Leaderboard

Just had to get back in a old truck. Traded my 60 Biscayne for this well done 71 C10. It's a mild 355cu and a TH400 trans. All new interior, paint is only a couple years old. I was alittle unsure of the wheels but after having it a couple days and the reaction this truck gets I think I will just lower it more and leave it alone. I really like this 70's muscle look. Out with the old In with the new Needs some sounds although the cam sounds killer in this truck. Looks like a head unit, 4 channel and components are in order.

I personally think you have too much port area now. Maybe even too much box and port. But this is my opinion. I would have done about 7.5cu with 100sqin of port. You need to make your mind up if your goal is SPL or something that sounds good. If you want both you need alot more cone area and power. One sub isn't gonna do it all.

Thanks man, I'm hoping it sounds at least as good as it looks

That box looks great. Let us know how it performs!

Nice, I was thinking of painting this box, but I thought about all the sanding I would have to do to make it perfect with all that resin... Also to note the sub hole is not resined because I don't physically have the subwoofer yet, still waiting on it from Fi. So to make sure the sub fits correctly I left it a little small, so I could sand it down and make it fit when the sub arrives.

I don't beleive it's possible to have to much port area. You can have to much enclosure volume, for the amount of power being applied and hit xmech. Keep in mind a ported box will act as a sealed box until you approach the port tuning. Think of a labyrinth, transmission line or tuned pipe systems. They still have control over the cone. A larger port, within reason, will have a larger volume of air acting upon the cone and sould provide better cone control. If you don't have enough port you have a leaky sealed box.

Bam I got it... black and white. Everything has changed now. Its going to have to be retested in color and 3d for it to be valid now, lol. Seriously, going from 4 to 6in port is not comparable going from 80 to 150sqin of port for example. I believe others experiences reach the point of no return where the port is so large it almosts acts as if its in IB.

Nope.. everything is false. My buddies sisters fiances cousin with the crazy eye had me build him 39 enclosures one time for his single 15 and all of them did their best score in 0.85cuft net with 23sqin of port and was still bottoming out above tuning. Bam. Take that nadcicle.

Having a larger port opening will allow air to escape from the enclosure easier and reduse the holding "vacuum" on the subwoofers cone. Having a smaller port opening will restrict the flow of air out of the enclosure and keep "vacuum" on the cone so the cone can't move as freely even above tuning.

^ agreed as shown in graphs

Most of the information above was in taken from my SSA Evil. Which has a high xmax value. I have a low score in my current setup, which is 8.3 net with only 130cuin of port tuned at 33hz. I am completely flat from 30hz to 50hz. After 50hz it begins to slightly lose output, but anything below 30hz I have a really big dip in output. I ask these questions becuase almost every program I've used, suggests that I use at least 180cuin of port. Which is far more than what I have. And I believe that the programs are correct because right now I don't believe I am reaching max xmax. Which is crazy because of how much power I am applying (5500 watts). So, this all ties in because, as stated above, my theory is that I have too little port area combined with the power I am utilizing. I am "assuming", that thet too little port area combined with high power is causing me to "choke" the air that is being displaced. Or in other terms, I have too much water pressure to get through the water hose. Can you give an example of what you're saying?ockquote>Don't need to, your on the right track having a larger enclosure is more efficient and also opening up the port will help release more pressure from the enclosure helping you get Max excursion easier. You do have to be careful with how much you do open the port with your enclosure being as large as it is though so you don't run into mechanical issues. At 180in. Sq I think you'll be just fine and should net you some great gains. > No, larger ports do not allow the driver to hit xmax easier. Top pic 2'' port. Bottom pic 6'' port. The top lines in both graphs are group delays and the bottom lines are excursion at each power lever. Very clear no noticeable difference in xmax. Again only slight ripple shift due to FS change. Come on guys this book is only like 30 bucks shipped to your door. I understand what your saying, but science doesn't agree. Make an enclosure with a stupid large port and watch what the subwoofer does, then make the exact same enclosure and make the port area really small and again watch the subwoofer. They will react differently in the same enclosure with same tuning, but having a port opening on opposite ends of the spectrum I'm assuming you are saying the one with the small port will move more cause I believe that's what I'm gathering from what's being said. subwoofer in enclosure with small port will be less likely to "unload"

Most of the information above was in taken from my SSA Evil. Which has a high xmax value. I have a low score in my current setup, which is 8.3 net with only 130cuin of port tuned at 33hz. I am completely flat from 30hz to 50hz. After 50hz it begins to slightly lose output, but anything below 30hz I have a really big dip in output. I ask these questions becuase almost every program I've used, suggests that I use at least 180cuin of port. Which is far more than what I have. And I believe that the programs are correct because right now I don't believe I am reaching max xmax. Which is crazy because of how much power I am applying (5500 watts). So, this all ties in because, as stated above, my theory is that I have too little port area combined with the power I am utilizing. I am "assuming", that thet too little port area combined with high power is causing me to "choke" the air that is being displaced. Or in other terms, I have too much water pressure to get through the water hose. Can you give an example of what you're saying? Don't need to, your on the right track having a larger enclosure is more efficient and also opening up the port will help release more pressure from the enclosure helping you get Max excursion easier. You do have to be careful with how much you do open the port with your enclosure being as large as it is though so you don't run into mechanical issues. At 180in. Sq I think you'll be just fine and should net you some great gains. No, larger ports do not allow the driver to hit xmax easier. Top pic 2'' port. Bottom pic 6'' port. The top lines in both graphs are group delays and the bottom lines are excursion at each power lever. Very clear no noticeable difference in xmax. Again only slight ripple shift due to FS change. Come on guys this book is only like 30 bucks shipped to your door.

Most of the information above was in taken from my SSA Evil. Which has a high xmax value. I have a low score in my current setup, which is 8.3 net with only 130cuin of port tuned at 33hz. I am completely flat from 30hz to 50hz. After 50hz it begins to slightly lose output, but anything below 30hz I have a really big dip in output. I ask these questions becuase almost every program I've used, suggests that I use at least 180cuin of port. Which is far more than what I have. And I believe that the programs are correct because right now I don't believe I am reaching max xmax. Which is crazy because of how much power I am applying (5500 watts). So, this all ties in because, as stated above, my theory is that I have too little port area combined with the power I am utilizing. I am "assuming", that thet too little port area combined with high power is causing me to "choke" the air that is being displaced. Or in other terms, I have too much water pressure to get through the water hose. Can you give an example of what you're saying? Don't need to, your on the right track having a larger enclosure is more efficient and also opening up the port will help release more pressure from the enclosure helping you get Max excursion easier. You do have to be careful with how much you do open the port with your enclosure being as large as it is though so you don't run into mechanical issues. At 180in. Sq I think you'll be just fine and should net you some great gains.

From what i understand, a larger port can be more effecient. It never hurts to build a new enclosure and see what happens.

Well, from my experience, the reason your score isn't higher is because your box is too large and your tuning is too low. You need to measure your cabin gain, with the current setup installed, without the port interfering with reading first. Then you can see how frequencies react in your vehicle. then you know what to aim for as which frequency is the most efficient(resonance of your vehicle). Higher frequencies do not do well in large enclosures or at least any of the ones i've ever messed with or witnessed.

Are you drunk Shogen?

Cool ... You can always sell the Skar sub for the cash to cover the enclosure ...

What are your thoughts Timmy?

It was moved so Kevin can not edit it.

Yes we are! As soon as we get the price list from Tool Makers, we are going to be an authorized dealer.

The power difference measured correlates very well with the parts count difference in the output section. I have all of the subs out of my Jeep or I'd try them both at 1/2 ohm.

Power Test Completed. I know someone will ask these questions SO READ THIS FIRST : 1) AQ-3500D Tested First - Battery Bank had a charge for several hours from our bench power supplies 2) SAZ-3500D Tested Second - Only a few minutes behind the AQ-3500D Test 3) THIS IS WHY the 3500D had much more voltage drop, I had the entire surface charge gone from the batteries 4) Both amps set wide open to be apples to apples. ----- AQ-3500D POWER TEST: http://www.sundownaudio.com/misc/_AMP_POWER/AQ3500D_SAZ-3500D/CIMG2679.MOV AQ-3500D VOLTAGE TEST: http://www.sundownaudio.com/misc/_AMP_POWER/AQ3500D_SAZ-3500D/CIMG2681.MOV POWER : 2400 Watts AMP VOLTAGE (measured) : 71 V AMP CURRENT (calculated) : 33.8 A ACTUAL IMPEDANCE (calculated) : 2.1 ohms SUPPLY VOLTAGE : 14.22 V ----- SAZ-3500D POWER TEST: http://www.sundownaudio.com/misc/_AMP_POWER/AQ3500D_SAZ-3500D/CIMG2682.MOV SAZ-3500D VOLTAGE TEST: http://www.sundownaudio.com/misc/_AMP_POWER/AQ3500D_SAZ-3500D/CIMG2684.MOV POWER : 3020 Watts AMP VOLTAGE (measured) : 77.2 V AMP CURRENT (calculated) : 39.11 A ACTUAL IMPEDANCE (calculated) : 1.97 ohms SUPPLY VOLTAGE : 11.99 V

Before anyone starts a fight... I am just offering a comparison of parts counts, sizes, etc. I am not saying anything bad about the AQ product.