Impious

If you think $500 is bad, just wait until your fuel injectors go out Edit: Damn, looks like John beat me to it.

What does the "supercharge" option do that it makes "more power from the same size driver?" It doesn't make more power. SC adds a neo magnet to the top of the pole (along with an aluminum shorting ring). So BL increases, Q goes down and due to a change in the response there is slightly more peak SPL around the tuning peak....not enough to really be audible, but it shows up on a meter and for SPL guys that's all they care about. For daily applications everything is a trade-off, so the increase in peak SPL is more than likely going to be accompanied with a decrease in low frequency extension and a less-smooth frequency response. SC isn't needed drivers designed for a specific purpose and goal for performance, and where those objectives were met with the respective design. I'm going to gander a guess SSA feels their drivers meet those objectives.

Porting doesn't affect high frequency extension, at those frequencies the behavior is essentially the same as a sealed enclosure....the difference is a ported enclosure generally has significiantly more output on the bottom end so the high frequency subjectively appears comparatively lower due to the greater difference in output levels.

Problem with non-frame cars is the connection of panels. How well the ground conducts in these instances depends on how the vehicle was constructed and the quality of the welds. Some are better than others. That's not to say they are all bad, many are fine but some are worse than others. Whereas a frame is usually a pretty continuous chunk of steel.

I agree, to a point. In a vehicle with a real frame the frame will typically have less resistance than 1/0 gauge wire. If it were a vehicle without a real frame such as a unibody then direct to the battery may end up being a better method. But you are correct, a good ground is a good ground rather that's to the frame or direct to the battery and is not determined by some arbitrary length of the ground wire itself. For fuses....if the amp doesn't have an internal fuse, then you can use the fuse at the battery to fuse the amplifier as well and fuse according to the amplifier. No point in fusing again at the amplifier. The battery fuse will protect both the wire and amplifier, assuming you are using appropriately gauged wire.

Main thing that draws me to the 88's are that the 3.8L runs strong & I know every nook and cranny of that car, and for audio purposes I really liked what it had to offer. Kicks are already vented into the fender and there's a lot of space down there, tons of room in the doors, large rear deck is great for IB. And I can disassemble that car blindfolded with one arm tied behind my back.

Thanks. I figured with similar drivetrain and comparable size the MPG would be about the same. I love the 3800, beat the piss out of my old LSS and it ran strong until the trans took a dump. I've honestly been browsing for a few weeks for full size sedans that I like, and the only things that I can really find that fit my stringent requirements are the Olds 88's like I had and the Park Ave's (I'm a tight ass & won't spend real money on a car). I didn't think the MPG on my old LSS was great until I started driving this beast.

So I'd like to get something slightly more fuel efficient but nothing crazy. '99 Olds 88 which is basically the same as my old green monster, so I know the car like the back of my hand as I had the monster close to 10 years. '00 Buick Park Ave, which I like the look of a little more but am completely unfamiliar with. Both are around the same price, same mileage. Not definite on buying anything right now, but those have my interest peaked as they're cheap enough to pay for themselves in a couple years. Even mid-low 20's for MPG would save me a hell of a lot in gas $$. However I'd have to spend a lot of $$ on sound deadening after I just did it all to my RM, so that'd take some of that savings away along with cost of insurance. Decisions, decisions.

Retain stock source, insert Cleansweep. Problem solved

I fucking love Typhoon's. It's on my to-own list.

Mounting to the door panel isn't a very structurally sound surface and will be prone to resonances and rattles, moreso than a speaker in the stock location since all of the vibrations from the speaker's movement will be transferred straight into the door panel. There also isn't a good way to seal the backwave unless they were actually sealed pods. Overall just not a good mounting method.

That should help you narrow it down between the wiring and the HU.

Ugliest Mustang ever

Can also look at the Bargain Aluminum MTM from Zaph which is a bit pricier (due to more drivers, but still pretty reasonable individually) but would probably have a little bit more low end strength if that was her cup of tea.

