AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is it possible to exceed the performance of a Fathom 112/113 with a similar footprint? I always read that the limiting factor of the JL, is the laws of physics. Yet, I see no one trying to expand on its performance, or even attempt to do so.


So I beg the question, can it be done? Of what we have available to us the limit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16923031


Is it possible to exceed the performance of a Fathom 112/113 with a similar footprint? I always read that the limiting factor of the JL, is the laws of physics. Yet, I see no one trying to expand on its performance, or even attempt to do so.


So I beg the question, can it be done? Of what we have available to us the limit?

I'm sure it can be done but nothing significantly better because of the physics involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16923031


Is it possible to exceed the performance of a Fathom 112/113 with a similar footprint? I always read that the limiting factor of the JL, is the laws of physics. Yet, I see no one trying to expand on its performance, or even attempt to do so.


So I beg the question, can it be done? Of what we have available to us the limit?

You mention footprint, but make no mention of height. A couple of subs with a small footprint, but considerable height come to mind:


eD A7s-650 (16"x16")

Supercube Trinity (18"x18")
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike /forum/post/16923265


You mention footprint, but make no mention of height. A couple of subs with a small footprint, but considerable height come to mind:


eD A7s-650 (16"x16")

Supercube Trinity (18"x18")

if we take that to another level you can add the PC line of SVS subs in there and even some DIY sonotube subs. if height is no concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I apologize.


What I mean is the overall presence of the sub in a room. Which to be frank, is the main reason to go with something like the JL over some of the other offerings IMO.


I have heard the Trinity, and it is a nice sub, but I am not fan of passive radiators. I think they are ok for their smaller line of subs since the radiators serve more of a purpose (if I understand it correctly, the radiators allow for more movement of air in a smaller enclsosure, thus allowing better extension, and less reliant on driver excursion?).


All that aside, is it basically driver excursion and amp power that will limit the capabilities of a sub with this overall cabinet volume (is this better
?)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16923543


I apologize.


What I mean is the overall presence of the sub in a room. Which to be frank, is the main reason to go with something like the JL over some of the other offerings IMO.


I have heard the Trinity, and it is a nice sub, but I am not fan of passive radiators. I think they are ok for their smaller line of subs since the radiators serve more of a purpose (if I understand it correctly, the radiators allow for more movement of air in a smaller enclsosure, thus allowing better extension, and less reliant on driver excursion?).


All that aside, is it basically driver excursion and amp power that will limit the capabilities of a sub with this overall cabinet volume
(is this better
?)?

this might still not be the answer you are looking for but,


you can only do so much in such a small cabinet.


lower frequencies will require more cone excursion


as you turn the volume up, more output = more cone excursion


you can throw as much power as you want at the driver but when it runs out of excursion.... then that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
That being said, everything lies in the composition of the surround to acquire the greater excursion then, no?


Are there any known composites that have greater elasticity than that of JLs offering?


Note: The only reason why I keep referring to JL, is because it seems they have managed to design a driver which is capable of greater than norm excursion (this is just an assumption of course, since no one else has done what they have).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,480 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16923031


Is it possible to exceed the performance of a Fathom 112/113 with a similar footprint? I always read that the limiting factor of the JL, is the laws of physics. Yet, I see no one trying to expand on its performance, or even attempt to do so.


So I beg the question, can it be done? Of what we have available to us the limit?

how about the JL fathom f212 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16923947


That being said, everything lies in the composition of the surround to acquire the greater excursion then, no?


Are there any known composites that have greater elasticity than that of JLs offering?


Note: The only reason why I keep referring to JL, is because it seems they have managed to design a driver which is capable of greater than norm excursion (this is just an assumption of course, since no one else has done what they have).

it has more to do with the back side of the woofer. the parts that you don't see when it's in a box. it's not so much the surround as it is the spider(s). the actual frame has to allow for such movement. the whole design has to be made to be linear with all the extreme movement.


i'm not an expert on subwoofers, but i do understand how they work. hopefully somebody with more knowledge than me can come in and explain it better.


also, there are drivers that allow for even greater excursion than JL's 13W7. the XXX for example has like 54MM of XMAX.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,480 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcjasonb /forum/post/16924105


it has more to do with the back side of the woofer. the parts that you don't see when it's in a box. it's not so much the surround as it is the spider(s). the actual frame has to allow for such movement. the whole design has to be made to be linear with all the extreme movement.


i'm not an expert on subwoofers, but i do understand how they work. hopefully somebody with more knowledge than me can come in and explain it better.


also, there are drivers that allow for even greater excursion than JL's 13W7. the XXX for example has like 54MM of XMAX.

Could it be because the XXX has more overall surface area, that it allows greater excursion? So if we increased the volume of the cabinet of a 113 to house the larger driver of the XXX, would that allow greater XMAX, in turn more output with greater extension?


I think I should go back to school and take up EE. I knew I went into the wrong field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16924648


Could it be because the XXX has more overall surface area, that it allows greater excursion? So if we increased the volume of the cabinet of a 113 to house the larger driver of the XXX, would that allow greater XMAX, in turn more output with greater extension?


I think I should go back to school and take up EE. I knew I went into the wrong field.

Excursion has nothing to do with surface area. Excursion is determined by the design of the voice coil, the magnet structure, the spider, and the surround. The total displacement is a product of the surface area x excursion. It's just like a car engine where the displacement is a product of bore x stroke which is then multiplied by the number of cylinders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike /forum/post/16924667


Excursion has nothing to do with surface area. Excursion is determined by the design of the voice coil, the magnet structure, the spider, and the surround. The total displacement is a product of the surface area x excursion. It's just like a car engine where the displacement is a product of bore x stroke which is then multiplied by the number of cylinders.

Thank you for that.


Would it be possible in your opinion to increase the volume of the 113 cabinet to house the XXX driver, and achieve greater LF extension? Or is the XXX design not intended for a cabinet of this architecture?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,952 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16924724


Thank you for that.


Would it be possible in your opinion to increase the volume of the 113 cabinet to house the XXX driver, and achieve greater LF extension? Or is the XXX design not intended for a cabinet of this architecture?

When it comes to individual driver parameters, the most knowledgeable folks seem to reside on the DIY forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
the XXX's like huge boxes. for a 15 sealed the guys in the DIY forum are saying it wants 4.5 cubic feet or more. the 15" XXX weights in at 76 pounds, the back side of the sub is 8.5" deep, and the sub itself takes up .27 cubic feet of space. it is a monster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcjasonb /forum/post/16925283


the XXX's like huge boxes. for a 15 sealed the guys in the DIY forum are saying it wants 4.5 cubic feet or more. the 15" XXX weights in at 76 pounds, the back side of the sub is 8.5" deep, and the sub itself takes up .27 cubic feet of space. it is a monster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,484 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism /forum/post/16924724


Thank you for that.


Would it be possible in your opinion to increase the volume of the 113 cabinet to house the XXX driver, and achieve greater LF extension? Or is the XXX design not intended for a cabinet of this architecture?

Larger cabinet reduces the need for big amplifier power. Pretty much all drivers that was conceived for HT will benefit from larger enclosures as far as more output with lesser amp power, it would also extend the driver's F3 compared to a smaller box, however in the sealed box the roll off is only 2nd order, so a few hz difference for the F3 point may not make much of a difference in real world performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Thank you for the explanation "The Hun".


Now, if only I understood what it all meant.



Do you have a link that explains harmonics in depth? I know the difference between odd and even harmonics, I just am not clear as to what they actually are. For example, I read the harmonics are multiples of the fundamental, but what is the fundamental?


I can kind of put the pieces of the puzzle together of your post, but just would like to educate myself a little more.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top