Critical Mass UL12's

[kmanian 5,000+ posts]

the website shows the specs, i don't need it again. yes, there is a reason the smaller box works better, you are raising the Q and the corner which gives you more SPL up top while losing the the deeper SPL (below the corner) whatever size box this woofer works in, pretty much ANY other woofer is going to have a lower System Q in the same box meaning (you can make it smaller to get the same FR response) Thats my point! Its not a small box woofer ... not even close ... try porting it, You're looking at problem 8 or 10 cubic feet tuned very low for a flat response.

You can put low Q subwoofers in TINY boxes... 1.6 cubic feet is HUGE by some standards.

also 1.6 cubic feet is FAR from IB with that woofer.

1.6 cubic feet on a 4HP (500000 million times more BL) might be more or less IB worthy appropriate - careful what you consider IB.

All I'm really aruging here is that any woofer with a Q of 0.8 is not a small box woofer... its a sealed box woofer - big difference.

people get this crap mixed up all the time. For example the fi. Btl... very low Q THAT is a perfect example of a small box woofer and the proof is in the response. Look at the box size that people put that woofer is... makes the response very non-linear. They like it, its an SPL driver, so what. My point is, if you put a 12" BTL in a sealed box and wanted the same alignment as the UL, you would probably have to put it in 0.25 cubic feet or some crazy low number like that.

:\

I am no eng. and am totally pratical in my knowledge. this is directly off the Critical mass enclosure Design tool, given to me directly from critical mass.

Ported in a 2.85^3 box tuned to 26.88hz gives a f3 of 25.25 with Xmax reached at 2548 watts

and in a 2.5 it is 27.99 gives a f3 of 26.75 with the xmax reached at 3210 watts, I consider this far from the "8 or 10 cubic feet tuned very low for a flat response." that you are guessing. now the makers of this sub may be way off and you may have them pegged.

by the way the ripple on both of these is 2.06 or less:wow://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

concrete boxes lol

I dont use concrete on my boxes, I use it as a mass loader on doors/body panels/sheet metal. Here's one example of a door I started on...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Hah.
I'm guessing it works better than sound deadener?

Well its very very heavy, and cheaper than sludge/spectrum, so Im happy with it. Its my own recipe I came up with years ago, sticky concrete.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I always figured you to be a major SQ fan this looks like it would be better suited towards all out SPL.....
Or am I wrong?

SQ requires as little noise as possible. Plus Ive always been more of an SQL guy I guess.
One thing to remember, if you do any competing, many sanctioning bodies will automatically put you in extreme classes if you use concrete. So consider that if you ever plan to compete. I dont, so its no big deal.

I had one of the major sound deadener companies contact me about turning my concrete recipe into a product they could sell. It was decided not to when it was realized its made entirely of materials available at almost any hardware store. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

No problem, I love showing off. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[Kyle_Keating 10+ year member]

I am no eng. and am totally pratical in my knowledge. this is directly off the Critical mass enclosure Design tool, given to me directly from critical mass.
Ported in a 2.85^3 box tuned to 26.88hz gives a f3 of 25.25 with Xmax reached at 2548 watts

and in a 2.5 it is 27.99 gives a f3 of 26.75 with the xmax reached at 3210 watts, I consider this far from the "8 or 10 cubic feet tuned very low for a flat response." that you are guessing. now the makers of this sub may be way off and you may have them pegged.

by the way the ripple on both of these is 2.06 or less:wow://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

I'm not trying to peg anything, thats actually a pretty good size box for that woofer! You can drop it down to around 1.6 cubes for a classic enhanced Q alignment. You can't obviouly get a butterworth , even in an IB because the system Q can never go below the driver's Qts. But my point is, even 1.6 is NOT small relatively to a low Q woofer. These alignments are also far from ideal, they are just standards. For example, a 12" TC-4HP would require no more than 0.028 cubic feet for an "enhanced Q." My point is thats 57 Times less volume! This is an astronomical difference so to say a woofer with a Qts of 0.8 is a small box woofer is very skewed. Now its also impractical to make a 4HP fit into an Enhanced Q box...more so the response would be very wacky. This type of woofer needs EQ management for a good low end response or a 4th order ported box.

never trust contest on a website, or a mfr's spec.... even mine! Best to do it yourself, and then you know //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

its not that their spec's are wrong, its tier market stuff behind the specs...... You can make numbers sound good or bad. This is not confined to CM products, they are just the example here. There is a lot of crap on even really well resepcted web sites that is not necessarily true. JL Audio has a bit about sealed subwoofers that just flat out false/misleading.

 

[kmanian 5,000+ posts]

concrete boxes lol

don't laugh, I am actually in development of some home audio and studio subs that are 90% concrete.

 

[kmanian 5,000+ posts]

I'm not trying to peg anything, thats actually a pretty good size box for that woofer! You can drop it down to around 1.6 cubes for a classic enhanced Q alignment. You can't obviouly get a butterworth , even in an IB because the system Q can never go below the driver's Qts. But my point is, even 1.6 is NOT small relatively to a low Q woofer. These alignments are also far from ideal, they are just standards. For example, a 12" TC-4HP would require no more than 0.028 cubic feet for an "enhanced Q." My point is thats 57 Times less volume! This is an astronomical difference so to say a woofer with a Qts of 0.8 is a small box woofer is very skewed. Now its also impractical to make a 4HP fit into an Enhanced Q box...more so the response would be very wacky. This type of woofer needs EQ management for a good low end response or a 4th order ported box.
never trust contest on a website, or a mfr's spec.... even mine! Best to do it yourself, and then you know //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

its not that their spec's are wrong, its tier market stuff behind the specs...... You can make numbers sound good or bad. This is not confined to CM products, they are just the example here. There is a lot of crap on even really well resepcted web sites that is not necessarily true. JL Audio has a bit about sealed subwoofers that just flat out false/misleading.

I will say this in the real world, no matter what the numbers say, it works. I would love to talk to you more in reference to some other items, you seem to have you head on straignt.

 

[Kyle_Keating 10+ year member]

I will say this in the real world, no matter what the numbers say, it works. I would love to talk to you more in reference to some other items, you seem to have you head on straignt.

ya, i'm totally agreeing with you, and you can look at the numbers and understand why it works. ~2.5 cubes is a good size for that woofer. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Concrete enclosures are nothing new in home audio.

 

[kmanian 5,000+ posts]

This I know, but the aesthetics and some other designs specs that will hopefully make a nitch in the market. I am not intending to reinvent the wheel, just make it a little better.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Most concrete home enclosures are homemade and built-in. If you are planning to sell pre-fab concrete enclosures, yeah that's fairly unique. Im guessing that's local sales only though. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[rc10mike 10+ year member]

If I had a truck or suv I would be far less concerned about weight.

 

[kmanian 5,000+ posts]

Most concrete home enclosures are homemade and built-in. If you are planning to sell pre-fab concrete enclosures, yeah that's fairly unique. Im guessing that's local sales only though. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

not necessarily local only. the product has to be of ample result that it will bear the burden of the additional shipping cost.

 

[AppleBonker 10+ year member]

Guess I'll get in here really quick. I love my UL12. I was originally considering the XXX 12, but I decided that I didn't want to add that much weight to my car. I would've also been a bit more scared about getting that thing into a fiberglass enclosure and then mounting it in my car (would've been tough to do by myself as the UL12 was hard enough while weighing nearly 60lb. less). Space was also a consideration for me, since I've got like 7 cubes of usable trunk space in which to fit all my gear, plus I wanted to make the trunk actually functional as well. In all, I don't think I'll be moving to a different sub anytime soon. I've been working on finding that perfect sub since I had my first car (last sub was a 12" Type-X) and I've found one that I am now truly happy with. BTW, running it off a Sundown 3000D (although the gain is obviously not turned up so I'm probably feeding it ~2000 watts rms maybe).