RL-p vs XXX

[Warbleed 10+ year member]

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.

You made a big error in reasoning here. The low end does NOT necessarily suffer because you are using a smaller amp. If the amp actually wasn't producing enough power for the driver at the desired SPL level, then it would clip. If we have no clipping, your conclusion is false.

You are equating an increase in power levels with a flattening of lowend FR, and that just doesn't happen, unless you are clipping the amp already at higher frequencies. Sorry, you're just flat out wrong there...

I really HATE it when people try and claim that higher power levels make their drivers sound better, because they don't. Theoretically you'll have more headroom, but as I said, if the amp tried to deliver more power then it was able to at the low frequencies, then it would clip. Period.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You made a big error in reasoning here. The low end does NOT necessarily suffer because you are using a smaller amp. If the amp actually wasn't producing enough power for the driver at the desired SPL level, then it would clip. If we have no clipping, your conclusion is false.
You are equating an increase in power levels with a flattening of lowend FR, and that just doesn't happen, unless you are clipping the amp already at higher frequencies. Sorry, you're just flat out wrong there...

I really HATE it when people try and claim that higher power levels make their drivers sound better, because they don't. Theoretically you'll have more headroom, but as I said, if the amp tried to deliver more power then it was able to at the low frequencies, then it would clip. Period.

Who said anything about clipping? Definitely not me. We aren't talking about setting gains or driving amps past their limits, we are talking about the power requirements of these two subs.

"If the amp actually wasn't producing enough power for the driver at the desired SPL level, then it would clip."

No idea where you are coming up with that statement, as that's just 'flat out wrong'. An amp doesnt clip simply if the sub wants more (as I know you know), it only clips if the gains are set incorrectly for the input voltage.

And how is it that if we 'have no clipping' my conclusion is false? Are you saying that unless the amp is clipping, more air displacement does not equate to more authority on the low end? That's absurd.

I dont care if you hate it, more power will equal more displacement will equal greater output at lower octaves, period. You mention headroom, who's even talking about adding power for 'headroom'? Im simply talking about supplying the XXX with enough power to push it as it was designed to. If you push 750 watts to a XXX, you are kinda silly to wonder why its not hitting harder or lower.

 

[pj_chevy03 10+ year member]

some of you are missing what mrray said to start with. he said "in this application" the SS had better low end. the xxx will not dominate everything in every application. no sub can do that.

was the xxx starved for power? of course, but i think what mrray was trying to show with this comparison is that if you have around 750 and a small sealed box that the SS is the choice. he never said that the SS was a superior sub period. he said it had a slightly better lowend in the application he used for both subs.

and about comaparing a 500w sub and 1600w sub, isn't it good to read something different than brahma vs. xxx. Nice little comparison here

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

some of you are missing what mrray said to start with. he said "in this application" the SS had better low end. the xxx will not dominate everything in every application. no sub can do that.
was the xxx starved for power? of course, but i think what mrray was trying to show with this comparison is that if you have around 750 and a small sealed box that the SS is the choice. he never said that the SS was a superior sub period. he said it had a slightly better lowend in the application he used for both subs.

and about comaparing a 500w sub and 1600w sub, isn't it good to read something different than brahma vs. xxx. Nice little comparison here

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me here. I am not bashing this review or the person who wrote it. Im glad he's shared the info with us. Im simply trying to put what I consider is the proper perspective on things: one sub was properly powered (according to specs) while the other one wasn't. And Ive talked about what I think would be affected by rectifying that issue. That's not meant to knock mrray. Im also not trying to say I think mrray is implying either sub is superior in all circumstances. I have not missed where he said 'in this application', thats my point, this application wasn't completely a level playing field, that's all.

 

[ngsm13 5,000+ posts]

I remember a certain person who whined and cried when it was proven the SX was louder than the XXX in two applications on the mic, by 1.3 dB to be exact. You whined, and complained about not showing umpty nine tests to prove it to the Nth degree. You whined about it only proving the SX is more efficient. You whined about 1.3 dB never being noticeable. Why buy a subwoofer that takes 1600wrms to get as loud as a subwoofer with 750wrms (w/in 1dB). (This is where Mrray has said NUMEROUS times...that IN THAT APPLICATION the rl-p wins!) Why are you so defensive when someone doesn't hold your precious XXX as god?! Why?!

What's so hard to understand, the rl-p is OBVIOUSLY more efficient as you probably already know. Just because it only needs 500 wrms to reach xmax doesn't mean it can't handle more. Look at the SI magnum d2, originally it was rated at 600wrms because that's all they needed. I sent each of my 12's 1200+ wrms daily ported...for over a year...and had absolutely no problems. Dustin Flege @ NSPL world finals 2003 had a modded EQ d2 on each one of his magnums...near 2800+ wrms a piece. Look at the brahma, even tho it is rated @1600 wrms, it's not needed to reach xmax...it also can reach xmax with as little as 600wrms. I'm sure companies think about this when they rate the power handling of their subs. Also, they probably don't want some kid to throw the woofer in a ported enslosure that is GROSSLY too large, and throw 1600 wrms at the woofer b/c supposedly it can take it. They don't want the woofer to fail, because of an inexperienced kid's mistake. This is why more experienced people may feel more comfortable sending their woofer over the RMS wattage, they know what they are doing and may monitor how it acts/performs in the enclosure. The rl-p's Fs is also much lower than the XXX's...the tc9 is known for wicked wicked lows. (Not saying this proves anything as fact or otherwise, just stating and observation of information.)

As stated before, if someone can't afford the 1600wrms to power the XXX, much less the XXX itself then the rl-p is an EXCELLENT choice and i think what mrray is trying to say is...that it's not that big of a step down from the XXX. Also, if you want crazy lows from a sealed enclosure and not too much wattage, then the rl-p is also a better choice. I own a XXX, i love it and i sacrifice a lot of room in my truck for it (partially b/c it's an 18 ported) and i also spent a lot building a stable electrical system to support the power needed for it and my other amplifiers. The XXX and rl-p are both excellent woofers, i wouldn't hesitate recommending either, the application tho would dictate which one i would recommend over the other! Anyways, to all a good day!

NG

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

some of you are missing what mrray said to start with. he said "in this application" the SS had better low end. the xxx will not dominate everything in every application. no sub can do that.
was the xxx starved for power? of course, but i think what mrray was trying to show with this comparison is that if you have around 750 and a small sealed box that the SS is the choice. he never said that the SS was a superior sub period. he said it had a slightly better lowend in the application he used for both subs.

and about comaparing a 500w sub and 1600w sub, isn't it good to read something different than brahma vs. xxx. Nice little comparison here

hey, what do ya know?? someone actually got it!!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/toast.gif.bc0657bf54b9ee653b6438524461341e.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/handclap.gif.0c301076f534e244f0460706894f19e0.gif

i stressed and stressed that exact fact...thank u pj.

the whole reason behind this was some people think the xxx can't be beat for anything, anywhere. well, they are wrong..it can and in my opinion, it did here. not an all out ass whooping, but it did get beat...

both in their perfect enclosure's at their prefered power, who wins?? sq wise, i think it would easily be a draw, if the xxx will get low the way people say it will. output wise, i believe the xxx has the edge. more power, more room= more xmax potential=more output potential.

audioholic....i still don't believe in this box, adding power would help on the bottom. i understand what ur saying about power leads to greater xmax, but that leading to a stronger lowend...i dunno. not saying ur wrong, i'm not, i guess i need a stronger amp at one ohm, and run them in the box again. but in this box, i still think the xxx will lack at the bottom...just not enough airspace.....like i said, it sounds like it's suffocating and is muddy trying to reproduce the low end..IN THIS BOX

while this has lead to a good arguement, i'm glad u and warbleed have kept it mature, i see nothing was resolved....mostly because you're overly defending the xxx i believe. you're correct, i'm only feeding it half it's rated power..BUT it is in an already larger then recommended home....so did re screw up? according to them, this enclosure is more then enough to reach xmax, especially since i've dropped the power...so in theory, in this enclosure, with this power, it should do great..but it didn't....who's at fault here? the sub or the designers?

as too mike overrating his drivers 300%..ask him. i know what he has told me, and i know what i'm doing to mine..maybe 300% is a tad much..but i'd bet the rl-p will handle 1500wrms just as easily as the xxx, in the same enclosure.

so away we go again...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/woot.gif.aaa6090e619a97b6090d16dd863c5a69.gif

btw..according to mike's recommendations....i've got the rl-p in a larger then recommended home for the power involved....he recommends(on his site) 1ft^3 or less for 750wrms or more...

