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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for putting me in my place. I'm 100% sure you are the defacto standard in subwoofer design and are right bravo.
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.
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.
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.
David @Frank Harvey Hi-Fi, Coventry
Mitsubishi HC7000 / Oppo BDP103 / Audiolab 8200AP / Rotel RMB1575 / kick ass speaker system
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)
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.
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
Redline (Scotland) Ltd
UK Velodyne Distributor
if you're making a statement there, I totally agree.
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.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing