What makes Kicker so bad?

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

This is the reason I stand 100% behind my statement that they haven't made a decent sounding sub since the round Solobaric. My first system way back in 1992 was a pair of Kicker 12" in my 280 ZX... I had em' for two weeks, when a guy from a local shop made me an offer. He would swap out my Kickers for a set of Cerwin Vega 12" subs in a straight up trade to prove I would like the Vegas better... the only stipulation was I let him put a banner across the windshield with his shops name on it. The MSRP was higher on the Vegas, so I went ahead with the deal. I loved the Cerwin Vegas, they were louder and cleaner then my Kickers, so I swapped them out. I watched him burn the Kickers in his parking lot in front of some customers. Ah, the good ol'days!

Dont take my comments the wrong way. The L7 is a solid design for its intended purpose. It fits the needs of plenty of people, just not mine.

 

[Phoenix Risen 10+ year member]

What property of a 12" cone makes it inherently better to keep up with rapid material? Explain your theory to me, so I can explain how its wrong.
Please explain how a round surround has more inertia than its square counterpart, when a 12" square has a considerably larger circumference than a 12" circle.

The conical shape is stronger than a square in this application, due to the explanation I provided above. Its simple geometry and a little bit of physics.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/popcorn.gif.32dd9e22fd77e77bc3c907062768fcd2.gif

 

[Wingman0121 10+ year member]

The Solo-X is def more of a SPL sub than SQ or SQL.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

What property of a 12" cone makes it inherently better to keep up with rapid material? Explain your theory to me, so I can explain how its wrong.
Please explain how a round surround has more inertia than its square counterpart, when a 12" square has a considerably larger circumference than a 12" circle.

The conical shape is stronger than a square in this application, due to the explanation I provided above. Its simple geometry and a little bit of physics.

12s are less cone (even the squares) than a 15. Have a lower xmax so less travel. More often than not, a 12 plays metal with quick double bass more cleanly than larger cone subs. Every time I hear 15s or 18s play it, its always muddy. Is this always the case? no. Is it more often than not the case? yes

The cone itself wasn't the inertia I was speaking of. It's the surround. The round surround is, just like you said, sturdier than the surround of a square cone. This offsets quite a bit of the inertia difference in the cones. Before you go on about saying how the square surround is inferior, the motor should be adequate to control the cone and not tear the surround up. That and people shouldn't play so far below their tuning that the box unloads the sub.

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

I hug Kicker's nuts because THEY give me a killer discount on their products. I've ran CVR 12s, CVX 12s and a CVR 15. The only sub I blew was the 15 because I continually beat on it with more power than it wanted for 6 months straight. The CVRs were traded to vitveet on here and I bet they still work. The CVXs are in a small sealed box in my Caprice and get pretty loud and low in it. I do have the box stuffed with polyfill. I'd probably put them up against any other pair of 12s in a sealed box off 1kW RMS.

 

[ejschultz 10+ year member]

Also, when I turn the level down on my HU for the sub channel, they do blend very nicely with my front stage.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

I always loved the L7 8". They were king in crazy 8's for a while. Would be fun to do a row of them under the rear seat in a pick up.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

12s are less cone (even the squares) than a 15. Have a lower xmax so less travel. More often than not, a 12 plays metal with quick double bass more cleanly than larger cone subs. Every time I hear 15s or 18s play it, its always muddy. Is this always the case? no. Is it more often than not the case? yes
The cone itself wasn't the inertia I was speaking of. It's the surround. The round surround is, just like you said, sturdier than the surround of a square cone. This offsets quite a bit of the inertia difference in the cones. Before you go on about saying how the square surround is inferior, the motor should be adequate to control the cone and not tear the surround up. That and people shouldn't play so far below their tuning that the box unloads the sub.

12's have less cone area than 15's, so what? I guess by your theory, a 12" round cone has better SQ than a 12" square, since it has less cone area.

12's do not inherently have less xmax than 15's. Nothing about the 3" difference in cone diameter between those two sizes requires a different motor or suspension that would affect excursion. And even if they did, how would a lower rated linear excursion equal better SQ?

If you want to talk about excursion affecting SQ, the 15's cone will need to move less than the 12's, meaning less of the coil leaving the gap and affecting BL, to achieve the same output level as the 12.

If every 15 or 18 you've ever heard sounded muddy, you haven't heard any good installs using those sizes. Your experience does not trump physics.

I never said the surround of a round cone is studier than a square cone, I really am having a difficult time following your ambiguous comments on 'surround inertia'.

 

[Haunz 10+ year member]

Takes one to know one.

I don't know you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Kicker isnt that bad.. Its just there is much better out there.

Pretty much sums up the thread...

