Meh, horns in cars are cool, but not really that great in my opinion. I would do a ported or 4th/6th depending on t/s parameters. Ported is going to be the best option most of the time, just regardless.
---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------
You don't have to give up ridiculous space and test and cut all those crazy angles and pay 50+ for a design like that.
I don't design horns, rear loaded horns, etc. (at the moment, working on it), but I know the space they require and their drawbacks. PWK and I talked about that a long time ago, ported boxes are just usually the way to go. You can customize them to do anything you want mostly, so that's what I "specialize" in. It's what performs.
I do like my occasional 4th and 6th order bandpass, don't get me wrong.
good response between 25-50hz
I enjoy bass most between 30-40hz (realistically I like the lows a lot too but due to roll off I like the loudness which tends to be a little higher)
So probably a peak near 37.5hz or between 35-40hz
Following are the ALL the T/S Parameters that came in the box with the XFL1522 that I got in the mail today.
Sd: 81.43 msqM (<-- Whatever units that is...?)
BL: 11.203 TM
n: 0.494% (judging by the symbol I assume this is efficiency)
SPL: 90.2 dB
VAS: 63.3 L
Cms: 67 uM/N
Mms: 394.5 g
RMS Power: 1000W
MAX Power: 2000W
F. Range: <300
So would you recommend a 4th or 6th order bandpass box?
I know it would be a little bigger than a ported box but this way I can have both ports facing the roof so it's louder, ported both would be facing the driver which I know would reduce output. I also like bandpass because it makes it pretty much stealproof lol, getting the sub out of the box would be so difficult, specially when the box takes up the whole boot and weighs a fair amount.
I would still run an XFL in a 6th order.
programs like winisd and bassbox pro tend to recommend sealed or bp 4th for some reason...
but I know the manufacturer recommends ported and my responses graphed for 6th order look amazing.
My current design is
rear chamber: 2.8cf @ 48hz
front chamber: 4cf @ 28hz
Each with I'm hoping near 16"^2 of port per cube
I haven't finished calculations yet to see how much I can actually fit but the response I get in winisd is great
The blue line is the XFL and the green line are my current 12"s, this is without even accounting for differences in port area, my 12"s only have about 9.8"^2 of port per cube lol.
This will dominate the lows, it's great for me since I don't like bass over 60hz and 50hz+ isn't that great for me, once it starts getting down to 40 is where it gets good imo
edit, just going over specs now I had around 9cf external to play with but after wood and ports etc looks like i only have around 5cf to play with (net internal volume taking out wood thickness, wooden wall in the middle and port displacement) so I'll have to see how i do this lol (this is if I used 16cf of port per cube...)
I'm considering going down to 14 if I can get away with it which seems to give me 5.5cf
12 per cube gives me 5.9cf to play with
how much port area can i sacrifice here?
I would go up to 4 cubes rear as well. 4 cubes and 4+ cubes up to 7 or 8 if you wanted, depending on goals.
Would a series 6th bp help with my space bottlenecks?
And wouldn't it technically reduce output since there's less surface area coming out?
For port area should I just make it so both ports wind speed is 20-25m/s at 1500watts? (I'll probably only use around 1k anyway) I still haven't worked out port areas and I'll be getting onto that soon
alright after a fair amount of work/calculations I have a 6th order series design let me know what you think
This will be built with 17mm structural birch plywood
1.642cf @ 33.32hz
29.39"^2 of port area
29.39/1.642cf = 17.9"^2/cf of port area
3.735 @ 46.6hz
83.27^2 of port area
83.27/(1.642+3.735) = 15.486"/cf of port area
My port area seems pretty huge specially for the 1.64cf chamber, should I decrease these a bit and get more volume out of it?
Problem is with bassbox pro 6 it tells me I get peak port velocities of"
18m/s @ ~ 24hz
10m/s @ ~ 41hz
This is when pushing a 1000watt signal through it.
I think it's good to keep port velocity under 18m/s I think so a smaller port on the smaller chamber seems like it would be pushing it even though it has a huge port area per cubic foot. What's your opinion?
Here's some BBP6 response curves
White line is the standard ported box
Red line is the BP6th Series box
Man, that may graph up well, but I don't think it's going to sound that well. You have front and rear chambers backwards from what I can see.
You should try to get the rear and front about an octave or so apart (rule of thumb). Your rear chamber is way too small as well. 6th orders in general are not known for saving space. I think you may be applying the rules of a parallel 6th to a series.
otherwise whats front and back is subjective... the motor of the sub will be in the large chamber because as you can see it wouldn't fit in the smaller one.
I figured having the higher tuned port facing out would be better because it allows me to have more external port area
Are you saying a good tune would be like 30hz and 60hz? possibly a little more/less? Not sure what's acceptable here.
I haven't gone off many rules other than how the response looks when I model it in bassboxpro
trying out the tuning and size recommendations I get this response, problem is it seems the 30hz-50hz region lacks a bit, which is the region i care most about. Although i don't know how the car envorinment would change this response.
white is the first design, red is the current box with recommendations