I think the Rockford is a bit louder, but the BG's have better
transients ("tighter" IMHO). If you like booming rap or just louder
bass, you might like the Rockford better. I think the BG sounds better
and more natural. I have a pair of BG15's in about 1.9 cu ft boxes now.
The bass isn't too boomy, but I am rebuilding my box to 2.4 cu ft per
speaker soon. It depends on your car, but I think either should be
----
I @in't the one: >Prestige good? - Yes. Wed, 16 Apr 1997 02:10
A friend of mine runs a Pioneer 12" and JBL 8" tube off of the 500
watt model. No problems from it except that occasionally overheats.
But I guess that in part can be attributed to the fact that Prestige
does not have MOSFETS, so they run pretty hot.
--------------
After some feedback from other people, I would like to go with either
Kicker Competition or MTX Blue Thunder. (The MTX would be cheaper and
require a smaller box, but I heard that the Kickers would hit a hell of a
lot harder.)
----
If you can, get a side-by-side demo, and in your car if possible.
Kickers are pretty loud subs. Since the Blue Thunders require a smaller
box, it is inherent that they will be less effecient (doesn't that suck?).
What's more important to you; money and cargo room or louder bass?
-Victor
----
CTS: >The Best 12's? Sealed 16 Apr 1997 23:49
Chase Lopata wrote in article <33552839.3F@vt.edu>...
> I'm looking for two 12's. I want subs that like sealed enclosures
> because I like the way sealed subs sound, deeper and more accurate.
> Anyone have any recomendations. I'd like to push about 250 to 450 watts
> to them. Thanks for the help!!!!
> Chase
>
Two words: Oz Audio
----
Steve Bordelon: >Punch 12's any good? 16 Apr 1997 19:20
Chase Lopata wrote:
>
> Anyone have any opinion on 12 inch punch subs? thanks
They are good for the price. Save your money and buy JL W6's
-----
> Do I get JL or Kicker subs? What mids and tweeters do you recommend?
I dunno, what do you get? I can't tell you what you are getting.
I don't have ESP. You can pick maybe two or three different models of subs
and possibly ask about "which will be louder" or "which takes a smaller box."
Tell us what you are spending, what loudness you want, how much power
you plan to use, and how much space you are going to give up and we can give
you a couple of lines of subs to look at. I.E. If you wanted a small box sub,
we could suggest Kicker Solobarics, JL W6s, or MTX Black Golds. You'll have
to make the final decision, though.
------------
cahall@worldnet: >solobarics vs. kicker comps, JL's Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:07
Chase Lopata wrote:
>
> I was thinking about getting two solobarics. how do they sound
> compared to kicker comps, and JL's? Due to their design for small
> boxes, will the solo's play less loud and deep compared to the comp's
> and jl's, that require larger boxes. Thanks you. Chase
Unless you really need the smaller box, I would get the Comps
over the Solobarics. You will get more SPL from comp's with the same
power. I have a friend running a pair of c12's off of a single
Rockford Power 50m (rated 100x1 2 ohm, probably more like 200 though)
and those things do great with only 100w a piece. Comps are a crap
load cheaper to buy and buy amps for, too, which is probably a big
consideration.
There is a full line of JL's. Check out their web page.
You'll have to pick one that meets your budget, power handling, etc
requirements and compare it with the Kickers.
I don't really think the Solobarics sound a helluva lot
different than Comps, myself. Maybe you'll like the Solobarics' sound
more than the Comps and get them, even though you don't need a small
box. I wouldn't jump on Solobarics just because they are the more
expensive series and expect a huge increase in sound quality. There
are, of course, some people who probably think they sound better.
As for deep bass, in each of their recommended size boxes, both
are pretty similiar.
--
What have you demoed them with? On rock, I can't tell 'em apart
with matched levels. However, on classical, the Comps blow the Solos
away, perhaps because my ear is more sensitive to the sounds that tubas,
tympani, etc. are supposed to make. The Comps were in a dealer
enclosure, the Solos in two Crutchfield enclosures. The vehicle was a
friend's 1995 Probe, and the amp my R-F Power 300.
--
Ja, Ich weiss. I've heard the solo-barics, and they put out nothing but
SPL. If you want true bass, the comps are guaranteed to get you the
sound you want. S/B's are muddier than a mafia grave.