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

12's have less cone area than 15's, so what? I guess by your theory, a 12" round cone has better SQ than a 12" square, since it has less cone area.
12's do not inherently have less xmax than 15's. Nothing about the 3" difference in cone diameter between those two sizes requires a different motor or suspension that would affect excursion. And even if they did, how would a lower rated linear excursion equal better SQ?

If you want to talk about excursion affecting SQ, the 15's cone will need to move less than the 12's, meaning less of the coil leaving the gap and affecting BL, to achieve the same output level as the 12.

If every 15 or 18 you've ever heard sounded muddy, you haven't heard any good installs using those sizes. Your experience does not trump physics.

I never said the surround of a round cone is studier than a square cone, I really am having a difficult time following your ambiguous comments on 'surround inertia'.

Side note to add to what you said;

 

There are some foreign built drivers that have progressive size changes in terms of baskets and spiders. So there are some brands that may have a certain model line, but the 8" & 10" drivers have smaller spiders (and spider landings) then their model line up counter parts in 12" & 15" etc, think Jinlida built. That can have a cone size variation in xmax due to less available suspension travel.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

12's have less cone area than 15's, so what? I guess by your theory, a 12" round cone has better SQ than a 12" square, since it has less cone area.
12's do not inherently have less xmax than 15's. Nothing about the 3" difference in cone diameter between those two sizes requires a different motor or suspension that would affect excursion. And even if they did, how would a lower rated linear excursion equal better SQ?

If you want to talk about excursion affecting SQ, the 15's cone will need to move less than the 12's, meaning less of the coil leaving the gap and affecting BL, to achieve the same output level as the 12.

If every 15 or 18 you've ever heard sounded muddy, you haven't heard any good installs using those sizes. Your experience does not trump physics.

I never said the surround of a round cone is studier than a square cone, I really am having a difficult time following your ambiguous comments on 'surround inertia'.

Never was I talking about SQ (well in an indirect way yes because anything related to the sound of it would be SQ) I'm only speaking of the timing in which the note is supposed to come in and when the subs actually produce it. Smaller subs 'keep up' with metal better. Its a fact. If you want to build a box to make an 18 do metal, it's a considerably smaller box than optimal for other types of music. Goes under the same token as how 15s and 18s get lower in recommended boxes than 8s, 10s or 12s. Longer throw, lower fs, conducive to low end, not to double kicks in the mid 40s.

I'll agree with you that the install has a great percentage to do with this, but then again every sub doesn't fit every application. My point is, if you like metal, you probably like a smaller cone sub. Why build a pair of 18s to play this type of music when they are better suited for other types of applications.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

I don't know you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Earlier you were talking like you had me all figured out:fyi:

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

Side note to add to what you said; 

There are some foreign built drivers that have progressive size changes in terms of baskets and spiders. So there are some brands that may have a certain model line, but the 8" & 10" drivers have smaller spiders (and spider landings) then their model line up counter parts in 12" & 15" etc, think Jinlida built. That can have a cone size variation in xmax due to less available suspension travel.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

The greatest factor I was thinking about to xmax is pertained to power handling. More often than not, larger cones have larger spiders, longer vcs, and more handling. This all equates to a longer throw for more displacement. This eventually slows down how fast the cone can move peak to peak making it 'slower' than smaller subs because instead of pitching on a 45' mound, you moved to 60'. You'd have to move faster just to reach the plate at the same time. If you aren't 'reaching the plate' by the time the next note hits, the cone gets forced the other way before it's actually done with the first note. This is where that muddiness comes in. Again, I'll agree that often this is caused by poor box or power, but it gets increasingly harder to do this correct in larger subs for bands that the drummer has double-tap pedals and is putting out 20-25 beats in a second.

 

[Bosstradamus 10+ year member]

I think the reason people think kicker is bad is because they are sold in almost every car audio and electronic stores,therefore a lot of people that don't know how to properly install them have access to them. The internet/forum companies generally sell to people with more knowledge about car audio. I know there are people that have a lot of knowledge about car audio that use kickers,but i think the % of the non informed user base is greater.

 

[SPL Blazer 10+ year member]

I used to own some 10" SoloBarics, when they 1st came out in the 90's, was very happy with them at the time. Bought a 12" CVX and it was ok, not as good as a lot of other subs, but for a cheap throw away sub it's ok. Only thing I always hated about Kicker is their need for a lot more airspace than any other sub on the market. I have a pair of 10" DC Audio lvl 4's in a smaller box than the 12" CVX I had, and even one of those 10's hits better than a 12" CVX. Kicker was great years ago when nobody knew how to build custom subs to someones specs, but now they're just another big box store type sub, nothing special.