by Jonathan » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:30 pm
Bwcad1 wrote:its a spl sub and its not made to play music, like i said check the sub out. do some research on it you will be surprised the sub is already 2db louder than anything close on the market. im not doubting you but technology has come a long way and when you have the resources they do to build the sub specifically for what it is and needs to be. maybe i got my ratings mixed up i dont know for sure i know it was wayyy the hell up there.
and on and on we go lol. i know a soft spider doesn't just increase efficiency alone but it does make a huge difference. i went back and checked the olympus spl rating is 92. im waiting for an answer from maxxsonics about the maxximus sub
http://www.maxxsonics.com/hifonics/subs_maxximus.html
That SPL rating on the Olympus, which size is it? Regardless, 92 isn't unrealistic for something like a 15" sub, maybe a 12" if it's a smaller x-max, lower Qts sub (loose suspension lowers Qts too). 97db is very unrealistic for a sub, of course you of all people know 5db is a LOT :) .
You don't remember the era I'm sure, but in the early 90s, late 80s, the going trend was making efficient subs. One reason was because the sub designs were inherently efficient, you didn't have the high excursion subs of today, thus less coil and former mass. And the other factor was that power was EXPENSIVE compared to today. And the challenge of speaker or subwoofer design stands today as it always has and will be: "You can have low end extension, high efficiency, or small enclosure size. Pick two" So obviously with the lack of cheap power, and a will to not lose low end, the design emphasis was to build a sub that got low and reasonably loud off of little power. This meant the subs had to either be mounted in a behemoth enclosure or be run IB in a package tray or similar.
Of course the market started shifting and wanted subs in smaller boxes to keep their trunk/cargo area, or in cars that just flat out can't fit a large sub box (my mustang is a PRIME example). That's a lot of when companies like JL Audio got popular, they were one of the first companies to really develop subs like this. The only drawback is more power is needed, but nowadays power is cheap. You can get a 1200W RMS amplifier that is reliable in the $300 range, hell a lot of times cheaper than that on ebay. There are a lot of "good for the money" companies out there now, fewer high end companies unfortunately, and a lot of garbage companies. Back then, you had garbage companies and super high end companies and not as many that fell somewhere in the middle, and the high end stuff, while well built, was very pricy.
Companies have developed and made improvements, same as many other products like automobiles that have improved so much recently, they've done so via CAD and FEA modeling. The main thing that's improved in audio has been the motor designs, improving linearity, inductance variation, etc. But the general physics for accomplishing efficiency hasn't changed, it's solely the motor force pushing the cone mass and suspension and that's all remained the same.
[quote="Bwcad1"]its a spl sub and its not made to play music, like i said check the sub out. do some research on it you will be surprised the sub is already 2db louder than anything close on the market. im not doubting you but technology has come a long way and when you have the resources they do to build the sub specifically for what it is and needs to be. maybe i got my ratings mixed up i dont know for sure i know it was wayyy the hell up there.
and on and on we go lol. i know a soft spider doesn't just increase efficiency alone but it does make a huge difference. i went back and checked the olympus spl rating is 92. im waiting for an answer from maxxsonics about the maxximus sub
[url=http://www.maxxsonics.com/hifonics/subs_maxximus.html]http://www.maxxsonics.com/hifonics/subs_maxximus.html[/url][/quote]
That SPL rating on the Olympus, which size is it? Regardless, 92 isn't unrealistic for something like a 15" sub, maybe a 12" if it's a smaller x-max, lower Qts sub (loose suspension lowers Qts too). 97db is very unrealistic for a sub, of course you of all people know 5db is a LOT :) .
You don't remember the era I'm sure, but in the early 90s, late 80s, the going trend was making efficient subs. One reason was because the sub designs were inherently efficient, you didn't have the high excursion subs of today, thus less coil and former mass. And the other factor was that power was EXPENSIVE compared to today. And the challenge of speaker or subwoofer design stands today as it always has and will be: "You can have low end extension, high efficiency, or small enclosure size. Pick two" So obviously with the lack of cheap power, and a will to not lose low end, the design emphasis was to build a sub that got low and reasonably loud off of little power. This meant the subs had to either be mounted in a behemoth enclosure or be run IB in a package tray or similar.
Of course the market started shifting and wanted subs in smaller boxes to keep their trunk/cargo area, or in cars that just flat out can't fit a large sub box (my mustang is a PRIME example). That's a lot of when companies like JL Audio got popular, they were one of the first companies to really develop subs like this. The only drawback is more power is needed, but nowadays power is cheap. You can get a 1200W RMS amplifier that is reliable in the $300 range, hell a lot of times cheaper than that on ebay. There are a lot of "good for the money" companies out there now, fewer high end companies unfortunately, and a lot of garbage companies. Back then, you had garbage companies and super high end companies and not as many that fell somewhere in the middle, and the high end stuff, while well built, was very pricy.
Companies have developed and made improvements, same as many other products like automobiles that have improved so much recently, they've done so via CAD and FEA modeling. The main thing that's improved in audio has been the motor designs, improving linearity, inductance variation, etc. But the general physics for accomplishing efficiency hasn't changed, it's solely the motor force pushing the cone mass and suspension and that's all remained the same.