sealed

[jellyfish420 0]

i'm thinking of going sealed. it'll be around 2-2.5ft per sub. my question is how much output will i lose? ported only adds 3db, right? will the better sq be worth it? in your opinions? the main reason for the switch is it'll be easier to do than the huge ported and that tc gave me some ideas for a kick@ss fiberglass install

[mrray13 30]

in theory ported will gain u double the output..or 3db. yet even with that, in ur vehicle, u'll dtill go deaf quite rapidly...lol..

as to the sq, that's up to ur taste. which do u prefer? and also, why not do a 'glass ported box?

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[jellyfish420 0]

well i've been wanting spl, spl, but as my system gets better i find myself listening to less rap, and more rock. and i've always loved double kick drum. you heard that new system of a down? lots of double kick. the sealed would be considerably faster and tighter w/ that type of music, right?

as for the fiberglass ported. the only way i have enough room for the 2 ported is w/ my half wall box, and that needs to be built inside the car. but the sealed i could do out of the car....i don't know what i wanna do i'm just throwing around some ideas right now...

[60ndown 0]

well i've been wanting spl, spl, but as my system gets better i find myself listening to less rap, and more rock. and i've always loved double kick drum. you heard that new system of a down? lots of double kick. the sealed would be considerably faster and tighter w/ that type of music, right?

as for the fiberglass ported. the only way i have enough room for the 2 ported is w/ my half wall box, and that needs to be built inside the car. but the sealed i could do out of the car....i don't know what i wanna do i'm just throwing around some ideas right now...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

funny you should mention system of a downs new cd, i got it last night cant stop playing the second track !! killer drums/guitar /melody. personally i always aim for sq (sealed) if i want more volume i get a bigger amp!

[jellyfish420 0]

in theory ported will gain u double the output..or 3db. yet even with that, in ur vehicle, u'll dtill go deaf quite rapidly...lol..

as to the sq, that's up to ur taste. which do u prefer? and also, why not do a 'glass ported box?

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think i found a way to do a fiberglass ported box

it'll be 2.9ft^3 net @ 34Hz w/ 3-4" ports. per sub

w/ a 4th 4"port that has some sort of plug so for a comp i can unplug it for 2.6ft^3 net @ 42Hz.

hey kent if you could, double check this for me.

2.9ft after all displacements 3-4" ports @ 34Hz....how long do you come up with? i get ~26"

[haydenlake 0]

I'm sure there are good ported boxes out there but on average they never sound as clean and accurate as a sealed box. Think about it, you are putting a big ass speaker in a car, it'll be loud enough, and esp. if you've been liking the way double kick drums sound go with sealed. (sounds better, saves space, easier to build, less weight, way more predictable). And that guy on the other post is right, you will eventually lose your hearing if you bang your sh-t loud enough all the time. A buddy of mine has two Eclipse TI 15's in his audi and it is way too loud and he's half way deaf now. Whats a good speaker if you are deaf?

-if you are really concered with SPL try another tactic like putting in lots of sound deading, your system might not be louder per se but it will def. sound louder because you don't have to play it over road noise.

-I put 80lbs of sound deadener in the cab of a BMW 318 and its way quite (its about 7 layers, something like .25") man this helped so much, and people aren't going to jack my sh-t because they can't hear it outside of the car.

later,

b

[mrray13 30]

in theory ported will gain u double the output..or 3db. yet even with that, in ur vehicle, u'll dtill go deaf quite rapidly...lol..

as to the sq, that's up to ur taste. which do u prefer? and also, why not do a 'glass ported box?

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

i think i found a way to do a fiberglass ported box

it'll be 2.9ft^3 net @ 34Hz w/ 3-4" ports. per sub

w/ a 4th 4"port that has some sort of plug so for a comp i can unplug it for 2.6ft^3 net @ 42Hz.

hey kent if you could, double check this for me.

2.9ft after all displacements 3-4" ports @ 34Hz....how long do you come up with? i get ~26"

using this calculator, which is the one i use all the time , i get ~27 3/8". so u're not too far off from me...

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[jellyfish420 0]

using this calculator, which is the one i use all the time , i get ~27 3/8". so u're not too far off from me...

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow that site told me that i need a MIN of 179in^2 port area

but w/ the calculator i was right 4-4" ports would be 1.7ft @ 42Hz. and w/ 1 port plugged its 1.9ft @ 35Hz. all ports being 25.5" long.

how do you guys feel about subs up and ports forward?

[Impious 1,476]

ported only adds  3db, right?

Keep in mind that it adds an average of 3db over the entire bandwidth

Depending on the design, the ported box may be 6db+ over sealed at and near the ported box's peak.

[jellyfish420 0]

ya, i think i'm just gonna go sealed. i have a q though...a q of .707 is the flatest response and the lowest F3, using all the calculators i found said this would be around 3.25ft per driver. would there be anydraw back from doing around 3ft per as opposed to the 2ft that is recommended other than a little lower power handling?

this way if i wanted to port it later i could just add the ports, instead of rebuilding the entire box to make up for port displacement.

[mrray13 30]

nope, no drawback other then the loss of powerhandling, but then again, the sub will be more "efficient" and not need the extra power.

could get a bit boomy in that large of a sealed box though. the only way to find out is build it..lol..

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[60ndown 0]

a q of .707 is the flatest response and the lowest F3, using all the calculators i found said this would be around 3.25ft per driver

for the 12?

[Acidburn 10]

no, for the 15"

[Fonzi 3]

Reporting for New Orleans where its insane.

Jelly I use 2.3 net and it sounds fine it is a bit more bommy from when I slugged my box, but I like it. 3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier. But like kent said they only to see is to try!!

Check out my vid on realm. you can definitly get them to make good amount of noise sealed.

[Impious 1,476]

3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier.

Technically a smaller box would be "sloppier". The larger you go, the more overdamped it becomes (lower Qtc), which tightens up transient response and such. Go too large and you can get what's called "critically overdamped"....which most people wouldn't enjoy the sound of as it would be "dry" and "lifeless"....

But...one thing I've noticed is that the Rl-p drivers don't model well in most programs/calculations (atleast the 12's)....you may be better off sticking with SS's recommended range.

[60ndown 0]

3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier.

Technically a smaller box would be "sloppier". The larger you go, the more overdamped it becomes (lower Qtc), which tightens up transient response and such. Go too large and you can get what's called "critically overdamped"....which most people wouldn't enjoy the sound of as it would be "dry" and "lifeless"....

But...one thing I've noticed is that the Rl-p drivers don't model well in most programs/calculations (atleast the 12's)....you may be better off sticking with SS's recommended range.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

damn i like reding your posts squeak, seems there is a 12 winging its way to me?

[jellyfish420 0]

3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier.

Technically a smaller box would be "sloppier". The larger you go, the more overdamped it becomes (lower Qtc), which tightens up transient response and such. Go too large and you can get what's called "critically overdamped"....which most people wouldn't enjoy the sound of as it would be "dry" and "lifeless"....

But...one thing I've noticed is that the Rl-p drivers don't model well in most programs/calculations (atleast the 12's)....you may be better off sticking with SS's recommended range.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but figuring the q, there is nothing really to model.either way i'm awaiting mike's email back. i will post his responce to the question when i get it.

[jellyfish420 0]

mikes response:

Both the 3.25 cu ft and the 2 cu ft net volumes will work, but in all

honesty the response difference between the two will be quite minimal.

Attached you will find the leap graph for the RL-p15 exhibiting the

relative

differences.

The Butterworth (magenta solid) box is 2.1 cu ft net volume.

The Bessel (tan dashed) box is 3.55 cu ft net volume.

The Enhanced Q (green dotted) is 0.95 cu ft net volume.

