Leaderboard

You must not have tried very hard. Everything needed to accurately model the subwoofer is listed. And just as importantly their parameters for various products have been independently verified to be accurate. Free Air Resonance (Fs) 27.97 Hz Electrical “Q” (Qes) 0.534 Mechanical “Q” (Qms) 7.678 Total Speaker “Q” (Qts) 0.5 Equivalent Compliance (Vas) 2.806 cu ft / 79.47 L One-Way Linear Excursion (Xmax)* 0.510 in / 13.0 mm Reference Efficiency (no) 0.31% Efficiency (1 W / 1 m)** 87.15 dB SPL Effective Piston Area (Sd) 80.600 sq in / 0.0520 sq m DC Resistance (Re) 1.658 Ω Wait....I thought you didn't need modeling? I thought you didn't need T/S parameters? I thought you tried a sub and relied on your subjective interpretation? Buy the sub, try it in every possible enclosure then use your subjective experience there to determine whether or not it works for you.

They list everything necessary to model their speakers. For example, here is a super quick plot of the speaker in the Jl recommended enclosure. And they aren't a scam because they aren't lying to their customers. Next attempt?

You didn't impregnate them did you?

Regarding the "Pro Audio" speakers he released, I had to ask this question 2x and he never even responded, but several weeks after my initial inquiry he did finally change the T/S specs for them. You can see by the dates below that on 10/24 he posted specs to the website and as of 11/15 he still hadn't changed them.... And those T/S parameters make absolutely no sense at all. The variances are large enough to not even be close to considered errors due to averaging over a production run. They're just wrong. The PAX-6.5, for example. Re of 4ohms? I've never seen a speaker with an Re of 4ohms....nominal impedance, yes. But not Re. I'm going to presume it's 4ohm nominal and it's Re is somewhere in the 3.X range? Second, a Qes of 1.758 and a Qts of .412 ? Even with nothing but a rudimentary understanding of T/S we can tell those numbers don't match up. Qes is the main determinant of Qts....those two numbers should be much closer. Qts should be more in the vicinity of 1.4 You list No as .19% and SPL 89.8db. Based on the listed Fs, Qes and Vas the No calculates out to be 1.28% and SPL 93db. A No of .19% would equate to a sensitivity of 84.8db, not 89.8db. So, in short, none of those numbers match up. Your units for compliance are wrong, or your decimal is in the wrong spot. I'm assuming it's really .090742 mm/N Based on the listed Vas and Cms, the Sd would be around 446cm^2, which is not much smaller than a 12" driver and obviously not correct. Based on Mms and Cms, Fs should be 126hz, not 97hz. That's not an all encompassing list, but a brief summary. In short.....those parameters are physically impossible and make no sense together whatsoever. After he corrected the specs (several weeks after my initial inquiry), I don't know if they are accurate but atleast they are reasonably mathematically consistent. Here are my problems with the drivers: Honest opinion? They are turds. I don't see a single circumstance in which there isn't much better options available. Here's the problem, they wanted something they could call "pro audio" and looked "pro audio" by appearance but didn't want the lack of midbass problem pro audio drivers suffer in most car audio style installations (unfortunately they failed miserably on both counts). So they used pro audio style soft parts with a low mass and in this case looks like slightly less compliant suspension so they have the "pro audio" look and also the high Fs (actually a higher Fs than a lot of true pro audio drivers). But they then tried to compensate for the lack of midbass output in most pro audio drivers by raising the Q....but they went too far and ended up with an extremely weak and underdamped motor. The downside to this is that the weak motor killed the efficiency and gave the driver way too high of a Q. The result is a driver with a really high Fs, average sensitivity and almost unusably high Qts. So it's going to have a giant peak early in the midbass followed by a steep roll off. And because the driver is highly resonant you are not going to be able to get tight, articulate midbass out of the driver.....it's going to be exaggerated and muddy, and it's still not going to have the low frequency extension of a normal driver. This driver is basically off the shelf a driver stuffed in WAY TOO SMALL of an enclosure; think about what happens to a subwoofer when you shove it in way too small of a sealed enclosure, and that is equivalently what this thing is even when it's IB in your door. DO NOT use them in an enclosure or sealed kickpanels....simply not going to work. If you were after a true pro audio driver, this isn't it. The weak motor killed the efficiency, it's really not much more efficient than a standard driver. So if you want pro audio efficiency, you will need to stick with the traditional pro audio offerings and this driver doesn't fit in that category. On the other hand, if you weren't after a pro audio driver I still don't see a use for this driver as a "normal" driver is going to have nearly the same efficiency and without such ridiculous parameters....they'll have a lower Fs, much lower Q and as a result won't have the over-exaggerated midbass response and huge peak with an early roll off of this driver. So if you weren't after a pro driver, there are still much better options than these. As such, I don't see any real use for these drivers as no matter which way you want to go, there are much better options available. Driver design is all about trade-offs and which set of trade-offs fit a particular goal. Unfortunately the designers of this driver chose absolutely ridiculous trade-offs and essentially made a driver that doesn't fit well in any category and is easily bested by a large number of drivers no matter the performance goals of the user. I know certain people aren't going to believe this: But there is truly no brand-bias in my comments here. This is strictly looking at the T/S parameters, I'd say exactly the same thing no matter what name was on the dust cap. He also had to go back and change the specs he released on the bullet tweeters after he released them and we questioned him on them, though he didn't actually answer any of our questions he just went back and changed some of the specs.

You sure are thick, the abominable Skar owner posted specs which did not make any sense, were completely off (just like saying the voice coil was 2" in diameter but 20mm in diameter). No, ur wrong, when a new plane is designed, somebody draws it on a piece of paper, then mindless workers try and try hundreds of versions until they get lucky and one flies. Actually many prototypes (of anything) are built and tested until they get it right, attempted troll fail. I'm not against modelling, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the end all and be the ONLY way one can determine how good a sub is because some socially awkward phaggot sits behind a keyboard and says HEY! this sub is crap because LEAP told me so. I don't know where in science it states that expected results based on a model is always the final and true result, why do people even conduct experiments if they already know the end result? lol. What's the point of trying to prove hypotheses? Guess you all never heard of subjectivity and relativity etc, especially in the car audio where there are many uncontrollable factors to consider at any given point in time. Aaaaand we're basically one step away from saying theory does not apply. What the heck did I post earlier? Obviously we should change your username to numbnuts. If I model a sub and CAN'T obtain the results I want in the space I have, why the fuck would I dream that maybe, just maybe the gods of audio will smile to me it will sound good. Why the fuck couldn't I tell it sucks if it models like crap in what space I have? Really, you are the species which I loathe, you totally push away parameters.

Model a skar sub once, then you'll understand. Or considering this is about Skar service why not ask Kevin too? I'm sure that'd be a treat. I assume you are just trying to be an ass and don't actually want help. Of course if you did you'd make a thread that follows the noob posting guidelines. If not, you won't get it as without that information no one can truly help you.

It's absolutely typical for somebody who sells and has not got a single clue on how things actually work. I see it daily with the local DD dealer. "T/S params are worthless, we can recommend a box and the only way to get a box for DD's right is to test several boxes". Then they flash around their results (which were obtained with only one model speaker through countless boxes) and thus they are right. Which is completely off, they still have no clue on what T/S params mean and how to model a speaker.

unless your trying to weld.....

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Badass! Vid or it didnt happen!

We borrowed signal from the sub channel on the Bose. Still using the JL 500/1, we decided to place the amp on the side of the box The box is facing inwards, but we might change it going outwards.. My SSA sticker I did make a video but jon says i move to much.. so i will try again.. i honestly dislike making videos..lol

If by "extremely meticulous" you mean we expect T/S parameters (which describe the behavior of the loudspeaker) to be reasonably accurate so that we can actually use them for their intended purpose, which is to accurately predict the behavior of the loudspeaker and just as importantly predict the behavior of the loudspeaker in a given enclosure......then yes, I guess we are "extremely meticulous". When you release T/S parameters that not only lack mathematical consistency but are also completely illogical then yes, that's sort of a big deal considering the purpose of the T/S parameters and the simplicity involved in accurately measuring them with today's technology. If you don't understand their use, the usefulness behind being able to accurately model a loudspeaker and understand it's behavior through the use of T/S parameters......then you are missing out on a pretty important part of the subject.

Hey guys so we finished the car today but i am tired so i will upload pics tomorrow and a video.. my back and elbows hurt.. lol.. i never spent so much time in a trunk, i have helped but geeezzzz! After a long day i am taking my hunny to eat joes crab shack

So today we placed a floor and the sub in my new box and tomorrow we will run the wires and get it all set up. finally!

i'm sorry ssa, why don;t you get rid of him? everything i have read Kevin seems to know nothing abouut anything he releases. hell i'll pay you the year amount to get rid of him.

He was a known scammer before he started skar. It's hard for me to feel sorry for someone like that. And instead of trying to run an honest business he has done shady stuff while running skar.

x2 SSA is letting this Skar situation get out of hand, instead of tampering the forum with this nonsense just end his vendor license/contract. But at the end of the day, money is what makes the world go round.

I ran from the snow to Baltimore.

Thought i'd get help from the modelling gurus on the forum, guess not. Probably a forum for slander and general hating. Anywho's...ya'll saying basically that Skar doesn't list the parameters need to model a sub?