First off let me say I did NOT create this post in the hopes of creating a conflict, but more so for a good debate. I made this a separate thread than Chad's so as to not junk up the thread I think Ascendant Audio deserves.
On another forum I frequent there was a statement made. There was a thread started about Chad's drivers, and this was one of the posts in that thread. This other forum does have many knowledgeable members, but the level of detail I have found on home audio forums is usually much more in depth.
This was the statement:
CBeltran
HOLD ON A MINUTE HERE BOYS!
Do not put our subs into the same category as XBL^2 subs. Our subs use a massive 6" V.C. TRUE underhung design, and leave XBL^2 drivers in the dust. They exhibit NO audible power compression for audio applications, and can handle 4kW "peak RMS" power. NO other driver in the workd can make that claim. We do not, however, have a 4 ohm version of the driver- only 8 ohms. These drivers were never indended to be put into a car, and we do NOT recommend that they be place in a car, as they would literally tear a car apart.
Visit http://www.acoupower.com for more information.
BTW, the t-s parameters are here:
15"
Sd = 0.068 m^2
Cms = 159 um/N
Vas = 103 liters
Re = 6.2 Ohms
Mms = 267.0 g
Fo = 24.4 Hz
BL = 23.3 t*m See Below
Qe = 0.469
Qm = 6.05
Qt = 0.44
18"
Sd = 108 m^2
Cms = 106.6 um/N
Vas = 174 liters
Re = 6.2 ohms
Mms = 305 g
Fo = 28.2 Hz
BL = 23.3 t*m See Below
Qe = 0.62
Qm = 8.90
Qt = 0.58
The numbers above were calculated by analysis of the impedance curve (as anyone else would do it). The actual BL is 25.0. Very large drivers do not follow the assumptions for accurate t-s data through electrical measurements. |
What would make this underhung design "leave xbl^2 drivers in the dust"? Doesn't it still suffer from the same disadvantages that all underhung designs do? Does a large underhung design make the disadvantages of typical underhung motors less previlant?
