///M5

Man you change jobs like my wife changes clothes. Congrats.

That isn't fair.

Yeah, it's for my truck. I've got this itch to do a new set of kicks, and I'm wanting some something cheap that I can run in a small sealed enclosure. I realize that you are not getting the answer you have asked yet, but I would have to guess and won't do that. I will recommend that you seal your kicks to your fenders and vent them for an IB sort of installation. You will lose a little power handling, but it will insure that the installation is good the first time around.

Looking great. God those amps are teeny! Can't wait to hear it!!

Brown residue means it was the asphalt version. They've improved it so it falls off cleanly now Well, atleast they're making improvements. LOL

Don't they do it on part by part basis? I can tell you that transmission loss testing using ASTM E756@ 200 Hz is what has been used by after-market sound deadener manufacturers. This started with Dynamac Control and I have been told by more than one source that their numbers were achieved by non-standard methods. I believe the results reported by competitors have been "invented" using DC's as a starting point. Tom Lewis at Damping Technologies suggested Oberst bar testing when we were discussing this same topic, but said the results really couldn't be made meaningful for this application. His basic point was that using twice as much of any product would roughly double the effectiveness and controlling for variations in thickness and density would be more trouble than the results would be worth. This led to my conclusion that: Adhesive quality is important Foil thickness is important Mass is important and that has been generally good enough except for those who have just wanted to cast doubt for their own reasons. Something else to consider is the variability of these products, even samples taken from the same batch and within inches of each other. When weighing and measuring, I take 4-6 pieces from as far away from each other as possible and average. The variations are large. Finding a representative sample will be important. I'm not trying to discourage this effort at all - I support it enthusiastically and am following your progress closely. I have never worked with an aftermarket sound deadening company actually using E756 but am aware of it. I have worked with a lot of them as well. I am not a fan of Oberst testing, it was a method we proposed at my previous employer. Measuring damping directly is a much better method and applicable in my book. Sure it will have a different effect on different parts, but the end results will be comparable. Think of companies like MSC (owns the patent on quiet steel) and how they sell/propose their solution. Sure it is regularly tested on a part by part basis, but a generic sample is used to get in the door and go down the exploratory road of whether or not it will indeed quiet the vehicle. In my book doing similar testing is a valid way of determining the effect of the dampening material. As you state, it comes down to mass, adhesive and foil thickness and not much else. I find your effort comment funny, currently this is a thread about how eDead sucks and now we have an effort. I am more than willing to undertake some of the testing though, but this conversation will go much further before then.

aims, fires, realizes that I can't get enough arc on it to get to you

Just think you could sell those 16 for 2 really good ones.

The type R's are a joke if your priorities are where you say they are. Get the Rlp and enjoy!

They all will you just have to try harder

Man, you are trying to speed this whole thing up aren't you There are no current standards and actually none being developed. The industry really only cares about TL which there are 3+ different standards As to your variation question, lets ignore this one until we decide on a fixture and then I can actually test the differences. With the right fixture and chosen media we should be able to work around it. Fixturing is to measurements what location is to real estate. Typically the SAE guys are most interested in areas below 400hz. I can't easily model anything. I am an FEA noob, but I can load an FE model into the vibrometer and make measurements and verify a model is right easily. A simple piece of metal however is a very easy thing for someone with any FE experience to whack out. I have a 3D scanning vibrometer, meaning I can measure X,Y,Z vibration and then scan the laser across the surface with a high point density. Regularly this is used to verify FE models as well as measure experimentally. Most definitely we can abstract this to the real world. Everyday the automotive manufacturers do. It is also very easy to compare the damped and undamped measurements.

With $250 personally I don't think you can afford the CA's. In particular with no measurement capability; however, I don't really mean a mic but you need a function generator (a CD with lots of tones will work) and a DMM at least along with a reference resistor. I will repeat what I said and say you should find an already done speaker that fits in your budget and build it. It will be superior to what you kluge together for the same money. I do also think it is a mistake to use an off the shelf crossover, a big mistake but at least at the price Lee paid he can throw them away and not worry about it so much when the time comes to make them right. Even with a simple crossover, the parts for the crossover are typically near the price of the drivers. Going with a simple paper driver will help but with a budget of $250 I'd expect to spend no less than $100 on crossover parts and use $150 on drivers. This won't include the box or any other materials of course. edit: I didn't read the htguide thread since it was 11 pages. In the past few months I have spent no time there as I have other projects on the mind and only so much forum time.

Pretty much way underated, RF trying to go old skool.

Building a crossover for those is going to WAY exceed the price of the drivers. Mark's RS225 MT has over $250 in crossover parts alone...

I forgot the "sean" question. Do you have a budget?

I would up to at least a full size tweet. I am not a huge fan of the LPG on axis, off axis it is impressive though. Considering the Seas is such an easy driver to work with you could probably get away with just 1st order slopes on a crossover. It would still require that you make some measurements, so it will depend on your savy in that regard. It will also depend on your expectations. Realistically, I think you would probably be better off either copying one of Zaph's designs or J. Marsh's (HTguide) and just go with it.

I like mine. X2

Some test tones I have whacked together and some Sheffield stuff. I will change pc's and look at Neil's recommendations as well later.

Oh, don't use one of those Neo drivers for a tweet either. You have space so go large format!

htguide.com has some nice plans as well, but Jon's crossovers are a bit expensive. When pricing things do realize that on average crossover cost = driver cost. The more exotic the driver (alum, mag, other hard cones) will up the price of the crossover significantly. If you are looking for a true budget build get something easy to work with like the Seas CA18RNX or other paper driver, of course there aren't any "kits" I can recommend with them but they would be pretty easy to work with.

really just an output sub

It will be better than the P3 in all regards.