Just what exactly is solobaric? - Page 2

geewhizbang · 08-17-2007, 12:53 AM

A square woofer has a lot of problems. One of them will be rocking modes because it would be almost impossible to fully control the position of the woofer equally in all directions. The surround also has stress points at the corners where the material has to stretch rather than roll smoothly.

There is a lot of extra moving mass added to the woofer because of the corners.

None of these things would benefit the sound quality, and the small amount of piston area added this way seems to be hardly worth the trouble and SQ issues this causes. Round is good.

scott_fx · 08-17-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by durwood

Other marketing ploys:
PPI was the first to have a flat cone woofer-now I think elemental designs uses one, but not any other companies.

The flat cone ppi was a ploy that actually had some benefits. It is a way to have a shallow sub and also from what I remember, they got rave reviews back in 97. Also, again...no first hand experience, a well respected member over at the corvette forum swears by the original ED flat cone subs (the black coned ones) he has gone on record as calling it his favorite sub.

oh... and ed isn't the only one making the flat pistons, though i hear a rumor one is a rip off of the other:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=264-862

durwood · 08-17-2007, 06:00 AM

Well the problem with the flat cone is strength. A cone has more strength than a flat piston UNLESS they beef up the cone so it does not flex. If you beef up the cone, then you have more moving mass making the sub less efficient. It does have it's advantages as you pointed out and can be useful in certain situations., but not many people really need a shallow sub.

I forgot about the tangband but it's hard to tell if that cone really is flat.

scott_fx · 08-17-2007, 12:31 PM

i do agree with the structural advantages of the cone v. flat I was just being devil's advocate. I always viewed the shallow subs as a 'compromise sub' and got under one corvetteforum member's skin because i voiced that opinion :-)

btw, take a look at the tb website and check out the folded horn kit they are producing for 3" and 4" drivers, they are pretty bad ***. i wish i could find a U.S. distributor for those

mgithens · 08-24-2007, 02:28 PM

to actually answer the original poster's question...

Solobaric was Kickers idea to create a smaller VAS subwoofer. VAS is one of the characteristics which controls the box size. It is a play on the name of "Isobaric" which is when you would take two subs and orient them so that they were wired out of phase and mounted face to face. The end result is a TRUE dual voice coil setup that allows the speakers to work together on the same air space. The box requirement is reduced by 40 to 50% to get the exact same amount of sound. In days where you can find 12" subs only needing 1 or 2 cu ft, the mounting of the two subs will take up more space and the resulting output will be the same. The subs of the late 80s and early 90s would need 4, 5, 6, or more cu ft - so space saving was needed. So I saw a USAC event with a for Econoline van that had 32 15s mounted isobaric... he was running 5000 watts or so and he would only have been able to fit about 10 subs inside the van. If I remember right they were M&M Godfathers!! I seem to think he was hitting 154db - keep in mind that in 1990 this was an astounding achievement.

(side note - it is also possible to mount the subs so that they are facing in the same direction, but the point is that one sub is exposed to the environment, the back of that sub is ONLY exposed to one face of the second sub and the back of the second sub is contained within the box's airspace... confusing? this is hard to put into words)

scott_fx · 08-24-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by mgithens

to actually answer the original poster's question...

wasn't it already answered?

Quote: Originally Posted by crooper

The selling points of the Solobarics were twofold. First, the name is a play on isobaric, that one supposedly puts the same SPL as two subs in an isobaric configuration. The other is that they require a very small (sealed) box. .

mgithens · 08-24-2007, 09:05 PM

a solobaric isn't "two subs in one" as far as SPL... only the VAS is affected... so the second part is true, but today's sub designs are all setup for small Qts, so it is common to find 10s that work in less than 0.5 cu ft...

if a single solobaric (or isobaric mounted pair) were as loud as TWO subs, then that is all that you'd see...

scott_fx · 08-25-2007, 12:28 AM

i think you're misreading or the post was misleading. he stated that the isobaric sub has the same spl as two subs in an solobaric config...which is the same as one sub :-) as well as giving it the small box requirement.