sealed box applications. my 1500d does it at 2 ohm.....so i'm out..

but overall, i think this goes to show how much of a system is install. both are excellent subs, one just performed better in the given enviroment...after i try a second one, we'll see if the outcome changes.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

so if i get a pair of 15's am i gonna be able to power them both of 1500w, or an i gonna need 1500w apiece? i was told that i could get them both to xmax with 750 apiece...

with rl-p's...they'll be quite happy with 750 a piece...as will u with their performance.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[jellyfish420 10+ year member]

with rl-p's...they'll be quite happy with 750 a piece...as will u with their performance.

so a pair, in about a 7ft enclosure, 100in^2 port tuned around 28, will hit xmax?

these new smilies kill me...theres a new one everytime i look over!!!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/ohsnap.gif.17c4c91be09a7a4a3995fb7145adac39.gif

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

so a pair, in about a 7ft enclosure, 100in^2 port tuned around 28, will hit xmax?
these new smilies kill me...theres a new one everytime i look over!!!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/ohsnap.gif.17c4c91be09a7a4a3995fb7145adac39.gif

i'd say yeah....

hit mike up with an email laying out ur planned enclosure and he'll let ya know if it's a good one...

sounds like a good combo to me...

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

audioholic...

i understand what ur trying to say, as well as warbleed...

the rl-p's are way underrated..mike is throwin 3000wrms at a pair of rl-i's..which are rated 300 a piece....of course, i, nor mike or even u for that matter, would recommend that for most ppl on this forum. if he did, mike would be getting quite a few drivers back. he underrates for consumer as well as his own, protection.

again, as far as output went..that was as subjective as the sq...like i stated, a mic would be needed to tell the tale. yes, i did feel as though the xxx got louder, but i can't prove it one way or the other.

i still don't understand how more power would have helped it out in this box..when it kept up with the rlp everywhere else. the xxx sounded suffocated at the lowend...but once the frequencies started to climb, the xxx did fine. i still think box was more of an issue then power.

i will be building a 2.1-2.5ft^3 enclosure with 36in^2 of port, tuned somewhere in the neighborhood of 28-35hz(i haven't really decided yet) and run both subs again. i might even run 3000wrms on them from my 1500d...but most of the testing will be at 750wrms..from the 1500d @4ohm...

regardless..both of these subs are excellent drivers...like i said. like i also said, and this is the part everyone seems to be forgetting...in this application the rl-p was the better driver because of it's ability to get lower and keep up in both sq and spl...

there is no definite winner as both subs have a particular enviroment they want to live in...and that should be the deciding factor....unless price is an issue.

smaller area to work with or smaller budget..get the rl-p

more money or more room...the xxx might be the better choice.

btw, if someone wants to send me an amp that produces 1500 wrms or so at one ohm, i'd be more then happy to use it in both the ported box and sealed box applications. my 1500d does it at 2 ohm.....so i'm out..

but overall, i think this goes to show how much of a system is install. both are excellent subs, one just performed better in the given enviroment...after i try a second one, we'll see if the outcome changes.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

So you too are saying these subs are truely underrated by 300%? As for running 3kw to two 300wrms subs, that seems impressive, but what were the circumstances. In the right conditions any sub can handle well beyond their rated power for short periods of time.

I still find it hard to believe they would underrate their subs so drastically, saying they are only rated for 500 watts if they in fact handle 1500 watts or more like a XXX. I see zero advantage to this as underrating your subs 300% goes well beyond leaving a safety margin for user error. That would mean there would be a whole lot of guys out there drastically underpowering their RL-p's, doesn't sound too good for business to me. You said if he recommended that much power for those subs, he'd be getting alot back. Doesn't this mean the subs in fact wouldn't handle this power under normal daily conditions?

As for how more power would increase low end, I explained that already, what's not to get? The lower the freq, the more power it takes to reproduce at a given SPL output. Therefore if a sub is being underpowered, the low end will suffer. How can you expect the xxx to perform as its suppose to, in both SPL and SQ (low end extension) if you aren't even close to the power requirements a XXX wants to run at? Would you expect the XXX to still dig deep if you only ran 10 watts to it? Of course not. Excursion is not just a function of the enclosure volume, its also directly related to input power. The more you move your cone, the more air you displace. The more air you displace, the more authority you'll have on the lowest notes. Pretty simple concept.

As for comparing them, well imo this issue of how much power the RL-p's really need/want/can handle needs to be resolved. You are comparing a 500 watt sub and a 1600 watt sub. You need to come to some understanding of what each driver wants for power for its ideal situation before you start dropping each sub in the same enclosure and making general comparisons. Its hardly a fair comparison if the RL-p is in its sweet spot for power (and so far, according to their specs, it is) and the XXX is starved for it.