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

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me here. I am not bashing this review or the person who wrote it. Im glad he's shared the info with us. Im simply trying to put what I consider is the proper perspective on things: one sub was properly powered (according to specs) while the other one wasn't. And Ive talked about what I think would be affected by rectifying that issue. That's not meant to knock mrray. Im also not trying to say I think mrray is implying either sub is superior in all circumstances. I have not missed where he said 'in this application', thats my point, this application wasn't completely a level playing field, that's all.

we might be...and please understand, i'm not bashing u either...

but i believe, going by manufacture's recommended enclosures, this playing field was indeed fairly level....no, it wasn't perfect, but it isn't exactly tilted in the rl-p's favor...

the box is bigger then both companies recommend..so the low end should be enhanced for both subs, regardless of power...and after reading that..if i went even bigger with the enclosure and power...it would give the rl-p an even bigger edge....so i guess i need to build a smaller box, according to re, so as to put the rl-p at a disadvantage and increase the power.....but that will only work in the rl-p's favor yet again, as the smaller enclosure is going to allow it to handle more power and put it in a SoundSplinter sized box for the power...so how do i build a level playing field?

and if the xxx suffers this much at the bottom due to lack of power in a larger the recommended box, how much power does it need to reproduce low freq's faithfully in the recommended .8ft^3??

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

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

Hey I am glad that Kent wrote the review, it is enough to change a decision down the road for me

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I remember a certain person who whined and cried when it was proven the SX was louder than the XXX in two applications on the mic, by 1.3 dB to be exact. You whined, and complained about not showing umpty nine tests to prove it to the Nth degree. You whined about it only proving the SX is more efficient. You whined about 1.3 dB never being noticeable. Why buy a subwoofer that takes 1600wrms to get as loud as a subwoofer with 750wrms (w/in 1dB). (This is where Mrray has said NUMEROUS times...that IN THAT APPLICATION the rl-p wins!) Why are you so defensive when someone doesn't hold your precious XXX as god?! Why?!

Im simply pointing out that one sub was properly powered (according to specs), while one wasn't. How many people do you know that power a XXX with 750 watts? Even RE will tell you that's not enough to get the XXX's full potential. Dont believe me? Call them and ask for yourself. And when I say this, which is quite fair and reasonable to point out in this comparison, you come at me with this crap about "Why are you so defensive when someone doesn't hold your precious XXX as god". Whatever. If there is any personal bias going on, its the chip you've had on your shoulder for me since our XXX/SX discussions. Get over it already, you are starting to bore me with this nonsense.

As for me whining and complaining about the SX peaking louder, lol you sure are creative. It seems the one whining about it is you, here, like a month later. Its funny, just about 30 mins ago I recommended someone go with an SX over a XXX for their SPL setup, because it peaks higher. But oh yeah, Im devestated my precious XXX's are the best of the best of the best at everything. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

And again, that was another situation of a test between a XXX and a sub that wants/requires less power, and the power range used for both drivers? The less power range. I guess Im total XXX ***** and jerkoff for pointing that out. Is it so hard to figure out both subwoofers should have the power EACH ONE wants/requires before you start making too conclusive of comparisons between them? You seem to be a somewhat smart guy ngsm, Im sure you can figure out that point.

Just because it only needs 500 wrms to reach xmax doesn't mean it can't handle more. Look at the SI magnum d2, originally it was rated at 600wrms because that's all they needed. I sent each of my 12's 1200+ wrms daily ported...for over a year...and had absolutely no problems. Dustin Flege @ NSPL world finals 2003 had a modded EQ d2 on each one of his magnums...near 2800+ wrms a piece.

You make no sense here. If a sub only "needs 500 wrms to reach xmax", why would you bother pushing more power to it? In what enclosure circumstances? You are throwing out power handling number wildly without even mentioning enclosure sizes. Power handling is directly related to the enclosure type/size, in case you didnt know.

