The Official Type R Thread

[Spkrman]

i gotta hear this thing tommy //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif now whos the original TypeRBass!!!

MEEEEE

my one 12 > ure 4 by 4db... pwned

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'd like to know what you think is "amiss"... lots of effort was put into the SX, and it sucked it up... hm

If you are starting some attitude with me other this, don't bother. I've already stated what I think is 'amiss'. This test shows the SeXXX much louder than the SX, when according to RE's test the results should have been just the opposite. I do not know how to be more clear in this regard. Im not bashing tommy, this test or your new favorite sub (not even talking about the R), Im simply stating what should be stated: this test has a discrepancy over RE's test of the two same subs. RE claims their test shows the efficiency differences between the subs in their lineup, yet here we have two of the subs tested in same install and getting completely different results. That's not worth mentioning? hmm I guess we just not worry about that, just point out how the R 'pwnt' and move on!

Who stands to lose more by having the SEXXX louder than the SX?
Sure as hell isn't a competitor...

Im not sure what you are implying here.

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

If you are starting some attitude with me other this, don't bother. I've already stated what I think is 'amiss'. This test shows the SeXXX much louder than the SX, when according to RE's test the results should have been just the opposite. I do not know how to be more clear in this regard. Im not bashing tommy, this test or your new favorite sub (not even talking about the R), Im simply stating what should be stated: this test has a discrepancy over RE's test of the two same subs. RE claims their test shows the efficiency differences between the subs in their lineup, yet here we have two of the subs tested in same install and getting completely different results. That's not worth mentioning? hmm I guess we just not worry about that, just point out how the R 'pwnt' and move on!

Like i said man, i have no explanation as to why the SX doesn't perform in my car. All probable ideas pointed to it being louder, but it's not. I tried everything. Nothing is amiss with the amps; if there was, the seXXX wouldn't be doing what it is doing. It's not the box because i switched it out for multiple boxes, and it's not the sub because its a fresh recone.

Your guess is as good as mine.

I like RE and will probably continue to use them in my daily install, but god d*mn, it's just not working for me in the competition setup.

 

[packerfan 10+ year member]

All Im saying is this 'test' shows exact opposite results on a sub comparison we already know (SX versus SeXXX)... from their own manufacturer. And not by a little, bya discrepancy of at least 2-3db's (RE showed the SX considerably louder than the SeXXX). So I have to wonder why this is. Is this person better than RE at testing their own products? Or is something amiss here? No offense to tommy here, I appreciate him posting his findings. But Im skeptical of people taking this as the gospel.
In any event, I really need to hear some of these new R's, sounds like Alpine might be coming around finally.

MAYBE something was amiss in RE's testing, ever think that?

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

MAYBE something was amiss in RE's testing, ever think that?

Apparently not because whatever RE says is the end-all be-all of what goes on with their subs. Just like how the MT is their "SPL" sub, yet they tell people to use the SX for competitions over the MT.

 

[packerfan 10+ year member]

Apparently not because whatever RE says is the end-all be-all of what goes on with their subs. Just like how the MT is their "SPL" sub, yet they tell people to use the SX for competitions over the MT.

Yeah, people that are on the RE bandwaggon seem to have a realy hard time understanding the cold hard truth...they should realy just drop it and understand that RE isnt the end all be all in subs.

 

[AVSTANG02]

When it comes to comparing/buying speakers i'll never listen to anything but my own ears.

 

[Spkrman]

If you are starting some attitude with me other this, don't bother. I've already stated what I think is 'amiss'. This test shows the SeXXX much louder than the SX, when according to RE's test the results should have been just the opposite. I do not know how to be more clear in this regard. Im not bashing tommy, this test or your new favorite sub (not even talking about the R), Im simply stating what should be stated: this test has a discrepancy over RE's test of the two same subs. RE claims their test shows the efficiency differences between the subs in their lineup, yet here we have two of the subs tested in same install and getting completely different results. That's not worth mentioning? hmm I guess we just not worry about that, just point out how the R 'pwnt' and move on!
Im not sure what you are implying here.

All your saying is that our results shoudl have been just like RE's.. but you have no reason as to WHY. Nothing is amiss, this is our test and this is what happened.... no small difference here.

Not sure why RE got different results... did they even test the 10's? I remember the test with the 15's in a wall.... was there another one?

Btw, the R did/does "pwnt" by alot.

 

[packerfan 10+ year member]

When it comes to comparing/buying speakers i'll never listen to anything but my own ears.

Thats cool and all but start your own thread and dont go OT on this one.

 

[Spkrman]

When it comes to comparing/buying speakers i'll never listen to anything but my own ears.

so get down here and hear the difference! lol It really is night and day.

 

[Spkrman]

Yeah, people that are on the RE bandwaggon seem to have a realy hard time understanding the cold hard truth...they should realy just drop it and understand that RE isnt the end all be all in subs.

What, RE isn't the only company that makes woofers?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Now Im on the RE bandwagon? I see. When did I state RE was the end-all be-all of anything? When did I even compare the RE trst results to the R? I didn't. The people who need to 'get over it' are the people who immediately jump to the "its an RE bandwagon thing" in defense of... nothing.

Sure Ive considered RE's tests could have been flawed. Its always possible. But, is it likely? You're right, Im sure you tested much more extensively than RE did on their own products, before deciding to obsolete one of the subs because it didn't get as loud. I know you know alot spkrman, but Im not about to assume you know more and test better than RE does on their own subs, sorry.

edit: and Ive never seen RE recommend an SX over an MT to any serious competitor. Only to people wanting a smaller enclosure, less power, etc etc. Again, their test showed the MT as being their most efficient driver in their line up. But what the MT has to do with this discussion I do not know. *shrug*

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

Now Im on the RE bandwagon? I see. When did I state RE was the end-all be-all of anything? When did I even compare the RE trst results to the R? I didn't. The people who need to 'get over it' are the people who immediately jump to the "its an RE bandwagon thing" in defense of... nothing.
Sure Ive considered RE's tests could have been flawed. Its always possible. But, is it likely? You're right, Im sure you tested much more extensively than RE did on their own products, before deciding to obsolete one of the subs because it didn't get as loud. I know you know alot spkrman, but Im not about to assume you know more and test better than RE does on their own subs, sorry.

Then give me one good reason as to why the SX sucked so much in my install, and just DROPPING the type-r in there, without making ANY changes whatsoever gained me 2.9 dB's.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Then give me one good reason as to why the SX sucked so much in my install, and just DROPPING the type-r in there, without making ANY changes whatsoever gained me 2.9 dB's.

When have I compared the RE subs to the R? Why are you even asking me this question? What's your point?

 

[packerfan 10+ year member]

Now Im on the RE bandwagon? I see. When did I state RE was the end-all be-all of anything? When did I even compare the RE trst results to the R? I didn't. The people who need to 'get over it' are the people who immediately jump to the "its an RE bandwagon thing" in defense of... nothing.
Sure Ive considered RE's tests could have been flawed. Its always possible. But, is it likely? You're right, Im sure you tested much more extensively than RE did on their own products, before deciding to obsolete one of the subs because it didn't get as loud. I know you know alot spkrman, but Im not about to assume you know more and test better than RE does on their own subs, sorry.

edit: and Ive never seen RE recommend an SX over an MT to any serious competitor. Only to people wanting a smaller enclosure, less power, etc etc. Again, their test showed the MT as being their most efficient driver in their line up. But what the MT has to do with this discussion I do not know. *shrug*

Well if i remember right you TRIED so hard to find something wrong with the Type R15 vs SX 15 test they did and your TRYING SO HARD again to disprove them. Its the cold hard facts man, they tried what they could with the SX and the type r still proved to be the louder, better sounding sub. You CANNOT dispute that.