Thinking of going from 12s to 10s

[skatingrocker17 10+ year member]

I just moved my setup from a 2006 Malibu to a 2007 Lacrosse. I believe the Lacrosse has a larger trunk but it as a hump on both the left and right side. I have to angle one of my subs to get them both in there where in my other trunk I had my subs side by side.

Anyway, I've thought about selling my subs and the boxes and getting two 10s instead. However, I don't want to lose loudness or any bass. I've got some decent subs now, they're Alpine Type-Rs (12", 600 watt RMS, 4-ohm version, both running at 1-ohm, 1200 rms). I have them in two separate ported boxes.

I was thinking 2 Earthquake DBXi-10Ds or 2 Sundown SA-10s might been just as good. I have an SA-12 in my Cruze only running at 500 rms and it sounds great. Any suggestions?

Thanks

Click to read more...

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

Consolidate the two box situation to one just a bit smaller with external aeros in a shared chamber, shared port scenario. You should be able to fit them that way, and actually gain. If they still don't fit, do the same thing with 10s and you shouldn't see a loss.

 

[skatingrocker17 10+ year member]

Consolidate the two box situation to one just a bit smaller with external aeros in a shared chamber, shared port scenario. You should be able to fit them that way, and actually gain. If they still don't fit, do the same thing with 10s and you shouldn't see a loss.

I thought about just getting a different box but I don't think I'll be able to sell just the boxes I have now without the subs in them. I know Type-Rs go fast on craigslist though.

Could you explain more about the box you're talking about with the box? I think you mean a box for two 12s with a shared port, but I'm not 100% sure what "external aeros" means.

 

[keep_hope_alive Premium Member]

Consolidate the two box situation to one just a bit smaller with external aeros in a shared chamber, shared port scenario. You should be able to fit them that way, and actually gain. If they still don't fit, do the same thing with 10s and you shouldn't see a loss.

shared airspace reduces excursion. the subs fight each other more.

he is talking about aeroports, and just using a common chamber for both subs and the ports in the middle.

separate airspace is my preference. new vehicle = new box. you can certainly outdo the Type-R with some good 10's.

 

[skatingrocker17 10+ year member]

shared airspace reduces excursion. the subs fight each other more.
he is talking about aeroports, and just using a common chamber for both subs and the ports in the middle.

separate airspace is my preference. new vehicle = new box. you can certainly outdo the Type-R with some good 10's.

Okay I know what excursion is. Is less excursion not as good? Or doesn't it really matter?

Also, I'd really like to get some recommendations for some good 10s. If I do this, it will likely be two 10's in some sort of ported box. I could just keep what I have, after all it does fit although it fits awkwardly.

 

[jolly_26 10+ year member]

Thought about a single 15? Just another option that could be worth considering

 

[skatingrocker17 10+ year member]

Thought about a single 15? Just another option that could be worth considering

I'm not sure if I could fit a 15".

 

[keep_hope_alive Premium Member]

less excursion means less air is moved. so while you have two subs you may only be moving the same amount of air as one sub by itself. course, less excursion means more control of the voice coil. as far as i'm concerned, less excursion is preferred for sound quality with a sacrifice in output.

get a pair of 10's you can afford. build a box designed for them to fit in the new car. don't forget to save some money for speakers so you hear music and bass.

 

[skatingrocker17 10+ year member]

less excursion means less air is moved. so while you have two subs you may only be moving the same amount of air as one sub by itself. course, less excursion means more control of the voice coil. as far as i'm concerned, less excursion is preferred for sound quality with a sacrifice in output.
get a pair of 10's you can afford. build a box designed for them to fit in the new car. don't forget to save some money for speakers so you hear music and bass.

That's what I was thinking. Which is why sealed is preferred for sound quality alone.

Okay, lets say I have a budget of $150 per sub, what would you recommend?

The Earthquake DBXi-10D seems to be good from the YouTube videos I've seen, which doesn't say a whole lot. I have a Sundown SA-12 and it's great and a lot of people recommend Sundown so I can only assume the SA-10s are probably pretty good as well. I'm just looking for something comparable to the two 12" Type-Rs I have, I definitely don't want to downgrade.

My friend has two American Bass 10s in his Mustang and they are definitely LOUD, they shook the ground from at least 350 feet away, I never hear anyone talk about American Bass though but I know he got them from someone who competed at the national level for some car audio competition, I'm pretty sure he won too.

 

[keep_hope_alive Premium Member]

the type-R 12's cost more than your budget. and they are cheap for what they are. does your budget include selling the subs you have?

spending less on smaller subs may not give you the results you want - without proper execution. larger trunks can be more "lossy".

i would look to place one in each rear corner. in fact, try that with the subs you have now. since you have separate boxes, try them in each rear corner, by the taillight. play with aiming, but both aiming forward should offer them protection. both firing up would be more ideal. you are trying to corner-load each sub. yes, they are separated and will have different path lengths, but at the frequencies of concern the difference won't be an issue. hell, just one in one corner may be enough.

 

[skatingrocker17 10+ year member]

the type-R 12's cost more than your budget. and they are cheap for what they are. does your budget include selling the subs you have?
spending less on smaller subs may not give you the results you want - without proper execution. larger trunks can be more "lossy".

i would look to place one in each rear corner. in fact, try that with the subs you have now. since you have separate boxes, try them in each rear corner, by the taillight. play with aiming, but both aiming forward should offer them protection. both firing up would be more ideal. you are trying to corner-load each sub. yes, they are separated and will have different path lengths, but at the frequencies of concern the difference won't be an issue. hell, just one in one corner may be enough.

I got each Type-R for $120 new in the box and each box costed $50 each. No matter where they are, they're always against one side of the trunk, there might be 6" (I'm guessing) between the two. I don't know if I could put them all the way back (towards the tail lights) because the depth of the box still probably would be too long and the hump on both the right and left sides of the trunk might still be in the way.

Even if it did work though I would still have no trunk because everything would be pushed toward the back so I wouldn't be able to get anything in there. Not that I ever use it anyway but if I had to at least I could put a little in there before. I wish I could just push them all the way to the back like I had them in my other car, a new box might just solve the problem but at the same time I just like to get new things. I'll probably just end up keeping what I have. I was just looking to see if I could get anything smaller with the same loudness.

 

[keep_hope_alive Premium Member]

Yes you can run smaller subs and have the same output. They can fit and you can have trunk space.

Requires money but mostly time.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

less excursion means less air is moved. so while you have two subs you may only be moving the same amount of air as one sub by itself. course, less excursion means more control of the voice coil. as far as i'm concerned, less excursion is preferred for sound quality with a sacrifice in output.
get a pair of 10's you can afford. build a box designed for them to fit in the new car. don't forget to save some money for speakers so you hear music and bass.

Wrong my man. They excurt less, because they utilize the port more efficiently in a common chamber. Less output comes from the excursion of the sub, and more air movement comes from the port. Trust me, you gain at the ear moving them to common.

 

[keep_hope_alive Premium Member]

Wrong my man. They excurt less, because they utilize the port more efficiently in a common chamber. Less output comes from the excursion of the sub, and more air movement comes from the port. Trust me, you gain at the ear moving them to common.

i'll site my references and you cite yours (LDC will be one). not a fight, let's make sure we are dealing with controlled/measured information and not forum here-say. if i'm wrong, so be it, my memory may be flawed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif i'll look them up later tonight, i have a dozen or so to review.

common chamber designs reduce excursion not due to efficiency, but the result of both subs trying to pressurize the same airspace. same reason excursion is less with sealed - the cone has to fight the pressure of the enclosure. more power is required to overcome this. the port just allows the rear wave to combine constructively with the front while reducing back pressure relative to frequency... the net gain is from constructive interference, based on path length. "efficiency" is a misnomer in this application. we consider ported to be more "efficient" because we get to use both front and rear waves.

two subs sharing a port increase port velocity compared to one (granted, with separate enclosures the port is smaller), and increased port velocity results in increased air resistance. any efficiency in the design would be in the physical construction and flaring of the port. anytime you have an abrupt opening you get a reflection of the wave as it reaches an impedance mis-match (air impedance, not electrical impedance). hence, port design is key.

your argument should be that the rear waves from each sub combine more coherently when passing through a single port. when you have two subs and two ports and separate airspace you need to be careful with how you locate and design the enclosure(s) so that you still have coherent addition. it may be that while the latter will have more excursion and generate more pressure, the inability of the separate enclosures to combine constructively is lessened. it's a valid point.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

i'll site my references and you cite yours (LDC will be one). not a fight, let's make sure we are dealing with controlled/measured information and not forum here-say. if i'm wrong, so be it, my memory may be flawed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif i'll look them up later tonight, i have a dozen or so to review.
common chamber designs reduce excursion not due to efficiency, but the result of both subs trying to pressurize the same airspace. same reason excursion is less with sealed - the cone has to fight the pressure of the enclosure. more power is required to overcome this. the port just allows the rear wave to combine constructively with the front while reducing back pressure relative to frequency... the net gain is from constructive interference, based on path length. "efficiency" is a misnomer in this application. we consider ported to be more "efficient" because we get to use both front and rear waves.

two subs sharing a port increase port velocity compared to one (granted, with separate enclosures the port is smaller), and increased port velocity results in increased air resistance. any efficiency in the design would be in the physical construction and flaring of the port. anytime you have an abrupt opening you get a reflection of the wave as it reaches an impedance mis-match (air impedance, not electrical impedance). hence, port design is key.

your argument should be that the rear waves from each sub combine more coherently when passing through a single port. when you have two subs and two ports and separate airspace you need to be careful with how you locate and design the enclosure(s) so that you still have coherent addition. it may be that while the latter will have more excursion and generate more pressure, the inability of the separate enclosures to combine constructively is lessened. it's a valid point.

I know you aren't trying to fight, unlike most on this forum.

I completely agree with you that each individual sub excurts less in common chamber because they are trying to pressurize the same area. The thing is, if they are in phase, they are working in sync and not in opposition. That, by roundabout definition, would be efficiency. Each driver would work less to achieve the same port velocity they would have achieved individually.

The premise, then, is that each driver works about 80% has hard as it would have in it's own chamber, but the port exhumes a velocity 150% of that each port would have had if they were on each sub individually in separated chambers. The end result is more air movement in the cabin area. I for one, would attest to this personally, as I just opened the separation between my chambers in my eclosure and noticed great gains in the 30s hz region.

Also, my local audio store owner, also told me that in his opinion (yes I said opinion), common chamber designs 'fool' the subs into seeing about 60% of the enclosure each. What this translates to, is that a 10 cu box with 2 subs common chamber nets the same output as two individual 6 cu boxes because each common chamber sub actually pressurizes as if it is in a 6 cu box as opposed to only pressurizing on a 5 cu makeup. This also would be a perfect explanation of the decrease in sub excursion, as excursion decreases by increasing enclosure volume (in ported enclosures) I take great consideration of his opinion, as he was the loudest in the world in the mid 90s back when I was roughly 10 years old. Everything he's ever built gets insanely loud, even with mainstream products and he shoots straight, never trying to deceive people into spending more money than they should.