77 replies to this topic

[RMA]

Here is an interesting thing that was in this months edition of Car Audio & Electronics

It lists the 10 (11 actually) best subs on the US market.

What are peoples thoughts?

The list is

Critical Mass UL12 91 points

Alpine SWX1242D 88

CV Stoker Pro 15 86

PG RSD12 86

Earthquake Sub Zero 12 82

Ztant X2.1044 81

RF P212S4 79

JL 10W6V2 65

RF T210D4 65

ID Max 10D4V4 64

DD 3510d =64

 DD0001.JPG   192.73K   33 downloads

Edited by RMA, 17 September 2007 - 06:51 PM.

[Luke352]

Looks ok I guess, I think the PG RSD will shock a few people considering the 10" sells for $250 and the 12" $280. I've seen a few reviews were they just rave about them and consider them to better subs 3x there price. Only downside is they do require a largish box most people go with about 1.8cuft for the 12".

[philz]

hmmm I'm pretty sure i saw this on the CA forums a while ago, looks like I'll be swapping my Oz matrix for an RF P2.

edit: you say it was "this months" CAE mag, but this information was released last year?

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.p...ighlight=p212s4

Edited by philz, 17 September 2007 - 07:04 PM.

[ar3nbe]

How do they review there subs ? It looks like to me that there seems to be points given to being able to play low with subs like the IDMAX, DD, Alpine etc. There dosnt seem to be many subs that seem to play accurate, example the Focals, DLS', IDQ etc.

It all comes down to what people want in a sub, and what they deem as the perfect sub.

EDIT: Phill, i have this months mag and it is in there, so :S.

Edited by ar3nbe, 17 September 2007 - 07:07 PM.

[20Hurtz]

my thoughts are you should bring in critical mass

I think the weightings aren't the best way to measure the subs performance. I would rate the idmax i had much higher than the type x i had.

Also why did you try to emphasize the place of the dd with the = sign? Don't see any of the stuff you bring in on the list.

Edited by 20Hurtz, 17 September 2007 - 07:12 PM.

[RMA]

No I don't want Critical Mass, I am quite happy with the brands I currently represent.

Just thought it was interesting food for thought in respect to SQ subs not SPL.

[~thematt~]

Its entirely subjective, and is based purely around situational acceptance.

Was each sub powered sufficiently? Gain set to within 0.5dB?? (as louder tends to sound 'better' for back to back)
Was each sub in a box of same Qtc? (Subs in lower Dampening alignments will sound quicker, and hence more enjoyable to people who like transient response).
Were they all ported, or sealed? (as Im sure bottom end was a big factor)

They are comparing subs of various sizes together too......

What a crock. They did the Klippel tess, but havent showed the results..... Its not exactly kosher IMO.

Edited by ~thematt~, 17 September 2007 - 07:26 PM.

[~thematt~]

A quote I thought was quite interesting from that other linked site

Quote

I saw the Bl curve and it’s respectable but not "linear" per say up to 36mm, it a typical 70% Bl around that number, not bad at all, but does that little 7” suspension even permit that kind of excursion? My doubts are in full effect. I have never seen an 8” spider pull past 3” p2p even with large roles with a very linear compliance past that point. Smaller 7” with give you great alignment, but there is no way it will hit 4”p2p without something breaking unless I’m missing something?

Dual gap design helps Bl linearity, but that high Q and a Vas of 50l tells me its very under motored even for neo and this driver will not work well in a ported box and my intuition is that 1.2 cubic feet sealed is far too small

The typical Enhanced Q alignment reveals 1.5 cubic feet and the Butterworth (deeper bass) yields a box size that is 29.7 cubic feet and I could not even get the Bessel to work. (these are all sealed boxes btw) There is no right or wrong box, but forget about deep bass with this driver in a small sealed box because its undermotored, low Bl and high Q. A compromise for the linear Bl if you will.

I used my pieced together T/S parameters below, they may be wrong, but are probably pretty close to the real deal because the Vas, Q and Fs and DCR are listed, we can reverse calculate the Bl product at a whopping 11 Tm. This is about on spec for a linear(esq.) motor such as this dual gap design.

Sensitivity: 96.7 db (2.83V / 1m) (coils in parallel) is actually ~10.6 watts.

Real SPL is closer to 84 dB.. Right on par with most modest 12" size subs and bested by a lot of high end drivers: Again $2000!?

Lastly, a 3" 4-layer underhung coil is not going to come anywhere close to 2500 watts true RMS. 500-600 true sustained RMS is probably closer, but I need to know the winding height first, but under hung wont be very high. Most high thermal overhung 3” coils should outgun it for power handling.


My best guess for piecing back together the T/S based on that info up there are this:

Sd 0.049 m^2 (close guess)
Bl 11Tm (reverse calculated based on Q and vas and the DCR)
Cms 139 (quoted)
Vas 47 (reverse calculated based on vas and Sd)
Mms 182 (reverse calculated based on vas and fs)
Fs 31 (quoted)
Qms 10 (total guess, this doest matter too much)
Qts (0.88) (reverse calculated based on Qms guess and Qts)
Qes(0.81) (quoted)
Revc (3 ohms) (quoted)

SPL @ 1 watt 84.1dB

This is not terribly impressive for this price ladies and gents. Granted the guy who reviewed it liked it, I’m sure the sticker price swayed some of that review as it always tends to do, but I’m sure that dual gap with the more than average linear Bl made it sound good above all those non-linear designs he tested it against. Many of those drivers should never have been compared to one another. This is a good example of why linear Bl is very important and we also strive for that, but beyond that, I’m clueless why its 2k.

Now time for the credit:
They used a Klippel analyzer, That is very a very respectable way to measure the driver…

Now time for my gripe:

WHERE IS THE KLIPPEL REPORT!??

It says everything It needs to

[RMA]

DD Phil, on Sep 17 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

Better luck next year Phil.......

Phil

We did not have a sub up to be judged when that review / test was done.

But Hertz Mille did win at the CES in 2007, oh and we did win the EISA Sub of the year this year.

But I am sure you have a "Spin Doctor" answer for everything except where the stock is.

Edited by RMA, 17 September 2007 - 07:43 PM.

[Brycestro]

DD Phil, on Sep 17 2007, 07:18 PM, said:

Exactly, impressive for DD to dominate SPL (loudest in the world for years running, plus first ever over 180dB (with just one sub I might add!!) )and still managing to rank in the top 10 "SQ subs" as titled!

No wonder I love DD.

Phil

*snore*

[FreQuence]

Having been a reader of that magazine for about 6 years, I believe those scores aren't all based on the same criteria. For instance the PG sub scored well becuase of its performance vs price.

Also, that list is at least 12 months old. Since then other woofers like these have been reviewed and scored -


RE XXX 12 07 Version - 91 (April 2007)
Seas Lotus SW300 - 75 (Sept. 2006)
Stereo Integrity Mag 12 - 73 (Nov. 2006)
Critical Mass SS102 - 68 (Feb. 2007)


They can only review what is sent to them. And I highly doubt that list is the be all and end all of subwoofer's.

[RMA]

TARANTULA, on Sep 17 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

Having been a reader of that magazine for about 6 years, I believe those scores aren't all based on the same criteria. For instance the PG sub scored well becuase of its performance vs price.

Also, that list is at least 12 months old. Since then other woofers like these have been reviewed and scored -
RE XXX 12 07 Version - 91 (April 2007)
Seas Lotus SW300 - 75 (Sept. 2006)
Stereo Integrity Mag 12 - 73 (Nov. 2006)
Critical Mass SS102 - 68 (Feb. 2007)

They can only review what is sent to them. And I highly doubt that list is the be all and end all of subwoofer's.

It was for discussion not an attack that the post was made.

I was simply interested to see what people thought of the list.

DDPhil leave the politics to Canberra and discuss the issue instead of turning it in to a sales spiel.

If the discussion was on SPL subs I am sure DD would have featured right at the top, and if that was the subject I would have posted it in the SPL Discussion forum.

[Pulse-R]

I guess everyone is entitled to make their own list.

[Luke352]

Another subjective review with 3 of the subs in that list plus a few others, it doesnt take into consideration price in the final scores either.
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5698

[fuddbutter]

philz, on Sep 17 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

hmmm I'm pretty sure i saw this on the CA forums a while ago, looks like I'll be swapping my Oz matrix for an RF P2.

edit: you say it was "this months" CAE mag, but this information was released last year?

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.p...ighlight=p212s4

why would you change subs? the OZ wasnt reviewed at all and there is no comparison on there to the P2..