subwoofer question

Marty,

thanks for your answer! I must add that the "clearly worse" was for 2 channel listening. I think the more electronics in the chain is not beneficial.
My system is 95% about 2ch and 5% movies. So its 95% musicality and 5% big effects for me. I run the full Audessey for movies though. but for 2ch the reciever is out of the system.

If your highly damped theory would be applied to two subs from the same brand, in my case the JL Audio Fathoms, it would probably come down to size of box as the decider for if the sub is "fast" or not, but my guess would still be the 10" is faster than the 12". I havent heard both in my system but I found the 10" faster than the 13" in the F113. But still if both the F110 and F112 are equally damped your theory might extend to the possibility of integrating different sized drivers successfully.

Perrew,

Just to be clear, box size isn't the key here nor is driver size. The type of box and its size relative to certain mechanical characteristics of the driver determine how highly damped the subwoofer system will be. For instance, a 10" woofer cone mounted in a 13" sealed box is quite probably (but not with absolutely certainty) more highly damped than the exact same driver in an 11" ported box. Choosing a smaller box or smaller cone isn't a reliable solution. OTOH, choosing a sealed box is probably (again, not definitely) a good idea if you want a highly damped subwoofer.

I believe that all the JL subs are sealed designs and those I've heard certainly sounded like highly damped designs to me at audition. Therefore all of them, including the 13" model sounded "fast" by my definition.

You might hear it differently.

Marty

Marty sorry im not following when you say Box size is not key then say 13" Box will be more damped than 11" for a 10" driver, i.e bigger Box more damped. So if i read you correctly you say a f113 can be faster than a f110 due to having a larger volume relative to its driver? I guess the other parameters will be pretty similar between these two subs so pretty well controlled experiment here. The other hypothesis might be that the smaller element is lighter and therefore moves faster. Do you see any drawbacks with a highly damped sub versus a ledset damped?

I also prefer a highly damped, or "tight" subwoofer, which also applies to woofers in main speakers.

IMO, I think the tradeoff is that ported subs/woofers may have a real or perceived lower depth and/or higher loudness than non-ported models (all other things being equal), but to me they sound looser.

Sorry, Perrew.

To clarify:

The conceptual design goal of a highly damped subwoofer system is that, once the musical signal is stopped, the system will restrict the tendency of the driver to keep moving. The idea is that momentum is defeated and bass will be tighter (maybe "faster" to some) as the woofer quickly settles.

Hence my suspicion that some people equate big drivers (with lots of momentum) with slow bass. Some subwoofer tests include a measure ("group delay") of a sub's ability to accellerate, reproduce an input signal, and "settle" after the signal stops, but there is disagreement on the usefulness (and threshold audibility) of this spec. Highly damped systems typically show very low group delay relative to less highly damped systems.

Both the driver's inherent "springiness" and the box's ability to inhibit driver travel (this alone is a complex function of the box's size, shape, loading scheme, stiffness, etc.) contribute to the overall system damping. Therefore, there is no universal correlation between driver size, box size, and system damping. I don't want to overstate my technical expertise on the subject, so I'd suggest that you search a bit for technical info on "loudspeaker damping".

A little more bad news. IMHO, a subwoofer can be "overdamped" (too fast in my parlance) depending on the main speaker to which it's being mated. Again IMHO. Again, YMMV.

Good Luck

Marty