ported vs sealed

[baggedbirds.com 0]

sqjeep,

from my earlier post , i use to have a ported box and it was a little sloppy IMO. It played rap and tones awesome.

I rebuilt it and went to a 1.3 per speaker sealed box and lost a ton of output. I knew it would but it's not really what I expected. It's really tight and sounds nice but it has little output IMO for having a rated 1000W on each woofers. I am having to beat the amps up to get the output i was hoping for.

I listen to rock music with double bass drum so I had a shop model my old ported box for me, my current sealed box , and a smaller, higher tuned ported box. It COULD be my answer but i won't know until I try it. I don't listen to rap and rarely play tones.

this new box is 1.75 per woofer tuned to 39 hz.

[detonnation 0]

Mines 1.25 cu sealed. I have the Q version, but it sounds pretty damn good. I think one of the Fi guys suggested that 1.25 sounded the best fro a sealed setup. I also have polyfill in there. And am running 600w in series.

Ive had someone say to me that running a sub in series in more SQ accurate than in parallel. Is that true?

Mike

[sqjeep 9]

Right now im keeping the subwoofer sealed. I just recently purchased a ESX 175.2 for the front stage and it sounds so much more alive. my next step is to purchase either an Alpine 9887 or the pioneer 800 PRS. And run the the font active with an ESX 60.4 on the tweets and the 175.2 on the woofers., and hopley down the line I can find and get either an ESX 475.1 or the ESX 120.4 to run the subwoofer. Once all this is all done I experiment with a ported box. It sounded better having the polyfill in the box aswell.

Thanks BigCProductions99 i screwed that up buts its fixed now

Edited June 19, 2009 by sqjeep

[BigCProductions99 21]

...I Thought The 800 PRS Was A Pioneer HU?