Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Help
Enclosure Design & Construction
is bigger better?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bobgrey" data-source="post: 8354705" data-attributes="member: 664681"><p>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)</p><p></p><p>in the following picture each enclosure was simulated at 800w, with subsonic filters at 25 hz.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/GE8S7Ej.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p><a href="http://imgur.com/GE8S7Ej" target="_blank">imgur: the simple image sharer</a></p><p></p><p>SPL curve:</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/WIgD9gt.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>SPL curve:<a href="http://imgur.com/WIgD9gt" target="_blank">imgur: the simple image sharer</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>If there is something else I should be considering, let me know thanks.</p><p></p><p>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..</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bobgrey, post: 8354705, member: 664681"] 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. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GE8S7Ej.png[/IMG] [URL="http://imgur.com/GE8S7Ej"]imgur: the simple image sharer[/URL] SPL curve: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WIgD9gt.png[/IMG] SPL curve:[URL="http://imgur.com/WIgD9gt"]imgur: the simple image sharer[/URL] 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.. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Help
Enclosure Design & Construction
is bigger better?
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
