$75 20mm 12" sub from TC

[Vestax]

http://www.tcsounds.com/db500.htm

[SteveLPfreak]

That is a kick ass driver for $75.

[bj16060]

Silly question I am sure, but here goes, I have a 12" Alpine type R right now. Would this driver be an upgrade to the type R?

[azngotskills]

Here are some comments from caraudio.com: http://www.caraudio.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1795109

[mtnickel]

I almost poped one when i saw this...ok, not almost. i did.

Ha...that's an insane deal $75 for a TC2+ motor 12".

I was very very close to buying a pair (to try in car, and one for home)...but nothing will really swap in place of the DIYMA and get the same nice low Q.

As for home, i've got a ported 3cu ft, when 4cu ft is recommended...i'll do some simulations and see if i can make it work.
Certainly be an upgrade to my ID12v.3 i think

EDIT...i was wrong...the 4cu ft is the LARGE box recommendation. Small is 2cu ft. And upon simulations, it had a nicer roll off and deeper extension than my ID sub...so looks like a i have a winner.

Also be nice to use the 4 ohms on my Bash 500 instead of the 8 ohms from the ID sub.

Mark

I'll let you guys know how it sounds...i think this was eligible for the $15 paypal deal too so it's even cheaper :)

[unpredictableacts]

can you get it with the black cone or is that only offered on the 10"......actually I would rather have the 10"......dual 2 ohm

[89grand]

Too bad it needs such a large box, 1.4ft3.

[JoeHemi57]

http://www.tcsounds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=661&pid=5277&st=0&#entry5277

[fej]

Mine showed up today. Looks great for $100. Looking forward to messing around with it.

[azngotskills]

let us know how it compares to your IDQ 12....it would give perspective performance qualities :)

[mtnickel]

I picked one up too. Looks too good to pass up. See post above if you read what i wrote before.

[mtnickel]

Also regarding Minimum enclosure sizes...due to the nature of roll off in car, Car drivers can align with a lot higher Q and still achieve a good response... ID does this on most of their enclosure recommendations...recommend smaller and a high Q that in home wouldn't sound great, but is nice and linear in car.

For instance,

Image dynamics recommends 1.25cu ft for the ID12 v3.
This yields a QTC of .866, and an F3 in house of about 44hz, but in car, they estimate the F3 to be 17hz...

That assumes about 14db of cabin gain in car at 17hz (which is probably pretty close...tonnes of gain down there).

So dont' worry about using this in car in a somewhat smaller box...
I tend to agree with ID with Q in car. Unless you want to EQ cut some of the low end, you only gain power handling with the Higher Q.


Plugging in the DB-500, this driver actually works even better than the IDv.3
at 1.25cu ft it has a Q of .782, and an inhouse F3 of 40hz.

To mimick the roll off of the ID12 puts the Db-500 in a range of .8-.9cu ft.

So i wouldn't hesitate using this in car with a 1cu ft sealed.

Hope that helps some people out.

[xencloud]

Man, i was really wanting some 10" TC1000's for my 2-10" enclosure, but with the pricing on the TC-9, it's tough not to go for 2-12's! I really wish those 10's were a little cheaper so I could justify it! Otherwise, I'm just gonna have to go with the 12's and cut my holes bigger :D

[mtnickel]

i don't really see any benefit of 10's over 12's...if you have the room, go 12's all the way.

[DS-21]

Also regarding Minimum enclosure sizes...due to the nature of roll off in car, Car drivers can align with a lot higher Q and still achieve a good response...

That's a sure-fire recipe for flabby, overwrought upper bass. If that's your thing, cool, but I don't recommend it myself. Much better is to find a woofer that can give you a low Qtc in a small box. That will give you a high F3, which if you do your math right will integrate smoothly with the car's transfer function and be smooth from the top of the passband to the bottom. Obvious examples of woofers designed intelligently for car use in this manner are the Peerless XLS series and the DIYMA 12.

ID does this on most of their enclosure recommendations...recommend smaller and a high Q that in home wouldn't sound great, but is nice and linear in car.

Jello recommends it, too. It's why most of the installs using their product sound like ass. True, the product line is a bit behind the times now, too, with minimal usage of modern best practices like Faraday rings. But that was true even when there were few other serious long-throw woofers around. (Say, 15 years ago.)

Image dynamics recommends 1.25cu ft for the ID12 v3.
This yields a QTC of .866, and an F3 in house of about 44hz, but in car, they estimate the F3 to be 17hz...

And pure flab from 40-80 Hz, of course.

Plugging in the DB-500, this driver actually works even better than the IDv.3 at 1.25cu ft it has a Q of .782, and an inhouse F3 of 40hz.

Then it sounds to me that for car use what the DB-500 really wants is closer to 2 or 2.5 cubic feet, with copious polyfill. One cube would make a great boom-box, and that is what most people really want. But if I only had a cube to spare, I would spend more and get an XLS12 or DIYMA12.

[montyburns]

Much better is to find a woofer that can give you a low Qtc in a small box. That will give you a high F3, which if you do your math right will integrate smoothly with the car's transfer function and be smooth from the top of the passband to the bottom. Obvious examples of woofers designed intelligently for car use in this manner are the Peerless XLS series and the DIYMA 12.



Do you attribute that to ringing, or merely bad FR?
I've always been a proponent of low Qtc systems, but a wise man told me "it's all about the frequency response." Since then, I've found that to hold true, being able to get similar results with liberal EQing (and decreased efficiency).

[DS-21]

Do you attribute that to ringing, or merely bad FR?

A lot of the latter, a little bit of thermal compression, and a very little bit of ringing. And it goes for at least some sealed-back tweeters, too, based on my experiences.

I've always been a proponent of low Qtc systems, but a wise man told me "it's all about the frequency response." Since then, I've found that to hold true, being able to get similar results with liberal EQing (and decreased efficiency).

I can't say I've found quite the same thing. EQ'ed high-Q bass systems tend to sound pretty good but not quite there compared to the same woofer in an enclosure of innately low Q. The lone exception out of my experience is a home sub using a JBL W15GTi, which I described in another thread. Perhaps the W15GTi's heat management is just much better executed than even the Peerless XLS's or TC2+'s. (Or the good old underhung TC woofers'?) I don't know.

[mtnickel]

That's a sure-fire recipe for flabby, overwrought upper bass. If that's your thing, cool, but I don't recommend it myself. Much better is to find a woofer that can give you a low Qtc in a small box. That will give you a high F3, which if you do your math right will integrate smoothly with the car's transfer function and be smooth from the top of the passband to the bottom. Obvious examples of woofers designed intelligently for car use in this manner are the Peerless XLS series and the DIYMA 12.
...
...


Data Much appreciated.

After a little more reading and research, you seem to be somewhat correct...however, do you find it to be the actual Q that is problematic or the anechoic F3 of the system.

Modeling some drivers with a simulated transfer function (using linkwitz transform), any driver with a lower F3 has a large hump in the low end.

It seems drivers not specifically designed for in-car either face a large hump from 40-80hz...or if you bring the Q down, then they have a bloated bottom end from 20-40hz (then falling off higher up).

anyways...assessments about the DIYMA and XLS are dead on...with cabin gain accounted for, they provide nice linear curves...with the XLS only having a minor rising response (make it sound a little punchier and crisp maybe).

the other drivers aren't all THAT bad though...with only marginal humped curves.

on a side note...
the best alignment for in car as from the loudspeaker cookbook is about a .707 with a box Ftc of 55hz (which is really close to what the DIYMA is).

Mark


http://www.sfu.ca/~mtnickel/Sub%20comparison.JPG

[DS-21]

Data Much appreciated.

After a little more reading and research, you seem to be somewhat correct...however, do you find it to be the actual Q that is problematic or the anechoic F3 of the system.

Both, I think. I say that because the latter is very easily corrected with modern processing, but the sound still suffers to me. Then again, it could just be that some drivers (e.g. the XLS12, JBL W1xGTi, and presumably the DIYMA12 though I've never played with one of those) have much, much better motor designs, and the differences I've consistently heard are the differences between a mediocre driver and an elite one.

It seems drivers not specifically designed for in-car either face a large hump from 40-80hz...or if you bring the Q down, then they have a bloated bottom end from 20-40hz (then falling off higher up).

Actually, I find most drivers "designed for in-car use" to be pretty poor performers in general. There was a time when many car-branded woofers were better for both home and car use than many home-branded woofers. But that hasn't been the case for quite some time.

Beyond getting a big xmax spec, there just does not seem to be much emphasis on designing motors for linear performance at various excursion levels or on minimizing inductance. As for the bloated bottom end caused by a little bit more bottom octave from a low-Qtc sealed enclosure, I disagree. I find a little bit of boost there useful in general, to counter road noise and give a little bit of a 'house curve.' (I tune my home subwoofers for a slight lift from 40Hz down, too.)

on a side note...
the best alignment for in car as from the loudspeaker cookbook is about a .707 with a box Ftc of 55hz (which is really close to what the DIYMA is).

I would quibble with VD a little bit, preferring something with a lower Q (0.5-0.6) and an F3 a little bit higher in most cars. But go with his rec and you'll end up with a much cleaner low end than if you follow the recommendations of most car-fi vendors.

[mtnickel]

Got my 12" today. Looks very nice. Wish the frame was a little stronger, but i think it'll be fine for how hard i push it. Great throw...at least 2.25" of total throw, and very minimal to no mechanical noise.
as far as sound...still auditioning, but sounds really good...a little more transparent than the id12 that i had in before, and great overall, especially for the money.

Mark

[8675309]

dont pitch crap at me.

But I think this driver looks like crap

hey everyone is up for their opinion.

[mtnickel]

dont pitch crap at me.

But I think this driver looks like crap

hey everyone is up for their opinion.


Elaborate maybe?

The nice silver cone? the natural rubber surround?, or do you mean the frame? the motor is a standard TC-2+ motor.,so i'd hope it's not that.

But like i said, my only beef with it was the stamped frame (and rather crappy stamped frame too).

What do you not like about it.

[8675309]

Something about the cone just turns me off. You know how it is when you go look at a new car? Checking out the same line but see one you just dont like, thats all. Not saying it is not a nice sounding driver.

[unpredictableacts]

I am not a fan of the silver cone either, cant somehow you change the cone color to black?....if not I would be the one to spray paint my cone with flat black paint.

[mtnickel]

ya...nothing a light coat of aluminum primer and nice black paint couldn't fix. I'm fairly sure it won't affect the performacne at these low frequencies.