Research is almost done subwoofer/enclosure suggestions
01-18-2005, 11:06 PM
#42
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Originally posted by SilverGS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Impala Builder:
The ID Max is a nice driver. I was at ID in Aug and talked with Matt in depth about that driver, and took a good look at all the components inside the driver, all top notch stuff (ie no corners cut). It's a well enginered driver, and looks pretty bad a$$ also. The only draw back is that it is deep (size wise)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Impala Builder:
The ID Max is a nice driver. I was at ID in Aug and talked with Matt in depth about that driver, and took a good look at all the components inside the driver, all top notch stuff (ie no corners cut). It's a well enginered driver, and looks pretty bad a$$ also. The only draw back is that it is deep (size wise)
</font>[/QUOTE]Cool, come back with a review!
01-19-2005, 01:18 PM
#43
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Just for completeness sake,
http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...ight=transient
Increased mass, within reason, is fine. Just need stronger motor to control it. You need the balance between motor strength and mass. You can't judge a speaker by it's Mms only. Need to look at Qes, etc as well. You can't say that every low Mms sub out there is good just because it has low mass.
Good discussion here, if the server's not too busy and you can access it.
[ January 19, 2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: hobbes26 ]
http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/sh...ight=transient
Increased mass, within reason, is fine. Just need stronger motor to control it. You need the balance between motor strength and mass. You can't judge a speaker by it's Mms only. Need to look at Qes, etc as well. You can't say that every low Mms sub out there is good just because it has low mass.
Good discussion here, if the server's not too busy and you can access it.
[ January 19, 2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: hobbes26 ]
01-19-2005, 01:36 PM
#44
I agree, MMs isn't the only important thing, but for SQ, a low Mms, combined with a good, balanced motor, will give a better sound, with less power than a high MMS, and stiff suspension.
most home SQ drivers, and pro sound drivers have very low moving mass, but for car audio, because people want subs that handle 1000 RMS, they have to make things that much more inefficient so they can post those kinds of numbers.
most home SQ drivers, and pro sound drivers have very low moving mass, but for car audio, because people want subs that handle 1000 RMS, they have to make things that much more inefficient so they can post those kinds of numbers.
01-19-2005, 05:46 PM
#45
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
Prosound is a different application though. You're primarily looking at high efficiency, and higher frequency extension on those woofers. Mms then becomes critical. You want high output with low power, since power is also at a premium.
Most SQ drivers have very very low inductance too.
High mass can be offset by a stronger motor. More mass also means lower frequency extension, which a lot of prosound drivers don't have.
For SQ, i'd look for high Xmax, flat BL curve, flat Cms curve, and low inductance.
Most SQ drivers have very very low inductance too.
High mass can be offset by a stronger motor. More mass also means lower frequency extension, which a lot of prosound drivers don't have.
For SQ, i'd look for high Xmax, flat BL curve, flat Cms curve, and low inductance.
