Jump to content

gamehawk55

Members
  • Content count

    541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

13 Good

About gamehawk55

  • Rank
    CarAudio.com Elite
  • Birthday 12/29/1986

MORE INFO

  • About me
    I'm 26. From Victoria BC, Canada. I like playing guitar and messing around with my computer and other electronics. Have always loved car audio and love bass and am just now really getting into how to do car audio stuff for myself. Installed my first deck last year in my car and hope to venture into box building eventually when I live in a place that allows me to do so. Joined the forums to help gain more knowledge into car audio and cant seem to get enough of it. Love this place :D
  • Name
    Kalin
  • Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
  • Occupation
    Service Technician for Kyocera
  • Interests
    Car Audio, Computers/Electronics, Audio/Video in General, Playing Guitar
  • Audio System Setup
    2 SA-8v2 D2, Kenwood DDX419, AQ 200.2, Rockford Fosgate T2500-1BDCP, 1/0 Gauge power/ground +BIG 3
  1. Made one other design that I think might actually be even better for my application (SQL). Just need to know which one would be best. I would maybe like to get to work on this box by this weekend if I can nail down the perfect design. [ATTACH=CONFIG]26552597[/ATTACH]
  2. Hey guys, Been racking my brain over this for weeks and need some professional feedback on the new design I'm thinking of for my 12" Fi Q. The first pic is the box it's in now, and the 2nd one is the design I'm thinking of building. But I need to know approx how this box would sound? Do I have too much port area per foot? Someone told me that 15-16sq inchs of port per foot was too much and the sound would no longer be tight. But I can't seem to get any less port area per foot while still keeping the correct amount of port area (cross sectional), box volume (2.5cuft) and tuning (32hz) correct. According to a port area calculator I've referred to, my sub needs around 50sq inches of port area to be the most efficient and eliminate port noise. The box it's in now is "ok". It gets decently loud and hits fairly tight and clean. But I feel for the power I'm running into this sub (2200W RMS), it should be a bit louder and hit me alot harder than it does. Also anything below 35hz really starts to suffer in the current box (due to small port I'm assuming). Anyways. Hopefully someone can chime in on what they think I might stand to gain/lose with the new box design and what might make it more "perfect". [ATTACH=CONFIG]26552591[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]26552590[/ATTACH]
  3. I tweaked the design and this (i think) is going to be my final design. It's almost identical to my current box but the port area and net volumes are very different and should make it a very noticeable difference. [ATTACH]26552199[/ATTACH]
  4. Oh mine goes low, but it sounds like *** going into the subsonic range because the port isn't allowing the sub to breath. The extra port area should allow for a better low end extension in the low 30's.
  5. Well considering my current box is 27hz with 25 total square inches of port and this one is gonna be 33hz with 40sq inches....I think I'll be safe hahah
  6. It doesn't actually seem much different from the box it's in now but the port is 1" wider and has 7 more square inches of port vs the box it's in now. According to Torres the current box is 2.8cuft net tuned to 26-27hz with only 9sq inches of port per foot (gross) lol. So this new one should hopefully be a pretty noticeable difference.
  7. K after toying around with it a bit I think I might have found the optimum box, minus the 101ft/s port velocity winISD is reporting me. But by shrinking the port from 3.5" wide to 2.75 and shortening the port to 34" from 44" I end up with exactly 16 square inches of port per foot and approx. 40 square inches total with a tuning of 32.6hz. Sound pretty good to you?
  8. I can shrink the width of the port but that's just gonna up the port velocity alot.
  9. Well then I'm not sure how to get this box to a 32hz tuning while keeping the port area per foot down below 16 and the port velocity numbers under 100ft/s
  10. Wait a tick....When manufacturers give you a recommended box size...Are they quoting that as NET volume after all displacements? or Gross volume?
  11. Well I'm running a T2500-1BDCP at 4ohms currently with a birthsheet saying 2200W @4ohms. So I'm putting in 1500W in the signal section. Pretty sure it's pushing 1500W since it's the constant power version of the amp. I'm trying to tweak it a bit in Torres but I'm not able to get it below 17-19sq inches per foot :/
  12. It seemed a little excessive to me too but that was the only way I could get a 33hz tuning while keeping port velocity around 80ft/s, which is still a little on the high side I think.
  13. My sub is crossed at 80hz, as are my mids. But as a said before I'm pretty sure my current box is a prefab. When I model it up in winISD/Torres Box Calc it comes up as being 2.8cuft net with only 25 square inches of port and a tuning of around 26-28hz, but with a port width of 1.75"!! So my new box is gonna be 2.5cuft with nearly 50 square inches of port area 3.5" wide and tuned to a more respectable (and hopefully ear pleasing) 32/33hz
  14. The polks are rated 125W RMS vs 80W on the Focals. The Polks are rated down to 40hz vs 60hz on the Focals. And the Polks are also said to have a much warmer sound, which is what I'm mostly after, as the Focal's are just too harsh on the ears at higher volumes. The Focals only really sound their best with Electronic music. With rock/metal, they can get way too harsh with vocals and cymbols. So hopefully they'll be better to my ear, because they should be here this week lol.
  15. I've got Focal PS165's up front right now. Soon to be replaced by Polk MM6501's. And the doors are dynamatted and have F.A.S.T Rings installed as well. Big difference in midbass with those rings. But still need more dampening.
×