Best Shallow Mount Subs Available.

[R34P3R 10+ year member]

Put up a second mortgage and take these.

Critical Mass

 

[Trancer 10+ year member]

winisd says .5 cubic foot, si bm mk on 450 watts, alpine shallow 12 on 600 watts .5 box, the alpine isnt louder until ~60hz. plus the si bm mk will sound better right? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

I knew you were gonna chime in on that. I wasn't going to argue with him, but I highly doubt one alpine 12 SM is louder than 2 MB Quart RLP304's. Without having both of them up. Against each other, WinISD ftw

 

[Cruzer 10+ year member]

I knew you were gonna chime in on that. I wasn't going to argue with him, but I highly doubt one alpine 12 SM is louder than 2 MB Quart RLP304's. Without having both of them up. Against each other, WinISD ftw

I didn't compare the mb quarts give ts info and I can. What am I comparing two of them vs 1 alpine 12?

 

[Trancer 10+ year member]

I think the RLP 304 has the best chance at being on top.

T/S PARAMETERS

Fs: 29.13 Hz

Qms: 6.928

Vas: 53.98 liters

Cms: 171 um/N

Mms: 174.42 g

Xmax: 9 mm

Dia: 245 mm

Sd: 0.047 sq.m

Vd: 0.424 liters

Qes: 0.952

Re: 7.05 ohms

NomZ: 8.46 ohms

BL: 15.38 Tm

QTS: 0.837

no: 0.135 %

1W/1M: 86 dB

.5cuft: small enclosure - tight bass

.75cuft: optimal enclosure - flat response

 

[Bassin Buick]

stereo integrity or gay el tw5. I haven't heard the SI shallow but i have heard the JL and it tops most of the ones in your list and i still think it ***** balls.

 

[Cruzer 10+ year member]

I think the RLP 304 has the best chance at being on top.
T/S PARAMETERS

Fs: 29.13 Hz

Qms: 6.928

Vas: 53.98 liters

Cms: 171 um/N

Mms: 174.42 g

Xmax: 9 mm

Dia: 245 mm

Sd: 0.047 sq.m

Vd: 0.424 liters

Qes: 0.952

Re: 7.05 ohms

NomZ: 8.46 ohms

BL: 15.38 Tm

QTS: 0.837

no: 0.135 %

1W/1M: 86 dB

.5cuft: small enclosure - tight bass

.75cuft: optimal enclosure - flat response

so what am i comparing again? two mb quarts off 600 watts is louder than the single alpine type r 12 off 600 watts.

 

[Trancer 10+ year member]

haha

I was thinking two of the MB Quarts vs. two of the Alpines. Wouldnt be that big of a deal for the Quarts to beat one sub. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

I was blown away by the output from a TW5 I heard at CarToys. Then again, I haven't really heard anything loud :/ It's not worth the price though.

 

[Trancer 10+ year member]

I would have put two 12 TW5's in my friends single cab Silverado, but you have the same feeling as I do on them; the are way too expensive. Not a big JL fan, but when you are building a full stereo for a college kid 19 year old on a budget AND limited space, it can be kinda tough. I got one chance at gettin his setup right. Its not one of those kind of deals where it can be switched out. Its not my stereo. So I went with two 10" RE SE's. I'd really like to put that stereo up against some shallow 12's.

 

[Cruzer 10+ year member]

haha
I was thinking two of the MB Quarts vs. two of the Alpines. Wouldnt be that big of a deal for the Quarts to beat one sub. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

depends on power used. the mb quarts are only rated 300 each if i remember correctly, the alpines are rated 600 each i believe. so if u do 600 watts vs 1200 on the alpines, alpines take it np.

if u do two alpines 600 watts two mb quart 600 watts, the alpines play .6db louder at 30hz, the mb quarts are 2db louder at 50-70hz. but thats kinda pointless the alpines are meant to have like 500 each. and for the record the alpines have a flat response where the mb quarts peak/hump up at 50-70hz

 

[Trancer 10+ year member]

Dang. I wanted the $90 subwoofer to beat the $300 subwoofer. Me and my David vs. Goliath.

And I'm a fan of the Type R's. The non-shallow version. But they are also a bargain unlike the shallow R

 

[Electrodynamic 10+ year member]

Using WinISD is great for calculating port length and diameter given a fixed enclosure volume and tuning, but for actual in-car response it's pretty worthless. WinISD generates a theoretical response curve if you were listening to the speaker system in an anechoic chamber. Your living room, listening room, and bedroom all have cabin gain at some point (room cabin gain typically starts in the 20's). Vehicles have LOTS of cabin gain and all of them start high in the 45 to 50 Hz region. In a vehicle, hitting your target F3 (it should be in/around the mid 40's) is the most important aspect. Qtc is valid for home applications, but not so much for cars due to the +12 dB/octave gain you get starting at approximately 45 Hz. The overall response curve and more importantly bandwidth are what you are after. The broader the bandwidth, the better the transient response, and the happier you will be unless you're after a one note wonder.

When you are comparing the RLP 304 to the Alpine keep in mind that the Alpine has a more linear response because its Qtc is significantly lower. Qtc relies on Qts, Fs, and Vas, all of which the Alpine type R shallow has the advantage of. The Alpine shallow Type R has a similar rise in response as the BM mkIII (~2 dB) in the 60 to 80 Hz range in 0.5 ft^3 sealed. The RLP has a 5 dB rise, again due to the bad alignment in 0.5 ft^3. Which, by the way, smaller sealed enclosures don't make the bass faster or tighter! Their "tight bass" label for their smaller enclosure recommendation is completely erroneous.

All this while you have been comparing a single MB Quart to a single Type R shallow. And there has also been discussion of 0.6 dB louder, quieter, etc. 0.6 dB is not detectable by the human ear. 3 dB is a noticeable difference in loudness. 1.5 dB is incredibly hard to notice, let alone 0.6 dB. The latter means that you will not be able to hear a 0.6 dB difference. And as I previously stated you will need two of the other drivers besides the Type R shallow to equal the output of a single Type R shallow. Double the volume will be required, more money spent on enclosure materials, and you will still end up with less low frequency extension compared to the Type R shallow. Not to mention that the Type R shallow is the baddest shallow subwoofer available for purchase right now. A 4" voice coil, channeled top plate, hollowed out spider to move through the top plate, and big neo magnet slug all add up to icanbeatthepissoutofthecurrentcompetition.

 

[R34P3R 10+ year member]

Using WinISD is great for calculating port length and diameter given a fixed enclosure volume and tuning, but for actual in-car response it's pretty worthless. WinISD generates a theoretical response curve if you were listening to the speaker system in an anechoic chamber. Your living room, listening room, and bedroom all have cabin gain at some point (room cabin gain typically starts in the 20's). Vehicles have LOTS of cabin gain and all of them start high in the 45 to 50 Hz region. In a vehicle, hitting your target F3 (it should be in/around the mid 40's) is the most important aspect. Qtc is valid for home applications, but not so much for cars due to the +12 dB/octave gain you get starting at approximately 45 Hz. The overall response curve and more importantly bandwidth are what you are after. The broader the bandwidth, the better the transient response, and the happier you will be unless you're after a one note wonder.
When you are comparing the RLP 304 to the Alpine keep in mind that the Alpine has a more linear response because its Qtc is significantly lower. Qtc relies on Qts, Fs, and Vas, all of which the Alpine type R shallow has the advantage of. The Alpine shallow Type R has a similar rise in response as the BM mkIII (~2 dB) in the 60 to 80 Hz range in 0.5 ft^3 sealed. The RLP has a 5 dB rise, again due to the bad alignment in 0.5 ft^3. Which, by the way, smaller sealed enclosures don't make the bass faster or tighter! Their "tight bass" label for their smaller enclosure recommendation is completely erroneous.

All this while you have been comparing a single MB Quart to a single Type R shallow. And there has also been discussion of 0.6 dB louder, quieter, etc. 0.6 dB is not detectable by the human ear. 3 dB is a noticeable difference in loudness. 1.5 dB is incredibly hard to notice, let alone 0.6 dB. The latter means that you will not be able to hear a 0.6 dB difference. And as I previously stated you will need two of the other drivers besides the Type R shallow to equal the output of a single Type R shallow. Double the volume will be required, more money spent on enclosure materials, and you will still end up with less low frequency extension compared to the Type R shallow. Not to mention that the Type R shallow is the baddest shallow subwoofer available for purchase right now. A 4" voice coil, channeled top plate, hollowed out spider to move through the top plate, and big neo magnet slug all add up to icanbeatthepissoutofthecurrentcompetition.

This man seems to know his shit. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/graduate.gif.d982460be9f153bb54e5d4cb744f6ae8.gif

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

The MB Quart RLP shallows are sexy as hell. ...Then I bought some...They ******. Horribly. I tried it with 250rms in .2 sealed and .6 sealed. Both has literally no output. You couldnt hear nor feel any bass or even a quick punch. It was the most absolutely pathetic thing Ive ever seen. I tried a Selenium 6" mid in the same box (rebaffled it to fit a 6" and played it on the sub channel) and the Selenium was honestly a hair louder (aka had enough output to even hear anything) on a couple frequencies.

 

[Trancer 10+ year member]

He does know his stuff. Now I know I can't hear a .6db increase. I cant even hear a 2db difference.

What I was referring to, as when I accepted that the RLP's were defeated, is that I forgot that the RLP's only take 300wrms as where the Alpines take twice as much. The .6db difference was in reference to sending the same power to each sub, which its pretty safe to say, that the RLP's wont be able to take the same power as the Alpines. Hence my acceptance of a defeat in the Quarts. If there was a .6db difference in the RLP's with 600wrms each, then giving them half the power, is going to probably be roughly 3-5db difference. Thats an assumption, but I'm just going off what I have. The Alpines are the winner in the performance category, but price. Not so much. They may be the best SM sub, but their price is a bit outrageous. Not saying I wont possibly be picking up a pair to experiment with in my truck... I have always been curious of SM subs