one sealed and one ported?

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

So he has no space in his car for two subs and you guys are telling him to 4th order which and probably only fit 1 sub unless you go isobaric. A 4th order isobaric enclosure or a 6th order isobaric enclosure. Would be not be easy for a newbie to build and design.

 

[Dmac1991]

But wouldn't a 4th order in general take up more space than a ported box?

yes it would be.

but generally speaking, if built correctly with subs that work for the application, you can use less cone area in a 4th order to be alot louder, on less power.

I believe a dude on here stated he did like a 147 with two 15s on less than 500 watts

 

[Dmac1991]

1 benefit.. Way less bandwidth than sealed... Never mind

troll or nah?

 

[Dmac1991]

So he has no space in his car for two subs and you guys are telling him to 4th order which and probably only fit 1 sub unless you go isobaric. A 4th order isobaric enclosure or a 6th order isobaric enclosure. Would be not be easy for a newbie to build and design.

no one told him to do a 4th. He stated he wanted to run one sub sealed, and one sub ported. That would sound like ****

To correctly do that, he should do a 4th order bp.

No one stated he actually had to

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Care to explain? What "benefits" do you get?

you get the sound quality aspect of having good control of the sub, via a sealed section, with the added spl that a ported enclosure can yield. your margin for error is much smaller, and not just any sub does well in a 4th order. a subwoofer that is designed to be sealed works best in 4th order boxes, from my limited experience. dayton subs seem to work well. the space it takes up is another concern.

 

[bumpinhooptie]

you get the sound quality aspect of having good control of the sub, via a sealed section, with the added spl that a ported enclosure can yield. your margin for error is much smaller, and not just any sub does well in a 4th order. a subwoofer that is designed to be sealed works best in 4th order boxes, from my limited experience. dayton subs seem to work well. the space it takes up is another concern.

Exactly, I would love to try a 4th order BP box and I had a hunch this thread would steer in that direction. I had a 4th order setup in an extended cab minitruck years back and it was beyond nice. It did take me two tries to get there though so I wasted allot of wood, time, and effort. Those were the days before I had any access to technical design software.

My question now, which ultimately becomes the decision for my ride for hopefully a few years is this vehicle, Should I now consider a 4th order box with a small driver , 8w7, 10w6, RE Audio SEX10 or HDS208 the new soundqubed 8" that seems to have allot of great reviews for an 8". Then again I don't even knw if those drivers will work optimally in a fourth order BP. Again, I want SQ and some impressive spl to boot. If fourth order is not in the works I may follow HISPLS advice and get one or two subs and go ported. Guys, please give me your expert opinions on any of this. I will be very grateful to have started an impressive SQ system with all of your help.

 

[blazian87 10+ year member]

Exactly, I would love to try a 4th order BP box and I had a hunch this thread would steer in that direction. I had a 4th order setup in an extended cab minitruck years back and it was beyond nice. It did take me two tries to get there though so I wasted allot of wood, time, and effort. Those were the days before I had any access to technical design software.
My question now, which ultimately becomes the decision for my ride for hopefully a few years is this vehicle, Should I now consider a 4th order box with a small driver , 8w7, 10w6, RE Audio SEX10 or HDS208 the new soundqubed 8" that seems to have allot of great reviews for an 8". Then again I don't even knw if those drivers will work optimally in a fourth order BP. Again, I want SQ and some impressive spl to boot. If fourth order is not in the works I may follow HISPLS advice and get one or two subs and go ported. Guys, please give me your expert opinions on any of this. I will be very grateful to have started an impressive SQ system with all of your help.

I think you can still do very well in sq and spl in a ported box. How about a 8" sub using a T-line? It'll give you a really flat response and can get decently loud. If you don't have enough space for that then a 10" ported with a low tune.

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

yes it would be. but generally speaking, if built correctly with subs that work for the application, you can use less cone area in a 4th order to be alot louder, on less power.

I believe a dude on here stated he did like a 147 with two 15s on less than 500 watts

That's what he claimed, but the "500W" was a Sundown SAZ3500D. For practical/musical purposes, a 4th order bandpass is just a worse-sealed box. You can sacrifice bandwidth and low extension for output, but unless you only intend to play one note it's a poor tradeoff.

you get the sound quality aspect of having good control of the sub, via a sealed section, with the added spl that a ported enclosure can yield. your margin for error is much smaller, and not just any sub does well in a 4th order. a subwoofer that is designed to be sealed works best in 4th order boxes, from my limited experience. dayton subs seem to work well. the space it takes up is another concern.

So it's a sealed box that you can make play peaky at the expense of low extension. Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me. Also, please define the "control" you would have with a sealed alignment and lose with ported.

The point of a ported alignment is that you extend your low extension and gain a lot of output. With a 4th order bandpass you pretty much only get a peak at tuning. And the tuning is the high side, not the low side, so your low end is decided by your sealed volume (which could always be louder ported), and your peak is your high side, so you either make yourself a high peak or sacrifice all gain to have pretty much the same response you'd have got sealed.

If I'm wrong about this, please point out some evidence to the contrary.

Exactly, I would love to try a 4th order BP box and I had a hunch this thread would steer in that direction. I had a 4th order setup in an extended cab minitruck years back and it was beyond nice. It did take me two tries to get there though so I wasted allot of wood, time, and effort. Those were the days before I had any access to technical design software.
My question now, which ultimately becomes the decision for my ride for hopefully a few years is this vehicle, Should I now consider a 4th order box with a small driver , 8w7, 10w6, RE Audio SEX10 or HDS208 the new soundqubed 8" that seems to have allot of great reviews for an 8". Then again I don't even knw if those drivers will work optimally in a fourth order BP. Again, I want SQ and some impressive spl to boot. If fourth order is not in the works I may follow HISPLS advice and get one or two subs and go ported. Guys, please give me your expert opinions on any of this. I will be very grateful to have started an impressive SQ system with all of your help.

There's absolutely no reason to not use ported alignment for daily/music applications. If you buy a sub that's well built and designed for that application, then build the correct box you'll be happy. Don't cheap out on subs or box, and don't try to get fancy with exotic enclosures unless you have time and money to just hang around building boxes.

I think you can still do very well in sq and spl in a ported box. How about a 8" sub using a T-line? It'll give you a really flat response and can get decently loud. If you don't have enough space for that then a 10" ported with a low tune.

Assuming space isn't an issue TL is a really great option for a good response. Of course at that point, why not just make a taped horn? There's a reason that PA bass bins are horns.... when space absolutely isn't an issue a horn is an incredibly efficient design.

1 benefit.. Way less bandwidth than sealed... Never mind

Thank you.

 

[Dmac1991]

The point of a ported alignment is that you extend your low extension and gain a lot of output. With a 4th order bandpass you pretty much only get a peak at tuning. And the tuning is the high side, not the low side, so your low end is decided by your sealed volume (which could always be louder ported), and your peak is your high side, so you either make yourself a high peak or sacrifice all gain to have pretty much the same response you'd have got sealed.

If I'm wrong about this, please point out some evidence to the contrary.

I believe that whatever 4th order application you have experienced wasn't the right application. 4th orders are the exact opposite of being peaky

Hackmunch only had a ~2db difference from 46hz to 25hz. Did a 157.1 at 46hz and a 149.8 I believe

Hell Sencheezy has **** near a flat response from 20hz-60hz.

Look at Jared's Jeef

if you have the room for it, a 2:1 ratio 4th order will always trump a ported alignment musically. No doubt about it. Given that you have the right subs for it

I quote, "are you looking for a wider bandwidth and less efficiency? Smaller ratio....more of an SPL/ground pounder with more efficiency but less bandwidth? Higher ratio"

there's all there really is to it

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

I believe that whatever 4th order application you have experienced wasn't the right application. 4th orders are the exact opposite of being peaky
Hackmunch only had a ~2db difference from 46hz to 25hz. Did a 157.1 at 46hz and a 149.8 I believe

Hell Sencheezy has **** near a flat response from 20hz-60hz.

Look at Jared's Jeef

if you have the room for it, a 2:1 ratio 4th order will always trump a ported alignment musically. No doubt about it. Given that you have the right subs for it

I quote, "are you looking for a wider bandwidth and less efficiency? Smaller ratio....more of an SPL/ground pounder with more efficiency but less bandwidth? Higher ratio"

there's all there really is to it

Gains come at the expense of bandwidth, so the guys that put up world-record numbers with bandpass boxes are using huge ratios to get a very narrow peak. The other guys who have a wide bandwidth would likely get the same numbers with their cone area and power just doing sealed.

Your claim about how superior "musically" bandpass is begs the question why high end home audio companies don't use that alignment all the time. Surely the kind of company that can charge 10 grand for a subwoofer would spare no expense in R&D and create superior bandpass designs. Show me one premium audio brand that uses them.

 

[Dmac1991]

Gains come at the expense of bandwidth, so the guys that put up world-record numbers with bandpass boxes are using huge ratios to get a very narrow peak. The other guys who have a wide bandwidth would likely get the same numbers with their cone area and power just doing sealed.
Your claim about how superior "musically" bandpass is begs the question why high end home audio companies don't use that alignment all the time. Surely the kind of company that can charge 10 grand for a subwoofer would spare no expense in R&D and create superior bandpass designs. Show me one premium audio brand that uses them.

I agree to disagree sir.

 

[blazian87 10+ year member]

Isn't there a way to get a low tune to work with a 4th order if you make the enclosure incredibly large?

 

[Dmac1991]

Isn't there a way to get a low tune to work with a 4th order if you make the enclosure incredibly large?

with a 4th order, you want to tune to the resonance of the sealed section

a "low tune" in 4th order language would be 45hz

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

I agree to disagree sir.

So you can't name one premium loudspeaker company that builds a 4th order bandpass, but they're "superior" sound quality. Face it, they're good for extreme burp applications and cool and trendy forum boner, but they're basically a worse sealed box if you're trying to play a wide bandwidth.

I think you will find more people that are actually concerned with SQ prefer IB or very large sealed box, and rely on ported largely as a tradeoff to get a bit more low extension out of less box volume.

Still though, I'm more than interested to see any actual documentation about these great benefits of bandpass or how it's the "best of both worlds".

Isn't there a way to get a low tune to work with a 4th order if you make the enclosure incredibly large?

The "tuning" on a bandpass is where the high frequency attenuates. The port can also produce it's own resonance (like a pipe organ).

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

there are a limited amount of subs that are optimal in 4th order bandpass setups. for a musical box, subs that are designed to be sealed work well in 4th order bandpass, and even some of those subs require large chambers to be musical. if the box is designed around a sub that fits the application, built accurately and solidly, as with any enclosure, it will perform well.