Soundsplinter VS. Dayton

[adio 5,000+ posts]

Have you seen the bass response curve? Maybe odd to you, but mike spent a very long time looking at every possibility and said these were specifically geared for HT operation. I don't know why he would lie to everyone. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wow.gif.23d729408e9177caa2a0ed6a2ba6588e.gif

who's mike?

 

[HotCarl 10+ year member]

the main man at SoundSplinter.

 

[hayden 10+ year member]

I'm not saying that he is lying, but I am saying that these subs seem to be an odd compromise. The ongoing "race" for the highest excursion in subs leads to some of these issues. These new super-subs have to have massive magnets, heavy coil/cone/spider assemblies/surrounds/etc. The efficiency is very low, thus you need massive power to drive the subs. Since most of this power is converted to heat, the Qts of the subs rise even further (making decent sounding alignments harder to achieve). Add the relatively high cost of these, plus the amps to drive them, and I just don't see why you can't get the same performance for less money using multiple traditional drivers and cheaper amplification. I totally respect the engineering in these beasts, but the common sense portion of my brain screams - why?

JP

 

[kuijo 10+ year member]

I'm not saying that he is lying, but I am saying that these subs seem to be an odd compromise. The ongoing "race" for the highest excursion in subs leads to some of these issues. These new super-subs have to have massive magnets, heavy coil/cone/spider assemblies/surrounds/etc. The efficiency is very low, thus you need massive power to drive the subs. Since most of this power is converted to heat, the Qts of the subs rise even further (making decent sounding alignments harder to achieve). Add the relatively high cost of these, plus the amps to drive them, and I just don't see why you can't get the same performance for less money using multiple traditional drivers and cheaper amplification. I totally respect the engineering in these beasts, but the common sense portion of my brain screams - why?JP

For a better bass response.

 

[azbass 5,000+ posts]

who's mike?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif

 

[hayden 10+ year member]

For a better bass response.

With all due respect, do you have any idea what you are arguing? You look at the specs, and ask people who really know driver/subwoofer design, then get back to me

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

I would say HT application is the only use that makes any shred of sense for the Supreme series. That being said, I agree with hayden in thinking that "excursion at all cost" is not the way to build the best driver. Too many compromises must be made (Qts in the .9 range, anyone? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif )

As far as bass response, I doubt the RL-s is really that much better than a pair of RL-p 15"'s in a low tuned bass reflex enclosure, with much more reasonable amplification and enclosure specs //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

But this is pretty much OT anyway...

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

who's mike?

Mike Jones!

Who?

Mike Jones!

Who?

Mike Jones!

Mike = owner of Soundsplinter

Anyways.....as everyone else said; the Rl-s is only really an option for the HT market with it's box size and enclosure recommendations. Does that mean it's the best option? IMHO no....like Jack said; pair of 15" Rl-ps will cost approximately the same, have more output and need less amplifier power while using a smaller enclosure.

But all of this is OT to the original question......in which my verdict still stands of taking the Rl-p over the Titanic //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif