Enclosures - Mfg's recommendation or calculated?

[n2audio 5,000+ posts]

Hi - I was never much of an enclosure geek, but now that I've been messing with some numbers (ported) it seems that what winISD spits out as the "ideal" enclosure is never what the mfg recommends, or even close to it in most cases. And when you use the mfg's volume/port dims the response curve is sometimes completely out of whack.

Why are they so different? Which is generally the better way to go?

Of what value is an enclosure that yeilds a flat response curve if the mfg's recommendation (which I assume has been tested to some degree) looks very irregular but supposedly gives the best overall performance?

For example, here are some enclosures for my particular sub...

The colors washed out, but the green line is the box I built, the blue (right) line is what the mfg suggests, and the yellow line (middle) is just something in between I added for comparison.

Click to read more...

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Hi - I was never much of an enclosure geek, but now that I've been messing with some numbers (ported) it seems that what winISD spits out as the "ideal" enclosure is never what the mfg recommends, or even close to it in most cases. And when you use the mfg's volume/port dims the response curve is sometimes completely out of whack.
Why are they so different? Which is generally the better way to go?

Of what value is an enclosure that yeilds a flat response curve if the mfg's recommendation (which I assume has been tested to some degree) looks very irregular but supposedly gives the best overall performance?

For example, here are some enclosures for my particular sub...

The colors washed out, but the green line is the box I built, the blue (right) line is what the mfg suggests, and the yellow line (middle) is just something in between I added for comparison.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Now that you have insulted the very people who can help you, who do you think is going to answer your question?

But seriously, it is a good question. I suspect that there are some reasons to question the mftr's recommendations. For I think they love to say small sealed box because that goes over better than "needs a big *** box that will take all of your cargo area."

Carry on.

 

[9seconlives 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Now that you have insulted the very people who can help you, who do you think is going to answer your question?
But seriously, it is a good question. I suspect that there are some reasons to question the mftr's recommendations. For I think they love to say small sealed box because that goes over better than "needs a big *** box that will take all of your cargo area."

Carry on.

This is VERY true....i don't think kicker,mtx,fosgate,orion, or any other manf. are going to say "you'll need about a 4 cubic foot ported enclosure to run these subs efficiently". even though i have been on a sealed enclosure conquest here lately and it seems that the smaller the box,sometimes better the sound (SQ wise before i get harrased) BUT you need to **** near double the power to get the said "better sound" from a sealed box. not 100% sure why the recommendations would be soo much off though..maybe to get buyers to get their enclosures directly from the people they buy there speakers from? it's all a HUGE marketing gimmek!! i knew it!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif

 

[n2audio 5,000+ posts]

* I use "geek" only in the friendliest of ways * //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

The mfg's box is 1.5, but the tuning freq is 50?! I guess that explains the weird peak at ~58. The middle one's 2.0 at 36 and the flat one - which is real close to what I'm currently running - is 2.7 @ 28.

I really like the low end, but there's not much punch at all above about 70. Maybe that's all the range I should expect being tuned that low -- I don't know, but I'm wondering if something in the middle might give me a better mix.

 

[dman4486 5,000+ posts]

* I use "geek" only in the friendliest of ways * //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
The mfg's box is 1.5, but the tuning freq is 50?! I guess that explains the weird peak at ~58. The middle one's 2.0 at 36 and the flat one - which is real close to what I'm currently running - is 2.7 @ 28.

I really like the low end, but there's not much punch at all above about 70. Maybe that's all the range I should expect being tuned that low -- I don't know, but I'm wondering if something in the middle might give me a better mix.

middle should give you a better mix yes....but I have no problems picking up the higher and/or punchy notes and I am tuned @ 24hz

 

[ultimate157 5,000+ posts]

Another reason for large scale manufacturers recommending small, high tuned boxes is to increase the perception of a very loud woofer. MOST people only care that it gets loud.

This isn't the case for all manufacturers, as you get to the less mainstream companies, you will begin to see them recommend more balanced enclosures.

 

[crunch5868 10+ year member]

i wondered this for a long time too. Im in the middle of my first sub installation so im new to this whole thing and my mfg (pioneer) recommended 1.2cu.ft. and 1.6 max for ported. a lil small eh? this didnt tell me the tuning or anything so i used the RE box calculator and made mine 1.795 cubes net. but i do think the do it like that so youll buy there prefabbed box's.