Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dcyphure" data-source="post: 8301215" data-attributes="member: 576134">That would be around 3.0 ft3 total in overall trunk eating space. Most subs 12&quot; and under these days start to work well in that size enclosure plus the port space needed but also imo, start to be as practical and ridiculous looking as female body builders and steroid freaks. I don&#039;t know how any guy over 30 could hang his head with some of the ridiculous enclosures I&#039;ve seen.I think the manufacturer recommendations for the smaller ported boxes are total crap. had a W6v2 that JL recommended 1.5 ft3 ported, but sounded way better sealed in that size. Went to 3 ft3 and that was where the SQ I expected started. But with the port aded to it, made the box way too big for me and over powered the fronts, it also needed some heavy EQ work to blend well so I went with the 1.5 sealed, came out perfect but obviously it&#039;s not 100% of the subs potential.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dcyphure, post: 8301215, member: 576134"] That would be around 3.0 ft3 total in overall trunk eating space. Most subs 12" and under these days start to work well in that size enclosure plus the port space needed but also imo, start to be as practical and ridiculous looking as female body builders and steroid freaks. I don't know how any guy over 30 could hang his head with some of the ridiculous enclosures I've seen. I think the manufacturer recommendations for the smaller ported boxes are total crap. had a W6v2 that JL recommended 1.5 ft3 ported, but sounded way better sealed in that size. Went to 3 ft3 and that was where the SQ I expected started. But with the port aded to it, made the box way too big for me and over powered the fronts, it also needed some heavy EQ work to blend well so I went with the 1.5 sealed, came out perfect but obviously it's not 100% of the subs potential. [/QUOTE]

Verification