General SQ General discussion of Sound Quality related issues.

Research is almost done subwoofer/enclosure suggestions

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 18, 2005 | 09:48 PM
  #41  
Impala Builder's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 206
Post

ya but you forgot about...........

just kidding.........
Old Jan 18, 2005 | 11:06 PM
  #42  
hobbes26's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Post

Originally posted by SilverGS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Impala Builder:
The ID Max is a nice driver. I was at ID in Aug and talked with Matt in depth about that driver, and took a good look at all the components inside the driver, all top notch stuff (ie no corners cut). It's a well enginered driver, and looks pretty bad a$$ also. The only draw back is that it is deep (size wise)
A pair of 12 inch Image Dynamics IDMAX it is! Frustration resolved finally! </font>[/QUOTE]Cool, come back with a review!
Old Jan 19, 2005 | 01:18 PM
  #43  
hobbes26's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Post

Just for completeness sake,

http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...ight=transient

Increased mass, within reason, is fine. Just need stronger motor to control it. You need the balance between motor strength and mass. You can't judge a speaker by it's Mms only. Need to look at Qes, etc as well. You can't say that every low Mms sub out there is good just because it has low mass.

Good discussion here, if the server's not too busy and you can access it.

[ January 19, 2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: hobbes26 ]
Old Jan 19, 2005 | 01:36 PM
  #44  
Sassmaster's Avatar
Merry Christmass from CCA
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,579
Post

I agree, MMs isn't the only important thing, but for SQ, a low Mms, combined with a good, balanced motor, will give a better sound, with less power than a high MMS, and stiff suspension.

most home SQ drivers, and pro sound drivers have very low moving mass, but for car audio, because people want subs that handle 1000 RMS, they have to make things that much more inefficient so they can post those kinds of numbers.
Old Jan 19, 2005 | 05:46 PM
  #45  
hobbes26's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Post

Prosound is a different application though. You're primarily looking at high efficiency, and higher frequency extension on those woofers. Mms then becomes critical. You want high output with low power, since power is also at a premium.

Most SQ drivers have very very low inductance too.

High mass can be offset by a stronger motor. More mass also means lower frequency extension, which a lot of prosound drivers don't have.

For SQ, i'd look for high Xmax, flat BL curve, flat Cms curve, and low inductance.
Old Jan 19, 2005 | 10:00 PM
  #47  
hobbes26's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Post

Originally posted by Dukk:
This thread is almost as funny as reading the Adire "Tech" pages.
Thanks, I try.
Old Jan 20, 2005 | 09:53 AM
  #48  
Pitbully's Avatar
Thread Starter
0 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 43
Post

I think I will go with 2 idmax 12 IB too [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img] Thanks guys!!!

[ January 20, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Pitbully ]
Old Jan 20, 2005 | 10:38 AM
  #49  
hobbes26's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Post

They finally have one? cool. who? you?
Old Jan 20, 2005 | 11:25 AM
  #50  
Sassmaster's Avatar
Merry Christmass from CCA
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,579
Post

Rock on!! maybe local shops will finally carry stock instead of having to special order everything!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 AM.