What is the best 1000wrms sub?

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

Understood.

My main argument has always been that "Real World" testing and actually listening to the driver, gives a better idea of what to expect over reading lab tests on paper.

So my tests were geared to prove to myself which driver will perform best.

For example: Sensitivity of a driver is measured at 1watt @ 1 meter. This has nothing to do with actual potential SPL output at realistic wattage inputs.

So I usually ignore some of these parameters.

Some do give a good indication of a driver's performance, but a driver's characteristics can change drastically when placed in a box and in a car, and pushed with high power. So I do my own tests.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

I understand what you were going for completely, but calling it "accuracy" was where I had a problem. As an engineer you should understand the need for using the correct terminology.

 

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

Right,

Accuracy is my term, that what we called it in school, reffering to the ability of a driver to reproduce rapid transients in music with clarity. I guess I could call it acoustical transient response.

It's like what people on here say "The Big 3" When I refer to it as common sense.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

Accuracy is a quatifiable term. What you were looking at was "subjective sound quality."

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Understood.My main argument has always been that "Real World" testing and actually listening to the driver, gives a better idea of what to expect over reading lab tests on paper.

This is an idea that is becoming more and more popular, and I find that disturbing. Do you guys think people design speakers by trial and error? T/S specs give a good idea of the basic performance achievable with a speaker, that's their entire point. Speakers have been and will continue to be designed using these perameters for years, so blowing them off as just 'numbers on paper that dont mean much in the real world' is either a disingenuous argument, or one based on ignorance of how speakers are designed.
Im not saying I believe you are ignorant or deceiving us, but that you are falling into a popular line of thought these days that simply doesn't hold much merit.

Using sensitivity is a poor example. You are more or less using the least accurate and least important spec to gauge all specs. They dont even measure it within the frequency range that subwoofers will ever play. So yeah. Even with this least accurate spec, what does 'real world testing' really tell us? That given YOUR situation, these are YOUR results. Surely you are not suggesting you are capable of obtaining peak performance out of every subwoofer? When we get down to the nitty gritty, even 'real world testing' doesn't really shed any more light on a gray area like sensitivity.

 

[slumlord]

I have used idmax 10, 10w7, jbl gti mk2 10, and alpine typ-x 10. have tpye-x 10 with alpine pdx1.1000 with audio enhancers slotloaded box in 04 wrx and it cranks. good sq and spl in car. if you want to be heard i guess some crappy l7's. had them to ,but they are just loud! i like ten'sand my trunks space. in a sealed box the type-x and idmax seem identical and alpine's r cheaper. get the swx-1043d the newer models not the 42d's. blew the surrounds off the cone with the old versions. sorry so long! good luck. Hertz milles are next for me.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I really object to people using a term like "real world" to imply that anything measured is not real world. Such statements really only show that the poster has no idea what the measurements are or how they are used. It's not like some virtual simulation that Neo did in The Matrix.

When we talk about measurements, we are talking about more than just Thiele/Small parameters (which is a common mistaken assumption). And we're not necessarily talking about BL, Cms, or Le curves either (since these aren't measurements of actual distortion). We are, however, talking about capturing the physical phenomenon of the driver only.

You are bang on in saying that the final result is different than what the measurements show, since the measurements refer to the driver only. There are two additional aspects to be considered: the environment, and the listener. What we have is a simple sum of the parts thing.

I like to think of it in terms of variables (since that is exactly what it is). From a very high-level view, we will say that:

a = behaviour of the driver

b = the transfer function and modes of the environment

c = psychoacoustic perception of the listener

d = the end result for the listener

a + b + c = d

From here, we can make several very simple assertions.

1) If we wish to compare any "a" (driver) against any other "a", then "b" and "c" are unimportant. This is especially true with something quite measurable like "accuracy".

2) If we have a "d" (an end result), we cannot determine the value for "a" (the performance of the driver) without first subtracting "b" and "c".

3) "c" presents a very large problem because even within the same listener, it is not consistent.

The reality is that yes, measurements are very important. If they were to be instantly disregarded as so many continue to falsely suggest, they wouldn't be used at all. And at the very least, please don't use your ears to try and make any judgment on a driver when you simply are not capable of hearing what the difference between one driver and another is.

 

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

Why do people assume that I dont know how the specs of a driver are measured.

Real world is completely different that how manufacturers come up with their specs. I am, afterall, friends with several sub builders for various manufacturers.

The largest differences are the power and the enclosure.

When driver parameters are measure there is no enclosure, so suspension characteristics differ, which changes electrical characteristics, and changes the way in which the driver moves air.

Also, because drivers are measured with low to mid power levels, characteristics will further change when full power is added.

These measured parameters can give you an idea of what to expect but results are not 100% predictable.

If I were to choose my driver based on what I read on paper, my choice would have been different and I would have been greatly dissappointed.

You can indeed hear differences with your ear and this is the most important measurement of all because when you finally install the driver into your system, you will be listening with your ears and not with The Woofer Tester 3.

T/S parameters were never intended to show the quality of a driver, just the characteristics of how it compares to others and gives a basis of predidction of how it "May" perform in a certain application.

And sometimes speakers are designed by trial and error. Or are designed with certain goals in mind that have nothing to do with performance and the measurements are taken afterwards and what they end up with, is what they get. Sometimes a manufacturer may want to use a carbon fiber cone because they feel it will give better performance, unfortunately it costs too much and will put the driver over their target price. So they settle for aluminum which completely changes the characteristics of the driver.

My ppoint, it's not always as scientific and predictable as you think.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I had a very lengthy reply in mind, but perhaps I can save us some time.

First, I have already explained why judging the driver only is impossible using the method you have described.

Second, when I talk about measurements, what do you think I am talking about? I think there is a widespread misunderstanding that this is about Thiele/Small parameters, which is hardly the case. No one on this planet can even remotely predict performance given only T/S parameters.

And sometimes speakers are designed by trial and error. Or are designed with certain goals in mind that have nothing to do with performance and the measurements are taken afterwards and what they end up with, is what they get. Sometimes a manufacturer may want to use a carbon fiber cone because they feel it will give better performance, unfortunately it costs too much and will put the driver over their target price. So they settle for aluminum which completely changes the characteristics of the driver.

My ppoint, it's not always as scientific and predictable as you think.

Yes, sometimes products are designed exactly the way you describe. That is the designer's choice, and obviously not a very good one unless they are targeting profit (even then, intelligent and scientific engineering may prove more fruitful for them). Lastly, just because some don't design with that method does not mean that a measurement of a driver (which captures the physical data for what is occurring IN REAL LIFE!) is invalid.

 

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

I had a very lengthy reply in mind, but perhaps I can save us some time.
First, I have already explained why judging the driver only is impossible using the method you have described.

Second, when I talk about measurements, what do you think I am talking about? I think there is a widespread misunderstanding that this is about Thiele/Small parameters, which is hardly the case. No one on this planet can even remotely predict performance given only T/S parameters.

Yes, sometimes products are designed exactly the way you describe. That is the designer's choice, and obviously not a very good one unless they are targeting profit (even then, intelligent and scientific engineering may prove more fruitful for them). Lastly, just because some don't design with that method does not mean that a measurement of a driver (which captures the physical data for what is occurring IN REAL LIFE!) is invalid.

Oh I am not saying these measurements are invalid at all. But they are not a 100% accurate means of measuring quality. they are merely the beginning and most importantly, they are a good guide to tell if the driver will work in your application. Some people may be fans of a ported box, so knowing the EBP of a driver will help.

I am getting to know how this forum works and it seems hard to get respect and credit without high post counts or pictures. So here are some pics of me (Guy crouching) and the engineers from "The Woofer Tester" testing some T3 subs.

 

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

 

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

These guys agree with me that until you actually play the sub and listen to it, you will never know truly how good or bad it can be

 

[endofdays89 5,000+ posts]

JLs are overrated.Out of all these choices, the RE was highest on my tests.

Also, out of my tests, 3 other subs scored even higher than the RE.

JL tested very low. One of the lowest on my tests.

My testes were for SPL output, frequency response, accuracy, durability, and efficiency.

I am using the subs that scored the highest.

are you retarded? JL is not overrated, they are some of the best subs out there. And to say a w7 is overated is probably the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Maybe you should get a jl sub before you say they are overrated!

 

[Ed Lester 10+ year member]

are you retarded? JL is not overrated, they are some of the best subs out there. And to say a w7 is overated is probably the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Maybe you should get a jl sub before you say they are overrated!

You prove my point.

If you pay attention, I did have a JL sub. Maybe not all JLs are, but in my mind the W7 is.

So many people think they are the best sub out there in every category. The simple truth is that they are not. They are good, but not the best.

Maybe to you they are, but if you try other subs in the same category you will be surprised.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I don't care about post counts or pictures (unless the pictures provide correlating data). Trust me on that one.

Again, I ask: when I say measurements, what do you think I'm talking about? In your post, again you've cited something specific to Thiele/Small parameters.

I think you are also misunderstanding my argument for assessing the performance of a subwoofer. Here is a really simple situation and a favourite of mine. Harmonic distortion is very easy to measure. It is something that is really physically happening. However, considerable harmonic distortion may go completely unnoticed by a human in that listening session. So is the ear still a reliable way to gauge what you have called accuracy? If we make the argument that unheard distortion is unimportant (which I completely disagree with), let's make another extrapolation: if one person can hear the distortion, and another can't, can we still say that the ear is reliable? The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

I have said this many times, and I'll say it many times again: if the goal is to get something that you like the sound of, then using your ear is fine (even though 99% of the posters here are incapable of understanding why they enjoy that sound). However, if we wish to make any objective comparisons of which product is more "accurate to the source", then an ear simply will not do and we must substitute it with something that is capable of qualitatively capturing the physical phenomenon created by the product in question.

These guys agree with me that until you actually play the sub and listen to it, you will never know truly how good or bad it can be

They are correct in saying that until you listen to it, you will never know how much you will like it (although once we understand perception a little better, that may be possible). However, that isn't at all what we are talking about.