Pictures of my Explorer ..All kicker....

[gerront 0]

So what your saying is....because its just built "stronger" it wont play louder? 8 comps / 2500 watts vs 8 cvrs / 5000 watts? Hmmm i really wouldnt want to waste all that money and not see a difference....

[Duran 387]

So what your saying is....because its just built "stronger" it wont play louder? 8 comps / 2500 watts vs 8 cvrs / 5000 watts? Hmmm i really wouldnt want to waste all that money and not see a difference....

How did you come up with that? That is absurd!

[gerront 0]

Whats absurd? It sounds like what your saying is that its not gonna be a large difference i thought....o well nevermind...

[Duran 387]

Whats absurd? It sounds like what your saying is that its not gonna be a large difference i thought....o well nevermind...

I was talking to KU. I think the CVR's and another ZX2500.1 would be quite the upgrade.

[gerront 0]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...Gotcha!!!! Have fun guys...

[KU40 173]

if its doing a 146.6 at the headrest now and i upgrade from a 150watt rms speaker to a 400 watt rms speaker

The RMS alone has no bearing on how loud a sub will be.

Hypothetically, if you have a 150 watt RMS speaker which was 91 db efficient and put 150 watts on it and a 300 watt RMS speaker that was 87 db efficient and put 300 watts on it, which would be louder?

Comp's are 89 dB efficient and 20 mm of xmax, and CompVR's are 86 dB efficient and 26 mm of xmax. They are built to be a better woofer, that is enclosure and install dependent, but theoretically a better woofer.

xmax is just like the RMS number. It has little bearing on how loud a sub will be. Look at PA woofers. They have maybe 4 mm of xmax. Yeah they can't normally dig as low, but in the 45-80 hz range they're crazy loud. They also typically have efficiencies of 95+ db.

I wasn't trying to say that his new setup wouldn't be louder. I'm just saying be careful about thinking every sub with a higher RMS rating (or xmax) will be louder than what you have. Typically larger subs (in terms of motor size for power handling) are less efficient. I don't know about these two subs, I haven't looked them up. I'm just saying in general.

But you also hinted to it. You said Comps (150 RMS) are 89 db efficient and the comp vr's are 86 db efficient. That means you'll likely have to dump twice as much power into it to make them just as loud as the comps. Efficiency isn't the ONLY number to look at, either, but it will give you a better idea than xmax or RMS ratings ever will (provided the numbers are measured in the same way).

[gerront 0]

Ahhhhh...im understanding......gotcha

[Duran 387]

if its doing a 146.6 at the headrest now and i upgrade from a 150watt rms speaker to a 400 watt rms speaker

The RMS alone has no bearing on how loud a sub will be.

Hypothetically, if you have a 150 watt RMS speaker which was 91 db efficient and put 150 watts on it and a 300 watt RMS speaker that was 87 db efficient and put 300 watts on it, which would be louder?

Comp's are 89 dB efficient and 20 mm of xmax, and CompVR's are 86 dB efficient and 26 mm of xmax. They are built to be a better woofer, that is enclosure and install dependent, but theoretically a better woofer.

xmax is just like the RMS number. It has little bearing on how loud a sub will be. Look at PA woofers. They have maybe 4 mm of xmax. Yeah they can't normally dig as low, but in the 45-80 hz range they're crazy loud. They also typically have efficiencies of 95+ db.

I wasn't trying to say that his new setup wouldn't be louder. I'm just saying be careful about thinking every sub with a higher RMS rating (or xmax) will be louder than what you have. Typically larger subs (in terms of motor size for power handling) are less efficient. I don't know about these two subs, I haven't looked them up. I'm just saying in general.

But you also hinted to it. You said Comps (150 RMS) are 89 db efficient and the comp vr's are 86 db efficient. That means you'll likely have to dump twice as much power into it to make them just as loud as the comps. Efficiency isn't the ONLY number to look at, either, but it will give you a better idea than xmax or RMS ratings ever will (provided the numbers are measured in the same way).

Yes, you should never base "loudness" on xmax or efficiency. I was simply saying that under there circumstances a swap in subs and doubling the power would be a good deal louder, I cannot say how much louder though, you will have to ask the meter

[F-150 Murphy 0]

LOL WHAT?

[KU40 173]

LOL WHAT?

Explain

[nick_19 1]

LOL WHAT?

What lol?

[danieln_88 0]

usually either doubling your cone area or doubling your power gains about 1.5 to 2 db

[gerront 0]

ive heard that before...but ive seen numbers to prove it wrong on more than one occasion....

[KU40 173]

usually either doubling your cone area or doubling your power gains about 1.5 to 2 db

Actually either of those are theoretically supposed to gain 3 db. Do them both and you get 6 db. But......that's theoretical. Real world almost never works that way.

[F-150 Murphy 0]

that explorer is nasty

[justin smith 0]

i think that it would get alot louder to the ear for sure but you have to ask your self if you want to spend that kind of money on electrical ,amp amd subs for imo that is a pretty sweet daily driver .carpet it and ride out for a few weeks and think about it again

[gerront 0]

Well its actually not my daily driver,..its my SPL play toy.....all its got is a nice panasonic 5 v pre-out cd-player, some pioneer 3 ways in the front and back, a bunch of 0 gauge, 2 big batteries and a 200 amp alternator. My 4runner is my daily driver.....but i think im gonna look into doing another amp and 8 cvr 12's....or i could build a new box for 8 15's and use the reg comps with just one amp? hmmmm