Dayton audio sub upgrade?

[markr54632]

I was kind of curious if anyone had any experience with one of these drivers and whether it would be worth my time to mess with.

 

Currently I have a Dayton audio 15" sub kit with the 2.5 cube enclosure and 250 watt plate amp.

 

I have a Tc sounds tc9 15, a Tc 3000 15, and an ascendant audio havoc custom recone (no longer have t/s parameters) laying around.

 

Should I swap one of these for the Dayton classic driver?

[Turtle Rig]

9 minutes ago, markr54632 said:

I was kind of curious if anyone had any experience with one of these drivers and whether it would be worth my time to mess with.

 

Currently I have a Dayton audio 15" sub kit with the 2.5 cube enclosure and 250 watt plate amp.

 

I have a Tc sounds tc9 15, a Tc 3000 15, and an ascendant audio havoc custom recone (no longer have t/s parameters) laying around.

 

Should I swap one of these for the Dayton classic driver?

No, I would stick with your setup man.  I have a friend with some of the specs and he is audiophile music pro producer.  He swears by them.  Don't fix something that isn't broken my friend.

[markr54632]

8 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

No, I would stick with your setup man.  I have a friend with some of the specs and he is audiophile music pro producer.  He swears by them.  Don't fix something that isn't broken my friend.

That's kind of what I expected. I just had some nice drivers left over from car audio competition ages ago.

 

The dayton actually sounds pretty nice down well past my audible range.

[RobbinM]

If you had TS parameters you could check it with WinISD, if you don't it comes down to gambling.

The Classic drivers are more power efficient I would think, because of the higher BL parameter, so if you do swap, make sure your amp is up to it.

[markr54632]

9 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

If you had TS parameters you could check it with WinISD, if you don't it comes down to gambling.

The Classic drivers are more power efficient I would think, because of the higher BL parameter, so if you do swap, make sure your amp is up to it.

The tc-3000 parameters are pretty easy to find, the tc-9 as well although it was a limited release.

 

Bl on tc9 is 23, tc3hp is 29, classic is 12

 

The custom build I can virtually guarantee is a bad choice. I currently have it in a much larger ported box running off of 1500 w rms and it barely breaks a sweat.

[RobbinM]

Well then import them into WinISD, and you can see for yourself how they compare response wise

If I had to guess, the TC9 will perform the best out of the three, but still your amplifier would not be sufficient.

[markr54632]

1 minute ago, RobbinM said:

Well then import them into WinISD, and you can see for yourself how they compare response wise

For some reason I never had much luck with winisd accurately representing Tc sounds drivers. I dont know if they were measured inaccurately or what.

 

They always seemed to perform better in absurdly small enclosures and would peak at vastly different points than winisd predicted. 

[RobbinM]

The parameters should provide accurate simulation yes.

But 'better' is kind of subjective. What exactly is 'better'?

Also, if you change the size of the box, peaks will occur at different frequencies because you change the resonant frequency of the total system.

 

I always prefer to build a Q=0.707 box so I can easily put a linkwitz transform circuit on the lows to pull it 'flat'.