Upgrade from 3 8w6's to single 8w7?
 

I've been debating about changing out my sub setup from my current 3 JL Audio 8w6's to a single 8w7. I'd kind of like to have a bit more of my trunk space back and I've been quite pleased with the SQ and performance of my 8" subs. I am running my 3 8's and would also be running the 8w7 with my MTX Thunder 2160 which bridges out to 425 watts. Just wanted to see what some of you guys think. I am only considering JL Audio products, so other brand suggestions aren't needed, but thanks. If I make the decision to change my setup, my 8's will be up for sale.

Thanks in advance.

Keep the eights bro. I bet they pound like a mother. My friend had 3, 8" rockfords in his car a few years back and it hit unbelievably hard. 1 8w7 although a better speaker will not sound near as good due to the much lower coverage. Your talking about downsizing from 24" coverage to 8" coverage...thats pretty drastic dude.

Yeah, they sound good and I've been really pleased with them over the years. I think I'm just looking to get something new and change up the setup a bit.

Ive heard good things about the 8w7...

Keep the 3 w6 if you're gonna go with only 1 w7. 3 8w7s would be sick.

Thanks for the info everyone. I'm still trying to decide on what I actually want to do. I've had a few suggestions to look into a single 10w7, so that may be an option as well.

Thanks again.

I say the 8's would still sound better than the 10. coverage brother coverage....and if it sounds good why mess with it...ever hear of the phrase "if it aint broke dont fix it?" If you are just looking to get rid of some money I will give you my address, I am not beyond donations :cool:

He is looking to reclaim some trunk space, and if it takes him a bit of money and a small amount of SPL decrease, so be it.

You keep saying coverage coverage, but you fail to realize the simple theory of swept volume of each driver's stroke.

An 8w6 has a cone area of 30.7 in^2 and a stroke of 9.9mm
An 8w7 has a cone area of 38.0 in^2 and a stroke of 19mm

Lets see ... that makes an 8w7 (38mm total stroke) vs. the 8w6 (19.8mm) .. so the 8w7 is equal to almost TWO 8w6s alone ... factor in the ~25% more cone area ... so one 8w7 is now ~2.4x one 8w6 .... I think it is safe to say that he would not be losing much at all.

SEmy2K2go,
If you want the space back ... do the trade up, you will not be dissappointed.

Jim

using the same quick math ... a 10W7 is 4.5x the linear dispacement as a 8W6 ... your coverage theory just hit the floor :)

I'm just messin' with you Tackett, but seriously, in this game .. there is a lot more to it than simply being 3 8"ers or one 10"er ...

I realize that.
I based my above statements without knowing that there was such a massive stroke difference between the w6's and w7's. I apologize for assuming information instead of simply looking it up before offering my opinon on it. :icon32:

Man, I should have updated this thread a long time ago.

I ended up putting the 8's on ebay and sold them to a Marine over in Iraq. I picked up a 12w6v2 and I'm very happy with the results.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../12w6v2005.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../12w6v2003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...l/DSCN2025.jpg

Do you have a G35 coupe? So how does the single 12w6v2 sound compared to the 3 8's?

Na, '02 Maxima

http://www.livefast.org/sigpix/tim1.jpg

In regards to the difference in sound between the 12 and the 3 8's, it is pretty remarkable. The depth of the 12w6v2 is much more obvious over the 8's. Also, the 12 does go lower and picks up a LOT more of the lower frequencies. However, it doesn't quite get as much of the higher tones as the 8's, but I'm very pleased with the switch. And at $200 for the sub, I'd do it again in a second.