[BuickGN]

Looks nice. I still wish ID would rate their xmax using the 70% BL or whatever it is that most use. Maybe it's the overhang method, I don't know. But some standard so we can compare to other subs. The published xmax isn't much better than my 15s and mine aren't exactly known as a high xmax sub. This thing probably has 25-29mm one way xmax. Cone area is excellent. If I ever try something other than what I have and it doesn't have the JL logo it had better excel in one area and having significantly more xmax and cone area might make me a potential future customer.

How long until this thing is up and running? I'm waiting for a good detailed and honest review in a sealed or IB setup to get an idea of how musical they are. It looks like they would do well in pairs in a trunk and retain a somewhat low Q. I would love to have a pair of 15s that would give a .5 Q in the trunk and these might do it.

 

[BuickGN]

i wish i could make this full size

If you had half a brain you could see I'm saying they're underrating their drivers and you would be able to make the image full size. It would be nice to not do that for comparison purposes.

 

[BuickGN]

yeah but you are saying it in every ID thread...THEY ARE AWARE OF YOUR DESIRES.

I said it in one thread and the vast majority of my posts were trying to figure out why there was the discrepancy from old to new. Once we finally got that resolved I mentioned they were basically screwing themselves with the ultra conservative rating. That was one thread. Now I'll probably mention it in every ID thread. I may even start a thread about it.

 

[BuickGN]

28.6mm one way linear and 935cm^2 of cone area. Thank you! That's some serious displacement for any 15", much less a SQ oriented one.

 

[BuickGN]

I just noticed something after looking at this old thread. Have the spiders changed from the first Max15s to the slightly newer ones?

I noticed the spider in these pictures looks to be a different/lighter color. I know the flash was used in some of them so I took pictures of mine with a flash and they still come out completely black.

The other difference is mine looks to have 2 more pleats in the spider. I want to say the pleats are deeper on mine but it's too hard to tell from a picture.

Just wondering if the spiders have been changed for better or for worse. Also, does anyone know if these are linear or progressive? I thought progressive had unevenly spaced pleats toward the outside but I can't remember for sure.

 

[BuickGN]

I havent been at image for almost 9 months now and I can tell you that parts changed. We had to REJECT close to 60% of the spiders that came in due to over heating/burning of the spiders. thanks China.. (oops did I say that?) I hope they didnt go with cheaper material.

About it beign progressive, the guy who re-designed it was a joke IMHO. I wont say his name but he was NOT a damn speaker engineer. When I built them I did a few tweaks to the driver to make them better BUT the spiders have a very very slight progressive roll. un-noticeable to the naked eye.

Thanks. Are these tweaks reflected in the T/S parameters? When entering the parameters in WinISD I get nearly 16tm on the dual 4ohm version which is significantly higher than the factory spec. Moving mass is 320g, is this about right? I'm glad you guys rejected the bad spiders instead of using them. I hope QC is what it should be. Every time I get close to 1" of total excursion on mine I get a burning smell from both of them and they're IB so 1" doesn't require a lot of power.

Are there any visual things I can look for to determine if any changes have been made to mine from the original.