I have been learning to use winisd beta, and it is really strange how the rlp models. it suggests like a .4 cube box with a port freq of 38hz. When i punch in 2 cubes at 28, it has an odd peak very low, and is like 2-3db down as the freq increases.

Conversely, i also have an ED 13ov.2, and it models quite linearly in similar boxes. ( i have run them both in the same box, and they do sound quite similar)

any ideas?

Don't rely on "modelling" programs.

Mike has always stated that the Rl-p models weird.

I can say 2ft^3 tuned to 28Hz doesn't sound weird at all.

Play with the enclosure volume and watch the response change, it isn't that it models all that strangely but that the recommended choice from the program is way off. They are usually off anyways as I would always rather pick my response than have it force one down my throat.

WinISD and BassBox Pro have always modeled SoundSplinter drivers poorly. Although I'm pretty sure the drivers themselves defy the laws of physics (in a good way) :drink40:

I always thought Mike models them in LEAP ?

Probably because of the very low QTS on the 12" model. I would suggest using an EBS alignment for the RL-P ported... if it was me that what I'd do with a ~0.2 range Qts driver. I have done so with other Low Qts drivers and it sounded great.

He does.

Probably because of the very low QTS on the 12" model. I would suggest using an EBS alignment for the RL-P ported... if it was me that what I'd do with a ~0.2 range Qts driver. I have done so with other Low Qts drivers and it sounded great.

Yup, any model from any company with low Qts has a tendency to model weird in any modelling program (as the framework for each program is the thiele/small models developed decades ago).

Low Qts drivers do, in fact, require smaller enclosures to achieve the same alignment as higher Qts drivers (as a general rule).

Actually, I should clarify: they don't model weird...they model right on target. But you don't hear what you modelled because of the transfer function of your vehicle or home. A large peak in response can disappear or be minimized in the vehicle...likewise, flat response is very rarely flat when moved over. You have to realize that the thiele/small model is really designed to approach the equivalent high-pass filter that the enclosure represents....use for anything beyond that is a bit limited.

Oh, i am not complaining. I like the sub, i was just curious. I have had it in 1.6 to 34, and 2.0 to 28, and it sounds great in both. Louder in the 1.6, but crazy deep in the 2.0.

Probably because of the very low QTS on the 12" model. I would suggest using an EBS alignment for the RL-P ported... if it was me that what I'd do with a ~0.2 range Qts driver. I have done so with other Low Qts drivers and it sounded great.

Yup, any model from any company with low Qts has a tendency to model weird in any modelling program (as the framework for each program is the thiele/small models developed decades ago).

I've actually calculated a few drivers (one of em the Rl-s series) using those models and came up with negative volume numbers before

Probably because of the very low QTS on the 12" model. I would suggest using an EBS alignment for the RL-P ported... if it was me that what I'd do with a ~0.2 range Qts driver. I have done so with other Low Qts drivers and it sounded great.

Yup, any model from any company with low Qts has a tendency to model weird in any modelling program (as the framework for each program is the thiele/small models developed decades ago).

I've actually calculated a few drivers (one of em the Rl-s series) using those models and came up with negative volume numbers before

Sounds like something went wrong then...in order for the volume to be negative, at least one of the quantities would have to be negative....and the RL-S in particular models best in very (very) large enclosures rather than small ones.