Custom Audio Pics Of My Car
04-12-2004, 06:39 PM
#27
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mikeb
very sharp
looks great
very sharp
looks great
just kidding... aesthetically, you did a great job, but because this is a SOUND system, I will comment on that alone.
Anyhow, I'm not a big fan of square-shaped subs (and neither are most true audiophiles). The problem with them is that althoiugh they attain a much higher SPL than a round sub would of equal size, they aren't hugely impressive in terms of quality.
So, if you want just loud bass, a 10" square sub will do that for you, whereas you'd probably need a 12" to get the same surface area if the sub were round. If you want ACCURACY, then a square sub is definitely not the way to go, sorry
FInally.. change the DOOR SPEAKERS.. the bose sounds awful!! :P especially the highs, which I find completely lacking and extremely CRUCIAL if you're adding subs. I threw in diamond audio hex's and they're just amazing =)
Anyhow my $.02 I just don't want people to think that just because it looks 'pretty' it sounds good... the JL Audio W7's don't look pretty whatsoever... they're round, and black.. but they are wicked!
Last edited by maverick02; 04-12-2004 at 06:47 PM.
04-12-2004, 06:49 PM
#28
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by maverick02
looks great.. but how does it sound??
just kidding... aesthetically, you did a great job, but because this is a SOUND system, I will comment on that alone.
Anyhow, I'm not a big fan of square-shaped subs (and neither are most true audiophiles). The problem with them is that althoiugh they attain a much higher SPL than a round sub would of equal size, they aren't hugely impressive in terms of quality.
So, if you want just loud bass, a 10" square sub will do that for you, whereas you'd probably need a 12" to get the same surface area if the sub were round. If you want ACCURACY, then a square sub is definitely not the way to go, sorry
FInally.. change the DOOR SPEAKERS.. the bose sounds awful!! :P especially the highs, which I find completely lacking and extremely CRUCIAL if you're adding subs. I threw in diamond audio hex's and they're just amazing =)
Anyhow my $.02
looks great.. but how does it sound??
just kidding... aesthetically, you did a great job, but because this is a SOUND system, I will comment on that alone.
Anyhow, I'm not a big fan of square-shaped subs (and neither are most true audiophiles). The problem with them is that althoiugh they attain a much higher SPL than a round sub would of equal size, they aren't hugely impressive in terms of quality.
So, if you want just loud bass, a 10" square sub will do that for you, whereas you'd probably need a 12" to get the same surface area if the sub were round. If you want ACCURACY, then a square sub is definitely not the way to go, sorry
FInally.. change the DOOR SPEAKERS.. the bose sounds awful!! :P especially the highs, which I find completely lacking and extremely CRUCIAL if you're adding subs. I threw in diamond audio hex's and they're just amazing =)
Anyhow my $.02
Dude, you have not a clue what you are talking about. Spend the next ten years selling, installing, and competing in the car audio business; then I'll invite you to post something you have to say IF it's remotely true. That's about all I have to say about this guy's ignorant post. BTW, thanks for your approval of my system's aesthetics.:p
04-12-2004, 07:03 PM
#29
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha ok
If you actually believe that square shaped subs sound good then you've been working at best buy just a few years too long. Get some REAL experience and then perhaps I'll invite YOU to challenge me to a debate. Until then....
To everyone else, just do some research (or go listen to a square kicker sub)... and compare it to a jl audio sub.. you'll understand what I mean by "accuracy" ... a term not found in many people's vocabulary...
The kicker square subs are designed for two reasons:
1) to look different/make for different enclosures
2) to win SPL competitions
As I've already said they lack SQ and the square design is a gimmick, a gimmick made for the creative installer in all of us. Speakers are round for a reason: sound waves propagate spherically.
Did you know that Mr. 10 years of experience? If you respond, how about responding with something of subtance instead of branding me as "ignorant" without offering evidence to suggest so...
If you actually believe that square shaped subs sound good then you've been working at best buy just a few years too long. Get some REAL experience and then perhaps I'll invite YOU to challenge me to a debate. Until then....
To everyone else, just do some research (or go listen to a square kicker sub)... and compare it to a jl audio sub.. you'll understand what I mean by "accuracy" ... a term not found in many people's vocabulary...
The kicker square subs are designed for two reasons:
1) to look different/make for different enclosures
2) to win SPL competitions
As I've already said they lack SQ and the square design is a gimmick, a gimmick made for the creative installer in all of us. Speakers are round for a reason: sound waves propagate spherically.
Did you know that Mr. 10 years of experience?
If you respond, how about responding with something of subtance instead of branding me as "ignorant" without offering evidence to suggest so...
Last edited by maverick02; 04-12-2004 at 07:33 PM.
04-12-2004, 07:42 PM
#30
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by maverick02
haha ok
If you actually believe that square shaped subs sound good then you've been working at best buy just a few years too long. Get some REAL experience and then perhaps I'll invite YOU to challenge me to a debate. Until then....
To everyone else, just do some research (or go listen to a square kicker sub)... and compare it to a jl audio sub.. you'll understand what I mean by "accuracy" ... a term not found in many people's vocabulary...
haha ok
If you actually believe that square shaped subs sound good then you've been working at best buy just a few years too long. Get some REAL experience and then perhaps I'll invite YOU to challenge me to a debate. Until then....
To everyone else, just do some research (or go listen to a square kicker sub)... and compare it to a jl audio sub.. you'll understand what I mean by "accuracy" ... a term not found in many people's vocabulary...
Car audio components and their sonic performance have, and always will be, a subject of debate. My issue with what you stated above, is having to do with your comment that square subs "aren't accurate." What evidence do you have to make this generalized statement? None, I would guess. The fact that the L7 subs are square is not relevant, when stating they aren't accurate. A speaker's sonic quality has to do with the design of its motor structure, cone structure, heat dissipation abilties, and power handling; not it's geometrical shape.
You, my friend, are the one who needs to research. Vehicles containing Kicker audio components had more USAC and IASCA first and second place finishes last year than any other car audio manufacturer. Needless to say the L7 subs were commonly found in those vehicles. JL audio, another line that is sold at the shop that I run, was number two. BTW, many of these finishes were in sound quality comparisons.
Do I think Kicker makes better equipment than JL? Absolutely not. I'm just stating the FACTS, from a neutral standpoint, as I represent both lines of product at my store. As for your reference to me working at Best Buy, I will be happy to point out a couple more facts. First of all, Best Buy doesn't carry Kicker, as it is a protected line, and is only mass marketed by Crutchfield. Second, I've never worked for Best Buy, but even if I had, I'd still know plenty more about car audio than you.
Boy, oh boy, you alway know you're dealing with a jackass when they start generalizing in their remarks (square subs aren't accurate). Let's just hope his 17th post is a little better.
04-12-2004, 08:10 PM
#31
Registered
MDW: I'll back you up here! I have real experience. If World Championships in IASCA and USAC pro and expert classes + years of sales and installation count, then hopefully I qualify. I'll enter this debate! A little warning, this will be long!
I have actually found that "accuracy" in a sub system has more to do with the tuning of the midbass and midrange speakers than the subs actually do. Phase plays a big role too.
The region around 150 hz is responsible for "muddiness". This has alot to do with the sub/midbass transition point. It can be te result of an improper crossover point, poor tuning, or an improper phase relationship between them.
The other area of concern is in the 700-800 hz range or so. This is what gives us the actual sound of the kick as well as the illusion of where the bass energy could be perceived as coming from. Poor tuning here could be very peaky an overbearing but it could also help draw your attention towards your subs rather than the mids. It is really strange how easily you can fool the human ear.
People argue about a square sub the same as they do about an oval speaker such as a 6X9. Many have the issue that since it is a square, it can not possibly have the same forces exerted on all of its sides and corners like a round speaker can. This is a sound explanation from a salesman standpoint when you want to promote another product. The fact of the matter is that a speaker only has one job in order to get sound to your ears. It has to move air. Here are som arguments that I'll show about speaker boxes before I tackle the issue of speaker shape.
Some people say that a bandpass box sounds better because it filters out any mechanical sub distortion leaving the sound you hear much more pure. Go read Bose literature sometime. Others hate bandpass boxes because they complain about boominess or hollowness in sound. Maybe it is due to a phase issue at that frequency. Maybe those people have just never heard a properly designed bandpass system before. This is actually the most likely scenario.
Some people like sealed boxes the best. Many people claim that frequency is the most stable and "accurate". They claim that frequency response is very low and smooth and not peaky. They say that the natural slope in frequency is cancelled out by the natural cabin gain of the vehicle. Too bad every vehicle is different and that this is a bs excuse. A 3rd gen Camaro has huge cabin gain at 64 hz but not lower! I'm not too sure how that would help out the low end any. These boxes are also inefficient compared to others. They are the easiest to build and easy to make sound good though.
Some people like ported boxes. These people claim that they are greater in efficiency. They are larger though. Below their tuning frequency they have almost no power handling. Above it they have more power handling than a sealed box. Below the tuning frequency they are also pretty useless. In order to get one to sound good in a car the effects of cabin gain and crossover point need to be taken into special consideration. This is true with any box though.
Some people like aperiodic enclosures. They require special attention to pull of properly but if done well can sound very nice from a sound quality standpoint. They are not efficient and need serious attention to frequency compensation to play very low. They need practically no box space though. Not the loudest or easiest to build though.
There are many other little details that I left out. The point of showing box types and pros and cons about them is to prove a point. There are people that swear by on one design. There are others that are very open minded. Just to show you what works out there in the real world and what can sound good here is a list of some World Champion competition cars and the box types they use:
Earl Wills; Impala SS: World Champion in IASCA Pro 601+ in 1994 and 1997. 2- Image Dynamics IDW-18's in an aperiodic enclosure. This car won sound quality with these subs and was the first competition car to ever get a perfect 40 (now 20) in the RTA in a competition! This car was built at my shop at the time, Audio Designs in Houston, TX.
Wilson Adcock (Owner of Expressive Audio); PT Cruiser (The Reaper II): World Champion or Runner up in IASCA and USAC expert unlimited classes for 4 years up until a year ago. This vehicle has 8- 5" Focal subs under the front seats!!! They are in a bandpass box!!! Yes this is the sound quality sub set. The SPL subs were 3-18" Rockford Power HX2's in a ported box. I worked at this shop (Expressive Audio) after the above Audio Designs.
Art Belvin; Cadillac Biarritz: World Champion in USAC, amatuer 1-300, 2001. When I originally built this car at Audio Designs, it had 3 Image Dynamic IDQ-10's in a sealed box. He won all the local competitions and placed in the top 5 several times in IASCA and USAC. Later when I worked at Expressive Audio, the car was entirely rebuilt. The subs remained sealed but was enlarged and changed to 3-12" Image Dynamics IDQ-12's. This was the setup he went through sound quality and SPL with.
Mark Eldridge; late '80's Toyota 4-runner. I admit I had nothing to do with this vehicle. He is the person that the PT Cruiser went back and forth with for several years for top honors in IASCA and USAC. His vehicle uses 3-15" SQUARE Solobaric subs in a combo box that is sealed or aperiodic. the aperiodic setup is used for sound quality. At the push of a button, the ap mat moves out of the way and a flap closes in the bottom of the box which selas it off for SPL. These are the same subs for sound quality and SPL and they are SQUARE. This is also the very highest and most difficult class to compete in of them all. This are where the tryly wonderful cars sound. No one else comes close.
Now after that backgroud I can get into sub shapes, sizes, and excursions.
There are those that say a smaller woofer sounds best (accurate) because it is "faster". The argument is that since the cone is smaller, it takes less energy to get it to start and stop than a larger coned speaker. Here's a reality check. Every speaker is the same speed regardless of size. The speed is determined by frequency.
Other people say that larger speakers sound best. The argument here is that a larger speaker displaces more air and therefor doesn't need to move as far to get the same volume level. This is absolutely true. However, a larger speaker radiates sound from a larger surface area. In the small confines of a vehicle, the different locations of sound origination may only serve to amplify frequency cancellations. In reality, the lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength and the less likely cancellations will occur. This is osmthing to consider with speakers higher in the frequency range though.
Some people say to use really long excursion woofers. The basis for this is that to play a low frequency you need to displace alot of air. If you can't make the woofer cone larger, make it move more air by increasing it's stroke. How is this different from using a larger woofer with less stroke again? The argument against these goes back to the magnet having to provide enough control over the woofer to make it start and stop quickly enough without distortion. A large enough magnet also needs a large amount of power.
Woofer materials: There are true audiophiles out there who claim that only paper sounds good. Others say that Kevlar sounds best. Still others like the sound of polypropelene. JVC has a new speaker made out of wood! The same arguments apply to woofer surrounds. Some swear by the old accordian type surrounds. SOme like the foam style and others like rubber.
Woofer shapes: Only until the past couple of years were speakers only round. It is very hard to break from tradition and this is probably the number one reason why many people argue against them. I only argued against square subs when I was in retail because I sold Rockford and not Kicker. They don't make a square sub. when I worked at Audio Designs I sold Kicker (before they made a square sub) and I hated Rockford. See how that works! The advantage of a square sub is that it move more air. I don't understand why this is a bad thing. We are in the age of super long excursion woofers which are designed to move more air. Why not just cram more usable cone area into a basket? Other companies have followed such as Bazooka with a traingle sub and now others with all sorts of shapes. Square actually makes sense. If we alot oursleves with only so much space in each direction, there is still wasted space due to a round sub not being able to take advantage of the remaining area. This is where square comes in. It fills in all the voids. Traingles don't make any sense from a space standpoint. For amount of area needed to mount one, you get less total cone are. The alternate shapes are more of a fad item rather than an improvement.
Basically what this comes down to is that there is no one perfect box style and no one perfect shape, size, or brand of woofer. All of them can be made to sound very good. Just as a recap I'll list the above setups again but much simplified.
These are the subs that won in SOUND QUALITY not SPL!
3-15" square Solobarics in a aperodic enclosure
2-18" round Image Dymamic subs in an aperiodic enclosure
8-5" round Focal subs in a bandpass enclosure
3-12" round subs in a sealed enclosure.
The materials these subs were made out of ranges from paper with an accordian surround (Image Dynamics 18's), to polypropelene with a rubber surround (Solobarics and Image Dynamics 12's), to Kevlar with a rubber surround (Focal 5").
Now I ask you, How can ANYBODY say that a square sub doesn't sound good? How can ANYBODY say that one box is better than another? How can ANYBODY say size matters?!
This is only the few cars that I have dealt with. It says nothing about the countless others out there and about what they used. I feel that this is a good reference though since I was involved in the very best in the business. If they can make it win, it can't be that bad. What this proves is that good tuning and box building skills and not the product used has more of an effect on how good something sounds.
What else can we debate?
I have actually found that "accuracy" in a sub system has more to do with the tuning of the midbass and midrange speakers than the subs actually do. Phase plays a big role too.
The region around 150 hz is responsible for "muddiness". This has alot to do with the sub/midbass transition point. It can be te result of an improper crossover point, poor tuning, or an improper phase relationship between them.
The other area of concern is in the 700-800 hz range or so. This is what gives us the actual sound of the kick as well as the illusion of where the bass energy could be perceived as coming from. Poor tuning here could be very peaky an overbearing but it could also help draw your attention towards your subs rather than the mids. It is really strange how easily you can fool the human ear.
People argue about a square sub the same as they do about an oval speaker such as a 6X9. Many have the issue that since it is a square, it can not possibly have the same forces exerted on all of its sides and corners like a round speaker can. This is a sound explanation from a salesman standpoint when you want to promote another product. The fact of the matter is that a speaker only has one job in order to get sound to your ears. It has to move air. Here are som arguments that I'll show about speaker boxes before I tackle the issue of speaker shape.
Some people say that a bandpass box sounds better because it filters out any mechanical sub distortion leaving the sound you hear much more pure. Go read Bose literature sometime. Others hate bandpass boxes because they complain about boominess or hollowness in sound. Maybe it is due to a phase issue at that frequency. Maybe those people have just never heard a properly designed bandpass system before. This is actually the most likely scenario.
Some people like sealed boxes the best. Many people claim that frequency is the most stable and "accurate". They claim that frequency response is very low and smooth and not peaky. They say that the natural slope in frequency is cancelled out by the natural cabin gain of the vehicle. Too bad every vehicle is different and that this is a bs excuse. A 3rd gen Camaro has huge cabin gain at 64 hz but not lower! I'm not too sure how that would help out the low end any. These boxes are also inefficient compared to others. They are the easiest to build and easy to make sound good though.
Some people like ported boxes. These people claim that they are greater in efficiency. They are larger though. Below their tuning frequency they have almost no power handling. Above it they have more power handling than a sealed box. Below the tuning frequency they are also pretty useless. In order to get one to sound good in a car the effects of cabin gain and crossover point need to be taken into special consideration. This is true with any box though.
Some people like aperiodic enclosures. They require special attention to pull of properly but if done well can sound very nice from a sound quality standpoint. They are not efficient and need serious attention to frequency compensation to play very low. They need practically no box space though. Not the loudest or easiest to build though.
There are many other little details that I left out. The point of showing box types and pros and cons about them is to prove a point. There are people that swear by on one design. There are others that are very open minded. Just to show you what works out there in the real world and what can sound good here is a list of some World Champion competition cars and the box types they use:
Earl Wills; Impala SS: World Champion in IASCA Pro 601+ in 1994 and 1997. 2- Image Dynamics IDW-18's in an aperiodic enclosure. This car won sound quality with these subs and was the first competition car to ever get a perfect 40 (now 20) in the RTA in a competition! This car was built at my shop at the time, Audio Designs in Houston, TX.
Wilson Adcock (Owner of Expressive Audio); PT Cruiser (The Reaper II): World Champion or Runner up in IASCA and USAC expert unlimited classes for 4 years up until a year ago. This vehicle has 8- 5" Focal subs under the front seats!!! They are in a bandpass box!!! Yes this is the sound quality sub set. The SPL subs were 3-18" Rockford Power HX2's in a ported box. I worked at this shop (Expressive Audio) after the above Audio Designs.
Art Belvin; Cadillac Biarritz: World Champion in USAC, amatuer 1-300, 2001. When I originally built this car at Audio Designs, it had 3 Image Dynamic IDQ-10's in a sealed box. He won all the local competitions and placed in the top 5 several times in IASCA and USAC. Later when I worked at Expressive Audio, the car was entirely rebuilt. The subs remained sealed but was enlarged and changed to 3-12" Image Dynamics IDQ-12's. This was the setup he went through sound quality and SPL with.
Mark Eldridge; late '80's Toyota 4-runner. I admit I had nothing to do with this vehicle. He is the person that the PT Cruiser went back and forth with for several years for top honors in IASCA and USAC. His vehicle uses 3-15" SQUARE Solobaric subs in a combo box that is sealed or aperiodic. the aperiodic setup is used for sound quality. At the push of a button, the ap mat moves out of the way and a flap closes in the bottom of the box which selas it off for SPL. These are the same subs for sound quality and SPL and they are SQUARE. This is also the very highest and most difficult class to compete in of them all. This are where the tryly wonderful cars sound. No one else comes close.
Now after that backgroud I can get into sub shapes, sizes, and excursions.
There are those that say a smaller woofer sounds best (accurate) because it is "faster". The argument is that since the cone is smaller, it takes less energy to get it to start and stop than a larger coned speaker. Here's a reality check. Every speaker is the same speed regardless of size. The speed is determined by frequency.
Other people say that larger speakers sound best. The argument here is that a larger speaker displaces more air and therefor doesn't need to move as far to get the same volume level. This is absolutely true. However, a larger speaker radiates sound from a larger surface area. In the small confines of a vehicle, the different locations of sound origination may only serve to amplify frequency cancellations. In reality, the lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength and the less likely cancellations will occur. This is osmthing to consider with speakers higher in the frequency range though.
Some people say to use really long excursion woofers. The basis for this is that to play a low frequency you need to displace alot of air. If you can't make the woofer cone larger, make it move more air by increasing it's stroke. How is this different from using a larger woofer with less stroke again? The argument against these goes back to the magnet having to provide enough control over the woofer to make it start and stop quickly enough without distortion. A large enough magnet also needs a large amount of power.
Woofer materials: There are true audiophiles out there who claim that only paper sounds good. Others say that Kevlar sounds best. Still others like the sound of polypropelene. JVC has a new speaker made out of wood! The same arguments apply to woofer surrounds. Some swear by the old accordian type surrounds. SOme like the foam style and others like rubber.
Woofer shapes: Only until the past couple of years were speakers only round. It is very hard to break from tradition and this is probably the number one reason why many people argue against them. I only argued against square subs when I was in retail because I sold Rockford and not Kicker. They don't make a square sub. when I worked at Audio Designs I sold Kicker (before they made a square sub) and I hated Rockford. See how that works! The advantage of a square sub is that it move more air. I don't understand why this is a bad thing. We are in the age of super long excursion woofers which are designed to move more air. Why not just cram more usable cone area into a basket? Other companies have followed such as Bazooka with a traingle sub and now others with all sorts of shapes. Square actually makes sense. If we alot oursleves with only so much space in each direction, there is still wasted space due to a round sub not being able to take advantage of the remaining area. This is where square comes in. It fills in all the voids. Traingles don't make any sense from a space standpoint. For amount of area needed to mount one, you get less total cone are. The alternate shapes are more of a fad item rather than an improvement.
Basically what this comes down to is that there is no one perfect box style and no one perfect shape, size, or brand of woofer. All of them can be made to sound very good. Just as a recap I'll list the above setups again but much simplified.
These are the subs that won in SOUND QUALITY not SPL!
3-15" square Solobarics in a aperodic enclosure
2-18" round Image Dymamic subs in an aperiodic enclosure
8-5" round Focal subs in a bandpass enclosure
3-12" round subs in a sealed enclosure.
The materials these subs were made out of ranges from paper with an accordian surround (Image Dynamics 18's), to polypropelene with a rubber surround (Solobarics and Image Dynamics 12's), to Kevlar with a rubber surround (Focal 5").
Now I ask you, How can ANYBODY say that a square sub doesn't sound good? How can ANYBODY say that one box is better than another? How can ANYBODY say size matters?!
This is only the few cars that I have dealt with. It says nothing about the countless others out there and about what they used. I feel that this is a good reference though since I was involved in the very best in the business. If they can make it win, it can't be that bad. What this proves is that good tuning and box building skills and not the product used has more of an effect on how good something sounds.
What else can we debate?
Last edited by rotarygod; 04-12-2004 at 08:13 PM.
04-12-2004, 08:12 PM
#32
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must be real proud of yourself especially with your character assasination attempts against me... anyhow:
Think about it... a square will have uneven stress points. A circle.. is the same pressure all the way around. Same reason a 6x9 isn't as good as a round speaker. When the speaker has uneven stress points, it will, at high excursion, cause the coil to rub against the magnet structure when it cants while traversing... that in turn not only causes distortion, but coil damage!
IASCA SQ events cap SPL at 130dB, which is hardly loud at all. At that volume, you're nowhere near mechanical Xmax for the subs, so cone flex distortion isn't as audible. Try an SQ comparison at mech Xmax and see if you still think they sound so wonderful.. that is, if the leads don't separate or the surrounds don't come apart ...
I have one guy with some L5s who's had them replaced 5 times now by kicker due to leads tearing off the cone! Piece of **** subs... and he has a good amp, properly adjusted, and power matched to the subs, and a very good box.. also properly tuned. It's the subs, plain and simple.
I tore the guy's system apart to make sure there wasn't a problem causing loss of damping or something.. even has subsonic filters in place...
Anyway the L7 is a nice sub.. I'm not saying they're pyramid level.. I just don't like non-round subs.. sony, kicker, or otherwise I'll stick to JL W7s, IDMax, DD, RE, or similar good quality subs
Think about it... a square will have uneven stress points. A circle.. is the same pressure all the way around. Same reason a 6x9 isn't as good as a round speaker. When the speaker has uneven stress points, it will, at high excursion, cause the coil to rub against the magnet structure when it cants while traversing... that in turn not only causes distortion, but coil damage!
IASCA SQ events cap SPL at 130dB, which is hardly loud at all. At that volume, you're nowhere near mechanical Xmax for the subs, so cone flex distortion isn't as audible. Try an SQ comparison at mech Xmax and see if you still think they sound so wonderful.. that is, if the leads don't separate or the surrounds don't come apart ...
I have one guy with some L5s who's had them replaced 5 times now by kicker due to leads tearing off the cone! Piece of **** subs... and he has a good amp, properly adjusted, and power matched to the subs, and a very good box.. also properly tuned. It's the subs, plain and simple.
I tore the guy's system apart to make sure there wasn't a problem causing loss of damping or something.. even has subsonic filters in place...
Anyway the L7 is a nice sub.. I'm not saying they're pyramid level.. I just don't like non-round subs.. sony, kicker, or otherwise I'll stick to JL W7s, IDMax, DD, RE, or similar good quality subs
Last edited by maverick02; 04-13-2004 at 09:59 AM.
04-12-2004, 08:12 PM
#33
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to say, that if maverick02 has more jibberish to post in reference to his car audio knowledge, he should start his own thread. I tend to fall victim to arguing with ignornace on a consistant basis on this forum, and for that, I aplogize.
I will, however, agree that there are uneven stress points on oblong and square speakers. Does this make a big difference is SQ? In the car audio world, I think not. The differences are minimal, and not audibly noticable to most ears.
Cars and all the speakers designed to work in them are technically inaccurate. If I want to hear accuracy in a more pure form, I'll sit in my living room, not my car.
I will, however, agree that there are uneven stress points on oblong and square speakers. Does this make a big difference is SQ? In the car audio world, I think not. The differences are minimal, and not audibly noticable to most ears.
Cars and all the speakers designed to work in them are technically inaccurate. If I want to hear accuracy in a more pure form, I'll sit in my living room, not my car.
Last edited by mdw33333; 04-12-2004 at 08:21 PM.
04-12-2004, 08:20 PM
#35
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mdw33333
I would like to say, that if maverick02 has more jibberish to post in reference to his car audio knowledge, he should start his own thread. I tend to fall victim to arguingwith ignornace on a consistnat basis on this forum, and for that, I aplogize.
I would like to say, that if maverick02 has more jibberish to post in reference to his car audio knowledge, he should start his own thread. I tend to fall victim to arguingwith ignornace on a consistnat basis on this forum, and for that, I aplogize.
04-12-2004, 08:26 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maverick, give it a rest dude. No offence but arguing is really bogus, espically with some one who's been in the audio business for ten years. Just forget about it and be happy with your JL's which I like espically better than the Kicker L7s.
04-12-2004, 08:35 PM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotarygod
I posted a long post in the midst of both of yours so please scroll up and read it.
I posted a long post in the midst of both of yours so please scroll up and read it.
By the way, to maverick02, I don't need to have a degree in physics to handle you in a car audio debate, nor does rotary god, nor anyone else for that matter.
Last edited by mdw33333; 04-12-2004 at 09:29 PM.
04-12-2004, 11:14 PM
#39
Registered
Originally posted by maverick02
I have one guy with some L5s who's had them replaced 5 times now by kicker due to leads tearing off the cone! Piece of **** subs...
I have one guy with some L5s who's had them replaced 5 times now by kicker due to leads tearing off the cone! Piece of **** subs...
04-13-2004, 01:38 PM
#40
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW! That Impala was one of the best installs I have ever seen. Way to think outside the box! I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your vast audio and performance information with the board. Kudos to you.
04-13-2004, 02:07 PM
#41
Registered
Do you remember seeing it? It was in Car Audio an Electronics years back. It had Image Dynamics horns molded into the dash and 8's in the kick panels. It also had TV's and a VCR in it before most people did. It was definitely long before the current fad with video systems. That car was a pioneer for modern car audio.
Actually when that car won in '94, it had an aperiodic system for the subs. When we redid the car for '97, the subs ran free air! Yes it won this way too!!!
Actually when that car won in '94, it had an aperiodic system for the subs. When we redid the car for '97, the subs ran free air! Yes it won this way too!!!
04-13-2004, 04:55 PM
#42
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hell yes I remember seeing it! I can still picture it in my head. And you are correct, it was way ahead of it's time. Truly a milestone in car audio that changed the direction of SQ systems to this day. I don't remember much about it, but there was another car a bit later that was one of the nicest I have ever seen as well. It was a 93 Mustang LX, that had 15s or 18s in an aperiodic enclosure, liquid cooled amps in the floor, and probably the cleanest engine compartment I have ever seen. You remember it?
04-13-2004, 05:27 PM
#43
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotarygod
I think this is the source of the predjudice against the square subs right here. This has nothing to do with their shape. While I agree that a JL is a better woofer, a manufacturing defect is in no way an indication of the shape of the woofers effectiveness. If JL made a square sub, I'll bet more people would like them. Too bad Kicker patented the idea.
I think this is the source of the predjudice against the square subs right here. This has nothing to do with their shape. While I agree that a JL is a better woofer, a manufacturing defect is in no way an indication of the shape of the woofers effectiveness. If JL made a square sub, I'll bet more people would like them. Too bad Kicker patented the idea.
04-13-2004, 09:04 PM
#45
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, there's a few companies making straight sided subwoofers. SAS Bazooka has the triangles, Sony makes the hexagons, I think. We can probably agree that Kicker's L7's are the best of the "non-round" bunch.
It's pretty safe to say that the triangles and hexgons ARE gimmicks, as those shapes really don't offer any benifits to application.
It's pretty safe to say that the triangles and hexgons ARE gimmicks, as those shapes really don't offer any benifits to application.
Last edited by mdw33333; 04-13-2004 at 09:06 PM.
04-13-2004, 09:12 PM
#46
Chicks dig me!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas!
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotarygod
I've been wrong once in my life. It is possible that I could actually be wrong twice!!!
I've been wrong once in my life. It is possible that I could actually be wrong twice!!!
God is correct
04-14-2004, 12:24 AM
#49
Chicks dig me!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas!
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotarygod
Side shot of a B&W Nautilus 801 Home Speaker!
Side shot of a B&W Nautilus 801 Home Speaker!
800 signature limited gracefully curved cabinet, veneered with a high gloss finish in a choice of grey Tiger's Eye or red Bird's Eye and with top and front surfaces covered in the finest leather.
Ok Rotarygod what is this one?
