Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is he an idiot?
My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for
his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If sub construction os the same there will not be any issues if hes running
them in mono together. Although by the sounds of this its unlikely. I wont say that they will damage one another but at some point they will be fighting each other reducing output. Hell, if they are that cheap give it a go and post your results. Do a Mythbusters on my theory. Scotty "Kirby" wrote in message news:XTToe.1584174$8l.800068@pd7tw1no... My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Kirby" wrote in message news:XTToe.1584174$8l.800068@pd7tw1no... My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? Just ask him which is cheaper... 2 new subs or an extra piece of wood? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I fail to see how they're in danger of blowing with such a setup. How
exactly are they going to be "fighting each other?" "Kirby" wrote in message news:XTToe.1584174$8l.800068@pd7tw1no... My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... I fail to see how they're in danger of blowing with such a setup. How exactly are they going to be "fighting each other?" "Kirby" wrote in message news:XTToe.1584174$8l.800068@pd7tw1no... My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? Bass responce from Subs are specific to design. While one sub may be designed to propell itself 1inch forward and the other is tighter and only designed for 1/2 inch, the tighter sub will be effectively sucked in with the airflow. Try it with a shoe box and plastic wrap. You can see when ones pushed in further (The double layered side to act as the tighter sub) the other will distort somewhat. Sheeeit, for the sake of a small extra peice of timber divede the damn things. Problem solved. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bass responce from Subs are specific to design. While one sub may be
designed to propell itself 1inch forward and the other is tighter and only designed for 1/2 inch, the tighter sub will be effectively sucked in with the airflow. Try it with a shoe box and plastic wrap. You can see when ones pushed in further (The double layered side to act as the tighter sub) the other will distort somewhat. What? How is the "tighter" one going to be "sucked in"? The force driving equilibrium won't be stronger than the force pushing the speaker out (from the amp). And even if what you said was true, how is that going to blow the sub? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The driver with the lower BL will get pushed around by the driver with the
higher BL this in turn will lead to back EMF and cause the load to become quite inductive. The amplifier will see a more difficult load and the frequency response will suffer from the increased reactance. Chad "MZ" wrote in message ... I fail to see how they're in danger of blowing with such a setup. How exactly are they going to be "fighting each other?" "Kirby" wrote in message news:XTToe.1584174$8l.800068@pd7tw1no... My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
So what you're saying is that this may go lower than 2 ohms, and possibly
ruin the amp? "Chad Wahls" wrote in message ... The driver with the lower BL will get pushed around by the driver with the higher BL this in turn will lead to back EMF and cause the load to become quite inductive. The amplifier will see a more difficult load and the frequency response will suffer from the increased reactance. Chad "MZ" wrote in message ... I fail to see how they're in danger of blowing with such a setup. How exactly are they going to be "fighting each other?" "Kirby" wrote in message news:XTToe.1584174$8l.800068@pd7tw1no... My buddy, who isn't the brightest one i my mind, is building a new box for his subs. 10" Alpine type E, and a 10" JL W3. The box will be sealed with NO divider. Of what I know, one of the subs will wreck, right away. I've ben told this, and have seen it happen to two very cheap woofers. I've also heard that it's never a good idea to have two different woofers in the boot. Any feedback? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The driver with the lower BL will get pushed around by the driver with the
higher BL this in turn will lead to back EMF and cause the load to become quite inductive. The amplifier will see a more difficult load and the frequency response will suffer from the increased reactance. Of course. But my question is how will this destroy one, or as the other poster said, both speakers? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... The driver with the lower BL will get pushed around by the driver with the higher BL this in turn will lead to back EMF and cause the load to become quite inductive. The amplifier will see a more difficult load and the frequency response will suffer from the increased reactance. Of course. But my question is how will this destroy one, or as the other poster said, both speakers? Nah it's unlikely to trash speakers but it could sound like ass, make the amp run hot, or at WORST cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail at the voice coil/cone bonding point. What's wrong with just putting a chunk 'o wood in there? Chad |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nah it's unlikely to trash speakers but it could sound like ass, make the
amp run hot, or at WORST cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail at the voice coil/cone bonding point. But that's what I'm getting at. How is it going to cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail? Even if it was left unhooked, it would be acting almost like a passive radiator. Now unless the stronger speaker is pushing so much air that the passive (unhooked) speaker was exceeding its xmax, I don't see how you're going to blow it. You'd have to have quite the disparity for that to happen. And I don't think that disparity exists between the two subs he listed. What's wrong with just putting a chunk 'o wood in there? What's wrong with just using one of the subs? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
My friend likes all the bass he can handle, and is plainly too dumn to put a
divider in. However I know that I have seen someone do this with two *very* cheap woofers, and the surroung tore off of the weaker one for lack of a better term. "MZ" wrote in message ... Nah it's unlikely to trash speakers but it could sound like ass, make the amp run hot, or at WORST cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail at the voice coil/cone bonding point. But that's what I'm getting at. How is it going to cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail? Even if it was left unhooked, it would be acting almost like a passive radiator. Now unless the stronger speaker is pushing so much air that the passive (unhooked) speaker was exceeding its xmax, I don't see how you're going to blow it. You'd have to have quite the disparity for that to happen. And I don't think that disparity exists between the two subs he listed. What's wrong with just putting a chunk 'o wood in there? What's wrong with just using one of the subs? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
My friend likes all the bass he can handle, and is plainly too dumn to put
a divider in. However I know that I have seen someone do this with two *very* cheap woofers, and the surroung tore off of the weaker one for lack of a better term. If they were cheap woofers, how do you know it was the lack of a divider that tore the surround? How do you know it wasn't simply blown by the amplifier? Why would the woofer face more excursion indirectly from the other woofer than with the very same signal directly?? I'm just asking for a "how", not anecdotal evidence. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Well it may be hard for me to explain, but I think it comes down with a
sealed box, and of where the air comes from when the sub moves out. I figured that it made its way through the surround and the cone. and the amp wasnt doing it cuz it was getting 50 watts, when it could handle 150. "MZ" wrote in message news My friend likes all the bass he can handle, and is plainly too dumn to put a divider in. However I know that I have seen someone do this with two *very* cheap woofers, and the surroung tore off of the weaker one for lack of a better term. If they were cheap woofers, how do you know it was the lack of a divider that tore the surround? How do you know it wasn't simply blown by the amplifier? Why would the woofer face more excursion indirectly from the other woofer than with the very same signal directly?? I'm just asking for a "how", not anecdotal evidence. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Well it may be hard for me to explain, but I think it comes down with a
sealed box, and of where the air comes from when the sub moves out. I figured that it made its way through the surround and the cone. What? Are you saying air passed through the surround and cone? and the amp wasnt doing it cuz it was getting 50 watts, when it could handle 150. Power out can't be greater than power in. In other words, if 50 watts can't blow the sub directly, it's not going to do it indirectly through another subwoofer. Basically, what this means is that if subwoofer A, driven by 50 watts, causes subwoofer B to move 1 cm (just makin' up numbers here), then subwoofer B, driven by 50 watts directly, will move more than 1cm. Direct indirect. The caveat here is if the two woofers are vastly different - such that subwoofer A's excursion is much greater than 1cm. Like I said in my last post, you don't know why the sub blew. Just because the amp says 50 watts on the package and the sub says 150 doesn't make it true. In fact, it's impossible to judge a speaker's true power handling in isolation, because it's dependent on enclosure size, enclosure type, crest factor of the music, how much the amplifier is being overdriven, etc. Manufacturers just estimate these numbers. Sometimes, especially when you look at tweeters, power handling numbers aren't actually power handling - they're estimates on recommended amplifier size. Unfortunately, many manufacturers neglect to include this tidbit of information. Basically, what I'm saying is that you don't have enough evidence to suggest that the sub blew because there wasn't a divider. It was a cheap sub. They blow. That's what makes a cheap sub a cheap sub. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news Bass responce from Subs are specific to design. While one sub may be designed to propell itself 1inch forward and the other is tighter and only designed for 1/2 inch, the tighter sub will be effectively sucked in with the airflow. Try it with a shoe box and plastic wrap. You can see when ones pushed in further (The double layered side to act as the tighter sub) the other will distort somewhat. What? How is the "tighter" one going to be "sucked in"? The force driving equilibrium won't be stronger than the force pushing the speaker out (from the amp). And even if what you said was true, how is that going to blow the sub? I never said that it would BLOW anything! Reduce output and sound like **** yes, blow a sub, no. The only way I can see that a sub could be damaged ("Blown") would be that the sub that had teh longest excursion would move heaps and the other not much in comparison, the one that was being fought if it was an air cooled coild would over heat with prolonged use. Based on the initial posting I seriously doubt that the guys gear would likey be anything that would affect the thermal cooling properties of any sub. I think that "sucked in" was maybe an incorrect (or poorly described) analergy. Maybe restricted in movement....? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Nah it's unlikely to trash speakers but it could sound like ass, make the amp run hot, or at WORST cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail at the voice coil/cone bonding point. But that's what I'm getting at. How is it going to cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail? Even if it was left unhooked, it would be acting almost like a passive radiator. Now unless the stronger speaker is pushing so much air that the passive (unhooked) speaker was exceeding its xmax, I don't see how you're going to blow it. You'd have to have quite the disparity for that to happen. And I don't think that disparity exists between the two subs he listed. What's wrong with just putting a chunk 'o wood in there? What's wrong with just using one of the subs? Or whats wrong with getting creative and building a bandpass box so that the weaker sub can at least do some good. Or maybe this guy should get off his butt and buy two matching subs, seperate the box and seal like a gophers arsehole. Do the job once, do it right! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Can I get an amen?!?
"Scotty" wrote in message u... "MZ" wrote in message ... Nah it's unlikely to trash speakers but it could sound like ass, make the amp run hot, or at WORST cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail at the voice coil/cone bonding point. But that's what I'm getting at. How is it going to cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail? Even if it was left unhooked, it would be acting almost like a passive radiator. Now unless the stronger speaker is pushing so much air that the passive (unhooked) speaker was exceeding its xmax, I don't see how you're going to blow it. You'd have to have quite the disparity for that to happen. And I don't think that disparity exists between the two subs he listed. What's wrong with just putting a chunk 'o wood in there? What's wrong with just using one of the subs? Or whats wrong with getting creative and building a bandpass box so that the weaker sub can at least do some good. Or maybe this guy should get off his butt and buy two matching subs, seperate the box and seal like a gophers arsehole. Do the job once, do it right! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What I'm saying is that the surround started to detach from the cone,
letting air pass through. "MZ" wrote in message ... Well it may be hard for me to explain, but I think it comes down with a sealed box, and of where the air comes from when the sub moves out. I figured that it made its way through the surround and the cone. What? Are you saying air passed through the surround and cone? and the amp wasnt doing it cuz it was getting 50 watts, when it could handle 150. Power out can't be greater than power in. In other words, if 50 watts can't blow the sub directly, it's not going to do it indirectly through another subwoofer. Basically, what this means is that if subwoofer A, driven by 50 watts, causes subwoofer B to move 1 cm (just makin' up numbers here), then subwoofer B, driven by 50 watts directly, will move more than 1cm. Direct indirect. The caveat here is if the two woofers are vastly different - such that subwoofer A's excursion is much greater than 1cm. Like I said in my last post, you don't know why the sub blew. Just because the amp says 50 watts on the package and the sub says 150 doesn't make it true. In fact, it's impossible to judge a speaker's true power handling in isolation, because it's dependent on enclosure size, enclosure type, crest factor of the music, how much the amplifier is being overdriven, etc. Manufacturers just estimate these numbers. Sometimes, especially when you look at tweeters, power handling numbers aren't actually power handling - they're estimates on recommended amplifier size. Unfortunately, many manufacturers neglect to include this tidbit of information. Basically, what I'm saying is that you don't have enough evidence to suggest that the sub blew because there wasn't a divider. It was a cheap sub. They blow. That's what makes a cheap sub a cheap sub. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Nah it's unlikely to trash speakers but it could sound like ass, make the amp run hot, or at WORST cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail at the voice coil/cone bonding point. But that's what I'm getting at. How is it going to cause the weaker speaker to mechanically fail? Even if it was left unhooked, it would be acting almost like a passive radiator. Now unless the stronger speaker is pushing so much air that the passive (unhooked) speaker was exceeding its xmax, I don't see how you're going to blow it. You'd have to have quite the disparity for that to happen. And I don't think that disparity exists between the two subs he listed. It would not happen if the speaker were left unhooked. When it is hooked is the VC is presented a controlled low impedance load. The coil will do whatever it can to do it's job. so we have two coils trying to do their job. Lets say one coil can move 9 MM and the other can move 5 MM within the magnetic gap. The cone attached to the speaker trying to move 5 MM will see the load of the speaker trying to move 9MM but the coil is only designed for 5MM, this is where the mechanical problem occurs. Also remember that air has inertia as does the cone, this compounds the problem. I have seen countless pro drivers wasted when people smoke an 18 in a dual 18 enclosure. They replace one of the 18's with an off brand and it or the other mysteriously fails mechanically although the coil looks great on inspection. Granted this is an extreme example and it does happen on drivers with more surface area but it is proof that it is a bad idea to mix drivers in the same enclosure, hell it's bad in my eyes to use different drivers in the same passband. What's wrong with just putting a chunk 'o wood in there? What's wrong with just using one of the subs? Ha! Agreed! Chad |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Then that would have been an already defective speaker.
"Kirby" wrote in message news:5Hape.1590136$8l.889631@pd7tw1no... What I'm saying is that the surround started to detach from the cone, letting air pass through. "MZ" wrote in message ... Well it may be hard for me to explain, but I think it comes down with a sealed box, and of where the air comes from when the sub moves out. I figured that it made its way through the surround and the cone. What? Are you saying air passed through the surround and cone? and the amp wasnt doing it cuz it was getting 50 watts, when it could handle 150. Power out can't be greater than power in. In other words, if 50 watts can't blow the sub directly, it's not going to do it indirectly through another subwoofer. Basically, what this means is that if subwoofer A, driven by 50 watts, causes subwoofer B to move 1 cm (just makin' up numbers here), then subwoofer B, driven by 50 watts directly, will move more than 1cm. Direct indirect. The caveat here is if the two woofers are vastly different - such that subwoofer A's excursion is much greater than 1cm. Like I said in my last post, you don't know why the sub blew. Just because the amp says 50 watts on the package and the sub says 150 doesn't make it true. In fact, it's impossible to judge a speaker's true power handling in isolation, because it's dependent on enclosure size, enclosure type, crest factor of the music, how much the amplifier is being overdriven, etc. Manufacturers just estimate these numbers. Sometimes, especially when you look at tweeters, power handling numbers aren't actually power handling - they're estimates on recommended amplifier size. Unfortunately, many manufacturers neglect to include this tidbit of information. Basically, what I'm saying is that you don't have enough evidence to suggest that the sub blew because there wasn't a divider. It was a cheap sub. They blow. That's what makes a cheap sub a cheap sub. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
It took time for this to take place... its not like it happened right away,
actually it was a couple of months after he purchased the woofer. "scott johnson" (net) wrote in message ... Then that would have been an already defective speaker. "Kirby" wrote in message news:5Hape.1590136$8l.889631@pd7tw1no... What I'm saying is that the surround started to detach from the cone, letting air pass through. "MZ" wrote in message ... Well it may be hard for me to explain, but I think it comes down with a sealed box, and of where the air comes from when the sub moves out. I figured that it made its way through the surround and the cone. What? Are you saying air passed through the surround and cone? and the amp wasnt doing it cuz it was getting 50 watts, when it could handle 150. Power out can't be greater than power in. In other words, if 50 watts can't blow the sub directly, it's not going to do it indirectly through another subwoofer. Basically, what this means is that if subwoofer A, driven by 50 watts, causes subwoofer B to move 1 cm (just makin' up numbers here), then subwoofer B, driven by 50 watts directly, will move more than 1cm. Direct indirect. The caveat here is if the two woofers are vastly different - such that subwoofer A's excursion is much greater than 1cm. Like I said in my last post, you don't know why the sub blew. Just because the amp says 50 watts on the package and the sub says 150 doesn't make it true. In fact, it's impossible to judge a speaker's true power handling in isolation, because it's dependent on enclosure size, enclosure type, crest factor of the music, how much the amplifier is being overdriven, etc. Manufacturers just estimate these numbers. Sometimes, especially when you look at tweeters, power handling numbers aren't actually power handling - they're estimates on recommended amplifier size. Unfortunately, many manufacturers neglect to include this tidbit of information. Basically, what I'm saying is that you don't have enough evidence to suggest that the sub blew because there wasn't a divider. It was a cheap sub. They blow. That's what makes a cheap sub a cheap sub. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
sounds like it was a junk speaker to begin with.
"Kirby" wrote in message news:uAbqe.1632442$6l.288238@pd7tw2no... It took time for this to take place... its not like it happened right away, actually it was a couple of months after he purchased the woofer. "scott johnson" (net) wrote in message ... Then that would have been an already defective speaker. "Kirby" wrote in message news:5Hape.1590136$8l.889631@pd7tw1no... What I'm saying is that the surround started to detach from the cone, letting air pass through. "MZ" wrote in message ... Well it may be hard for me to explain, but I think it comes down with a sealed box, and of where the air comes from when the sub moves out. I figured that it made its way through the surround and the cone. What? Are you saying air passed through the surround and cone? and the amp wasnt doing it cuz it was getting 50 watts, when it could handle 150. Power out can't be greater than power in. In other words, if 50 watts can't blow the sub directly, it's not going to do it indirectly through another subwoofer. Basically, what this means is that if subwoofer A, driven by 50 watts, causes subwoofer B to move 1 cm (just makin' up numbers here), then subwoofer B, driven by 50 watts directly, will move more than 1cm. Direct indirect. The caveat here is if the two woofers are vastly different - such that subwoofer A's excursion is much greater than 1cm. Like I said in my last post, you don't know why the sub blew. Just because the amp says 50 watts on the package and the sub says 150 doesn't make it true. In fact, it's impossible to judge a speaker's true power handling in isolation, because it's dependent on enclosure size, enclosure type, crest factor of the music, how much the amplifier is being overdriven, etc. Manufacturers just estimate these numbers. Sometimes, especially when you look at tweeters, power handling numbers aren't actually power handling - they're estimates on recommended amplifier size. Unfortunately, many manufacturers neglect to include this tidbit of information. Basically, what I'm saying is that you don't have enough evidence to suggest that the sub blew because there wasn't a divider. It was a cheap sub. They blow. That's what makes a cheap sub a cheap sub. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Idiot Update | Pro Audio | |||
Is this Rivers IDIOT for real ? | Pro Audio | |||
Why is alf such an idiot? | Car Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Idiot seeks speaker wire gauge advice | Pro Audio |