207 posts / 0 new
Last post
moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: Bloody headers!!

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

Just as in AVF, you can't just drop things can you? To settle it (seeing as you won't take it up with Ken directly) I'll email him and ask him to explain his statement for you shall I? Until then, just drop it!

Drop what, I never asked you to engage with me, and I wont retract my post just because you dont like it. Feel free to ask Ken to post, I welcome it, though I think he probably wont. He used to reply to all my mails without exception, till I brought up larger drivers, then he simply stopped responding.

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

moonfly wrote:
I dont understand your attitude. Ive said nothing against the DXD, and made no comments on how it compares to other subs, of any diver size or cab size. I'll never disagree with opinion, and if you think the DXD is the best sub at x price point I wont argue with you. Ive already more or less given up posting on AVF to appease so I'm not sure what else you want from me. The point stil remains. A statement saying a pair of 12s can equal an 18 in cone area is incorrect. The implication is that the DXD is superior to any sub using an 18 inch driver, which in turn has value for money implications. This is a misleading statement pure and simple and I have highlighted this fact, and explained why in support.

Ok you have made your point and highlighted what you have an issue with. Regardless of what has already been said within this thread the statement is on the DXD12012 product information page on line. The only person you can discuss this with is Ken Kreisel. I believe you have e-mailed directly to him in the past so why don't you just do that now. I can see what you are trying to highlight but discussing it with anyone other than Ken is futile.

From my perspective even though i know what you are getting at i still don't see an issue with the statement becasue of the words Ken Kresiel drivers which basically negates any like for like driver comparison. Now the cone area comment , no problem with approaches so that just leaves equals which is mathematically impossible but could be possible within the concept of the design and taking into account cone movement when the subwoofer is in use as an example.

Only Ken can give you that answer i suggest you speak to him.

You don't give your point any credence by not having hands on experience with the DXD 12012. Saying you have the Knowleadge/maths on your side and building your own subwoofers just doesn't cut it i'm affraid.

Any further contribution from me is pointless i'm no expert , i've said my thoughts and they won't change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

v1c wrote:

 

You don't give your point any credence by not having hands on experience with the DXD 12012. Saying you have the Knowleadge/maths on your side and building your own subwoofers just doesn't cut it i'm affraid.

 

Then perhaps your should tell this to the people in the industry and educate them, because up until now every single one of them uses that information to design their systems. Certain things cannot be ingnored because of the laws of physics. To get spl you need to displace air, displace more air you get more spl. If you want to go lower in frequency, you need to displace even more air just to maintain a given spl (like 90db for example). The connection between how much air needs to be displaced to obtain a given spl output at any given frequency is set in stone, and there is no way around this. This leads to physical hard limits to each and every design of driver and subwoofer system.

 

Ignore this if you wish, like David does when he goes of on his tangents and retorts to borderline personal insults, its upto you. Non of the manufacturers ignore that data, because its impossible to do so, that is how these systems are designed.

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

moonfly wrote:

v1c wrote:

 

You don't give your point any credence by not having hands on experience with the DXD 12012. Saying you have the Knowleadge/maths on your side and building your own subwoofers just doesn't cut it i'm affraid.

 

Then perhaps your should tell this to the people in the industry and educate them, because up until now every single one of them uses that information to design their systems. Certain things cannot be ingnored because of the laws of physics. To get spl you need to displace air, displace more air you get more spl. If you want to go lower in frequency, you need to displace even more air just to maintain a given spl (like 90db for example). The connection between how much air needs to be displaced to obtain a given spl output at any given frequency is set in stone, and there is no way around this. This leads to physical hard limits to each and every design of driver and subwoofer system.

 

Ignore this if you wish, like David does when he goes of on his tangents and retorts to borderline personal insults, its upto you. Non of the manufacturers ignore that data, because its impossible to do so, that is how these systems are designed.

:clap: Thanks for putting me in my place. I'm 100% sure you are the defacto standard in subwoofer design and are right bravo.

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

That response is silly. I am not anything, everything I know I learnt from the people with the real know how, and I just try to pass it on. I claim to be nothing and anything I do know is actually readily available information.

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

moonfly wrote:

That response is silly. I am not anything, everything I know I learnt from the people with the real know how, and I just try to pass it on. I claim to be nothing and anything I do know is actually readily available information.

 

It is not a silly response and FYI it's more like ramming down the throat than passing on.

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

v1c wrote:

moonfly wrote:

That response is silly. I am not anything, everything I know I learnt from the people with the real know how, and I just try to pass it on. I claim to be nothing and anything I do know is actually readily available information.

 

It is not a silly response and FYI it's more like ramming down the throat than passing on.

Im not ramming it, certain people just dont like to hear the facts. I'm not going to retract a statement that is correct just because someone doesnt like it. As is always the case when people react to my posts in a personal manner, the conversation is now nothing to do with the topic, so I'm going to leave it hear as Ive posted all I need to on the subect matter.
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

moonfly wrote:

v1c wrote:

moonfly wrote:

That response is silly. I am not anything, everything I know I learnt from the people with the real know how, and I just try to pass it on. I claim to be nothing and anything I do know is actually readily available information.

 

It is not a silly response and FYI it's more like ramming down the throat than passing on.

Im not ramming it, certain people just dont like to hear the facts. I'm not going to retract a statement that is correct just because someone doesnt like it. As is always the case when people react to my posts in a personal manner, the conversation is now nothing to do with the topic, so I'm going to leave it hear as Ive posted all I need to on the subect matter.

The fact that this statement **Please note that two KEN KREISEL 12” drivers approaches or equals the cone area of a single 18” driver is missleading due to it being impossible due to maths and the laws of physics. Yes i know you said. No one can disagree either due to the maths and the laws of physics so there is nothing to discuss is there.

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 21 sec ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11235
RE: I have no idea why you keep

I'm sure Ken wouldn't just say something because he could. Maybe he meant in performance? I'll be emailing him later - I'll ask him.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

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

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

I'm sure Ken wouldn't just say something because he could. Maybe he meant in performance? I'll be emailing him later - I'll ask him.

That would be of use and particular interest to me. I posted in his thread asking about the concept he's created, and intend to ask him about that comment there, hopefully he can find the time to respond. Its entirely possible for a DXD to match a single 18 in performance, but again it would depend on the particular sub. I'm very sceptical that it could match the best single 18'2 out there, and IMO Kens subs are the best 12" subs out there that I have ever measured and heard, so I think its only fair to compare it to the best 18's that are out there. I know the old MX series could hold a candle to things Ive built myself, and the dual 12 I built couldnt quite do it either, though it was astonishingly close given the design was about 1/8th the size.

 

Personally, I would really say that if you were to compare a DXD to an 18" powered sub on a like for like basis, that you really need to be looking at a dual 18 design. That isnt whats being put forward here though, so as you have noticed I have not mentioned that up until this point. I think its fair to compare the DXD to a single 18 design though from a commercial POV. Typically, high end 18's will be larger and more expensive (twice the price), and in pure performance terms, there DXD no doubt represent huge VFM. Consider that a pair of DXD's will offer superior room tuning and at the very least match any single 18 sealed designs out there for similar money, and its clear what exactly is attractive about the new sub.

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

moonfly wrote:

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

I'm sure Ken wouldn't just say something because he could. Maybe he meant in performance? I'll be emailing him later - I'll ask him.

That would be of use and particular interest to me. I posted in his thread asking about the concept he's created, and intend to ask him about that comment there, hopefully he can find the time to respond. Its entirely possible for a DXD to match a single 18 in performance, but again it would depend on the particular sub. I'm very sceptical that it could match the best single 18'2 out there, and IMO Kens subs are the best 12" subs out there that I have ever measured and heard, so I think its only fair to compare it to the best 18's that are out there. I know the old MX series could hold a candle to things Ive built myself, and the dual 12 I built couldnt quite do it either, though it was astonishingly close given the design was about 1/8th the size.

 

Personally, I would really say that if you were to compare a DXD to an 18" powered sub on a like for like basis, that you really need to be looking at a dual 18 design. That isnt whats being put forward here though, so as you have noticed I have not mentioned that up until this point. I think its fair to compare the DXD to a single 18 design though from a commercial POV. Typically, high end 18's will be larger and more expensive (twice the price), and in pure performance terms, there DXD no doubt represent huge VFM. Consider that a pair of DXD's will offer superior room tuning and at the very least match any single 18 sealed designs out there for similar money, and its clear what exactly is attractive about the new sub.

Nice to see you have started a dialogue with Ken on the AVF thread i hope he takes time out to talk to you.

I do have a question

Is there anything in the Driver overview cone design for the DXD12012 the could provide a clue to a possible answer to the statement in particular the part were it says

"The combination of cone angle, dust cap diameter, shape and geometry have been meticulously selected to provide near perfect piston emulation, maximum cone area efficiency, and controlled high velocity characteristics in both the inward and outward directions."

I would be interested to know what you think.

I also would like to add that i feel maybe Ken is moving away from bigger drivers with the advent of his stacking system i mean what would be better than a Quattro Quattro formation of DXD's 16 subs and 32 drivers !!! that must be immense.

I found some of your builds online and they look superb you obviously have alot of knowledge but please don't put it to Ken the way you put it to us (i've included you in that david hope you don't mind) Smile

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: I have no idea why you keep

v1c wrote:

moonfly wrote:

FrankHarveyHiFi wrote:

I'm sure Ken wouldn't just say something because he could. Maybe he meant in performance? I'll be emailing him later - I'll ask him.

That would be of use and particular interest to me. I posted in his thread asking about the concept he's created, and intend to ask him about that comment there, hopefully he can find the time to respond. Its entirely possible for a DXD to match a single 18 in performance, but again it would depend on the particular sub. I'm very sceptical that it could match the best single 18'2 out there, and IMO Kens subs are the best 12" subs out there that I have ever measured and heard, so I think its only fair to compare it to the best 18's that are out there. I know the old MX series could hold a candle to things Ive built myself, and the dual 12 I built couldnt quite do it either, though it was astonishingly close given the design was about 1/8th the size.