--
Hey! Don't forget those crutchfield boxes are pretty bad. I had a
10" solo in a crutchfield box. I had to seal it myself, and it still
didn't sound good.
Put the Solobarics in a professional box, then compare the two subs.
The difference it made was night and day in my car...
-------
Phil: Ported vs. Sealed? Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:57
Which is the better way to go? I know ported goes lower and hits
harder, but sealed is tighter. Any opinions?
--
Erik Robsarve: >Ported vs. Sealed? Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:14
Phil wrote:
>
> Which is the better way to go? I know ported goes lower and hits
> harder, but sealed is tighter. Any opinions?
This is woofer dependant, I can build a ported box that is thighter then
most sealed ones, or a sealed one with a truly thunderous impact and
fabulous low end, it all comes down to the T/S specs...
But generally, peyople (incl. myself) seems to like the "thicker" sound
of ported boxes.
--
STREET SOUNDZ: >Ported vs. Sealed? Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:12
Ported will be louder, but not necessarily lower. Because a ported
box rolls off twice as fast as a sealed box(12dB/octave instead of
6dB), a sealed box will often give more lower bass. When putting a
box in a trunk you also get a significant gain below 80Hz, which is
different in different cars, but is often calculated as 12dB boost
below 80Hz. A woofer in a sealed box will also handle more power.
On average, a ported box will have to be about twice as large to be at
optimum volume compared to a sealed(qtc. .707 is optimum). In my
opinion, sealed boxes are the way to go, better power handling, lower
extention, smaller box size.
--
MSA, Inc.: >>Ported vs. Sealed? 24 Apr 1997 17:52
In <5jmq4i$b5s@news.mtu.edu> streetsoundz@audiophile.com (STREET
SOUNDZ) writes:
>
>Ported will be louder, but not necessarily lower. Because a ported
>box rolls off twice as fast as a sealed box(12dB/octave instead of
>6dB)
You got another one wrong John. Sealed boxes with a Q of .707 will
roll off at 12 dB/octave. Ported boxes typically roll off at 18
dB/octave. Ported boxes, however will usually have a much lower -f3
which would be beneficial if your transfer function begins at a very
low frequency - say 50 Hz (Suburban).
--Gordon Lau
kRACo: >>>Ported vs. Sealed? Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:59
http://tutorials.jlaudio.com/magic/
----
Marcus 418 wrote:
>
> Just a toss-up... JL Audio 12w1 v.s. Kicker Competition 12"
>
> ??
NO! Not a toss up. More like an apples and oranges thing. Take a
serious look at the JL 12w-6's and you will be rewarded with pleasure.
I have had kicker comp's in the past and found the cone distorting when
pushed hard. The JL's I have now have much better control and sound
tighter and less distorted. If it is price you are worried about, spend
the money and get the JL w-6's. If you spend less money now, you will
be spending more money later when you want the JL's later.
-- 12:56 --rec.audio.car-- 92 MORE+next --help:?--All--
----
Who!!: >>JL Audio vs.. Kicker 2 May 1997 14:22
I'm impressed you can hear a cone distorting. How can you tell, just out of
curiosity. JL'S AREN"T THE BEST SPEAKER AROUND.
Matt White wrote in article
<33675FDA.7F39@pop.tamu.edu>...
> Marcus 418 wrote:
> >
> > Just a toss-up... JL Audio 12w1 v.s. Kicker Competition 12"
> >
> > ??
> NO! Not a toss up. More like an apples and oranges thing. Take a
> serious look at the JL 12w-6's and you will be rewarded with pleasure.
> I have had kicker comp's in the past and found the cone distorting when
> pushed hard. The JL's I have now have much better control and sound
> tight
---------
Matt White: >>>>JL Audio vs.. Kicker Sat, 03 May 1997 13:30
Nick Holbert wrote:
>
> Who!! wrote:
> >
> > I'm impressed you can hear a cone distorting. How can you tell, just out of
> > curiosity. JL'S AREN"T THE BEST SPEAKER AROUND.
> >> > >
> How much does a 12" JLw6 cost?
Frankly, I didn't have to hear the cone distorting. I could see the
damn thing varying in shape during long acoustical tones of around
40hz. The cone itself was just too thin and not structurally sound.
To answer the cost question, about $200 a piece if you are lucky.
However, the 12w-6 is a 6ohm dual VC. The best configuration is 3
speakers in parallel on a high power, high quality amp such as a Phoenix
Gold or soundstream running at 1 ohm.
-- 12:59 --rec.audio.car-- 83 MORE+next --help:?--All--
--------------
Somebody is a little backwards. Free-air subs are almost never as
efficient as a comparable sub made for enclosures. Even if the specs
say that they are, once they go in the trunk, it's a different story.
It's difficult to make the trunk completely air tight. Some air leaks
will occur and that will destroy sensitivity, not to mention sound
quality. As for bandpass, these are reguarded as the most efficient
style of enclosure, which means that they will give the MOST kick or
Punch bass, but at the sacrifice of sound quality and usually at the
sacrifice of DEEP BASS. You'll usually get the deepest bass extention
out of a properly designed sealed enclosure, although any enclosure is
capable of producing deep bass if designed and constructed correctly.
-----------
Your comments on bandpass enclosures are partially false. A bandpass
does just that, play a band of frequencies. This could be lower or higher.
Since ports create cone minimus and often time operate below the resonance of a
driver, you get more "deep bass" if desired for the design. If the woofer has
the right Q, you can indeed get very good bass extension, beyond that of most
sealed enclusures. There are a lot of bandpasses out there designed for cars
to be very efficient, and have a big hump in the response around 50hz. This
does not mean the design of bandpass enclosures is limited to this. I have a
pair of protortype loudspeakers in my family room with an eight inch subwoofer
in a bandpass that I have tested, which goes to 20hz.
-------------
: From what I understood, the transfer function of your car emphasizes the
: low bass more than anything else. My comment on this situation, is yes,
: maybe you will not miss that much, but you WILL ruin your imaging and
: staging, as 80 Hz - 180 Hz is critical for this.
---------
> Just to give you an example, we received the MTX Blue Thunder PRO504, which
> is supposed to be only 50 watts per channel. The bench test said it tested
> at 115 watts per channel. We hooked it up to our boards, and promptly began
> to force a set of JBL 12" subs to shake the heck out of the store.
>
> Their subs are just as good. I'm not sure about their mids and highs, or
> their signal processors, but I'm waiting with anticipation to hear em.
------------
> power to push two 12's in a sealed box. For the subs, I have been
> considering the JL w6 line, the Image Dynamic subs (what are the
> differences) and the Kicker Comp's, which I have pretty much ruled out.
> Please offer suggestions.
> This will all be in a Jeep Grand Wagoneer!!!
>
> -sb
The MTX Blue Thunder and Black Gold subs are really pretty good. That
said, I prefer Image Dynamics or JL to them, and I prefer ID to JL,
well, because they're cheaper and sound just as good. Also, check into
Oz Audio; their subs are excellent and also cheaper than JL, or a/d/s/,
which are about the same as JL but I like them better cosmetically and
SQ-wise, or for a bit more Dynaudio, probably the best conventional
(non-servo) sub out there.
---------------
I have MTX thunder amps and a pair of MTX BLACK GOLD 12's in a sealed
enclosure,
I using the 2160 bridged mono, on a 4 ohm load. The setup works great!
Iam very happy.
Have a look at the Black Gold subs,,
------------
I also found a deficiency in response between about 100 Hz to about
250 Hz with the 4" speakers and the subs. I added a pair of Kicker
F6.5 crossed over to provide between 100-350 Hz response. HUGE
difference. I just have them in boxes, now, but I'm building
enclosures for them. I also noticed that my high end has cleaned up,
due to the fact that I'm no longer trying to reproduce bass with my
4" speakers, just mid range and up.
-----------
>From: Mike Gendusa
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.car
>Subject: Re: bazooka base tubes
>Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 05:59:17 -0700
>Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
The Reeds wrote:
> I am wanting to add a subwoofer to my car audio system and I've been
> looking at the Bazooka base tubes. Are these any good? And what about
> the ones that have a built in 80watt preamp? could anyone give me some
>
> info about these? Thanks!!
Bazooka bass tubes are a cost-effective way to add bass to a system.
They are efficient, compact and inexpensive. The amplified tubes aren't
a bad way to go if you don't want to mess with seperate components. OTH,
if you buy seperate components then you can make upgrades to either the
amp or sub without starting from scratch, which could save some $$.
There are alternatives like the JL Microsub that you should consider as
well.
Mike
--------------
[back] [home] [info central] [cool places] [arts & etc.] [stuff] [travel]