What is the difference between 12" subs and 15" subs?

[adio 5,000+ posts]

idk, just needed something to say

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

idk, just needed something to say

i gotta give props for wat u came up with, that randomness is off the chain...

i like weed:greedy:

 

[AndyB 10+ year member]

Three ****ing inches.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I am without a doubt the most queer, dick ******* mother ****er to ever choke on a fat throbing vainy ****.
I have no idea what I am talking about, no subject matter at which I have spoken of in this thread can resemble, in any way, any chain of sensible thought.

Please, let me **** your balls untill they grow soggy from my saliva.

Yummy. Salty semen. It makes my pee pee go boing boing boing.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/redface.gif.62fdbfe1a101588a808c4cff71bcb942.gif:emb://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/redface.gif.62fdbfe1a101588a808c4cff71bcb942.gif

And this is what children do when they have no real answer to come back with. In your attempt to upset me, all you have done was confirmed that you are too chickenshit to actually debate me on the topic at hand. Pussy.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

And this is what children do when they have no real answer to come back with. In your attempt to upset me, all you have done was confirmed that you are too chickenshit to actually debate me on the topic at hand. Pussy.

bahaha it's not me!!! i ran out of email addresses for accounts and i wouldn't waste one for you anyway

 

[DBfan187 5,000+ posts]

Help

IP Address Search for IP Address: "75.66.217.245" 75.66.217.245 : c-75-66-217-245.hsd1.tn.comcast.net

Post IP Addresses

• audi0h0lic 75.66.217.245 [Find Posts by User] [View Other IP Addresses for this User]
  
• Foote 75.66.217.245 [Find Posts by User] [View Other IP Addresses for this User]
  

Registration IP Addresses

• audi0h0lic 75.66.217.245 [Find Posts by User] [View Other IP Addresses for this User]
  
• audiohoIic 75.66.217.245 [Find Posts by User] [View Other IP Addresses for this User]
  
• TheReaper86 75.66.217.245 [Find Posts by User] [View Other IP Addresses for this User]
  

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

bahaha it's not me!!! i ran out of email addresses for accounts and i wouldn't waste one for you anyway

When did I ever accuse you? Jesus you really want to be the center of attention don't you.
Thanks DBfan, I figured it was Foote. Like I said, too scared to stand up to me. He's not the first one to slink away from a debate with me in that manner, look up how many versions of 'audioholic' on this board anymore. lmao

Some people will go to any lengths to avoid admitting they are wrong or, god forbid, a noob at something.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You cant even comprise a coherant question on the matter, can you? What does low-end response depend on? How about the enclosure size/type/alignment for one?

mk i'll stop being the devil for a second...

i agree you have alot of experience and knowledge in car audio but thats causeing you to miss something very simple because you are making it too complicated...

a sub is designed around a specific range of enclosures...

you might get lucky sometimes and build some off the wall enclosure that sounds great and gets loud, but usually the enclosure specified is the one the sub was designed to work in with the best performance...

stop thinking of it as an enclosure and a sub (if you think of it like that... no 2 systems are remotely comparable as even the cone angle becomes a variable)

i'm not saying you are wrong for being like that...

but its like trying to compute Pi in a middle school test rather than just use 3.14

(its overly complicated and mixes in WAY too many variables)

the only way to really compare subs is to put them in their recommended optimum enclosures of the same type... (not the same enclosure... thats retarded) but same type (IE: sealed and sealed, or ported and ported)

given you follow this small whimsical gesture of common sence, you will find that in any given line of subs, the larger cone model will almost always out-perform the smaller model (i say almost always because i do not know of a counter-example, but that doesn't mean there isn't one)

this is largely due to the fact that there are generally 2 kinds of sub lines:

those that keep the same motor and upgrade to larger cone..

and those that upgrade to a stronger motor and cone...

in the lines with the same motor the increased cone size would lead to increased air displacement but with very similar, or sometimes worse response due to a weak motor pushing added cone mass, which gives it a messy sound (IE: the main [but not only] difference would be the volume of output) but in lines with increased motor strength, there is more potential for output and better SQ

my explanation? it's cheaper to only manufacture 1 type of motor

sometimes things aren't exact science, esspecially in the sonic field, there seems to be an exception you can find to almost anything...

so should you go by the exceptions, or the rules?

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

When did I ever accuse you? Jesus you really want to be the center of attention don't you.
Thanks DBfan, I figured it was Foote. Like I said, too scared to stand up to me. He's not the first one to slink away from a debate with me in that manner, look up how many versions of 'audioholic' on this board anymore. lmao

Some people will go to any lengths to avoid admitting they are wrong or, god forbid, a noob at something.

bahahaha i didn't say you did... did i?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

mk i'll stop being the devil for a second...
i agree you have alot of experience and knowledge in car audio but thats causeing you to miss something very simple because you are making it too complicated...

a sub is designed around a specific range of enclosures...

you might get lucky sometimes and build some off the wall enclosure that sounds great and gets loud, but usually the enclosure specified is the one the sub was designed to work in with the best performance...

stop thinking of it as an enclosure and a sub (if you think of it like that... no 2 systems are remotely comparable as even the cone angle becomes a variable)

i'm not saying you are wrong for being like that...

but its like trying to compute Pi in a middle school test rather than just use 3.14

(its overly complicated and mixes in WAY too many variables)

the only way to really compare subs is to put them in their recommended optimum enclosures of the same type... (not the same enclosure... thats retarded) but same type (IE: sealed and sealed, or ported and ported)

given you follow this small whimsical gesture of common sence, you will find that in any given line of subs, the larger cone model will almost always out-perform the smaller model (i say almost always because i do not know of a counter-example, but that doesn't mean there isn't one)

this is largely due to the fact that there are generally 2 kinds of sub lines:

those that keep the same motor and upgrade to larger cone..

and those that upgrade to a stronger motor and cone...

in the lines with the same motor the increased cone size would lead to increased air displacement but with very similar, or sometimes worse response due to a weak motor pushing added cone mass, which gives it a messy sound (IE: the main [but not only] difference would be the volume of output) but in lines with increased motor strength, there is more potential for output and better SQ

my explanation? it's cheaper to only manufacture 1 type of motor

sometimes things aren't exact science, esspecially in the sonic field, there seems to be an exception you can find to almost anything...

so should you go by the exceptions, or the rules?

Look at all that crap you just wrote, then come back and try to tell me IM the one over-complicating this. Can you even break your arguement down into a concise, coherant statement? Let me re-re-quote for you, again, what I initially said.

This same old arguement. Someone (falsely) makes the claim that cone size is determinate on output ability or low-end response. People argue a while. Then OP brings on specs from lines of subs that shows a lower Fs as sub sizes increase, proof he thinks. Unfortunately he's lost track of the fact that just because for a given line of woofers, the Fs goes lower upon increasing model size, this does not mean cone size is determinate on low-end reponse.

Now here we are, 5 pages later, with you and Foote still trying to complicate this arguement so much so that everyone gives up and walks away. Anything to not look wrong, right Cot?

"the only way to really compare subs is to put them in their recommended optimum enclosures of the same type... (not the same enclosure... thats retarded) but same type (IE: sealed and sealed, or ported and ported)"

This is the sort of thing I mean. You are here to school all of us on the finer points of speaker design and acoustics, and you dont even know the proper terms to use. The term you were searching for was enclosure alignment, not 'optimum enclosures of the same type'.

So again, you come here and type out these long winded posts that you try and veil as exotic ideas and advanced thinking, but the reality is you have very little experience, and even less real knowledge of the topic. You common sense it out in your head, and that becomes fact for you. Facts like your multi-sized sub stage sounds better than a simple sub setup would, or that you could convince us your Dodge has a 150hp $8000 Italian power chip in it. Figure it out dude, we have your number, you are full of hot air and ********.

bahahaha i didn't say you did... did i?

You quoted me and then said you didn't do it. What else would you call it, besides needing to be the center of attention again? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

anyways... my time for this idocracy has run out, you can read anything in a book or on the internet but it takes common sence and wisdom to realize the truth... something i sometimes doubt that 30+ year olds who can always be found in an online forum would have //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

i would think 15"s would be deeper and make more soundpressure in the car.. and also would be heard coming down the road further

Then don't think anymore.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

anyways... my time for this idocracy has run out, you can read anything in a book or on the internet but it takes common sence and wisdom to realize the truth... something i sometimes doubt that 30+ year olds who can always be found in an online forum would have //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

Exactly, you sit there reasoning this stuff out not based on any real experience, but based on what your head considers 'common sense'. The same 'common sense' that told you your 13" sub would handle your lows better, while your 10" subs would handle the upper bass nice. And its that same 'common sense' of yours that wont let you bel;ieve you might be wrong, even when people with vastly more experience tell you so, over and over again. At some point we just have to consider you self-centered intellectually to the point of being too dense to reason with.
And for the record, there is no such word as idocracy, not even close. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif You of all people should know the word idiocy by now. Jesus you cant even get simple burns right. Somone needs to buy you a dictionary for xmas.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Look at all that crap you just wrote, then come back and try to tell me IM the one over-complicating this. Can you even break your arguement down into a concise, coherant statement? Let me re-re-quote for you, again, what I initially said.


Now here we are, 5 pages later, with you and Foote still trying to complicate this arguement so much so that everyone gives up and walks away. Anything to not look wrong, right Cot?

"the only way to really compare subs is to put them in their recommended optimum enclosures of the same type... (not the same enclosure... thats retarded) but same type (IE: sealed and sealed, or ported and ported)"

This is the sort of thing I mean. You are here to school all of us on the finer points of speaker design and acoustics, and you dont even know the proper terms to use. The term you were searching for was enclosure alignment, not 'optimum enclosures of the same type'.

So again, you come here and type out these long winded posts that you try and veil as exotic ideas and advanced thinking, but the reality is you have very little experience, and even less real knowledge of the topic. You common sense it out in your head, and that becomes fact for you. Facts like your multi-sized sub stage sounds better than a simple sub setup would, or that you could convince us your Dodge has a 150hp $8000 Italian power chip in it. Figure it out dude, we have your number, you are full of hot air and ********.

You quoted me and then said you didn't do it. What else would you call it, besides needing to be the center of attention again? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

here you go again...

yeah instead of calling a speaker cone "a cone" i could call it an "oblique cylinder" but who gives a flying fvck?

my arguement was very simple to understand and quite concise, i actually wrote it on your "6th" grade level that you said you were on...

there was no exotic ideas or any of that bullsht...

i very simply stated that larger piston area subs in the same line (without an exception that i'm aware of) allways perform better

maby you didn't have a better responce than to go back to the multi sized setup, which has been gone almost a year now, or the $8000 italian chip bahaha

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Exactly, you sit there reasoning this stuff out not based on any real experience, but based on what your head considers 'common sense'. The same 'common sense' that told you your 13" sub would handle your lows better, while your 10" subs would handle the upper bass nice. And its that same 'common sense' of yours that wont let you bel;ieve you might be wrong, even when people with vastly more experience tell you so, over and over again. At some point we just have to consider you self-centered intellectually to the point of being too dense to reason with.
And for the record, there is no such word as idocracy, not even close. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif You of all people should know the word idiocy by now. Jesus you cant even get simple burns right. Somone needs to buy you a dictionary for xmas.

actually i MENT idiocracy which would mean by root word meaning "a system of authority by idiots"

and actually idiocrasy IS a word