Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hayden" data-source="post: 1331750" data-attributes="member: 555374">I&#039;m not saying that he is lying, but I am saying that these subs seem to be an odd compromise.&nbsp; The ongoing &quot;race&quot; for the highest excursion in subs leads to some of these issues.&nbsp; These new super-subs have to have massive magnets, heavy coil/cone/spider assemblies/surrounds/etc.&nbsp; The efficiency is very low, thus you need massive power to drive the subs.&nbsp; Since most of this power is converted to heat, the Qts of the subs rise even further (making decent sounding alignments harder to achieve).&nbsp; Add the relatively high cost of these, plus the amps to drive them, and I just don&#039;t see why you can&#039;t get the same performance for less money using multiple traditional drivers and cheaper amplification.&nbsp; I totally respect the engineering in these beasts, but the common sense portion of my brain screams - why?JP</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hayden, post: 1331750, member: 555374"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification