Not that it's my responsibility, but I first wanted to apologize to this forum for the immaturity of certain visitors from www.caraudioforum.com in the "delihma" thread.
There are some good discussions there, and not only good expertise, but even industry representatives. It's my home base.
www.caraudiotalk.com is another good one, I'm a mod there, I'd encourage people to sign up over there, I assure you that while there is less traffic (although I'm sure more than here), the maturity level is much higher, and we enjoy discussing reasons why something may or may not be, rather than bashing someone for stating a myth they may believe... myths by nature are often intuitive, it's understandible.
Anyway... I wanted to apologize.
But I'm looking to leverage your expertise as regards these subwoofers, or rather Polk's approach to reporting it's Thielle/Small specs:
On the spec sheets, for the Xmax listed, is that one-way, or peak-to-peak Xmax?
And do they measure that using a measurement standard like DUMAX (being the shorter of measured Xsus vs. Xmag), or do they use the simple motor-based "overhang" calculation (that can actually come up shorter than measured Xmax, due to real fringe field magnetics)?
If you can answer that, it would be much appreciated.
I see the Xmax for the MOMO listed somewhere around 25mm...
Which would be respectable in today's world of 20mm-30mm subwoofers...
But outside that class, if that's really only 12mm-13mm.
The spec sheets (none of them, that I tried) state one way or the other....
Usually, you would assume an Xmax spec with no qualifier to be "one-way", but assumption is to make an ASS of U and ME... :p I've seen peak-to-peak Xmax listed without qualifier (and usually on the type of subs that compete with Momo's, unfortunately), which doesn't lend itself to comparison across the marketplace, if you don't know. urg.
Anyone know the answer?
Much appreciated, thanks!