Put in order loudest to not so loudest!!
|
New member Username: Jgc2005Hesperai, Ca Usa Post Number: 9 Registered: Jul-06 | all 15 inch woofers:PUT IN ORDER Diamond Audio D915D2 Eclipse SW9152 Kicker 06S15L7-2 Rockford Fosgate P315D2 |
|
Silver Member Username: Denali_on_22sMaryville, TN Us Post Number: 140 Registered: Feb-06 | Id go kicker/eclipse diamond and then fosgate kicerk would porbably get a bit louder but the eclipse would sound better, ive never heard a p3 and dont liek fosgate so its kinda biased |
|
Silver Member Username: SkiesCourtenay, British Colu... Canada Post Number: 235 Registered: Aug-05 | ^^ agreed...go with eclipse though, MUCH better build quality, great all around sub |
|
Gold Member Username: JakeyplaysbassSt. Louis, MO Post Number: 1337 Registered: Jul-05 | INSTALL INSTALL INSTALL! |
|
Bronze Member Username: RiskybPost Number: 12 Registered: Feb-06 | Diamond Eclipse Kicker Rockford I like eclipse alot but I try and stay away from metal coned speakers, they always seem to have some distortion. I personally own a D910 and I love it. |
|
Silver Member Username: KenwaPost Number: 197 Registered: May-04 | ^^^^ your wrong, the reason for a metal cone is to elminate distortion. I agree with reece and tyler, the kicker would be the loudest but it is not going to sound good doing it. The eclipse and the diamond are both loud, clean hitting subs but the eclipse would be louder. And i as well think rockford sucks. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RiskybPost Number: 13 Registered: Feb-06 | Well whatever, my own personal opinion is stay away from metal cones. They have resonances that cannot be equalized or electronically removed. This is because these resonances are amplified by harmonic distortions produced by the motor of the driver. A driver like the Eclipse is one of the few exceptions as it has a very low distortion motor. I think you will be very happy with Eclipse or Diamond. Eclipse is going to require a very large amplifier. |
|
Silver Member Username: KenwaPost Number: 200 Registered: May-04 | Once again grant your wrong, the eclipse would NOT require a larger amp. Eclipse subs are very efficiant, their rms is 750 watts and they dont need any more than that. Thats 250 watts less than the rated rms on the diamonds. |
|
Gold Member Username: Basshead86Google is your Friend, FL Post Number: 4182 Registered: Aug-05 | the metal cone is more rigid than say a paper-pulp cone. so they do not flex. but, some people say they color the sound. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RiskybPost Number: 17 Registered: Feb-06 | Ah I see, my Diamond D910 is 600 watt RMS. I forgot the 15'' version was rated higher. You don't have to be such a dick though, I'm just stating my personal opinion. I guess, I am one of those people who say they color the sound. |
|
New member Username: BrucebrownPost Number: 1 Registered: Aug-06 | Aluminum itself is much stiffer than any paper cone even with glass reinforcement, this will push resonances into much higher frequencies. Actually into the midrange bandwidth. A subwoofer will never play above 100hz and in fact a stiffer cone is more pistonic for much higher frequencies and for higher excursions. Paper has far more 3rd and higher harmonic distortions in subwoofer frequencies than any aluminum cone would have. It should be noted that aluminum cones are generally at least 4 times the price of reinforced paper and they also can add significantly more power handling and heat dissipation. Aluminum per gram is over 8 times stiffer. It's first resonances are much much higher in frequency. Carbon fiber cones, or fiberglass reinforced paper would be lucky to weigh in less than an aluminum cone per a given stiffness. Carbon fiber is quite heavy though it is stiff it is no where near as stiff as aluminum per gram unless you are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a cone. And even with the best carbon fibers you still are looking at a cone that would be about the SAME stiffness per gram as aluminum. Aluminum is by far not the best material for a speaker's cone (there are so many advanced materials no company uses), but it is certainly better than the ridiculously common paper cones. Polypropylene is also a common subwoofer cone but aluminum per gram is over 8 times stiffer it's first resonances are much much higher in frequency) It will have lower distortion in the sub frequencies than a paper or glass reinforced paper. Aluminum cones DO flex it's just at about 8 times lower of a magnitude than paper. People's ears tend to like dampening when there are resonances, which is why people tend to prefer silk dome tweeters for car audio. People accuse poorly designed aluminum domes of sounding "harsh", but for a subwoofer the aluminum cone will actually act more pistonic (which means it acts more like the theoretical ideal of a perfect sound transducer" however for a subwoofer... it can not color the sound.... your ears are too insensitive to notice a difference in dampening at those frequencies, even if there were resonances(which there aren't) Aluminum also has lower 3rd and higher order distortions especially at higher and higher SPL levels (excursion) than a paper or fiber reinforced paper. http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/295-468g.pdf This link shows a 15" subwoofer driver with an aluminum cone. As you can see the first resonances are amazingly high at around 1.2khz. The Aluminum cone will not color the sound. |
|
Gold Member Username: Basshead86Google is your Friend, FL Post Number: 4203 Registered: Aug-05 | thanks for that. you must own Aluminum cone subs.  lol |
|
New member Username: BrucebrownPost Number: 4 Registered: Aug-06 | Good Morning Muddy Waters I know it may seem as if I do own Aluminum Subwoofers I have a modest setup for right now, with a pair of w7's Powered by an c2k 9.0 |
|
Gold Member Username: JuliobSanto DomingoDominican Re... Post Number: 1639 Registered: Dec-05 | eclipse... can you put SI mag on the list??? |
|
Gold Member Username: Alex_fNear lexington, Ky Us Post Number: 1225 Registered: Nov-05 | actually i hear aluminum cones don't have the best sound quality, though the sw9 has a titanium cone. And the eclipse is rated per coil, so it is 1500 watts. |
|
Gold Member Username: PelonaPerres, California Post Number: 1803 Registered: Dec-05 | dam thats a good first post bruce! |
|
Silver Member Username: JeremycGermany Post Number: 848 Registered: Jun-04 | "A subwoofer will never play above 100hz " I have to question that statment. A x over doesn't cut off at a certain freq. It only reduces the volume as the freq gets farther away from the x over point. Normally 24 db an octave or so. An octave is a doubeling of freq so your talking about a 24db cut from 60 to 120herts. |
|
New member Username: BrucebrownPost Number: 5 Registered: Aug-06 | Thank you Pelon Jeremy That is a good point, I was trying to simplify my point. Given the choices between an aluminum cone and paper though even with a 12db/octave slope you will have less distortion even into the midranges from an aluminum cone subwoofer (at least distortion induced by resonances). You have to remember that a Xover point such as 60hz (which is where it should be for sound quality in a car) this is actually the 3db down point and then per octave it will reduce 24db from ONLY the electronic crossover system. However you have far more extensive problems than cone materials (though aluminum will STILL be superior to paper or reinforced paper). Inductance is going to be the major issue, and no shorting paths are going to help you in the 100hz-300hz ranges. This is unavoidable and high inductance will actually HELP the frequency response after xover point, though it will have a slightly higher distortion than a subwoofer with a very small coil However as I'm sure you know, what matters for subwoofer frequencies after an xover point is not distortion so much as frequency response, and given the choice of a natural 24db/octave slope brought on by inductance after 80hz and to have a ultra low inductance subwoofer (read really small power handling and really expensive) with a simple 24db/octave filter I would take the combined 48db/octave slope (if not greater) that a very high inductance would yield. Titanium is not stiffer than aluminum per gram and therefore aluminum for the same cone weight will have both better power handling (vastly better thermal conductivity than titanium) and also stiffer by around 30% hence it's sound quality will be significantly higher than titanium. Titanium is actually a terrible material that does not have very many purposes with this being said titanium is still a lot better than paper. |
|
New member Username: XilinxftlPost Number: 2 Registered: Aug-06 | I just wanted to back up what Bruce said. Cones for subwoofers makes little to no difference. If we were talking about midrange or tweeters, then something could be said. But bass wavelengths are so long that whatever the cone does is not audible period. Trust me on this. Aluminum, paper, steel whatever, whatever. The advantages of each have more to do with: first, their weight, and second their durability and third, their looks and possibly voice coil cooling, nothing else. Yes Aluminum is lighter so its preferred, however aluminum can dent very easy to titanium has the advantage of durability unless you take care of your subwoofers and put a grill on em. If you have ever tried to dent a Ti cone you know what I mean. Yes Al can also cool the vc better, its minor but it helps. Lets talk about voice coil former design for a second. Here is a case were aluminum loses to titanium. In this application, Al conducts eddy currents which cause distortion, Al also resonates more in this application than the stiffer titanium former. So voice coils wound on titanium have a big advantage here even if they are a little heavier by a few grams and provide less cooling! Its surprising, but its provable for many applications. unfortunately the grade of titanium is very inconsistent and many manufactures have resorted to cheaper aluminum , but titanium has its purpose here. IMO, its best to use Al for the cone, and titanium for the voice coil former. There are a few hybrid ideas out there such as fiberglass over a honeycomb or foam insert with carbon fiber. This is even lighter and stronger than aluminum but there are durability issues with the laminations coming apart at the edges and pieces of the honeycomb breaking in the middle and then making noise for ever, kind of funny actually. |
|
Gold Member Username: Basshead86Google is your Friend, FL Post Number: 4223 Registered: Aug-05 | i like our 2 new members welcome to the forum! for once, you have brought knowledge instead of asinine questions. |
|
New member Username: BrucebrownPost Number: 6 Registered: Aug-06 | Thanks Muddy Asdf you are pretty much right But it should be noted to that this is unimportant in a sub. Eddy currents influencing distortion is more important in midranges and tweeter frequencies. Nomex and Kapton would do this job of decreasing eddy currents better if power handling isn't important for midranges and tweeters. Titanium would actually still be far worse than those two materials which are a fraction of the weight of titanium. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics