What is the difference between 12" subs and 15" subs?

[Foote 10+ year member]

you are right, you are obviously the ONLY one who is right and knows what he is talking about //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif:laugh://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif:laugh:
i would like for you to show me some proof that cone size is indicative of efficiency, response, and low end output.

all you have shown us so far is proof that a 15" version of sub A has a higher effeciency and lower Fs than the 12" version of sub A. which is not the topic at hand.

You obviously havent read through the whole thread. I already showed proof that 15s have higher efficency and generally produce lower hzs than 12 inch versions of the same sub. here is a quote from myself earlier in this thread:

"Compare the Kicker 12 inch L7 with the 15 inch.

15 inch :

1000 watts rms

Frequency response: 18 hz - 100 hz

12 inch:

750 watts rms

Frequency response: 20 - 100 hz

So...as far as Kicker L7s go 15 inch subs have more cone area, HANDLE MORE POWER, AND GET LOWER than the same model 12 inch sub. Cant argue with the facts.

Here are more examples:

Fi Fully loaded 15 vs 12---

The 15 inch is rated to get down to 34.5hz, while the 12 only goes as low as 37.8 hz efficently. Look it up if you dont believe me. So Fi 15s get LOWER and MOVE MORE AIR then Fi's 12s. Cant argue with the facts.

RE xxx 15 vs 12 ----

The 15 inch RE XXX gets down to 19.10 hz while the 12 inch can only go as low as 21 hz. Also, the 15 is MORE EFFICENT with a rating at 85.81 db compared to the 12's 83.76.

You cant argue with the facts girls, Its obvious: 15s Get LOWER than 12s, and are more efficent in doing it. They also MOVE MORE AIR, and in some cases they HANDLE MORE POWER. "

See? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/verymad.gif.3f39c5c2fd57527b671fad3efdfac756.gif

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

correct .
BUT

Im saying that round > square

i actually thought what you were saying was pretty obvious.

only a moron would have gotten confused about that... oh, wait.

 

[Lakota 5,000+ posts]

i actually thought what you were saying was pretty obvious.
only a moron would have gotten confused about that... oh, wait.

His argument seems to be based only on cone area. I guess that he cannot see past that

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

only a moron would have gotten confused about that... oh, wait.

Foote...the new cotjones??????? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

You obviously havent read through the whole thread. I already showed proof that 15s have higher efficency and generally produce lower hzs than 12 inch versions of the same sub. here is a quote from earlier in this thread:
"Compare the Kicker 12 inch L7 with the 15 inch.

15 inch :

1000 watts rms

Frequency response: 18 hz - 100 hz

12 inch:

750 watts rms

Frequency response: 20 - 100 hz

So...as far as Kicker L7s go 15 inch subs have more cone area, HANDLE MORE POWER, AND GET LOWER than the same model 12 inch sub. Cant argue with the facts.

Here are more examples:

Fi Fully loaded 15 vs 12---

The 15 inch is rated to get down to 34.5hz, while the 12 only goes as low as 37.8 hz efficently. Look it up if you dont believe me. So Fi 15s get LOWER and MOVE MORE AIR then Fi's 12s. Cant argue with the facts.

RE xxx 15 vs 12 ----

The 15 inch RE XXX gets down to 19.10 hz while the 12 inch can only go as low as 21 hz. Also, the 15 is MORE EFFICENT with a rating at 85.81 db compared to the 12's 83.76.

You cant argue with the facts girls, Its obvious: 15s Get LOWER than 12s, and are more efficent in doing it. They also MOVE MORE AIR, and in some cases they HANDLE MORE POWER. "

See? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/verymad.gif.3f39c5c2fd57527b671fad3efdfac756.gif

i have read that, and YOU obviously didnt see what i was asking you to provide for me. we have already told you the reasons why you are an idiot. i was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, you failed.

but ill still give you another chance... go back and re-read what i asked you for:

i would like for you to show me some proof that cone size is indicative of efficiency, response, and low end output.
all you have shown us so far is proof that a 15" version of sub A has a higher effeciency and lower Fs than the 12" version of sub A. which is not the topic at hand

i dont want examples of 15" sub A playing lower/louder than 12" sub A. i want you to give me proof linking cone size and how it affects the performance of that sub. i have a feeling i will be waiting a LONG LONG time to get this proof (mostly because it doesnt exist and you arent smart enough to comprehend that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif )

 

[Foote 10+ year member]

His argument seems to be based only on cone area. I guess that he cannot see past that

what? no. MORON! Read above. My argument is based on CONE AREA (hence the ammount of air moved: SOUND PRESSURE BTW), + Efficently in getting low (hz ratings on 15s are lower than 12s of same model), + db efficency, + (in some cases) Power handling capabilities.

Kill youself.

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

Foote...the new cotjones??????? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

i dont know, foote would need to prove that he completely lacks an understanding of physics and common sense to get to that level //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

so far he is close though.

 

[Foote 10+ year member]

i have read that, and YOU obviously didnt see what i was asking you to provide for me. we have already told you the reasons why you are an idiot. i was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, you failed.
but ill still give you another chance... go back and re-read what i asked you for:

i dont want examples of 15" sub A playing lower/louder than 12" sub A. i want you to give me proof linking cone size and how it affects the performance of that sub. i have a feeling i will be waiting a LONG LONG time to get this proof (mostly because it doesnt exist and you arent smart enough to comprehend that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif )

This thread isnt about the cone area of effecting it precisely and directly. It is about the difference in 15 and 12 inch subs (the entire sub, not just the cone area)

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

follow your own advice //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Kill youself.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Cant argue with the facts.

Except you've not once in this thread shown your own, independent numbers to quantify anything you've been blabbering about. Where are your response curves? Where are your Termlab screenshots? I assume you've had some anechoic chamber time to back up anything you're talking about //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Because right now all I see are manufacturer's stated specs...in which case a $10 coaxial from Wal-Mart should have the same high frequency response as a $100,000 plasma tweeter. If they're facts, why isn't that so //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

 

[Foote 10+ year member]

i dont know, foote would need to prove that he completely lacks an understanding of physics and common sense to get to that level //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
so far he is close though.

Thats it. I give up. Have fun.

 

[Lakota 5,000+ posts]

what? no. MORON! Read above. My argument is based on CONE AREA (hence the ammount of air moved: SOUND PRESSURE BTW), + Efficently in getting low (hz ratings on 15s are lower than 12s of same model), + db efficency, + (in some cases) Power handling capabilities.
Kill youself.

What about unequal distribution of cone stress?

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

what? no. MORON! Read above. My argument is based on CONE AREA (hence the ammount of air moved: SOUND PRESSURE BTW), + Efficently in getting low (hz ratings on 15s are lower than 12s of same model), + db efficency, + (in some cases) Power handling capabilities.
Kill youself.

put a subwoofer in a ported box and throw sealed-box-displacement out of the window as a key factor in determining loudness...

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

i dont know, foote would need to prove that he completely lacks an understanding of physics and common sense to get to that level //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
so far he is close though.

bahaha

i just finished physics with an A

irony?

 

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

This thread isnt about the cone area of effecting it precisely and directly. It is about the difference in 15 and 12 inch subs (the entire sub, not just the cone area)

EXACTLY. and seeing as how there is no sub specified, how can you come in here answering in generalizations about them? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

you just proved your own lack of a concrete argument. please see my previus posts, if this thread asked "whats the difference between 12" sub A and 15" sub A?", we could (possibly) answer in the manner in which you have been trying to answer. but he asked what is the difference between any 12" subs and 15" subs in general.

and the only CORRECT (make a note, this is a key word) answer we can give is... SURFACE AREA. there is no other correct answer. and your answer is especially wrong.