I'm tired too.
I look forward to your shootout complete with pics and REW graphs for everything!
I think I'm out for the night...
That assertion from the Epik site seems to not be genuine to me.
Without knowing the specific volume displacement of the Empire's 15" drivers, or their excursion capabilities, this comparison simply cannot be made.
Mathematically, eD's 18" 19.Ov2 in their A7s-450 has 40% more surface area than their 15" driver used in the A5-350 (this was per several long-winded online chats with Alex and Matt). With nearly identical excursion capabilities (22mm on the 18" and 23mm for the 15"), the correlation between actual surface area and volume displacement basically carries over.
Without ANY of this information on the Empire's drivers (or amp, for that matter), a 1:1 comparison like the above simply cannot be made about the Empire's drivers.
It also makes me wonder how the CS 18.1 in the other thread could possibly outclass the A7s-450 so greatly, using less amplifier power, a smaller cabinet, and a driver of equal or lesser excursion capabilities. I own an A7s-450 and am quite pleased with it (call it bias). I'm also sure that that 18.1 is a damn good sub. But the math doesn't add up that you get an almost 3db volume gain from one sub to the other. An instrumented test is the only way to know. We all know how volume plays tricks with the human psyche. If I got a nickel for every time I asked a hifi dealer to let me ensure his product demo was level matched before I auditioned and got turned down....I'd be a rich man. Thread drift over.
At face value, the argument is valid.
The surface area of two 15" drivers is:
2*Pi*15^2 = ~1414in^2
The surface area of one 21" driver is:
Pi*21^2 = ~1385in^2
But I agree, it is marketing talk to compare solely based on driver size.
I agree that the math you did adds up. BUT, where to find a 21" driver with linear excursion of a relatively equal value? The maelstrom is a great driver, but is uber expensive.
Also, since we're dealing in 3 dimensions.....The curvature of the cone could certainly affect the actual surface area of the radiating surface. Cones aren't just flat discs. I would wager that the curvature of my A7s-450's 18" driver is different (it appears to be deeper) than the curvature of the last A5-350 15" driver I saw. This could be quickly estimated by measuring the depth from the edge of the surround to the middle of the dust cap (if it's inverted). If it's a non inverted dust cap...well, that's where my math ends.
My only point being....without knowing ANY specifics about the Empire's two 15" drivers....the only questions: to what 21" driver are they being compared?
Now, I'm not slamming the Empire at all. It's a great sub and it sounded very good to me when I auditioned one a while back in a buddy's home. I found the A7s-450 to handle upper mids and bass below 30hz with more authority...but the Empire did sound great. This is not, by any stretch, an Epik/Empire bashing issue.
It's an unrealistic claim made by god-knows-who on the epik forum.
They probably didn't even work for epik.
Epik is a great subwoofer company (if it weren't for the ridiculous CS i got from eD pre-purchase, I damn near bought an Epik Empire), and they add a lot to our 'sub-woofing community'.
|The Empire's two drivers have a surface area equivalent to roughly a 21 inch driver.|