PDA

View Full Version : Comparison Responses



Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:28 AM
This is a little lengthy, but bare with me. It was created upon request. The information here is for informational purposes only and does not contain much about helping with design, as those parts were intentionally left out for now. The response information here was measured and calculated in a much quicker manner than usual and maintains a sense of realism and honesty. Please enjoy.


This is an introduction to the basic form I use to figure an accurate response based on the added gain of the vehicles transfer function. This is only for my personal vehicle, and the cabin gain shown will not be reflected by an average, nor does it relate to any other vehicle on the market. Most designers who do inhabit cabin gain, use very generic forms of averaged dB increases per octave of somewhere between 6-12dB.
This will show you the accuracy of my design process and hopefully conclude the theory/practice misconception that hovers over the audio community based on inaccurate design approaches, that have damaged the trust of a proper calculation in this world in comparison to real world response.
I am going to be using a generic 6.5” driver with an Fs of around 57-62Hz, depending on the applied voltage, related to impedance changes.

Information will be added each post due to the length of the project.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:31 AM
Here are the basic parameters I have calculated so far:
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1507/tsparameters.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/tsparameters.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)



This does not include the Mechanical mass as the Vas has to still be calculated. This will be done after the test box is completed.
So, in order for this project to be complete accurately, many programs and hand calculations will be done that will not be shown, due to the amount of work I have put together for years to get the information I need for a response. This will remain classified, with the exception of using hornresp to verify my response, NOT for creating the response. I do not like ot use hornresp to do the work for me. I use other calculations for figuring proper compression and port/path dimensions and areas using the drivers parameters and other known variables needed to figure for those parameters of the enclosure as a basis. This is important in getting the accuracy I put my name on.

So, let’s get started! First, we have a driver figured. Now, we have to construct a test box that is the optimal volume for the drivers acoustical compression to be calculated. We will figure for a box that is just a bit larger than the drivers outer dimensions. This will give us a volume of 7.75”x8.75”x7.25” or around 0.285 cubic ft. The reason for this size enclosure is that if made too large, inaccuracies occur when calculating Vas, and if made too small, the resonance will change to dramatically due to impedance rise to figure an accurate Vas. This size will work fine. The driver will be placed outside of the enclosure as no terminal connections within the enclosure will be used or needed. We will also at the cutout volume of the driver within the thickness of the wood as volume as well. This is calculated as a cutout diameter of 5.75” and a wood thickness of .75”. This has to be converted to a cylindrical volume, so diameter will be converted to radius and using the formula: Pi*(rad)^2 we can figure for square area, then multiply by the wood thickness for volume.
So, the radius will be 2.875. That *2 is 8.265625. Multiply that by Pi, and you get a square area of 25.954 square inches or 167.45 square cm, by multiplying square inches by 6.4516. So, volume will be 167.45(.75*2.54)=318.9923 cubic cm. This will be added to the 0.285 cubic ft volume. But we first need to convert 0.285 cubic ft to cubic cm. This is done by reverting back to the actual dimensions (7.75, 8.75, 7.25). If you multiply them to get cubic in, it can then be multiplied by 16.387064 to get cubic cm. This will give you 8056.55 cubic cm. So, 8056.55+318.9923=8375.5423 or 0.2958 cubic ft.
Note: Cm are used for higher accuracy.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:37 AM
So, now we have the volume of the enclosure figured. Now we have to construct it. Here, I have attached some pics of the build:
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1517/img20110726072020.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/img20110726072020.jpg/)
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5793/img20110726072044.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/img20110726072044.jpg/)
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6528/img20110726072118.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/img20110726072118.jpg/)
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1791/img20110726072213.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/img20110726072213.jpg/)
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2606/img20110726072821.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/img20110726072821.jpg/)
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/981/img20110726073157.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/img20110726073157.jpg/)
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4142/img20110726110915.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/34/img20110726110915.jpg/)
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1865/img20110726111912.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/img20110726111912.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:38 AM
So, now that we have a test box, we can mount the driver and get ready for calculating acoustical compression volume. Why is it important that we need this value? Well, without it, many calculations cannot be made, but the most important real-life reason, is without knowing the 1:1 compression ratio of the driver, will cannot conclude a proper compression volume without having to build the box over and over and test over and over, like many do for SPL competitions to figure for greatest SPL output. This is mainly to show that this can be done WITHOUT all the fine tuning being the major factor in the response, and allowing calculations to become so accurate, that we should be able to get to a point where only a single box needs to be made, without adjustable ports, or any of that extra hands-on stuff that so many rely one. This is not to say that it is inaccurate to do all that extra work, but it can be avoided by getting rid of the misconception that calculations just are not enough for accuracy. That is the main purpose of this project.

So, though many will argue this, accuracy of the calculations I use have been down to a few inches of measurements for resonance points, and down to a few Hz of accuracy for SPL output. This will be proven effective here.

Moving on………..

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:40 AM
So, figuring for accurate response…. How do we start? Well, first, it would be good to know the vehciles response information to be configured with the anechonic response of the enclosure. This way, when loaded, the proper resonances will be excited for an added gain to get more of what you will hear from a specific listening position, or for an average of the entire vehicle. For this, we will figure for the headrest position and the mic position as well, for stock SPL competition.
First thing to know is the vehicle dimensions, in inches, not feet as this will be more accurate.
So, for my vehicle, dimensions are: 110”Deep, 62” wide, and 48” high. This will be used to calculate the vehicle response curve. This part I will not show you as it will take a while and I simply do not want to reveal my personal findings, but here is the final responses after all of the calculations(this took a few solid hours straight to complete).
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1433/headrestposition.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/headrestposition.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:41 AM
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6301/micposition.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/micposition.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

The second one is the mic position
From this response, you can see that I have an excited resonance around the 62Hz range. And if you figure the simple calculation (used by many others), you will see that by calculating for 110” at half-wave (not quarterwave…that is not what I use), then you get 110/12=9.1667ft, then 1127/9.1667 which is 122.95Hz, and at half wave its 61.47Hz! Pretty darn close I would say.
Now, since we are now aware of the peak resonance of the vehicle, and that it so happens to match with the basic waveform calculation so popularly used, there is a few more things to consider. One of those is, will 62Hz be good to use for a burp? Well, this is a part of my job that requires quite a bit of explanation, as most would take 62Hz as “easy spl”. But there is a reason for this. This frequency does not have to be the frequency of choice. And most would consider exactly half of this as a base frequency. This is where again, I differ in my calculations. I would agree that quarterwave resonance is great for spl configuration, but not for direct spl output, more so, as a guide to a complete response passband at LF cutoff. For instance, the way that I figure for accurate response curves in different vehicles, does reside around QWLF cutoff, as it physically makes sense to do so when considering efficiency in the design. But this will be shown as well. Right now, I would like to concentrate on direct spl configuration, as this will accurately show the basis of my project goal---to show that theory can be as accurate as practice.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:43 AM
So, here is where I consider two different frequencies in regard to two different spl listening positions. The reason for this is obvious…….two different length of paths the sound waves travel, hence different frequency resonances. So first, we figured the resonance using my calculations and bounced them off of what most designers do and found them to be identical……at least to the nearest whole number. This will say a lot about my accuracy as well. Now, this was for direct mic position at 110” from the rear driver location and also from another position important in gain resonance…….the angle from the back window directed straight at the mic. This position will have the same distance in my vehicle as the driver position, so only one of those will be used.
Now, we have to figure for headrest position. Again, my way is different and I come up with a resonance of about 48Hz. Now, if you look at the headrest response, you will notice that there is not a 48Hz peak shown. There are acoustical reasons for this. Here is a modified length to 48Hz halfwave resonance that you can verify by the circled peak at full wave resonance at around 100hz.
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/7472/48hzexcitation.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/48hzexcitation.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
But you will notice, the 48Hz does not show up still. This is where a lot of people are tricked into hearing resonances that do not show on the graph, and as I believe, is the main reason why people will say, theory does not equal practice. I will try to verify this when the build is complete and we can test a resonance, as the enclosure will be sealed for direct front wave response with no phase problems from the design, only from the vehicle, as this is what we are concentrating on.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:45 AM
So, here is the box completed. Simple, no sanding needed, just sealed.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7827/img20110726200455.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/img20110726200455.jpg/)
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2695/tsparameterswithvas.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/tsparameterswithvas.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Now, since we have a test box, I have calculated the Vas to be 5.0857 liters. Now, I can figure for mechanical parameters.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:48 AM
So, this is done. I have a box response here:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6346/responsecalc.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/responsecalc.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Now, I will use an FFT analyzer to measure a real response. I will be placing the driver 1 meter from the source, it a virtually anechonic environment, due to the output voltage being less than 1V. This allows for minimal, if any, resonances due to timing loss in a room that is 9ft high, 14 ft wide, and 19 ft long. With less than a volt of output, this is not a problem on the measured response at 1meter.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:50 AM
After the measurement, here is what I put together for a comparison response with the calculated one:
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3226/responsecalcandmeasrd.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/responsecalcandmeasrd.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
The white response that extends to 15hz is the calculated one. The purple response is the non-smoothed response, and the turquoise response is the 3rd octave smoothed response(accounting for resonance).


You see how the measured responses follow the calculated one quite well. This is a sealed design, so if this didn’t match, I would quit designing all together, lol.
Now, there is a noticeable dip around 60Hz, which seems to actually be room resonance as the room calculated response is this:
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6896/livingroomresponsewithb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/livingroomresponsewithb.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

This is with the mic and the box positions configured correctly in the room.
Also, we can correspond the 35hz rise, 85hz rise and the 110hz rise.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 11:52 AM
So, since Im working with realtime, this will have to be considered. But the response is still pretty close to calculated even with the huge dip in the room. But this is a good point that the room response is nearly dead on. This is a great way to conclude the project already, but we will go further with a full response IN the vehicle as well.

Ok, so now that we know the response is accurate, we can use it to calculate the transfer function of the vehicle into it.
Here is what I came up with for a vehicle response:

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/6618/finalmicresponse.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/810/finalmicresponse.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
This is the final mic response

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/7297/finalhrresponse.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/finalhrresponse.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
This is the final headrest response
They look fairly identical, but this is mainly due to the smoothness of the anechonic response, which allows cabin gain to take full control over the response curve. But you notice that, like other sealed designs, the flatness occurs quite well in the passband of this driver.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 12:03 PM
So, as far as the vehicle response, what I have calculated to be a great one to use, aside from this particular project, has been calculated at 31-124Hz due to the size and dimensions of my cabin. This is one of the reasons I chose this vehicle, due to the passband it will allow with respect to most music. If you take a truck for instance, you will see higher resonances in the truck if its dimensions are smaller. Take a truck with a 6ft length. This will allow for an optimal response passband of 47-188Hz, which will cause much higher gain below 47Hz. I do not like this effect as I tend to enjoy smooth accurate bass rather than peaks. So, having my cabin structure will actually prove quite challenging in an spl setup for this small driver….not optimal at all, but this is just a project of informational reasons.

Next, I will be taking the enclosure into the vehicle for some testing and comparison of the calculated response. It has to be mentioned, that I need to also figure for equalization at the LF cutoff of the amplifier and slope of the LF response as it will likely show that the 20Hz dB level may be lower than calculated for now. This will be accounted for in the process if needed. It will also be noted that the actual dB levels will not be the same due to the calculations being strictly informational for the comparison, because the calculated response is measured at 2.83V. it may be figured for my output in the vehicle to be at 2.83V as well for higher accuracy of dB readings. This, as well, will be accounted for as this is an SPL example and exact dB levels are extremely important.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 12:05 PM
Update: While I was waiting to go to work today, I wanted to further test the resonance I have calculated of the vehicle using another form of propagation effect.

