tommyk90

Yeah, like I said, I'm impatient. You guys have obviously done quite a bit of testing already, I just wanted more. That's all. Detailed autocad's? No, not really. Hell, in the beginning all I wanted was a former to cone picture, because that was my area of main concern. It escalated from there when I was met with hostility, though I'll admit that I didn't help that situation. For now, I'll sit back and try to remain patient.

I care because I don't like rumors and hype floating around the forums. I've seen bad things happen because of it. Which is why I said most companies would thoroughly test something, THEN release it to the public. How many people a day do you think email Fi asking about the SMD sub? That, IMO, has come back to bite them in the ass. Remember Mass Destruction subs? No? Haha. The T3 TSNS that JD posted a while back? A lot of people have stated that it was a fake sub. All these things don't help a companies image, IMO.

Listen, I'm just trying to get clarifications on a lot of things. I see a whole lot of speculation going on, and a lot of people talking about this thing like it's the greatest thing ever invented. I'm a little more skeptical. Pardon me for asking some real questions. You know how easy a clamp test would be. You probably have that sub set up in your garage right now. Throw a clamp meter around the positive speaker wire, DMM in the terminals. Would take all of 15 seconds and would only prove your claims. Call me impatient if you must.

It would increase the bonding surface area, sure, but there's still one problem: you're still only gluing the former to one side of the cone, which was the downfall of the one-piece, flat cones of the past. Though the additional surface area would help that. DC is supposedly doing something different. I'm interested to see how they are doing it, that's for sure.

Lol, are you really comparing two completely different installs? So whatever sub setup you hook up to that amp, it'll always clip at the same volume and put out the same amount of power? Put a clamp meter and a DMM on it and prove me wrong? You've wanted to prove me wrong this entire thread, so here's an easy opportunity. Like I said, I had a brand new lvl4xl in my possession (I just reconed it) and there's absolutely, positively no way it would take 4kw free-air...period. Maybe you are doing something significantly different from me? Would be pretty crazy to see any sub take 4kw free-air and not even break a sweat (or any parts, haha). A lighter cone isn't going to change that. Hell, it would probably make it worse since the moving mass is lighter, or is it? Depends on the additional weight from the longer former and whatever you guys are using to bond the former and cone.

Carbon pie, I like that.

I had no doubts that the cone material isn't strong. The part that concerns me the most is the cone to former joint. Free-air is grand and all, but how about a clamp meter and DMM so we can see some real power figures? Not just "oh, probably 4000 watts". I've had a lvl4xl in my possession and it would most definitely not take 4000 watts free-air (and before you ask, yes it had a beefed up suspension). I had it wired to 1 ohm on my zx2500 and I could take it to half of my normal burp volume, so at best I would say 1000 watts. Put in a box in a real install and burp it with 4kw please.

Any reply is better than no reply. Thanks for taking some time to pop your head in. I wish you would share a little more info, but I understand if you don't want to. Like I said, if you can pull off what others haven't, then I don't blame you for wanting to keep things under wraps.

I mentioned something along the same lines earlier. Field-replaceable recones like the solo-x, TC's threaded basket, memphis mojo's, and so on. Would cost a lot to develop and manufacture, but sure makes things a whole lot easier.

All the formers I've seen/used were pretty strong, so I don't think that's really an issue, but with the abuse that these subs are sure to see I wouldn't rule it completely out of the picture. I would think the cone or surround would give out before the former started to bend.

Exactly. I'm going to assume they developed some way to reinforce the joint so the former doesn't have a tendency to tear away from the cones on the rearward stroke, ala eD K style.

Excuse my disregard for respect. I just got my buttons pushed by some people and frankly got pretty tired of it. I said not too long ago that DC has earned respect, even though I don't think this new sub is a good idea. I'm sure you're well aware of how some people are being in the audio business yourself. Lots and lots of people will listen to whatever the company has to say, regardless if what they say is true. Look at all the people that live and die by JL, kicker, etc. Many times you can't talk any sense into them. Just because I speak my mind about people doesn't mean that my questions or comments are invalid. You just don't see this forum in the same way that I do. I just have the conviction to say things that other people are thinking, like it or not. Anyways, we are getting off topic again. I would really like rusty to come in here and clarify some things. I, of course, understand if he wants to keep some things under wraps until the sub is actually in production. Though I would like an answer a little more detailed than "we've addressed that issue".

The one flaw with flat cones is that you can only bond the former to one side of the cone, this really weakens the joint. Threaded mount would have to be way too heavy and expensive to be worth it, imo. Cool idea, just hard to implement. One piece wouldn't work because you have no way to shim the former. They have to be separate pieces unless DC develops a field-replaceable top assembly that doesn't require anyone to glue parts down themselves. Something like kicker's solo-x, TC's threaded baskets, etc.

In lieu of a recent post by an admin, I'm not going to argue with you. Hardcore fanboy? Nope. I used kicker products, sure, but only in cases where they were the best for my needs. Notice that I don't run kicker subs. They never worked well for my install. Plenty of other former team members have kept "team kicker" in their sigs and profiles as well. My first post in this thread was one of concern. I wanted to get some clarifications on a couple things and was met with hostility by people not even affiliated with DC besides possibly owning one of their subs. The A team or rusty are the only people that should, IMO, should respond to my questions. Everyone else is doing the same thing I'm doing, speculating. I'm sorry, but I can't sit by while people hype up something that isn't even out of the prototype phase, nor anywhere near completion. That's the kind of stuff that lands a company in hot water if/when the products don't live up to the hype. Anyone remember Mass Destruction subs?

Go ahead and tell kicker, because obviously you just glance over my posts and don't read them in their entirety. THERE IS NO MORE TEAM KICKER. I only keep that in my sig as a reminder of what once was. Disturbing comments? LOL, please. I'm making some legitimate points here, unlike some people who others would call "haters". Nowhere did I say that material is the ONLY determining factor in cone strength. I stated several times that in order for a flat cone to be as strong as a concave paper cone, the flat cone will have to be made of a much stronger (and expensive material). There is no inherent downfall to using a flat cone itself, the problem lies in the CONE TO FORMER JOINT. I'VE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES. Why don't you read this thread more closely. The main point I've been stating (for the 100th time), is that there is NO BENEFIT to developing a flat cone. Same effective cone area, with weaker joints that, according to some, have been addressed. That's great. Still doesn't take away from the fact that this cone is more expensive to produce (thus making it more expensive to buy), and offers absolutely zero benefits. Don't believe me? Then by all means, prove me wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that I've been proven wrong, and I have no problem with that. Don't come in here thinking that I'm hating on DC for no reason, because that's hardly the case. All you are doing is proving my point. I come in here to give some criticism and the DC fanboys all jump on my case. It's one thing for people to appreciate a company. I appreciate lots of companies for the work they do and customer service they have. It's an entirely different thing for people to blindly follow companies without asking questions. I'm sorry that I haven't fallen in line with the rest of the mindless minion nuthuggers. But I guess I should have known better coming to a site where the owner could fart in a metal garbage can and everyone would say its the best sounding stereo they've ever heard.

Gotcha. I can see that being a problem. Thanks for the info.

For future reference, most companies test products thoroughly, THEN release information on them. The same goes for the lvl6 motor, which apparently doesn't even have the proper basket yet. Obviously this thread is not generating the hype you were hoping for.

Not entirely true. I would consider the alignment of the cone and surround to be a lot more crucial to the subs performance and durability than a simple dustcap. And from the sound of it, DC is doing something special with the cone to former joint, which I would think would HAVE to involve more steps since with older flat cone subs you could only glue the former to the cone from the back side. I don't have anything positive to add because there IS nothing positive about this idea.

I wouldn't say that DD doesn't know how to build woofers, I think they have already proven themselves a few times over. People can say what they want about DD's softparts or whatever, but theres gotta be something to them since all the loudest street competitors (in the U.S.) use them. Never had the chance to use a composite cone, too expensive for my wallet. But I feel that the composite cones are really only beneficial in super high SPL installs, like extreme vehicles. They are dead sexy though, especially when paired with the carbon fiber dustcaps. What exactly are you doing to the coils? Just rocking too much or what?

This....is a very good point. I didn't even think of that. I'm guessing that the cone and the rest of the softparts would have to be separate. Glue the coil and spiders into place, let them dry, then you remove the shims and drop the cone and surround on top. A lot more work for, once again, no benefit.

If a high quality material is used (and the joints hold up), THEN the flat cone will be fine to use. There's no benefit of using a flat cone over a concave one though. The problem here is that flat cones are prone to weak cone joints since there is little bonding area. It sounds like rusty may have come up with something to cure this problem, which will be interesting to see. Less money than composite cones, ok. I'm guessing you're referring to DD since they are pretty much the only company who is offering a composite cone in the U.S right now, and are pretty damn expensive. (I know that T3 is using composite cones now as well, but there's been nothing said about pricing) Also, are these cones made overseas or in the U.S.? In house? But I'm guessing they still cost quite a bit more than a normal paper cone. I guess in the end it will be up to the consumer to decide. A cool looking flat composite cone for more cash, or the standard cone which works perfectly well and just doesn't have the flash of the composite cone.

Companies reinvent the tire to make it BETTER. Is rusty trying to make the flat cone better? Obviously. Is this flat cone going to somehow be better than a traditional cone? I don't think so. That's the point I was trying to make.

Christ, I never said the material would be weaker than paper. I said the DESIGN is weaker than a paper concave cone. The only way to get the strength up when using a flat cone is by using a much more rigid (and expensive) material, only in the end to have no benefits over a standard paper cone. Plus somebody said something about having to machine parts for the cone to former joint? There goes most people's "lighter moving mass" theory as well. I'm sure you guys realize how light a paper cone is. (not to mention how much taller the former has to be as well) Also, sorry about getting the surface area thing wrong, I wasn't really thinking about it at the time. And yes, I know this is in the DC forum. I expect nut hugging to go on here. But this is something thats not even available or even out of the prototype phase yet and people are already kissing ass trying to get one. This reminds me of RD audio and the 3250v2. Worked out great for them didn't it? I keep repeating the same information over and over, and I'll say this again. I hope it works out for rusty. Hopefully he figured out a way to keep things together, but in the end the flat cone has no advantages over a concave one.

I agree that it does look cool! I imagine the cone has to be pretty lightweight given the size and composition.

Also a good point. I keep repeating myself over and over. If DC has found a way to keep the flat cones together, then that's great. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that you have less overall cone area and an inherintely weaker structure. Why put all the time and effort into developing a flat cone when there's absolutely no benefit?