HCC Feb 08 Subwoofer Group Test.

[russ.will]

Anyone seen page 97 onwards? Interesting reading.

I must say that HCC have really pulled their finger out for the Xmas issue, (that is bizarrely labeled as the Feb 08 issue), with reviews of actual HC gear rather than streamers HDD recorders, supermarket DVD players. Some of this stuff only came within the last month too!

Russell

[eviljohn2]

Got any more info than that Russ? I havn't bought a hifi magazine for over 3 years now but if there's something interesting to read about then I could be persuaded over the Christmas break.

[russ.will]

BK XLS-200, Velo SPL-1200R, Crystal Audio THX-12SUB and REL B1.

More of a what's available at what price, rather than a shoot out. I think BK will be happy again!

Russell

[eviljohn2]

Thanks Russ, I know I've been saying nice things about the XLS200 for a while now so it will be interesting to see what HCC think about it. Of course if they're 3 years behind on the sub front...

[Sniper]

Pity they didn't review my XLS300/PR !! Ah well - i like it!

[eviljohn2]

Picked this up today and although I've not read it in detail it's a shame that the first bit that I read (the sub summary) was wrong as the XLS200 doesn't, and has never had binding posts for speaker level in and out. It has speakon in which is better technically but hardly helps with such sloppy journalism.

No wonder I don't buy hifi magazines normally if this is the standard.

[mistygreenandbl]

Originally Posted by eviljohn2

Picked this up today and although I've not read it in detail it's a shame that the first bit that I read (the sub summary) was wrong as the XLS200 doesn't, and has never had binding posts for speaker level in and out. It has speakon in which is better technically but hardly helps with such sloppy journalism.

No wonder I don't buy hifi magazines normally if this is the standard.

I also purchased a copy of this magazine today - HCC state in the specs that the driver unit for the 200 is an 8 inch device. I believe that also to be incorrect. The review was at least positive, and the photo used showed the cherry? sample to be easy on the eye. Wonder when / if they'll review the 300....

[eviljohn2]

The XLS200 does indeed use a 10" driver. n:

It's still a great bit of kit and the review certainly does reinforce what some of us have been saying for years.

[russ.will]

Somebody tell me which dimension of the XLS-10 driver equates to 10".

Russell

[eviljohn2]

Circumference.

[russ.will]

You've had your tape out, haven't you.

Russell

[eviljohn2]

Yes.
It turns out that in many ways both are correct. The diameter of the whole driver frame is about 10" whilst inside the rubber surround the diameter does measure nearer 8" - it's a bit wider than this but that explains the HCC 8" and extra comment. As with all of these things it depends what you're measuring and in large driver cases it would also depend a bit on the angle of the cone which will also affect available driver area.

I could put a photo up if anyone's that interested.

From a personal point level of interest (and probably more worthy of another thread), I wonder how many drivers do relate to the published details as one might initially expect.

[Nimby]

The overall diameter of the driver basket has always been the defining size of a loudspeaker unit. (or driver)

Sd refers to cone diameter and usually includes a portion of the suspension surrounding the cone.

[russ.will]

I note and indeed, HCC quote, the nominal (12") diametre and piston diametre (9.7") of the Velodyne SPL-1200, presumably because Velodyne do.

I wonder why HCC chose to get super accurate with the BK alone? I actually suspect their figures are a result of a coincidental accurate typo.

I've often thought that a better indicator (sort of inline with John's suggestion) would be to quote the linear swept volume, but then that would rely on manufacturers being honest an/or publishing at least some T/S parameters, so just forget I said it.

Russell

[russ.will]

Originally Posted by Nimby

Sd refers to cone diameter and usually includes a portion of the suspension surrounding the cone.

Is that what would be referred to as an 'effective' radiating area? I presume this is the cone area plus half the area of the surround.

Russell