BTL VS ZCON VS MAYHEM

[KyleBrown 121]

 

 

SQL is an actual term. It's frowned upon because hardcore SQ guys think it's SQ or GTFO. Not true. There's actually competition format around SQL, using install, sheer loudness, blending, response ect. 

 

 

Absolutely  one driver will sound better than another. I don't give a shit how you build the box. Put a XCON against a tc sounds axis and I guarantee the axis will dig lower. The xcon will probably offer more sheer loudness of course. This whole enclosure dictates everything simply isn't true. Just because a driver is "playing" a certain freq, doesn't mean it's doing it the right way. You can tune N3's to 30 hz and play low notes all day but that doesn't mean it's going to sound good or sound right. An SP4 will most likely sound much better, maybe not as loud on the meter but definitely sound better. 

 

Most people don't know how lows should actually sound. Most people think because it's playing a low note then it's a good driver for low end extension. 

Myth Busted

 

Same enclosure, same power.  Axis clearly doesn't dig lower.  Axis shows less than 1db more peak which isn't going to be audible.

 

 

Oh, and since "you don't care about the enclosure, the Axis will dig deeper, the enclosure dictates everything is a myth"......couldn't be more wrong.  Obviously not the same enclosure, but THAT'S THE POINT, THE ENCLOSURE AFFECTS THE PERFORMANCE.

 

 

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's WinSD It knows everyyyyythingggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Based on WinSD My stock UFO's should have been .5db (at peak)more quite than the custom TC5200's I used. The UFO's were 2.1db louder @ peak freq of 44hz. 1db louder @35hz and .5db more quite @31hz. While the UFO's were louder overall, they lacked the low end extension offered by the 5200's. The frequency transition of the 5200s was much better overall but had a steep roll off around 45-47hz Even tuned low, the UFO's were still very peaky in my opinion. Plain and simple, enclosure does not dictate everything. Just because a given sub is louder at a lower frequency, doesn't mean it sounds better or plays lower. I kept my previous post simple but you guys obviously completely missed the point... 

 

WinSD is great and has its place but is far from 80% accurate in real world. Obviously each situation changes and dictates how a driver will preform. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I love how everyone is saying there's so much fail yet do nothing to inform people. That in itself is fail. 

The system response of a loudspeaker in a given enclosure has been verified by over half a century of research.  Certainly peak output is going to be affected by things such as power compression which can't be compensated for in an enclosure modeling software, but the shape of the response between predicted and real world (anechoic, not in-vehicle) is going to be consistent so long as the T/S are accurate and the proper conditions are maintained between model and measurement.  Which is a long way of saying you were wrong in your Xcon vs Axis comment, and no amount of exclamation point use or sarcasm is going to change that.  Also wrong in your comment that the "enclosure dictating everything is a myth", as there is a hell of a lot that the enclosure does dictate.  Look at the mathematical models of any system response and you'll see just how much affect the enclosure has.

 

If you would like to disprove Thiele-Small and rewrite the complete mathematical description of loudspeaker performance, then by all means go ahead and submit your paper to societies like the AES for peer review.

 

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

[Tirefryr 1,742]

 

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

 

 

Really?  The small signal params are still enough for enclosure modeling.  The change will not be "great" enough to affect enclosure design for anything other than extreme SPL use. 

 

Again, Really?  "A heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders."  Not detectable by ear, MAYBE measureable by precise measuring equipment.  Not enough to affect anything.

[azagtoth502 31]

[KyleBrown 121]

 

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

 

 

Really?  The small signal params are still enough for enclosure modeling.  The change will not be "great" enough to affect enclosure design for anything other than extreme SPL use. 

 

Again, Really?  "A heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders."  Not detectable by ear, MAYBE measureable by precise measuring equipment.  Not enough to affect anything.

 

 

We're not talking about modeling an enclosure. You're just arguing, to argue. Please tell me how a progressive spider and linear spider setup won't change performance of a particular driver... Having played with both, they do play a very audible role. 

[Tirefryr 1,742]

What you're failing to comprehend is the parameters are used for enclosure modeling and response in said enclosure.  Put the two together.  What do you get?  Is it sinking in yet?

 

If your progressive versus linear spider argument had any vailidity, you would have to have a shapeshifting enclosure to account for the change in response due to the change in parameters.

[KyleBrown 121]

What you're failing to comprehend is the parameters are used for enclosure modeling and response in said enclosure.  Put the two together.  What do you get?  Is it sinking in yet?

 

If your progressive versus linear spider argument had any vailidity, you would have to have a shapeshifting enclosure to account for the change in response due to the change in parameters.

 

Are you trying to argue with yourself? Both of you completely failed to understand what I said in my original post. No we're off in BFE on a lost mission. It's like dealing with liberals in here. WinSD won't tell you how a sub will sound. It can't. That plot graph will change once the different spiders start doing what they're supposed to do. The compliance off the surrounds etc...  So what you're failing to understand is, Just because WinSD said so, doesn't make it so. Just because these two subs can model somewhat similar doesn't mean they'll sound similar.... Is that such a hard concept to understand? 

 

 

It's amazing you think different spiders have no effect on performance lol.  

[Quentin Jarrell 671]

There is great debate on using small signal parameters for  heavy damped, high xmax subwoofers, and for obvious reasons once the differences are show.  For example my Ethos sample has a Fo of about 38 hertz and a vas of about 14 liters @ 2.83 volts.  With this small signal the cone moves less than 1 mm.  Now at 40 volts, within it's normal working range, it has a Fo of about 28 hertz and a vas of about 21 liters.  Given this info we can conclude that if we were going to build an enclosure with a particular response using small signal parameters it's not going to perform as intended in the real world under normal stroke.

 

Both Klippel and Vance Dickason recommends modeling using large signal parameters.  Every driver that Vance tests and simulates he does so using 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, and 25 volts. You can clearly see the differences in spl vs Freq and Excursion vs Freq from small to large signal shown in his graphs. 

 

Progressive spiders do play an audible roll but I highly doubt the untrained ear would be able to tell the difference. And most would say it creates a more desirable warmer sound.  Most engineers will use a spider with a slightly higher creep factor to control cone movement in ported alignments.  However most companies' drivers you see are not progressive.  Just because their spiders have smaller ridges by the former than the spider landing does not make it progressive.  I use a progressive spider that has a sharp "v" ridge towards the outside of the spider that is a "breaking mechanism" for lack of a better term at the spiders xmax (50% cms is considered 20% distortion caused by the suspension including the edge). 

[Impious 1,476]

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

If something is a myth, doesn't that mean it's not true.....which is what you said?

 

T/S change with coil position and heat due to changes in Bl, Cms and Re.  I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform substantially better in this arena....They both use overhung motors, aluminum coils and shorting rings.  But the Xcon has much higher rated Xmax, actually twice as much, which means it's Bl is more than likely going to be just as much if not more linear at any level of excursion, becoming more linear compared to the Axis as we move closer to the Xmax of the Axis and much more linear as we exceed it.  So I don't see any reason to expect the Xcon to experience more of a variance in Bl vs excursion than the Axis and a couple reasons to believe it would actually be more linear especially if we push to the 15mm+ excursion range.  In regards to Cms, with the linear suspension design of the Axis Cms might measure more linear than the Xcon's progressive but many argue (such as Vance Dickason in the LSDC) a progressive spider is better suited for loudspeakers intended to be used in a ported enclosure than linear designs.  Power compression...the Xcon has higher rated Rms power handling, again almost twice as much which would lead me to believe at any power level the Xcon is going to be experiencing less power compression and more linear Re vs Power, leading to less parameter shift vs input power. Overall, I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform significantly better than the Xcon in parameter shift vs input power and/or parameter shift vs coil position, and a couple reasons to expect the Xcon to actually perform better in this regard.  So yet again, I fail to see any logic that supports your original statement where you guaranteed the Axis to "dig lower" than the Xcon, including your new found argument about large vs small signal performance.

 

And yes, there is a variance in T/S unit-to-unit due to production differences.  But when was the last time you purchased two of the exact same units and experienced an audible difference in performance due to production variance related differences in T/S?  The point is, in any driver with reasonably good soft parts and a reasonable QC program in place, the differences are going to be inaudible. 

[KyleBrown 121]

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

If something is a myth, doesn't that mean it's not true.....which is what you said?

 

T/S change with coil position and heat due to changes in Bl, Cms and Re.  I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform substantially better in this arena....They both use overhung motors, aluminum coils and shorting rings.  But the Xcon has much higher rated Xmax, actually twice as much, which means it's Bl is more than likely going to be just as much if not more linear at any level of excursion, becoming more linear compared to the Axis as we move closer to the Xmax of the Axis and much more linear as we exceed it.  So I don't see any reason to expect the Xcon to experience more of a variance in Bl vs excursion than the Axis and a couple reasons to believe it would actually be more linear especially if we push to the 15mm+ excursion range.  In regards to Cms, with the linear suspension design of the Axis Cms might measure more linear than the Xcon's progressive but many argue (such as Vance Dickason in the LSDC) a progressive spider is better suited for loudspeakers intended to be used in a ported enclosure than linear designs.  Power compression...the Xcon has higher rated Rms power handling, again almost twice as much which would lead me to believe at any power level the Xcon is going to be experiencing less power compression and more linear Re vs Power, leading to less parameter shift vs input power. Overall, I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform significantly better than the Xcon in parameter shift vs input power and/or parameter shift vs coil position, and a couple reasons to expect the Xcon to actually perform better in this regard.  So yet again, I fail to see any logic that supports your original statement where you guaranteed the Axis to "dig lower" than the Xcon, including your new found argument about large vs small signal performance.

 

And yes, there is a variance in T/S unit-to-unit due to production differences.  But when was the last time you purchased two of the exact same units and experienced an audible difference in performance due to production variance related differences in T/S?  The point is, in any driver with reasonably good soft parts and a reasonable QC program in place, the differences are going to be inaudible. 

 

The specs you looked at are wrong. You must be looking at the specs on PE, which show the axis measured xmax by 100% method, not 70% method. 

 

Xcon 15 31mm, axis 34mm 

 

Had you looked up the proper specs, most of this could have been avoided. I never said myth. I said that enclosures don't dictate everything. 

 

http://tcsounds.com/product/drivers/axis-driver/

Edited March 10, 2013 by armykyle1

[SPL?? 34]

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

If something is a myth, doesn't that mean it's not true.....which is what you said?

 

T/S change with coil position and heat due to changes in Bl, Cms and Re.  I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform substantially better in this arena....They both use overhung motors, aluminum coils and shorting rings.  But the Xcon has much higher rated Xmax, actually twice as much, which means it's Bl is more than likely going to be just as much if not more linear at any level of excursion, becoming more linear compared to the Axis as we move closer to the Xmax of the Axis and much more linear as we exceed it.  So I don't see any reason to expect the Xcon to experience more of a variance in Bl vs excursion than the Axis and a couple reasons to believe it would actually be more linear especially if we push to the 15mm+ excursion range.  In regards to Cms, with the linear suspension design of the Axis Cms might measure more linear than the Xcon's progressive but many argue (such as Vance Dickason in the LSDC) a progressive spider is better suited for loudspeakers intended to be used in a ported enclosure than linear designs.  Power compression...the Xcon has higher rated Rms power handling, again almost twice as much which would lead me to believe at any power level the Xcon is going to be experiencing less power compression and more linear Re vs Power, leading to less parameter shift vs input power. Overall, I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform significantly better than the Xcon in parameter shift vs input power and/or parameter shift vs coil position, and a couple reasons to expect the Xcon to actually perform better in this regard.  So yet again, I fail to see any logic that supports your original statement where you guaranteed the Axis to "dig lower" than the Xcon, including your new found argument about large vs small signal performance.

 

And yes, there is a variance in T/S unit-to-unit due to production differences.  But when was the last time you purchased two of the exact same units and experienced an audible difference in performance due to production variance related differences in T/S?  The point is, in any driver with reasonably good soft parts and a reasonable QC program in place, the differences are going to be inaudible. 

 

The specs you looked at are wrong. You must be looking at the specs on PE, which show the axis measured xmax by 100% method, not 70% method. 

 

Xcon 15 31mm, axis 34mm 

 

Had you looked up the proper specs, most of this could have been avoided. I never said myth. I said that enclosures don't dictate everything. 

 

http://tcsounds.com/product/drivers/axis-driver/

Everything armykyle1 has said on here is 100% correct.

[KyleBrown 121]

There is great debate on using small signal parameters for  heavy damped, high xmax subwoofers, and for obvious reasons once the differences are show.  For example my Ethos sample has a Fo of about 38 hertz and a vas of about 14 liters @ 2.83 volts.  With this small signal the cone moves less than 1 mm.  Now at 40 volts, within it's normal working range, it has a Fo of about 28 hertz and a vas of about 21 liters.  Given this info we can conclude that if we were going to build an enclosure with a particular response using small signal parameters it's not going to perform as intended in the real world under normal stroke.

 

Both Klippel and Vance Dickason recommends modeling using large signal parameters.  Every driver that Vance tests and simulates he does so using 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, and 25 volts. You can clearly see the differences in spl vs Freq and Excursion vs Freq from small to large signal shown in his graphs. 

 

Progressive spiders do play an audible roll but I highly doubt the untrained ear would be able to tell the difference. And most would say it creates a more desirable warmer sound.  Most engineers will use a spider with a slightly higher creep factor to control cone movement in ported alignments.  However most companies' drivers you see are not progressive.  Just because their spiders have smaller ridges by the former than the spider landing does not make it progressive.  I use a progressive spider that has a sharp "v" ridge towards the outside of the spider that is a "breaking mechanism" for lack of a better term at the spiders xmax (50% cms is considered 20% distortion caused by the suspension including the edge). 

 

Best post all day. 

[Impious 1,476]

 

Like I said 'everything'. Myth is a word you threw in there. I think I know that an enclosure dictates a whole hell of a lot. Once you apply power, more than one watt which is what most TSP's are based on, performance changes greatly. Xcon soft parts differ greatly from from the axis. Progressive spiders vs linear.... WinSD doesn't account for that. At least the version I have doesn't. 

 

Also keep in mind TSP's will vary due to the fact one sub might a have heavier glue joint, slight imperfection in the spiders. So the TSP's in WinSD only go so far... 

If something is a myth, doesn't that mean it's not true.....which is what you said?

 

T/S change with coil position and heat due to changes in Bl, Cms and Re.  I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform substantially better in this arena....They both use overhung motors, aluminum coils and shorting rings.  But the Xcon has much higher rated Xmax, actually twice as much, which means it's Bl is more than likely going to be just as much if not more linear at any level of excursion, becoming more linear compared to the Axis as we move closer to the Xmax of the Axis and much more linear as we exceed it.  So I don't see any reason to expect the Xcon to experience more of a variance in Bl vs excursion than the Axis and a couple reasons to believe it would actually be more linear especially if we push to the 15mm+ excursion range.  In regards to Cms, with the linear suspension design of the Axis Cms might measure more linear than the Xcon's progressive but many argue (such as Vance Dickason in the LSDC) a progressive spider is better suited for loudspeakers intended to be used in a ported enclosure than linear designs.  Power compression...the Xcon has higher rated Rms power handling, again almost twice as much which would lead me to believe at any power level the Xcon is going to be experiencing less power compression and more linear Re vs Power, leading to less parameter shift vs input power. Overall, I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform significantly better than the Xcon in parameter shift vs input power and/or parameter shift vs coil position, and a couple reasons to expect the Xcon to actually perform better in this regard.  So yet again, I fail to see any logic that supports your original statement where you guaranteed the Axis to "dig lower" than the Xcon, including your new found argument about large vs small signal performance.

 

And yes, there is a variance in T/S unit-to-unit due to production differences.  But when was the last time you purchased two of the exact same units and experienced an audible difference in performance due to production variance related differences in T/S?  The point is, in any driver with reasonably good soft parts and a reasonable QC program in place, the differences are going to be inaudible. 

 

The specs you looked at are wrong. You must be looking at the specs on PE, which show the axis measured xmax by 100% method, not 70% method. 

 

Xcon 15 31mm, axis 34mm 

 

Had you looked up the proper specs, most of this could have been avoided. I never said myth. I said that enclosures don't dictate everything. 

 

http://tcsounds.com/product/drivers/axis-driver/

Fair enough on the Xmax, PE is usually pretty good with listing accurate info so I presumed they were reliable.

 

So their Xmax is very comparable, I still don't see any difference in them which would lead me to believe one of them would suffer significantly more parameter shift than the other over stroke.  Which means you're still wrong.......And all of this could have been avoided had you not made wholly incorrect statements

[KyleBrown 121]

I never said it would suffer significantly. It wasn't implied as an insult. I'm implying that one driver will simply sound better down low. Most people honestly wouldn't know the difference though. Even when I had stock parts in my btls most people said damn, those hammer the lows. I knew they did ok. But if you know what to listen for, you'll hear it. It's just like people saying pro audio mids sound good. I hate them with a passion.

Oh, I don't like progressive spiders lol.

[jonbearsmt 919]

no your all wrong the BTL is the " king of all SPL woofers" end of story

[Quentin Jarrell 671]

I'd agree with Impious's above statement.  Without a listed creep factor there is no way to calculate shifting parameters.  We could all blindly assume but there is no way to know with out large signal parameters listed. 

 

This below quoted from TC:

 

Standard small parameters, power and motor specifications listed below. These parameters are only a guildline to system design and expected response. Some of the parameters such as the Qts will shift with heat or excursion by more than 20%. There is no reason to model or expect exact constant parameters because of these natural non-linear shifts.

 

 

There are too many factors involved with the different types of materials and designs used in both drivers to guestimate parameter shifts.  without experience one can not guess creep factor in the surround of the TC versus the surround of the SSA driver.  The TC has a "linear" spider.  The SSA sub I believe is advertised as progressive however it is pretty linear.  The TC has a lower rms rating however it is rated per Klippel standards.  The TC has a pole vent however the SSA has a good bit of pole work that will also minimize compression.

 

 

There is too much to guess upon.  You just have to go by what the manufacturers give you or spend 150 bucks and have Klippel testing done yourself.  But when it comes down to it it obviously doesn't matter to car audio folks.  If it did then all of this info would be standard information listed by manufacturers

[SPL?? 34]

no your all wrong the BTL is the " king of all SPL woofers" end of story

The BTL N3 is the loudest I know of, if you know of a louder one post the specs.. SPL@1w1m is a good estimate of how loud the subwoofer is.. Spl@1w1m already factors in cone are but doesn't factor in gains from a box and cabin gain.. Also like I was saying the FS as a rule is a good indicator of how the subwoofer willl preform. A low FS subwoofer will almost always have a lower frequency then a higher FS subwoofer.. XMAX also must be looked at SPL subwoofers generally have larger XMAX then SQ subwoofers.

SPL@1w1m+RMS power will give you a good idea of how loud a subwoofer can be if installed ina proper box.

Edited March 10, 2013 by SPL??

[EPerez 236]

no your all wrong the BTL is the " king of all SPL woofers" end of story

The BTL N3 is the loudest I know of, if you know of a louder one post the specs.. SPL@1w1m is a good estimate of how loud the subwoofer is.. Spl@1w1m already factors in cone are but doesn't factor in gains from a box and cabin gain.. Also like I was saying the FS as a rule is a good indicator of how the subwoofer willl preform. A low FS subwoofer will almost always have a lower frequency then a higher FS subwoofer.. XMAX also must be looked at SPL subwoofers generally have larger XMAX then SQ subwoofers.

SPL@1w1m+RMS power will give you a good idea of how loud a subwoofer can be if installed ina proper box.

Quit saying that man. Your wrong and it's starting to get annoying.

[KyleBrown 121]

 

no your all wrong the BTL is the " king of all SPL woofers" end of story

The BTL N3 is the loudest I know of, if you know of a louder one post the specs.. SPL@1w1m is a good estimate of how loud the subwoofer is.. Spl@1w1m already factors in cone are but doesn't factor in gains from a box and cabin gain.. Also like I was saying the FS as a rule is a good indicator of how the subwoofer willl preform. A low FS subwoofer will almost always have a lower frequency then a higher FS subwoofer.. XMAX also must be looked at SPL subwoofers generally have larger XMAX then SQ subwoofers.

SPL@1w1m+RMS power will give you a good idea of how loud a subwoofer can be if installed ina proper box.

Quit saying that man. Your wrong and it's starting to get annoying.

 

 

You're*

 

 

For the money, the N3 will probably offer better SPL scores than others. For sheer loudness, probably not too many subs in it's class. A warden vs N3 would probably be the best. Can't really compare a DDZ since it's triple the price lol. 

 

But you can't always use a subs SPL or efficiency as a judgement of output. My UFO subs with sundown parts had a higher "SPL" rating 92% iirc, but sounded better. Not as punchy, but I went to a longer, heavier coil, different spiders and a heavier cone. FS  prebreak in was 33-34. High fs could indicate a better sub for sheer output though. 

 

 

High xmax isn't always associated with SPL. Granted there's been a change in that realm. Before, SPL subs typically had a shorter stroke. It's all in the manufacturer's design. 

[jonbearsmt 919]

 lol

[Ohjay 116]

[MikeMartel 64]

You make me sad.

[EPerez 236]

 

no your all wrong the BTL is the " king of all SPL woofers" end of story

The BTL N3 is the loudest I know of, if you know of a louder one post the specs.. SPL@1w1m is a good estimate of how loud the subwoofer is.. Spl@1w1m already factors in cone are but doesn't factor in gains from a box and cabin gain.. Also like I was saying the FS as a rule is a good indicator of how the subwoofer willl preform. A low FS subwoofer will almost always have a lower frequency then a higher FS subwoofer.. XMAX also must be looked at SPL subwoofers generally have larger XMAX then SQ subwoofers.

SPL@1w1m+RMS power will give you a good idea of how loud a subwoofer can be if installed ina proper box.

Quit saying that man. Your wrong and it's starting to get annoying.

 

 

You're*

 

 

For the money, the N3 will probably offer better SPL scores than others. For sheer loudness, probably not too many subs in it's class. A warden vs N3 would probably be the best. Can't really compare a DDZ since it's triple the price lol. 

 

But you can't always use a subs SPL or efficiency as a judgement of output. My UFO subs with sundown parts had a higher "SPL" rating 92% iirc, but sounded better. Not as punchy, but I went to a longer, heavier coil, different spiders and a heavier cone. FS  prebreak in was 33-34. High fs could indicate a better sub for sheer output though. 

 

 

High xmax isn't always associated with SPL. Granted there's been a change in that realm. Before, SPL subs typically had a shorter stroke. It's all in the manufacturer's design. 

Damn my auto correct on my phone always changes it to the wrong you're lol

[KyleBrown 121]

 

 

 

no your all wrong the BTL is the " king of all SPL woofers" end of story

The BTL N3 is the loudest I know of, if you know of a louder one post the specs.. SPL@1w1m is a good estimate of how loud the subwoofer is.. Spl@1w1m already factors in cone are but doesn't factor in gains from a box and cabin gain.. Also like I was saying the FS as a rule is a good indicator of how the subwoofer willl preform. A low FS subwoofer will almost always have a lower frequency then a higher FS subwoofer.. XMAX also must be looked at SPL subwoofers generally have larger XMAX then SQ subwoofers.

SPL@1w1m+RMS power will give you a good idea of how loud a subwoofer can be if installed ina proper box.

Quit saying that man. Your wrong and it's starting to get annoying.

 

 

You're*

 

 

For the money, the N3 will probably offer better SPL scores than others. For sheer loudness, probably not too many subs in it's class. A warden vs N3 would probably be the best. Can't really compare a DDZ since it's triple the price lol. 

 

But you can't always use a subs SPL or efficiency as a judgement of output. My UFO subs with sundown parts had a higher "SPL" rating 92% iirc, but sounded better. Not as punchy, but I went to a longer, heavier coil, different spiders and a heavier cone. FS  prebreak in was 33-34. High fs could indicate a better sub for sheer output though. 

 

 

High xmax isn't always associated with SPL. Granted there's been a change in that realm. Before, SPL subs typically had a shorter stroke. It's all in the manufacturer's design. 

Damn my auto correct on my phone always changes it to the wrong you're lol

 

There can only be one