Specs: RL-s12 & RL-s15 LMT

[SoundSplinter 1]

____________________________

RL-s 12" LMT

Price: $499 + shipping

Public Release: September 19th, 2005

Weight: Approximately 44 lbs.

Thiele-Small Parameters

• Qts - 0.970
  
• Qes - 1.114
  
• Qms - 7.459
  
• Fs - 30.972 Hz
  
• Re - 2.88 Ohm
  
• Sd - 0.0507 m^2
  
• Le - 2.542 mH
  
• Vas - 27.65 L
  
• mms - 344.2 g
  
• cms - 76.69 m/N
  
• BL - 13.15 T*m
  
• Sensitivity - 80.5 dB
  

Recommended Enclosures

Please note that these are simulated enclosure models

geared towards flat frequency response with excellent

low-frequency extension and are subject to change as

time permits for more real-world testing.

• Sealed: 2.0 - 6.0 cu ft net volume (3.0 cu ft net volume most practical)
  
• Ported: 3.1 cu ft net volume @ 21 Hz
  

____________________________

RL-s 15" LMT

Price: $579 + shipping

Public Release: September 19, 2005

Weight: Approximately 49 lbs.

Thiele-Small Parameters

• Qts - 0.953
  
• Qes - 1.144
  
• Qms - 5.712
  
• Fs - 25.513 Hz
  
• Re - 2.92 Ohm
  
• Sd - 0.0876 m^2
  
• Le - 2.445 mH
  
• Vas - 85.37 L
  
• mms - 491.4 g
  
• cms - 79.18 m/N
  
• BL - 14.18 T*m
  
• Sensitivity - 82.76 dB
  

Recommended Enclosures

Please note that these are simulated enclosure models

geared towards flat frequency response with excellent

low-frequency extension and are subject to change as

time permits for more real-world testing.

• Sealed: 4.0 - 8.0 cu ft net volume (6.0 cu ft net volume most practical)
  
• Ported: 9.0 cu ft net volume @ 16 Hz
  

____________________________

End Notes

I know many may look at these numbers and be a little unsure of how to take them. Completely understandable given that this driver is not going to perform in the manner of a traditional subwoofer. All things considered, it is easiest to implement these Supreme LMT's in moderate to large sealed enclosures. Ported enclosures are viable, however require extremely low tuning in order to maintain a +/- 3dB frequency response over an acceptable range of subbass frequencies. You might think it crazy to tune down to 16 Hz but traditional tuning frequencies will result in a massively peaked response curve, something that may be good for SPL comp's, but not for discerning ears.

Given the proper enclosure and power (900 - 1800 watts), these drivers are sure to be a magnificint addition to any home theater for true-to-life, hard-hitting, knock-you-out-of-your-seat accurate bass reproduction. While slightly less practical for the car audio environment, they would indeed be an amazing addition for your ride provided you can accomodate the power and space constraints necessary for optimal performance.

Mention SSAudio when ordering and receive FREE SHIPPING on any Supreme series driver through October 15th, 2005!*

For more general information, including pictures, videos, and reference material on the

new Linear Motor technology used in this product, please consult the following threads:

• Linear Motor Technology - A Reference
  
• First Looks: RL-s12 & RL-s15 LMT's
  
• In Motion: RL-s 15" LMT
  

*Free shipping limited to domestic orders in the lower 48

[Supa_c 1]

Question:

Why does the 12 have suck small enclosure space compared ot the 15 ?

Its weird that the reccomended ported enclosure is only.1ft^ 3 larger than the sealed 12

[SoundSplinter 1]

You do have a good point that the recommendations weren't as consistent as they should have been. The 15" had a considerably wider range of recommended sizes, but not anymore! I just expanded the upper recommended limit for the 12" from 3 cu ft to 6 cu ft. Balance to the force

You will gain about 2 dB from the 3 to 6 cu ft enclosure on the 12, and while you could use even larger volumes to achieve a slightly flatter response, the added extension would be so minimal as to make it impractical for most applications, hence why the recommendation stays on the smaller side at 3 cu ft.

The ported recommendations are kept on the small side with low-tuning in order to maintain a reasonable response curve. Any larger or tuned higher and your response becomes a mountain out of a mole hill .. As stated, these drivers are most practical in the sealed alignment. Though, I think we may also see that the plots don't always tell the full truth once more real-world results in various applications start to pour in.

Speaking of which, the demo-unit has left my hands and is on its way to mrray's place where I'm sure it will get a good workout

[mrray13 30]

Speaking of which, the demo-unit has left my hands and is on its way to mrray's place where I'm sure it will get a good workout

ummm, yep...hehe

two enclosures done....both ported...both smaller then recommended (what can i say? i like small boxes..hehe )

anyway, a sealed box is int he works, as well as a recommended sized ported one....

but correct me if i'm wrong, ur enclosure recommendations are still geared more to h/t use then? going by what you posted, that's the assumption i'm making.

anyway, expect a full review soon!!

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[cougarballa2k5 0]

Those volumes definately look highly HT oriented. Careful those specs may ward off some less knowldegable people. They may think they need 9 cubic foot @ 16hz for an in car application.

I don't see why around 4 NET wouldn't work great tuned to 30 for in car use.

I say, we need lots of testing then some solid box recommendations. I think that has always been a falling point of many manufacturer's. Box recommendations should be tried and true, for multiple applications.

[SoundSplinter 1]

The enclosure rec's are geared towards home theater use because based strictly on modelling, this is what seems to be the most practical application for this driver. Now I'm sure quite a few people will end up using these in their cars, but until we get some real-world testing done I only want to start with recommendations for the boxes that seem to be the most sure-fire. Particularly when it comes to ported boxes, as I think the sealed box recommendations are quite suitable for in-car use but this driver is not nearly as flexible in the ported alignment.

As to why I didn't suggest a 4 cu ft enclosure at 30 Hz, is because it looks to make for a +12 dB peak at tuning, something that I don't think most people would want, particularly considering that cabin gain would raise that peak even more! If one absolutely craves a ported alignment, our Premium series drivers are the ticket. If one can dig a really powerful sealed alignment, Supreme all the way

Believe me Cougar, I didn't include that note about simulated modelling and "subject to change" for no reason

I will be doing lots of my own testing as time permits over the coming weeks, and of course I'm sure the demo-ring along with the first customers will have their own data to add to the pool. I'd estimate that in about a month we will have a tighter range of recommended enclosures for various applications. Ultimately, I would like to see SoundSplinter not only as a retailer but as a knowledge-base for people new to the do-it-yourself audio arena. I do understand that there is a general lacking on the end of manufacturer's when it comes to sharing a clear and complete understanding of their products and I assure you that this is something I will work strongly to improve upon constantly as we roll along.

One step at a time...

[Nikuk 1]

alrighty, I'll have to pick up some more MDF for testing.

Looking at the specs You'd sent me, and these specs here, she is definately an HT oriented driver. But, there have been a few of those in the past that became popular in the Car Audio realm as well. Hell, the TC Custom "Uberwoofer" is an HT driver.

Looking forward to getting hands on here, maybe I'll be able to get a powerful enough home amplifier to wire this up in house as well by then.

-Nick

[noah katz 0]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but I don't get it.

Specs wise these look to be boombox drivers, not HT drivers, with their high Q and high Fs.

The low efficiency combined with averagish power handling limits output.

Starting from Qt near 1, it's impossible to even approach Qts = .7

Anyone using a modeling program would take one look at these specs and turn the computer off.

It looks like everything was sacrificed to get a high xmax.

But all that is armchair engineering; maybe they'll sound wonderful.

[SoundSplinter 1]

Hehe, I knew it was only a matter of time..

Like I've been hammering home in the various threads on here - it is important that we let go of some of the inferences that we are accustomed to when looking at this driver. Due to the new topology, it is not going to react the same way as a traditional design. But hey, I hear where you're comin' from and hope that someday you'll get a chance to listen to one of these yourself and then make up your mind

[Nikuk 1]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but I don't get it.

Specs wise these look to be boombox drivers, not HT drivers, with their high Q and high Fs.

The low efficiency combined with averagish power handling limits output.

Starting from Qt near 1, it's impossible to even approach Qts = .7

Anyone using a modeling program would take one look at these specs and turn the computer off.

It looks like everything was sacrificed to get a high xmax.

But all that is armchair engineering; maybe they'll sound wonderful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed... they do look horrible on paper.

But when You consider that the new & different things that the input voltage will be doing, then You realise a few things may not play out as well on paper anymore.

By no means do I know how to adjust for this using Your modeling program... hell, I've mostly given up on using lump-sum calculators awhile ago. That's why I'm so interested to see how the topology truly affects the performance.

<shrug>

-Nick

[noah katz 0]

Mike,

Thanks for the welcome, you're a class act.

Nick,

"when You consider that the new & different things that the input voltage will be doing"

Like what?

You can say modeling programs aren't worth much, but if anything they err on the side of overpredicting performance.

In this case they will predict a very underdamped response for any sealed box, and I think for any ported box as well.

I understand what Mike is saying about tuning low to suppress the huge bump there'd otherwise be.

But a ways abovie Fb the port is essentially plugged in an acoustic sense and the system behaves like a sealed one, which is to say in this case, underdamped.

But all that is armchair engineering; maybe they'll sound wonderful.

Although I don't see how they could be *accurate* compared to say, an XBL driver.

That's assuming that XBL keeps Q as constant as BL; I'm thinking this answers Mike's saying that other drivers' specs may be one thing on paper but something else entirely when operating.

[Impious 1,476]

Well.....for some reason SS's drivers have a tendancy to perform contrary to the T/S parameter modeling. Couldn't tell you why, not sure that I really care. Rl-p for example; model it up in a program and it'll give you something ridiculous like .55cuft w/ an F3 of 101hz for an "optimal" sealed box. Likewise, going by T/S params, it should perform pretty poorly in a sealed box. When in reality they perform pretty darn remarkably in a 1.25-1.5cuft sealed enclosure. Maybe because of wide variances in Qts and Vas between small and large signal inputs...I dunno. But what it has taught me is that some cases require actual use to determine performance rather than relying on paper numbers

My $.02

[Nikuk 1]

Have You read the white papers on the LMT deisgn? The constant (or near to) BL? so on... This will explain quite abit of my point.

[noah katz 0]

"The constant (or near to) BL? so on... This will explain quite abit of my point."

It may explain why the claim for constant T-S parameters is well founded, but it doesn't explain why a (constant) Q near 1 won't give a sloppy, underdamped response.

Could explain what you mean?

Thanks

Noah

[AUDIBLEILLUSIONS 0]

Howdy to all on this forum. I am looking to purchase a rl-s 15 very soon. For compation usage. Me and a freind head a team called Audible Illusions. I have been looking at sound splinter subs for sometime now. I love the specs the responces of all people that use them. I also like the fac that the motors are made by Tc sounds. Money and hardshops have left me out of the game for a lil time now. I posted a score of 139 this year in a singel cab ranger with a idmax 12 in a 2.3 cubic foot box tuned at 35 using a hifonics brutus 1500d in modified 301-901 class i always use a LSQ subs for comps cause i have to use my everyday vehcile for a comp car. I believe the rl-s will be the new sub of the future. I will be putting a rl-s 15 into a jeep cherokee i believe with the right box and power i will be able to achieve a 150 score it will not be easy but i believe this sub will do it for me. Id like to thank mike for his wonderful equipment he offers and all the knowlegedble people on this forum. for some the stuff i have learned reading this in the last few days.

Thanks again

Donnie

[GMo 0]

A subwoofer with a Q of 1 isn't going to give the subwoofer a

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

wow all these new members,

welcome everyone!!

[60ndown 0]

A subwoofer with a Q of 1 isn't going to give the subwoofer a

[loudnobnoxious 0]

But all that is armchair engineering; maybe they'll sound wonderful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does. Trust me, i've got $1,500 tied up in three initial prototypes. The sound is profound.

I'm guessing that they didn't take the measurements at 2.83V and at a true 1W, this is good to see if my assumptions are correct.

[NDMstang65 403]

A subwoofer with a Q of 1 isn't going to give the subwoofer a

[NNN 0]

A subwoofer with a Q of 1 isn't going to give the subwoofer a

[80INCHES 0]

this is a very knowledgable thread

i should jump in this and tell u guys what i think about the

rl-s paramteres.u know what..heres how i feel....the high q is good and all..but i thought the higher the q the smaller the box...i wasnt expecting the rl-s to need a huge box..for that matter..it should have q of .3 and lower....the low efficiency i'm not worried about..i will have the power to move it anyway...but what interesting to me is the fact that the fs is not as low as i thought....the rl-s need a ported box tuned between 14-20hz...i thought that was interesting becuase the fs on both drivers are not that low....

but hey what do i know...i'm going to try these subs in a 6th order bandpass..so sq i think might be out the window..but from modeling 2 rl-s 12's its output is comparable to 3 mojo15's!..i dont now how true that is just by looking at graphs(using bbp6) but if its even remotely accurate...that would be great

80

[GMo 0]

Answer to your problem - Drop the Q, Raise the BL, Efficiency goes up...and Mms stays the same...and the entire time the Fs should be within 2-3Hz of the original....now on withmy reply..

What about transient response?

With a high Q you WILL NOT have a bl higher then say eh ~15tm IF that....

Now...how are you gonna retain any sort of accuracy if you do not have the motorstrength to do so? Not to mention the rediculously large enclosures that you have to use to get anywhere near a flat response...

High Q = Very little BL = Poor efficiency = loss of output with a given amount of power...so you must make up for loss of Bl with power to make up for that missing output...more power = more heat...heat results in broken/melted coils....

Easy on paper, but doesn

[NDMstang65 403]

Answer to your problem - Drop the Q, Raise the BL, Efficiency goes up...and Mms stays the same...and the entire time the Fs should be within 2-3Hz of the original....now on withmy reply..

What about transient response?

With a high Q you WILL NOT have a bl higher then say eh ~15tm IF that....

Now...how are you gonna retain any sort of accuracy if you do not have the motorstrength to do so? Not to mention the rediculously large enclosures that you have to use to get anywhere near a flat response...

High Q = Very little BL = Poor efficiency = loss of output with a given amount of power...so you must make up for loss of Bl with power to make up for that missing output...more power = more heat...heat results in broken/melted coils....

Easy on paper, but doesn

[HawaiianBassHead 0]

I'm sure Steve could respond with his thoughts on the topology. what do you think about peaking it hard smallish ported higher tuned box. someone like me who runs MT's daily with 8k on tap shouldn't have any kinda low BL problems... I think smaller peaky boxes would work wonders for the idiots around here to sit in my car lol. I havn't seen you post on the Team site lately, whats up? Anyone even considering buying these wants output. so they should have power imo.

IIRC, Steve told me not to put more than 1500 into a 3hp 3" coil, LMT or not. But then again John doesn't recommend I run the MM4000.1's @ 1ohm bridged daily either lol.