Possible idea

[Buckle-meister]

Generally speaking, where does the greatest cost lie in the manufacture of a sub? Its driver? Its amplifier? Something else?

 

[jaxvon]

Generally speaking, where does the greatest cost lie in the manufacture of a sub? Its driver? Its amplifier? Something else?

That depends....

But if I were to guess, I'd say that like everything else, the biggest cost is the load of meatbodies running around at the company that manufactures subwoofers.

 

[j_garcia]

meatbodies...LOL.

Yes, I'd say driver and amp materials wise, then labor to assemble.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...I'd say driver and amp materials wise, then labor to assemble.

I'd been hoping the answer would turn out to be a clear cut 'amplifier' but not to worry. Almost without exception:

1. It's better to implement a sub along with bass management as opposed to using speakers full-range;
2. It's better to use multiple subs as opposed to just one.

...and this got me thinking:

'why don't manufacturers specifically manufacture subs using high quality drivers yet combine them with amplifiers that aren't particularly powerful'?

I reasoned that if a sub was specifically marketed for incorporation within a multi-sub system, that with the excursion of each sub being (markedly?) less than that of just a single sub doing all the work, amplifier power could be (significantly?) reduced yet still remain sufficient. Reduced manufacturing costs would then ensue.

Lower manufacturing cost = lower cost to customer (in theory ) = more units sold (remember that a minimum of 2 would be bought and it's unlikely that the cost of each would be as low as half that of one) = good for both manufacturer and customer.

What say you?

 

[Sheep]

Not many people are open to dual subs, esp. those with WAF. 2 subs that car so so or 2 subs that are great, which would you rather have? No 2 rooms are alike(well, sorta) as well so those so so subs might be enough for only a certain sized room. The company would have to make different lines for different sized rooms, which would be more expensive in the long run. Easier to make the best you can with a certain budget.

SheepStar

 

[jaxvon]

I'd been hoping the answer would turn out to be a clear cut 'amplifier' but not to worry. Almost without exception:

1. It's better to implement a sub along with bass management as opposed to using speakers full-range;
2. It's better to use multiple subs as opposed to just one.

...and this got me thinking:

'why don't manufacturers specifically manufacture subs using high quality drivers yet combine them with amplifiers that aren't particularly powerful'?

I reasoned that if a sub was specifically marketed for incorporation within a multi-sub system, that with the excursion of each sub being (markedly?) less than that of just a single sub doing all the work, amplifier power could be (significantly?) reduced yet still remain sufficient. Reduced manufacturing costs would then ensue.

Lower manufacturing cost = lower cost to customer (in theory ) = more units sold (remember that a minimum of 2 would be bought and it's unlikely that the cost of each would be as low as half that of one) = good for both manufacturer and customer.

What say you?

I think this kind of already happens with companies that make quality passive subs. VMPS is one manufacturer that comes to mind. For about the cost of a good sized powered sub (think a mid-level SVS unit), you can get two of their high quality boxed subs and a Behringer PA amp to drive them. The only thing that I think would stop most people would be the increased difficulty in setup and finding a way to deal with the fan in a PA amp.

http://www.vmpsaudio.com/

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Behringer-EuroPower-EP1500-Power-Amp?sku=480696

Keep in mind actual dealer pricing is lower than what they list at the VMPS website.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I think this kind of already happens...

Dash! There goes my idea© for becoming stinking rich.