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.
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.
[/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.
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 ?
Pioneer :- KRP500A, BDP LX55, SCLX-71/
MK Sound :- M7 LCR, M4T rear, KX12 sub/
Chord :- Odyssey 2 LCR, Rumour 2 rear, Cobra sub, Active Silverplus HDMI x2, Power Chord x4, Chameleon Silverplus/ IR dock
Arcam :- IRDock / Focal Lab :- Spirit One/
Black Rhodium Power Management.
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.
David @Frank Harvey Hi-Fi, Coventry
Mitsubishi HC7000 / Oppo BDP103 / Audiolab 8200AP / Rotel RMB1575 / kick ass speaker system
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.
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....
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.
well then be a sport and offer to lend him a new sub
Musicraft (Derby), Specialist Hi-Fi/AV & Multimedia Dealer
good accurate audio monitoring and good sound reproduction to all
I would, but he's in Spain.
[/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.
no harm in making the offer
Thanks for your post I am genuinely interested so please elaborate further
All the best
Rick @ Musicraft
Thanks. Any information which you feel will help.
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.
Anything within the outer gasket will add mass to the cone. Including the resistance of the roll surround. Feel free to ask your mentor.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing