Thinking about 8s - How would it compare to 12s?

[MisterGrubbs 5,000+ posts]

I find your conclusions surprising. The Brahma setup had more cone area, more displacement potential, and a flatter BL curve for less distortion. Therefore I fail to see how you reached any of the conclusions you did.

You just made me laugh.

Maybe his box and/or vehicle had a lot to do with it *shrugs*

 

[Boomin_tahoe 5,000+ posts]

Uh oh...let the flaming begin..

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

X's 2!!!

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You just made me laugh.
Maybe his box and/or vehicle had a lot to do with it *shrugs*

Certainly different tuning could affect his conclusions. But any enclosure tuning differences would not give the 8's an output advantage AND still provide a more musical bandwidth.
The vehicle remains the same between setups, I assume.

Neither theory chnges the fact that a Brahma is capable of much less distortion output, assuming the 8's referred to are DD 1508's. But then, some people prefer the sound of a non BL-optimized driver. And some people only consider freq response when defining "SQ". *shrug*

 

[low00ranger 10+ year member]

I find your conclusions surprising. The Brahma setup had more cone area, more displacement potential, and a flatter BL curve for less distortion. Therefore I fail to see how you reached any of the conclusions you did. For a burp the 8's might do better, depending on the situation, due to more motors to soak up power. But for music, the Brahma setup has pretty much every advantage.

I reached my conclusion by listening to the Brahma 15" daily for 2 years in several boxes knowing exactly how it reacted in a minitruck to lots of songs, then switching to the DD 8s yet listening to the same music. Therefore I reached the conclusion of "was louder and sounded better than my Brahma 15" in a 3.5 cube box receiving more power." Shouldn't be hard to understand. I built the Brahma box to spec from Dan Wiggins' recommendation to me.

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

Two 8" drivers are close enough in cone surface area as a single 12" driver.

Although cone surface area is not the only factor in potential output.

Upgrade your 12's. Unless you're doing it for the wow factor.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I reached my conclusion by listening to the Brahma 15" daily for 2 years in several boxes knowing exactly how it reacted in a minitruck to lots of songs, then switching to the DD 8s yet listening to the same music. Therefore I reached the conclusion of "was louder and sounded better than my Brahma 15" in a 3.5 cube box receiving more power." Shouldn't be hard to understand. I built the Brahma box to spec from Dan Wiggins' recommendation to me.

Ive already explained why your conclusions defy logic and physics. But you dont seem to have any mic readings to compare, so Im guessing the sound quality comparison of the two isn't the only thing that was judged subjectively.
You are entitled to your opinion on your own system, obviously. I never even heard it. But I dont think its out of line on my part to point out that due to simple physical comparisons of the drivers, the B15 has a clear cut advantage in almost every category, making your subjective conclusions questionable at worst, and an anomoly at best.

Cheers.

 

[low00ranger 10+ year member]

Ive already explained why your conclusions defy logic and physics. But you dont seem to have any mic readings to compare, so Im guessing the sound quality comparison of the two isn't the only thing that was judged subjectively.
You are entitled to your opinion on your own system, obviously. I never even heard it. But I dont think its out of line on my part to point out that due to simple physical comparisons of the drivers, the B15 has a clear cut advantage in almost every category, making your subjective conclusions questionable at worst, and an anomoly at best.

Cheers.

So you basically say my own judgment of my previous systems is invalid because the following statement provides concrete scientific proof of the Brahma being a better SPL and SQ choice:

"The Brahma setup had more cone area, more displacement potential, and a flatter BL curve for less distortion."

To me, that hardly serves as a complete argument to fully dismiss my claim as invalid. Do environmental factors not matter? Aren't there more characteristics to a driver and low-end response for a mobile audio system than cone area, displacement potential, and distortion levels? If the three driver qualities you chose were the determining factor of how good a subwoofer will sound and its loudness potential, people would be able to authoritatively respond to "Which is the best SQ 12 for $200" questions with "Driver X."

The Brahma 15 sounded sloppy with a slow response in every ported box I tried for my Ranger. It was a "low and dirty" daily setup that was loud and nice for showing off. But to my ear, the DD trio ported provided a more accurate reproduction of rap, rock, and metal as well as being very similar in loudness. And I'm a musician, I notice every last detail in the music I listen to. Of course I can't really argue the SPL level between the two since I only metered the Brahma.

 

[rog2961 10+ year member]

So you basically say my own judgment of my previous systems is invalid because the following statement provides concrete scientific proof of the Brahma being a better SPL and SQ choice:
"The Brahma setup had more cone area, more displacement potential, and a flatter BL curve for less distortion."

To me, that hardly serves as a complete argument to fully dismiss my claim as invalid. Do environmental factors not matter? Aren't there more characteristics to a driver and low-end response for a mobile audio system than cone area, displacement potential, and distortion levels?

The Brahma 15 sounded sloppy with a slow response in every ported box I tried for my Ranger. It was a "low and dirty" daily setup that was loud and nice for showing off. But to my ear, the DD trio ported provided a more accurate reproduction of rap, rock, and metal as well as being very similar in loudness. And I'm a musician, I notice every last detail in the music I listen to. Of course I can't really argue the SPL level between the two since I only metered the Brahma.

owned

 

[Pemrick69 10+ year member]

8"s are smaller than 12"s.

lmao. QFT, i guess.

as far as cone area is concerned 2 8's has less area then 1 12 so it'll be difficult to get 2 8's louder than 2 12's unless you have gobs of power going to the 8's. 4 8's against 2 12's would be a much more fair fight.

8" x 2 = 16"

12" x 1 = 12"

i hope that was a typo.

this thread is hilarious

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

8" x 2 = 16"

12" x 1 = 12"

i hope that was a typo.

this thread is hilarious

Actually it is you that is quite funny. Simple math eludes you.

8" driver - 4 x 4 x pi = 50.24 x 2 = 100.48 total for two 8" drivers.

12" driver - 6 x 6 x pi = 113.04 total for a single 12 " driver.

Learn before you teach.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

So you basically say my own judgment of my previous systems is invalid because the following statement provides concrete scientific proof of the Brahma being a better SPL and SQ choice:
"The Brahma setup had more cone area, more displacement potential, and a flatter BL curve for less distortion."

To me, that hardly serves as a complete argument to fully dismiss my claim as invalid. Do environmental factors not matter? Aren't there more characteristics to a driver and low-end response for a mobile audio system than cone area, displacement potential, and distortion levels? If the three driver qualities you chose were the determining factor of how good a subwoofer will sound and its loudness potential, people would be able to authoritatively respond to "Which is the best SQ 12 for $200" questions with "Driver X."

The Brahma 15 sounded sloppy with a slow response in every ported box I tried for my Ranger. It was a "low and dirty" daily setup that was loud and nice for showing off. But to my ear, the DD trio ported provided a more accurate reproduction of rap, rock, and metal as well as being very similar in loudness. And I'm a musician, I notice every last detail in the music I listen to. Of course I can't really argue the SPL level between the two since I only metered the Brahma.

I have no desire to argue with you over what your system does, did or ever will sound like. Im simply stating the Brahma has more output potential than the trio of 8's, and its distortion plot reads much better. Is that all there is to the characteristics of a speaker in how it performs? Of course not. But for every one opinion that the Brahma sounds sloppy, I can show you ten that said it was one of the best sounding drivers they have heard. Does this make you or your opinion wrong? Not necessarily, but it certainly does not lend itself to reinforcing your subjective conclusion.
I addressed the environmental factors already. Where the two setups not in the same vehicle? If not, we shouldn't even be having this conversation, nor should you base any differences in the two systems solely on the raw drivers, as your original post implied.

Im sorry if me stating your conclusions are out of the ordinary offends you.

 

[low00ranger 10+ year member]

I have no desire to argue with you over what your system does, did or ever will sound like. Im simply stating the Brahma has more output potential than the trio of 8's, and its distortion plot reads much better. Is that all there is to the characteristics of a speaker in how it performs? Of course not. But for every one opinion that the Brahma sounds sloppy, I can show you ten that said it was one of the best sounding drivers they have heard. Does this make you or your opinion wrong? Not necessarily, but it certainly does not lend itself to reinforcing your subjective conclusion.
I addressed the environmental factors already. Where the two setups not in the same vehicle? If not, we shouldn't even be having this conversation, nor should you base any differences in the two systems solely on the raw drivers, as your original post implied.

Im sorry if me stating your conclusions are out of the ordinary offends you.

This was all in my 2000 Ext cab Ranger, there would be no legitimate argument on my side otherwise.

The Brahma does very well in my 9 cubic feet HT box at 22 Hz on a 1000W plate amp //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[westman995 10+ year member]

Two 8" drivers are close enough in cone surface area as a single 12" driver.
Although cone surface area is not the only factor in potential output.

Upgrade your 12's. Unless you're doing it for the wow factor.

Thanks for all the responses, other than the ones that went off topic.

I am kinda thinking of the "wow factor" Id love to have some little 8s that just impress the hell out of people.

And as far as people saying the same area as the 12s, well my CVRs are in tiny sealed boxes, like for a truck. Surprisingly they seem pretty loud in the boxes. I can get away with the box they are in right now for the car, but i dont want to go any bigger. Its in an 82 trans am. And id like to keep the box below, or close to the top of the back seat so i can still see out the back.

But then again, with the 8s it should be alot easier to build a custom box in the rear "well" area for more volume for the box and still be out of the way. Im thinking i could easily fit 3 of them in there, if not 4. Then the thing is where will the ports come out if in that well area.

The DD site says the 1508s handle 500rms. But can i throw more than that at them daily? Someone said 1k rms daily and doing fine. But im kinda afraid to throw taht much power at such a small sub. Are the DD subs way underrated or what? Cuz i see alot of people saying they handle alot more than what theyre rated at by DD.

 

[Pemrick69 10+ year member]

Actually it is you that is quite funny. Simple math eludes you.
8" driver - 4 x 4 x pi = 50.24 x 2 = 100.48 total for two 8" drivers.

12" driver - 6 x 6 x pi = 113.04 total for a single 12 " driver.

Learn before you teach.

actually, it was the oversimplification of math that was the problem. lesson learned. i stand by this thread being hilarious.

Are the DD subs way underrated or what? Cuz i see alot of people saying they handle alot more than what theyre rated at by DD.

I've never ran anything DD, or personally seen any DD products being run, but what from what i've heard they'll take a huge amount of punishment. I'd imagine if they rate them at 500, that's what they'll safely take daily with constant play, but i'm sure you can run more to them than that and as long as you don't have day long play sessions you'll be pretty safe. If it starts to smell, stop.