mtx 9500 vs jl w7

https://www.mtxaudio.com/caraudio/headtohead/w7.cfm

i found this interesting stats sheat, obviously its weighted towards the MTX because they use the 10" models, and jls 10w7 only takes 500 watts compared to the mtx's 750, but if you were going for that punchy bass you get with a 10" woofer, is the mtx a better choice?

has anyonce actually heard both of these woofers in action? id like to hear some input from the forum :)

If you notice, that "comparison" talks up the fact that it's an SPL sub. The W7 is not an SPL sub, although it does a rather nice job on that end, as well.

Since I've not actually heard both of these subs side by side, I would take that info with a grain of salt...

And Maxst, if you've read my previous responses to the Adire/JL Audio comparison, JL Audio outperforms the Adire. This is not conjecture or hear-say, there was a nice long article I read of a test that Adire did comparing their subs to JL's, and Adire "lost". Yes they cost less and yes Adire only failed to outperform the JL Audio sub by a small margin, but it still counts for something (I've never heard a Brahma, either, so I can't say how they sound compared to one another).

well, i do know that i would probly go mtx over jl as well. i heard a 12" 9500 in the vented box it comes with at the local HH gregg and it sounded amazing. the w7 i listened to at HIFI buys sounded worse than the alpine type s that was right next to it. could be several factors that come into play but ill stick with my infinity!

haha the w7 sounded worse than a alpine type s, what was goin on at that store??????????

oh and btw i kno about adire audio, but i was specifically asking about the mtx 9500 and the jl w7 thanks

shoupe63 wrote:

---

hey, about ur asking about the w7 compared to the 9500...i used to have 1 12" W7, and an 8" aswell in my 95 tahoe. it sounded great and hit real hard...but i decided i needed more and went and got 3 12" MTX 9500's powered by 2 mtx 1501D's..HOLY S**T does it pound..and not only is it louder but it sounds better than my W7.     so yes, my tahoe is proof that the MTX9500 is better in all ways than the W7

---

1 12" W7 (and an 8" something) vs. 3 12" 9500's? I would hope like hell the 9500's were louder or I would seriously question the install!

This is not a true comparison between the 2 subs in question, so I would not say "the MTX9500 is better in all ways than the W7." That is very misleading...

Sobe_Death wrote:

---

well, i do know that i would probly go mtx over jl as well. i heard a 12" 9500 in the vented box it comes with at the local HH gregg and it sounded amazing. the w7 i listened to at HIFI buys sounded worse than the alpine type s that was right next to it. could be several factors that come into play but ill stick with my infinity!

---

How the hell can you compare a Alpine Type S sub to a JL W7. The only way the s could be louder then a W7 was if the W7 was running in free air or a 100 cf ported box. By the way, a W7 cant run in a pre-made box, unless you want your sub to fly out the back windsheild.

The MTX9500 is a better sub according to specifications and design when the two are compared.  But that goes out the door once connected to the amplifier and pushed to it's limits.  But I would take the MTX over the JL.

Nerd, it's your amp that is causing your sub to seem as if it is out of control..

damn yall dont kill me. I defently a big fan of any hting that sounds good.

I know its the amp that sh*ty i even stated that.i was just given an nonaccurat opinion.plus i just resently tried to fine tune it with the same sony amp its got a litile more control,but i know it could sound 10n times better.I ts no dobt that iam keeping the sub.I just wating to decide what amp i want to use.open for sugestion. the 9500 is a 10in 2ohms 750 rms. to raven what do you mean the mtx are under rated. give more. 

Paradigm wrote:

---

And Maxst, if you've read my previous responses to the Adire/JL Audio comparison, JL Audio outperforms the Adire. This is not conjecture or hear-say, there was a nice long article I read of a test that Adire did comparing their subs to JL's, and Adire "lost". Yes they cost less and yes Adire only failed to outperform the JL Audio sub by a small margin, but it still counts for something (I've never heard a Brahma, either, so I can't say how they sound compared to one another).

---

I know this was said a while ago.  But I do want to comment on it.  I wouldn't say the Brahma lost to the W7.  They both had things they did better.  The advantage the W7 had was it unloaded a little easier due to their massive excursion the spider provides.  But in that comparison by Richard Clark, you will see that the Brahma was a little more efficient, and had a flatter frequency response.  Here's the comparison of the two: 

Now don't get me wrong.  I think very highly of the W7.  But I think RC's comments in that thread you make a reference to were slightly biased as they didn't take these things into account.  The W7 is one of the best SQL subs on the market IMO.  But I also believe the Brahma is right up there with it.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

And now about the 9500 compared to the W7. 

