Dayum!!!!
Not 4 x18 TH, but an isobaric 8 x 12 BP4. Just completed the install after 10pm last night. I'm volunteering for the African American Male Walk today and going to a car show afterwards. I have to be at the AAMW at 5am!
Using Audacity, the results of a spectrum analysis of the track referred to above are shown below. There is a dominant peak at about 44Hz, although there is still a lot of low-frequency energy between 52Hz and 70Hz. Based on the time domain waveform, the dominant kick drum sound is located around 60Hz, and there is a narrow peak located at that frequency in the spectral response.
If there are concerns about low-frequency sounds travelling a long way, then I guess it might be best to avoid playing "Disc Wars" by Daft Punk, from the "TRON: Legacy" soundtrack. Of course, that would also depend on the bass extension afforded by the subwoofer. The frequency analysis indicates that there are large peaks in the response located at 18Hz, 24Hz, 29Hz, 37Hz, 58Hz, and 64Hz.
I bought them at $29.99 a piece from Best Buy a few years ago. I see they are $45 on Amazon.com.
Guys, BP1Fanatic's iso made me reflect on the pro mobile sub drivers again. A long time ago Kicker starting using the marketing name Solobaric for their range of the newly emerging pro mobile drivers in the car and HT/studio
So let's say we place a pair of well spec'ed sub drivers such as the SBA that I am looking at for use as a bench sub. This is just generalising, so a pair in isobaric with all the pros and cons of the system. How different the response would be if the magnets and coils from both drivers were fitted to one chassis and the cone for this new chassis about twice as heavy and the suspension increased in stiffness to emulate the isobaric suspension performance?
Did Kicker actually correctly identify and categorise the emerging driver style by correctly calling attention to a real attempt to emulate isobaric performance from a single driver?
Would it be fair to further speculate that with this new hypothetical chassis, the doubled up coils make for a thermal handling gain and power to driver a further excursion. And that the new, stronger suspension controls this increased excursion by just being there? And then wildly speculate that unlike the isobaric system, adapting the hardware to a single chassis actually effectively eliminates the one drawback of dropping efficiency with the isobaric system and instead deliver a net gain with doubled power and excursion?
Even though folks have been slow to realise that the thread is not about the subsonic frequencies pulled from the pro mobile and PA drivers but rather about the live and recorded musical instruments range around the acoustic kick, its electronic emulation, and the electric bass guitar
The original question as to why do the pro mobile drivers deliver such strong performance in that range? I believe that the cardioid dispersion answers the part of the question regarding PA systems bass not being as loud as the rest of the PA system's output levels in the car park. The fact that this dispersion is not applied to the non-bass frequencies and maintains ear-splitting levels in the car park is remarkable but not relevant to the discussion
The car body as a horn supplementing the sub box has been raised and this may well be a strong factor but logically it would mean that one well spec'ed PA sub driver would do very well if its box was placed in a larger box made up of the boards that would normally go into an array of such subs. Money matters so its again remarkable that PA system buildrs would instead buy arrays worth of drivers and the amps to power them
The original post raising the question has been challenged as unsubstantiated. It's a proper response but we cant ignore these vehicles running powerfull and clean systems when they pass by and that thup thup thup pulse permaiating through the ground fades in and out
Cabin gain make a big difference but daily driver cars go much louder in the mid 90s with only one sub and rivaled the dedicated installss built for SPL comps using the standard driver type of the preceding years
Again, I want to raise the excerpt from the JLAudio manual from the early 90's that I linked that featured then flagship W3 series 15" that had started making the crossover to the longer excursion system. JLAudio pleaded for many years to potential buyers to not judge ultimate output by the drivers sensitivity number
In trying to understand why the pro mobile style of driver has so much ouput I have formed an understanding that I would like you educated types folks to remove any of my misconceptions from. I have come to understand the pro mobile chassis, while coming up dismally in specs actually offer the peformance of upto 4x drivers of similar Sd in the more regular style while only needing half the box size of that single driver.....given enough power......am I close to understanding this?
So let's say we place a pair of well spec'ed sub drivers such as the SBA that I am looking at for use as a bench sub. This is just generalising, so a pair in isobaric with all the pros and cons of the system. How different the response would be if the magnets and coils from both drivers were fitted to one chassis and the cone for this new chassis about twice as heavy and the suspension increased in stiffness to emulate the isobaric suspension performance?
Did Kicker actually correctly identify and categorise the emerging driver style by correctly calling attention to a real attempt to emulate isobaric performance from a single driver?
Would it be fair to further speculate that with this new hypothetical chassis, the doubled up coils make for a thermal handling gain and power to driver a further excursion. And that the new, stronger suspension controls this increased excursion by just being there? And then wildly speculate that unlike the isobaric system, adapting the hardware to a single chassis actually effectively eliminates the one drawback of dropping efficiency with the isobaric system and instead deliver a net gain with doubled power and excursion?
