Something for all you JL Audio fans
|
New member Username: FordtruckmanFL Post Number: 5 Registered: May-05 | I was looking around earlier today at different subwoofers and read this review about the JL Audio 12w7. This made me rethink about getting them and rather just keep the 4 12's I have now in my truck then get 2 12's that handel more power. Not haten on JL but its pretty true with no mader hat subs you by, spend less or just as much on 3 or 4 good speakers then on 1 or 2 really good speakers that handle more watts. Go to this site to read the review: http://www.epinions.com/content_110672973444 |
|
Gold Member Username: SubfanaticWalton, Ky Post Number: 3767 Registered: Dec-04 | i really enjoyed that article |
|
Gold Member Username: InsearchofbassPost Number: 2271 Registered: Jun-04 | good article and i believe very honest ...i also agree the original lanzar opti amps were much better than my mtx 81000d hands down ( i had the opti 200 400 rms 12.6 volts) the opti had the cleanest most solid bass of any amp ive owned and ive owned alot......I will also personaly testify to jl audios amps they do seem make subs alot more solid than say an audiobahn amp (my cousin testified to this with guys around his neiborhood switching he heard one from the other on the same audiobahn subs) |
|
Gold Member Username: InsearchofbassPost Number: 2272 Registered: Jun-04 | he said it was unmistakeable the difference it made |
|
Gold Member Username: FishyTamarac Ft.Laud, FL USA Post Number: 1339 Registered: Sep-04 | I'm lil hesitant to trust this guy's opinion. He really doesn't have a firm grasp on acoustics: case in point: If we look at the case of the w7 it has one of the longest excursions in the industry, unfortunately it can't move all that air fast enough to sound like three entry level speakers. As it is moving forward and back, the lesser woofers have already moved forward and back and average of 2 to 3 times. If what he's saying is true then he's playing different frequencies to the subs. If the w7 is playing at 30 Hz and the w3 is moving back and forth 3 times as much that then it means its playing at 90 Hz. DOH! Sry, at that point I stopped reading what was an otherwise interesting review. -Fishy |
|
Gold Member Username: InsearchofbassPost Number: 2275 Registered: Jun-04 | good point fishy i didnt stop and really think about that comment |
|
Bronze Member Username: Jonklly5Post Number: 59 Registered: Apr-05 | not necesarily, they cud be played at the same frequency and becuz the w7 is so cumbersome its not as "fast" as the others |
|
Gold Member Username: FishyTamarac Ft.Laud, FL USA Post Number: 1340 Registered: Sep-04 | Another thing. Even if he's trying to say that that entry level subs are "faster" as in cone speed he's also wrong there. Given sinusoidal output you get maximum velocity at X0 or the midpoint of the subs excursion. This velocity happens to be proportional to the maximum amplitude of X or its max excursion. Therefore any sub that that is playing at a higher excursion is also "faster". If he's referring to how "fast" the sub reacts(transient repsonse) then that may be a different story and is dependent on inductance of the driver as well as the dampening factor of the amplifier driving the thing: woofer speed, Adire: http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/TechPapers/WooferSpeed.pdf damping factor by Glass: http://www.wickedcases.com/caraudio/ampspecs.html He's right about the w3's getting loud though, I can barely hear myself scream when I crank up my 10w3's in Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the Machine"("Wish You Were Here" album). I betcha one 10w7 has the ability to produce the same output maybe with a bit more power however, and sound better while doing it. My apologies, but I'm a big JL fan and have been using their subs since they first came out with the w5 line circa 1989-90. In fact Manville Smith(name dropping I am) built my very first enclosure for a pair of 10w5-d8's. For a sub that only had a 7 mm Xmax those things cranked off a Punch 150(150 watts) and simply roared off a PPI pro mos 2050(400 watts). I think they were cleaner than my 10w3's at moderately high volumes as well. -Fishy |
|
Gold Member Username: FishyTamarac Ft.Laud, FL USA Post Number: 1341 Registered: Sep-04 | Jon, Hz is cycles per second. If one woofer is playing at 3 times the cycles per second as another then it is playing at 3 times the frequency(Hz). That's basic acoustics. -Fishy |
|
Silver Member Username: JeremycGermany Post Number: 675 Registered: Jun-04 | WELL WELL WELL, another situation were I have to agree with the fish. I own a 12W7 myself, and slow is not a word I would use to describe that sub. In a proper set up the 12W7 is a very musical sub. I listen to a wide variety of music, and at no time does it over power the rest of my stereo like he states in his review. Thats just a matter of setting your X over and gains properly. "they cud be played at the same frequency and becuz the w7 is so cumbersome its not as "fast" as the others" cumbersom?? Now the kicker solos could be called cumbersome, due to the added weight of reinforcments in order to keep the square cone from flexing. The W7s W shaped cone is a design that is very riged yet adds only a minimal amout of weight. The fact is fishy is right, frequancy is frequancy, and a driver has to move at the speed required to acheive that frequance no matter how far it moves forward and back. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 4000 Registered: May-04 | Yep, that guy is just knowledgeable to be dangerous, and not knowledgeable enough in acoustics to point out true fact. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 4001 Registered: May-04 | Of course it doesn't help that the guy was testing a primarily sealed box sub in a vented enclosure. If you want ported, W7s are good, but there are ones out there that are more tailored to a ported box. |
|
Gold Member Username: InvainMichigan United States Post Number: 2714 Registered: Aug-04 | "The lesser woofers also take up the same space as the w7 and are more efficent with power." How can they take up the same space, you have 3 drivers instead of one? You also have 3 drivers, which could altimately equal more power needed than one w7. Go to the very gottom - "Amount Paid (US$): $239" Where in he.ll did he get a 12w7 for $239? |
|
Gold Member Username: SubfanaticWalton, Ky Post Number: 3788 Registered: Dec-04 | he gets them at cost because he is a dealer, but for the more power thing, i have a friend with 2 w3v2s powered by a 250.1, NOT a 500.1, and its very very close to my firnew jl 1000/1 and 12w7, and take up alot less space as wel |
|
Gold Member Username: InvainMichigan United States Post Number: 2715 Registered: Aug-04 | Still, his cost is $239? If it is, then some shops are charging almost a 300% markup. |
|
Gold Member Username: SubfanaticWalton, Ky Post Number: 3794 Registered: Dec-04 | yea i know, its pretty insane, but if you think about it, a shop can charge as they please with no competition around |
|
Gold Member Username: James1115Wilton, Ct Post Number: 3303 Registered: Dec-04 | I liked that article. I have run the w6v1's he was talking about and I still have them in the JL box pro wedge. These subs got very loud and were very very clean. all together they are in a 2.25 cu ft enclosure so it is about the same size as 1 w7 enclosure(ported atleast) and in my opinion sounded much better. This guy I work with just got a w7 and he came in all arrogant with his nose up in the air. I pulled in one day and he was showing it off. one of my co-workers said man you should hear James' system it is really loud, he was like what do you have? I told him and he was like I have never heard of it it cant be louder then my 12w7. I said get in BIOTCH! lol! TO SAY THE LEAST He wasnt so arrogant with his system anymore My avalanche put the 12w7 to absolute shame and to tell you the truth when I ran the 3-w6 10's it was louder then his w7 with only 600 watts |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics