When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
After also dodging the cost of a new ML sub, I tried the Kicker and the Pyramid, but ended up refoaming the ML sub. The Kicker wasn't a 8ohm as advertised, and the Pyramid was ok for over a year, but I always limited the volume and bass. Didn't want to chance blowing my amp, so I bought Simple Speaker foam kit. Wasn't difficult, and now I understand why Mark Levinson was chosen for the LS 430.
Yes, I've repaired subs and door speakers with new speaker foam from Simply Speakers. Haven't had a speaker coil fail, but that would not be a DIY repair.
Originally Posted by 740ilsamue
After also dodging the cost of a new ML sub, I tried the Kicker and the Pyramid, but ended up refoaming the ML sub. The Kicker wasn't a 8ohm as advertised, and the Pyramid was ok for over a year, but I always limited the volume and bass. Didn't want to chance blowing my amp, so I bought Simple Speaker foam kit. Wasn't difficult, and now I understand why Mark Levinson was chosen for the LS 430.
Exactly my point. I would rather have the OEM speaker foam repaired rather than replacing the ML subwoofer with something different. It is not a difficult job, and the repair would maintain the original audio performance for which the system is famous.
Parts Express has good quality components. That sub looks like a good replacement when wired for 16 ohm impedance. And it looks like it is better built with much bigger magnet structure than the crappy bargain bin quality OEM Mark Levinson sub
After a week with this sub I am very impressed. It hits very well considering the small amount of power that is running it and it doesn't cut out or distort on the lows. I love having bass in my car now! Also the materials in this sub as well as the magnet are all of higher quality than the stock ML sub. I was reluctant to go with anything other than stock but after hearing guys that have used this exact sub in their LS430 for a while and those saying it was better than the ML I thought I would give it a try. I'm very glad I did! I know there are going to be those that think the OEM Mark Levinson sub is just awesome and whatever but I can tell you after a side by side comparison with this Polk sub, the materials are night and day as far as quality. The ML sub with the crappy paper cone is just an over priced speaker that is nothing special imo.
I installed the same Polk sub in my LS last summer when my ML sub started buzzing the second time... I don't crank the volume too often and it has been sounding great since June. Keep the volume at a reasonable level, and I really don't think you'll have any problems.
For anyone reluctant...
i would suggest going with the 8ohm kicker comp sub. it fits fairly easily, is 8ohm to begin with and sounds excellent.
I installed dynamat all thru the rear deck and filled all the odd gaps that are there. Also, i suggest yo stick some polyfill down into the sub cavity and call it a day.
I play my mysic at 48-55 volume daily for hours. i have no clipping, no issue. bass is about 3 notches below max in stock deck.
Also...just to set the record straight. For all those that make fun of the stock ML subs "magnet size" being puny....
well you should know that its a neo magnet compared to a ferrite magnet in most subs. neo magnets are far more efficient than ferrite. far.....maybe 10 fold. if you understand the role a magnet plays in a sub....you'd understand.
my 2 cents on the topic.
Just to chime in after 8-9 years of ownership and having replaced many items on my ML system including a new ML OEM subwoofer and 2 door OEM ML speakers....is this. I went the glue method, the refoam method, and didn't want to risk the aftermarket non compatable ohm method and after all these years... my ML system is working fine. I do not blast the music and try but not effectively to keep the rear subwoofer out of direct sunlight although the rear window is now effectively tinted. Yes, it's not a quality sub, but it works with what I have without extensive modifications. Good luck to those that have replaced the sub with a Polk or anything that works. I do sincerely wish you many years of trouble free music. I just don't want any more issues with my old amp or anything audio. I spent the bucks for a new OEM sub but at the time was a fairly good price of $295 delivered. Try pricing them now!!! Let's enjoy our cars! I do.
Want to get in on this thread and also to see if anyone can confirm that we are supposed to be running a 16 ohm speaker? I was to going to get the Polk 8 ohm dual coil and wire them together like this to make 16 ohm.
Anyone installed the Dayton Audio SD215A-88 8" DVC Subwoofer mentioned almost two years ago in this thread?
Can be had for only $30. Wonder how it sounds.
I've had mine installed for about a year and a half on the Dayton with zero issues. And i drive mine pretty hard (most of my listening involves really terrible and generic EDM)
Also, if anyone is curious I made this very unscientific frequency graph of the DB215A-88 on the Mark Levinson amplifier with a cheap handheld bBA meter. Take it with a grain of salt, its just something i did for fun to see what it would come up with.
For anyone reluctant...
i would suggest going with the 8ohm kicker comp sub. it fits fairly easily, is 8ohm to begin with and sounds excellent.
I installed dynamat all thru the rear deck and filled all the odd gaps that are there. Also, i suggest yo stick some polyfill down into the sub cavity and call it a day.
I play my mysic at 48-55 volume daily for hours. i have no clipping, no issue. bass is about 3 notches below max in stock deck.
Also...just to set the record straight. For all those that make fun of the stock ML subs "magnet size" being puny....
well you should know that its a neo magnet compared to a ferrite magnet in most subs. neo magnets are far more efficient than ferrite. far.....maybe 10 fold. if you understand the role a magnet plays in a sub....you'd understand.
my 2 cents on the topic.
I have researched 2001-2006 ML speaker components pretty extensively. I found nothing in any available literature, or elsewhere on the net that indicates the LS 2001-2006 ML subwoofer has a neodymium magnet. What I saw on very close in-hand exam of the speaker is a very cheap looking bargain basement speaker with a ferrite style magnet. If possible please provide any doco or a link to technical specs on the LM sub for 2001-2006 LS430 that lists a neodymium magnet structure.
I have researched 2001-2006 ML speaker components pretty extensively. I found nothing in any available literature, or elsewhere on the net that indicates the LS 2001-2006 ML subwoofer has a neodymium magnet. What I saw on very close in-hand exam of the speaker is a very cheap looking bargain basement speaker with a ferrite style magnet. If possible please provide any doco or a link to technical specs on the LM sub for 2001-2006 LS430 that lists a neodymium magnet structure.
I don't know how much you trust company brochures, but its at least advertised in them for the (2001, 2002, and 2003) LS 430's.
Based on the brochure text it looks like some of the speakers have neodymium magnets. Neodymium magnets don't provide any real advantage (other than smaller lighter size) in hi-end audio applications especially in terms of subwoofers where mass and structure is a good thing. I stand by my assessment that the OEM ML sub used in LS430 and SC430, regardless of magnet material, is a light weight generic bargain basement quality subwoofer. Most semi-knowledgeable audio folks would not pay more than $15 dollars for it if is was unlabeled, with I'm guessing the majority rejecting its use regardless of cost due to clearly inferior build and component quality.
03-25-16, 06:55 PM