 

Personally, I would really say that if you were to compare a DXD to an 18" powered sub on a like for like basis, that you really need to be looking at a dual 18 design. That isnt whats being put forward here though, so as you have noticed I have not mentioned that up until this point. I think its fair to compare the DXD to a single 18 design though from a commercial POV. Typically, high end 18's will be larger and more expensive (twice the price), and in pure performance terms, there DXD no doubt represent huge VFM. Consider that a pair of DXD's will offer superior room tuning and at the very least match any single 18 sealed designs out there for similar money, and its clear what exactly is attractive about the new sub.

Nice to see you have started a dialogue with Ken on the AVF thread i hope he takes time out to talk to you.

I do have a question

Is there anything in the Driver overview cone design for the DXD12012 the could provide a clue to a possible answer to the statement in particular the part were it says

"The combination of cone angle, dust cap diameter, shape and geometry have been meticulously selected to provide near perfect piston emulation, maximum cone area efficiency, and controlled high velocity characteristics in both the inward and outward directions."

I would be interested to know what you think.

I also would like to add that i feel maybe Ken is moving away from bigger drivers with the advent of his stacking system i mean what would be better than a Quattro Quattro formation of DXD's 16 subs and 32 drivers !!! that must be immense.

I found some of your builds online and they look superb you obviously have alot of knowledge but please don't put it to Ken the way you put it to us (i've included you in that david hope you don't mind) Smile

That section is fairly typical of what you might read on any marketing page, in so much as it tells us everything without actually telling us anything. As such I cant really comment on it specifically as I'm not privy to the design specifics, and I can only speculate. My speculation though would be this. I have no doubt a pair of KK bass drivers would match the area of an 18 inch disc, which could be ghe source of that comment, but I must stress its speculation on my part. Flat drivers, though not common, do exist. The dust cap design would follow on from this. Under the dust cap the cone continues in, amd as such has a greater surface area than a flat dust cap would have. Copy that profile and invert it and you your dust cap, but do not lose surface area. Its conceivable the dust cap could be designed to actually increase surface area, though I would say its negligable as any significant increase would be quite noticable. Also, a larger dust cap would increase the weight of the driver, which I believe would be against the drivers design requirement. The driver could be particularly deep, but it doesnt appear so in the pictures, and look very similar to the old drivers which I actually owned myself when I bought and MX kit so i could build an MX250 for myself.

The original MX series drivers werent particulalry remarkable, but the MX5100 drivers were a step up and these new drivers no doubt are as well, but which ever way you look at it, a pair of 12's if compared like for like wont match a single 18 in surface area. There are some distinct advantages to smaller drivers. The obvious one is cabinet size. Getting an 18 in a small cab is very expensive. A proportionally small cabinet loses efficiency, which is why you see such high end designs using a lot of power, which again drives up cost. A pair of 12's , even in a cabinet a small as the DXD, arent trying to fit into a small space, so they lend themselves to a compact design that still performs. A pair of 12's, when compared like for like do exceed a single 15 compact sealed sub, and the DXD is similarly priced to such subs. A pair of DXD's will also win out against a single similarly priced single 18 compact design. There are clear merits to the design choices.

martin morecroft's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 12 hours ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 17:47
Posts: 23
RE: Paradigm SUB 15, Ken Kreisel 5000 Mark3 .

Excellent banter. Thanks, you made my night! A career in politics awaits you. A subwoofer is more than the cone size. You all seem to be lost in a pointless arguement based on speculation. You should all get together with your favourite subs and listen to them. You will then be able to form a useful opinion ROFL

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 21 sec ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11235
RE: Paradigm SUB 15, Ken Kreisel 5000 Mark3 .

martin morecroft wrote:
A subwoofer is more than the cone size. 

if you're making a statement there, I totally agree.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

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

moonfly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 13 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2009 - 12:46
Posts: 112
RE: Paradigm SUB 15, Ken Kreisel 5000 Mark3 .

martin morecroft wrote:

Excellent banter. Thanks, you made my night! A career in politics awaits you. A subwoofer is more than the cone size. You all seem to be lost in a pointless arguement based on speculation. You should all get together with your favourite subs and listen to them. You will then be able to form a useful opinion ROFL

There is no banter, those are the facts in plain black and white. A subwoofer is more than its cone size, and a large driver doesnt guarantee a good subwoofer, just a a small driver doesnt either. Its is important to be aware though that a driver does make all the difference, and its the single most important part of a subwoofer by a good margin. Size isnt an all definining factor, and using multiple drivers over single larger ones is preferable, but when it comes to producing excellent bass, compact designs have physics working against them, so its a bit more difficult to get such design to outperform larger designs using the same tech. That typically drives up cost, which is a non issue if purchase pricing doesnt concern you.

 

FWIW, Ive offered many times to arrange a get together, but always get the same responses and the offer is always declined, for what ever reason.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments