Why do so many people run IDQ10's sealed....

[skibumdc 10+ year member]

When the Qts of .35 suggests it is optomized to run ported?

Am I correct in that under Qts .5 suggestes sealed?

Click to read more...

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

because they sound good.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Also have to look at the Efficiency Bandwidth Product (EBP)...calculated from Fs/Qes.

50 or less prefers a sealed enclosure, 50-90 is either, over 90 takes a ported enclosure...

But even that's just a general suggestion.

 

[_PuNiShEr_ 10+ year member]

Because most people that buy them want SQ so why port?

 

[Immacomputer 10+ year member]

When the Qts of .35 suggests it is optomized to run ported?
Am I correct in that under Qts .5 suggestes sealed?

Judging whether or not a sub is biased towards ported or sealed should not be done by just looking at Qts. The Efficiency Bandwidth Product should also be taken into consideration as well. EBP is the Qes/Fs (around 40-60 is between, higher for ported, lower for sealed). These numbers do NOT mean the sub will not perform well in one type or another though.

The IDQs are ported biased and do sound excellent ported but they sound **** nice sealed as well. Usually, people who don't care about SPL all that much would rather save as much space as possible while still getting great sound. A small sealed enclosure is great for this. Usually when speakers have a nice strong motor and soft suspension, they perform pretty well in small sealed enclosures.

Because most people that buy them want SQ so why port?

Ported does not mean it will have bad sound quality. My IDQ sounds amazing ported but lacks low end while sealed. The lack of low frequency extension could be considered bad sound quality but does that mean sealed enclosures have bad SQ? It's not boomy at all ported and its transient response is just as good ported as it is sealed. The group delay is also very low which keeps things sounding tight and accurate.

 

[phyphoestilic 5,000+ posts]

Also to get the most out low end out of it would require a really low tuned ported box (28hz area) which would be a long port in itself. For 1/3 of the space for a properly tuned ported enclosure u get the same output at around 20hz.

http://www.imagedynamicsusa.com/pdf/IDQ10%20D4%20V2.pdf

I always liked their reponse graphs that come with the drivers.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Also to get the most out low end out of it would require a really low tuned ported box (28hz area) which would be a long port in itself. For 1/3 of the space for a properly tuned ported enclosure u get the same output at around 20hz.
http://www.imagedynamicsusa.com/pdf/IDQ10%20D4%20V2.pdf

I always liked their reponse graphs that come with the drivers.

Weird, you make the port length sound like an issue, its not. I have two IDQ 10's running ported in a box tuned to 30hz, two 3" round ports.... uhm their length is 15". A 15" long port is not overly long. No bends required, just used PVC, sounds awesome... not sure where I see this huge problem with the port length.
BTW, my IDQ's sound phenomenal ported.

 

[phyphoestilic 5,000+ posts]

Weird, you make the port length sound like an issue, its not. I have two IDQ 10's running ported in a box tuned to 30hz, two 3" round ports.... uhm their length is.... I dont remember but less than 10-12". No bends required, just used PVC, sounds awesome... not sure where I see this huge problem with the port length.
BTW, my IDQ's sound phenomenal ported.

Never said it's a problem. Just when u caculate ur box volume u dont calculate the port area as space the subwoofer sees. I know u already know that. But it's still extra space thats saved if u go sealed. Like stated earlier, u do loose some output, but most SQ people wont worry so much about that.

I wouldn't doubt that they sound great ported, but I have 2 IDQ12"s sealed, and they sound great as well //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Never said it's a problem. Just when u caculate ur box volume u dont calculate the port area as space the subwoofer sees. I know u already know that. But it's still extra space thats saved if u go sealed. Like stated earlier, u do loose some output, but most SQ people wont worry so much about that.
I wouldn't doubt that they sound great ported, but I have 2 IDQ12"s sealed, and they sound great as well //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Oh yeah, Ive run and been around sealed IDQ's for many many years. Ive just recently dipped into the vented world of IDQ's and found I should have gone there a long time ago. lol

Me stating how good the IDQ's sound ported is not to take away from their sealed performance. That, in addition to their amazingly small sealed requiements and outstanding SQ have made the IDQ quite famous. I bet people would be surprised how many subs out there today are designed around the IDQ platform in attempts to copy/improve the design by other manufacturers. You know what they say, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and there's alot of that going around with the IDQ design.

 

[phyphoestilic 5,000+ posts]

Oh yeah, Ive run and been around sealed IDQ's for many many years. Ive just recently dipped into the vented world of IDQ's and found I should have gone there a long time ago. lol
Me stating how good the IDQ's sound ported is not to take away from their sealed performance. That, in addition to their amazingly small sealed requiements and outstanding SQ have made the IDQ quite famous. I bet people would be surprised how many subs out there today are designed around the IDQ platform in attempts to copy/improve the design by other manufacturers. You know what they say, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and there's alot of that going around with the IDQ design.

Yup, duno if u've seen the new IDQv3's that r commin out. Alone with the XS drivers //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yup, duno if u've seen the new IDQv3's that r commin out. Alone with the XS drivers //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

If you have a link to the IDQv3, please provide it. Yes there's been all sorts of talk, and Ive read most of it, but no Ive yet to see anything official. If thats' what you mean, ya I know. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif Supposedly debut next SEMA show along with the IDMax15, the 'new' IDQ8 and a few other tricks up their sleeves.

Wondering if I should sell my vintage (and BNIB) IDQ8's while they are still worth some nice coin. But I just know if I do, ID will drop the new IDQ8 plan and I'll be screwed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[phyphoestilic 5,000+ posts]

It's already confirmed, ID was passing out brochures at a local shop opening, give me a min to find the link for them.

 

[phyphoestilic 5,000+ posts]

yup, here it is http://www.imagedynamicsusa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2142

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Judging whether or not a sub is biased towards ported or sealed should not be done by just looking at Qts. The Efficiency Bandwidth Product should also be taken into consideration as well. EBP is the Qes/Fs (around 40-60 is between, higher for ported, lower for sealed).

I'm not a big fan of using EBP.

Qts = Qes*Qms/(Qes+Qms)

Qms = Sqrt(Mms)/(Rms*Sqrt(Cms))

Qes = Re*Sqrt(Mms)/(BL^2*Sqrt(Cms))

Fs = 1/(2*pi*Sqrt(Mms*Cms))

As you can cleary see, using Qts actually accounts for a larger number of variables than using EBP (Fs/Qes)...the missing link is Rms. If you feel Rms is not important, than Qts still accounts for everything that EBP does. Operation Maximum Redundancy is clearly in full swing.

Besides, there needs to be an adjustment in the perception of how theile/small parameters fit into an enclosure. Highly linear subs with Qts/Qes values in the 0.30-0.35 (ie. Mag) are growingly increasingly popular in sealed enclosures, many people appreciate the small enclosure requirements that are often associated with drivers of that nature.

 

[Immacomputer 10+ year member]

As you can cleary see, using Qts actually accounts for a larger number of variables than using EBP (Fs/Qes)...the missing link is Rms. If you feel Rms is not important, than Qts still accounts for everything that EBP does. Operation Maximum Redundancy is clearly in full swing.

I agree completely. It's good to cover both paths as well.