tommyk90
-
Posts
462 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Media Demo
Store
Collections
Videos
Posts posted by tommyk90
-
-
why do you care so much? If you don't like this sub or DC audio then don't run it.
I don't personally run DC but think it is great to see them trying something different instead of ordering basic parts and glueing them together like 95% of the "non mainstream" manufacturers do. I hope you guys have a great success with this new material Rusty/Clay.
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.
-
I have been trying to defend against your opinion on this idea, and seems DC in general. You came into this thread in attempt to prove this idea wrong, so i think you have that part backwards. All we are doing here is giving people a sneak peak. You will see clamped power tests along with SPL gains/ losses in due time. Just sit back and enjoy for the time being.
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.
-
dont know much about the history of flat cones....
but...has anyone ever tried a flange on the former? kinda like an aero port....the top of the former has a nice lip all the way around to be glued to the cone...just a thought...would def be more surface area to glue...but would have to be PERFECTLY centered...
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.
-
You will see more tests dont you worry. This was just to get the ball rolling for now.
So lets say my 11k2d clips at 1000 watts, i ran these last year no clip at all. 4 amps 8 subs total power of 4000 watts, bassrace 161.8? I hate to say it but im good!!!
No no that was my good leg i was beating it on. MY steel leg doesnt bend like that.
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.
-
sick so you guys did pay attention in geometry after all.yeah ive played with some carbon before even jsut two layers is pretty unbreakable but it does flex,no flex here as we can see so i guess the only other "problem" to put to rest is the former to carbon pie glue joint.but man i bet these things wont be cheap but hopefully more cost effective than the DD composites. keep testing and rolling tape so we can really see whats up. take one from thor push it till it breaks and make it better then retest then maybe shes customer ready.cuz us americans do put a beating on stuff especially the nuckleheads we all know some of those guys,we would want any i told you so's start to fly around.
call it the carbon pie option.
how did it do in the box that it was in, in the first pic in the thread?
Carbon pie, I like that.
-
Well there is a vid for you guys. As you can see strength will not be a issue. I think this is going ot work out just fine. :
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.
-
Thats a lot of reading. Theres a lot of good questions in there, There are issues a flat cone will see that a standard would not, Thats why were playing with them. I could get into how we are approching them or if it all works out then it could be a big surprise =]. who knows maybe it will never do what we want it to, but if we dont try new things or at least look into them then we wont move forward or backwards. Things that work out make the company stronger, things that fail are not a waste of time unless you learn absolutely nothing from it. I think it would be hard to experience anything and not learn something one way or another.
Im sorry if this is not everything you wanted. I dont mind shareing projects or new things were thinking about doing but Im not going to go into every detail of it unless its something that I have tested all aspects of and can offer them as a part of the line knowing its a solid product not just a proto.
Thank you to everyone that has faith in our product. Everyone of our customers is a part of the lifeblood of DC and allows us to do these types of things, So thank you for allowing me to do whatIi love.
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.
-
possibly alignment pins stuck throught he bottom of the motor... much like the cerwin vega strokers.
see the six small holes by the rubber magnet cover? the woofer comes with six spring steel aligment pins that are about 7 inches long that center the voice coil in the gap. also note the bad ass 8 guage wire terminals that work AWESOME!!!! strip off a inch of insulation.. twist.. insert and crank down on the grub screw.. i could literally pick my sub up by the power wires... someone needs to make these..
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.
-
you know, im thinking that the flat cone will be pulling on the surround instead of pushing like a normal cone
and that leads me to think it will cause wrinkles in the surround easier than the normal cone
but i am quite eager to see it actually performing
i also thought would the former ever be in danger of bending or being dented due to pushing against the hard carbon fiber?
with a traditional cone the former can move the cone with it, but in this case i think itll just be banging against the disk.
im thinkng like a tin can on a concrete floor with a person stepping on it.
has that been considered?
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.
-
Yeah I can see it being just fine with pushing motions, but pulling? I think it'll be tough to hold up there, but I wanna see how DC did it.
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.
-
I wouldn't say people have blindly followed DC anywhere. More like DC has worked hard to provide a quality product with outstanding customer service.
Comments like this take all validation out of any questions or comments you may have about a product or idea. You have taken your point (valid or not) and thrown it out the window.
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".
-
Back to the sub...
If I had to guess, I'd say the former is adhered to the cone at the top edge and inside/outside surface of the former. It would be kinda neat if it was threaded into a mount on the back of the cone like how metal pipes are threaded, but the former material would have to be a lot thicker for that I think. If DC got fancy, they could have it be a one piece cone/former made fully of CF, but god only knows what that would cost them.
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.
-
Oh really? Just a hardcore fanboy, are ya?
Are these the legitimate points you mention?
Most would consider that type of dialog to be disturbing. It's nothing to laugh about.
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?
-
No, tommy, my examples and questions aren't going beyond the point. You're missing the point.
My point is that you are incorrect when you claim that the material isn't what makes the cone strong. Because in this case and many others, the material chosen is what gives the structure (cone) it's strength and durability. And is why the material doesn't need to be formed in a shape to hold it's rigidity.
But it's clear you didn't start posting in this thread to point out how or why the design will or will not work. You just wanted to criticise (without merit) people for showing their appreciation to DC Audio.
The only thing you've accomplished by doing this is to make yourself look like a troll.
I wonder how Kicker would feel if they knew they had someone on their team going around posting disturbing comments on public forums?
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.
-
Major coil rub do to that.
Its was so easy due to the high center of gravity to say, or the former attaching to the cone so high up maybe better. That Just lightly touching the outter side of my cone by the surround would make my coil rub.
Ive tried numerous boxes, to reduce back pressure, different port sizing. Even paid PWK for designs to help reduce this problem but nothing has worked for me.
Versus a the former that is attached by spider, transfers all the energy completely different. Doing the same test with my paper cones I notice no rubbing mostly because the energy is absorbed by the cone and transferred down to one point where my whole cone assembly moves, and not just one side like before.
It was so bad I had my subs reconed 4 different times that DD finally said to send them in and reconed at their cost with paper cones.
Gotcha. I can see that being a problem.
Thanks for the info.
-
This is true and has been addressed. You guys all worry to much wait for the test results.
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.
-
Both ways require the same steps and no extra work. Regular recone you glue in the soft parts shim your coil wait to dry then glue on a dustcap. Consider this flat cone a dustcap. Same basic principle. Now you are just digging for every excuse to argue your opinion.
no benefit, no benefit yes yes we get it already no benefit......... that you can see. Its obvious you are not interested in seeing this sub work out, and have no intentions of approving to it, or DC in general from what you posted in this thread. I dont expect you will ever have anything positive to add here.
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 giggled a little. Ok a lot!
I agree, I ran composite cones now for many years.. And thru that time Ive been trashing coils left and right..
Never again will I run a composite cone I dont think, or any cone that has a lesser pitch of a concave cone, or even a flat cone. The center of gravity on the cone is raised so much and is horrid for daily abuse!
Im very interested to see how these DC turn out just like the T3 tsns..... Or maybe DD just dont know how to build woofers.
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?
-
How does the flat cone affect the reconing process? How would you shim the voice coil with solid cone (i.e. no dustcap hole to take the shims out through)?
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.
-
So what i understand you saying is this, the design is poor, thus no matter how strong the flat cone is it will not = that of a conventional paper cone? Or are you saying that if a high quality material is used the flat cone is or could be better then paper? I hate seeing you post this info based on what OTHERS have done and used. As for the cost these cones will be less money then composite cones offered by other companies, not to mention stronger. You are going ot have to believe the people who have seen this in person, trust me on this one ok.
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.
-
Why Not?
Just because the tire was made so many years back doesn't mean companies shouldn't try to redesign and try new ideas right?
Just because PPI and some others did it years back means DC couldn't revisit the idea and try to improve on them?
As far as putting prototypes out on the internet, Sometimes it can help in the design process when others toss out ideas so they go. Sometimes it's the young kid who knows nothing about a product that may have an idea on a particular part of it and have a soloution without even knowing it.
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.
-
Yes i believe i already made a statement about the misconception about the cone area.
Im curious Tom what do you think this cone is made out of? Why do yo u think it will be weaker then a paper? You have not even seen the material yet you have no way of making claims that this cone based on shape alone will fail. As for the former joint on this first sub i will not post any pics of it, because like i said this is not built the way it is going to be for production. All i see is alot of very quick conclusions based on what other companies have done years ago. I appreciate your concerns but we are not going into this blind. Just be patient you will see the benefits of this cone post on my states page in 2010.
And on a side note you come into the DC forum what do you expect to find? Shouldnt be a shock that the people posting use and like DC products. Infact i wouldnt use them if i didnt think they had the best sub for my needs, and dont tell me they havent been working out for me.
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.
-
well if you are correct, a flat cone will have less mass given the same material as a normal cone, as there is less "cone area" so in theory you could use the savings in cone weight to build a stronger/denser cone and retain the same moving mass as the regular cone woofer.
or you can use the weight savings to raise the FS while using the same spider/coil configuration as the woofers with the normal cone.
or shit i give up, maybe ATEAM is doing it because it LOOKS SICK!
I agree that it does look cool!
I imagine the cone has to be pretty lightweight given the size and composition.
-
ever have the thought that the cone former joint has something special to DC?
maybe they are keeping it a secret untill people start getting subs with flat cones on their doorstep.
wouldnt want T3 to figure out how its done now would we?
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?
.gif){kind=small}
Nice Sub A Team
in DC Sound Lab - Big Bass on ANOTHER LEVEL!
Posted
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.