207 posts / 0 new
Last post
moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

I have now seen the statement on the web page (I didn't before), and if Ken has stated that for the world to see, there must be some truth in it. 

Im guessing this is because many larger drivers tend to have oversized roll surrounds (intended for good reasons, but can have negative effects too), which eats into the actual effective driver area. I'm guessing in some cases, the roll surround could account for a couple of inches of the outer diameter of the driver, which could bring down the driver area to about 16". There may be other reasons why Ken has stated this, so I will check with him and report back. I know Ken posts eTh occasionally on 'another channel', but I think he is way too busy to join up on any forum that poses a question related to the brand.

 

Dependant on the design, 1/3 - 1/2 of the roll surround counts towards driver radiating area. A properly designed larger roll surround wont have any issues solved by a smaller surround that will in anyway affect the function of the driver.
moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

v1c wrote:

moonfly wrote:
The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers can have more cone area than a single eighteen.

If were really going to be this pedantic about a marketing statement there are two errors in your reply

"The statement was that a pairof 12 inch drivers " is actually "please note that 2 KEN KREISEL 12" drivers" the words Ken Kreisel drivers being the relevent part of  the statement.

"can have more cone area than a single eighteen" is actually "approaches or equals the cone area of a single 18" driver"

Nowhere does it say more cone area.

If you really feel that strongly about the total injustice of such an obviously false and fabricated statement to even suggest

that Ken Kreisels dual 12" drivers can anyway remotely possibly contend with an 18" driver then Ken has actually posted on a thread on AV forums which i believe you have posted on (same name Moonfly.... supposition on my part) so take it up with him.

It is my choice to believe that Ken Kreisel makes the best subwoofers  due to the fact i didn't really think that much of subwoofers till i bought a Kreisel sub and that changed... i've read his history , i've heard him talk on the web and i've listened/owned  his products. In short Ken has my admiration and my respect, if that make me a "FANBOY" then yes i am. I'm not forcing anyone else to think the same.

If you understand how a subwoofer driver works, then the statement is pretty generic and meaningless anyway, but thats not important here really anyway. My point was that a marketing statement was made that is misleading, and I really dont like misleading statement and feel compelled to correct them. I make no negative statement about Ken himself or the product, nor would I ever. I actually spent a lot of time learning a lot from Ken when I got into designing and building my own subwoofers.
v1c's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/02/2009 - 18:10
Posts: 695
RE: I have no idea why you keep

[/quote]If you understand how a subwoofer driver works, then the statement is pretty generic and meaningless anyway, but thats not important here really anyway. My point was that a marketing statement was made that is misleading, and I really dont like misleading statement and feel compelled to correct them. I make no negative statement about Ken himself or the product, nor would I ever. I actually spent a lot of time learning a lot from Ken when I got into designing and building my own subwoofers.

[/quote]

All i took from the statement was if you want to compare this sub you need to be looking at 18" subs on a performance level not necessarily better but on a par. It's doesn't have to do this to every 18" sub ever made it in fact only has to be comparable to one 18" sub to be a genuine statement.

I don't see how this is any different than saying this is an M+S sandwich..... this is a KK sub.

Why is it such an issue to you ?

 

 

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11220
RE: I have no idea why you keep

moonfly wrote:
FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:
I have now seen the statement on the web page (I didn't before), and if Ken has stated that for the world to see, there must be some truth in it. 

Im guessing this is because many larger drivers tend to have oversized roll surrounds (intended for good reasons, but can have negative effects too), which eats into the actual effective driver area. I'm guessing in some cases, the roll surround could account for a couple of inches of the outer diameter of the driver, which could bring down the driver area to about 16". There may be other reasons why Ken has stated this, so I will check with him and report back. I know Ken posts eTh occasionally on 'another channel', but I think he is way too busy to join up on any forum that poses a question related to the brand.

Dependant on the design, 1/3 - 1/2 of the roll surround counts towards driver radiating area. A properly designed larger roll surround wont have any issues solved by a smaller surround that will in anyway affect the function of the driver.

The roll surround isn't travelling at the same speed as the actual driver area, so is more or less irrelevant to the amount of air that driver can shift. It's easy to say that the inside 1/2 is moving, so adds to the area, but because of e speed it is moving, it is adding very little to the overall output, if anything. That's probably something dreamed up by the manufacturers of subs with large roll surrounds. A larger roll surround adds to the overall weight of the driver, which in turn affects its efficiency, and effective speed. If you'd like to check out those facts, feel free to double check them with Ken Kreisel.

Once again Dan, feel free to comment when you have heard the DXD12012. After all, you yourself said that you learned much of what you know from Ken.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11220
RE: I have no idea why you keep

moonfly wrote:
Suffice to say, that cone area itself is actually not that useful a piece of info without the accompanying required info as well.

How come you're always comparing subs by surface area then? You can't twist words to suit your argument Dan. Well, you can, but those that know better can see through it.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11220
RE: I have no idea why you keep

moonfly wrote:
The problem here David is my initial post made no comment on this subs performance at all. I only pointed out an error in a posted claim. I have always made a lot of noise about my love the the KK sound, and a search of my history will prove just that, so I do not understand you issue. Unless Ken has found some way to make a 12 inch cone have more surface area than 12 inch cone, then its impossible for a pair of 12's to match or come close to a single 18. Of course, if you cherry pick your example, it might be possible. Some drivers are classed as 18" if sing a 12 inch basket, but the driver itself obviously then has to be less to fit inside, and of course you have to deduct for the roll surround. If Kens drivers use a true 12" cone (thus having a roll surround beyond the 12" and a basket closer to 13"), and you pick a claimed 18" driver that really isnt (i.e, a pretty cheap poor driver), then in theory such claims could be possible, but I always frown on marketting data derrived that way.

So it IS possible? Do make up your mind Dan. On one hand you're saying its impossible, and now you're saying it is. I'm sure Ken has taken into account the legal side of what he has said. I mean, he isn't stupid, is he? He invented the powered subwoofer, after all....

 

Quote:
All things being equal, a pair of 12's will not match an 18 in cone area, and you cannot get away from that fact, I even gave the rough area of the drivers for everyone to see. If all things arent equal, then no comparison should be made, that is misleading.

But you also said this:

moonfly wrote:
Suffice to say, that cone area itself is actually not that useful a piece of info without the accompanying required info as well.

You yourself has said that amplification is important for a subwoofer's performance. Ken's subs use a dual amplifier. Some other subs use dual amplifiers as well, but Ken's use those dual amps in a push/pull configuration, which I'm not sure any other manufacturer does. One manufacturer rubbished push/pull amplification, but then, it is a manufacturer of budget subwoofers Could this configuration not help Ken's subs achieve their goal? Do you have first hand experience of dual push/pull amplification in subs Dan?

Once again Dan, you have no first hand experience of Ken's new subs, which are quite a jump from his previous models and those now adopted by MK Sound.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

MUSICRAFT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 23/03/2009 - 20:38
Posts: 4576
RE: I have no idea why you keep

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

Once again Dan, you have no first hand experience of Ken's new subs, which are quite a jump from his previous models and those now adopted by MK Sound.

well then be a sport and offer to lend him a new sub Smile

Musicraft (Derby) - Specialist Hi-Fi, AV & Multimedia dealer

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11220
RE: I have no idea why you keep

MUSICRAFT wrote:
well then be a sport and offer to lend him a new sub Smile

I would, but he's in Spain.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

v1c wrote:

If you understand how a subwoofer driver works, then the statement is pretty generic and meaningless anyway, but thats not important here really anyway. My point was that a marketing statement was made that is misleading, and I really dont like misleading statement and feel compelled to correct them. I make no negative statement about Ken himself or the product, nor would I ever. I actually spent a lot of time learning a lot from Ken when I got into designing and building my own subwoofers.

[/quote]

All i took from the statement was if you want to compare this sub you need to be looking at 18" subs on a performance level not necessarily better but on a par. It's doesn't have to do this to every 18" sub ever made it in fact only has to be comparable to one 18" sub to be a genuine statement.

I don't see how this is any different than saying this is an M+S sandwich..... this is a KK sub.

Why is it such an issue to you ?

 

 

[/quote]I already explained the issue. All things being equal, a pair of 12'd do not equal a single 18, so claiming otherwise is an issue for me.

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

moonfly wrote:
FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:
I have now seen the statement on the web page (I didn't before), and if Ken has stated that for the world to see, there must be some truth in it. 

Im guessing this is because many larger drivers tend to have oversized roll surrounds (intended for good reasons, but can have negative effects too), which eats into the actual effective driver area. I'm guessing in some cases, the roll surround could account for a couple of inches of the outer diameter of the driver, which could bring down the driver area to about 16". There may be other reasons why Ken has stated this, so I will check with him and report back. I know Ken posts eTh occasionally on 'another channel', but I think he is way too busy to join up on any forum that poses a question related to the brand.

Dependant on the design, 1/3 - 1/2 of the roll surround counts towards driver radiating area. A properly designed larger roll surround wont have any issues solved by a smaller surround that will in anyway affect the function of the driver.

The roll surround isn't travelling at the same speed as the actual driver area, so is more or less irrelevant to the amount of air that driver can shift. It's easy to say that the inside 1/2 is moving, so adds to the area, but because of e speed it is moving, it is adding very little to the overall output, if anything. That's probably something dreamed up by the manufacturers of subs with large roll surrounds. A larger roll surround adds to the overall weight of the driver, which in turn affects its efficiency, and effective speed. If you'd like to check out those facts, feel free to double check them with Ken Kreisel.

Once again Dan, feel free to comment when you have heard the DXD12012. After all, you yourself said that you learned much of what you know from Ken.

At the point of contact the rool surround does move the same speed as the driver, decreasing as the surround moves away from the driver cone. The roll surround only form part of the suspension, and doesnt really add any weight to the driver. Kippel testing already covered all these aspects so feel free to look that up in your own time. Once again, I havent expressed any doubt in the performance of this subwoofer. Ive made a point of the comment on the cone area.
moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

moonfly wrote:
Suffice to say, that cone area itself is actually not that useful a piece of info without the accompanying required info as well.

How come you're always comparing subs by surface area then? You can't twist words to suit your argument Dan. Well, you can, but those that know better can see through it.

I have compared any subs. I said that a pair of 12" cones do not equal an 18, and provided the numbers that show an 18 will have roughly 25% more area than a pair of 12's. Nothing is being twisted, thats just how you choose to interpret what I post, for what ever your reasons are.
MUSICRAFT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 23/03/2009 - 20:38
Posts: 4576
RE: I have no idea why you keep

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

MUSICRAFT wrote:
well then be a sport and offer to lend him a new sub Smile

I would, but he's in Spain.

no harm in making the offer

Musicraft (Derby) - Specialist Hi-Fi, AV & Multimedia dealer

MUSICRAFT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 23/03/2009 - 20:38
Posts: 4576
RE: I have no idea why you keep

moonfly wrote:

MUSICRAFT wrote:

Hi moonfly

Thanks for your post Smile I am genuinely interested so please elaborate further Smile

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

Which particular aspect would you like elaborating. Suffice to say, that cone area itself is actually not that useful a piece of info without the accompanying required info as well.

Hi moonfly

Thanks. Any information which you feel will help.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

Musicraft (Derby) - Specialist Hi-Fi, AV & Multimedia dealer

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

Quote:

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

moonfly wrote:
The problem here David is my initial post made no comment on this subs performance at all. I only pointed out an error in a posted claim. I have always made a lot of noise about my love the the KK sound, and a search of my history will prove just that, so I do not understand you issue. Unless Ken has found some way to make a 12 inch cone have more surface area than 12 inch cone, then its impossible for a pair of 12's to match or come close to a single 18. Of course, if you cherry pick your example, it might be possible. Some drivers are classed as 18" if sing a 12 inch basket, but the driver itself obviously then has to be less to fit inside, and of course you have to deduct for the roll surround. If Kens drivers use a true 12" cone (thus having a roll surround beyond the 12" and a basket closer to 13"), and you pick a claimed 18" driver that really isnt (i.e, a pretty cheap poor driver), then in theory such claims could be possible, but I always frown on marketting data derrived that way.

So it IS possible? Do make up your mind Dan. On one hand you're saying its impossible, and now you're saying it is. I'm sure Ken has taken into account the legal side of what he has said. I mean, he isn't stupid, is he? He invented the powered subwoofer, after all....

All things being equal, no its not possible. It only becomes possible if you dont compare on a level playing field, which makes the comparison void.

 

Quote:

Quote:
All things being equal, a pair of 12's will not match an 18 in cone area, and you cannot get away from that fact, I even gave the rough area of the drivers for everyone to see. If all things arent equal, then no comparison should be made, that is misleading. I believe the statement that was made to be misleading for that reason, gave that opinion, and offered the numbers to clarify.

But you also said this:

moonfly wrote:
Suffice to say, that cone area itself is actually not that useful a piece of info without the accompanying required info as well.

You yourself has said that amplification is important for a subwoofer's performance. Ken's subs use a dual amplifier. Some other subs use dual amplifiers as well, but Ken's use those dual amps in a push/pull configuration, which I'm not sure any other manufacturer does. One manufacturer rubbished push/pull amplification, but then, it is a manufacturer of budget subwoofers Could this configuration not help Ken's subs achieve their goal? Do you have first hand experience of dual push/pull amplification in subs Dan?

Once again Dan, you have no first hand experience of Ken's new subs, which are quite a jump from his previous models and those now adopted by MK Sound.

I dont understand the jump from cone area to amplification now, but yes, I have always maintained the importance of good amplification. I built a push pull sub, and yes I powered the drivers in series and parallel, though only from seperate channels of the same amp, which isnt the same as using two amps, but then do the amps in kens new subs share a common power source, because if they do its pretty much the same thing.

 

I havent heard the new subs, and I would love to because my eyes and ears are always open. I would be surprised if they did anything I wouldnt expect, but you never know. Ive never questioned their design, or Kens ability, but it seems that all you want me to post is glowing rhetoric and nothing else. You say you know this new subs destroys a 15" driver sub, but then its a generic statement as there are some very ordinary subs using 15" drivers. More cone area simply means moving more air, which translates into being louder. Because subs drop off at the low end, the louder they are the louder the low end which in turn translates into improved extension. This is the reason more cone area is a desirable trait, because for any given amount of travel (excursion), more cone area means more spl. Where things get interesting is when you begin to look at the aspect of excursion, and how the combination of that and cone area work together.

As long as you have known me, and as long as I have been commenting on sub design, I have always pointed out that a pair of 12's are generally preferable to a single 15, and a pair of 15's generally preferable to a single 18 (for reasons I wont go into). A search through my history will turn up many examples of me saying this, but again it must be maintained that during the comparison, all thing must remain equal or the comparison does not hold up. A pair of rubbish 12's for example are not preferable to a single high quality 15, and likewise, you must compare good quality 12's against a good quality 15. If kens subs are considered high end, and the drivers used are to be considered high end, then you must compare his 12 inch drivers to a high end 18 inch driver, and the 18 will have more cone area, and high end 18's have more excursion almost as a function of their design and size. Having designed and built single 18 inch drivered subs, I'd be very surprised after hearing the new KK sub, if I would take the KK sub over the single 18. Over a single 15, I'd fully expect I would take the KK sub pretty much every time.

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11220
RE: I have no idea why you keep

moonfly wrote:
At the point of contact the rool surround does move the same speed as the driver, decreasing as the surround moves away from the driver cone. The roll surround only form part of the suspension, and doesnt really add any weight to the driver. Kippel testing already covered all these aspects so feel free to look that up in your own time.

Anything within the outer gasket will add mass to the cone. Including the resistance of the roll surround. Feel free to ask your mentor.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

Pages

Log in or register to post comments