Essentially, you are asking for a comparison between the Butterworth

and

Bessel alginments, which as evidenced in the attached image, follow

each

other quite closely. I do not think that a 2 cu ft box will be much

more

peaky than a 3.25 cu ft box at all to tell you the truth.

[60ndown 0]

mikes response:

Both the 3.25 cu ft and the 2 cu ft net volumes will work, but in all

honesty the response difference between the two will be quite minimal.

Attached you will find the leap graph for the RL-p15 exhibiting the

relative

differences.

The Butterworth (magenta solid) box is 2.1 cu ft net volume.

The Bessel (tan dashed) box is 3.55 cu ft net volume.

The Enhanced Q (green dotted) is 0.95 cu ft net volume.

Essentially, you are asking for a comparison between the Butterworth

and

Bessel alginments, which as evidenced in the attached image, follow

each

other quite closely.  I do not think that a 2 cu ft box will be much

more

peaky than a 3.25 cu ft box at all to tell you the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

looking at that graph id go with the butterworth!

[60ndown 0]

mikes response:

Both the 3.25 cu ft and the 2 cu ft net volumes will work, but in all

honesty the response difference between the two will be quite minimal.

Attached you will find the leap graph for the RL-p15 exhibiting the

relative

differences.

The Butterworth (magenta solid) box is 2.1 cu ft net volume.

The Bessel (tan dashed) box is 3.55 cu ft net volume.

The Enhanced Q (green dotted) is 0.95 cu ft net volume.

Essentially, you are asking for a comparison between the Butterworth

and

Bessel alginments, which as evidenced in the attached image, follow

each

other quite closely.

[Impious 1,476]

3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier.

Technically a smaller box would be "sloppier". The larger you go, the more overdamped it becomes (lower Qtc), which tightens up transient response and such. Go too large and you can get what's called "critically overdamped"....which most people wouldn't enjoy the sound of as it would be "dry" and "lifeless"....

But...one thing I've noticed is that the Rl-p drivers don't model well in most programs/calculations (atleast the 12's)....you may be better off sticking with SS's recommended range.

but figuring the q, there is nothing really to model.either way i'm awaiting mike's email back. i will post his responce to the question when i get it.

I was just pointing out that a larger box wouldn't be sloppier

[jellyfish420 0]

3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier.

Technically a smaller box would be "sloppier". The larger you go, the more overdamped it becomes (lower Qtc), which tightens up transient response and such. Go too large and you can get what's called "critically overdamped"....which most people wouldn't enjoy the sound of as it would be "dry" and "lifeless"....

But...one thing I've noticed is that the Rl-p drivers don't model well in most programs/calculations (atleast the 12's)....you may be better off sticking with SS's recommended range.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but figuring the q, there is nothing really to model.either way i'm awaiting mike's email back. i will post his responce to the question when i get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was just pointing out that a larger box wouldn't be sloppier

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

good call for squeak!

i think i'm gonna go w/ the bigger box, so if it don't suit my needs...

i can just slap some ports in it, instead of rebuilding the whole thing

[flakko 1]

let me know how you like the way sealed sounds jelly, im plannin to seal my 12 rl-p

[Fonzi 3]

3cuft might be pushing it, I could see the sub getting a lot more sloppier.

Technically a smaller box would be "sloppier". The larger you go, the more overdamped it becomes (lower Qtc), which tightens up transient response and such. Go too large and you can get what's called "critically overdamped"....which most people wouldn't enjoy the sound of as it would be "dry" and "lifeless"....

But...one thing I've noticed is that the Rl-p drivers don't model well in most programs/calculations (atleast the 12's)....you may be better off sticking with SS's recommended range.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestng Ive always associated a box thats to large as sloppy or muddy. Smaller being tighter more accurate response.

So if the transient response gets tightened as the box size increses why does the bass become muddier or sloppy as I call it.

[60ndown 0]

can someone post the same graph moddeling the rl-p 12 please