What do you even mean when you say Magnums were originally rated for only 600 watts 'because that's all they needed'? Needed, to do what? lol If you mean to reach full excursion capabilities, then again, thats enclosure dependant, somethng you are forgetting/ignoring here aparently. And if the subs only 'needed' 600 watts rms, why was anyone bothering to run more? because its enclosure dependant. Frankly I have no idea where you are going with that, as it has nothing to do with the simple fact that the XXX in this comparison was underpowered. *shrug*

I'm sure companies think about this when they rate the power handling of their subs. Also, they probably don't want some kid to throw the woofer in a ported enslosure that is GROSSLY too large, and throw 1600 wrms at the woofer b/c supposedly it can take it. They don't want the woofer to fail, because of an inexperienced kid's mistake.

So RE doesn't underrate their stuff too? Are you trying to tell me the RL-p is underrated the sub by 300% for a safety margin? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

you're correct, i'm only feeding it half it's rated power..BUT it is in an already larger then recommended home....so did re screw up? according to them, this enclosure is more then enough to reach xmax, especially since i've dropped the power...so in theory, in this enclosure, with this power, it should do great..but it didn't....who's at fault here? the sub or the designers?

750 watts is not enough to reach full xmax for a XXX in that box, unless you are playing a 25hz test tone. Warbleed and I just went thru that.

i see nothing was resolved....mostly because you're overly defending the xxx i believe.

So which point that I made do you feel is wrong?

You guys can paint me as just blindly defending XXX's if you want, but frankly its bologna. Yes I own XXX's, but I could tomorrow go out and buy any new subs I want, on a whim. My interest in this comparison is not to see that 'my' sub wins, its to see that each sub is compared fairly, or at least note the discrepancy if its not possible to do so (such as you not having an amp to properly push the xxx).

mrray, Ive tried to explain Im not knocking you or your comparison, simply pointing out the power range was in the RL-p's favor. So far Ive yet to see anyone say otherwise. Sure Im positive the RL-p could handle 1500 watts or more under the right conditions, so? The XXX could handle 5kw under the right conditions also. Raw power numbers mean little without also considering driver efficiency, elclosure used, etc. My point is, unless the RL-p is real-world underrated by 300%, the XXXX handles more power than they do (given its conservatively rated at 3X the power), therefore if you felt the XXX was a bit louder at the same power, within the RL-p's range (750 watts), what's going to happen as power input increases? beyond what the RL-p can handle while the XXX is stillw anting more? The gap between them will increase. Seems common sense to me. *shrug*

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

the box is bigger then both companies recommend..so the low end should be enhanced for both subs, regardless of power...and after reading that..if i went even bigger with the enclosure and power...it would give the rl-p an even bigger edge....so i guess i need to build a smaller box, according to re, so as to put the rl-p at a disadvantage and increase the power.....but that will only work in the rl-p's favor yet again, as the smaller enclosure is going to allow it to handle more power and put it in a SoundSplinter sized box for the power...so how do i build a level playing field?

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. First you say the XXX was in a larger than recommended box, so putting less power to it (relative to its wants/needs) shouldn't be as much of a factor. But then you also say the RL-p is also in a larger than recommended enclosure, which in fact basically negates the advantage the XXX would have gained being in a larger box. Therefore it comes back to the RL-p was being overpowered (according to specs), while the XXX wasn't even receiving half its rated power.

And again, that box is not larger enough for the XXX to reach full excursion playing music like you were.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

oh boy maybe this should be locked after Daivd posts, because this seems to be getting out of hand

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

It's one vehicle, one box, one amp ... one application.

One opinion.

Nothing more, nothing less. If the majority of the variables fall into sub A's domain, my guess is that you'd see results somewhat swaying that way. :boobies:

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

- Steve

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

hope Mike gets back soon, so he can explain to people why he rates his subs the way he does

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

oh boy maybe this should be locked after Daivd posts, because this seems to be getting out of hand

How is this getting out of hand? Everyone is remaining perfectly civil imo.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

How is this getting out of hand? Everyone is remaining perfectly civil imo.

I know I just want it to stay chill and some people seem to be getting pissed //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/chix.gif.b7a2c3844cd4b49b8430443da768250e.gif