Silver Member Username: DelsolePost Number: 245 Registered: Feb-05 | Opinions |
Platinum Member Username: GlasswolfWisteria, Lane USA Post Number: 11428 Registered: Dec-03 | new or old XXX? completely different subs. |
Silver Member Username: DelsolePost Number: 249 Registered: Feb-05 | new one |
Gold Member Username: B101Queen City, NC USA Post Number: 2126 Registered: Sep-05 | nobody really tested the new XXXs yet.. |
Gold Member Username: BestmankindLos Angeles, CA USA Post Number: 3364 Registered: Oct-05 | you can't really compare the new xxx to the w7s. the new xxx's are 2000wrms and the w7s are only 750-1000wrms. |
Platinum Member Username: GlasswolfWisteria, Lane USA Post Number: 11440 Registered: Dec-03 | thermal power handling doesn't mean much. |
Gold Member Username: BestmankindLos Angeles, CA USA Post Number: 3368 Registered: Oct-05 | oh sorry glasswolf. thats why i am here to learn. |
Gold Member Username: Tdeaton1021Near Tampa, Florida USA Post Number: 2411 Registered: Sep-04 | still, i dont think the new xxx subs will compare to the w7s. i think the new xxx will take it to another level that the w7 is not on..... lets wait for a W7v2 |
Gold Member Username: Mikechec9Post Number: 2313 Registered: May-05 | "lets wait for a W7v2" There will definitely be one. But it's not on the radar just yet, according to their chief engineer. |
Silver Member Username: DelsolePost Number: 255 Registered: Feb-05 | w7v2 never really thought bought that befor but hey do you guys think the xxx would sound better then the w7 i know someone has a xxx come on speak up |
New member Username: Ear_splitterPost Number: 3 Registered: Mar-06 | JL Kicks AZZ Dude you guys Who want to know what to get, get JL's They are the BEST!! |
Silver Member Username: DelsolePost Number: 257 Registered: Feb-05 | coming from someone wit 3 posts who obviously dont know the ropes of this sit but jl is nice sh it |
Silver Member Username: SpyderEglin AFB, Florida USA Post Number: 310 Registered: Jun-05 | Both will do the job nicely......from either stand point it's hard to say which will sound better or louder.....i think the only benifit the XXX truely wins with is the cost! |
Bronze Member Username: Jl_rockTemecula, California U.S. Post Number: 36 Registered: Mar-06 | how much are the new XXX going to cost? i heard they are around $400-$500 is that right i heard it from another forum |
Silver Member Username: Killerzracing71Fredericksburg, Virginia United states Post Number: 437 Registered: Aug-05 | something like 650 shipped only the 12's out now i think.. |
Gold Member Username: RedlinerWilmington, Ma Post Number: 1195 Registered: Jun-05 | the 12" is 630 shipped but it could change |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5869 Registered: May-04 | The big thing to wonder about is the sound quality of the new XXX. With the design I can't see it being a bit better than the old one, I'd say worse. Maybe even much worse. Whether that's worth it is questionable. But a 54mm x-max subwoofer can (potentially) only get 3db louder than a sub with half that. Most likely it'll be less than a 3db increase. And the subwoofer is going to be horribly inefficient. You could get as loud with two lower line subwoofers, and probably sound just as good doing it. Add the fact that you'll use less total power, it shows it's drawbacks. The case is the same with the W7, but not to as large an extent. Why get a W7 when you can get two W6s, run the same power, and get louder? W6s also sound better. |
Gold Member Username: RedlinerWilmington, Ma Post Number: 1200 Registered: Jun-05 | hey jonathan have you ever heard the dd 3500 series subs are they any good |
Gold Member Username: Mikechec9Post Number: 2318 Registered: May-05 | http://forum.carstereos.org/showthread.php?t=60111 |
Gold Member Username: Mikechec9Post Number: 2319 Registered: May-05 | http://forum.carstereos.org/showthread.php?t=60111 |
Silver Member Username: Safe_crackerChicago, IL US Post Number: 654 Registered: Jan-06 | The huge excursion of the XXX is designed to bring the lows out a lot louder. If you look at the TS on it the FS-21hz, that is low as hell!. I heard that you will need to tune higher because the sub will naturally want to go low. I preordered my 15" and fighting to find rume in my car for it, lol. One way or another it will fit, Polo.. |
Silver Member Username: SixFlint, MI U.S.A. Post Number: 482 Registered: Oct-05 | I too agree w/ Jonathan on this one. I know that my 2 15" Arsenals with only 500 wrms each, got louder than 1 15" avalanche with 1200 rms and louder than 2 15" avalanches powered of the same 500 wrms each. They also sound a bit nicer then my avalanches. I know they will blow away a 13w7 easily now, and once they get the 800rms each I'll be feeding them, I know they would kill 2 13w7s and/or 1 New 15" XXX... In the next few days I am building a new ported box that's 7 cuft after port and driver displacement, tuned to 28hz, w/ 80 inches of port area. I will then put a Viper d1200.1 on each, feeding them 800 @ 2ohm each. |
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5875 Registered: May-04 | Increased excursion by itself isn't going to make low end any better when taking the rest of the frequency range into account, remember it's all proportional. Unless you are pushing your subs past their linear limits quite often, there is nothing to be gained with more excursion aside from SQ drawbacks. There are plenty of examples of high excursion midwoofers with less than stellar low end, the Diamond Audio HEX components come to mind. The SEAS Lotus midbass driver dumaxed at 10mm one-way, people think "hey, that thing should drop way down low!!". In real life, 80hz is a realistic crossover frequency for those components. Both are clean down low, but their overall design causes a rolled off low end. Low end is dependant upon the rest of the design, not excursion. If you had a .30 Qts sub running infinite baffle, it's going to have a rolled off low end compared to the rest of the frequency range, even if it had a 200mm one way x-max. The only thing that 54mm of x-max will get you is the ability to play lows at a louder volume(again, approximately 3db louder than a sub with half the excursion). If that new XXX is low-end biased at all volume levels, it isn't due to the excursion. It would most likely be due to either an inductive rolloff up top or poor reproduction of higher frequencies due to the extremely high mass of the cone/coil assembly. Mass doesn't dictate transient response, but if you add too much mass to a driver, it becomes terribly inefficient and low end biased (if the suspension matches that). At the same time, the upper end suffers. With more mass you're increasing rigidity, but at the same time you're lowering the frequencies where cone/vc resonance occurs. Image Dynamics had a good analogy when referring to enclosure design, but it applies to speaker design as well. Think of it in terms of a sack of beans, with the beans representing the energy in the system. You have the option of spreading the energy over a wider bandwidth, or you have the option of mounding them up to focus the energy over a narrow bandwidth. You have the same number of beans, you just choose how to use them. With subs, you can add mass, lower Fs, and get a sub designed for bottom octave output. Then you have a sub that has great low end performance, but it's horribly inefficient and the rest of the frequency range begins to suffer. Likewise, you can design a subwoofer that is more inclined to higher frequencies. Usually that sub will be more efficient, but the tradeoff will be a sacrifice in low end performance. Your third option is designing a sub (or speaker in general) that is good all around. This all-around design focus means that while giving acceptable performance overall, it doesn't excel anywhere. Pick your poison, NO speaker design can overcome this. The drawbacks are summed up in Zaphs writeup, titled "Woofers with lower Xmax sound better" ;) http://www.zaphaudio.com/lowxmax.html |