is bigger better?

[bobgrey]

I'm building a box for my pioneer champion series pro 10" ts-w2502d4 rated 800 rms recommended sealed enclosure .6 cu ft. Up to 1.2 cu ft ported (.9 ideal) according to pioneer. They have a high Qts of .74 which I've read means they're suited for sealed but I've always had ported and plan to go ported. I've also never built a box for 10s, but with 12s I've gone from a little over to double recommended cu ft and always been super satisfied. I'm planning on 1.3 cu ft for this 10" minus displacement. I haven't settled on tuning but it'll be between 32-34 Hz.

Just wondering if anyone with more experience with 10s or high Qts would recommend I stick closer to recommended volume before I build. I doubt I could be convinced to go sealed unless someone has a real sound argument.

Click to read more...

 

[blazian87 10+ year member]

I feel you bro. I wouldn't wanna go sealed even if everyone tells me to. From what I remember, high qts in a ported box CAN work but is harder to implement because it requires a bigger box than usual. I would go bigger than 1.3 honestly. Maybe like 1.7 after displacement. Maybe somebody else can chime in on this as I'm not entirely sure.

 

[murph 10+ year member]

I would be careful because building a box too big can result in bottoming out your woofer. If you plan on running it with less power than you could compensate with box size.

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

if you can get the ts parameters, model it out in winisd, free program that will help you a lot. You'll just want the right sized box, not a guestimate.

 

[bobgrey]

So I mapped them out on winisd, I got a lot of info but didn't answer my question. The difference between 1.3 and 1.7 is only that 1.7s response curve (and spl curve) has slightly higher (+1dB) at the tuning freq peak and similar everywhere else. Cone excursion all seems fine when compared to recommended enclosure (even though every box goes past the manufacturer's listed xmax at 9.8mm, even the recommended box specs do at 800w in the simulation)

in the following picture each enclosure was simulated at 800w, with subsonic filters at 25 hz.

The recommended enclosure for ported came from crutchfield.com, which seems really bad. It didn't say what it was tuned to it just had the recommended diameter x length for the .9 enclosure. 60 hz seems really high, and the port velocity was over 300ft/s for it.

imgur: the simple image sharer

SPL curve:

SPL curve:imgur: the simple image sharer

At 32 hz the smaller I made the box the flatter curve I got, it flattened out pretty good at the .9 cu ft, and had a pretty sharp peak by 1.7. I think I want to stay less than 1.3, but it doesn't seem to have much of an impact overall.

If there is something else I should be considering, let me know thanks.

And I don't understand why both of the recommended enclosures have such poor low frequency extension, is that because they're 10s? Are they supposed to be tuned higher? It seems like tuning higher and losing everything below 40 hz offers a lot of gained spl in the 50-100hz range..

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

sadly, its the characteristics of that particular driver with its spider -ess air suspension system and heavy kevlar cone mass.

I've owned the 12 inch version before, they generally peak very low and have very minimal bass response past 50hz and zero response past 80hz regardless of enclosure. They sound very different from a subwoofer with an actual cone and suspension soft parts.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/Manuals/Pioneer%20TS-W3002%202502%20instruction%20manual.pdf

the range recommended by pioneer is .6 cubic feet to 1.2, but generally i found going bigger got the sub playing louder overall, the sub is not very efficient so it needs airspace to reach mechanical efficiency. so 1.2 to 1.5 cubic feet tuned around 29-33hz is your best bet.

I've tried many enclosures with the 12" version of this sub, all of it sounded horrible on rock and metal, very weak kick and a lot of the lower midbass frequencies are missing so there was a huge gap between the door speakers and music, it did not blend at all even with a 40hz tuning in one of my boxes but it hits the lows pretty well. It does its best when its tuned low (30-32hz) playing 25-45hz

 

[treesive 10+ year member]

None of those graphs make me want to try that sub. When I graphed it I got the flattest curve in 1 cube sealed with an f3 of 35 hz. The flattest ported i got was 1@23hz tuning and it isn't pretty. 20cubes @1 hz will get you a similar curve to the 1 cube sealed. I got similar graphs to yours on your box and tuning ideas. All of this depends on your sound preferences but going by the graphs it is a sealed sub imo.

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, i'd actually avoid the sub completely if possible, almost any other sub with a legitimate cone and spider will sound better, hands down the worst sub i've owned. Sound quality wise.