Amp for 2 xcons

[///M5 2,833]

Why can't the halfway point between sq and spl be ""SQL""? The term has been around for several decades, but there's the few of the naysayers that say it doesn't exist. Obviously it does. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being sq, 10 being spl, I want in the neighborhood of 3- 5, ""SQL"". That is the compromise.

You can call it whatever the hell you want, but it will only mean something to you and nothing to anyone else. There is no "halfway" point. One is subjective and generally thought of as accurate, the other peaky as hell. Sort of like picking a halfway point between Love and Loud...no real half. And the actual problem with the term is its misuse. 99.99999999% of people that throw out that term have absolutely no desire to be anywhere near half. They want loud as hell, but don't want it to sound like shit.

Perhaps a more specific analogy. You have flat and peaky. Where is half? Considering that you do not know where the peak is in frequency nor in amplitude good luck with that.

And here is the other problem. I've never seen anyone who asks for SQL actually have any understanding what SQ is and if they sat in an SQ car they wouldn't be impressed. The amusing part is if they actually did understand they would never ask for SQL but instead describe exactly what about the SPL setup they want to avoid or how they'd like to alter the SQ frequency response to achieve their goals. This is a compromise, easy to answer, and actually helpful to other people reading the forum where SQL is a misapplied joke and as a term it shouldn't ever be used.

[swagger_wagon468 53]

^had to know it was comin sooner or later,

[Sencheezy 689]

Why can't the halfway point between sq and spl be """SQL"""? The term has been around for several decades, but there's the few of the naysayers that say it doesn't exist. Obviously it does. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being sq, 10 being spl, I want in the neighborhood of 3- 5, """SQL""". That is the compromise.

You can call it whatever the hell you want, but it will only mean something to you and nothing to anyone else. There is no "halfway" point. One is subjective and generally thought of as accurate, the other peaky as hell. Sort of like picking a halfway point between Love and Loud...no real half. And the actual problem with the term is its misuse. 99.99999999% of people that throw out that term have absolutely no desire to be anywhere near half. They want loud as hell, but don't want it to sound like shit.

Perhaps a more specific analogy. You have flat and peaky. Where is half? Considering that you do not know where the peak is in frequency nor in amplitude good luck with that.

And here is the other problem. I've never seen anyone who asks for "SQL" actually have any understanding what SQ is and if they sat in an SQ car they wouldn't be impressed. The amusing part is if they actually did understand they would never ask for "SQL" but instead describe exactly what about the SPL setup they want to avoid or how they'd like to alter the SQ frequency response to achieve their goals. This is a compromise, easy to answer, and actually helpful to other people reading the forum where "SQL" is a misapplied joke and as a term it shouldn't ever be used.

x2

[inferno3436 0]

I personally dont see what the huge debate is about...a fine quality output sub mixed with great sq...in my personal opinion needs a 4th order. Best of both worlds. I already have the 4th order designed for 2 xcon 15s and birch ply cut per design....just waiting on my xcons

Edited January 10, 2011 by shin-akuma

[REVpuggie 23]

the whole idea is that SQ everything schould blend perfectl have a flat response and be in tune with the rest of the system , it would not play notch louder than the front speakers at the ear .thats what the debate is about .

thats why you shouldn't use the term SQ when a woofer is going the used playing louder than the rest of the system .

[jcarter1885 995]

The original question was which amp would be a better choice for 2 xcon 12's. The enclosure isn't in the picture yet. The build can't even really start till I get my 9515's sold first.

If the enclosure is not in the picture yet then picking an amplifier shouldnt be in the picture as well. You shouldnt pick an amplifier until you make an enclosure unless you design your enclosure around the amount of power you want to use.

[///M5 2,833]

The original question was which amp would be a better choice for 2 xcon 12's. The enclosure isn't in the picture yet. The build can't even really start till I get my 9515's sold first.

If the enclosure is not in the picture yet then picking an amplifier shouldnt be in the picture as well. You shouldnt pick an amplifier until you make an enclosure unless you design your enclosure around the amount of power you want to use.

Always, always, always discuss your space/enclosure/goals first. Until you know exactly what you have for space and can use you CANNOT shop for woofers.

I personally dont see what the huge debate is about...a fine quality output sub mixed with great sq...in my personal opinion needs a 4th order. Best of both worlds. I already have the 4th order designed for 2 xcon 15s and birch ply cut per design....just waiting on my xcons

As I said before, if the sub was designed and has the parameters to run it in a 4th order ported (referred to as just ported earlier) then indeed it should be used that way.