PWX 10 box

[ncc74656 2]

i want to build fiberglass boxes in my doors for my PWX 10's. what are the specs of box cubic for sealed?

 

i was thinking 1/4" fiber should be enough for these guys, what do you think?

[ncc74656 2]

well i guess ill build a few wood boxes and see what sounds best then use that size box when i build hte fiber glass.

[Fi 4 life 0]

Let us know what works out. Enclosure volume, tuning, power applied, high pass and low pass filters used, slope, etc...

Thanks in advance

[Impious 1,476]

What are the T/S of the speakers?

[ncc74656 2]

i have no idea on teh T/S, its not on there website. im running a 1200W eclipse to the two speakers so there getting plenty of power. actually i think i may have blown one of them yesterday... . a guy came by to test his amp so i hooked it to my sub since my amp was stolen a couple weeks ago. i forgot to turn on any xover on the mids as i was using them for bass and i turned up teh volume to push the sub. i think i exceeded Xmax on the right speaker as it sounds blown now.   sigh

[Impious 1,476]

That 34230 in your sig is only 740w (370w x 2 @ 4ohm).  Don't run it below 4ohm per channel and do not bridge it.  Had one years ago when they were first released.

 

Anyways, it's nearly impossible to properly design an enclosure without T/S parameters.  Otherwise it's just a guess.  It might even be a bad idea to put them in an enclosure.  No way to know without the T/S

[///M5 2,833]

Those won't fulfill your goals even in an enclosure

[ncc74656 2]

i built some boxes today. started with a 1 cubic and started cutting it shorter bit by bit.

 

1 cubic sounded better than no box but it was rather floppy sound

 

.86 cubic sounded good but lacked the punch

 

.79 and .739 sounded progressively better over the .86 and kept getting a deeper and more full sound.

 

.64 was nearly identical in volume and frequency as the .739 box

 

.58 was the smallest box that retained the frequency sweep and volume as the .64/.739 box.

 

.50 sounded much worse than .58

 

.38 was about the same quality as the .5

 

.31 is where things changed, the sound was very full, with a wide range of frequencies and it really punched on the lows.  the .64 sounded more open at the high range than this .31 but the .31 had far better low range punch.

 

.25 was hard to even get the speaker to fit into, it was fairly empty in sound, better than free air but lacked any real boom from the bass.

 

i stopped there.

 

 

so by this i would want to build a .31 box out of fiber glass in my doors.

[///M5 2,833]

If they are at all "pro audio" then you should REALLY be porting them. Personally for all that effort, I'd sell those and buy something more suited.

[ncc74656 2]

well the PWX are larger than a 6.5 and the alpine type R's that i had were no where near loud enough so i decided larger would be better. for the 300W that they take it does sound considerably better than any 6.5 ive ever heard. that paired with my tweets does a pretty good job at covering the frequencies in the upper end. where i feel it is lacking is the high bass line range, just above where the sub cuts out and where my mids pick up.

 

i put a 15" MTX jack hammer in my truck to test things and it was tuned to 80hz with a xover at 250hz. this did a great job at filling the bass line that i was looking for so my thoughts are that between the 80-200hz mark is really where i want more earth shaking volume. i built a box tuned at 48hz for my SP4 that im going to try when i get my recone to see how it sounds.

 

as for porting these i have never seen a ported door speaker...  i can easily build a 45hz box for these PWX as a proof of concept but given that i intend to build a fiberglass box into my door, how would i port such a thing? i was looking at sealed to give me better volume and frequencies with out unneeded complexity. 

 

if ported is how i should go then so be it but would i would want it ported back into the cab no? so at that point an external port would be what i would be doing, building up from the fiberglass box itself. as it stands i will need to move my window arm back about 7 inches to give me workable room in the doors. i have never build a fiber glass box before so this box/door panel will be my first.

 

to be clear, i want to do what ever is best for my setup not only to get better sound but also to learn how to undertake more complex projects in car audio. such as fiber-glassing. 

[///M5 2,833]

No one can tell you without T/S, but we can extrapolate rather accurately if the description of the driver is at all accurate.

Pro Audio drivers in general are always designed for ported enclosures. I'd expect much closer to 70Hz than 45Hz though would be optimal, but again without first measuring the drivers you cannot really make that determination.

So you either really should invest in a way to measure the T/S AND be prepared to walk away from the drivers if they don't do what you need, or walk away from them now and buy something fitting for your needs.

[ncc74656 2]

so you think a speaker in a 70hz box would fit my needs better. i will throw these into a 70hz tomorrow and see what i get out of em. maybe they will work well or maybe i will find they just cant keep the higher ends with this lower push.   

 

these crachendos seem to be close to the skylar audio that i see on the SSA store. i feel like a 6.5 is just to small to give the volume that i need. what kinds of mid range would you suggest off the top of your head?

[ncc74656 2]

by my math i would need a 1.4 cubic box to get a 70hz tune given the xmax of the driver. (measured with a ruler as i press the cone up)

[ncc74656 2]

ok, i redid the math factoring in the mechanical xmax being larger. its a guesstimate but it should be close enough for government work.

 

[ncc74656 2]

here is a 3D model of the 70hz box. ill test this thing out tomorrow, i was able to make it a bit smaller but i think i might be hard pressed to fit a .82 cubic foot box into my door. perhaps not; i have not calculated internal door volume yet. 

 

[pro-rabbit 64]

Some one remind me tomorrow and I will pull the T/S off one at the new ones at the shop tomorrow.

[ncc74656 2]

i will send you a pm tomorrow morning as a reminder

[///M5 2,833]

That ought to help a shit ton. I am curious to see how they perform in what.

[ncc74656 2]

any update on T/s?  

 

i have a blown 10" pwx, how can i tell from taking it apart what the specs are?

[///M5 2,833]

You can't but perhaps it is a good time to not buy another...

My guess is that they are far from optimized as they made some compromises that I'd rather shop around. How did it blow?

[ncc74656 2]

i had my xover off and my volume up after my sub blew so i could get as much bass as possible while i drove around. i hooked up a friends sub so he could hear it and i forgot to retune my system. max volume and the 10's were getting 3 times the power they should have been and the amp was clipping to shit... 

[Dangrebel 89]

You can't but perhaps it is a good time to not buy another...

My guess is that they are far from optimized as they made some compromises that I'd rather shop around. How did it blow?

Stop...

Give suggestions for his pwx box. Instead of saying they are junk.

[S.DeYoung 967]

You can't but perhaps it is a good time to not buy another...

My guess is that they are far from optimized as they made some compromises that I'd rather shop around. How did it blow?

Stop...

Give suggestions for his pwx box. Instead of saying they are junk.

They are junk. How is anyone supposed to give any enclosure advice without T/S parameters?

[ncc74656 2]

i was expecting to get some T/S parameters from a member on here who i assume works with the speakers. i have not received a PM yet but i hold out hope they will come. if i dont have any by this weekend im going to give it my best guess and build a vented box just to see what they sound like.

 

i have seen many people use crachendos in large systems and in competition. personally i think they sound much better than my alpines did but most of that is because they are a 10" and my alpine was a 6.5. the sheer volume they add is what i was after when i bought them.  they do a very good job reproducing the lower end vocals up untill about the 2500hz mark wich is about what i expected. there website lists them as going much higher than 2500 and they do but past that the audio is not super clear. paired with a tweeter xover at a lower frequency they work well. most of what i am going for here is the bass end of things, but where as most people xover a sub at 80 and are happy with there mids from 80-500 i want the same volume my sub gives me at 40hz to be there at 100hz. no set of 10" mids is going to do that when you compare them to a SP4 18.  so i expect to install some sealed boxes in the doors to maximize the PWX potental and then from there ill tweak my sub/subs to fill it all in.  i am convinced there is not a 6.5" speaker on the market that can give me what i am looking for or do a better job than these PWX's given the application i want them to fufill. i am sure there are better 8 or 10" mids but for the price and considering i already have these speakers i dont see a reason to buy new 10's.   that being said i am considering building a 8" hole into the fiber glass panel so i can add 2 speakers to the front and perhaps then i would get more volume. i have room for some of crescendos super tweets up in my doors as well and i was thinking of getting some. there is a video on youtube of a guy comparing the old crachendos with the new PWX and his music sound great out of his doors. while i am not looking to go quite to this extreme i am fine with 2 mids and 2 tweets per door.

 

tldr: i dont think crachendos are as bad as people think they are, they are no polk but they are also not marketed for the same application either.

 

the video: 

[///M5 2,833]

You can't but perhaps it is a good time to not buy another...

My guess is that they are far from optimized as they made some compromises that I'd rather shop around. How did it blow?

Stop...

Give suggestions for his pwx box. Instead of saying they are junk.

Never said they were junk. If you know ANYTHING about audio then you know there is absolutely NO FUCKING way to give a suggestion that is worth a shit without parameters.

What I have been strongly hinting at however is that he is going about an installation that will give him a ton of benefits. One that takes time, planning, and money to put together. Wasting that on ANY driver that isn't optimized for the install is stupid. As in really fucking stupid. It is also rather factual that most likely the PWX's are far from optimized for what he is doing. It would cost more money to pay someone to measure them or to buy the gear to measure himself than it would to replace them with something more appropriate for his needs and install.

My recommendation is very clear in this regard. I like his goals and attempts to reach them. Makes sense almost completely except of course the current driver selection since they are completely unknown and come from a company that most definitely made compromises that will adversely affect their performance in his install. This is absolute audio 101. Can't get around that at all.

Not quite sure why you'd find that confusing. Perhaps an analogy. Guy comes onto board. Has 1cuft of space and wants to design a box for an 18" sub. Should you "help him" design a box or point out perhaps that it won't work. This situation ends exactly the same of course with the caveat that potentially the driver wasn't designed as expected, but the possibility of that is VERY small.