TC Sounds LMS-R 15" or DC Audio Level 4 15"?

[SmoothSQ 10+ year member]

Okay guys, yeah I know, I had a thread a week ago about the Level 4 or an AE Av15-X.

I've decided not to go with the AE, because I don't think it'll go low enough sealed -- although I bet it would've sounded great.

So, for 2.5 cubic feet sealed and strong output from 30 - 70hz, which of the 2 subs in the title would be my best bet?

I haven't heard anything about how the LMS-R performs with music. From what I've gathered about the Level 4, it's a solid performer -- not the best sounding sub, but it sounds good, gets pretty low, and is efficient.

The Level 4 has the lower shipped price and is more efficient.

I like the look of the LMS-R more than I do the DC, and on paper it looks like it'll go a little lower than the DC. I've always heard good comments about TC Sounds subwoofers.

I dunno which to get, and like my last thread, I've never heard either of the two and won't get to hear either of them before I make my purchase. Please help me out.

Click to read more...

 

[SmoothSQ 10+ year member]

The moving mass of the DC is a lot lighter than that of the LMS-R (maybe that's why it's more efficient). Is that a flat out good thing, or are their pros and cons?

 

[UMWDawg92 10+ year member]

I've heard those TC subs are low end monsters in low tuned boxes

 

[SmoothSQ 10+ year member]

Yeah, I heard they have great low-end response too. I'm gonna be going sealed though.

Have you head anything about how they sound with music?

 

[UMWDawg92 10+ year member]

I'm sure they probably sound good... I cant think of a TC sounds sub that I've heard that I haven't liked

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

the lvl 4 is not really a good candidate. It's not really a SQ sub in any real sense of the word. The LMS less effecient than the other choices too. It has a lower f3, but that's due to the lack fo effeciency making it quieter at 70hz and up. The Tempest X and AV15X will actually provide more SPL down low given equal input, at least up to teh 1000 watts they are rated at they give a little more than that up top too. Sealed both the AV and the Tempest are good for about 2 decibels more ouput at 30. They also give over 3db more output at 70hz, which is why the f3 is higher even though actual output is higher as well. Lighter cone generally means higher fs so the sub will roll-off sooner in a sealed box. The only sub DC makes that works well sealed is the lvl 3 and honestly the sub is decent at best unless your goal is to rattle the car and hit numbers on a meter (the goal of most on here though to be fair).

Anyway if you don't want to go with the AV the tempest X in 2.5 cubes stuffed with polyfill would be my choice. I ran an AA avalanche in that box and it got sickeningly low. Only issue it had was playing over 50hz which the shorting rings on the tempest will fix that so that's probably what i would do.

 

[SmoothSQ 10+ year member]

the lvl 4 is not really a good candidate. It's not really a SQ sub in any real sense of the word. The LMS less effecient than the other choices too. It has a lower f3, but that's due to the lack fo effeciency making it quieter at 70hz and up. The Tempest X and AV15X will actually provide more SPL down low given equal input, at least up to teh 1000 watts they are rated at they give a little more than that up top too.

I was going by the graphs on WinISD. That's all I have to go by. It showed the that the F3 on the DC and the LMS-R are quite a bit lower than the AV's F3.

In the same size enclosure with the same power, the DC moves further from 28hz to 63hz, and it's about even with the AV from 63hz and up. It sucks when all you have to go by is WinISD.

So even though the AV has the highest F3 of the three subs, and the DC moves further, the lows will still be louder than the other 2 subs in the same 2.4 cubic foot box with the same amount of power? How does that work?

The AV is less than 1 db more efficient than the DC. That's the only advantage that I see, as far as loudness may go.

Please explain. I'm not doubting you -- I just don't understand.

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

I was going by the graphs on WinISD. That's all I have to go by. It showed the that the F3 on the DC and the LMS-R are quite a bit lower than the AV's F3.In the same size enclosure with the same power, the DC moves further from 28hz to 63hz, and it's about even with the AV from 63hz and up. It sucks when all you have to go by is WinISD.

So even though the AV has the highest F3 of the three subs, and the DC moves further, the lows will still be louder than the other 2 subs in the same 2.4 cubic foot box with the same amount of power? How does that work?

The AV is less than 1 db more efficient than the DC. That's the only advantage that I see, as far as loudness may go.

Please explain. I'm not doubting you -- I just don't understand.