The W7 is a technological marvel.  It's motor design is very ingenious, giving it less distortion than any other driver with a standard motor topology.  The 9500 is nothing special.  It is just another variation of an overhung motor, which has been done to death.  It might have slight parameter differences to an Eclipse sub, or EDA, ID Max, EVO-R, Magnum, etc. but that is the only difference.  But to list it as better than the W7, which isn't just a variation but an improvement IMO, is just wrong.  I can list quite a few reasons why the W7 is better, and they will make much more of an impact than the one's MTX lists.  And now to play with their claims:

Sure, in the 10.  But the 13W7 has a linear (DUMAX proven) Xmax of around 32mm.  The MTX's is claimed around 25.65mm.  Now add to it the cone area advantage of the W7.  I'm sure in all the sizes the W7 destroys the MTX sub in linear displacement. 

Well that's good.  But their smaller enclosure comes at a price.  They either had to give up efficiency or low frequency extention to gain that small box requirement.

And that means higher inductance (which is bad) and higher mass (can be bad).

Actually foam is supperior to rubber.  Rubber stiffens up over time, well before foam deteriorates.  Also foam doesn't "suck in" like rubber does.  To prevent this, you have to make the rubber surrounds thicker making them weigh more, and stiffer.  Directly off of MTX's website: "Whether it is an airplane wing, or speaker cones, a higher stiffness/weight ratio is always better."

The 9500 sub IMO is way overpriced, and does not come close to out-doing the W7. 

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

Ravendarat wrote:

---

  I am only asking because I think that first off I think that Bang for the buck you wont find a better SPL sub on the market than the 9500.

---

If your goal is to get as loud as possible with one frequency, then you could possibly be right.  But if you want it to sound good as well (daily driver), then I think there are many better subs out there.  Also from an SPL standpoint, the W7 does have one advantage.  It doesn't suffer from BL compression like the 9500 does.  

Ravendarat wrote:

---

  The VD on the MTX sub is greater than the w7 and hence will move more air and when it comes to spl thats what it comes down to, what will move more air.

---

I am surprised to see that the MTX's Sd is so high.  I'm not sure if I personally trust their rating, but I will give them the benifit of the doubt for this discussion.  Having said that, I checked the Vd of both the largest drivers offered by the two companies, and they are both at 2.22 Liters.  So it looks like they both move the same amount of air.

Ravendarat wrote:

---

 I dont know where you are from but I live in Saskatchewan and With the temp extremities here I can say without giving it a second thought that the foam surrounds give way long before the Rubber surrounds do. I see the foam surrounds give out and crack in a 4 to 1 ratio over the ruber surrounds. This is about the most extreme place I can think of to test enviromental extremes without getting into nunavet and yukon. I mean we had temps down to -56 here this year and in  this week alone it went from +25 to -6. For god sakes it was +15 here yesterday and today we had a f**king blizzard that knocked out power in the lower east corner of the province. What a place to live. Anyways thats my argument to cover the enviroment side. Nothing replaces experience.

---

Yes, but rubber stiffens up way before it starts to fall apart.  This greatly effects the drivers performance, and therefore doesn't last as long as rubber.  For a subwoofer, foam is much more superior than rubber.

Ravendarat wrote:

---

The JL sub has a lot of patents and fancy words and accronyms to go with that sub but what it comes down to is another well done job by, what in my opinion is, the best marketing machine in car audio, JL. 

---

I agree that they have done a great job marketing their driver.  But it does not mean that some of those patents don't make a difference.  Becides our XBL^2 motor, no other company has a motor as linear as the W7's.  And any sub, including the 9500 would greatly benifit from it. 

But now let's look at it from another perspective.  Which sub is trying to make themselves look good by marketing?  The W7 has done a lot of marketing, but has gotten their reputation as being one of the best by having a solid product.  Now MTX comes along and directly compares it'self to the "king of the hill", and does it with a great deal of marketing talk, twisting of facts, and half truths.  If you want to chastize a company for poor marketing tactics, you picked the wrong one IMO.

Ravendarat wrote:

---

  Like I said I am going at this from a spl angle but if you wanna go at it from a sq angle then I would put up a focal sub, Boston or Diamond Audio sub against the W7 any day of the week.

---

I disagree.  The W7 will have less distortion at any output level than any of the subs you mention above.  This is because of it's flat BL curve.  And that is objective fact, not an opinion.

Ravendarat wrote:

---

 Once again, just an opinion, which I thin every one is entitled to. I am never gonna tell someone their opinion is wrong, because it thiers and so it cant be anything but right. However I will always try to show a different way of interpreting the facts if I think their is another angle to look at them at.

---

I agree.  That is why I bring facts to the table, which are not subjective.  You can't argue with them, and there isn't another angle.

I guess MTX's tactics have left a bad taste in my mouth.  I'm sure it is a good sub.  But they make some pretty incredible claims, and when looking at the facts their claims just don't hold up.  I know I get a little annoyed at their tactics, so if I come off as harsh in my comments, please don't take them personally.  My annoyance is with MTX, not you.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

every one hase very good reason why one product is better than another in varius ways.the botom line is  everybody is judging the prouduct towards what  is going to benefit there inital use for it.I would suggest any body whos trying to decide what they want to spend there money on the jl,mtx ,ex. Should listen to them in your car first before you get missleaded by all the hipe.No matter who likes it and don't its eralvent . If it sound right to you its right.

there is know best every thing lacks something the other dont have.

Steven Kephart wrote:

---

Paradigm wrote:

---

And Maxst, if you've read my previous responses to the Adire/JL Audio comparison, JL Audio outperforms the Adire. This is not conjecture or hear-say, there was a nice long article I read of a test that Adire did comparing their subs to JL's, and Adire "lost". Yes they cost less and yes Adire only failed to outperform the JL Audio sub by a small margin, but it still counts for something (I've never heard a Brahma, either, so I can't say how they sound compared to one another).

---

I know this was said a while ago.  But I do want to comment on it.  I wouldn't say the Brahma lost to the W7.  They both had things they did better.  The advantage the W7 had was it unloaded a little easier due to their massive excursion the spider provides.  But in that comparison by Richard Clark, you will see that the Brahma was a little more efficient, and had a flatter frequency response.  Here's the comparison of the two: 

Now don't get me wrong.  I think very highly of the W7.  But I think RC's comments in that thread you make a reference to were slightly biased as they didn't take these things into account.  The W7 is one of the best SQL subs on the market IMO.  But I also believe the Brahma is right up there with it.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

---

Hi Steven! Glad you remember that article. For the life of me I couldn't remember where I saw that or what it said exactly, I just remember that the W7 did do some things better than the Brahma and vice versa. It was not my intention to knock Adire or their products, I was just posting what I could recall from that article (which wasn't very much lol!). Thanks for the clarification.

You guys are right that everyone has their own preference.  In fact all you have to do is tell some people that one is better, and they will blindly agree.  But you are talking about subjectivity, not SQ.  Sound Quality is the quality of the sound before it enters our ears.  And that is objective.  It doesn't deal with psychoacoustics, personal bias, hearing loss, and poorly installed equipment.  Some people prefer distortion in their music because they are used to it.  They hear a "clean" sub like the W7 or Brahma, and think it sounds thin, or flat.  And that is fine; to each their own.  But what MTX is doing is trying to objectively prove their sub is better, and when the facts are truely looked upon their conclusions are definitely flawed.  After all, isn't this the point of this thread?

BTW, when looking at the 9500, I still think you can do better for less.  I would much rather have an ID MAX, which uses the same standard overhung motor (so similar distortion products), but with just as much Xmax and and possibly Xmech.  Oh, and it's cheaper. 

I talked to one of our local dealers who sells both our Brahma (flat BL curve as well), and the 9500.  He is a very respected guy on the forums due to his knowledge and experience.  I asked him a while ago what he thought of the 9500.  He said it was loud, but didn't sound very good.  And he said that his customers agree.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

Paradigm wrote:

---

Hi Steven! Glad you remember that article. For the life of me I couldn't remember where I saw that or what it said exactly, I just remember that the W7 did do some things better than the Brahma and vice versa. It was not my intention to knock Adire or their products, I was just posting what I could recall from that article (which wasn't very much lol!). Thanks for the clarification.

---

Yeah, I was part of that conversation.  It was on the Car Sound forum.  Here's the link to the thread: https://www.carsound.com/cgi-bin/UBB_CGI/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=019193;p=1  Wow, that was a year and a half ago.  Once we get our Arachnid spider on the Brahma, several of the points where the Brahma fell behind (mainly in the suspension) are going to catch up I believe.

BTW, I could tell where you were coming from.  You are correct in that Mr. Clark's conclusions were that the W7 was a better driver.  But I think he was ignoring a couple things, which is why I made my comments above.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

Well as was mentioned above, our Brahma is very similar in performance to the W7.  Plus it is lower in price than the MTX subs as well.  And if you are wondering about it's SPL, Scottie Johnson runs Brahma's and holds 4 world records with them.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

That's understandable.  So I thought I would give you a link to his web page: https://www.termpro.com/asp/competitorstats.asp?Competitor_ID=3192  If you look on our website, you will see a video of his system actually breaking his door. 

We were using some cones for our subs that many other companies use (including MTX IIRC).  In competitions, Scottie would fold the cones.  We went to the manufacturer and told them about this, and they told us it was impossible to fold them.  So we sent one of the folded cones to them.  They were most impressed.  Apparently no one before that was able to do it.  It always seemed to be the sub in a certain location that would fold.  So Scottie Johnson put his SPL mic down there to see how loud it was.  He measured in that section 181 dB's.  That is just crazy.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio