Build a box for me $$

[bad03ranger 10+ year member]

i would like people (with good reps) who would build this box for me to give me a price i would like prices for ported the ports need to be firing out the top of each chamber and need to be 2"ID and 18"long ,using 5/8" MDF for the box unless 3/4 will give me at least .35^ft per sub after Displacement sub is .03 and what ever the port takes up-no terminal cups i will install everything else

give links to builds youve done if avail.

Click to read more...

 

[Mr Cabinetry 10+ year member]

i would like people (with good reps) who would build this box for me to give me a price i would like prices for ported the ports need to be firing out the top of each chamber and need to be 2"ID and 18"long ,using 5/8" MDF for the box unless 3/4 will give me at least .35^ft per sub after Displacement sub is .03 and what ever the port takes up-no terminal cups i will install everything else

give links to builds youve done if avail.

Just did a re-draft of the enclosure Sketch Up according to the dimensions you provided in the drawing and you have a discrepancy in regards to the front baffle angle.

The out board part where you have 6 3/8" for the TD, if that angle line is extended to the top middle section where you have 4" for the TD is actually 4.4250".

So, the question becomes one of which dimension is the one determining the angle of the baffle? 6 3/8" or 4"?

BTW, did you do that on purpose just see if anyone would catch that mistake???

Phil

Woodlawn Cabinetry

 

[bad03ranger 10+ year member]

BTW, did you do that on purpose just see if anyone would catch that mistake???

yeah thats wat i did LOL no i just selected it with measure and thats the length it gave but the 4"td is correct whatever that TD of the wing is what it is

 

[Mr Cabinetry 10+ year member]

Well, for that design to yield the spec's you want, 5/8" MDF is what you'll have to use and that will get ya at .44 cu.ft. total volume.

Actually, the enclosure will be slightly over net volume by .019 cu.ft. if were splitting hairs here. Only problem I see is the 2" dia port x 18" firing out the top which will mean the port tube will need an elbow since the height is only 11".

That said, $ 160.00 plus shipping as I am sure as the night is dark, any of the other box builders will say they can do it for less than that.

Phil

Woodlawn Cabinetry

 

[bad03ranger 10+ year member]

my local shops are giving me a range of $300-$400 and $400-$500 that would kill my budget i have about $600-$700 to spend on the box,subs and wiring

 

[Mr Cabinetry 10+ year member]

Here's your enclosure shown as thru view's. The subwoofer is a 8w3v3 done to scale in sketch up to give you a better idea of exactly why a round port can not work for the space involved.

This side & top view thru view shows the subwoofer ( to dimensional scale ) mounted.

As can be seen, even though the top depth would allow for a 2" dia port ( up firing ), there's just not enough space inside to allow the port to come down from the top, make a turn with an elbow and continue across to the side ( either direction ) and make another turn with an elbow to go downward without the subwoofer motor being in the way.

The subwoofer could be moved further down on the front baffle to gain lenght before the first elbow turn clearing the top of the subwoofer. After that turn, the only place to the rest of the port to go would be back in toward the recessed center section.

That could cause a problem to a degree of choking the port restricting the air flow within that confined area of the enclosure. However, given your only using a 2" port, air flow given the cone to excursion displacement of the subwoofer at rated power would most likely make the concern a non issue.

Phil

Woodlawn Cabinetry

 

[Goindef154 5,000+ posts]

That looks nice //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[mazda6i07 10+ year member]

Talk to mlstrass

 

[low00ranger 10+ year member]

Here's your enclosure shown as thru view's. The subwoofer is a 8w3v3 done to scale in sketch up to give you a better idea of exactly why a round port can not work for the space involved.
This side & top view thru view shows the subwoofer ( to dimensional scale ) mounted.

As can be seen, even though the top depth would allow for a 2" dia port ( up firing ), there's just not enough space inside to allow the port to come down from the top, make a turn with an elbow and continue across to the side ( either direction ) and make another turn with an elbow to go downward without the subwoofer motor being in the way.

The subwoofer could be moved further down on the front baffle to gain lenght before the first elbow turn clearing the top of the subwoofer. After that turn, the only place to the rest of the port to go would be back in toward the recessed center section.

That could cause a problem to a degree of choking the port restricting the air flow within that confined area of the enclosure. However, given your only using a 2" port, air flow given the cone to excursion displacement of the subwoofer at rated power would most likely make the concern a non issue.

Phil

Woodlawn Cabinetry

Is that .44 cubic foot per sub and with or without displacements? Just clarifying.

Also, would it be possible to put a 2 inch round port on each side or a similar rectangular port and put them on each far corner against the bottom and back pieces? For this case it looks like it may be better to go with a 3" x 1.25" or so rectangular port using the bottom and back pieces as port walls and having the shorter part of the port going up and down. Changing the port area like that changed the length a small bit of course, but I'm afraid he would have noticeable port noise with a 2" x 1" rectangular port.

BTW, I recommend Phil to make it.... he produces quality boxes and is obviously on top of things. I know he has done other Ranger boxes too. I've just been helping bad03 on the Ranger forums decide what subs to use, how to get the space he needs, what frequency to tune to, etc. I'm not that great with woodworking so I recommended he ask around here.

 

[Mr Cabinetry 10+ year member]

Is that .44 cubic foot per sub and with or without displacements? Just clarifying.
Also, would it be possible to put a 2 inch round port on each side or a similar rectangular port and put them on each far corner against the bottom and back pieces? For this case it looks like it may be better to go with a 3" x 1.25" or so rectangular port using the bottom and back pieces as port walls and having the shorter part of the port going up and down. Changing the port area like that changed the length a small bit of course, but I'm afraid he would have noticeable port noise with a 2" x 1" rectangular port.

