brahma vs w6

You guys think my 2 12'' Brahmas can bury 4 W6's?

-------------
"I don't play games. I play Nakamichi and that for real yo" - Probably some japanese kid said this in the early 80's trying to sell stereo out of his trunk lol.

Totally depends on the specific applications and implementations of both systems.

His system is much more efficient than yours. If you both have equal power under 1200w or so he'll beat you - easily. After ~1200w to the system you'll start to make up ground fast because of the huge power handling and excursion capabilities of the Brahma. He'll be running out of steam and you'll still be going.

So, one important question is: how much power are you both running?

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

What size W6's?  Can "bury" them in SQ or SPL?  As Kfro1 mentions, application may be a factor as well.  The Brahma is more comparable to the W7 than the W6.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

He's going SPL i'm goin SQ. I know that my brahma's can get loud. I'm running about 800 WRMS into each, so 1600 WRMS. I got a 5 cubic foot enclosure ported down to ~32 Hz. I still think the brahmas can do it... but do you guys?

-------------
"I don't play games. I play Nakamichi and that for real yo" - Probably some japanese kid said this in the early 80's trying to sell stereo out of his trunk lol.

12" W6's.

-------------
"I don't play games. I play Nakamichi and that for real yo" - Probably some japanese kid said this in the early 80's trying to sell stereo out of his trunk lol.

ok ... How much power is he using?  What application?  You need to give us the complete picture.

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

uthinkuknoaudio wrote:

---

He's going SPL i'm goin SQ. I know that my brahma's can get loud. I'm running about 800 WRMS into each, so 1600 WRMS. I got a 5 cubic foot enclosure ported down to ~32 Hz. I still think the brahmas can do it... but do you guys?

---

You are talking about the W6v2's right?  For the most part, 4 12" subs are going to have the advantage over a pair of 12" subs.  Unless he's running all 4 in a 1 cubic foot shared sealed enclosure with only 100 watts total, I think he's going to have the SPL advantage.  He's got twice the cone area, and the extra excursion on the Brahma just isn't enough to make up for that, unless he's lacking in something else as well.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

So basically i need 2 more brahmas huh?

-------------
"I don't play games. I play Nakamichi and that for real yo" - Probably some japanese kid said this in the early 80's trying to sell stereo out of his trunk lol.

Yea I'd have to agree... I couldn't imagine 2x12s would *ever* be louder than 4.

I've never heard 4x12's but I did get to hear 4x10's once and it was waaayy louder than any 2x12 setup I've ever heard.

Uthinkuknow and Steven Kephart ... ur both fairly technically minded I think, how much more output would the Brahma's extra 10 or 11 mm or so of excursion (over the w6) provide it? I've been told before excursion doesn't always equate with massive output... It seems that often woofers with very large excursions are not the loudest performers.. but the most linear and clean... at least that has frequently been my experience...

sedate:  read the speaker page on https://www.bcae1.com/

You're right, excursion doesn't always equal massive output.  You're wrong though, excursion has little to do with a woofer being linear and clean.  In fact, greater excursion is almost always  _harder_ to keep linear and clean.  You had it backwards.

Here's the short of it.  Max SPL is largely a function of displacement.  Displacement = cone area x excursion.  Other things being equal, potential SPL at low frequencies increases as excursion capabilities increase.  However, with a larger xmax comes decreased efficiency.  In other words, while the potential displacement, and thus potential SPL, is larger, it takes more power to reach the SAME SPL level. 

Take the W6 and the Brahma.  The W6 is rated around 87db efficient, I believe.  The Brahma is around 84, again, off the top of my head.  If the W6 is fed 300 watts it takes 600 watts to get the Brahma just as loud.  If a system of W6's is fed 1000w, a Brahma system of an equal number of drivers must be fed 2000 watts to reach the same SPL level.  This is true of all speakers.  A 3db increase in SPL needs a doubling of power. 

Where the excursion helps the Brahma is where I alluded to above.  Excursion will limit the 3db = doubling of power rule.  At the excursion limit extra power simply won't make the driver any louder, and may actually physically damage it.  This is where the Brahma, with its massive excursion capability, can make up ground quickly.  Where a W6 is going to start having problems driven with around 400w, the Brahma can keep going past 1000w, making up that 3db difference in efficiency. 

You should note, however, that in this case the Brahma is probably more linear and clean than the W6 - not because of the high excursion though.  It is more linear and clean because Adire has developed the XBL^2 technology that keeps it clean IN SPITE of its high excursion levels.

So, you should learn not to make statements with words like "*ever*."  A sufficient amount of power to the right 2 high excursion drivers COULD make up the 3db increase system efficiency a doubling of cone area yields to the 4 driver system.  :-)

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

^^^excellent post.

Unfortunatly though, even though the Brahma can handle more then double the power of the W6, not everyone can afford a good quality 1200~2000w RMS amp. Also when exposing ones electrical system to this much current draw, one must consider the cost of an HO alternator.

I usually suggest high sensitivity drivers from a reputable company. I don't really care about the really "high/long" excursion probably because I'm still stuck in the "old school" way of thinking that as the excursion increases, the cones linearity decreases, meaning increased distortion. now I know the Adire has managed to minimize this non-linearity issue, but but when you combine a ~22mm excursion will american crappy roads, you are just asking for non-linearity. That's the main reason I prefer to use relatively high efficiency drivers with less then 1inch peak-to-peak excursion.

-------------

kfr01:

The observation was more that woofers with ridiculous excursion seem to frequently be extremely accurate, while leaving, at least myself, wanting in terms of volume. I've been using a 13w6 for awhile now and the thing has like a 22mm excursion but really isn't all that much louder than a 12W0 I replaced with it. It certainly sounds drastically better. I've honestly never heard a sub make such subtle distictions that low in the spectrum, and believe me, I've put it in some truly AWFUL boxes.

Again, this all experiencial here, I'm not all about numbers and dB increases with a certain power loads... (whenever I get that into something I end up hating the results) the absolute loudest subs I've used or heard always seem to be mid-to-high end stuff with excursions in the 11-14mm range. Infinity Perfects, Soundstream Exacts, come to mind.

About statements like **ever** I think you would be VERY hardpressed to concoct a situation wherein 2x12's would be louder than 4... especially with the quality of subs that are being discussed here. Like Steven Kephart said.. maybe if they were in a 1ft3 shared box getting 100 watts rms total... A situation so silly as to be pointless for discussion. I'll admit, at a dB drag race, I'm sure some precisely tuned bandpass enclosure can belt out 155 dB for 1/2 a second or whatever but thats not real listening anyway.

Poormanq45: Speaking of power, to get all of 2 amps into my car I had to replace the battery, the alternator, and add a cap. (I really want someone to tell me caps don't do anything so I can tell them my story)...

For like $500 in power upgrades i can still barely push a 800-watt monoblock. =/

kfr01] wrote:

---

excursion has little to do with a woofer being linear and clean.  In fact, greater excursion is almost always  _harder_ to keep linear and clean.  You had it backwards.

---

Actually a greater excursion is a good thing for an SQ subwoofer.  The reason being that if you increase the excursion capabilities, you increase the linearity of the motor under low excursion. 

kfr01] wrote:

---

nbsp;However, with a larger xmax comes decreased efficiency.  In other words, while the potential displacement, and thus potential SPL, is larger, it takes more power to reach the SAME SPL level. 

---

I know this seems to be true because more and more high excursion subs come out in the car audio market and they all have lower efficiency.  However it isn't the high excursion that causes the lower efficiency.  The reason is because power is cheap now, so there is no real reason to design for high efficiency anymore.  So instead speakers are being designed for smaller enclosures with still good low end response, while giving up efficiency.  Just to prove it, our Parthanon does 80mm one way linear excursion and IIRC has an efficiency of 97 dB.  We can get it to move 3" off a 9 volt battery.  In fact there is an excursion video of it I took where it is pumping away off of a small 250 watt amp.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Poormanq45 wrote:

---

^^^excellent post.

Unfortunatly though, even though the Brahma can handle more then double the power of the W6, not everyone can afford a good quality 1200~2000w RMS amp. Also when exposing ones electrical system to this much current draw, one must consider the cost of an HO alternator.

I usually suggest high sensitivity drivers from a reputable company. I don't really care about the really "high/long" excursion probably because I'm still stuck in the "old school" way of thinking that as the excursion increases, the cones linearity decreases, meaning increased distortion. now I know the Adire has managed to minimize this non-linearity issue, but but when you combine a ~22mm excursion will american crappy roads, you are just asking for non-linearity. That's the main reason I prefer to use relatively high efficiency drivers with less then 1inch peak-to-peak excursion.

---

But what are you giving up for that efficiency?  You are either stuck with a refrigerator size enclosure, or a large midbass driver with absolutely no low end response.  You just can't beat Hoffmans Iron Law. 

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Very hardpressed is better language than "*ever*".  :-)

The improvement in sound quality isn't related to the excursion capability.  Excursion capability simply has no direct relation to sound quality.  HOWEVER, many high excursion subwoofers are designed for use in small boxes.  My guess is that you simply have the high excursion drivers in boxes of the Q you prefer.  Lower Q applications equal less "peaky" bass and more extension.  This is probably what you're hearing.  You may also be noticing what Steven suggested - thanks for the input and correction, Steven. 

Additionally, your experience that lower excursion drivers have been "absolute[ly] the loudest subs" is easily explained.  You've not heard correctly applied high excursion subs.  With enough power a high excursion subwoofer of similar cone area will simply displace more air and produce more SPL.  The potential SPL is usually louder.  Now, most folks, for the power reasons we've highlighted, never apply enough power to equal the two situations out.  With substantially similar amounts of power all you're noticing is efficiency differences between drivers.  This isn't a new phenomenon.

These situations are most certainly not pointless for discussion.  IF a person has the means and the want to implement the right amount of power they can easily trump more woofers.  I'm not talking about db drag racing either.  I'm talking about regular system planning.  A doubling of cone area nets a person a 3db increase in SPL.  JUST LIKE A DOUBLING OF POWER.  So, driver efficiency being equal, 2 12" subs with 1000w will be JUST AS LOUD as 4 12" subs with 500w to the system.  2 12" subs with 600w will be just as loud as 4 12" subs with 300w to the system.  Yada yada yada... didn't take much "concocting," did it?

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

Steven Kephart wrote:

---

kfr01] wrote:

---

excursion has little to do with a woofer being linear and clean.  In fact, greater excursion is almost always  _harder_ to keep linear and clean.  You had it backwards.

---

Actually a greater excursion is a good thing for an SQ subwoofer.  The reason being that if you increase the excursion capabilities, you increase the linearity of the motor under low excursion. 

kfr01] wrote:

---

nbsp;However, with a larger xmax comes decreased efficiency.  In other words, while the potential displacement, and thus potential SPL, is larger, it takes more power to reach the SAME SPL level. 

---

I know this seems to be true because more and more high excursion subs come out in the car audio market and they all have lower efficiency.  However it isn't the high excursion that causes the lower efficiency.  The reason is because power is cheap now, so there is no real reason to design for high efficiency anymore.  So instead speakers are being designed for smaller enclosures with still good low end response, while giving up efficiency.  Just to prove it, our Parthanon does 80mm one way linear excursion and IIRC has an efficiency of 97 dB.  We can get it to move 3" off a 9 volt battery.  In fact there is an excursion video of it I took where it is pumping away off of a small 250 watt amp.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

---

Steven, thanks for the input and the corrections.

Help me out with the last point, if you will, I'm still a newb when it comes to the physical characteristics of drivers.  Isn't xmax proportional to the voice coil length?  Doesn't a longer voice coil have more windings than a shorter voice coil?  Now, doesn't the effiency drop as the gap covers a smaller portion of the voice coil, since the current passing throught the coil is distributed along a longer area outside of the gap? 

Any or all of the above may be wrong.  However, I find it somewhat counter-intuitive that more excursion would not lead to lower efficiency.  Like I said, help me out.

Now, I agree, most car subwoofer further exaggerate excursion related inefficiency by building the subs for small enclosures.  This small enclosure capability usually requires stiffening the suspension and adding mass to the woofer, correct?  These features add to the inefficiency, right?

Now, take the Parthenon.  Maybe this isn't a good example here - my first instinct is to say it isn't - because xmax / motor related inefficiencies are trumped and made up for by the extreme amount of area related displacement.  Right? ;-)

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

I suppose that is the problem; there are a couple definitions for Xmax out there.  Some companies rate their subs based on coil length compared to gap height.  However this does not work with an underhung motor, or our XBL^2 motor.  I prefer a more accurate measurement that puts the limits at a certain distortion level produced by the driver.  The excursion measurement on the motor of the Brahma is at the point where BL is 70% down from rest, which will be about where distortion products from the motor are at 10%.  I believe JL uses the same point in their ratings.

Now that we have a definition somewhat agreed upon by the two companies involved, we can move on.  Your comment about Xmax determined by coil length is incorrect.  The excursion in overhung motors, like what's in the W6, is mostly determined by the coil height. The excursion in underhung motors is mostly determined by the gap height, and our XBL^2 motor is determined by a combination of the two.  But note that it is the coil height that is important, not the coil length.  This is because you can increase or decrease the number of layers of windings used in the coil.  An example of this is in the W7 where they have a VERY long coil, but it is only 2 layers thick. 

Efficiency is at it's root is effected by BL and Mms.  Increasing excursion in some cases might increase Mms, however there are things you can do to get around that (aluminum wire, fewer layers of windings, reduced mass elsewhere, etc.).

Anyway, I have to go to bed now.  So I will continue this tomorrow when I have time, and when I can be sure that I am lucid.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Ok, I think there is one "small" detail that both of you may have forgot to include in your technical discussion relating Excursion to maximum SPL and efficiency.

To get these extremely large excursions, what must be done? An extremely large surround must be used usually in th range of 1~2inchs times two. Now talk this large surround and place it on a 12in driver. What do you end up with? You essentially end up with the cone surface area approximately the saize of a 8~10in low excusion driver. Now this in itself MUST reduce efficiency due to the loss of cone area. Now of course the high excursion driver does have the capability to move as much air as a low excursion, but at what cost? 1500w? 2000w? To me that's kind of unreasonable considering that you could just by a high efficiency low excursion 15in sub that essentially moves the same volume of air with less then half the power requirement.

Now, you have probably noticed that I like to bring up efficiency alot. This is due to my "roots" in the home stereo department where clean power is not nearly as cheap as it is in the mobile audio sector. I'm used to supplying ~150w RMS to a three-way speaker with 15in sub and getting 120+ dB out of it with the low frequencies extending to subsonic levels. Now, as Steven Kephart said, "You just can't beat Hoffmans Iron Law. ", this is true as each sub has ~2.5ft enclosure.

Now, I have noticed a trend where SUV owners have been filling the back of the vehicles with stereo equipment and subwoofers. In my opinion, these wold be the perfect candidates for a high efficiency driver because they have the space and they are willing to sacrifice it.

-------------

Steven Kephart wrote:

---

I suppose that is the problem; there are a couple definitions for Xmax out there.  Some companies rate their subs based on coil length compared to gap height.  However this does not work with an underhung motor, or our XBL^2 motor.  I prefer a more accurate measurement that puts the limits at a certain distortion level produced by the driver.  The excursion measurement on the motor of the Brahma is at the point where BL is 70% down from rest, which will be about where distortion products from the motor are at 10%.  I believe JL uses the same point in their ratings.

---

Ok.  I didn't know there was another definition out there.  Thank you for the correction.  However, for all practical purposes, won't a certain higher distortion level produced by the driver almost always substantially approach the traditional xmax definition anyway?  Certainly at least your BL based measurement results in xmax numbers proportional to the traditional definition.  For the purposes of our discussion here it probably doesn't really matter, right?  Again, not trying to argue, just trying to learn.

Steven Kephart wrote:

---

Now that we have a definition somewhat agreed upon by the two companies involved, we can move on.  Your comment about Xmax determined by coil length is incorrect.  The excursion in overhung motors, like what's in the W6, is mostly determined by the coil height. The excursion in underhung motors is mostly determined by the gap height, and our XBL^2 motor is determined by a combination of the two.  But note that it is the coil height that is important, not the coil length.  This is because you can increase or decrease the number of layers of windings used in the coil.  An example of this is in the W7 where they have a VERY long coil, but it is only 2 layers thick. 

---

Excellent.  This type of learning is why I love this board.  Thank you for the correction.  So, now that I will use the coil height instead of the length, here's a couple follow up questions. 

1) Is coil height almost always increased as excursion is increased? 
2) Does an increase in coil height relative to the gap height almost always result in decreased efficiency unless measures are taken to correct it? (i.e. what JL has done)
3) What effect does a measure such as JL's have on the driver?  i.e. what's the negative of that method?

Steven Kephart wrote:

---

Efficiency is at it's root is effected by BL and Mms.  Increasing excursion in some cases might increase Mms, however there are things you can do to get around that (aluminum wire, fewer layers of windings, reduced mass elsewhere, etc.).

---

Well, yeah, but isn't BL also partially a function of what we've been talking about this entire time? 

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

kfr01] wrote:

---

p>Ok.  I didn't know there was another definition out there.  Thank you for the correction.  However, for all practical purposes, won't a certain higher distortion level produced by the driver almost always substantially approach the traditional xmax definition anyway?  Certainly at least your BL based measurement results in xmax numbers proportional to the traditional definition.  For the purposes of our discussion here it probably doesn't really matter, right?  Again, not trying to argue, just trying to learn. 

---

Oh, I know you aren't arguing.  I think you are asking some very good questions actually. 

Well how would you describe the excursion of an underhung motor using that technique?  Does it have negative excursion since the coil is much shorter than the gap?  Also, how would you describe our motor?  Our coil is shorter than the top plate height, so would it have negative excursion?  Or would you use just one gap, so it would be a very short overhung.  If that were true then the Brahma would have an excursion around 7 mm.  However DUMAX put it at around 29mm for the Brahma 10 (BL 70% down).

In theory the above works only for overhung motors.  However in practice, it doesn't provide an accurate number because it doesn't take into account the fringe field.  Also, the optimization within the motor can make a difference like whether it is an LGLC (long gap long coil) or SGLC (short gap long coil). 

And now for your follow-up questions.

1) Not necessarily.  You can decrease your gap height and gain excursion as well.  And of course this is only true of Overhung motors. 

2)  Due to the added mass, yes it would.

3)  The only negative I can see is reduced heat dissipation.  However there is more to it than that as you will see below.

kfr01] wrote:

---

nbsp;

Well, yeah, but isn't BL also partially a function of what we've been talking about this entire time? 

---

That actually get's into the rest of what I was going to add to my previous post.  The probablem is that this topic is such a HUGE one.  It is difficult to cover without writing a novel about it. 

The main problem here is to fully understand where excursion comes from.  Here's a quote by Dan Wiggins: "Xmax isn't really a physical parameter of the driver - it's a "side effect" of a given driver design. Note that you can have the same 6 physical parameters, but Xmax values all over the place. And Xmax does not affect any of the derived T/S parameters."  You can't just increase the coil length to gain excursion.  This is because you change everything else in the driver as well.  Engineering is a practice of compromises.  You try to make the best compromises to obtain your goals. 

Now let's look at what effects efficiency in subwoofers.  For the most part, efficiency in subwoofers is dictated by the enclosure, and not the driver.  The drivers efficiency is only prominent around where most people cut off their subs anyway.  For a good visual of this, try running a subwoofer free-air and in an enclosure.  You can really get a subwoofer moving free air with very little power.  However if you throw the subwoofer into an enclosure, it takes a lot more power to get it to move the same amount. 

We actually had a really good conversation about everything subwoofers on another forum.  Here's a link to the thread where you can learn a great deal: https://caraudiotalk.com/forum/index.php?s=ea3f16efc348fcc6db95f47bd7607938&showtopic=2384

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Steven: Have the Adire drivers been tested for sagging over a lenghty period of time? If so, what were the results?

-------------

Steven Kephart wrote:

---

Well how would you describe the excursion of an underhung motor using that technique?  Does it have negative excursion since the coil is much shorter than the gap?  Also, how would you describe our motor?  Our coil is shorter than the top plate height, so would it have negative excursion?  Or would you use just one gap, so it would be a very short overhung.  If that were true then the Brahma would have an excursion around 7 mm.  However DUMAX put it at around 29mm for the Brahma 10 (BL 70% down).

In theory the above works only for overhung motors.  However in practice, it doesn't provide an accurate number because it doesn't take into account the fringe field.  Also, the optimization within the motor can make a difference like whether it is an LGLC (long gap long coil) or SGLC (short gap long coil). 

And now for your follow-up questions.

1) Not necessarily.  You can decrease your gap height and gain excursion as well.  And of course this is only true of Overhung motors. 

2)  Due to the added mass, yes it would.

3)  The only negative I can see is reduced heat dissipation.  However there is more to it than that as you will see below.

That actually get's into the rest of what I was going to add to my previous post.  The probablem is that this topic is such a HUGE one.  It is difficult to cover without writing a novel about it. 

The main problem here is to fully understand where excursion comes from.  Here's a quote by Dan Wiggins: "Xmax isn't really a physical parameter of the driver - it's a "side effect" of a given driver design. Note that you can have the same 6 physical parameters, but Xmax values all over the place. And Xmax does not affect any of the derived T/S parameters."  You can't just increase the coil length to gain excursion.  This is because you change everything else in the driver as well.  Engineering is a practice of compromises.  You try to make the best compromises to obtain your goals. 

---

Cool.  Thanks for the continued education.  A couple points / questions:

I was under the impression that xmax can be determined using the coil / gap height method for underhung motors as well.  I'm talking about the absolute difference.  So, take the absolute value of the "distance over which the coil can travel in one direction and maintain a constant number of [coil] turns in the gap."  See Vance Dickason, The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, p 4-5.  Since BL decreases substantially once the coil leaves the gap, aren't we talking about the same thing here?  Don't these two methods of measurement produce similar results?  

Anyway, the method of measurement is neither here nor there, but I assert, based on my limited reading and some amount of common sense, that a decent approximation at xmax can be attained via a measurement of distance relating to the voice coil and the gap, regardless of whether the design is overhung or underhung.  I.e. while perhaps the best way, the BL method is not the only way to measure underhung xmax.

But that's just describing a normal underhung motor.  I have no idea how this would work, if at all, for multiple gaps, like in your XBL^2 motor.  :-) 

Anyway, the above was just for my understanding more than anything. 

I was pushing because my hypothesis was this - hypothesis:  It is valid to state that generally high excursion drivers are less efficient than similarly sized and built drivers with lower excursion capabilities.  This hypothesis isn't based on anything scientific, only an observation that, almost without exception, high efficiency drivers I see are also inefficient.  I was having a hard time believing this is _just because_ the manufacturers don't need to develop for efficiency anymore.  Intuition was telling me that _something_ about increased xmax negatively affects efficiency. 

A closer examination of all the efficiency calculations that I've been able to get my paws on support your conclusion and shoot my hypothesis to death.  Thank you for the education.  Some of the posts on that board helped me put some of the my other findings together.  Page 31 of the loudspeaker cookbook also helped.

So, while I've learned the long way what you tried telling me from the beginning:  there is no direct relationship between xmax and efficiency.  I am left with the question...

Why do all the higher excursion drivers seem to have relatively low efficiency numbers?  If I read your previous post correctly it is because modern subwoofers will generally be designed with lower fs and lower vas.  Am I reading your post correctly?

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

Poormanq45 wrote:

---

Steven: Have the Adire drivers been tested for sagging over a lenghty period of time? If so, what were the results?

---

I don't think they have been physically tested.  However it shouldn't be a problem.  We have a tech paper on driver sag that can be found here: https://www.adireaudio.com/Files/TechPapers/DriverOrientation.pdf

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Note:  the sentence above "This hypothesis isn't based on anything scientific, only an observation that, almost without exception, high efficiency drivers I see are also inefficient" should have read:  "This hypothesis isn't based on anything scientific, only an observation that, almost without exception, high excursion drivers I see are also inefficient."

Steven, you snuck in there before I could edit.  :-)

Anyway, I'm just trying to get more at the -WHY- behind the excursion/efficiency phenomenon I notice. 

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

Ok, thank you , that's a good read.

One quesiton though. Is the suspension compliance, CMS, measured with the driver fresh from the "factory", or after it has been played for an hour or two so as to allow any softening to occur? The reason I say this is because it's pretty much a proven fact that the suspension softens after usage.

Thanks

-------------