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

[patrick1202 10+ year member]

**** I Got Here Late!!!

 

[azbass 5,000+ posts]

oh and foote one of your L7's only have about 163.7 in^2 of effective cone area (Sd)

a little less then whats in your avatar..

correct me if im wrong devildriver.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[patrick1202 10+ year member]

WELL. . .

"

i love hearing everyones explanation on the differences on 12" subs and 15" subs.

some of them make me sick to my stomach because they are so serious.!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rotflol.gif.b453361716769b8110ddefc85ff03cd2.gif

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

This same old arguement. Someone (falsely) makes the claim that cone size is determinate on output ability or low-end response. People argue a while. Then OP brings on specs from lines of subs that shows a lower Fs as sub sizes increase, proof he thinks. Unfortunately he's lost track of the fact that just because for a given line of woofers, the Fs goes lower upon increasing model size, this does not mean cone size is determinate on low-end reponse.

There 15" models of some subs out there that would be put to shame, at say 20hz, by some other 8 or 10" subs of other brands/models out there. Therefore even simple common sense should dictate that while cone area does affect Fs, output/sensitivity, etc, it is NOT the determining factor in these specs.

Usually when these arguements boil down to this point, the OP knows he is wrong and is just grasping an any attempt to, well, not look wrong. Foote is making the incorrect correlation between specs in model lines, and making generic statements about cone size. IIRC Cotjones made the same mistake, which lead to this same arguement, not too long ago. Now here we are again.

The sad part is, on these boards over the years Ive seen, read, participated in, and then finally ignored due to boredom... hundreds of discussions about this very same topic. Yet here comes Foote with his ever-so-basic knowledge of speaker specs to let me and everyone else here know his little secret he's found, that none of us have ever even considered. Wow, the Fs on an IDQ15 is lower than an IDQ10, amazing... we never noticed before! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif These arguements wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the ignorant one also being the arrogant one. Cotjones all over again.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

what just happened?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

what just happened?

You making a clown of yourself here, again.
ZOMFG indeed.

 

[Geezerpoop 10+ year member]

is this a better question...how do people decide on what size subwoofer(s) to get? (besides the obvious reason...space issues)

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

This same old arguement. Someone (falsely) makes the claim that cone size is determinate on output ability or low-end response. People argue a while. Then OP brings on specs from lines of subs that shows a lower Fs as sub sizes increase, proof he thinks. Unfortunately he's lost track of the fact that just because for a given line of woofers, the Fs goes lower upon increasing model size, this does not mean cone size is determinate on low-end reponse.
There 15" models of some subs out there that would be put to shame, at say 20hz, by some other 8 or 10" subs of other brands/models out there. Therefore even simple common sense should dictate that while cone area does affect Fs, output/sensitivity, etc, it is NOT the determining factor in these specs.

Usually when these arguements boil down to this point, the OP knows he is wrong and is just grasping an any attempt to, well, not look wrong. Foote is making the incorrect correlation between specs in model lines, and making generic statements about cone size. IIRC Cotjones made the same mistake, which lead to this same arguement, not too long ago. Now here we are again.

The sad part is, on these boards Ive seen, read, participated in, and then finally ignored due to boredom... hundreds of discussions about this very same topic. Yet here comes Foote with his ever-so-basic knowledge of speaker specs to let me and everyone else here know his little secret he's found, that none of us have ever even considered. Wow, the Fs on an IDQ15 is lower than an IDQ10, amazing... we never noticed before! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif These arguements wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the ignorant one also being the arrogant one. Cotjones all over again.

fyi: we aren't as dumb as you pretend we are... do you honestly think someone would argue that an 10w1 would be louder than a 8w7? i don't think anyone would say that cone size is an issue across different models

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

is this a better question...how do people decide on what size subwoofer(s) to get? (besides the obvious reason...space issues)

take the size of ur D!CK and X2 to get the diameter of the sub thats for you

sry guys with 8's just remember its not the size, it's how you use it

i'm runnin a 13 cause i can't afford a jackhammer