# SQ of RE MTs???



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

Does any here have any experience with an RE MT for a daily driver?

If so, how's their SQ?

TIA!


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

Is this for an SQL system?


----------



## jdc753 (Nov 14, 2007)

I knew it wouldn't take long. 

Just put it in a sealed box, everyone knows Sealed=SQ


----------



## beerdrnkr (Apr 18, 2007)

No SQ sealed or ported...


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

James Bang said:


> Does any here have any experience with an RE MT for a daily driver?
> 
> If so, how's their SQ?
> 
> TIA!


"SQ compared to what other choice?" would be my first question. 

Yes they can be made to sound quite good in the right enclosure with proper tuning. I ran the MT12 for daily and still have a MT10 that I have not tried. It would need to be mated with a stout pair of midbass drivers and crossed no higher than 50-60hz. That has been my experience using them.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

How much power do they need to get them moving?


----------



## chijioke penny (Mar 22, 2007)

Megalomaniac said:


> How much power do they need to get them moving?


about 2.5k but they will handle 4k daily


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

Megalomaniac said:


> How much power do they need to get them moving?


An RE 35.1d or PG Tantrum 1200.1 were enough to provide plenty of output. 


Not for someone looking to save weight....


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

looks like that cone would hit spider landing and fail


----------



## theRESONANCE (Aug 28, 2008)

It looks fat as hell o.o

get a xxx and call it a day .
I dont think you'd even be able to make out the notes.


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

The AQ is "fatter".


----------



## Mike Troll (Dec 14, 2006)

My 12" MT wasnt very happy with me playing music on a pair of strapped 20.1's @ 1.4 ohms. My BTL on the other hand loves it and begs for more.


----------



## theRESONANCE (Aug 28, 2008)

w t f . lol 
Big woofers...
Real big woofers..


----------



## armed (Mar 13, 2008)

mt is for SPL
you might wanna try the re se


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

armed said:


> mt is for SPL
> you might wanna try the re se


but this is the SPL forum


----------



## Vestax (Aug 16, 2005)

Does SPL stand for sarcasm perhaps lost?


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

MAybe this isn't an SPL question.


----------



## Fur Burger (Dec 17, 2007)

So was the OP asking a real question or just being a douchebag about the new SPL forum? If it’s the latter, it sucks people wasted their time responding to what appeared to be an actual question. I do however agree with all the other hanging tampon strings, the SPL section needs to go and diyma should stick to important issues like “Which SQ amp is best from 80hz to 250hz?” or “How much ID equipment can actually fit in one vehicle?” or my favorite “Even though I am new to car audio, Dyns have the bestest midbass EVAR”. 

The last one needs to be said with a Sarah Palin wink and a smile.


----------



## Mike Troll (Dec 14, 2006)

Fur Burger said:


> So was the OP asking a real question or just being a douchebag about the new SPL forum? If it’s the latter, it sucks people wasted their time responding to what appeared to be an actual question. I do however agree with all the other hanging tampon strings, the SPL section needs to go and diyma should stick to important issues like “Which SQ amp is best from 80hz to 250hz?” or “How much ID equipment can actually fit in one vehicle?” or my favorite “Even though I am new to car audio, Dyns have the bestest midbass EVAR”.
> 
> The last one needs to be said with a Sarah Palin wink and a smile.


I love you! Of course in the no **** way......


----------



## ngsm13 (Aug 13, 2007)

Meh...

nG


----------



## bigabe (May 1, 2007)

I'll take any composite cone DD woofer over the MT for "SQ" purposes. The 3512e is a good loud, and clean woofer... the 9112c is even cleaner, but has less output capability (just one will still make your ears bleed)... and a 9512g is the most insane piece of subwoofer I've ever heard. It'll give you clean and LOW bass and absolutely ANY volume... just feed it 2000+ watts first.

The only issue with DD woofers is weight, and enclosure size. The woofers are VERY heavy (almost 60lbs for a 9512g), and they require large, very heavy duty ported enclosures that often weigh in at over 100lbs. But put a DD woofer in a large, low tuned enclosure and you will be amazed at what happens.

I use a 3512e with the standard paper cone, and most people are still amazed at how clean the bass is in my car, no matter how loud it gets. And according to the folks at DD, a composite cone upgrade will make me think my old paper cone woofer "had a pillow in front of it."




I know it was a sarcastic question, but as a basshead... I feel the need to put something on topic here and there in the SPL forum... I like that it's here, and I'd love to see some of the knowledgeable folks here have discussions regarding SPL.


----------



## W8 a minute (Aug 16, 2007)

I still find it hard to comprehend some of these numbers. I remember when people ran entire systems with 400 watts from a single HCCA amplifier. Now we need 1500 watts "just to get our subs moving"


----------



## tard (Jul 13, 2006)

bigabe- 

yeah, composite cones are $$$, but they are incredible! keep watch for USAC events in norcal and swing by. i will most likely attend the next one. i won't be competing myself, i have a couple people i build for. the one in particular, i recently built 2- 9512 F's into 9515's with G baskets and composite cones. we will be resetting our current state record (in our class) by at least 2 db. the lows shake the ground under your feet and the kick drums are painful. the snap goes right through you.

depending IF i have time to finish my own stuff, i might drive my truck down. although it's an SQ build rather than SPL.

W8-

LOL, yeah, it's funny how much has changed. back then, a sub that could handle 500 watts wouldn't do us any good, cause there weren't any amps with that much power! lol, the days when we thought we were rippin' cause we had 22.5 w/ ch on the highs and were big ballin with 75w on the subs!


----------



## scotty3x3 (Nov 7, 2008)

nice


----------



## stuckinok (Jul 22, 2008)

lawl


----------



## rc10mike (Mar 27, 2008)

W8 a minute said:


> I still find it hard to comprehend some of these numbers. I remember when people ran entire systems with 400 watts from a single HCCA amplifier. Now we need 1500 watts "just to get our subs moving"


x2!!


----------



## dragnix (Aug 1, 2006)

James Bang is rather douchy


----------



## James Bang (Jul 25, 2007)

dragnix said:


> James Bang is rather douchy


nice to see you outside of ca.com's lounge.


----------



## dragnix (Aug 1, 2006)

i don't stay in the lounge, i just post in the recent posts category. Not my fault it's mostly lounge posts


----------



## wuff (Nov 10, 2007)

MT=SQ:laugh:


----------

