# Polk Audio MM subs



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

I'm seeing more and more feedback about this line of subs. For those that run them, are they as good (output and SQ-wise) as standard basket subwoofers? They are semi-slim, but performance-wise, I'm getting the sense that they are comparable if not better than a lot of subs out there on the market today.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

I have a MM1240 SVC....its a serious sub...small box....semi shallow...excellent SQ and it seems like you could wail on it if you wanted. And you can buy one on amazon for $119 shipped. I bought the "used" one from warehouse deals....and it arrived brand new.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

Yes, I've been following your thread when you bought and reviewed the shallow mounts that you wound up returning....actually it was that thread that got me interested! I thinking Cruzer (sp?) also has one, but it's the 10" version, and he seems to enjoy it too. I'm narrowing it down to this sub or a Boston Acoustics G2. Both seem to be quality builds.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DC925 said:


> Yes, I've been following your thread when you bought and reviewed the shallow mounts that you wound up returning....actually it was that thread that got me interested! I thinking Cruzer (sp?) also has one, but it's the 10" version, and he seems to enjoy it too. I'm narrowing it down to this sub or a Boston Acoustics G2. Both seem to be quality builds.


Another one i wanted to try, but i didn't have the depth was the JBL GTO12.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

IMO the MM8inch is the best value in 8's out there.

These are hard to beat, they are solid performers no doubt about it.


----------



## eviling (Apr 14, 2010)

I really like their SR series, i have a 12" SR DVC, and it's a great sub, very clean, very strong. good sub, polk makes awsome stuff i love polk. I dont know anything about the MM series though, interesting to hear some feedback about them though


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

DC925 said:


> Yes, I've been following your thread when you bought and reviewed the shallow mounts that you wound up returning....actually it was that thread that got me interested! I thinking Cruzer (sp?) also has one, but it's the 10" version, and he seems to enjoy it too. I'm narrowing it down to this sub or a Boston Acoustics G2. Both seem to be quality builds.


I wish i had heard an Image Dynamic's sub so i could compare sound quality but yes these subs have great SQ from my experience and listening to other subs.

As for output, dont let their size or shallowness fool u, my 2 10s are solid and hit lows fine.

ive been in search for something that *might* be better than the mm1240 and on one forum everyone tells me the IDQ12v2 will out do it, but on this forum people seem to think the mm1240 will have slightly better output.

i used to have (2) Rockford p2 12s that was louder than these polks but they are designed to be(and after hearing these polks, the rockfords sound TERRIBLE on anything but rap/hip hop). but i want that loudness with the polk SQ.

I wonder how the mm 15" sounds, if it maintains that SQ be great for those looking to run 1 sub, and at 425 watts is easy to power it

one last thing, for the price these things are imo hard to compete with. even if the IDQ line is better than the MM line, a 15" MM is $180 while a 15" IDQ version 2 (not even a version 3) is $225-230. MM 12" is $130 while IDQ version 2 (not v3) is $150. while 20$ isnt much, if ur buying 2, i would gladly save $40 and have the same performance.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

All good points! Plus, take a look at this...

YouTube - MM woofers 10/12 under Jeep


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

DC925 said:


> All good points! Plus, take a look at this...
> 
> YouTube - MM woofers 10/12 under Jeep


Thats why i said dont doubt their design. they are shallow but are built great..


----------



## MacLeod (Aug 16, 2009)

Im running a MM10 in my rig now. Its in a .75 ft3 sealed box with 400 watts and it sounds pretty damn good I think. Has no problem hitting the 21 Hz note on the MECA disc, has nice punch and very solid output.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

Despite MM series being a solid line, everyone i talk to would still buy Image Dynamics over it.

I have no prob believing that ID has slightly better SQ but say compare a 12" polk mm vs the IDQ 12v2. the polk has slightly better sensitivity and more rms. How would the IDQ have more output?


----------



## 08Raider (Jun 17, 2010)

IMO the MM fits a need for a lot of people. The somewhat shallow mounting depth of less than 5" makes it fit in a lot of applications that other subs cannot fit. If you want a small enclosure sub that can fit in tight places I am not sure that you can find a better one anywhere near the MM's pricetag. The MKIII is great but it is also $100 more. Also Soundsplinter makes the RLi-10 and it is a beast in small enclosures, but once again it is almost twice the price of the Polk MM. 
I have not had the experience yet of hearing the Polk MM in a ported enclosure, but I know a lot of people that love the IDQ in a ported enclosure. If you plot the 2 subs, personally I think I would take the Polk over the IDQ in sealed apps, and take the IDQ for a ported app.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

the MM from 10 to 15's have 25mm X-max! Wow... don't know many subs with that much excursion for anywhere near this price.

The MM line is quite the value.


----------



## Candisa (Sep 15, 2007)

I know if I needed a new sub in the near future, this one would have a huge chance if I can find them at a nice price here in Europe.
Semi-shallow design, and only a small box needed, but 25mm of linear x-max AND a nice price!

I'm sure this is one of THE subs to get at this moment!

Isabelle


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

Cruzer said:


> Despite MM series being a solid line, everyone i talk to would still buy Image Dynamics over it.
> 
> *I have no prob believing that ID has slightly better SQ *but say compare a 12" polk mm vs the IDQ 12v2. the polk has slightly better sensitivity and more rms. How would the IDQ have more output?


You would be doing yourself a HUGE favor by realizing that the magical "sq" is not a feature or inherent value assigned to any piece of audio gear. 

For instance, a Polk MM sub in a properly designed box with the right power and with the correct settings for the install and application goals will always have better essque than an ID sub in the wrong box with the wrong power trying to do the "wrong" thing for install and application.

Or vice versa or any variance of box size, power, install and application.

I think I might pick up one of the 12" Polk MM just because they are so cheap and you never know.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

sam3535 said:


> You would be doing yourself a HUGE favor by realizing that the magical "sq" is not a feature or inherent value assigned to any piece of audio gear.
> 
> For instance, a Polk MM sub in a properly designed box with the right power and with the correct settings for the install and application goals will always have better essque than an ID sub in the wrong box with the wrong power trying to do the "wrong" thing for install and application.
> 
> ...


Everyone knows that box, power, install, application all are huge factors.

what everyone seems to challenged to understand is that (for me and my install anyways) all the variables are the same...

IDQ vs polk MM they are both 12s, both going in the same box, both getting the same 870 watts from my amp, both going in the same exact truck, in the same exact location.

So why are u going to say anything about box, power, install, application?

I really dont think when people ask what subs is better they are asking because they want 1 in a ported oversized box, way overpowered, in their passenger seat of the car. then the other is for a sealed box below minimum spec, way under powered, in their trunk of the car.

and then trying to realistically compare the 2 subs.

Am i the only one that sees this?

And i dont think SQ is some magical thing, polk has been around longer than ID i would guess, but u see all the internet brands that u dont see at like crutchfield and they all are better subs than stuff u see at crutchfield. So i have no problem believing ID has better SQ technology, design, and experience over polk. Could i be wrong? very likely... its just a reasonable guess


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

I can only speak for my install and my experience. And i think i have a very critical ear, and i think i know what sounds good and what doesn't...

I had an IDQ12 v3 in a perfect box for the IDQ...sealed and getting 380watts.

SQ was great....but maybe a tad dry....and over all output was lacking...virtually no tactile feel from the sub.

POlk MM1240 in an ideal box for the Polk...and everything else is the same.

SQ is also very good....maybe a 8, where the IDQ was a 9.

But for that slight lack of tight SQ i gain much more output and some definite tactile response as well as some "bloom" for a lack of a better word...the kind of low end response you get in the house...i can hear what i think is more detail in the low end with the polk...where the IDQ was so tight alot of the bass sounded pretty similar from CD to CD....the polk has more of a varied sound.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

miniSQ said:


> I can only speak for my install and my experience. And i think i have a very critical ear, and i think i know what sounds good and what doesn't...
> 
> I had an IDQ12 v3 in a perfect box for the IDQ...sealed and getting 380watts.
> 
> ...


Do u have any experience with 15s or 18s?
what other brands have u listened to?


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

Cruzer said:


> Everyone knows that box, power, install, application all are huge factors.


Not everyone knows this, which is why I mentioned it.



Cruzer said:


> IDQ vs polk MM they are both 12s, both going in the same box, both getting the same 870 watts from my amp, both going in the same exact truck, in the same exact location.
> 
> So why are u going to say anything about box, power, install, application?


Just because both subs are 12's, made by the same manufacturer or not, etc. etc. does not mean that they "need" the same box size, take the same power, etc.



Cruzer said:


> I really dont think when people ask what subs is better they are asking because they want 1 in a ported oversized box, way overpowered, in their passenger seat of the car. then the other is for a sealed box below minimum spec, way under powered, in their trunk of the car.
> 
> and then trying to realistically compare the 2 subs.


Unless an OP mentions why they want the comparison then you can't assume anything about their thoughts or line of questioning.



Cruzer said:


> And i dont think SQ is some magical thing, polk has been around longer than ID i would guess, but u see all the internet brands that u dont see at like crutchfield and they all are better subs than stuff u see at crutchfield. So i have no problem believing ID has better SQ technology, design, and experience over polk. Could i be wrong? very likely... its just a reasonable guess


Length of time in business doesn't neccessarily equal quality or good products or vice versa. "Better" and "essque" are subjective and dependent on the individual and their goals, which was the point of my post.


----------



## Topper (May 31, 2007)

yo CRUZER and MINISQ - could you guys post pix of your polk subsection


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

sam3535 said:


> Just because both subs are 12's, made by the same manufacturer or not, etc. etc. does not mean that they "need" the same box size, take the same power, etc.
> 
> *Does not mean i cant use the same box and same power for 12s by different companies. Both polk mm12" and IDQv2 12" will work fine in a .88 cubic foot box, and both could handle 425 watts. based on same box, same power, if u know which sub is better u can answer it.
> 
> ...


Which is exactly why i said despite polk being around longer, ID probably has better products. *Did you not understand that sentence?* What im saying is ID has not been a company as long as the polk brand. But they probably have better technology.

Which means that despite u repeating what i said, yes we both agree "Length of time in business doesn't neccessarily equal quality or good products or vice versa."

Can i ask did u graduate high school? no jokes


----------



## Maglite (Dec 28, 2009)

Wonder how the MM1040 would sound against the JB P1024?


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

Cruzer said:


> Does not mean i cant use the same box and same power for 12s by different companies. Both polk mm12" and IDQv2 12" will work fine in a .88 cubic foot box, and both could handle 425 watts. based on same box, same power, if u know which sub is better u can answer it. When u dont know, u make up stupid useless stuff like "too many variables, like box, power, install, blah blah blah.


I did not say that. Learn to read. If you don't understand that T/S parameters *can* be important when determining if a driver can meet your needs, do some research. If said parameters are "too many variables" for you, I can't help you.



Cruzer said:


> But u could still give an educated guess based on what u know as to which sub would be better for whatever they ask. assuming similar box, similar power, etc. if they say they want SPL u dont suggest or say a SQ 8 will be the best bet.
> 
> If they ask whats better for SPL a SQ 8, or a SPL 15, then u can tell them they are dumb and tell them the 15 is made for SPL and is the better choice.


Yes, I can if all that you mention were asked and I felt like it. This forum is about sharing information and not holding hands.



Cruzer said:


> Which is exactly why i said despite polk being around longer, ID probably has better products. *Did you not understand that sentence?* What im saying is ID has not been a company as long as the polk brand. But they probably have better technology.
> 
> Which means that despite u repeating what i said, yes we both agree "Length of time in business doesn't neccessarily equal quality or good products or vice versa."


Great! We agree on something. You have yet to explain why ID probably has "better technology".



Cruzer said:


> Can i ask did u graduate high school? no jokes


Yes; Bachelors and Masters to boot. Why the anger and general bad attitude? Questions were asked and I responded. If you don't like the answers, ignore them or leave the forum. 

And since you went down that road I will respond in kind... Why would you assume from any of my posts that I lack a high school diploma? Why do YOU repeatedly use the term "u" instead of "you" and generally suffer from a poor vocabulary, horrible grammar and spotty punctuation? I will draw some conclusions based solely on your posts in this thread, just as you have apparently done to me: Your low paying hourly job due to your poor dental hygiene, constant acne issues, and ninth grade education are keeping you down in the ranks at work hence your need to ridicule and question other members as to their intelligence and education. 

And I will make it easier for you; out of the two subs, Polk and ID, I would choose the ID product based on prior ownership of their products and lack of ownership of Polk, although I have heard an SR12 (and enjoyed it).


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Cruzer said:


> Do u have any experience with 15s or 18s?
> what other brands have u listened to?


The only 15 i have owned is a TC Sounds TC2000 that i had in my HT in a giant LLT ported Box. I am currently trolling for a deal on an 18" sub to go in that box someday.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

miniSQ said:


> The only 15 i have owned is a TC Sounds TC2000 that i had in my HT in a giant LLT ported Box. I am currently trolling for a deal on an 18" sub to go in that box someday.


I have heard good things about TC. how did the SQ compare to your polks?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Cruzer said:


> I have heard good things about TC. how did the SQ compare to your polks?


2 different applications...one in a home theater..one in a small car...but i would say the polk has a certain HT sound to it


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

I have to say, trying to decide between all the subs and models available is tough, you can only go word of mouth and T/S specs. as long you know what you're looking for. Sonic's now going to be carrying RE subs, I was looking at this brand closely. Their SRx10 only needs .5CF3! I think I'm going to buy the MM though, unless someone can convnce me otherwise...hate this!


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

Do u not check ur pms or do u have it disabled? Mini


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Cruzer said:


> Do u not check ur pms or do u have it disabled? Mini


i generally only answer pm's that i have an answer too..just like here...

you said:

Do u think the 15" polk mm will have the same SQ the 10s and 12s have?

How do u think 1 15" MM would compare to 2 10" MM

Have u heard of FI Audio? 

And i guess i should have responded with : No idea...


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

I bought the 1040dvc! Will try and write a report once it's set up


----------



## ericrutter11 (Nov 6, 2009)

I think for the value, the MMs are pretty hard to beat. Semi-shallow, durable, good essque, and reasonable output for ~125.


----------



## amkarlix (Oct 22, 2009)

I just installed 2 mm1040's under the back seat of my dodge dakota and so far I am more than pleased with the output and the sq. Right now I have them powered by 600 rms but soon will be hooking up a cadence zrs7000d to give myself a little headroom. I got 2 of them for $140 through the dealer accommodation at my work and feel like I got one hell of a deal on some really nice subs. Cant wait to hear how they sound after a little time to break in and tune. As everyone else said the build quality on these is also very nice, nothing about them feels cheap at all.


----------



## amkarlix (Oct 22, 2009)

I just installed 2 mm1040's under the back seat of my dodge dakota and so far I am more than pleased with the output and the sq. Right now I have them powered by 600 rms but soon will be hooking up a cadence zrs7000d to give myself a little headroom. I got 2 of them for $140 through the dealer accommodation at my work and feel like I got one hell of a deal on some really nice subs. Cant wait to hear how they sound after a little time to break in and tune. As everyone else said the build quality on these is also very nice, nothing about them feels cheap at all. And they do get loud.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

I'm wondering why there's such a disparity between dvc and svc models. The svc can take 350 rms compared to 270 on the dvc. Also, the sensitivity rating is 91 and 86 respectively. Anyone know offhand? I thought I recall a thread on this, but I can't seem to find it.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

DC925 said:


> I'm wondering why there's such a disparity between dvc and svc models. The dvc can take 350 rms compared to 270 on the dvc. Also, the sensitivity rating is 91 and 86 respectively. Anyone know offhand? I thought I recall a thread on this, but I can't seem to find it.


Im a noob to car audio, but my guess is DVC is easier on the voice coils and allows them to take more wattage without getting hot, or going bad which also should make them more efficient which explains the increase in sensitivity.

Thats just my guess but im probably wrong


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DC925 said:


> I'm wondering why there's such a disparity between dvc and svc models. The dvc can take 350 rms compared to 270 on the dvc. Also, the sensitivity rating is 91 and 86 respectively. Anyone know offhand? I thought I recall a thread on this, but I can't seem to find it.


where did you find those specs? I just looked on the company website and power handling was identical 425w rms And sensitivity was 92 and 86...most likely due to the SVC vs DVC.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

miniSQ said:


> where did you find those specs? I just looked on the company website and power handling was identical 425w rms And sensitivity was 92 and 86...most likely due to the SVC vs DVC.[/QUOTE
> 
> I bought the 1040dvc model, I believe those are the specs for the 12.


----------



## amkarlix (Oct 22, 2009)

On polk audio's website the mm1040 and mm1040dvc are both listed as 350rms. I dont know why other sites have them listed differently. On the actual subs that I have, mm1040's, it says right on the back of the sub 4 ohm, 400 watts. Don't ask me...


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

Does anybody have the 15" MM's yet? I could only find a couple reviews on them.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

amkarlix said:


> On polk audio's website the mm1040 and mm1040dvc are both listed as 350rms. I dont know why other sites have them listed differently. On the actual subs that I have, mm1040's, it says right on the back of the sub 4 ohm, 400 watts. Don't ask me...


I just got the sub yesterday (and Minisq and others are right, very nicely made sub) and even the box stated 350 rms with a rating of 91 sensitivity....yet the manual rates it at 270 rms/86 db. No matter, I'll go ahead and throw it in a box and wire it up...I'm sure it will sound fine.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

let us know what u think. i dont think anyone can deny they have great SQ. I do wish at least my mm1040s had a little more output, but hey, thats why they make the 12" version and 15" lol.

idk whats up with the whole rms thing, when i bought mine it was rated for 350rms and my manual read 350 rms. im throwing a pair around 430rms per sub, about 870rms between for both subs and its still got beautiful SQ


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Cruzer said:


> let us know what u think. i dont think anyone can deny they have great SQ. I do wish at least my mm1040s had a little more output, but hey, thats why they make the 12" version and 15" lol.
> 
> idk whats up with the whole rms thing, when i bought mine it was rated for 350rms and my manual read 350 rms. im throwing a pair around 430rms per sub, about 870rms between for both subs and its still got beautiful SQ


Buy a second 10...its not fair to ask a single ten to kick you in the chest.


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

Just some questions...other than audio...does "RMS" exist as a tangible specification?

Is "SQ" a tangible object?

Where can I get "SQ technology"?



I thought speaker building was an art. I'm sure a baseball bat and a trash can contains SOME "SQ". Anyways, not everybody enjoys picasso.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

miniSQ said:


> Buy a second 10...its not fair to ask a single ten to kick you in the chest.


Ummm... i have 2... im overpowering them to boot... if they were the 12s, i would be in love.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

I800C0LLECT said:


> Just some questions...other than audio...does "RMS" exist as a tangible specification?
> 
> Is "SQ" a tangible object?
> 
> ...


all i can say about rms is that they underrate them so people dont blow them, they can always take more than they are rated, just dont go overboard.

as for SQ, im not sure what it means when it comes to subs, but i know my polks have clean, tight, accurate bass compared to my rockford fosgates which got muddy, sloppy, and pretty inaccurate on fast beats...


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

So i got a video of my subs today just for fun because ill probably be replacing them this weekend.

the boxes were originally meant to go behind the seats, but for some reason on one end of each seat it bolts on the outside, but the other side bolts on the inside, where the sub was going. So missing that small detail, they wont fit unless i dont bolt the seats down, so they just sit behind me.

doubt anyone cares, but hey figured i got it might as well share it
YouTube - Polk Audio MM 10s


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Cruzer said:


> So i got a video of my subs today just for fun because ill probably be replacing them this weekend.
> 
> the boxes were originally meant to go behind the seats, but for some reason on one end of each seat it bolts on the outside, but the other side bolts on the inside, where the sub was going. So missing that small detail, they wont fit unless i dont bolt the seats down, so they just sit behind me.
> 
> ...


we all care
but right now i am wondering what size boxes are they? the look like they might be too big....which might cause you to lose some output.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

Thanks for posting that up! Good excursion. I'm thinking about buying the Sonic Electronix Box here: 

Sonic Sub Boxes 1SL10-0.7-BLACK (1sl1007-black) - 10" Sealed Subwoofer Enclosures - Sonic Electronix 

I figure .70cf will be perfect after considering woofer displacement. I'm thinking that I won't be using polyfill. 

Cruzer your camera probably can't pick up subsonic frequencies too well, that may be why they don't seem loud on the video. What's the volume on the boxes though? They do look a little large.


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

Cruzer said:


> So i got a video of my subs today just for fun because ill probably be replacing them this weekend.
> 
> the boxes were originally meant to go behind the seats, but for some reason on one end of each seat it bolts on the outside, but the other side bolts on the inside, where the sub was going. So missing that small detail, they wont fit unless i dont bolt the seats down, so they just sit behind me.
> 
> ...


Are you replacing the subs, or just the boxes? Or both?


----------



## chipss (Nov 13, 2009)

ya know I have a pair of db1040dvc, the specs are the same as the mm1040's 
I must say I did not like the db's at all....and ripped them out...

this thread has me wondering if they needed more break in time, and EQ work. they sure look good on winISD, wich is why I got em....


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

DC925 said:


> Thanks for posting that up! Good excursion. I'm thinking about buying the Sonic Electronix Box here:
> 
> Sonic Sub Boxes 1SL10-0.7-BLACK (1sl1007-black) - 10" Sealed Subwoofer Enclosures - Sonic Electronix
> 
> ...


my boxes are .65 or .66 before displacement so they are on the small side but i needed to fit them behind the seat.

i could build a new box and might even be satisfied with them once they are built to specs after displacement but i just wanna try something new and ive ran 2 10s 2 12s, wanna try a 15.

thats a $300 camera it should play it like a champ but its not a video camera so guess thats why. But hey it records in HD... looks good on youtube in hd.


----------



## 08Raider (Jun 17, 2010)

Yeah from the video I would guess his box was about 15x16x6x9 or somewhere around that with 3/4 mdf that would bring the internal volume to .68 which is more than close enough to the .66 recommended. 

As for the Polk DB's they are not even close to the MM subs IMO. That is probably why you can find the pre-loaded dual DB 12's for $199.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

unfortunately i used 5/8 mdf to get more volume for the limited space. they are different sizes because i have 60/40 bench seats. but both were .65 or .66 when i figured up the internal volume. But that was still before sub displacement.

sad part is, they still bang and have amazing sq. the only reason i want to upgrade is because i feel im not getting the lows very well and that (easily or probably) could be fixed by making a new box with at least .66 after displacement. But perhaps this wont make it hit lower or harder because they arent shallow mounts but they are pretty thin.

i cant find the specs for its displacement =/


----------



## NoTraction (Aug 10, 2008)

Maglite said:


> Wonder how the MM1040 would sound against the JB P1024?


Wondering the same thing.

Can someone chime in?


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

NoTraction said:


> Wondering the same thing.
> 
> Can someone chime in?


Cant say, but did u watch the video i posted of my polk 1040s? make sure u click HD for best quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCPTaNPGPqM


----------



## DC925 (Jun 17, 2010)

I'm considering returning this sub for a JBL GTO1014 now....my trunk is more or less sealed off, and I'm thinking the JBL might have a bit more ooomph to it. Not entirely sure though. Any thoughts? It can be had for as little as $85!


----------



## 08Raider (Jun 17, 2010)

DC925 said:


> I'm considering returning this sub for a JBL GTO1014 now....my trunk is more or less sealed off, and I'm thinking the JBL might have a bit more ooomph to it. Not entirely sure though. Any thoughts? It can be had for as little as $85!


What sub do you have now?? the Polk MM?

The polk has almost 10mm more of xmax, (trying to find the JBL's specs so i can plot them) The JBL P1024 would be an upgrade, but I am not sure that the JBLGtO10 would be a side-grade at best(and you might actually lose some output.)


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

i love my polk MM subs, but lets be honest they dont have 25mm xmax. thats full xmax, not linear like most companies report it.

think about it, a 10" polk mm has 25mm xmax, but a JL 10w7 only has 23 xmax? a 10w6 only has like 18 or 19 i think it was(forgot)?

it has to be full xmax, and not linear, just my opinion tho


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

fwiw:

I have had a 12" polk MM installed for a few weeks now...and went back into the trucnk to check on the install and tighten down the sub screws or at least check to see that they were still tight.

they were completely loose...to the point where i got 2-3 revolutions of tightening in before i had them locked down.

This is my first polk sub and that plastic trim piece must either shift or shrink or something...because they were tight when i installed them.

YMMV...but it would be worth checking...


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

So anyone know anything about porting these subs?

polks website says the following:
"Introducing the new MM1040 high performance 10" subwoofer. Use it in a sealed or ported enclosure. As a result of 3 years of Polk research and development, the new MM systems have been designed to offer unparalleled sound quality with exceptional fit to meet virtually any application."

yet they give no specs as to how big a box it needs for ported.

i was looking around seems like a 1.25 cubic foot box would be good ported size for one of these.

ideas suggestions thoughts?

will they suck ported?


----------



## 08Raider (Jun 17, 2010)

The recommended enclosure size for single ported is 1.0 cu ft. With a 1" slot port (length will depend on what frequency you want to tune to.) You could Use RE Audios enclosure calculator....(it will even give your your cutout sheet dimensions)


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

08Raider said:


> The recommended enclosure size for single ported is 1.0 cu ft. With a 1" slot port (length will depend on what frequency you want to tune to.) You could Use RE Audios enclosure calculator....(it will even give your your cutout sheet dimensions)


Where did u get that from? And is that for a 10 or 12?

Nothin in my manual, nothing on polks website and I didn't find anything on polks forum. Guess I wasn't far off with 1.25 cubic foot


----------



## 08Raider (Jun 17, 2010)

On the Polk website you can go to the sub-page "subwoofer box plans", then select your model and quantity of subs.

http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/subbox/subbox_plan.php?id=107&mesurements=standard

that is for the 10 inch sub


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

And what about tuning? What would be best? Will re's enclosure thing tell that? I can't pull it up on my phone


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Cruzer said:


> i love my polk MM subs, but lets be honest they dont have 25mm xmax. thats full xmax, not linear like most companies report it.
> 
> think about it, a 10" polk mm has 25mm xmax, but a JL 10w7 only has 23 xmax? a 10w6 only has like 18 or 19 i think it was(forgot)?
> 
> it has to be full xmax, and not linear, just my opinion tho


In the literature it specifically states one way linear.
These things can move. Believe it.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

AAAAAAA said:


> In the literature it specifically states one way linear.
> These things can move. Believe it.


well i have them in .66 cubic foot boxes, sending more than they are rated and they dont get too loud...


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

loud is relative. Xmax doest mean loudest. BTW when I model these guys they seem to need around 800 watts or so to reach xmax low enough. Maybe you need more power.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

AAAAAAA said:


> loud is relative. Xmax doest mean loudest. BTW when I model these guys they seem to need around 800 watts or so to reach xmax low enough. Maybe you need more power.


lol its in the sig bro... *AQ1200D* [email protected], plenty of power...

obviously xmax doesnt mean loudest, but if a sub has 25mm xmax it should be pretty loud...


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

They need that EACH chump to rach xmax at like 5hz.

You may need something more efficient, but how much louder will it be?
You are probably more of a candidate for ported.


----------



## Cruzer (Jul 16, 2010)

I know im a noob at car audio, but im NOT going to believe a 350w rms rated sub needs 800 rms for any reason what so ever...

i am working on designing a ported box, im certain it will be better than sealed, and ive never ran ported.


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

Without going back to check, I think those MM subs only have a 2" coil.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Yeah it doesn't seem liken they could dissipate all that heat long term however they seem to require it according to bass box pro to reach maximum excursion.


----------

