FYI, I just modelled both the SL10 and MM1040DVC & both the SL12 and MM1240DVC...Still doesn't look as impressive as the Polk MMs (which is technically not a "shallow mount"). But at 4 5/8" for a 12 it's definitely a contender.
Would love to play with the Type R seeing all the rave reviews about them...I would think the Alpine sounds the best and gets the loudest. Just look at the Polk for example, it claims 25mm one way xmax and they say they used the Klippel analyzer in the driver production. If so, where is the Klippel report? Alpine publishes it right on their website which imo adds a lot of credibility to their work. Looking at the curves it seems to have 12mm of one way xmax using the most stringent of definitions.
Again comparing both the SL12 and the MM1240DVC, I can't see it having reaching that much Xmax. Looking at both pics, the surround shape looks quite similar and sure doesn't look like a high-roll type of surround like seen on TC Sounds subwoofers...
Mounting diameter for both is the same @ 11" yet the SD of the Polk is much larger @ 520cm2 VS 470cm2 for the SL12
Maybe that's what the extra depth is for I guess - sure doesn't help with the performance as seen in my previous post...
The only other piece of evidence is a suspension klippel report on the SI, which seems great up to 12mm but the graph is not complete nor do we get the motor plot which is more important.
Based on the available information the Alpine is the best. The rest is all marketing and boasting. Even the Alpine could use a lot more specifications, we still don't have the inductance curve and there isn't even a BL, or MMS specified in the white sheet. I'm not sure how you guys plotted this sub, I couldn't.
As far as box requirements go none of them are true small box subs, and like all speakers it's best to keep a lot of room behind the subwoofer for airflow. These types of low depth installations almost always give up sound quality for ease of install.
Did you take into account that the Polk has more excursion and handles more power? They might have the same transfer function, but what about SPL?FYI, I just modelled both the SL10 and MM1040DVC & both the SL12 and MM1240DVC...
You put both 10" in the same enclosure, sealed or vented, and they perform EXACTLY the same - the SL10 being 1 1/2" shallower, it's a better choice
You put both 12" in the same enclosure, sealed or vented, and they perform EXACTLY the same - the SL12 being 1 1/8" shallower, it's a better choice too...
EXACTLY THE SAME... Xmax figures, group delay, Amp apparent load, etc...Did you take into account that the Polk has more excursion and handles more power? They might have the same transfer function, but what about SPL?
To be honest, I think that it's not necessarily true... It all depends on how they managed to get their ratings.And as far as the post in your link goes; isn't that true of any decent sub's RMS rating?
Dunno... I got my SL10 for free My cousin was a dealer but closed down.I'm not arguing, just learning.
What's the price on the SL?
Only a small fraction of the subs we tested hit 12mm at a true 10% distortion threshold. Think that the mighty JBL differential drives only managed 8mm or so. How deep are those, a foot? I do assume all specs are false. I even bought and sent speakers to Erin to get them Klippel tested before using them. There is too much smoke in this industry to make useful decisions. Alpine posted that Klippel result on their website because they know there is no slim sub with that kind of performance out there. There also isn't a slim sub with that kind of mechanical throw.All we have to go off is the specs at this point. So why not assume all the specs are false?
And at almost 5" mounting depth is it that hard to believe the Polk can't do 12mm?
Besides, my last two post were in reference to the polks vs. the RE SLs.
Yep, and with it the effects of compression on T/S parameters, just like how the T/S parameters move about under excursion due to motor, suspension and inductance nonlinearities. Simulations only hold given the parameters don't change at all. In fact they do,starting with the first watt, so if you start modeling hundreds of watts the results could be quite different from real life.By voice coil performance you mean thermal capabilities?
That makes sense, I read a great quote once (I wish a could remember who said it, it was someone credible) it went, "if a speaker moves, it distorts, point blank".Yep, and with it the effects of compression on T/S parameters, just like how the T/S parameters move about under excursion due to motor, suspension and inductance nonlinearities. Simulations only hold given the parameters don't change at all. In fact they do,starting with the first watt, so if you start modeling hundreds of watts the results could be quite different from real life.
I used a set of Polk Momos, they were my first subs. All in all I think Polk is quite mediocre. There was a bit of motor noise and the cones seemed to maybe flex a bit under high excursion. It was painfully obvious they were not very linear, the rise in Q with excursion was very audible. It was as if under more power they sounded boomy or lost steam (Q goes up and motor force drops). So when they claim 25mm of xmax with these new subs I just don't buy it. They seem to use the Klippel moniker in the same way car manufacturers use the Nurburgring to build company image. Few of the cars actually get revisions with a pro car driver at the Ring, they merely roll on the track once or twice. I did that too, doesn't mean I perfected the vehicle dynamics.