Tommythecat

1) You shoudn't fry anything unless you move up in voltage. Going up to 16V+ can mess with your cars computer, but amperage will be drawn simply from the battery and your equipment. 2) Good question - you should really contact whoever your going to get your alts from. They should be able to help you figure out whether you need two alts, or or to implement the two.

Alternators: HO alts Ohio Generator Iraggi Alts Excessive Amperage Look 'em up, search the forums.

Doesn't really make a difference, but one-way or the other could be easier to wire up or could use less wire. Depends on how your install is setup.

I got one from: http://search.stores.ebay.com/HiFi-Sound-C...7162071QQsofpZ0 Worked great for my 9200R, but I dont know which 16-pin harness they've got will work with your deck.

I didn't mean to say that just the DIY section of Htguide has its absolutes; more of an in-general DIY "head-in-the-sand" culture. Although it breeds from those that only wish to know the surface level of things. I respect Jon, Thomas, and some of the others - although I differ in how I approach audio (attempting to establish goals and design toward them instead of starting from the drivers).

I would check again because: 1) DIY is overripe in absolutes (such as - always set x amp to maximum gain). Really more like a bloating, pox-infestation if you asked me. 2) I dont recall JonMarsh ever working directly with Crown. Its more likely he worked on component design third-party instead of any whole design. This just comes off the top of my head from reading Htguide and much of the "work" he has done(aka job-wise). BTW, you might find me on their stepping on people's toes and crushing people's dreams trying to bring them back to reality. Its something I find frustrating and necessary in all forms of the DIY audio community.

It wont have the proper synergy. And then you have to MAKE SURE you calculate the airspace AFTER port displacement. Otherwise your rear wave will be out of phase and you cant set your gains low. There...that might help cure the voices in my head.

What the hell have you been smoking?

JimJ, I understand what he means about the clipping. While getting any amp into clipping is always possible - the Behringer units do not clip gracefully. There is no "soft clipping" with the Behringer like many other professional amps. Once you start clipping it goes to chit. Thankfully they work perfectly well up to that point. Robert, it is not SOP to set all pro amps at maximum gain. You either aren't reaching high output levels or your input signal is not significant

Gratz, if you move up to 42Hz go with Young Jeezy - Air Forces.

"Daily or SPL: Simply put, if you plan on listening to any type of music you MUST choose the daily option. If it is strictly for a fart/burp scenario then choose the SPL option." Straight from the BL technical sticky.

Looks more like a roll than a flare.

DevilDriver, the difference in welding wire and "car audio wire" is strand count. More strands = more flexibility. The cost of, say, Kicker Hyperflex could be worth it to someone if they need/want a flexible wire vs welding wire which is very stiff.

Jesus...do you even use crossovers?

It doesn't change the Fs at all. Read: http://www.soundsolutionsaudio.com/forum/i...?showtopic=9837 The small loss of efficiency/maximum output at high frequencies could be due to the woofers seeing a large box.

So there isn't a topic on isobaric mounting, I figured I might as well create an advanced discussion on it to answer any questions. We might have an idea that isobaric mounting allows us to use smaller enclosures, but why? The important parameters are: Re Le Bl Mms Cms / Kms Rms Sd from these we can characterize a driver/system using Vas, Fs, various Q's and so forth. When we mount two woofers isobarically the Electrical parameters Re, Le, and Bl will change - but it's like wiring a dual coil driver, we dont really change much here. The Mechanical parameters Mms, Cms, Rms, and Vas will change while Fs and Sd will not change. Since Mms and Kms have both doubled, and therefore Cms would be halved, Fs will not change as: Fs = 1 / 2*pi*sqrt(Mms*Cms) and in our case our new Fs = 1 / 2*pi*sqrt(2*Mms*(1/2)*Cms) = the same thing Now when Cms is halved our Vas will change we get: Vas = Sd^2 * Cms * rho * c^2 (rho is the air density constant and c is the speed of sound - assumed to be at a relative temperature and elevation) and in our case Vas = Sd^2 * (1/2)*Cms * rho * c^2 => (1/2)*Vas The only thing left that changes, Rms, only affects Qms so we can just ignore it really (because Qes will also be changed accordingly). So what does this mean? When building a box for an isobaric pair you can do it in two ways: 1) Build half the box, obtain the same transfer function. This used to be useful because in the early days of car audio the woofers had very large Vas's and required large boxes - now you could cut that in half. These days car audio woofers have very small Vas's. 2) Build the same box you would have for 1 woofer. Now you've got double the box size allowing you to tune a bit lower(although you still have to deal with port length in the same size box) and get a lot of low-end output. Other benefits/costs can be brought up like Power Handling (increases) or Monetary cost (price goes up).

Actually it's quite linear - at least once you get out of the transition area between the upper-end response and the eventual speaker/enclosure rolloff.

I never said a model will predict the results of an enclosure in a car. But it should accurately predict what the enclosure and driver will do alone. That is not trivial. Being able to analyze that result against the cars transfer function, and then the actual combined results, is what makes sense.

That's not the point as ANeonRider stated again they fudgeed up. If you read the paper it says: Feet-per-second divided by cycles-per second = feet per second As far as box tuning goes, yes the tuning of a box is quite independant of the driver - in and of itself. But when you do put the driver in, the impedance/excursion/spl characteristics will not be similar. I have to wonder in the BTL's case whether or not Fs, Le, or something else or some combination is affecting how those things "line up" per se.

Im simply talking about the box tuning. What else is there to tune?

You never cease to amaze me with your nonsensical babbling. 1131 Feet per sec/20 Feet = 1131/20 per sec or 56/sec or 56 hz Mathematically that portion is just fine. WTF are you talking about. I will save my issues with the rest of the article for later, but dopey you completely missed. He's talking about where the paper says: "1131(fps) / 60Hz = 18.85 feet per second" That's what doesn't make sense, if you'd taken the time to read it. Dont be such a prick. Lord Baccus, a White Paper is a technical report on a subject put out by a company. While they often promote a certain viewpoint (which can coincide with their strategy/products/etc.), they are most likely technically correct. OzAudio has the balls to call their little document a white paper - a shame. As far as tuning the box goes, this is very woofer dependant. Initial modeling(WinISD) of a conventional speaker - like a Mach5 MJ18 or Ascendant Avalanche 15 - shows a peak output slightly above tuning. But a driver like the FI BTL seems to have peak output, min excursion, and min impedance all at the tuning freq (which doesn't happen in the typical case).

square root. Power of 1/2 .

My god....those are some of the most hideous "white papers" I've ever seen. Back away slowly.

Center-to-center spacing would create very strange "combing" and power response artifacts. If you need more output than what a typical 92db sens. 1" dome can provide (which I do) - its time to start looking at horns.

*hits self* Thought you said 10 cubes overall... In that case I agree that 200+ sq in. would work well.