# Enclosure for 6.5's?



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I am curious if I will benefit from putting my Eclipse 8071/8062 6.5's in a sealed enclosure. I know that nearly all sub woofers benefit from a properly built and tuned ported box. What about 6.5's is there an enclosure solution that nearly all 6.5's benefit from? Only technical data I can tell you is the frequency response 50-20k and continuous power handling is around 125. The doors are braced, sealed, deadened (CLD, CCF, MLV). I have had these installed for years and have been satisfied. I took every thing out to re place window motors, door handles, wiring, etc. I then noticed how much space I have to make some small enclosures. So in my normal line of thinking I asked myself "can I make this even better?". So can I? By changing the enclosure only? My next thought was if these were designed to be door speakers will the lack of air space hinder them? Was suspension and mass something that was determined with the door cavity as the enclosure?


----------



## bugsplat (Nov 7, 2014)

Are you also running a sub? I have not read good things about trying to push 6.5s that low. 50hz is not low enough to replace a sub and if you do play a 6.5 that low you are going to loose your midrange with a box tuned that low. It will sound muddy.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

Yes I have a sub and I'm not running the mids that low. Probably more like 70hz- 80. Just stating the little tech notes available in the product brochure. I do like Muddy Waters not muddy speakers. Thanks for the input.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...llery/139236-mercedes-midbass-enclosures.html


This was by far the most significant upgrade made to the system.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

That's a thing of beauty. I will just have to seal off the area where the glass sits when the widow is open. No door panel modifications needed. Thanks for the link and opinion.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

Some pods I am working on right now.




























I have rebuilt the door pockets too as part of the pods using some of the original parts. The design is so crazy because they are made to fit around the bottom of the window and also not interfere with the window reg mech. They are small pods, designed for an f3 of ~150hz for the drivers I have. That is an atypical xover to midbass, but my system is designed for it. The main point is that there is tons of work involved. You may be lucky, it may be way more simple. Some will tell you not to do it, for that reason alone. But there are benefits.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm not afraid of effort or time. I own a construction company in Buffalo. Used to working hard and Buffalo's winters provide limited opportunities to work. That leaves me with time and a heated garage. Recipe for awesomeness. I just hate wasting time for minimal or no gain. I have just never listened to someone's vehicle with a great overall system that had 6.5 in any type of pod. My mids already sound better than most of the people I know. Which sq friends are very limited for me. Bunch of 40yr old bassheads. So I am trusting the opinions of the fine forum members here that my time will be well spent on this endeavour. Thanks for you pics. And I am lucky enough to have a 7" by 4" open cavity the full length of door below where the window stops.


----------



## RandomBeat (Aug 23, 2014)

go for it!!!


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

Winters in Buffalo...

If you have the space to work, it makes huge difference. I actually sourced two full doors to do this build for $100 total. If you have a way to do that, it might be worthwhile especially if you are not very experienced with fabrication. It allows for errors that you can correct for on your actual doors. Once done with the fab, I plan to strip them of parts, and send the shells to the recycler. I had to cut metal to make the pods work, and the pods have a flange molded directly to the door so that they will strengthen the area cut. I used epoxy because it will cure even down to the 50's and it will adhere to the PP plastic of the oem door parts. Working with polyester is much faster and less expensive if you have heated space.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

There are some experienced people who will say it's not worth it too. Just food for thought...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

If you are crossed 2x Fs of the speaker, then it really isn't going to matter much since you are crossing high enough that the enclosure isn't going to dictate the bottom end response of the driver.


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

I've done a few sealed and ported door pods in the past. Usually sealed range from 7-12 liters, ported at least 10 liters with 1.5-2" dia port. tunings arround 55-65Hz.
use a lot of damping materials inside of the box, brace it if possible. Output is in both cases quite higher compared to IB install, drivers are protected against elements. You will need some work with EQ, hi-pass arround 60Hz....


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

Thanks for the input and examples. I still wouldn't mind some more opinions.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

garysummers said:


> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...llery/139236-mercedes-midbass-enclosures.html
> 
> 
> This was by far the most significant upgrade made to the system.


Totally. For the life of me I can't figure out why more people don't build sealed enclosures for their midbasses.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Totally. For the life of me I can't figure out why more people don't build sealed enclosures for their midbasses.


After all my research I can't either. It seems there is no downside. From everyone's opinions and reading it seems depending on your tuning and/or door treatment you don't necessarily reap huge benefits, but it seems most do and none have had diminished returns.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Theslaking said:


> After all my research I can't either. It seems there is no downside. From everyone's opinions and reading it seems depending on your tuning and/or door treatment you don't necessarily reap huge benefits, but it seems most do and none have had diminished returns.


Oh they're definitely a pain in the ass to construct! But the difference in dynamics is startling. Here's an example:

Up until 2006 I used infinite baffle for my midbasses. I built my first sealed midbass enclosure in 2006. When measuring the enclosure it was startling how loud it would get. With fifty watts of power, the enclosure was loud enough to be heard a block away. I was literally nervous that someone might call the cops. (When you measure a loudspeaker, it makes a crazy whistling noise and it definitely makes the neighbors pissed. It's a really irritating sound to listen to. Imagine a 110dB whistling noise, and you have the general idea.)

I literally haven't put a single woofer in a car door in eight years now. I'm just D-O-N-E with it.

Sealed midbasses also opened up my eyes to the possibilities of using much smaller midbasses than I'd been using up until that point. IE, I didn't realize how damn loud an eight can get until I put one in a sealed box.

There's a flip side to this though; it also opened my eyes to how much woofer you need for a dipole. (And a door speaker is a dipole, make no bones about that.) I used a fifteen inch woofer for a midbass in some dipoles at home, and even with all that displacement, I was *still* running out of steam surprisingly quickly.

TLDR: sealed boxes can take a crapton of power gracefully


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

And sealed enclosures in doors are a major PITA to make and look good.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Takes the right vehicle to pull it off as well.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

Patrick Bateman said:


> There's a flip side to this though; it also opened my eyes to how much woofer you need for a dipole. (And a door speaker is a dipole, make no bones about that.) I used a fifteen inch woofer for a midbass in some dipoles at home, and even with all that displacement, I was *still* running out of steam surprisingly quickly.
> 
> TLDR: sealed boxes can take a crapton of power gracefully


I will have a couple 15's to make up what I need to 



thehatedguy said:


> And sealed enclosures in doors are a major PITA to make and look good.


Fortunately I won't have to make it look good as I have .4 cubes+ of wide open space in the lower door to work with. I definitely have no finishing skills!


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

thehatedguy said:


> And sealed enclosures in doors are a major PITA to make and look good.


To me this a big issue. The reason I posted pictures was so one could get an idea of the work involved. But if you look at the last picture, the pods are in an embarrassing state. You can clearly see that they are not finished and there is still more sanding and filling to do. I had and fairly thick areas of fill to get the old door pockets to match the contours of the new positioning(old pockets sat right where the pods are now located). You can also see that the cuts I made in the original door panel are not exactly correct around where the door panel meets the dash. Those errors in the cuts will need to be corrected when I start work on the door panels I actually plan to use in the car. 

There is all the work to make the pods, and then there is 10x (at least) the work to make them look good. I have made the work much more difficult by using epoxy because of the 8+ hour cure time between applications. But it was the only thing that would allow me to work in lower temperatures and would also bond to the PP (polypropylene) plastic of the door pockets. Once they are finished and wrapped, they will look pretty good, but I still have work to do...

The long of the short of it is that you need either excellent fabrication skills or a tremendous amount of patience to get it right.





Bayboy said:


> Takes the right vehicle to pull it off as well.


I agree to some extent. Having the right vehicle at least makes things easier. I have seen pictures of door pods that I would never use in my vehicle. Sure they probably worked as intended, and it is no slight to the fabricator, but some are just so large and obtrusive and plain ugly. Gary's car looks amazing, but a very skilled fabricator was involved. Some might be so lucky that they can hide the pod _behind_ the door panel, but those vehicles are rare.

BTW, my pods are tiny for my 6.5" at ~4.5L I can't imagine pods designed for a lower f3 or for 8" or larger drivers. 

I totally agree with Patrick's assessment on the benefits. But again there is a huge investment in time and money to do them right. Enough warning on the effort involved?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

The perfect amount of warning. Not that I actually thinks it's difficult I am going to do it! Hard work keeps me engaged. Just knowing that others wouldn't do it solely because the amount of work involved makes it appealing. I don't mind learning (I mean screwing up!). There is always time to gain experience so I might as well try. It's going in a 93 S10 Blazer. I have been taking pictures of my work so far and I will be starting a build log soon. Then you guys will get to see your advice in action. Thanks again.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Tuned in for this one. Tried it in a 91 S10, very little room to work with between the inner door skins and seats. I take it you're going to cut out that area? Pretty bold, but if yours is anything like mine, rattles are abundant! Very little room towards the lower front as well. Protruding out puts the driver's side off-axis like a mofo. :banghead: Yet, I can see why the desperation to try.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> And sealed enclosures in doors are a major PITA to make and look good.


The enclosures in Gary's car are gorgeous and heavy. But they're also expensive and time consuming to build.

A "cheap and easy" alternative would be to seal off the rear of the driver, and then attached a length of PVC pipe.









Picture something like this, but with a pipe attached to the back.

The pipe is attached with a gasket, and the only reason the pipe is there is to supply sufficient volume to the enclosure. (If you just seal off the basket outright, you end up with an F3 of about 350hz.)









Or you could even cram the whole darn enclosure INTO the door. Here's a box I made for two 3.5" midbasses, with a set of pliers to demonstrate how tiny the "box" is. Admittedly, I wouldn't build this enclosure again - it was a ton of work. But the main reason it was so difficult is because it was so small. If I did it again I'd use a couple of 4" drivers, that would be easier to construct. Two 4" drivers in a bandpass box will deliver as much output as your typical 8" woofer, due to the increase in efficiency and displacement netted by the bandpass alignment.









If anyone is wondering what the heck is going on with that enclosure I built, picture a Polk C4 bandpass subwoofer, but at a much smaller scale. Polk's is isobaric, mine is not.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

I just had another wacky idea.
The "bandpass midbass" enclosure worked, but it was complete p.i.t.a. to build. I am not exaggerating when I say that each box took about twice as long to build as a subwoofer, *and I had to build four.* Ugh, that sucked, it seriously took a week.

And when you're working at such a small scale, it's really easy to **** up. It's the reason I nearly cut my right thumb off a few years back, while working on some tiny waveguides.

Bottom line: these boxes work, but they're atrocious to build.

But I have a 3D printer arriving today. I never considered a 3D printer for midbass enclosures, but it would actually work nicely. Because with a 3D printer you can built all these tiny parts that are such a p.i.t.a, like the mounting frame for the woofers, cutting the holes for screw holes so they line up perfectly, etc. If you look at the pic I posted, there were four mounting plates that had to line up, multiplied by four enclosures meant sixteen plates total. And because I'm an idiot, I made each one by one, instead of cutting all sixteen simultaneously.

TLDR: a 3D printer would make some trippy midbass enclosures. Picture me buying sixteen midbasses and scattering them about the car. A single 3.5" driver doesn't make much bass, but sixteen of them are about as loud as a 15" woofer!


















Here's a couple pics of the 3D printed enclosures that Alignment sound is using for their Faital 6.5s. Obviously, this won't fit in a car door, but gives you a general idea of how one could use a 3D printer to make midbass enclosures. Fiberglass is great and all, but when we're working at such a small size, CNC and 3D printers come in handy. Another neat trick they did is to expose the cooling fins on the motor. That's smart - it will raise the power handling by radiating the heat into the air, instead of the enclosure. So basically the enclosure is a donut.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

If your enclosure is to small you will be really limiting the low end the driver can play.
If you can't model it you are just shooting in the dark as to what it will sound like.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

Patrick Bateman said:


> The enclosures in Gary's car are gorgeous and heavy. But they're also expensive and time consuming to build.
> 
> A "cheap and easy" alternative would be to seal off the rear of the driver, and then attached a length of PVC pipe.
> 
> ...




I am going to try something like this. I made some weather guards for the drivers out of aluminum and I am going to connect it to a pvc pipe in the door. I will stiffen up the aluminum enclosure with some resin or roofing mop down. We'll see what happens. Maybe as soon as tomorrow.

AAAAAAA- My buddy is going to model an old Eclipse TI Pro for me today and he said he'd take care of the 6.5 as well. Hopefully I'll be able to scientifically design an enclosure. Guessing and rebuilding takes to long!


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Modeling & modeling throughout the years always lead back to the same results when I wanted to try enclosing a midwoofer...... either drop down in cone area (driver size), or approach it like a solobaric (low Qts, tiny box retaining low Qtc, but high roll-off). That is unless you're one of the lucky ones that have enough room to pull it off.  Never have so I discarded the pod and stuck with IB. 

This is not to say it can't be done, but I definitely will say that many car audio drivers won't suit the purpose when limited room is a factor. Still, I'm interested in the door skin trimming plan. Using the foam & skeleton route may be of big help.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Then you have to worry about the weight of the enclosure on the door hinges. My enclosures in my old Accord were so heavy that the doors began to sag some.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

True.... I've settled for the SI if settling even applies. The S10 is much of a challenge & I'm not willing to go that far. Good luck to the OP.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Then you have to worry about the weight of the enclosure on the door hinges. My enclosures in my old Accord were so heavy that the doors began to sag some.


I was about to get into the passenger door of a friend's car the other day. He stopped me at the last moment. Due to the fact that the vehicle was on a slope, if I'd opened the door it probably would have knocked me on my ass, due to the weight of the door and the incline.

Getting knocked out by a car stereo would be ironic.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

When I wanted to make enclosures for my door I went through all of the canned enclosure models for many sizes of drivers on parts express and on solen. Generally speaking finding something 5inch or bigger that can play down to 80hz in less then 0.3 cubic feet is impossible.

IIRC, I had found found some for sealed in the 0.3 range for 5inch drivers. Best (I mean smallest) ported for 6.5's was 0.5 cubic feet...roughly the same amount small enclosure 10 inch subs need hehe.

I ended up giving up because I didn't want to go with a gigantic door enclosure and didn't want tiny drivers in a still somewhat big ported box in the doors. 

But I still often think of doing it. Some beefy 6'5 ported could be very satisfying to listen to without needing a sub.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

Using PVC pipe was something I had thought about, but the reality is that my doors would not accommodate anything worth while as the door track, window regulator mechanism, window, ect was always in the way. Maybe some cars would allow for a simple PVC pipe enclosure, but I am willing to bet most won't for the reasons mentioned above. Maybe it would work in a tall truck door with more space at the bottom? 3D printing would be amazing, but out of reach for the average person I think.

Weight is a substantial concern. Placing the weight at the front of the door is obviously less of an issue than at the rear of the door as far as stress on the hinges and metal. My drivers use neo magnets, and I view neo over ferrite as a serious consideration for weight issues alone. The boxes themselves are 3/16" ply used as a core which was then reinforced on both sides with glass. I used the ply as a core because it is dimensionally stable and would not flex or bend easily during construction. I took this approach over foam core, despite the penalty in weight. I also considered cork core. Cork is a good core material and also has excellent damping abilities, it is very light weight, but is a bit like a wet noodle by itself. Also, although the convoluted shape needed to fit my boxes to my doors was a serious pain to construct, they have the added benefit of being rather stiff when compared to a traditional box shape. 

The lower you want to use the enclosures, the bigger and heavier they will be. So it might not be practical to build an enclosure with a targeted roll off of at 50hz or even 80hz. This is in part why mine are targeted at 150hz f3 (although measurements have shown I am good down to 130hz). 

The thing that I wish I had done with my doors first was to mold the flange directly to the door inner skin in the area I planned to cut _before_ making the cut. The reason is that as you start to cut the metal, you realize that the inner skin is very flimsy. Any deformation of that inner skin is bad, as it may mess up the alignment of window slides and regulator.

So to do it right I would do this: 

I would mold a flange first, build it up with many layers of glass or coremat; what ever is needed to make a strong flange. Then cut the metal. Take the flange and glue it to the opening with epoxy or high strength polyurethane. Once the flange is glued into place you have accomplished two things: 1) The panel will not bend out of position. 2) The mounting area for the box around the opening is now much stiffer and stronger than where you started, which helps to reduce door rattles. 

Then make your box to fit the cutout. Position the box in the cut out, and mold another flange directly to the box and to the first flange that is glued to the door. Use foil or mold release between the flanges so they can be separated after cure. So now the box has a flange built in that will mate to the reinforcing flange adhered to the door.

Attach the box with mechanical rubber isolators or a bead of flexible adhesive. I will most likely use a bead of flexible adhesive (not sure which adhesive yet), because honestly at this point it is easier but also because only my box has a flange. So I am relying on the box to stiffen the door. In either case, the goal is to isolate the box as much as possible from the door in the area of the cut out. This again reduces the chances of door rattles. There will still be rattles I think, but you don't have to use nearly as much heavy, expensive door treatments like typical in door IB installs. This can help mitigate the cost, weight, time disadvantage of building door pods.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Orion525iT said:


> Attach the box with mechanical rubber isolators or a bead of flexible adhesive. I will most likely use a bead of flexible adhesive (not sure which adhesive yet), because honestly at this point it is easier but also because only my box has a flange. ... In either case, the goal is to isolate the box as much as possible from the door in the area of the cut out. This again reduces the chances of door rattles. There will still be rattles I think, but you don't have to use nearly as much heavy, expensive door treatments like typical in door IB installs.


I would recommend using 100% butyl rubber rope to isolate and seal the enclosure to the door..you could use more then one "strand" of the rope and make it as thick and wide or as thin and narrow as you want it to be.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

So I got a rough estimate of space available. 460 cubic inches or about 7.5 liters. That is with no modifications to door whatsoever. After thoroughly looking it over I am going to use the door as two of the walls and 1/2in mdpe as the other. I have a bunch of SDS rope and windshield epoxy. If I drilled through the window stop I could probably even get a 2" port out of it. That is a piece of 3"x24" PVC. Shows how much workable space. I was able to slide it in one of the factory holes. I actually hate pods. Being able to avoid them will make me happy.

I never actually thought about the weight factor. Thanks for reminding me guys.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Where is the water going to go when it rains? There are holes in the bottom of your door to let the water out. Better make sure if you go down that route that you have thought about that before hand.

Better make sure you clearance the window mechanism as the window goes up and down.

Move harnesses etc.

My enclosures were made in my doors like that, and it was impossible to get sealed correctly.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

What's the point of building a large enclosure for a midbass?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

thehatedguy said:


> Where is the water going to go when it rains? There are holes in the bottom of your door to let the water out. Better make sure if you go down that route that you have thought about that before hand.
> 
> Better make sure you clearance the window mechanism as the window goes up and down.
> 
> ...


Drainage has been thought of and the pipe is actually under the window stop so no issues there. 

I'm not building a big enclosure necessarily , just stating there is ample space as it was suggested I would have a tough time building in these doors. I actually don't even know what "big" is for mid bass as I have never done it before. Have not got to enclosure planing yet. Just seeing what I have to work with. 

I'm going totally off the suggestions and opinions of others with this project. You guys are telling me what to try and I'll handle the error part.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

So you have under 0.3 cubic feet to work with.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

They are not easy to build inside the doors like that.

I did it once.

And if you are going through all of this trouble, why stop with 6.5s?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

Really it's just to see what type of difference it makes. More to keep me occupied than anything else. Like I said in the beginning of the thread. I was satisfied with the sound before just wanted to see if I could make it better. I'm actually not keeping this setup even if I love it. I already have my next set of 8" speakers. But if this works out I'll run it until next winter. Between 3 vehicles I switch setups about 2 times a year. Most of the time completely. This is at least the 7th different setup in 5 years in my blazer alone. Usually just total equipment swaps though. I guess I'm always in pursuit of something different and better.

I see you said going through all this "trouble". To me it's not trouble. I love all the work and applied effort. Even the most annoying parts like sanding are not a choir. The whole process is enjoyable to me. That's why I always start over.


----------



## buguy (Aug 5, 2014)

Makes perfect sense to me. I love to make stuff too. And I would think if he were to go with something bigger than a 6.5" he may have trouble (assuming its a 2 way system) matching a tweeter to it and be forced to run 3 way.

Im interested to see what you come up with.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The pain and chore part comes from getting these enclosures inside the doors are next to impossible to get completely sealed. Finding the leaks is a big big PITA.

If you are looking to keep the factory look, here is what I would do (and to me easier to do):
I would make tubs that would go into the holes in the doors, mask them up, and glass the whole lower door panel. 

The on panels, I would get trunk liner, aluminum foil, spray glue, and some tape. I would glue 2 layers of trunk liner down. Then get the aluminum foil and glue a layer on the carpet then tape the joints and spray with a light coat of cooking spray. Once you get that done, glass it up. 

Once it is all cured, pop them off. Now you have two halves for an enclosure. The carpet spaced that half out enough so it wouldn't be physically touching the plastic. Locate your baffle, cut a hole and glass it in. 

Then with some resin (thickened with cabo-sil would awesome). Stick them together. Now you have a nice sealed enclosure that is removable so you don't have to buy new doors when you get tired of finding air leaks that you can hear pumping.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Hai guiz, it's 2015, we don't have to do it the old way anymore

Linkwitz Transform

There's no need for big ol' enclosures. We have a better way.


----------



## Orion525iT (Mar 6, 2011)

^cheater!


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I thought bigger is better?  

Really, I'll be doing the enclosure this weekend. At least starting on it. I'm going to start off by closing off around the speaker. See how that sounds. If I have to get bigger then I might take the above advice and make a somewhat removable enclosure. At least one with only two parts instead of building totally in place.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You have to have the excursion to make the LT work. There are some circuits out there that do the "transform," but you can do the same manipulation with parametric EQ. I would be hesitant in doing a super small enclosure on speakers that are playing in the midrange though...too small and things start to get howly.

Conversely, you can do the samething in reverse- you can EQ an IB speaker to have the low end shape of the enclosure.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

FWIW, winISD has an option in it to simulate LT response/enclosure size. And there is a LT spreadsheet out there that shows the correction as well.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

It won't be to small. Not directly over the basket like the pic earlier in this thread. I will be using the space mostly to left and above the speaker location. Maybe a 6x6x4 inch space. Well going to turn on the heat in the garage now as I got snowed out of work today. The fun begins!

Side note: What's the best way to post pictures for a build log?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I'll be throwing this idea on the computer this weekend also. Was going to do it yesterday but didn't work out. I thought you had to have a lot of power and xmax for Lt circuits to work well. I have limited knowledge there. Just what I think I remember from sealed subs. As used suggested the peq would be best anyway considering I already have that ability. 

Yes I am building without figuring but I had to make a new weather guard that would house a 8" in the future. Why not put one more piece in to seal it off and see what it sounds like. Maybe I'll get lucky. If not in the meantime we'll have the mid modeled and I will be able to come up with something a little more scientifically. Most science fact comes from a bunch of guessing anyway. Charts are nice, ears are best.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Perhaps I missed it before, but what drivers have you used in your doors so far?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

In my blazer I have only used different Eclipse drivers. It's an Eclipse only vehicle as I bought solely to fulfill and teenage vision/dream. I am currently going to be using the 8071 setup. Drivers, mid ribbons, and silk dome tweet. The 8071 6.5 and the once more popular 8062 are the same. It will be run by the ECD-510 and EQS-2000 processor. I also have a old peq I will be throwing in the mix.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Ahhh... now I see the conundrum. I've tried several from Audax, Seas, Dayton, JbL Diamond, and no telling what else. The best performing so far without having mounting issues surprisingly a closeout pair of Jamo. Only issue with them was power handling & output. Good extension and clean mids though. Seas were the fullest with just as much extension. Baskets were still too deep for my liking.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I've tried a bunch of different stuff in my Silverado, Wife's blazer and my extra car (changes frequently latest was a 84 citation). I just always revert back to the eclipse speakers. To me they are great overall performers. My next work truck system I am going to change. As new Eclipse is no longer readily available I am forced by the new times to move on from my old ways!


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Hopefully the SI mids will be the last. I'm not expecting miracles since the left side driver location in the door is not great, so I'm sticking with incorporating a small midrange. I have a plan of attack for some more deadening. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Bayboy said:


> Ahhh... now I see the conundrum. I've tried several from Audax, Seas, Dayton, JbL Diamond, and no telling what else. The best performing so far without having mounting issues surprisingly a closeout pair of Jamo. Only issue with them was power handling & output. Good extension and clean mids though. Seas were the fullest with just as much extension. Baskets were still too deep for my liking.


A lot of those "mid-fi" European companies use surprisingly nice drivers. I've torn apart my Jamo and Kef speakers, and the drivers are quality.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I am familiar with the Jamo aluminum cone ht subs. Not bad.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Patrick Bateman said:


> A lot of those "mid-fi" European companies use surprisingly nice drivers. I've torn apart my Jamo and Kef speakers, and the drivers are quality.


That's why I love P.E.'s clearance center... you never know what drivers will wind up there for cheap. Still it's up to the user to define what is justified as usable. Many have passed over those same Jamo mids despite Zaph showing how useful they were. Had the vehicle they were tried in was adequately quiet, then they would have stayed. I still have them on the shelf and may pass them along to a friend in need. I definitely wouldn't trash them. They were surprisingly that good!


----------