If something is a myth, doesn't that mean it's not true.....which is what you said? T/S change with coil position and heat due to changes in Bl, Cms and Re. I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform substantially better in this arena....They both use overhung motors, aluminum coils and shorting rings. But the Xcon has much higher rated Xmax, actually twice as much, which means it's Bl is more than likely going to be just as much if not more linear at any level of excursion, becoming more linear compared to the Axis as we move closer to the Xmax of the Axis and much more linear as we exceed it. So I don't see any reason to expect the Xcon to experience more of a variance in Bl vs excursion than the Axis and a couple reasons to believe it would actually be more linear especially if we push to the 15mm+ excursion range. In regards to Cms, with the linear suspension design of the Axis Cms might measure more linear than the Xcon's progressive but many argue (such as Vance Dickason in the LSDC) a progressive spider is better suited for loudspeakers intended to be used in a ported enclosure than linear designs. Power compression...the Xcon has higher rated Rms power handling, again almost twice as much which would lead me to believe at any power level the Xcon is going to be experiencing less power compression and more linear Re vs Power, leading to less parameter shift vs input power. Overall, I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform significantly better than the Xcon in parameter shift vs input power and/or parameter shift vs coil position, and a couple reasons to expect the Xcon to actually perform better in this regard. So yet again, I fail to see any logic that supports your original statement where you guaranteed the Axis to "dig lower" than the Xcon, including your new found argument about large vs small signal performance. And yes, there is a variance in T/S unit-to-unit due to production differences. But when was the last time you purchased two of the exact same units and experienced an audible difference in performance due to production variance related differences in T/S? The point is, in any driver with reasonably good soft parts and a reasonable QC program in place, the differences are going to be inaudible. The specs you looked at are wrong. You must be looking at the specs on PE, which show the axis measured xmax by 100% method, not 70% method. Xcon 15 31mm, axis 34mm Had you looked up the proper specs, most of this could have been avoided. I never said myth. I said that enclosures don't dictate everything. http://tcsounds.com/product/drivers/axis-driver/ Fair enough on the Xmax, PE is usually pretty good with listing accurate info so I presumed they were reliable. So their Xmax is very comparable, I still don't see any difference in them which would lead me to believe one of them would suffer significantly more parameter shift than the other over stroke. Which means you're still wrong.......And all of this could have been avoided had you not made wholly incorrect statements

If something is a myth, doesn't that mean it's not true.....which is what you said? T/S change with coil position and heat due to changes in Bl, Cms and Re. I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform substantially better in this arena....They both use overhung motors, aluminum coils and shorting rings. But the Xcon has much higher rated Xmax, actually twice as much, which means it's Bl is more than likely going to be just as much if not more linear at any level of excursion, becoming more linear compared to the Axis as we move closer to the Xmax of the Axis and much more linear as we exceed it. So I don't see any reason to expect the Xcon to experience more of a variance in Bl vs excursion than the Axis and a couple reasons to believe it would actually be more linear especially if we push to the 15mm+ excursion range. In regards to Cms, with the linear suspension design of the Axis Cms might measure more linear than the Xcon's progressive but many argue (such as Vance Dickason in the LSDC) a progressive spider is better suited for loudspeakers intended to be used in a ported enclosure than linear designs. Power compression...the Xcon has higher rated Rms power handling, again almost twice as much which would lead me to believe at any power level the Xcon is going to be experiencing less power compression and more linear Re vs Power, leading to less parameter shift vs input power. Overall, I don't see any reason to expect the Axis to perform significantly better than the Xcon in parameter shift vs input power and/or parameter shift vs coil position, and a couple reasons to expect the Xcon to actually perform better in this regard. So yet again, I fail to see any logic that supports your original statement where you guaranteed the Axis to "dig lower" than the Xcon, including your new found argument about large vs small signal performance. And yes, there is a variance in T/S unit-to-unit due to production differences. But when was the last time you purchased two of the exact same units and experienced an audible difference in performance due to production variance related differences in T/S? The point is, in any driver with reasonably good soft parts and a reasonable QC program in place, the differences are going to be inaudible.

Very bad idea to replace an 8A fuse with a 25A fuse. The fuse is there to protect the wire from catching on fire. And obviously if the fuse keeps blowing there is something wrong, stepping up in size isn't solving the problem, only causing more potential problems. First thought would be a shorted wire. If it only happens when the car is on would make me think shorted 12V+ switched wire. I suppose if the radio was taking a shit and had a short internally or something it could be trying to draw too much current. But first I would double check all of the wires to make sure nothing is shorted out.

It's possible, but only if the parts physically fit and proper motor/soft part geometry is maintained. And that also assumes you have the ability to obtain accurate T/S parameters for the new creation. Generally it's not recommended...your best option is to get the original parts from the manufacturer to rebuild the driver as it was designed.

Myth Busted Same enclosure, same power. Axis clearly doesn't dig lower. Axis shows less than 1db more peak which isn't going to be audible. Oh, and since "you don't care about the enclosure, the Axis will dig deeper, the enclosure dictates everything is a myth"......couldn't be more wrong. Obviously not the same enclosure, but THAT'S THE POINT, THE ENCLOSURE AFFECTS THE PERFORMANCE. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's WinSD It knows everyyyyythingggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Based on WinSD My stock UFO's should have been .5db (at peak)more quite than the custom TC5200's I used. The UFO's were 2.1db louder @ peak freq of 44hz. 1db louder @35hz and .5db more quite @31hz. While the UFO's were louder overall, they lacked the low end extension offered by the 5200's. The frequency transition of the 5200s was much better overall but had a steep roll off around 45-47hz Even tuned low, the UFO's were still very peaky in my opinion. Plain and simple, enclosure does not dictate everything. Just because a given sub is louder at a lower frequency, doesn't mean it sounds better or plays lower. I kept my previous post simple but you guys obviously completely missed the point... WinSD is great and has its place but is far from 80% accurate in real world. Obviously each situation changes and dictates how a driver will preform. I love how everyone is saying there's so much fail yet do nothing to inform people. That in itself is fail. The system response of a loudspeaker in a given enclosure has been verified by over half a century of research. Certainly peak output is going to be affected by things such as power compression which can't be compensated for in an enclosure modeling software, but the shape of the response between predicted and real world (anechoic, not in-vehicle) is going to be consistent so long as the T/S are accurate and the proper conditions are maintained between model and measurement. Which is a long way of saying you were wrong in your Xcon vs Axis comment, and no amount of exclamation point use or sarcasm is going to change that. Also wrong in your comment that the "enclosure dictating everything is a myth", as there is a hell of a lot that the enclosure does dictate. Look at the mathematical models of any system response and you'll see just how much affect the enclosure has. If you would like to disprove Thiele-Small and rewrite the complete mathematical description of loudspeaker performance, then by all means go ahead and submit your paper to societies like the AES for peer review.

Myth Busted Same enclosure, same power. Axis clearly doesn't dig lower. Axis shows less than 1db more peak which isn't going to be audible. Oh, and since "you don't care about the enclosure, the Axis will dig deeper, the enclosure dictates everything is a myth"......couldn't be more wrong. Obviously not the same enclosure, but THAT'S THE POINT, THE ENCLOSURE AFFECTS THE PERFORMANCE.

Thank god. Your actual understanding of everything you have posted about in this topic is close to zero. This is by far one of the most misinformation filled threads on this forum. If one wanted to go back and correct all of the misinformation you would basically just need to rewrite the entire thread. And I don't have the time for that. Instead let's for now warn anyone reading this thread to simply forget they ever read it. I'm tempted to simply close it.

Monkey-See Monkey-Do

In all seriousness if this is a STEP patented tech is there a reason it hasn't been brought to market sooner? It seems to be a no-brainer product. As Ryan said the market for this is huge as you can hit both the shallow niche market and the more mainstream subwoofer market with one product, and give the guys who were not necessarily looking at shallow drivers for depth reasons a ton of new enclosure design/placement options without loosing output on top of one of the only real high performance shallow mount drivers on the market for the shallow guys. Like I said, I run IB and taking up literally zero trunk space without loosing output potential would be f'ing awesome since most high excursion subs are ~9" deep + baffle thickness. And if it scales down a shallow mount, high excursion, linear BL midbass/midrange would fly off the shelves.

Actually, no you don't. Best thing you can do is to NOT fill that space with more speakers. Adding them would be a net negative.Well then what do you propose? As M5 said, not a very good reason to waste the money on simply filling a hole. $$ is better put towards the front speakers. If you're worried about the hole just find some fine mesh 6x9 grills on craigslist or local shop that has a spare set sitting around to install over the hole. Should only be a couple bucks and you won't have to stare at a gaping hole.

Thought about ditching the rear 6x9's and putting all of your budget towards better front speakers?