Earthquake Sound TREMORX-10-4 failing integrity check by a long way

I was looking for subwoofers on the dutch amazon and came across the Earthquake Sound TREMORX-10-4 and found an users manual on the website and the specs seemed to be quite nice. so i wend ahead and entered the ts parameters into winisd and it said that the woofer failed the data integrity check. this usually means that there's a small error somewhere so i go and reset some of the values and check if it still fails the data integrity check. i came to the conclusion that winisd thinks that the mms should be 147.4 grams while the manual says it should be 104.156 grams. to me this seems quite an big difference and makes me wonder if this woofer is even any good.

next i go and try to model with this woofer (with the mms from winisd) and seem to get not quite what i want with an f3 at 37 hertz at the standard configuration.

those 2 factors make me wonder if i'm doing something wrong or this woofer is indeed not any good (for me). that's why i decided to post here.

thanks for reading and hopefully reacting
 
i got the specs from here: https://www.earthquakesound.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/TremorX_manual_EU.pdf
1693818292619.png
 
I have looked a bit further than my nose length and came to the conclusion that the manual found on the american earthquake website has other and less specifications. This one doesn't even mention the mms and has an higher fs and an higher qts... I don't know which one of these two i need to follow now...

edit: on the .dk website it's called the TREMORX-10-4 and on the .com TREMOR-X104
 
Last edited:
If a driver has T/S-parameters published that's usually a good sign. T/S-parameters for driver models are subject to change without notification from the manufacturer. The other one is quite a different driver, so I would go with these specs. I would forget about mms for now and just keep simming untill something decent comes from it.
 
Some people get frustrated with sum check in WinIsd
I find it a valuable tool.

Large signal being more important to get a basic alignment.

Fs will vary by a good 10% or more in real life.
But we are stuck with what the manufacture gives us.
Assume usually cherry picked for lowest Fs.

More important I always let Qts auto calculate.
Only enter Qes and Qms.
Fs cherry picked stuck with that
Vas cross your fingers.

For electro mechanical

you can enter Re , Le and Sd
and everything else will cross calculate.

Or if I remember correctly enter
Mms and Bl
and everything will cross calculate.

So 2 ways to cross calculate and usually hope
that the Mms and Bl match the data sheet closer.
Then see how wildly different the other values are.
Either way the data is junk. So is what it is

I'll play with the data sheet values and try to get
Mms and BL to cross calculate closer.

Some programs dont sum check so if the manufacture is fluffing
data to make it perform better in simulation be nice too know.

Pro sound and known hifi brands usually no problem.
Usually see this with mystical magical no name subs.
Pretending to go deep. End up being large xmax
drivers with ridiculous magnets and gaps.
One note wonders designed to look good on paper
with a bunch of xmax and a big old 50 Hz useless peak.

Even with junk cross calculated TS parameters.
If they dont go deep and make a big old 50 Hz peak in sim
no matter what you do.
And pretend that 1 or 2 ohm loads is " useful"
It is Car stereo one note = junk
 
What's worse than no published parameters for a driver? Published parameters for a driver that are entirely incorrect, to the point that there's no resemblance between the published specs and the actual specs. Like what happened when I purchased that Elemental Designs Kv2 driver many years ago...
When I bought my 12NLW9300, what it is now. It's almost fraud to sell them under the same name and for just under 1400 XCD :cautious:
 
ok. i entered the Mms, the BL and the Re and left the Sd open. it is saying that the sd should be 0.0222 m^2 instead of 0.289. i think that this could very well be a measurement error because a slight error in diameter/radius can lead to quite an big error in surface area since to calculate surface area it is r^2π. is this a possibility? btw thank you all for responding!
 
ok. i entered the Mms, the BL and the Re and left the Sd open. it is saying that the sd should be 0.0222 m^2 instead of 0.289. i think that this could very well be a measurement error because a slight error in diameter/radius can lead to quite an big error in surface area since to calculate surface area it is r^2π. is this a possibility? btw thank you all for responding!
Generally, 1/3 to 1/2 of the surround diameter is included when determining Sd.

The Sd of the TremorX-10-4 is specified as 0.289 m^2, making the effective cone area diameter only 192mm (7.56 inches), while the the driver frame diameter is 263.5mm (10.37 inches).
With that small of an Sd, appears almost none of the surround was considered part of the Sd.
TremorX-10-4Earthquake.png

Anyway you look at it the specs seem suspect..