harshglare
Junior Member
Review of Subwoofer or Speaker: CVR12 vs AW1200Q vs 12W1v2-4
Ever wonder how your old school subs stack up to a newer one?
Here is a real world test of three subs put in the exact same box run by the exact same amp and head unit.
The two boxes are sealed and are about 1.60 ft3 with out the speakers. The amp is a PPI PCX2200 (200x2 @ 4, 400x2 @ 2 with dampening >500) filtered for subs. Head Unit is an Alpine CDA9886.
First subs to be put in my set up was back in 2004: 2 Kicker Comp VRs with a dual 4 ohm VC set to for a 2 ohm load. This sub had a long break in period with good detail and decent bottom. The Comp VRs sounded like they wanted a bigger box. These performed well until I burnt out the VC probably due to clipping while using the Q-Bass feature on the PCX2200.
The second subs were put in some time around late 2005 I got a deal on Audiobahn's AW1200Q: these did not take long to break in and had slightly better SQ than the Comp VRs but way better bottom: almost endless. The subs performed well but was destroyed when the lead wires that are bonded to the spider tore off leading to a VC misalignment: they did last for 5 years, so I felt that I got good use of them.
The VC on the Comp VRs were not burnt out at this time, so I simply reinstalled them. After about a year, I started to miss the bottom that the AW1200Q put out so I bumped up the Q-Bass on the PCX2200 and promptly fried the Comp VRs VC over time.
The third set were JL12Wv2-4, I really should have set them up for a 2 ohm load but they do not have dual VC. These were the best for SQ; I suspect that this was due to the 4 ohm load. I could tell that there was some bottom there but it was not hitting it so I bridged the subs and the amp and that proved to be a bad thing as the PCX2200 wants a 4 ohm load when bridged: I fried them.
At this point, I came to the conclusion that I needed more bass period: a stronger amp that would not clip and subs that could take the beating.
I have just received my JL 100/1 and am waiting on 12W3v3-8 to come in so I can give them a run: stay tuned for that review.
Conclusion:
Kicker COMP VRs give you a good run for the money, but, from what I understand, Kicker has been resting on their laurels and have not introduced any significant technologies since 2005.
SQ: 5
Bass: 6
Build Quality: 6
Audiobahn AW1200Qs hit deeper and have an edge on the VRs SQ. I have been told that AB no longer makes their speakers as good as the AW1200Qs
SQ: 6
Bass: 8
Build Quality: 7
The JL 12W1v2-4s are, by far the most technology advanced of the three: as it should be: these subs are 5 years newer than the other two. Like I said the SQ was probably due to the 4 ohm load. I feel the "bullet-proofness" on the 12W1s, while advanced, was comparable to the Comp VRs.
SQ: 7
Bass: 7
Build Quality: 6
Hope you enjoyed this three way old school versus new school comparison and I invite your insights on the issue or any thoughts on my upcoming sub system.
Ever wonder how your old school subs stack up to a newer one?
Here is a real world test of three subs put in the exact same box run by the exact same amp and head unit.
The two boxes are sealed and are about 1.60 ft3 with out the speakers. The amp is a PPI PCX2200 (200x2 @ 4, 400x2 @ 2 with dampening >500) filtered for subs. Head Unit is an Alpine CDA9886.
First subs to be put in my set up was back in 2004: 2 Kicker Comp VRs with a dual 4 ohm VC set to for a 2 ohm load. This sub had a long break in period with good detail and decent bottom. The Comp VRs sounded like they wanted a bigger box. These performed well until I burnt out the VC probably due to clipping while using the Q-Bass feature on the PCX2200.
The second subs were put in some time around late 2005 I got a deal on Audiobahn's AW1200Q: these did not take long to break in and had slightly better SQ than the Comp VRs but way better bottom: almost endless. The subs performed well but was destroyed when the lead wires that are bonded to the spider tore off leading to a VC misalignment: they did last for 5 years, so I felt that I got good use of them.
The VC on the Comp VRs were not burnt out at this time, so I simply reinstalled them. After about a year, I started to miss the bottom that the AW1200Q put out so I bumped up the Q-Bass on the PCX2200 and promptly fried the Comp VRs VC over time.
The third set were JL12Wv2-4, I really should have set them up for a 2 ohm load but they do not have dual VC. These were the best for SQ; I suspect that this was due to the 4 ohm load. I could tell that there was some bottom there but it was not hitting it so I bridged the subs and the amp and that proved to be a bad thing as the PCX2200 wants a 4 ohm load when bridged: I fried them.
At this point, I came to the conclusion that I needed more bass period: a stronger amp that would not clip and subs that could take the beating.
I have just received my JL 100/1 and am waiting on 12W3v3-8 to come in so I can give them a run: stay tuned for that review.
Conclusion:
Kicker COMP VRs give you a good run for the money, but, from what I understand, Kicker has been resting on their laurels and have not introduced any significant technologies since 2005.
SQ: 5
Bass: 6
Build Quality: 6
Audiobahn AW1200Qs hit deeper and have an edge on the VRs SQ. I have been told that AB no longer makes their speakers as good as the AW1200Qs
SQ: 6
Bass: 8
Build Quality: 7
The JL 12W1v2-4s are, by far the most technology advanced of the three: as it should be: these subs are 5 years newer than the other two. Like I said the SQ was probably due to the 4 ohm load. I feel the "bullet-proofness" on the 12W1s, while advanced, was comparable to the Comp VRs.
SQ: 7
Bass: 7
Build Quality: 6
Hope you enjoyed this three way old school versus new school comparison and I invite your insights on the issue or any thoughts on my upcoming sub system.