Now, I had made a simple Bass reflex design for a couple of DUAL 12s that I use for testing purposes. I extracted their parameters, and used the ever popular hornresp to verify my response information. For an anechonic response. Here is the anechonic response:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5516/212stestboxhornresp.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/212stestboxhornresp.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Now, you may be wondering if you can calculate for gain in hornresp. Next, is a gained response I used in hornresp to calculate this response into my vehicle gain. Now, if you remember, from my transfer function calculations, I have figured for a gain at halfwave of 62Hz, and verified that with the simple formula for length of a wave. Again, longest distance 110”. 110/12=9.1667. 1127/9.1667=122.95. 122.95/2(for half wave propagation) =61.47Hz.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 12:08 PM
So, figuring for the added model of my vehicle, and treating it as enclosure volume (as it really should be anyhow.maybe more on this later or another topic). And I get this:http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8656/212stestboxhornrespwith.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/148/212stestboxhornrespwith.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


This verifies, in theory, the gain at 62Hz! Now, listening position will alter this respons quite a bit if measured from other than windshield position, but this is just a calculated example of the power of half wave resonance vs quarterwave resonance, in my perspective. For this, most of my designs are revolved around that for a passband. For instance, and vehicle with lowest room mode of a length of 6ft, will give you a half wave resonance of 93.92Hz. This is where most of the efficiency will revolve around. And the LF would be the quarter wave resonance of 47Hz. And the full passband for this vehicle would be optimal from 47Hz- the fullwave of 187.83Hz or 189Hz. So, from 47Hz-189Hz, is the optimal response passband for this type of vehicle. This will allow any resonance below 93.92Hz to have gain, rather than 40-60Hz, which will actually decrease efficiency! That is one of my tricks that works well. And this does not mean it will play only to 47Hz. It just means for efficiency and optimum range. Below 47Hz should be great output in that sense as well with the gain of the vehicle taken into consideration. This will change the LF output of the graph, but the gain will be at the same positions if calculated as this one was.
Here is the design idea used to figure the gain using hornresp:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/796/212testboxpic.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/212testboxpic.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

In this design, the trunk space was utilized as compression area, as that is exactly what it is anyhow, with dampening anyhow, but figured for full resonance affects.
Now, for phase, in hornresp, at the nominal frequency of 77Hz, which is the middle of the passband for a broad average of explaination, it shows it at 156.3 degrees. Also, the 62Hz peak involves the full cabin, and this shows just the rear as it was needed for me to figure for volume correctly, but the front is not as oblique, so not needed to sketch it out. This is just having the rest of the vehicles remaining cabin, but to include that if I were to make walls behind the c pillar, that it would not change the resonances, but will excite them, and hornresp can show that as well, by figuring for the vehicle as part of the design. I will be experimenting with this in the future, I just came across this and verified it with this design. It may prove to be incorrect further down the road, but for now, maybe something can come out of it, I don’t know yet, but the calculations are completely verified here anyhow.
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3236/212stestboxhornrespphas.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/212stestboxhornrespphas.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
It should reside around more towards 180degrees, but hornresp does not taken into major consideration the angle rather it uses expansion rate than directivity of the throat to mouth area (one of the reasons I do not do my full calculations with hornresp, and use it more merely recognition and verification).

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

So, this means that the direct off axis response of this design is fairly close to accurate with the phase and with the adjustments needed in the calculations without hornresp, this will be precise. But this was mainly to show the correlation of my gain response to calculated response of another program than what I use, which further verifies its accuracy, even when the angle of the back window is not fully taken into consideration…..the resonance is still accurate due to dimensions being close and volume being exact. So, the leniency of a design can be given to angle for some degree, which is why taking the seats and the windows into the full response is not really necessary, more so can be averaged for the transfer function to be accurate( and likely why no one considers obstacles in the vehicle as affecting the response, due to the resonances over time being filled into the environment as long as RT60 is overlapped continuously.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 12:12 PM
So, back to the actual measurement of the original concept:
Ok, so here is what I have for you with the test box and sub located in the calculated area and the mic in the mic position.
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1290/img20110729072858.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/img20110729072858.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Placement from front or rear of the mic was not important as it deals with the reflective waves from the windshield. Non-directive was purposely done.
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1668/img20110729074455.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/img20110729074455.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3275/img20110729074511.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/img20110729074511.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Sub placement shown here, and the calculated replacement was Identical, corner loading at about 10” from the floor and 12” from the right.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 12:16 PM
AND THE RESPONSE;
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3634/final5inchsubresponsesm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/final5inchsubresponsesm.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

So, you see how even without accounting for losses, the calculated graph shows a decent flow corresponding with the actual response passband of the vehicle? Outside of the passband, it is obvious that there is a difference, but even with accounted averaged losses and cutoff configuration of the Perceptive hearing levels, it accounts for a smooth response very similar to real-time. In the video, the bump that turned into a dip around the 25Hz range was due to the mic actually rolling a few inches to the right just before measurement, but I did not want to correct this, as I want to do everything realtime with no major corrections. So, it was needed and honest to explain that to you in case it was noticed.
It is important to note that the concentrated frequency of interest, 62Hz is within +/- 3dB even with these majorly rough measurements.
So, we have here the three responses needed to figure for the accuracy that was challenged. All of them were without major changes, such as EQ filters and electrical changes, and only were adjusted to match the actual rolloff of what you hear at lower frequencies, as it is impossible to hear the same dB level from a sealed design below 20Hz the same as above 20Hz. There is a natural rolloff that anyone with the right mind, can take into consideration from the calculated responses given from the blueprints. The only difference you will notice that is major, is the LF and HF rolloff degrees from calculated and actual, but this is easily accounted for by adding them in as shown. The adjustment was made at around 58Hz for the LF rolloff as the calculated impedance rise is around that point, to which below that, a noticeable slope will occur. That is where the LF rolloff was figured for. The HF rolloff was figured for 80Hz as that is where the amplifier is set to anyway. So, with those taken into consideration, the response is fairly accurate I would say.

If you look at the smoothness of the actual response from 38-85Hz, which is obvious where loading is handled the best in this design, and you take the averaged frequency from that, you get the calculated peak of 62Hz! Right in the middle of that curved passband as shown in the actual measurement. Though the peak was not apparent in the realtime response, this is due to acoustical losses from the vehicles materials, and such. So, the added dB levels without considering major dampening, rather than an average, will show the peak more prenounced when calculated, and this only verifies that dampening smoothens the response more than 1/3 octave with softer materials(I have cloth seats).

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

This is the most important thing to mention for this entire project, as it was a challenge to me to prove my accuracy, and further accuracy can be accomplished with more time, but the important thing to note is that the position of the mic, the position of the driver, the actual acoustical coefficients of the vehicle, and other factors were not given. The mic was generically placed, the sub was just pushed into the corner, and I have yet to calculate the actual losses in my vehicle, as this is something currently being done soon to get ready for a possible sound competition in the future. I have never measured my vehicle to the fullest, and have only taken the information I use as I would with a blueprint. More precise figures can be determined with time, and accuracy and more attention to detail. So, it is important to note that this was done with less accuracy than possible, and purposely to show that even with things put together this fast, that the accuracy is still very acceptable.

I hope this helps you to understand my intentions as a designer better, and that this was just to show a simple way of my figures without actually showing you too much about what I do. Nothing was modified to alter the responses other than the needed losses to account for amp cutoff and natural cutoff. These cutoffs are not figured in the response you receive from me, though I might consider it in the future if I have to time to do more with it. The reason is, everyone knows a flat response from 30Hz and below is impossible to accomplish with the given limitations in a vehicle. I do not fele the need to show a rolloff below lowest resonance in the calculations as this is something that everyone knows of. So account for that yourself for now. HF rolloff is not a consideration to me either as most of us do not play bass in the lower 100Hz range, so again, not figured for as is obvious it will be existent in realtime responses. But again, maybe I will account for this later on, we will see.
I know that some will have negative things to say about this project, but frankly, I am of no concern to that. I know what I can do is amazing and accurate and has proven time after time. It is unfortunate I could not show the actual 62Hz resonance as the response was smoothed too much from apparent losses from a factory vehicle, but seal it better and it will be there. But that is the truth. I did not change anything from when it was measured or calculated. Everything is realtime, which is why I was able to complete this so quickly from yesterday.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

Here is something else I want to add that other designers may take into consideration for SQ setups:
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/457/neededresponseforabsolu.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/neededresponseforabsolu.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

This is a reference to what response needs to be considered for the flattest response in my vehicle. Notice the two dips at 27Hz and 48Hz? These create a great response that can be smoothed with resonances with complete vehicle gain being the concentration. You will notice that the 31Hz-125Hz response is not considered in this, which is what my vehicle enjoys the most for efficiency, but this is not about output, this is about quality. So, In order for me to get a very good sound quality for my particular vehicle to completely offset the gain, the RED response is its natural response for the vehicle!. This may be proven at a later time as well. And looking at this now, a tapped horn would work wonder in my vehicle based on the peaks.
Anyway, that’s about it for now. If I made any mistakes, please point them out, as this was written very fast without rechecking it too much.

bubbagumper6
07-29-2011, 12:59 PM
Nice writeup, didn't expect it so soon :)

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 01:06 PM
Nice writeup, didn't expect it so soon :)

I started working on it asap. And after work this morning, I came home and did the response stuff for the vehicle. Everything else was done last night. :) I hope it helps you understand my accuracy a little better and trust me as a designer a little. :)

>>SQL<<
07-29-2011, 01:36 PM
is that a "BOSS" Brand amp in your personal car?

bubbagumper6
07-29-2011, 01:39 PM
Side question, is that a Rock Band microphone? lol

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 01:41 PM
is that a "BOSS" Brand amp in your personal car?

Yes. The front amp, sub amp, and xover are all BOSS AUDIO. But its not setup at all. Just in there for testing for now. I am working on a design for it later on next month.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 01:46 PM
Side question, is that a Rock Band microphone? lol
LOL no...does look like it though.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 01:49 PM
Though I do believe it is a gaming one, I think. It works well and has a low level/high sensitivity input for the low voltage measurements. Works quite well and accurately.

>>SQL<<
07-29-2011, 01:55 PM
I am sorry - if you are rocking Boss equipment you are no Boss to me.
Where are the Pyle speakers hiding at?
I cannot take you seriously

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 02:06 PM
I am sorry - if you are rocking Boss equipment you are no Boss to me.
Where are the Pyle speakers hiding at?
I cannot take you seriously

Wow. That's very judgemental. I love when people do this. Let's now start a conversation about how BOSS ***** and no one will ever use them. I will vouche for their quality all day long. The main issue that people have is their ability to rate the wattage correctly. This, I understand. I am only getting at max 250W out of the said 1100W it says it will do. But, I am also going to be using a TC Sounds epic 8, which is a 2X2 coil, in which I will be wiring it for 4ohms series for the 250W rating to match the amplifier very well. This amplifier has been great for over 3 years and still sounds amazing.
But you will not have anything to say about TC Sounds, right? Who really cares. Does this have anything to do with my ability to design? Not at all. You need to get your thinking straight man and do not judge so quickly. Have you owned this amplifier personally ( that is rhetorical, but serious)? I do know how they are misrated, and that is nothing to me as my design will be based on efficiency, rather than pure power, as most of my designs are. I can take a 100W amp and do wonders with it against a few thousand watt amps. Distortion is obviously a concern, but the levels of distortion on this amp is where all the money went. Great sound quality.

The amplifier matches my driver choice quite well. i will support this amplifier from BOSS, but I do not support the black ones, they are not very well made. But this one and its 4 channel counterparts are put together quite well.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 02:09 PM
Wow. That's very judgemental. I love when people do this. Let's now start a conversation about how BOSS ***** and no one will ever use them. I will vouche for their quality all day long. The main issue that people have is their ability to rate the wattage correctly. This, I understand. I am only getting at max 250W out of the said 1100W it says it will do. But, I am also going to be using a TC Sounds epic 8, which is a 2X2 coil, in which I will be wiring it for 4ohms series for the 250W rating to match the amplifier very well. This amplifier has been great for over 3 years and still sounds amazing.
But you will not have anything to say about TC Sounds, right? Who really cares. Does this have anything to do with my ability to design? Not at all. You need to get your thinking straight man and do not judge so quickly. Have you owned this amplifier personally ( that is rhetorical, but serious)? I do know how they are misrated, and that is nothing to me as my design will be based on efficiency, rather than pure power, as most of my designs are. I can take a 100W amp and do wonders with it against a few thousand watt amps. Distortion is obviously a concern, but the levels of distortion on this amp is where all the money went. Great sound quality.

The amplifier matches my driver choice quite well. i will support this amplifier from BOSS, but I do not support the black ones, they are not very well made. But this one and its 4 channel counterparts are put together quite well.

The BOSS 2500D and 3500D are the worst lineup they have, and do not perform well at all. Just to note that. But again, this amplifier has impressed me so far. And I am not easily impressed, as i know what audio is capable of. :)

>>SQL<<
07-29-2011, 02:15 PM
I have never run Boss, Pyle, or Pyramid.
I have however in the long long ago ran Sherwood..LOL

It is like this...
Quality in = Quality out
Garbage in = Garbage out


There is nothing in my car that is not high quality.
Pioneer Avic-Z2 headunit
Old School MB Quart Q series speakers
MB Quart Amp
JL Audio Sub
High End Monster RCA's
High End Power Wires

High Quality not Junk
I will not take advice from anyone who thinks junk crap equipment is worth running.

What are you going to show us next - your wall of 6x9 Sony Explode's??

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 02:36 PM
I have never run Boss, Pyle, or Pyramid.
I have however in the long long ago ran Sherwood..LOL

It is like this...
Quality in = Quality out
Garbage in = Garbage out


There is nothing in my car that is not high quality.
Pioneer Avic-Z2 headunit
Old School MB Quart Q series speakers
MB Quart Amp
JL Audio Sub
High End Monster RCA's
High End Power Wires

High Quality not Junk
I will not take advice from anyone who thinks junk crap equipment is worth running.

What are you going to show us next - your wall of 6x9 Sony Explode's??

How about this......have you ever heard of the company Jensen? You being very one track minded, probably not, but anyhow, they are a low end audio company, and I believe Walmart brand by now.
Well, back in the days, they were the major manufacturer of many speaker related products, including mainly radios, with some of the first multi-speaker setups. They introduced some wave propagation formulas for quarterwave theory back in either the 40s or 60s. Well, who was the first manufacturer to reproduce this idea? BOse. Go figure. They reproduced a lot of common used ideas from well before their wave radio came out, which to me is nothing more than a simple Tline formula for LF cutoff only, which also chambers the mids directly into the same compression area. But Bose is a great company right? hmmmmm. How is Jensen doing by the way?

And I do not believe Pyle, or Pyramid is great at all, nor do I believe sony has a chance, as their amps all seem to overheat to easily. But you are also trying to compare their amps with their drivers. Completely different ideas and purposes.
Other than that, I am happy that you have all that great equipment in your vehicle. I guess I am proud of you. But I will not fall into the trap of following everyone elses bias ideas of electronics or anything for that matter.

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 02:40 PM
I have never run Boss, Pyle, or Pyramid.
I have however in the long long ago ran Sherwood..LOL

It is like this...
Quality in = Quality out
Garbage in = Garbage out


There is nothing in my car that is not high quality.
Pioneer Avic-Z2 headunit
Old School MB Quart Q series speakers
MB Quart Amp
JL Audio Sub
High End Monster RCA's
High End Power Wires

High Quality not Junk
I will not take advice from anyone who thinks junk crap equipment is worth running.

What are you going to show us next - your wall of 6x9 Sony Explode's??

So, why dont we stay on subject and not try to ridicule others that they do not understand anything about. for 37 years old, you sure have a lot of growing up to do man. I hope you learn how to be nicer sometime in your life, I really do. I dont mean that in a condisending way either.

jco1385
07-29-2011, 02:44 PM
haters ITT too. also lot's of tech info i don't quite grasp :crap:

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 03:46 PM
haters ITT too. also lot's of tech info i don't quite grasp :crap:

Thats ok. Just take a look at the pics, lol. They pretty much say it all anyhow. What is your thoughts about it all by the way, for what you understand so far?

T.I.K.
07-29-2011, 03:55 PM
I have never run Boss, Pyle, or Pyramid.
I have however in the long long ago ran Sherwood..LOL

It is like this...
Quality in = Quality out
Garbage in = Garbage out


There is nothing in my car that is not high quality.
Pioneer Avic-Z2 headunit
Old School MB Quart Q series speakers
MB Quart Amp
JL Audio Sub
High End Monster RCA's
High End Power Wires

High Quality not Junk
I will not take advice from anyone who thinks junk crap equipment is worth running.

What are you going to show us next - your wall of 6x9 Sony Explode's??

I think he's made it more than clear that he is very well versed in the finer points of car audio, all you've proven is that you know how to shop...

>>SQL<<
07-29-2011, 06:53 PM
The OP is a supporting Vendor - so I will bow down.

T.I.K.
07-29-2011, 07:09 PM
The OP is a supporting Vendor - so I will bow down.

lol w/e bro, troll harder

Moble Enclosurs
07-29-2011, 07:09 PM
The OP is a supporting Vendor - so I will bow down.

Not necessary at all. Im no better for that reason. It just allows me to promote myself legally and support the forum with upgrades and modifications that may cost money to do, thats all. Being a supporting member does not automatically say I am proficient at what I do. I can prove that myself.
You neglected to stop and think that this is maybe all I can afford, and for the money, it is the best I can do and it so happens I am impressed by this amplifier. Just because I sell designs and build them professionally does not mean huge profit or much a profit at all, as that is not what it is about. i use the extra costs to purchase sanding paper, replace broken bits/parts, etc. maintain my gear. I have yet to profit majorly from this, and hence, lower quality amplifier. So, think of it as a balance that is necessary for cost/quality. Also, nowhere does it say I think BOSS is better than other major brands, as this would be not only bias, but unfortunately incorrect. But I will still stand by what I said by saying this amp is very impressive for the company/cost considerations. i hope this helps my arguement a little, lol.

05trailblazer
07-29-2011, 07:46 PM
you want quality stick with q-power nothing can go wrong with that!! i stand by q-power the name says it all! lmao :suicide: :escape:

Moble Enclosurs
08-04-2011, 09:00 PM
Ever heard of GOldwood? They are sold at parts-express. Even those are considered "cheap" by the audio community (of those who know them). My argument with those is that Martin King recommended them in one of his HT systems for low end from one of their 18" drivers and did use it with good results. But many would not touch them because of word of mouth. That's the problem now days. To many people following, and not experimenting. :)