I just checked i had the t/s parameters wrong for the lms-r. However, my other point is still correct. Instead of looking at the f3 graph, change it to look at SPL, either max or just put a wattage number in. f3 is all relative to it's upper end ouput and the reason the LMS looks like it plays lower is simply because it has much less ouput up top. Atual ouput at your 30hz cutoff point is identical. Cars have alot more cabin gain at 30hz than they do at 70, you may find the LMS to sound bottom heavy. You won't actually be giving up any low end with the AV you'll simply get more output up top, which IMO is a good thing. The tempest X is a middleground. Slightly more low end than either the AV or the LMS with topend that will be in between. If you want to want some good low, lows, and a decently strong top end that'd be a good match. The AV would be very well balanced in 2.5 cubes in most trunk cars.

 

[SmoothSQ 10+ year member]

Okay. The last thing that I want is exaggerated low-end and weak upper bass (like you said about the LMS-R). I've had subs like that before and that sucks. The DC looks like a pretty good match for the AV, output wise. But I think the AV would sound better. After all, I'm not out to set off car alarms or impress other motorists.

I'm gonna go ahead and try out the AV 15-X. I'll buy it this Friday. I hope it'll have enough low-end for me. I'm not at all worried about the AV's SQ though.

Thanx again for your help.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

Im still baffled by all the people whom think TC subs are great. Perhaps they should read the thousands of threads concening their failures and poor materials their built with.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

TC appears to be making a come back. The LMS-R looks good on paper, but that is all the experience I have with it.

 

[Kyle_Keating 10+ year member]

2.4 sealed is a bit large for the LMS-R 12" sealed - that's vented box size. Keep in mind, the frequency response is not the entire story. You'll often need to boost the low end of a woofer in a sealed box unless it has a high Q - frequency response alone doesn't give you true efficiency (because of impedance differences) or performance. With enough power, you'll overdrive any of these, but I think the LMS-R should have very rewarding performance down low, it also remains very linear inside 2" peak to peak. The other two will be more efficient for upper bass. But for that kind of space I would steer you to the LMS-R 15" sealed which works better than the 12" in 2.4 cubes (Butterworth is ~2.45 cubic feet for the 15")

good luck!

 

[SmoothSQ 10+ year member]

2.4 sealed is a bit large for the LMS-R 12" sealed - that's vented box size. Keep in mind, the frequency response is not the entire story. You'll often need to boost the low end of a woofer in a sealed box unless it has a high Q - frequency response alone doesn't give you true efficiency (because of impedance differences) or performance. With enough power, you'll overdrive any of these, but I think the LMS-R should have very rewarding performance down low, it also remains very linear inside 2" peak to peak. The other two will be more efficient for upper bass. But for that kind of space I would steer you to the LMS-R 15" sealed which works better than the 12" in 2.4 cubes (Butterworth is ~2.45 cubic feet for the 15")

Yeah, I wasn't considering the 12" LMS-R. I read some some posts by others who said their LMS-R rolled off after about 60hz, but they had theirs in really big enclosures for home theater use. I figured maybe it could be put it in a higher Qtc alignment to take a little bit away from the low-end and put a little more emphasis on the upper bass -- maybe about .85 qtc. I don't have to a get a 2.5 cubic foot box built, that's just the largest I'm willing to go.

With the AV15-X I would probably go that big because I'm uncertain if the low-end response will be adequate in a sealed enclosure. As low as the F3 is for the LMS-R 15" in the enclosure sizes that I modeled it in, I could definitely get away with a smaller enclosure than that and still get plenty of low-end.

I'm leaning more toward the AV. Shipped, it would be about $70 cheaper than the LMS-R would be. It has lower inductance and it's more efficient. But again, I'm worried that the high efficiency comes at the cost of some low-end output, in a sealed box.

The LMS-R looks like it would have more low-end, and it looks like it is better suited for sealed duty than the AV is. Plus I like the way it looks.

It's a tough decision, though I am leaning toward the AV at the moment. I plan on making my purchase this weekend. I still wanna hear from someone who has heard the LMS-R playing music.

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

frequency response is a function of cabin gain box size and QE/FS as well as inductance..

while the graphs show the tempest and AV louder down low they won't even touch the LMS-r in powerhandling.. and not to mention power compression.. if i was going to seal the drivers Id use the lms in a heartbeat.. they will have a lower F3 and have much lower power compression at any given input not to mention its one of te most linear designs in stroke.. its biggest downfall is its LE which is fairly high but if you have a good amp with excellent dampinng its going to sound excellent reguardless.. the problem today is simply the damping factors @ 1ohm are low enoguht for the back EMF to cause inproper cone control and terrible freq response..

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

The AV does get faily low.. althought i personally think sealed is obsolete with the designs and materials we have the proper box design box and woofer placment and woofer you can get increased bandwidth and efficiency from PR alignments without sacrficing sound quality.. reguardless if i was to go sealed i would use hte hdesign with a slightly higher Q and more mms(within reason) simple becuase its naturally more efficienct down low..