A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this
design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger
speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as
this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the optimal
shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either. Is a round
cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice coil? What
are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design? Just curious.

MOSFET

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this
design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger
speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as
this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the optimal
shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either. Is a
round cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice coil?
What are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design? Just
curious.

MOSFET

Sounds like a gimmick to me, but this is usenet, so I'm 100% sure someone
will disagree.

I personally love the Kicker "L" series woofers. I have a single S10L5 in a
kicker speced ported box and almost everyone thinks that I have a pair of
12's in my car. Recently ive been thinking of redoing my System and
replacing the S10L5 with 4 - S8L7's for a nice finished install. IMO they
are worth every penny.

-Branden

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this
design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger
speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as
this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the optimal
shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either. Is a
round cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice coil?
What are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design? Just
curious.

MOSFET

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...

A while back the subject of 6x9's ........as this design is NOT optimal.


Really .... who told you that ?

-RG

I think the benefit of a square design is the cone area.. A 12" square
has an area of 144 sq. inches, while a 12" circle is about 113 sq. in.
The square can therefore push more air. I'm pretty sure triangle subs
are just a novelty, something that looks cool, out of the ordinary.

So I'd guess a square sub could be a better SPL sub. As far as SQ goes,
I imagine a circle sub would be better, although possibly negligibly.
Those Kicker L7's DO sound pretty nice,

Maybe they can push a square (clipped) sine wave more accurately

"RG" wrote in message
...

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...

A while back the subject of 6x9's ........as this design is NOT optimal.


Really .... who told you that ?

-RG


Maybe the question should be qualified: Is the design optimal in an
environment where traditional expectations of sound quality have gone out
the window, and space is at a premium. I mean, if square woofers were such a
great idea, then you'd see them widely used in musical amplifiers, sound
reinforcement cabinets and home speaker systems.

Dunno about the physics, Nick, but I've heard nothing but good things about
Kicker's L7 subs.

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Clarion DRZ9255 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and Xenon X1200.1
Amplifiers, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear
Fill, Image Dynamics IDMAX10 D4 v.3 Sub

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC
Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub

2006 Mustang GT Coupe

Actually, that's what got me wondering about this WHOLE thing. It has been
generally agreed in this forum that the 6x9 is not an optimal design. YET,
I have heard the L7 as well and think it is an AWESOME SUBWOOFER!!! I would
LOVE to have a pair of 12" L7's in my car. So what's going on here?

MOSFET

"Branden Nelsen" wrote in message
...
I personally love the Kicker "L" series woofers. I have a single S10L5 in a
kicker speced ported box and almost everyone thinks that I have a pair of
12's in my car. Recently ive been thinking of redoing my System and
replacing the S10L5 with 4 - S8L7's for a nice finished install. IMO they
are worth every penny.

-Branden

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this
design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger
speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as
this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the
optimal shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either.
Is a round cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice
coil? What are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design?
Just curious.

MOSFET

Really .... who told you that ?

-RG
I have an idea, but I'm not going to say. If he wants to chime in, he will.

OK, then, if there is nothing wrong with the design of a 6"x9", then how
about a 3"x9"? How about a 2"x10" speaker?

My point is that if you believe that an oval shaped speaker has no design
drawbacks (I assume that's what you meant by the "really...who told you
that" comment), then logic would dictate that you ALSO believe that ANY
SHAPE OF OVAL would also have no design drawbacks. Or is the 6x9 a "perfect
oval" for cone designs, and no other shape oval is as good? Please explain
your logic.

MOSFET

Dunno about the physics, Nick, but I've heard nothing but good things
about Kicker's L7 subs.

Tony
Yes, I agree Tony. As I said in the previous post, the L7 got me wondering
about cone shape designs in general. I know that many believe that oval
shaped speakers are NOT the optimal shape for sound quality. Yet, Kicker
claims that the L7 is superior to round speakers as the surface area of the
cone is increased (and I certainly wouldn't argue having heard them before).
I know that ovals are different than squares, but it got me thinking about
the entire topic of "What's The Optimal Shape For A Cone?". Logic would
dictate a round cone would be superior, as the cone would be perfectly
symmetric with the voice-coil and would therefore have the best
"pistonic-response". But I am no engineer, and was just curious about what
those who know more about this than I do would say.

Nick

I'm going to throw a hypothesis around with reckless abandon:

Any augmentation of a circular speaker will have a loss of SQ
proportionate to the distance, in form, from a true circle.

How about that? That would explain why a 6x9 sounds good where a 2x10
would, most likely, not. It would also explain why the square sub
would sound good (if not better): If a square 10 is 10 inches across at
its shortest diameter (meaning not diagonally 10 inches), giving it
extra (if augmented) surface area on the newly added corners.
Thoughts?

~Mister.Lull

MOSFET wrote:
Really .... who told you that ?

-RG
I have an idea, but I'm not going to say. If he wants to chime in, he will.

OK, then, if there is nothing wrong with the design of a 6"x9", then how
about a 3"x9"? How about a 2"x10" speaker?

My point is that if you believe that an oval shaped speaker has no design
drawbacks (I assume that's what you meant by the "really...who told you
that" comment), then logic would dictate that you ALSO believe that ANY
SHAPE OF OVAL would also have no design drawbacks. Or is the 6x9 a "perfect
oval" for cone designs, and no other shape oval is as good? Please explain
your logic.

MOSFET

I'm going to throw a hypothesis around with reckless abandon:

Any augmentation of a circular speaker will have a loss of SQ
proportionate to the distance, in form, from a true circle.

How about that? That would explain why a 6x9 sounds good where a 2x10
would, most likely, not. It would also explain why the square sub
would sound good (if not better): If a square 10 is 10 inches across at
its shortest diameter (meaning not diagonally 10 inches), giving it
extra (if augmented) surface area on the newly added corners.
Thoughts?

I LOVE IT!! I'm putting my money on that principle. We'll call it "The
Lull Principle" from now on. Or, the LP effect when referring to
non-circular cones. Good work.

MOSFET

I've read the reasoning behind circular being better than oval speakers,
but I'm unconvinced if it actually affects sound quality. One prime
example, is electrostatic speakers. Definitely not round by any means,
yet are considered to sound about the best. As far as physical stability
when quickly moving back and forth, a circular would be stronger than an
oval, which has varying diameters. However, considering the low amount
of stress (its not like its supporting a ton of weight on the cone, is
it? Its just flexing, but the surround/basket add support), I doubt
there's really much to go on for that argument either.

Brandonb


MOSFET wrote:
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this
design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger
speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as
this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the optimal
shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either. Is a round
cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice coil? What
are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design? Just curious.

MOSFET

How about Xtant X series subs? They have 6 sides, and I hear they make a
pretty mean sub...

We might as well throw them into the debate as well!!

Tony

--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Clarion DRZ9255 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and Xenon X1200.1
Amplifiers, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear
Fill, Image Dynamics IDMAX10 D4 v.3 Sub

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC
Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub

2006 Mustang GT Coupe

Those also use the same surround/basket/spider/motor, etc as their round
subs. Heck, the cutout for the box is round. they just added some
creases to the cone "for rigidity".

Brandonb


Tony F wrote:
How about Xtant X series subs? They have 6 sides, and I hear they make a
pretty mean sub...

We might as well throw them into the debate as well!!

Tony

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
Really .... who told you that ?

-RG
I have an idea, but I'm not going to say. If he wants to chime in, he
will.

OK, then, if there is nothing wrong with the design of a 6"x9", then how
about a 3"x9"? How about a 2"x10" speaker?

My point is that if you believe that an oval shaped speaker has no design
drawbacks (I assume that's what you meant by the "really...who told you
that" comment), then logic would dictate that you ALSO believe that ANY
SHAPE OF OVAL would also have no design drawbacks. Or is the 6x9 a
"perfect oval" for cone designs, and no other shape oval is as good?
Please explain your logic.

MOSFET


I think you may have to accept the wisdom of the ancients from the car
stereo business. For example, all 4x10 speakers sounded like crap. There
were no exceptions, ever, no matter how much anyone smoked or drank to
convince themselves otherwise. 4x6 ovals in the dashboards of GM cars were a
disaster. Who cares why?

Awesome compared to what?

"MOSFET" wrote in message
...
Actually, that's what got me wondering about this WHOLE thing. It has
been generally agreed in this forum that the 6x9 is not an optimal design.
YET, I have heard the L7 as well and think it is an AWESOME SUBWOOFER!!!
I would LOVE to have a pair of 12" L7's in my car. So what's going on
here?

MOSFET

"Branden Nelsen" wrote in message
...
I personally love the Kicker "L" series woofers. I have a single S10L5 in
a kicker speced ported box and almost everyone thinks that I have a pair
of 12's in my car. Recently ive been thinking of redoing my System and
replacing the S10L5 with 4 - S8L7's for a nice finished install. IMO they
are worth every penny.

-Branden

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that
this design was really something the automakers came up with to fit
larger speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest
priority as this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the
optimal shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either.
Is a round cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the
voice coil? What are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square
design? Just curious.

MOSFET

I think you may have to accept the wisdom of the ancients from the car
stereo business. For example, all 4x10 speakers sounded like crap. There
were no exceptions, ever, no matter how much anyone smoked or drank to
convince themselves otherwise. 4x6 ovals in the dashboards of GM cars were
a disaster. Who cares why?

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. First you
imply that 6x9's are not a flawed design by saying to me "Really? Who told
you that" when I sugested this. Now you are trying to convince me of the
wisdom of "car audio ancients" who say these oval designs suck? I still
have NO CLUE what you are trying to say.

MOSFET

Geez Doug, sorry. It wasn't you, it was RG.

SORRY!!!!

MOSFET

In article ,
Brandonb wrote:

I've read the reasoning behind circular being better than oval speakers,
but I'm unconvinced if it actually affects sound quality. One prime
example, is electrostatic speakers. Definitely not round by any means,
yet are considered to sound about the best. As far as physical stability
when quickly moving back and forth, a circular would be stronger than an
oval, which has varying diameters. However, considering the low amount
of stress (its not like its supporting a ton of weight on the cone, is
it? Its just flexing, but the surround/basket add support), I doubt
there's really much to go on for that argument either.

Brandonb


MOSFET wrote:
A while back the subject of 6x9's came up and it was pointed out that this
design was really something the automakers came up with to fit larger
speakers in cramped places, sound quality was not the biggest priority as
this design is NOT optimal.

That got me wondering about Kicker's square subwoofers (and some of the
copycats like Bazooka's triangle subwoofers). If a 6x9 is not the optimal
shape, then I wouldn't think a square subwoofer would be either. Is a
round
cone ALWAYS the best as this shape is symmetric with the voice coil? What
are the drawbacks (or BENEFITS, if any) of a square design? Just curious.

MOSFET




To play devil's advocate of sorts, I thoroughly enjoyed the 8x12" sub
from Tang Band. For the application for which it was created, it was
excellent. Compared to larger subs (of the round persuasion) however,
well the larger subs are larger.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
I think you may have to accept the wisdom of the ancients from the car
stereo business. For example, all 4x10 speakers sounded like crap. There
were no exceptions, ever, no matter how much anyone smoked or drank to
convince themselves otherwise. 4x6 ovals in the dashboards of GM cars
were a disaster. Who cares why?

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. First you
imply that 6x9's are not a flawed design by saying to me "Really? Who told
you that" when I sugested this. Now you are trying to convince me of the
wisdom of "car audio ancients" who say these oval designs suck? I still
have NO CLUE what you are trying to say.

MOSFET

You've got the writings of two people mixed up, but you're still half right.
Figure THAT out! *I* am a car audio ancient, and it's true - 4x10s & smaller
ovals suck. 6x9s are passable simply because they suck less than the smaller
ones, not because they're a good idea. They exist because that's what there
was room for in certain cars. If Ford & Chevy had consulted JBL in the early
1960s, and if they'd listened, there would've been round holes in rear
window decks, not oval ones.

Many thanks, sir. :-)

MOSFET wrote:
I'm going to throw a hypothesis around with reckless abandon:

Any augmentation of a circular speaker will have a loss of SQ
proportionate to the distance, in form, from a true circle.

How about that? That would explain why a 6x9 sounds good where a 2x10
would, most likely, not. It would also explain why the square sub
would sound good (if not better): If a square 10 is 10 inches across at
its shortest diameter (meaning not diagonally 10 inches), giving it
extra (if augmented) surface area on the newly added corners.
Thoughts?

I LOVE IT!! I'm putting my money on that principle. We'll call it "The
Lull Principle" from now on. Or, the LP effect when referring to
non-circular cones. Good work.

MOSFET