What makes Kicker so bad?

[akheathen Premium Member]

The new L7, compvx, and solox are die cast.. I'll give you that.. IIRC the older L7s were not, and none of kicker's other subs are either to the best of my knowledge...

.................. i didn't know they stamped aluminum baskets.... looks cast to me. comp line- yes, l-series, none that i have owned. maybe between 2008-present, which i have not owned.

and, i would like to say, the same rule goes for kicker, as other subs. you go by the rms wattage ratings, not max. there is amps that put out little as 10% more max, than rms, and subs that are rated 4x+ rms for max. with kicker- they have not had the most abuse-able vc's. the old ones- if you smell it- turn it down and let it cool. the new ones, watch out for bottoming out. kicker is, their own kind of sub, period. cannot really compare to others, since inherent characteristics are proprietary to those subs. as for the cone structure- they almost had it real solid the first time on the l7, just had a glue issue, from what i hear, and the new ones were not an improvements, but a way to cheap out and spend less by making it one piece. imho, they are worse for rigidity.

oh, and i saw someone talking about x-max (x-mech, really) and it was real decent for the time in the beginning, but have not improved to keep up with the time. now all it is is cone area, which i have seen 10's and 12's with as much as 3" x-mech, and i'm sure that would murder an l7 for total cone effect (total VD...... vd is not just for sluts anymore) i've been thinking up a pet project to bring the l7's up to date, and increase the x-mech to the limitations of the surround

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

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.

This post highlights the fundamental flaw in your logic. Lets break it down. To reproduce a 40hz note, the cone moves back and forth 40 times in one second. You talk about larger subs and longer excursion 'slowing down' how long it takes to make one cycle. Both the longer excursion sub, and the shorter one, are oscillating 40 times per second. The longer excursion sub is actually having to move its cone faster to achieve that 40 cycles per second.

If your theory was true and the longer excursion sub took more time to reproduce each cycle, it would no longer be moving 40 cycles per second, and thus would be playing a lower note, not getting 'muddy'. Since we know distortion is not a lowering of frequency, your idea that the long excursion sub being slower cant possibly be true.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

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.

Box alignment and internal volume will play just as big, if not a larger role in over all system frequency response than will simple cone area adjusted differences in fs from a 12 to a 15. And even just discussing the raw driver's role, its inductance and BL curve will play a much larger role in upper freq response and ability to control cone motion at extreme excursion levels than will cone diameter. Lastly, there are plenty of 10's with lower fs specs than many 15's, cone area does not even dictate a speaker's fs, which is a major factor in the speaker's low frequency response potential.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

.................. i didn't know they stamped aluminum baskets.... looks cast to me. comp line- yes, l-series, none that i have owned. maybe between 2008-present, which i have not owned.
and, i would like to say, the same rule goes for kicker, as other subs. you go by the rms wattage ratings, not max. there is amps that put out little as 10% more max, than rms, and subs that are rated 4x+ rms for max. with kicker- they have not had the most abuse-able vc's. the old ones- if you smell it- turn it down and let it cool. the new ones, watch out for bottoming out. kicker is, their own kind of sub, period. cannot really compare to others, since inherent characteristics are proprietary to those subs. as for the cone structure- they almost had it real solid the first time on the l7, just had a glue issue, from what i hear, and the new ones were not an improvements, but a way to cheap out and spend less by making it one piece. imho, they are worse for rigidity.

oh, and i saw someone talking about x-max (x-mech, really) and it was real decent for the time in the beginning, but have not improved to keep up with the time. now all it is is cone area, which i have seen 10's and 12's with as much as 3" x-mech, and i'm sure that would murder an l7 for total cone effect (total VD...... vd is not just for sluts anymore) i've been thinking up a pet project to bring the l7's up to date, and increase the x-mech to the limitations of the surround

For the record I did not say kicker square cones warp, I said they had to add mass in the form of stiffening cones to keep them from doing so.

Im not sure what your interjection of xmech into the discussion means. xmech is merely how far the cone can physically move before the suspension or coil bottoms out. xmax describes one-way 'linear' response, as measure by a drop in BL or excursion at 10% THD as measure by a Klippel. Either way, when discussing distortion levels we would want to listen to, xmech can be ignored. xmech is more important in SPL competition situations than it is in a musically based system.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

This post highlights the fundamental flaw in your logic. Lets break it down. To reproduce a 40hz note, the cone moves back and forth 40 times in one second. You talk about larger subs and longer excursion 'slowing down' how long it takes to make one cycle. Both the longer excursion sub, and the shorter one, are oscillating 40 times per second. The longer excursion sub is actually having to move its cone faster to achieve that 40 cycles per second.
If your theory was true and the longer excursion sub took more time to reproduce each cycle, it would no longer be moving 40 cycles per second, and thus would be playing a lower note, not getting 'muddy'. Since we know distortion is not a lowering of frequency, your idea that the long excursion sub being slower cant possibly be true.

I just said the same thing. In order to make the same note, a longer excursion sub would have to move faster. There is a limit to this making them incapable of reproducing notes up to a certain speed. Should have worded the first part of that post differently. The reason for the 'muddy' sound isn't the subs inability to produce a 40hz note, but the ability to play a 40hz note, come to rest, and do it again in very rapid bursts. Big cones move more air even when approaching rest, creating noise between the notes making the 'muddy' sound. Smaller cones in most instances displace less and therefore the note 'cuts off' more cleanly, providing an actual audible gap between notes. This is only in extreme circumstances, but when you have drummers putting up new notes within thousandths of a second of each other, that's an extreme circumstance. I have no doubt that larger cone applications can play 95% of music crisply and with just as much if not more SQ (larger cones are normally more sensitive, nonetheless), I just think smaller cones have it easier when trying to produce a very small portion of music that is metal.

 

[akheathen Premium Member]

and, i have always found the oposite. l7's are not really that good for metal, because they do good on the lows, but are a little sluggish in the right box, and get muddy up top for the doubble hits, or what i like to say the "punch" large, higher fs, or higher bl and c parameters, meaning, it punches out hard, and returns with the quickness to make that sharp, crisp, wave.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

and, i have always found the oposite. l7's are not really that good for metal, because they do good on the lows, but are a little sluggish in the right box, and get muddy up top for the doubble hits, or what i like to say the "punch" large, higher fs, or higher bl and c parameters, meaning, it punches out hard, and returns with the quickness to make that sharp, crisp, wave.

L7s were a lot more muddy than my Xs. I'll agree with that. Think the L7s just don't have as much control over their soft parts as the Xs

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I just said the same thing. In order to make the same note, a longer excursion sub would have to move faster. There is a limit to this making them incapable of reproducing notes up to a certain speed. Should have worded the first part of that post differently. The reason for the 'muddy' sound isn't the subs inability to produce a 40hz note, but the ability to play a 40hz note, come to rest, and do it again in very rapid bursts. Big cones move more air even when approaching rest, creating noise between the notes making the 'muddy' sound. Smaller cones in most instances displace less and therefore the note 'cuts off' more cleanly, providing an actual audible gap between notes. This is only in extreme circumstances, but when you have drummers putting up new notes within thousandths of a second of each other, that's an extreme circumstance. I have no doubt that larger cone applications can play 95% of music crisply and with just as much if not more SQ (larger cones are normally more sensitive, nonetheless), I just think smaller cones have it easier when trying to produce a very small portion of music that is metal.

You are still missing something basic here. The smaller coned 12 will have to have higher excursion to reach the same output level of the 15, due to the cone area difference. So if your stopping/starting between notes idea was correct, the 12 would actually have to move 'faster' than the lower excurting 15 to 'keep up'. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Your idea that smaller subs are 'faster' is a very common misconception. But once you start applying some basic physics to it, there really is no basis for it.

 

[Haunz 10+ year member]

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

I do.. kicker nutt hugger that thinks he knows more then he really does..

Pretty much sums it up... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Haunz 10+ year member]

Your idea that smaller subs are 'faster' is a very common misconception.

But they are still 'tighter' though, right?

LULz...

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

You are still missing something basic here. The smaller coned 12 will have to have higher excursion to reach the same output level of the 15, due to the cone area difference. So if your stopping/starting between notes idea was correct, the 12 would actually have to move 'faster' than the lower excurting 15 to 'keep up'. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
Your idea that smaller subs are 'faster' is a very common misconception. But once you start applying some basic physics to it, there really is no basis for it.

I never once said a smaller sub would move faster AND have equal or more output. There is no replacement for displacement.

I've seen you say physics in just about every post, yet no numbers. Not saying you don't know your stuff about the mechanics of audio drivers, but if you're going to teach me something about how a sub actually works, actually teach me so I can go forward with some knowledge; and not just repeat what you've said in the future.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

I do.. kicker nutt hugger that thinks he knows more then he really does..







Pretty much sums it up... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Well in about 2sec I can amass from your avatar that you are an immature instigator so I really carry no weight to your opinions. And I know it's your favorite smiley and all, but the FYI smiley hasn't even applied the majority of times I've seen you use it.

 

[akheathen Premium Member]

But they are still 'tighter' though, right?
LULz...

yah, i saw some 1", i.5", 2", 2.5", and 3" tb subs on youtube. how tight you want? i'm not sure there is something that would tighten up on your 4/0, though,,,,sorry

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I never once said a smaller sub would move faster AND have equal or more output. There is no replacement for displacement.
I've seen you say physics in just about every post, yet no numbers. Not saying you don't know your stuff about the mechanics of audio drivers, but if you're going to teach me something about how a sub actually works, actually teach me so I can go forward with some knowledge; and not just repeat what you've said in the future.

I didnt say you said it would move faster and have equal output, I said you were leaving the equal output factor out of the equation. You mentioned the 12 being able to keep up with rapid bass tracks easier, because its smaller. It has to move faster (and thus more inertia) than a 15, because it will require more excursion to maintain equal output.

What numbers do you want? lol

 

[oldschoolboomer 10+ year member]

Kicker is good quality stuff. I've had the cvx's and they sounded great and got plenty loud. Use the largest recommended ported boxnd you will not be disappointed. I've also had the cvt's and was impressed with them for what they are. I have some ss and ks comps and they sound great.