Frank Harvey
Well-known member
moonfly said:
Anything within the outer gasket will add mass to the cone. Including the resistance of the roll surround. Feel free to ask your mentor.
Anything within the outer gasket will add mass to the cone. Including the resistance of the roll surround. Feel free to ask your mentor.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
moonfly said:
It's not a case of interpretation, it's a case of two statements that don't really go together. You have always spoken of subs in terms of driver size. One of the statements proves that, and the other is in complete contrast.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
moonfly said:
I'm talking about a subwoofer as a whole, not basing assumptions purely on driver size.
Why would I try and get you to say good things without hearing it? And yes, you would be surprised. Don't make the mistake of thinking of it in terms of an MX350 performance wise. This outperforms the MX5100SF, and the difference compared to an MX350 isn't even funny.
I am well aware a roll surround has a resistance factor, this is accounted for in a drivers parameters, and should know that by now. I dont know where your trying to go here. I mention cone area, and you have moved oned amplifiers, roll surrounds, and keep bringing performance up, and I dont know why you would do that unless you feel the need to pick up on those points. You seem to advocate smaller roll surrounds over large, is this because of the resistance factor, because the difference between a large and small roll surround is negligable, and even more so when compared to the spider(s) and mass of the cone and VC assembly. Are you saying smaller drivers are advantageous purely on the roll surround issue?FrankHarveyHiFi said:
I'll be honest, you seem to just repeat what your told and I'm not convinced you have researched the field from all angles.
What two statements? I made one on cone area size, and another on cone size itself telling you next to nothing without additional data. Those two comments are in harmony with each other, dont you understand why?FrankHarveyHiFi said:
When have I ever made any assumptions on any subwoofer, I never have. My comment on driver sizes are in relation to that particular aspect of sub design on the whole. You repeatedly appear to have the opinion larger drivers arent necessary, arent superior, and perform negatively against smaller drivers. This isnt the case, but again that comes at the caveat that any comparisons are made on and even keel, you must compare like for like, which many marketing statements either dont, or withold enough information for the uninitiated to not spot the deliberately witheld required finer detail.FrankHarveyHiFi said:
As for performance, Ive made no mistake of judging anything. Before the new KK subs came out I built my own dual driver PP sub using 12 inch drivers because the old MX series did not perform upto the standard I wanted. That sub used high end drivers and 2000 watts of power and destroyed the old MK stuff. Unless Ken has made a boo boo, which I simply cannot accept, then why wouldnt his new subs do the same? I also built a dual driver push pull sub of identical design using the same model but 15" drivers, and it outperformed the 12 no question, though the margins are much closer in this kind of scenario. I think your issue is you probably havent had the chance to experience some of the subs I have, and you cast doubt on my knowledge and experience, thats you perogative. I offered to demo you some subs I built, installed and setup, but your always 'too busy'.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
moonfly said:
Im not repeating what I'm told, it's just common sense when you know how a driver works.
moonfly said:
The two statements you made that I quoted earlier and pointed out to you.
moonfly said:
But your first statement on this thread was stating that dual 12's can't compete with an 18 - that is making assumptions based on driver size. You do this on AVF too. as has been said, any issue with the published statement, take it up with Ken.
You did earlier! If someone said to you that they have a dual 12 that beats an 18, you would tell them that wasn't possible. As far as driver size is concerned, I will always recommend 12" drivers as a minimum, unless the user just can't have a large sub for whatever reason. 8's and 10's just aren't up to scratch, in my opinion and experience.
I don't need to hear what you have built. If your knowledge was so great and these subs were so good, you'd have your own company building and selling them, and other sub companies would be quaking in their boots. This isn't the case. Anyone can build a sub (if they have the time and patience) that will go loud and deep, but the sub is unacceptably large for the average household, and it is rather time consuming - most people work and have families to spend time with. My experience is with subwoofers built by companies that specialise (and sometimes not) in building subwoofers, and are available via retail premises.
My idea of a good subwoofer isn't one that is the size of a wardrobe and goes down to 1Hz. It is one that is a manageable size, reaches 20Hz easily, and can reach 10Hz. That's impressive enough as many subs out there can't manage that (the majority will do 30Hz fine but then tail off before it even reaches 20Hz). Also, it needs to be 'invisible' - again, very few subs can manage this. As I now own the DXD12012, I have no interest in changing it, and if I ever want to upgrade, I'll buy a second one. If you can show me a similarly sized sub that can outperform the DXD12012, and can retain the strong points of its design, I'll be very interested.
This is as far as this conversation is going. This is my free time and I'm not spending it going round in circles, which frequently used to happen with you over on AVF. And yes, I am very busy.
MUSICRAFT
Well-known member
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
you've chosen to be :type: on your free time. If you're not happy with this then wait till you are back at shop and then :type: during your shop working hours
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
MUSICRAFT said:
Yes sir!!
The point I was making is that when I spend my own free time on here, which I do very frequently, I'd rather be helping people than arguing the toss in an argument that will go nowhere.
MUSICRAFT
Well-known member
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
well then stop making it out that you're doing members and guests a favour by :type: on your free time
Son_of_SJ
Well-known member
This one of mine is post number 83, if I've added up correctly. The last post that the OP wrote was number 39, I believe. I don't know if he is even following this thread any more, or if indeed he has actually bought something.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
Well that sums you up nicely I think. You obviously have utter contempt for me because i dare to keep a reality check on everything. You say you dont need to hear one of my subs, yet, constantly highlight the fact I havent yet heard a KK sub. Hypocracy?
I made no comment on the performance of kens sub, only spoke of cone area, yet you spool of on a tangent just to try shoot me down as always. Your final paragraphs only highlight your contempt for me, but at least Ive invested the time to learn how to design and build subs properly and how they work from the ground up. You seem to think your above that and know it all anyway, so there's nothing to gain from discussing things with you
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
moonfly said:
Not really. I don't need to worry about DIY subs, DIY amplifiers, DIY speakers etc as I don't need to have an opinion on them. I have enough to take in and learn about with what I have access to. You are commenting in a thread about a product you've not heard though, and basing your comments on older products which are not representative.
I'm not shooting you down at all. If I had the knowledge you claim to have, I'd be making subs commercially. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to mess about building subs, but if I did, it really wouldn't be of any benefit to my current position. There's plenty of proven theory out there to read and learn from, and plenty of it from your mentor, Ken Kreisel.
As with other recent conversations on here, this is as far as I'm going. This is repetitive, boring, and pretty useless to everyone. My final word on this is that I would put the DXD12012 up against any commercially available sub in the UK under the £3k, maybe even £4k price point, and be pretty confident it'll hold it's own, regardless of the size of the drivers it uses. Those that take the time to hear one won't be disappointed.
I dont understand your attitude. Ive said nothing against the DXD, and made no comments on how it compares to other subs, of any diver size or cab size. I'll never disagree with opinion, and if you think the DXD is the best sub at x price point I wont argue with you. Ive already more or less given up posting on AVF to appease so I'm not sure what else you want from me.
The point stil remains. A statement saying a pair of 12s can equal an 18 in cone area is incorrect. The implication is that the DXD is superior to any sub using an 18 inch driver, which in turn has value for money implications. This is a misleading statement pure and simple and I have highlighted this fact, and explained why in support.
The point stil remains. A statement saying a pair of 12s can equal an 18 in cone area is incorrect. The implication is that the DXD is superior to any sub using an 18 inch driver, which in turn has value for money implications. This is a misleading statement pure and simple and I have highlighted this fact, and explained why in support.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
Just as in AVF, you can't just drop things can you? To settle it (seeing as you won't take it up with Ken directly) I'll email him and ask him to explain his statement for you shall I? Until then, just drop it!
BenLaw
Well-known member
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
Drop what, I never asked you to engage with me, and I wont retract my post just because you dont like it. Feel free to ask Ken to post, I welcome it, though I think he probably wont. He used to reply to all my mails without exception, till I brought up larger drivers, then he simply stopped responding.
moonfly said:
Ok you have made your point and highlighted what you have an issue with. Regardless of what has already been said within this thread the statement is on the DXD12012 product information page on line. The only person you can discuss this with is Ken Kreisel. I believe you have e-mailed directly to him in the past so why don't you just do that now. I can see what you are trying to highlight but discussing it with anyone other than Ken is futile.
From my perspective even though i know what you are getting at i still don't see an issue with the statement becasue of the words Ken Kresiel drivers which basically negates any like for like driver comparison. Now the cone area comment , no problem with approaches so that just leaves equals which is mathematically impossible but could be possible within the concept of the design and taking into account cone movement when the subwoofer is in use as an example.
Only Ken can give you that answer i suggest you speak to him.
You don't give your point any credence by not having hands on experience with the DXD 12012. Saying you have the Knowleadge/maths on your side and building your own subwoofers just doesn't cut it i'm affraid.
Any further contribution from me is pointless i'm no expert , i've said my thoughts and they won't change.
Then perhaps your should tell this to the people in the industry and educate them, because up until now every single one of them uses that information to design their systems. Certain things cannot be ingnored because of the laws of physics. To get spl you need to displace air, displace more air you get more spl. If you want to go lower in frequency, you need to displace even more air just to maintain a given spl (like 90db for example). The connection between how much air needs to be displaced to obtain a given spl output at any given frequency is set in stone, and there is no way around this. This leads to physical hard limits to each and every design of driver and subwoofer system.v1c said:
Ignore this if you wish, like David does when he goes of on his tangents and retorts to borderline personal insults, its upto you. Non of the manufacturers ignore that data, because its impossible to do so, that is how these systems are designed.
moonfly said:
:clap: Thanks for putting me in my place. I'm 100% sure you are the defacto standard in subwoofer design and are right bravo.
That response is silly. I am not anything, everything I know I learnt from the people with the real know how, and I just try to pass it on. I claim to be nothing and anything I do know is actually readily available information.
moonfly said:
It is not a silly response and FYI it's more like ramming down the throat than passing on.
Im not ramming it, certain people just dont like to hear the facts. I'm not going to retract a statement that is correct just because someone doesnt like it. As is always the case when people react to my posts in a personal manner, the conversation is now nothing to do with the topic, so I'm going to leave it hear as Ive posted all I need to on the subect matter.v1c said:
moonfly said:
The fact that this statement **Please note that two KEN KREISEL 12” drivers approaches or equals the cone area of a single 18” driver is missleading due to it being impossible due to maths and the laws of physics. Yes i know you said. No one can disagree either due to the maths and the laws of physics so there is nothing to discuss is there.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
I'm sure Ken wouldn't just say something because he could. Maybe he meant in performance? I'll be emailing him later - I'll ask him.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram