why is it always some one talking about the l7 as if they will rip apart soon as you put more than 5 watts to them? now i understand that if you put a hole lot of power to any woffer they have the pontenshal to fall apart or after long youse but some dont so quit crying about the stress points in the corrners. my point is for the money and the bass they put out they they are a very efficitive woffer for the money
Yes, you can get those subs for cheap and yes they will be loud. But that is about it. They have some of the worst SQ ever. There is always going to be some ignorant kid out there saying they are the best sub ever, simply because he hasn't heard anything else and they are loud. And to someone who is just looking for noise, it probably will be great to them. Simply put, if you cherish sound quality in the slightest sense, stay away from the L7s.
exactly the way I feel isaac, I'm getting them purely for spl... probably 12" L5s though..I don't think thye are the best sub ever.. i'd have to go with either adire/re/ad audio/orDD as some of the best in my eyes.
as i've stated before, a circle makes for a perfect driver. just like the guns in star wars have the same basic design as my sig, glock, HK, and 1911's, the design has been researched and proven optimum. the same goes for drivers. the stress points in those square subs eventually give way and need repairing. the design is flawed. my thinking is why would a company stray from the basics of a perfect design? marketing. and it worked. but now they can only give those subs away. but again, if you just want to hit hard (while you can) and spend little, there is nothing wrong with the sub at all.
The problems attributed to the square design are cone flex, surround unraveling, excessive cone mass due to necessary bracing, which decreases it's sensitivity, lower excursion due to the limitations of the square design. But the problems aren't JUST related to the unconventional square design, it's Kickers failure to tackle other problems such as lead slap (and breakage), voice coil unraveling, an inferior motor design good for little to no useable excursion for low bass high volume performance in sealed boxes, all attributed to a POOR DRIVER DESIGN, it would be poor if it were square, round, oval, an octagon, anything really. Cone flex doesn't just increase distortion, it also promotes mechanical problems, reduced SPL (the sole purpose of these woofers) and it just plain sounds like crap compared to an equivalently build round coned woofer. Ask somebody who sells or installs L7s, I'm telling you from experience with them. They have one of the highest failure rates of any subwoofer.
Inherently flawed by the design. Even the caring Chinese personnel that produced this sub couldn't help it out.
"But the problems aren't JUST related to the unconventional square design, it's Kickers failure to tackle other problems such as lead slap (and breakage), voice coil unraveling, an inferior motor design good for little to no useable excursion for low bass high volume performance in sealed boxes, all attributed to a POOR DRIVER DESIGN,"
that goes for all kicker subs imo. the uncoventional square design just adds to the inadequacies of the driver.
well I just want to throw this into the mix for thought. If the primary reason why kicker designed these subs is because of cone area and im not sure thats it but that being one reason why not just buy a subwwofer with equal cone area like a 15 inch solobaric equaling the same as a 18 inch round sub. Just a thought anyone else have any input let me know.
no sq junkie you CANNOT say that that kicker is a terrible speaker because theres no such thing as a company being a bad speaker:-)...but the L5 and L7 has bad sq but the kicker cvr ALOTTA people will say that the cvr has good sq
Panocha grow up im not dissin it im stating a fact that has been proven. I was just pointing out observations and comparison ideas and wanted to see if anyone had any other info on kickers design goals when they decided to go ahead and build the solobarics. I like how the kickers hit and I personally have heard them in real life installs and I dont think they have bad sq like people like to claim. So Panocha dont just assume when someone points out a fault its a personal attack. When you call someone a moron it just shows your lack of respect and maturity. nuff said
Yeah Kicker has produced some amazing speakers, the original (round) Solos are an example. Great SQ, and pretty good SPL. The fact is they still have some good bang for your buck subs, like the CVR. Unfortanatly their top end line, has went down hill alot in the last few years.
i havn't liked kicker since '90. in highschool i kept going back to them, sub after blown sub, because i thought they were the best. then some guys at a CA shop laughed at me when i said i thought so. they set me straight and the difference i have noticed since then has been pretty profound. this is jmo based on what i have heard. not a fan.
Sean. thank you. i have been shaking my head wondering the same thing, but letting it ride. they brag about (market) increased surface area and powerhandling, but if i needed a bigger sub, i would just buy a bigger sub. however, the scheme worked without a hitch. not much into stock, but i'm sure kicker made (and is apparently still making) a killing off of those L subs. especially considering the lack of research that went into them.
"If the primary reason why kicker designed these subs is because of cone area and im not sure thats it but that being one reason why not just buy a subwwofer with equal cone area like a 15 inch solobaric equaling the same as a 18 inch round sub."
Actually, that's usually what I recommend in place of it
As far as the reasoning for the L7, I feel they designed it more for marketability than the benefit of cone area. The same reason that Bose uses huge teams of trial lawyers to patent a minor variation of an old technology, and the reason that they use cute little cubes with useless 2" drivers that can't produce midrange or treble accurately and a "bass module" (can't call it a sub since they use 5 1/4" drivers in a 7th order bandpass that can't play true sub bass nor hit an accurate note pretty much anywhere). They're inferior in every way, but they're different enough to market, and they're secure in their uniqueness since any self-respecting corporation wouldn't touch it. There is a reason why high end companies didn't jump on the bandwagon. Come to think of it, only ones I can think of that jumped on the bandwagon of odd shaped subs were Sony, SAS Bazooka, Pyle, and Xtant, Xtant being the only respectable manufacturer of those.
"Well you do have to give them credit for trying something new IMO." respectable point. but like the new coldplay album (had to go there), there is no reason to change something that is already right, particularly if you know you are changing it for the worse. unless, of course you intend on misleading your consumers. However, it is capitalism (unfortunately), and all is fair in capitalism.
i think hifonics and crunch make some square subs too. my friend used to have som square crunch subs and everyone in town thought they were the best.
truth1
Unregistered guest
Posted on
its a spl sub and no one can say that it is not, there are very many companys who make spl subs but no one makes such a fuss its funny bash bash bash i own so many different kinds of subs and i have different systems in different car each has its qualitys, why cant people except that? companys come out with different things to get people to buy, face it car stero is a nitch market and they must do what they can to servive, crome woffers, square woffers rember the flat one ppi had cervin vega strowker that one i think by polk audio that was so tuff you could punch it what ever, you got the point. bad woffer? have mine gone up in flames? no 1000 watts a side and they seem to work fine, do they all brake? dose ever single one of there woffer brake after x amount of youse is my question?
