Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mrray13" data-source="post: 1101692" data-attributes="member: 540942">well, i agree somewhat..i did my testing in three different boxes(one sealed, two ported), two different tunings, three different power levels and two different vehicles. why? mostly because the re bandwagon was crying foul. in the end, as i've stated, the rl-p help it's own in output (but didn't win) and IMO was teh better sounding woofer hands down.as to the bias, ur wrong. whether u want to admit it or not, u are indeed biased towards the type r, and in ur case, for good cause. ur an spl competitor and the type r has proven loudest for u. as to what u heard, jsut like in my h2h, we have to take it with a grain of salt because sq is subjective. i will say again, my rl-p has only come close to sounding the way u describe once...in 2.5ft^3 tuned to 28hz....in all other applications, it is one the lowest, crispest and cleanest sounding subs, with the ability to get loud, that i've heard. and whether or not u'll agree, 140+ is loud for daily.4 ohms, orion 2500d..1200wrms at 14 volts(rated), give or take....and again, that's the most i'd ever recommend to put on the rl-p. we also know, wired to .5 nominal, it's going to see one ohm bursts and such....but even at 1.3, like u've already stated, ur at 1800....so, u've proven what's already known, the rl-p isn't a power monster. but to do what it is designed to do, it doesn't need 1800 or even 1200 wrms...and again, i'm not doubting the output numbers. i have no reason too. the rl-p is an sql woofer with a bias towards sq...teh type r's are an sql woofer with a bias towards output...like someone mentioned above, it's a street beater. it should get louder.my main issues are1) u say no bias, when clearly there is. evryone with a hint of common sense and a knowledge of ur previous posts about the type r's can and will see that. i'm not saying that's a bad thing, but when it comes to sq, a bias will always affect what we want to hear.when i did my tests, i had three sets of ears, mine, my wife's (who has zero audio knowledge) and a friend who was creaming his pants over the xxx. we all came to the same conclusions, except one. my wife said she couldn't tell and output difference, while ryan and i thought the xxx was indeed the louder sub.in ur testing, we only get ur opinion and those of ur teammates, who all swear by the alpine. can u see the bias now?2) enclosure recommendation...it was suggested by ur compadre that mike suggested the 2.35 foot box with the 1700 (rated) wrms. i know mike, and he's conservative as hell. there isn't a chance he'd recommend that box for that power. that tuning, yes. he'd be more apt to suggest 1.5-1.75ft for that power.and that's it. those are my issues. we all know, well, most of us, that sq is subjective and relies heavily upon application,ie: box, vehicle and power. especially if it's clipped power or clean.whether or not the type r proves out here (which, i don't see any other outcome) or the rl-p does, doesn't matter. as long as everyone knows, ur results, just like mine, aren't going to be the same results everybody gets.of course, i wonder what the next flavor of the month is going to be?wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list