Brand Advice

[chipa]

Actually that comes down to sensitivity.
Remember this is an example, the figures may be a little off, but the theory is the same..

A sub handling 300WRMS and with 91db 1W at 1M and driven at 300WRMS is going to reach around 116db or 119 with 2 of them.

A sub handling 600WRMS with 91db 1W at 1M and driven at 600WRMS is going to reach about 120db.

In other words bugger all difference, with 1 db generally being the smallest amount noticable by the human ear

Not only that but it will take up less room, be better build quality and no worries about driving an unusual load as most cheaper subs often only come in 4ohm SVC configurations.

[LordWorm]

Originally Posted by chipa

Actually that comes down to sensitivity.
Remember this is an example, the figures may be a little off, but the theory is the same..

A sub handling 300WRMS and with 91db 1W at 1M is going to reach around 116db or 119 with 2 of them.

A sub handling 600WRMS with 91db 1W at 1M is going to reach about 120db.

Not only that but it will take up less room, be better build quality and no worries about driving an unusual load as most cheaper subs often only come in 4ohm SVC configurations.

All well and good...but volume doesnt concern me, its Sound Quality. Now, explain to me why it is, that everything i've read, seen, heard, looked at, that is designed for SQ, be it car audio or home theatre, has 2 or more subs?

The theory as it was explained to me, is that more subs means you drive each sub less for the same result, giving greater control and in turn better quality.

Are you saying that thats a load of crap, and the competition sq guys, and audiophile home theatre guys are wasting their money on crap? and if so why?

Sorry if i seem beligerant here, but the main point of the thread was brand advice, not how i wish to set my system up. This is how i've been planning to set the thing up for months now... now if you can come up with reasoning as to why it shouldnt be done this way, then fine.... let me know. But if you can't explain why its done this way in heaps of cars (and by the way, "because they are ricers" doesnt count.... i'm talking plain jane cars setup to sound good, not to rice it up....i know ricers put speakers in for the sake of putting speakers in) and home theatre setups then tell me if i should be looking at the alpines, the fusions, the JLs or the yumcha brand woofers and why, as was asked in the initial post, and why.

[twilightprotege]

because they are ricers!

[LordWorm]

Originally Posted by twilightprotege

because they are ricers!

Yes
home theatre junkies are "ricers"

check out my fullysick tv cabinet with huge tacho and underglow neons

[chipa]

Originally Posted by LordWorm

but to achieve the same volume with 2 subs, you run them with alot less power. so they are further away from the point where they crap out.

Originally Posted by LordWorm

All well and good...but volume doesnt concern me, its Sound Quality. Now, explain to me why it is, that everything i've read, seen, heard, looked at, that is designed for SQ, be it car audio or home theatre, has 2 or more subs?

I thought you weren't concerned with volume? The reason this is in everything you've read would be that you haven't read anywhere near enough.

Even Home theatre it is usless unless you have bad room dynamics as you only have one channel (read: mono) carrying the sub-bass frequency's 95% of the time. mid-bass is of course a different story.

The reason I started posting was that having an exact goal in mind as well as a budget will get you a closer to a perfect recommendation. And all your reasons to go 2 subs didn't make any sense not only scientifically but with plain common sense.

The only 2 reasons to go with 2 subs is either looks or design problems. Such as you cannot fit a 12" but 2 8" subs will.

EDIT: of course the 3rd reason I just thought of is that you got a damn good deal from that guy around the corner

[chipa]

Originally Posted by twilightprotege

because they are ricers!

Nope I just enjoy loud quality music, plus beating suckers who spend 3 times the amount of money in comps is good fun too...

BTW.. Lordworm, you may have noticed I'm running 2 12" subs, I know the only reason I'm running it was that I had the amp's already plus I preferred the looks.

[LordWorm]

Originally Posted by chipa

I thought you weren't concerned with volume? The reason this is in everything you've read would be that you haven't read anywhere near enough.

Even Home theatre it is usless unless you have bad room dynamics as you only have one channel (read: mono) carrying the sub-bass frequency's 95% of the time. mid-bass is of course a different story.

The reason I started posting was that having an exact goal in mind as well as a budget will get you a closer to a perfect recommendation. And all your reasons to go 2 subs didn't make any sense not only scientifically but with plain common sense.

The only 2 reasons to go with 2 subs is either looks or design problems. Such as you cannot fit a 12" but 2 8" subs will.

EDIT: of course the 3rd reason I just thought of is that you got a damn good deal from that guy around the corner

EXPLAIN THE SCIENCE


the ONLY info i've got so far is "1 sub is better than 2 because i say so", then a whole pile of numbers about volume. and absolutely no direct debunking of what i've heard. "one sub is going to add 3db".....don't care. How much more clear and sharp will the bass be at the same volume? any? none? less clear? if so, WHY.


I am willing to accept I may be wrong.
I'm not going to accept I may be wrong on 2 peoples say so, when dozens have told me otherwise.


2 subs
same volume for half the effort per sub. This has to be a good thing no matter WHAT volume its played at.


tell me why its not. tell me why driving each sub at a further distance from their maximum is ever going to be a bad thing.

edit: I'm not meaning to sound like a prick here, but all i want is the reason why its the same, better, or worse quality. One would think, that given that the sub is being driven half as hard, theres going to be more control over it and thus more clarity - that makes sense to me, if it doesnt to you, tell me why

[twilightprotege]

i've asked greg to place a question on caa tonight...

"which will give me better sound quality, a $1000 sub (assuming you get the best possible for the price) or 2 x $500 subs (again, assuming best possible for the price). box is to be sealed, amp to suit the sub

[LordWorm]

Explain why you feel the need to tell everyone that i am going to make a post on CAA? the question would not be what you have posted, it will be ""Generally speaking, when seeking superior SQ, is two woofers or one considered a better way to go. If so why so, if not why not.

Next, assume a budget of $1000, what would the best possible woofer or woofers for this amount of money."

You may believe that i have not adequitly stated a case for 2 subs, but you have not stated a case for 1 either, at least nothing that debunks the 2 is better than 1 theory.

I am of the belief (and to date nothing said has shaken me from it) that assuming the same total RMS, 2 subs will always be better than one. Investigation into sub theory on home theatres has shown that multiple subs produce smoother, less distorted bass, there is no reason why this would not translate into a car audio setup (infact, a quick browse on CAA shows that they link to alot of home theatre articles in their threads, for the very reason that much of the theory translates to car audio)

[twilightprotege]

and i had advised you that's a bad bad bad way to ask it so

ofcourse they are going to say 2 are better....for their $20k budget.

must be : "for a budget of $1000 and generally speaking, when seeking superior SQ, is two woofers or one considered a better way to go. If so why so, if not why not"

[LordWorm]

Originally Posted by twilightprotege

and i had advised you that's a bad bad bad way to ask it so

ofcourse they are going to say 2 are better....for their $20k budget.

must be : "for a budget of $1000 and generally speaking, when seeking superior SQ, is two woofers or one considered a better way to go. If so why so, if not why not"

read: there are 2 questions.

"Generally speaking, when seeking superior SQ, is two woofers or one considered a better way to go. If so why so, if not why not.

Next, assume a budget of $1000, what would the best possible woofer or woofers for this amount of money."

2 questions

tell me which is better
then assume a budget of $1000 and state which is better.

Regardless of the budget, 2 is going to be better for a $20k budget for the same reason that 2 is better for a $1k budget...there is no reason to believe it will not.

[project.r.racing]

big high end home systems use 1 sub... why is that? cos bass/low-feq don't come in stereo.

having 2 subs is only wank factor / ricer style!!!

holy crap i just agreed with andy!!!

[twilightprotege]

because there is little diffence between a $10k sub and a $20k sub. there's a very big difference between a $500 and a $1000 sub

but still....

what would you say if they answer :

--
1. generally speaking, two woofers is better for sq
2. go buy a $1000 single
--

???

[twilightprotege]

omg ryan agreed with me! i'm marking this in my calender....

[LordWorm]

Originally Posted by deejayryry

big high end home systems use 1 sub... why is that? cos bass/low-feq don't come in stereo.

having 2 subs is only wank factor / ricer style!!!

holy crap i just agreed with andy!!!

a sweeping generalisation.

High end, audiophile grade Home theatres have 2, and sometimes 3 subwoofers (a rear subwoofer dedicated to surround effects). if by "high end" you mean "the most money i can spend at JB hifi" then ok, you get 1 big sub...

you look at super high end cabinets, and you'll find there are "subs" in the cabinets. so you have 2 front floor standing cabinets each with a sub.. its not uncommon, especially in custom built enclosures.

To claim that multiple subs in a car is nothing more than "wank factor" without supplying a reason why its not making a difference (when it should be making a difference, be it positve or negative - by adding the extra cone area it has to be doing SOMETHING to the output).

The theory i have heard, and read, on countless occasions is as follows.

you have 1 speaker, you run it at 40% volume. you add another speaker at the same volume, the total amount of volume produced would be greater than the individual speaker, would it not?

Thus if you can have more woofers, producing the same total volume, without outputting nearly the same amount of power individually, would it not mean the subs (and amps driving them) are running more in their comfort zone? further away from the point at which they distort? Makes sense to me.

But hey, i'm not above being wrong. If someone comes back and says "spend your $1000 on one sub" and can provide REASONS as to why its superior to 2 subs, then i'll obviously go that way.

However, what gives me the right royal sh!ts is i post a simple post regarding brand advice, to clarify something that i'm told by a salesman, be it right or wrong, and I get told that 2 subs is pointless, dont get told why, get told to go post things on other forums, with the obvious hope that i'll make a dick of myself, with the sole point of finding something I do entertaining in some way, when the question was never asked in the first place. There was absolutely no call for it at all, the advice was never saught.

And still i sit here, no wiser than before, with people saying "2 subs is ricer" "2subs is lower SQ" with absolutely no facts, articles, papers or reasons to back it up. If I'm wrong, by all means, prove me wrong. Explain to me why it works in Home theatre, cinemas, and the like, but not in a car. Otherwise f*ck up (not directed at you ryan...).


I will no longer dignify the matter with my responses. If you have anything INFORMED that can be backed up with reasoning and references, i'd only be too hapy to read it.

[project.r.racing]

Home theatres have to fill large areas as the room has a large volume etc. Running lots of 8" + 10" +12" subs etc fills the room / area nicely.

Your car is a small volume area compared to an audio room. Remember that bass is not only controlled by volume but also bounce and fill area volume.

I'm not saying that running 2 subs is bad (sorry to pick on the ricer thing) - but running 1 sub can be more controlled and in a smaller / confined area, and work better and also cost you intially less also.

Without going into db + sq crap, I hope this has helped a little more than my last posts. Sorry.

Ryan

[chipa]

Originally Posted by LordWorm

a sweeping generalisation.

High end, audiophile grade Home theatres have 2, and sometimes 3 subwoofers (a rear subwoofer dedicated to surround effects). if by "high end" you mean "the most money i can spend at JB hifi" then ok, you get 1 big sub...

you look at super high end cabinets, and you'll find there are "subs" in the cabinets. so you have 2 front floor standing cabinets each with a sub.. its not uncommon, especially in custom built enclosures.

Gee, a sweeping generalisation.... in high end home theatre systems those drivers are usually mid-bass or "bass surround" drivers, sure they can look exactly the same from the front but they perform quite different.

Originally Posted by LordWorm

The theory i have heard, and read, on countless occasions is as follows.

you have 1 speaker, you run it at 40% volume. you add another speaker at the same volume, the total amount of volume produced would be greater than the individual speaker, would it not?

Thus if you can have more woofers, producing the same total volume, without outputting nearly the same amount of power individually, would it not mean the subs (and amps driving them) are running more in their comfort zone? further away from the point at which they distort? Makes sense to me.

But hey, i'm not above being wrong. If someone comes back and says "spend your $1000 on one sub" and can provide REASONS as to why its superior to 2 subs, then i'll obviously go that way.

However, what gives me the right royal sh!ts is i post a simple post regarding brand advice, to clarify something that i'm told by a salesman, be it right or wrong, and I get told that 2 subs is pointless, dont get told why, get told to go post things on other forums, with the obvious hope that i'll make a dick of myself, with the sole point of finding something I do entertaining in some way, when the question was never asked in the first place. There was absolutely no call for it at all, the advice was never saught.

And still i sit here, no wiser than before, with people saying "2 subs is ricer" "2subs is lower SQ" with absolutely no facts, articles, papers or reasons to back it up. If I'm wrong, by all means, prove me wrong. Explain to me why it works in Home theatre, cinemas, and the like, but not in a car. Otherwise f*ck up (not directed at you ryan...).

I will no longer dignify the matter with my responses. If you have anything INFORMED that can be backed up with reasoning and references, i'd only be too hapy to read it.

As I stated before, adding a second sub will only add a MAXIMUM of around 3db. Extra subs are not added into any system for Sound Quality, they are added for volume. Adding to the total sub-bass to achieve a good system balance.

None of us (aside from Andy joking around) has really said you must not have 2 subs, but we are trying to point out that it is an inefficient use of your money.

Now I'm not going to bother giving references, as I think you should have a more open mind and listen to people who have already shown more actual knowledge than the hearsay you have presented. If you're interested I've actually completed a sound engineering course (years ago), but for 3 1/2 years I worked with PA system's as a sound engineer for some of the bigger bands travelling around Australia. These days I do other work but I also help out the local Pro installers with system tuning occasionally.

[LordWorm]

I shall try and get my source to get on here and post up the reasoning and recommendation he gave to me for the twin setup.

Until that time, can we get back on topic, regarding my first post, about brands I should be looking at, and reasons, if any, i should or should not be going for fusion, and/or alpine and/or JL and/or Crazy Harry's Yumcha Crapola.

[chipa]

Personally I would look at Alpine and then JL Audio compared to other brands I'd call both of these as having close to the same amount of 'brightness'. Only thing I'm not certain of is JL's power figures, whilst I've found Alpine's numbers to be reasonable most of the time I've never pushed JL's enough to tell.

[LordWorm]

Originally Posted by chipa

Personally I would look at Alpine and then JL Audio compared to other brands I'd call both of these as having close to the same amount of 'brightness'. Only thing I'm not certain of is JL's power figures, whilst I've found Alpine's numbers to be reasonable most of the time I've never pushed JL's enough to tell.

and Type S, Type R, a combination of the 2, or Type R componants and Type X subs() (wayyy more expensive...but perhaps worthwhile??)


Type S, running the pure RMS numbers, come in higher than the fusion system I had speced out before I went and visited northfield. I know RMS isnt everything..