Even though folks have been slow to realise that the thread is not about the subsonic frequencies pulled from the pro mobile and PA drivers but rather about the live and recorded musical instruments range around the acoustic kick, its electronic emulation, and the electric bass guitar
The original question as to why do the pro mobile drivers deliver such strong performance in that range? I believe that the cardioid dispersion answers the part of the question regarding PA systems bass not being as loud as the rest of the PA system's output levels in the car park. The fact that this dispersion is not applied to the non-bass frequencies and maintains ear-splitting levels in the car park is remarkable but not relevant to the discussion
The car body as a horn supplementing the sub box has been raised and this may well be a strong factor but logically it would mean that one well spec'ed PA sub driver would do very well if its box was placed in a larger box made up of the boards that would normally go into an array of such subs. Money matters so its again remarkable that PA system buildrs would instead buy arrays worth of drivers and the amps to power them
The original post raising the question has been challenged as unsubstantiated. It's a proper response but we cant ignore these vehicles running powerfull and clean systems when they pass by and that thup thup thup pulse permaiating through the ground fades in and out
Cabin gain make a big difference but daily driver cars go much louder in the mid 90s with only one sub and rivaled the dedicated installss built for SPL comps using the standard driver type of the preceding years
Again, I want to raise the excerpt from the JLAudio manual from the early 90's that I linked that featured then flagship W3 series 15" that had started making the crossover to the longer excursion system. JLAudio pleaded for many years to potential buyers to not judge ultimate output by the drivers sensitivity number
In trying to understand why the pro mobile style of driver has so much ouput I have formed an understanding that I would like you educated types folks to remove any of my misconceptions from. I have come to understand the pro mobile chassis, while coming up dismally in specs actually offer the peformance of upto 4x drivers of similar Sd in the more regular style while only needing half the box size of that single driver.....given enough power......am I close to understanding this?
Last edited:
No, the reason behind the name solobaric was just that they had developed a new motor that was strong enough for the subs to be used with higher amounts of moving mass successfully in small sealed airspaces. Their marketing at the time was that you only needed one of their subs for a given airspace for what you would normally (at the time) need a pair of clamshell isobaric subs to work in the same airspace. Nothing more, just a strong motor with more moving mass.
So no to doubling up the magnets and coils and cone weight into a single chassis and calling it a solo attempt at isobaric performance? Because they just made a stronger magnet with more moving mass? How do they make a stronger motor without increasing magnets and coil? How do they increase moving mass without increasing the former, coil and cone material or thickness?
The weird thing is that when someone tries to make a stronger speaker they increase the motor strength and performance as well as aim for a lighter, stiffer and stronger cone. But by your own remark that they are increasing moving mass must mean that they are not doing the lighter cone part as normal but rather going the other way so really are doing something different and trying to emulate the moving mass of the clamshell driver
Are you actually agreeing by being contrary? Is that even possible?
And you are agreeing with which bit?
Correct, no doubling anything.
Yes, both of which you need to have good performance in small sealed airspace.
They make the steel and magnets larger
Heaver cone.
You must have edit that second paragraph after I submitted my reply.
Lighter cones are not always the goal, you need heavy mms for any subwooer that is expected to play in small sealed airspace.
The design wasn't to try and emulate an isobaric pair of subs, strong motors and heavy moving mass is just what you need to have for small sealed subwoofers regardless. It's part of hoffman's iron law. They did not design the subs to replicate anything isobaric, they designed them specifically to work in small sealed. Isobaric pairs were just how people got around the limitations of the weak subwoofers at the time. The original solobarics were launched in the mid 90's and were still round.
Lighter cones are not always the goal, you need heavy mms for any subwooer that is expected to play in small sealed airspace.
And this cant be done by doubling up on the magnets volume or diameter or thickness or all of the clamshell setup being reengineered?
And can't this be done by increasing cone thickness or heavier material? But why would they make the cone heavier instead of lighter and stiffer? Is it to emulate the moving mass in the clamshell config?
Maybe if they did emulate the clamshell moving mass and made the magnet larger (maybe even doubly so) and increased coil power then they wouldnt be locked into the Xmax of the clamshell which is same as a single driver in that pair. By going all that hardware into a single chassis, might the be able to build in greater excursion into the single chassis?
It is my understanding of things that you are disputing in your initial response. I am only asking if what you are stating can be done by with what I am observing? Does this prompt you to get insulting?
To me, it seems very reasonable that the box achieved by the clamshell pair was the target of the new driver style and the result was much greater output from that box. Of all the things that can be called, solobaric seems reasonable as it ties in the box target with the solo chassis
To me, it seems very reasonable that the box achieved by the clamshell pair was the target of the new driver style and the result was much greater output from that box. Of all the things that can be called, solobaric seems reasonable as it ties in the box target with the solo chassis
They did not design the solobaric line around a pair of isobaric subwoofers. They designed them just as a subwoofer to work well in a small sealed enclosure.
Kicker just used the name as marketing, nothing more. It was "Hey, now you can have a 12" in a small sealed box without having to buy two of them". As much as you want isobaric pairs to have been their design target, it wasn't.
Kicker just used the name as marketing, nothing more. It was "Hey, now you can have a 12" in a small sealed box without having to buy two of them". As much as you want isobaric pairs to have been their design target, it wasn't.
Well if you were with Kicker or had inside info than I suppose that sorts it. How did you go with the dispute bit that you raised and the insults? Did you check to see the first word of your response to the understanding that i stated and asked for clarification on? Poor form man