Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spkrman" data-source="post: 1101611" data-attributes="member: 548682">What more do you want out of the test?&nbsp; Would you like me to test box after box after box until the RL-P sounds better? So far same size box, 2 different tunings.&nbsp; Not done yet...I do believe it will sound much better in my 2 cube 30hz box... it should at least, going from experience with woofs like this.&nbsp; But on that same note, the type R sounds alot better in the smaller lower tuned box, too.You all believe the tests are biased towards the type R&#039;s... why?&nbsp; You assume the R (and the S in this test) are in the BEST enclosures, while the former &quot;bandwagon&quot; woofer is in its worst.&nbsp; Maybe the type R is in its worst SQ box too?Take every test for whats its worth... but this is the only test that I have seen so far of the RL-P that didn&#039;t show any bias.&nbsp; I listened and told you what I heard, nothing more nothing less.As far as power handling... the RL-P bottomed out at the same volume as the type S, while being a hell of alot quieter.&nbsp; I don&#039;t expect more out of the RL-P SPL wise.&nbsp; And btw... we know the woofers are *not* seeing 1700 watts here.&nbsp; They are most likely in the 800-1100 watt range, depending on impedence rise.&nbsp; Again, take it for whats it&#039;s worth... but wired to .5, imp rise to 1.3, the amp put out 1800 watts @ 12 volts.&nbsp; Imp rise should be 4-5 ohms in this situation, do the math on that one.If you disagree with the way things were done, tell me now and I can correct any mistakes while I still have all the woofers.&nbsp; But, don&#039;t get on here and say the test is worthless because it shows results you don&#039;t like... if you say its worthless, give a legitimate reason.&nbsp; If you want me to test 50 boxes in 50 cars, please close this thread now, thats out of the question.&nbsp; The most your getting is 3 boxes in 2 cars... which is still a HELL of alot more than the typical comparison test //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gifMore results to come.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spkrman, post: 1101611, member: 548682"] What more do you want out of the test? Would you like me to test box after box after box until the RL-P sounds better? So far same size box, 2 different tunings. Not done yet... I do believe it will sound much better in my 2 cube 30hz box... it should at least, going from experience with woofs like this. But on that same note, the type R sounds alot better in the smaller lower tuned box, too. You all believe the tests are biased towards the type R's... why? You assume the R (and the S in this test) are in the BEST enclosures, while the former "bandwagon" woofer is in its worst. Maybe the type R is in its worst SQ box too? Take every test for whats its worth... but this is the only test that I have seen so far of the RL-P that didn't show any bias. I listened and told you what I heard, nothing more nothing less. As far as power handling... the RL-P bottomed out at the same volume as the type S, while being a hell of alot quieter. I don't expect more out of the RL-P SPL wise. And btw... we know the woofers are *not* seeing 1700 watts here. They are most likely in the 800-1100 watt range, depending on impedence rise. Again, take it for whats it's worth... but wired to .5, imp rise to 1.3, the amp put out 1800 watts @ 12 volts. Imp rise should be 4-5 ohms in this situation, do the math on that one. If you disagree with the way things were done, tell me now and I can correct any mistakes while I still have all the woofers. But, don't get on here and say the test is worthless because it shows results you don't like... if you say its worthless, give a legitimate reason. If you want me to test 50 boxes in 50 cars, please close this thread now, thats out of the question. The most your getting is 3 boxes in 2 cars... which is still a HELL of alot more than the typical comparison test [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif[/IMG] More results to come. [/QUOTE]

Verification