Box for a RL-I 10"...

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

I should be getting one within a week or so from a member of this forum and wanted to be ready to build before it gets here...

ima have ~400wrms going to it.

space isnt too much of an issue.

what size box/tuning should i go with?

on the SS site they have .29 @ 32hz , .32 @ 27hz and 1.25 @ 26hz ... thats quite a differance.

suggestions anyone?

Click to read more...

 

[acold7dusta 10+ year member]

out of those id do 1.25 @ 26 hz...

otherwise id do like 1.5 @ 32 hz

 

[rpfuror 10+ year member]

.29 @ 32hz is small..

even for a 10" driver

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

.29 @ 32hz is small..
even for a 10" driver

thats what i was thinking...my 8 is in a bigger box than that.

how about moe's 1.25 @ 32hz i just noticed....?

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

mike uses leap, and those small boxes are going to offer the absolute flattest response curves. it'll perform in it, i'd guarantee that, but if yoru looking for output, they aren't going ot be the loudest boxes.

i'd suggest (like over at ssa) about 1ft^3net, 15-18in^2 of port and tuned from 35-38hz. going to offer the best of all worlds. but if your after heavy lows, the 1.25 box tuned in the low 30's will do ti.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

mike uses leap, and those small boxes are going to offer the absolute flattest response curves. it'll perform in it, i'd guarantee that, but if yoru looking for output, they aren't going ot be the loudest boxes.


i'd suggest (like over at ssa) about 1ft^3net, 15-18in^2 of port and tuned from 35-38hz. going to offer the best of all worlds. but if your after heavy lows, the 1.25 box tuned in the low 30's will do ti.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

sounds good...im playing around with the subwoofertools calculator and i cant seem to figure out the driver displacement...parameters > me. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

between those two.. , 1.0 @ 35-38hz and 1.25 @ 32hz , how much of a differance would there be? bigger box = more lows while the smaller gives a flatter response?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/up2something.gif.dd110ecf3ae4b76050d87598f2f8de7c.gif

 

[rpfuror 10+ year member]

actually the 1.25 @ 32hz will be considerably bigger.

heres an example.

if your max W x H are 25" x 15" assuming the driver displacemnet is 0.08 cu/ft

1.25 @ 32 Hz

Width= 25.00 inches

Height= 15.00 inches

Depth= 15.00 inches

Port Length= 52.56 inches

1 @ 38 hz

Width= 25.00 inches

Height= 15.00 inches

Depth= 12.75 inches

Port Length= 46.10 inches

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

so out of those two..which would give me what? 1.25 @ 32hz = lower/louder bass? im kinda leaning towards that. or maybe 1 cuft @ 35hz?

but how do i determine dirver displacement? i used the displacement calc. thats on the subwoofertools site ( http://www.subwoofertools.com/forum/driverdisplacement.asp )and got .06 cuft. i wasnt sure of the VC diameter so i put in 2.5". at 2.0" it gave me .05 cuft.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

the 1ft^3@36-38 is going to offer more impact and slightly better output potential and increased power handling.

teh 1.25ft@32 is going to offer stronger lows, flatter response potential, more then likely won't be quite as loud, though with the stronger lows, the percieved loudness is greater. there is also the potential for a bit of muddiness, as the transient response will be a tad slower.

more then likely, the strongest difference will be in the lowend. overall output might be so close as to only a meter being able to tell the difference.

and if go to soundsplinter's website, i believe your driver displacment is there.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

the 1ft^3@36-38 is going to offer more impact and slightly better output potential and increased power handling.
teh 1.25ft@32 is going to offer stronger lows, flatter response potential, more then likely won't be quite as loud, though with the stronger lows, the percieved loudness is greater. there is also the potential for a bit of muddiness, as the transient response will be a tad slower.

more then likely, the strongest difference will be in the lowend. overall output might be so close as to only a meter being able to tell the difference.

and if go to soundsplinter's website, i believe your driver displacment is there.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

i think ill go with that. itll be going on a kx400.1 , and as you said on ssa ,it is underrated so i could use a box thatll allow the sub to take a lil more power.

1 @ 37 hz...

http://www.subwoofertools.com/forum/ported-box.asp?Ew=24.5&Eh=14&Dia=4&Xmax=20&Vd=.06&NumW=1&Vb=1&Fb=37&Qts=&Vas=&Fs=&CE=0

something like that? please make corrections if/where needed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

and thanks alot for helping me out. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Fattony911 10+ year member]

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/images/smilies/peace.gif

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

eh?

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

http://www.subwoofertools.com/forum/ported-box.asp?Ew=24.5&Eh=14&Dia=1&Xmax=20&Vd=.06&NumW=1&Vb=1&Fb=35&Qts=&Vas=&Fs=&CE=0

i like this one a bit better. the first one had waaaaaayyyyy too much port area. this one is alot closer ot what's needed.

i really don't like the way that program figures port area.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

http://www.subwoofertools.com/forum/ported-box.asp?Ew=24.5&Eh=14&Dia=1&Xmax=20&Vd=.06&NumW=1&Vb=1&Fb=35&Qts=&Vas=&Fs=&CE=0



i like this one a bit better. the first one had waaaaaayyyyy too much port area. this one is alot closer ot what's needed.

i really don't like the way that program figures port area.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

yeah i dont like it much either. anyone care to sketchup a design? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

or is there anyother program i could use?

 

[sqhertz 5,000+ posts]

anyone?