The Official Type R Thread

[geezy21unc 10+ year member]

Maybe your SX has a problem? RE definitely showed the SX was more efficient than the SeXXX. My confusion is why there is such a difference between those two subs.

maybe you are the problem...hmmm

 

[geezy21unc 10+ year member]

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.

word

 

[Spkrman]

Hell, Tommy could drop a 9910 in his car and be down from the Type R....should that mean anything to everyone else out there?
No. I could take a frickin 10" Audiobung and be up 3db over the Alpine...does that mean anything? No. It means that the 10" Audiobling is louder in MY APPLICATION.

The key to SPL is not using what so and so said was the loudest, it's finding what works best IN YOUR APPLICATION.

sx does make a better fart woof, will say that much.

But other than that... the R spanks it. Better power handling, better SQ, and way cheaper.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

so the same motor and half the cone will act exactly the same?
I can tell you don't do SPL //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Im not getting through to you. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif You seem to keep trying to compare a 10 to a 15. My question is, if David's test showed the SX was more efficient (at least in his install), why do you suggest the turn around in this test (and a drastic turn around) is simply due to changing from 15's to 10's. Your response thus far has been because of 'half the cone area'... uhm okay? Unless YOU are comparing unlike sizes, I do not know why you keep coming back to 'half the cone', Im talking like-size subs here. I know the difference in cone are and how it affects output, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an SPL pro to understand it. But that does not explain why you suggest the SX 15 would be more efficient than the SeXXX 15, but the 10's would yield a drastically opposite result. This is what Im not getting.

ngsm, I'll ignore your comments, because as usual they do nothing but try to fuel the flames. It was a pretty lousy flame tho, put a little more effort into it next time. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[Spkrman]

Im not getting through to you. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif You seem to keep trying to compare a 10 to a 15. My question is, id David's test showed the SX was more efficient (at least in his install), why do you suggest the turn around in this test (and a drastic turn around) is simply due to changing from 15's to 10's. Uhm, unless YOU are comparing unlike sizes, I do not know why you keep coming back to 'half the cone'. I know the difference in cone are and how it affects output, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an SPL pro to understand it.
ngsm, I'll ignore your comments, because as usual they do nothing but try to fuel the flames. It was a pretty lousy flame tho, put a little more effort into it next time. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

The "SX" is more effeciant than the "SEXXX".... IN A 15" WOOFER... thats what was tested!

What in the world makes you think this will HAVE to hold true in a 10" sub? Lets also note that MORE POWER is on tap here... the SX DOES NOT handle it, the SEXXX handles it somewhat, and the type R TAKES IT.

Quit referring to that test, its 100% useless in comparison.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The "SX" is more effeciant than the "SEXXX".... IN A 15" WOOFER... thats what was tested!

Now we are getting somewhere. All I asked was your theory on why the 15's trest one way, but the 10's just the opposite? They have the same motor from 10's to 15's, they both add (or subtract) the same cone area going from one size to the other. Why do you suggest such a phemoenon could occur? You are suggesting it is ocurring after all, I just want to know your theory why, or if you simply think David's test was wrong.

 

[Spkrman]

Now we are getting somewhere. All I asked was your theory on why the 15's trest one way, but the 10's just the opposite? They have the same motor from 10's to 15's, they both add (or subtract) the same cone area going from one size to the other. Why do you suggest such a phemoenon could occur? You are suggesting it is ocurring after all, I just want to know your theory why, or if you simply think David's test was wrong.

I don't know the precise architecture of both woofers and I doubt there is much info at all on the sexxx... but when you change one thing, you change many others.

"roughly 1800w per driver" from dave's post... there was more power on tap here.

Who's to say the SX handles more power? You run into alot of mechanical power handling drop going from a larger cone to a smaller one with the (assumed) same motor. IF the sexxx 15 handled more power, we wouldnt know it in that test, the limits weren't pushed.

In the 10" test... the limits are pushed and then some. The SX CRAPS OUT on the power, simple enough.

One more time... effeciancy has poop to do with this test, the limiter here has been mechanical power handling the whole time.... hard to get a 10 to handle this much power at such a low note.

2 completely unrelated tests... 2 completely different results.... wow, what a concept!

 

[packerfan 10+ year member]

Now we are getting somewhere. All I asked was your theory on why the 15's trest one way, but the 10's just the opposite? They have the same motor from 10's to 15's, they both add (or subtract) the same cone area going from one size to the other. Why do you suggest such a phemoenon could occur? You are suggesting it is ocurring after all, I just want to know your theory why, or if you simply think David's test was wrong.

They never implyed/said davids test was wrong.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

Now we are getting somewhere. All I asked was your theory on why the 15's trest one way, but the 10's just the opposite? They have the same motor from 10's to 15's, they both add (or subtract) the same cone area going from one size to the other. Why do you suggest such a phemoenon could occur? You are suggesting it is ocurring after all, I just want to know your theory why, or if you simply think David's test was wrong.

Dude, why are you even bothering with all this? This thread is what it is... a review... end of story. As far as your little argument in this thread goes, I don't know what the point is... even if you are right and back up whatever claims you make 100%, the people you are arguing with still won't agree with you as they are F'n morons. You seem like a smart guy who is just really stubborn and doesn't realize that you can't win an argument against the ignorant. Let it be, believe what you believe, make your point once... and thats it.

btw... no discredit to tommyk and his review... i just think the people shooting off "sx suxxxorz, type r ownzzz" are retarded.

 

[Spkrman]

Dude, why are you even bothering with all this? This thread is what it is... a review... end of story. As far as your little argument in this thread goes, I don't know what the point is... even if you are right and back up whatever claims you make 100%, the people you are arguing with still won't agree with you as they are F'n morons. You seem like a smart guy who is just really stubborn and doesn't realize that you can't win an argument against the ignorant. Let it be, believe what you believe, make your point once... and thats it.
btw... no discredit to tommyk and his review... i just think the people shooting off "sx suxxxorz, type r ownzzz" are retarded.

ignorant?

I'm retarded for liking the woofer thats better?

How is audioholic RIGHT...?

sheesh.. come to chicago and hear the difference for yourself.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

ignorant?
I'm retarded for liking the woofer thats better?

How is audioholic RIGHT...?

sheesh.. come to chicago and hear the difference for yourself.

I never said audioholic was right...

Just saying that you can't be so zealous over the performance of one woofer in regard to another by one example. As I've stated before, this is just a review... no reason to question every variable or make blanket statements like you are.

 

[Spkrman]

type R handles more power and sounds better. Flat out. This has been tested to death and it holds true.

Like I said... come here and hear the difference, or get one of each for yourself //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Bluntman420]

i dont understand you people....they keep giving the numbers but there's always someone who has to be ignorant......and its not spkrman or tommyk. get off their nuts and if you dont believe them do the test yourself...they shouldnt have to explain the whole f*ckin process for you non believing ignorant a$$holes.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Its people like Bluntman420 who turn an otherwise meaningful and mature debate into a mud slinging contest, all the while trying to attain the illusion of being the mature one. Great job!

I don't know the precise architecture of both woofers and I doubt there is much info at all on the sexxx... but when you change one thing, you change many others.
"roughly 1800w per driver" from dave's post... there was more power on tap here.

Who's to say the SX handles more power? You run into alot of mechanical power handling drop going from a larger cone to a smaller one with the (assumed) same motor. IF the sexxx 15 handled more power, we wouldnt know it in that test, the limits weren't pushed.

In the 10" test... the limits are pushed and then some. The SX CRAPS OUT on the power, simple enough.

One more time... effeciancy has poop to do with this test, the limiter here has been mechanical power handling the whole time.... hard to get a 10 to handle this much power at such a low note.

2 completely unrelated tests... 2 completely different results.... wow, what a concept!

You are reaching mechanical limits on these subs burping near tuning for SPL output? Wow. If that's true, then yes I understand your point, and the explanation is appreciated. The attitude however isn't. Oh well.

Hundreth, I understand what you are saying, and to a point agree. But what you are missing (and a few of the a-holes like bluntman) is I haven't been here to try to disprove anyone, but to learn. If this test had showed what I and many others had come to think of from Davids tests were incorrect results, I wanted to know. Conversely, if these tests were implying something incorrectly, I wanted to know too. That is what these forums are for. Some of you guys seem to think they are just for people to post up information with no room for questioning. Some popel get get defensive, start throwing around terms like band wangon etc, when in the end I just wanted to know the truth, the big picture, not necsaarily what just David's test showed, or this test. Ive stated all along I wasn't questioning the test, or 'my precious RE subs' against another brand, simply trying to understand why there seemed to be opposing results flying around. Perhaps if what spkrman said is true and they are pushing the subs to mechanical limits near tuning in a vented box (quite a feat), then I have learned something here. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif I learned where we were not habving a meeting of the minds. I do however agree its too bad its taken so many pages to come to this point, and had a few a-holes try to turn it into a flamefest along the way, but that comes with the territory around here. Thanks for the helpful comments.

 

[Bluntman420]

when you get off his nuts......lick mine //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/yumyum.gif.0556df42231b304b9c995aefd13928a8.gif