What type of design would this be considered? Would it have any disadvantages to a regular ported enclosure?

Drivers would be mounted during the enclosure being built.

Is there any negative effects by having the drivers facing each other? any cancellation?

What would be a good distance to have between the opposing cones? The more the better?

Thanks

Assuming that you have them wired in phase, cancellation isn't an issue. They'll load off each other and the overall result is extremely difficult to predict accurately.

that's a cool looking design! no idea what it would perform like though. try it

Assuming that you have them wired in phase, cancellation isn't an issue. They'll load off each other and the overall result is extremely difficult to predict accurately.

My options are either this, or down firing with a 3-4" gap

Doing this would lower the overall box height which would be very nice for my case.

vehical?

vehical?

2door '97 jeep wrangler (hard top). No rear bench seat. Not doing a wall.

My plan is four SA12's, but the above design would be the same, just two more drivers horizontally.

I have to ask how will you mount the subs? But cool design, looks like a type of bandpass but I'm not to sure.

I have to ask how will you mount the subs? But cool design, looks like a type of bandpass but I'm not to sure.

Bandpass enclosures are sealed behind the driver (At least that's what I think), this would be ported.

As far as mounting the drivers, build bottom and sides of enclosure, leave top panel off, install first baffle in enclosure, mount drivers on that baffle, put next set of drivers on next baffle, then install second baffle, then install top panel.

The only down side is you don't have access to the drivers once installed, if you need them out, time to cut open box... I guess I could make the top panel screw only and not use glue, but that wouldn't seal very well or be very strong, plus I'd have dowels in between for bracing...

Make the gap between each driver bigger and mount inverted

That'd be different.

Make the gap between each driver bigger and mount inverted

That'd be different.

Yeah I would have to measure how much space I could do for the gap, but it would look cool to see the motors, and it wouldn't be some ghetto shit with the subs inverted on top of the box.

I'll wait on others to chime in respectively on the general idea before I figure out all the measurements.

Kinda like the Escalade Meade did.

Kinda like the Escalade Meade did.

You could say that... that build is on a slightly larger scale

I have to ask how will you mount the subs? But cool design, looks like a type of bandpass but I'm not to sure.

Bandpass enclosures are sealed behind the driver (At least that's what I think), this would be ported.

As far as mounting the drivers, build bottom and sides of enclosure, leave top panel off, install first baffle in enclosure, mount drivers on that baffle, put next set of drivers on next baffle, then install second baffle, then install top panel.

The only down side is you don't have access to the drivers once installed, if you need them out, time to cut open box... I guess I could make the top panel screw only and not use glue, but that wouldn't seal very well or be very strong, plus I'd have dowels in between for bracing...

Hm many you could make some sort of access panle to reach the subs. And the band pass you mentioned is a 4th order, there are many diferent kinds of band pass designs like 6th or 8th order. I thing your slightly resembles an 8th order.

I have to ask how will you mount the subs? But cool design, looks like a type of bandpass but I'm not to sure.

Bandpass enclosures are sealed behind the driver (At least that's what I think), this would be ported.

As far as mounting the drivers, build bottom and sides of enclosure, leave top panel off, install first baffle in enclosure, mount drivers on that baffle, put next set of drivers on next baffle, then install second baffle, then install top panel.

The only down side is you don't have access to the drivers once installed, if you need them out, time to cut open box... I guess I could make the top panel screw only and not use glue, but that wouldn't seal very well or be very strong, plus I'd have dowels in between for bracing...

Hm many you could make some sort of access panle to reach the subs. And the band pass you mentioned is a 4th order, there are many diferent kinds of band pass designs like 6th or 8th order. I thing your slightly resembles an 8th order.

Well I'd like the box to be as strong as possible, so less openings the better. As for the bandpass and orders, learn something new everyday

<- fail

<- fail

How so?

I hope your glue won't effect the subs integrity

Edited October 28, 201014 yr by ztkraptor

I hope your glue won't effect the subs integrity

I'm not following you?

i dont get it, if you have a jeep why is this your only option for a box?

i dont get it, if you have a jeep why is this your only option for a box?

As just about any vehicle does, I have many options, but I've narrowed down my choice to fitting as much cone area as possible. I'm looking for a loud daily driver.

I am not however, looking to do a wall.

So my latest idea is 4 sa12s either down firing or in this design. What I like about this design is the overall height of the box would be reduced by a few inches verse down firing, (the more space for storage, the better).

I have about 7.5cubes gross to play with, and sa12s lean on the smaller side of volume requirements (reason i choose them), So I'm looking to have a net volume of 5-6.5cubes in end.

With my current enclosure I have found that firing forward, port forward, was audibly louder then rear and up firing.

If I did this design, I could have the opening of the enclosure directly between driver and passenger seat (center console area), and ports directly behind seats (with respective space for ports to breath).

So it has several points that fall into my liking, but I'm not aware of the disadvantages compared to a regular ported enclosure.

Because the subs will load in the chamber between them, you have no idea what the sound is going to be like. It's going to act something like a bandpass but again, modeling response is going to be a little bit interesting.

I Agree with helotaxi, even with my limited experience modeling enclosures I can tell you it would act as a port just because it's not meant to be a port doesn't meAn it won't act As a port. Interesting to say the least

Because the subs will load in the chamber between them, you have no idea what the sound is going to be like. It's going to act something like a bandpass but again, modeling response is going to be a little bit interesting.

I understand that, instead of loading directly into vehicle, it's loading into this narrow chamber and then out to the vehicle. I'm guessing it would be similar to the back waves coming out of a port...

I could make the gap or "loading chamber" range from a few inches up to 17" in width.

I feel like unless someone posts with prior knowledge from testing a similar design to this, that I should just go with down firing...

Thanks Helotaxi

what your dimensions you have to work with?

Width (from fenderwell to fenderwell): 34"

height: I'd like to keep under 16"

depth: 31"

If I down fired then the actual volume of the box would be reduced, instead of 16" for height it would be ~13", assuming 3" is enough space for the cone to unload...