BTW, I recommend Phil to make it.... he produces quality boxes and is obviously on top of things. I know he has done other Ranger boxes too. I've just been helping bad03 on the Ranger forums decide what subs to use, how to get the space he needs, what frequency to tune to, etc. I'm not that great with woodworking so I recommended he ask around here.

The enclosure Gross Volume is .44 cu.ft. ( subtract sub and port displacement ) an it will be slightly over .35 cu.ft. Net Volume.

As stated previously, it's possible and I mean possible to put a 2" dia port to the spec's also previously stated, but it would be a royal b!tch to put them in there and to be honest, I'm not overly thrilled that the OP is limiting his option to this port.

It would be far easier and less time consuming just to do a slot port as it would be far better suited to perform the task at hand. Also, I did advise the OP via PM that in using a slot port would required the enclosure design to be modified to account for the additional displacement of the slot port walls.

I can easily overcome the issue by substituting 5/8" mdf for 1/4" & 1/2" mdf to gain back the volume required and in doing so provide more port surface area in the process so the enclosure design will allow for the subwoofer to achieve better performance bass response and output wise.

Now, I know that just about anyone here is going to say using any less ( material thickness waste ) will make for an inferior enclosure as to the performance of the subwoofer.

To be blunt and painful honest, BULLSH!T!!!

I've built my fair share of enclosure using all thickness of materials when the design warrants there usage in order to gain what is required and none, I repeat, NONE of those enclosure's in terms of the customer voicing their concerns or doubts after the fact upon taking delivery of the enclosure and firing it up informed me to the latter the enclosure did perform as expected.

If I had any doubts that using other thickness of mdf to fabricate an enclosure would hinder the enclosure structural integrity or performance, I would not do so, but, I know what the limits are as to what is and what not is possible.

Phil

Woodlawn Cabinetry

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

In ~.3 cubes ported, those subs will choke to death.

 

[Mr Cabinetry 10+ year member]

In ~.3 cubes ported, those subs will choke to death.

And you would know this because your vast knowledge and experience with this particular subwoofer as to how it performs within a specific enclosure design and vehicle is second to none.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

And you would know this because your vast knowledge and experience with this particular subwoofer as to how it performs within a specific enclosure design and vehicle is second to none.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif I don't understand what you're getting all bent out of shape for; I just made a truck box for 3 of those guys in .35 cubes net ported, and they honked like I've never seen. Customer said **** it, give them .5 a piece and they sang. IIRC, JL's specs are .3 or .35, but in real life experience, that's on the small side.

 

[Mr Cabinetry 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif I don't understand what you're getting all bent out of shape for; I just made a truck box for 3 of those guys in .35 cubes net ported, and they honked like I've never seen. Customer said **** it, give them .5 a piece and they sang. IIRC, JL's specs are .3 or .35, but in real life experience, that's on the small side.

I made the comment given the context of the statement you made. Yeah, the enclosure in terms of volume is on the small side, but well within an " acceptable " tolerance given the limitations of the enclosure design and that's all there is to be had based on what the customer has got for it.

At the most and if I put my mind to it, I could most likely eek out of the design .65 cu.ft. gross volume, but, I would have to make up for the design structure with bracing to minimize any unwanted resonance, thus, I would be right back to the issue of fighting for volume.

However and this is not a stretch in the slightest bit, I could build the entire enclosure with 1/4" MDF to get the volume and porting needed and all I would need to do to keep the structure of the enclosure intact is to have it shot with a coat or two with Duraliner, then it would be both lightweight and d@mn near bulletproof, but would cost a sh!t of money for little benefit in bass response and performance.

Now, in my real life experience when it comes to subwoofers and enclosure design is never underestimate just because it " seems " inadequate to the task just because it appears as such.

He!!, I got enclosure for 4 6w0's ported to hit 137 dB's at 38hz on a meter in only .17 cu.ft. net per sub and with only 200 watts, though that may not be impressive to bassheads, it was impressive enough that I sold over 200 enclosures in various design configurations over a 5 year period.

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

I made the comment given the context of the statement you made. Yeah, the enclosure in terms of volume is on the small side, but well within an " acceptable " tolerance given the limitations of the enclosure design and that's all there is to be had based on what the customer has got for it.
At the most and if I put my mind to it, I could most likely eek out of the design .65 cu.ft. gross volume, but, I would have to make up for the design structure with bracing to minimize any unwanted resonance, thus, I would be right back to the issue of fighting for volume.

However and this is not a stretch in the slightest bit, I could build the entire enclosure with 1/4" MDF to get the volume and porting needed and all I would need to do to keep the structure of the enclosure intact is to have it shot with a coat or two with Duraliner, then it would be both lightweight and d@mn near bulletproof, but would cost a sh!t of money for little benefit in bass response and performance.

Now, in my real life experience when it comes to subwoofers and enclosure design is never underestimate just because it " seems " inadequate to the task just because it appears as such.

He!!, I got enclosure for 4 6w0's ported to hit 137 dB's at 38hz on a meter in only .17 cu.ft. net per sub and with only 200 watts, though that may not be impressive to bassheads, it was impressive enough that I sold over 200 enclosures in various design configurations over a 5 year period.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Not everyone needs to brace their enclosures for a tsunami impact, although I do respect the level of detail. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif