Type X or Type R
#11
Isnt the X twice the rms rating of the R? I dont have info to back it up, but im pretty sure the x has a higher xmax too. I have heard a direct comparison between the x and the r, but the systems were both very different so it is a bit hard to judge by the setups, but the x definitely sounded better.
Admittedly, he WAS running better equipment in general (better components, amps, even wiring).
Admittedly, he WAS running better equipment in general (better components, amps, even wiring).
Last edited by veeman; 07-22-2010 at 01:44 PM.
#12
it does, 529 cm^2 sd x 19 mm x max for the X vs. 480 cm^2 x 18.2 mm xmax for the R , so about 132 cc of extra displacement and 1000 rms vs 500 rms though both have been known to handle significantly more for long periods. I don't think there is any doubt which driver is superior overall, but to say the R is not a good sub is not true.
Personally if i could get my hands on a pair of them for real cheap i would probably already have them slammin in the car right now. hehe
#13
so really if space permits, the better deal would be two type r's instead of a single type x? same power consumption and stuff, and im sure two type r's (500wrms version) would be cheaper than one type x, correct? i have the type x and its fabuous, i want to get more out of the SQ subs and into SPL, and im seeing if a trade between two 12 type r's would benefit me any from a single type x (currently running)
#15
there's no comparison in terms of output between 2 type r's and a single x...just by the numbers it's easy to see...type x moves 1005 cc's of air at xmax, 2 type r's 1747 cc's. Assuming both in correct boxes for what you want...the X would lose that battle.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
merc
Enclosure Design & Construction Help
4
08-27-2006 07:12 PM