I've just been doing some very thourough searching through our forums, and one thing that is extremely obvious from reading peoples recommendations is that nine times out of 10 their opinions are based purely on what the member has read on the forums, what there mate told them, or just completely unfounded in general.

I'm proposing we should put together the biggest SQ Review yet. I'm suggesting 20 x 12" subwoofers under $800.00 (most common budget for a 12" subwoofer) from various brands.

Now the question I put to you guys is how is the best possible way to conduct this when every subwoofer has a different suggested enclosure, as well as obviously different power handling capabilities and configurations etc.

Is is acceptable to use one enclosure only that is a general volume for all subs being tested? What about power handling differences of woofers? What should be "measured" and what should be audibly "judged"? etc.

I'm just throwing this out there, and if we can come up with a suitable compromise to achieve satisfactory, repeatable results then I am prepared to source 20 woofers from suggested brands and have a crack at this, and involve some CAA members to assist in it.

organise the 20 sub's, then get a general census of what size enclosures are reccomended and build 3 different type's

test all subs in the 3 different types
scoring each enclosure

maybe have 3 different Sealed and a few ported just to see how they go in that...

and now to make a shortlist of subs

Adire audio Brahmah (??)
A/D/S R series ?
Alpine type R
Boston Pro 12.5
Dimond Audio ??
Focal ??
ID v3, IDMAX(??) IDQ
JL 12w3v2
PG ??
Rainbow ???
Soundstreem ???



sofar..... dont know all models cuse i dont know all price's

Just a thought....How about throwing in some cheaper models for comparison?

For example, the JL 12W3v2 and the 12W0, DD 3512 and the 2512 and so on. I know it would make judging more difficult as price would inevitably come into the equation, but as a lot of members are on a budget, it would be good to have a comparison so people can decide whether it's worth spending the extra money for the higher end models.

It might make it a bit easier to organise too, as sourcing 20 subs from 20 different manufacturers could be a bit difficult.

How about, going by the manufactures box recommendations but running each sub at the same level.

Maybe this can be done using the driver's sensitivity rating and working out mathematically how much power each sub would need to play at the same level.
Or even play pink noise through each sub and setting that to a certain volume for adequate judging.

I'll be looking forward to this review anyway, good luck on it comming together!

You should contact the sub's distributor and inform them of the test parameters (vehicle, power etc) and let them supply their recommended enclosure. You should run two tests, 1. SQ tune, 2. Boomer tune

It's not fair to run all the woofers in the same box.

Phil

I've got a DD2012 I can donate to the cause provided someone pays return shipping etc.

I would propse each sub is tested in manufactures recomended enclosure, testers recomended enclosure and generic sealed enclosure.

Why not do two tests if you're going to all the effort. It was a suggestion!

Phil

Thanks for the offer of donating your sub, but that won't be necessary. We won't have much trouble rounding up 20 subwoofers.

Oh and don't worry Bobby_Digital, I intend on putting a DD or 2 into the equation to prove or disprove some people's percpetions.

i would think that building a recomended enclosure for each woofer, whether it be sealed or ported (or both) , would be an exspensive task?

y not use a generic box for all woofers...
i do realise that this may not be fair to some of the woofers and would probably be biast to others....but i would think that there could be some compromise between box design...to generally suit all of the woofers. just my 2 cents.

I think this comparison would be an excellent idea and would help a LOT of CAA members in determining which woofer they should choose in their given application....

Recomended box volumes supplied by the manufactturer are the fairest way to go for all subs...let the importer/distributor supply their recommended box for the sub...or maybe 2 boxes per sub...one sealed and one ported...

I mean seriously if you are considering buying a subwoofer valued at up to $800 or so and you can't be bothered building the right enclosure for it...why did you buy it in the first place???....wank factor?

Yeh recomended box volume by each company is the only fair way to do this.
maybe as phil said let the distributers decide on the box?
they should kno the product well enough.

x2

(Very well said BTW)

X3

And as far as the amp to power them, I think 500watts would be a good amount of power for a sub in a SQ application.

Bye,
Mo

I would say 1kw, you can never have too much headroom.

I think it was Gary Bigs that did a few reviews using 2 Kicker KX1200.1s strapped for Car Audio and Electronics Review.

I have seen one reviewer uses 5kw from a Crown Macro Tech for all of his woofer reviews, they are allways done in his "Torch Red" Corvette, can't remember the reviewers name tho.

do some modeling on leap

then choose an alignment that fits the subs

you will end up with ported and sealed variations and if they are in the grey region where they can be placed in either sealed or ported try both

what you want to achieve is the same alignment for each sub in sealed and another alignement that matches the ported boxes.

the problem can arrise that the t/s specs are inaccurate which would make it an unfair test.

basically try and eliminate all the different factors that you can humanly do.

at least with sealed boxes you can add and remove internal bricks to change volume so you only require the biggest box to be made.

just a suggestion,

If you're gonna do a fairly large block of products in one hit that can only get dated, you won't really recieve the rewards of your labour in the long term.

I think its a great idea to take some of the subjectivity out of speaker reviews, but why not release one review a week, based on the most popular sub (either through voting or just observation). This might also add some credibility to the review section of the website, aswell as creating a long term appeal for a great idea.

Just a suggestion, from Mike.

Unfortunetly that is more likely to make the review less credible as reviewing one sub per week provides no ability to to back to back or blind testing. Which is realy the only way to fairly rank sub in SQ terms.

I think 300wrms is even enough.

Remember, this is an SQ application, huge power is not exactly needed!

And going with a recomended box by manufacturer would be the fairest way to go, or even if the manufacturer gives their own box, much better!

I definitely agree with asking manufacturers to suggest the optimal sealed/ported enclosures for their subs. You could model the things yourself, but that would be a waste of time since the manufacturers already have the product knowledge and it is in their interests to suggest the best possible sub enclosure. Within reason of course, perhaps stipulate a maximum enclosure size(3cu ft?) since any more than that is ridiculously impractical.

Problem is, with 20 woofers, thats 40 enclosures altogether. Ouch!

Nonetheless, i am SERIOUSLY looking forward to such a review if i ever came out

I cant believe no-one has taken this personally yet. hahahaa

anyway back on topic

so the general idea seems to be 20 subs wiht 20 manufacturer designed enclosures. To save time we should probably make the manufactureres supply the boxes, or tell them of the other 3 box options we have (say 1.3cu ft sealed, 1.6 cu. ft ported, and 2 cu. ft sealed?) and see if they want them, cause otherwise its just too messy...

if we wanted to test each one in the same box, then perhaps an ABC enclosure, just becasue almost no manufacturer will be able to tell you how their gear would go in one of them...

as for what should be tested, freq. response is a must, because that is one of the few aspects of a test like this which can actually be written down on paper.

other than that i spose all there is to do is run them all with teh caasq checklist. and even that i dont think woudl go into enough detail for such a test..

Play them with the same amp with the same settings, with the same hu with the same settings, with the same splits with teh same settings. however when you start talking about the same amp for each sub its gets difficult. you have to worry about the impedance on the amp wiht the various DVC's etc.. just a thoought

plus it brings up all the questions that were brought up with that amp testing that was going to be done for a magazine by marc some time ago, even though it is slightly less relevant in this test.

furthermore, how old the sub is will be a pain in the bum.. if 2 manufacturers send you a sub each, one of them brand spankers outta the box, and one of them with 100 hours at listening levels, it wont nessescarily be a fair test... again its one of those many debatable things that usually end up stopping tests like this from taking place...

I can forsee quite a few subs frying with a serious 1000wrms....

I said 500wrms as i was thinking of the JL 500/1 amp - it would be a good amp to use for this test/review as it puts out the all most the same power @ 4, 2, 1 ohms. So, you can just set up the amp, and then just keep swaping the subs.

Then you amp becomes a constant...more or less.

Bye,
Mo

I like the BIG sealed rectangular box idea and then adding some styrofoam blocks with measured volumes to decrease the internal volume of the box. This way only 1 sealed box is needed and styrofoam is cheap. I chose styrofoam because bricks have dirt/dust everywhere and can get into the sub. Saves a couple of trees too. hahaha

This will also decrease the amount of boxes needed.

Just a thought

Styrofoam??? Just have MDF slots in routed runners to increase/decrease volume.

Well that depends on how sillly the reviewer is with the volume control.

BTW- I was thinking of the JL 1000/1

I think most people already know that what Marc said is true


Anyway, I think it is a great idea. Use distributors/manufacturers recommended box size. Use one sealed box and vary the size for each woofer.

My sub cant be tested as it is out of the price limit

Yeah also can you just add a couple that is just over the price as i always wanted to see the major differences between an IDMax, W7, Brahma - which all three is too expensive for the review

good idea to thos who mentioned the use of the JL monoblocks.. if a different monoblock were to be used, then perhaps the use of accumatchers would work? despite the fact that they cant handle that much ppower of course..

and stone: good point i never looked at it that way... haha...

The idea of moveable baffles while a smart idea would be pretty impractical for testing as the boxes need to be airtight and obviously using runners in routed slots or something similar could lead to problems maintaining an airtight seal...although not impossoble just impratical to have to do 20 times

I am sure most manufacturers and distributors would wear the cost of shipping a complete sub and enclosure or pair of enclosures, lets face it the cost of freight is pretty minor and if sent by road freight any free publicity gained through the review will more than pay for the freight costs anyway...

It's a win-win situation by the way Marc if you need a hand with the testing just sing out

:-)

me too

I am sitting back reading all your feedback and suggestions so I have a clear picture of the best way to attack this.

I intend on involving as many people (obviously in VIC) that are interested as possible (and within reason). Would be a good excercise for all of us.

I would hope for it to be credible enough also that the manufacturer who comes out on top publishes an ad along the lines of "Rated *** by Car Audio Australia" etc etc.

so victoria get to test new and exciting products and we get a rusted datsun? well thats just great...

hahahaha just kidding.... despite my criticism, 1: the dat = teh sik, and 2: i really want to see the results of this test

I had my hopes up originally, when I saw the topic.

I thought someone might have entered a car with 20 12s into a comp for SQ.

hahah thats what i was thinking too

I have three subs sitting on the warehouse floor ready for enclosures to be built, lets go... make that four, if its SQ were talking about might as well crank up the trusty old MW-190.

haha spl junkie more like it
do you think it's even possible to fit 20 12s into the back of a ute?

i think that u should test em out like this...

each sub is created to diff specs and diff size box reccomended...so i think what eva the specs are of the sub run it all full power...what eva it produces judge that according to diff 12inch subs from what they produce....having an enclosure that is the reccomended size for each sub will let people looking at these stats actualli see what they would get at havin that sub in its reccomended enclosure....

run the sub at wat it can take in its recc. enclosure

Yeah no worries!

In either in a Rodeo xtra cab or something similar to or bigger than this.

pfft anything is possible, yes ANYTHING!

looks like this is aimed at me... for my opinion of DD's in SQ applications.

i think it should be $500-$1000
(back it up with a under $500 one later?)
i'd like to see the brahma back to back with a DD, in an UNBIASED review,
it'll obviously need to be conducted by someone who isn't recieving sponsorhip/funding from any of the companies involved.

infact, if i'm free, i'll DRIVE to melbourne to audition them in the testing environment,
(assuming i have no other commitments)

my brahma is impossible to remove from my car, i hope Stone's is easily obtainable. but mine IS in the manufacturer's recommended ported enclosure which turns out to be the best enclosure i coudl fit in my car!

i recommend the PG Xenon 1200.1 as the test amp, as it puts out the same power from 4-1 ohm
(the JL1000/1 only does 1.5-4 and some woofers need a 1ohm load)
drivers really need one to show their true qualities.

i also believe an RTA should be used, to show bass linearity from 20Hz-80Hz

as for the sealed enclosure, i think it'd be best to build a 70L enclosure, and cut up a 4X2 into sections that displace 1L, adding the blocks in to reduce the volume to suit each driver.

a ported box for each driver is difficult, and alot of

We'll be going down the path of asking distributors to supply their own recommended enclosures, so as to ensure they cannot question the results on the grounds that wrong enclosures were used.

More details still being considered.

No doubt, myself, roughcactus, and Bruce (cyberpunky) will be doing the evaluations. We would like to try and involve some members when the time comes also.

me me me

can i bring the CAA prototype you know as a reference sub haha

No offence or anything but i think that the Comparason sould be done by a third party that is not Involved or that has sponsorship from one or more of the brands being tested. As i belive htis could lead to a slightly bias response as Mr Bob said. I know that Marc will be do his best efforts in being unbiased but sometimes u do it without noticing IMO.

sounds good to me!
although i agree with Steve, that you're not necessairyl int eh best position to provide an unbiased opinion, Bruce and roughcactus are though. waddabout shiny_mullet?

Are you kidding me? If I am perceived to not have enough credability to perform a test such as this (with other people), well then I just lost enthusiasm for it.

I have no sponsorship / contractual / or any other obligations to any company / brand other than Autosound CD's and CAA merchandise. Come on!

Funny though that both Bruce and roughcactus sell some of the products that will be used and have enough credability. Yet I sell none of them.

Thanks a F lot guys.

Don't Diamond chuck in a few bucks to CAASQ?

Wouldn't they therefor like to see a sub they enter fair well in a review?

Not saying that would happen - but it'd take balls for someone who's competition is sponsored by someone to say that one of their sponsors products sucked bum...

I'm affraid impartiality goes a long way to results credibility...

To rehash - I don't doubt ur credibility marc but to the general publics eye wouldn't it look sus if a diamond sub won a review or for that matter any other product you're loosly associated with by inference or any other way? - eg via the SPL mini sponsored by DD no? DD subs in the review?

It sounds interesting... I guess you'll struggle to find anyone in the industry who's completely impartial anyway.

[edit] And yes my views apply to rough cactus too (I didn't know bruce sold stuff lol)

Sorry dude but al i was referring to was the mini and it being sponsored by DD. But also tyring to find someone who hasn't got a slightly biased opionon is hard to find these days

Are you impartial Ben? Don't you have links to both a retailer and a brand on the Australian market?

Anyway. Yes I might be making more out of this than was intended. I'm just pissed off.