large roll surrond vs regular roll surround

[x infektid x]

http://www.ficaraudio.com/product/sp4-series-sp4-12/

this vs this

http://www.rockfordfosgate.com/products/details/p1s2-12

one is an fi sub and the other is a fosgate sub.. here is the question

given say all specs are the same ,xmax. rms. what ever .. but only difference would be the surround, and CONE area.. given the actual cone area the fosgate has more space to move the air.( cone area). where the fi has goobs of surround and a smaller cone to do the same.-remeber the specs on each are the exact same now hypothetically- not a fosgate vs fi fight just strictly talking if all were the same and the surround where different.

reason i ask is i have seen ,as we prob all have seen this and that sub with really large surrounds but surrounds dont move air like a cone does.. just a question that have been stewing around in muh brain ..

now again if all specs were the same it comes down to cone area vs surround ..

a lot of subs have large surrounds on them now a days but i dont see a lot of cone area..

this is a starting point to what yalls answers wil be but i have to start somewhere for an answers.. if someone gets what i am askin please change it to the correct terms. i hope someone understands what i am really asking.. -this is why i dont stand up and tell facts in public!! lol-

[tboorn]

what you have to ask yourself, or the subs in question is this, do they have enough throw to justify using the large roll surround? the size of the surround wont make the sub any better if it doesnt have enough usable xmax to achieve a throw beyond the limits of the smaller surround. the super mega roll is incredibly inefficient, but if you can move the coil that far it can be a necessity.... to a degree

thats my .02 cents

[bman8891]

I assume every sub has a point where the surround size is maximized. You have to walk a fine line between the surround being large enough to allow full range of travel and as small as possible to maximize cone area.

[9Nails]

Good questions! I think from a design perspective both are acceptable. A deep cone-shape could hold a greater volume of air, and large surround with a flatter cone could, with more travel, could move an equivalent amount of air. But I'm no scientist.

I think the latter design has a more visual appeal. If you see a woofer traveling a great distance it at least looks impressive.

I would be interested in a listening experiment between the two to see if they sound different.

[Massivespl]

We put a 15" zv4 cone next to a 15" team Fi cone and they were the same size. So that sundown fat surround wasn't taking up any cone area. I'm texting my buddy to see if he has a picnic it still on his phone. If he does I'll post it

[Hugh G. Rection]

I assume every sub has a point where the surround size is maximized. You have to walk a fine line between the surround being large enough to allow full range of travel and as small as possible to maximize cone area.

But you have to remember, as the cone moves the surround moves, and it will also displace air.

[Hugh G. Rection]

Good questions! I think from a design perspective both are acceptable. A deep cone-shape could hold a greater volume of air, and large surround with a flatter cone could, with more travel, could move an equivalent amount of air. But I'm no scientist.

I think the latter design has a more visual appeal. If you see a woofer traveling a great distance it at least looks impressive.

I would be interested in a listening experiment between the two to see if they sound different.

In the end it comes down to the radiating area (surround inclused) of the driver and the mechanical travel of the driver to equal a displaced amount of air. Deep cone, flat cone, inverted cone, accordion surround, inverted surround, large roll surround, large dustcap, small dustcap, inverted dustcap, or dustcap covering the entire cone, doesn't matter.

Its not like scooping up water with a bucket....

[bman8891]

I assume every sub has a point where the surround size is maximized. You have to walk a fine line between the surround being large enough to allow full range of travel and as small as possible to maximize cone area.

But you have to remember, as the cone moves the surround moves, and it will also displace air.

True

[Jessica]

bitches love girth

[x infektid x]

last comment was great ! -

bitches love girth- lol

1)tboorn-the subs in question is this, do they have enough throw to justify using the large roll surround....

thats why i was asking ,with all specs spiders and what ever the same . only difference would be the cone area vs slightly more cone area with the same large roll

2)9nails-A deep cone-shape could hold a greater volume of air, and large surround with a flatter cone could, with more travel, could move an equivalent amount of air. But I'm no scientist.

that also hits on my question. if i have a sub with say a 12 and the cone is say,3 inches deep. and another "same spces" but its 2 inches. given simple elementary science . i can hold more water (air) with a 3 deep cone that a 2 deep. kinda answered my own question there.

3)massivespl- We put a 15" zv4 cone next to a 15" team Fi cone and they were the same size. So that sundown fat surround wasn't taking up any cone area.

that was my who question when i posted! given both are 12 inch suns, the larger surround would look and seem like it takes more cone area, but i can also see where ,for simplicity sake. where 12 inches of cone area and a normal surround vs a 10 inch cone "both are 12 inches baskets now" and a surround thats 2 inches can be different due to the movement of air.. ..

4)possum-but does the surround act as a radiating surface also .. i know it moves in and out so that moves air but its not actually moving straight in and out its rolling sideways kinda to let the cone move in and out.. or am i wrong. and just mixing up wayyy to many things here..

good replies by the way folks..

thaks for the info