# Which SQ subs for small box? ARC or IDQ



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

I am looking at either 2 ARC 12 or 2 IDQ12V3's for a custom made box that sits under my rear seats in my 09 ram crew cab. 

A local car audio shop built the box and supposedly it has 0.75 CF per side sealed, as they built it to spec for 2 Alpine type-R's. I don't know if the box is too small, or if the alpines are just not what I want, but I don't like the setup. (i didn't mind the old version type-R's in a bigger sealed box I had in a different car, but I am still shooting for better now) These are too boomy and not clean or musical enough. 

It is running off an arc KS 1000.1. I also have focal 165 vr3 components in the front and 690 CVX in the rear running off an arc KS 300.4. 

I am looking for clean, accurate, and musical bass with decent output. I listen to absolutely every type of music. I am leaning towards the IDQ's with polyfill, but there is noway to hear them without buying them, and then I can't return them. The arc's I can try and return. 

I am also contemplating switching to Alpine PDX-f6 and PDX-M12 amps. Anyone have any advice as to which subs and amps? You can also suggest another sub what would work in my scenerio. Sorry if my post is confusing and long winded or if my questions can't be, or have been answered in the past... Thank you in advance.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

dave09bigborn said:


> I am looking at either 2 ARC 12 or 2 IDQ12V3's for a custom made box that sits under my rear seats in my 09 ram crew cab.
> 
> A local car audio shop built the box and supposedly it has 0.75 CF per side sealed, as they built it to spec for 2 Alpine type-R's. I don't know if the box is too small, or if the alpines are just not what I want, but I don't like the setup. (i didn't mind the old version type-R's in a bigger sealed box I had in a different car, but I am still shooting for better now) These are too boomy and not clean or musical enough.
> 
> ...


The Arc audio 12 is nothing more than an IDQ V2 with more excursion and a stronger motor, and that's the truth. Call up Arc Audio and they'll be pretty honest with you about it. Both are excellent choices, but if I had to choose, I'd go with the Arc sub, although both will have amazing SQ.


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

How does the arc compare to version 3 of the IDQ? Will 0.75 cf be enough for either, even with polyfill? Either will be a noticeable improvement over the type r's right?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

dave09bigborn said:


> How does the arc compare to version 3 of the IDQ? Will 0.75 cf be enough for either, even with polyfill? Either will be a noticeable improvement over the type r's right?


Yes, either will blow away the Type Rs.

They are both supposed to be pretty similar. I haven't heard the Arc but I own several IDQV2s and it doesn't get much better. I'd say they're likely to sound almost identical. 

No need for polyfill if you're going sealed, and .75 cubic feet will be plenty. In fact, if you wanted a bit of a tighter sound, you could drop that to .6 cubes easily.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Yes, either will blow away the Type Rs.
> 
> They are both supposed to be pretty similar. I haven't heard the Arc but I own several IDQV2s and it doesn't get much better. I'd say they're likely to sound almost identical.
> 
> No need for polyfill if you're going sealed, and .75 cubic feet will be plenty. In fact, if you wanted a bit of a tighter sound, you could drop that to .6 cubes easily.



IMO, this is some bad advice, they need .90 cf. each, .75 cf. will not be plenty, reducing the enclosure size to .60 cf. will make them sound very boomy and YES polyfill will help if you're using an undersized enclosure..



The Type R's are very capable and can hold their own


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> IMO, this is some bad advice, they need .90 cf. each, .75 cf. will not be plenty, reducing the enclosure size to .60 cf. will make them sound very boomy and YES polyfill will help if you're using an undersized enclosure..
> 
> 
> 
> The Type R's are very capable and can hold their own


Oh yeah? Please do explain how any sub "needs" .9 cubic feet. In fact, reducing will make them sound tighter, not boomy (when you're talking about sealed boxes, which we are). Making them larger gives you the potential to make them sound more boomy. If I have to model this in software to prove it, I will. Eric Stevens himself said that going to .9 cubes makes them a bit heavy on the bottom end and .75 cubic feet is a sweet spot.

Please don't tell me I'm giving bad advice if you don't have a fundamental understanding of how sub boxes work. 

I have never seen a use for polyfill in a properly sized box except to tame boomy peaks, none of which occur in well designed sealed boxes. Home theater is a different story. 

The Type Rs do not hold a candle to ID and Arc subs. 

I'm a bit leery of subs that don't provide a moving mass figure (mms). You can find the moving mass of most subs except the Type Rs. Yes they hold their own, but not against Arc and ID for SQ. If you disagree, feel free to drop by my house and I'll prove it.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Oh yeah? Please do explain how any sub "needs" .9 cubic feet. In fact, reducing will make them sound tighter, not boomy (when you're talking about sealed boxes, which we are). Making them larger gives you the potential to make them sound more boomy. If I have to model this in software to prove it, I will. Eric Stevens himself said that going to .9 cubes makes them a bit heavy on the bottom end and .75 cubic feet is a sweet spot.
> 
> Please don't tell me I'm giving bad advice if you don't have a fundamental understanding of how sub boxes work.
> 
> ...



Dude lay off the kool aid, putting the speaker in a larger enclosure will lower the Q which would produce a drier sound, quite the opposite of boomy, looks like you are wrong there. So, putting the subs in a .6 cf. enclosure with no polyfill would be fine, sure it would be fine if you like a one note spl sub with no texture that would never blend in......As far dropping by your house, I will make there by dinner....LOL


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Xtreme, you need some hands on real world experience, instead of requoteing everything you read or hear....LOL


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Xtreme, you need some hands on real world experience, instead of requoteing everything you read


I don't requote what I read. Like I said, I can model anything you want me to. I do have real world experience and without knowing much about your expertise, I'm sure I could surprise you. What I do know a ****ton about is designing home theater speakers, crossovers, and box alignments. I do it for a side job and I'm really damn good at it. Automotive sub boxes aren't that much different. Telling me I need some real world experience instead of re-quoting everything I read is pretty insulting. No need for personal jabs or attacks. 



trojan fan said:


> Dude lay off the kool aid, putting the speaker in a larger enclosure will lower the Q which would produce a drier sound, quite the opposite of boomy, looks like you are wrong there. So, putting the subs in a .6 cf. enclosure with no polyfill would be fine, sure it would be fine if you like a one note spl sub with no texture that would never blend in......As far dropping by your house, I will make there by dinner....LOL


I'm going to ask you to prove what you're saying here because you're going against quite literally *everything* anyone has ever said. Since when does creating less airspace make a box more boomy? Define boomy by that matter as its obvious either you don't know what you're talking about, or there's some kind of misunderstanding. I have modeled and built several boxes and can honestly say my experience has been that when you decrease the size of the box, you further control excursion and as a result lose a bit of your bottom end output. I'm not understanding how that makes it boomy. 

Boomy is what I'd call a high tuned ported box; a one note wonder. Putting an IDQ12 in .6 or .75 cubes sealed is *not* going to make it sound boomy. It will make it sound tight, and if anything, the frequency response will be more linear when considering cabin gain and boundary loading. 

Seriously, if I have to model both of them to prove this to you, I will.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Yes, either will blow away the Type Rs.
> 
> They are both supposed to be pretty similar. I haven't heard the Arc but I own several IDQV2s and it doesn't get much better. I'd say they're likely to sound almost identical.
> 
> No need for polyfill if you're going sealed, and .75 cubic feet will be plenty. In fact, if you wanted a bit of a tighter sound, you could drop that to .6 cubes easily.



I'm confused here, you claim the 2 subs the OP is looking at blow the alpine away but you haven't heard either one......interesting


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> I'm confused here, you claim the 2 subs the OP is looking at blow the alpine away but you haven't heard either one......interesting


I have heard the IDQ V2 and V3. Given the Arc has been claimed by people who have owned IDQ V2's for years to sound exactly the same but with more bottom end output, I think I can say I know exactly how they sound. 

For the record, I owned an R12 for 3 years. 

Stop being an ass. Its rude and I don't appreciate it. Sarcasm is not necessary or needed, nor is your condescending attitude. I also don't care for your attempts to discredit what I'm saying by bringing in completely irrelevant statements to attack my credibility.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Why so defensive, you're wrong about somethings and I'm pointing them out for you..


----------



## wildnimal (Mar 29, 2008)

Installed an iDQV3 in a friends HONDA Civic. She was using Arc before this. From Arc she shifted to 2 x iDV3 and now fully satisfied with iDQV3.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I don't requote what I read. Like I said, I can model anything you want me to. I do have real world experience and without knowing much about your expertise, I'm sure I could surprise you. What I do know a ****ton about is designing home theater speakers, crossovers, and box alignments. I do it for a side job and I'm really damn good at it. Automotive sub boxes aren't that much different. Telling me I need some real world experience instead of re-quoting everything I read is pretty insulting. No need for personal jabs or attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what your taste is as far as subwoofer output is, but putting a IDQ12,v3 in .6 with no polyfill would really raise the Q and produce a boomy(peaky) sound, there is no way to get around that.......undersized enclosures will limit the spring the speaker has which in turn chokes the bottom end and produces a" one note wonder" which can often be preceived as boomy...IMO, a slightly oversized enclosure will give you the best sound quailty, a Q on the drier side sounds more realistic and easier to blend in with the other speakers, this is in complete contrast to what you are thinking

After 25+ years of experience I'd like to think I've learned a few things


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

wildnimal said:


> Installed an iDQV3 in a friends HONDA Civic. She was using Arc before this. From Arc she shifted to 2 x iDV3 and now fully satisfied with iDQV3.


sweet.......LOL


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

dave09bigborn said:


> I am looking at either 2 ARC 12 or 2 IDQ12V3's for a custom made box that sits under my rear seats in my 09 ram crew cab.
> 
> A local car audio shop built the box and supposedly it has 0.75 CF per side sealed, as they built it to spec for 2 Alpine type-R's. I don't know if the box is too small, or if the alpines are just not what I want, but I don't like the setup. (i didn't mind the old version type-R's in a bigger sealed box I had in a different car, but I am still shooting for better now) These are too boomy and not clean or musical enough.
> 
> ...




If you are looking for this type of output put the subs in the optimum sized ( not smaller) enclosure or slightly larger.....my choice would be the ID's


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

The shop that built the box said they couldn't squeeze any more space out of a box in my given space. Since there seem to be two exactly opposite opinions, can someone else chime in and let me know if 0.75 cf for an IDQ12v3 or arc 12 will be work out well for SQ, not boomy bass? Will something else work better? New alpine pdx amps, or arc ks amps? Thanks.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

dave09bigborn said:


> The shop that built the box said they couldn't squeeze any more space out of a box in my given space. Since there seem to be two exactly opposite opinions, can someone else chime in and let me know if 0.75 cf for an IDQ12v3 or arc 12 will be work out well for SQ, not boomy bass? Will something else work better? New alpine pdx amps, or arc ks amps? Thanks.



You can stuff it with polyfill to lower the Q.....which would also lower the output some what......the ARC would work better in the smaller enclosure


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Why so defensive, you're wrong about somethings and I'm pointing them out for you..


Defensive? You've done nothing but make empty claims. You've provided absolutely no proof yet you're disagreeing me and very rudely at that. 



wildnimal said:


> Installed an iDQV3 in a friends HONDA Civic. She was using Arc before this. From Arc she shifted to 2 x iDV3 and now fully satisfied with iDQV3.


So she used 2 Arc subs and then went to 2 IDV3's?



trojan fan said:


> I'm not sure what your taste is as far as subwoofer output is, but putting a IDQ12,v3 in .6 with no polyfill would really raise the Q and produce a boomy(peaky) sound, there is no way to get around that.......undersized enclosures will limit the spring the speaker has which in turn chokes the bottom end and produces a" one note wonder" which can often be preceived as boomy...IMO, a slightly oversized enclosure will give you the best sound quailty, a Q on the drier side sounds more realistic and easier to blend in with the other speakers, this is in complete contrast to what you are thinking
> 
> After 25+ years of experience I'd like to think I've learned a few things


This is why we have a thing we like to call cabin gain, so that when you do limit the bottom end output of a given subwoofer, the cabin accounts for the rest. 

Attached are models (with averaged cabin gain factored in for a typical crew cab). 

So, if you will, in all your mighty experience, show me where this amazingly boomy sound is coming from and at what frequencies, because while I do see a slight drop in bottom end output, I would hardly call the region between 50 and 80hz to be "boomy". Yes, .9 cubes is more flat, but to tell me .6 cubes will sound peaky and boomy is quite a stretch. 

Now if you will, lets see your proof.

Edit: I forgot to change the title on the charts. The T/S specs are from the IDQ12 V3 D2.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

But what size is the enclosure, any polyfill, are they in car measurements.......


----------



## ecbmxer (Dec 1, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Oh yeah? Please do explain how any sub "needs" .9 cubic feet. In fact, reducing will make them sound tighter, not boomy (when you're talking about sealed boxes, which we are). Making them larger gives you the potential to make them sound more boomy. If I have to model this in software to prove it, I will. Eric Stevens himself said that going to .9 cubes makes them a bit heavy on the bottom end and .75 cubic feet is a sweet spot.
> 
> Please don't tell me I'm giving bad advice if you don't have a fundamental understanding of how sub boxes work.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, if talking about IDQ10 v3 subs. I have mine in about 0.7 and wish it had 0.9. Not enough low end.

And 0.75 is nowhere NEAR enough volume for an IDQ12.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

dave09bigborn said:


> The shop that built the box said they couldn't squeeze any more space out of a box in my given space. Since there seem to be two exactly opposite opinions, can someone else chime in and let me know if 0.75 cf for an IDQ12v3 or arc 12 will be work out well for SQ, not boomy bass? Will something else work better? New alpine pdx amps, or arc ks amps? Thanks.


Attached are the IDQ12V3D2 and ARC12D2 in .75 cubes sealed. The ARC12 seems to have a very slight bit more bottom end output. They're otherwise very similar.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> But what size is the enclosure, any polyfill, are they in car measurements.......





> Attached are models (with averaged cabin gain factored in for a typical crew cab


Those models include both boundary loading and room pressurization gain for a typical crew cab truck. No polyfill.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> But what size is the enclosure, any polyfill, are they in car measurements.......





ecbmxer said:


> I agree with this, if talking about IDQ10 v3 subs. I have mine in about 0.7 and wish it had 0.9. Not enough low end.
> 
> And 0.75 is nowhere NEAR enough volume for an IDQ12.


What kind of music do you listen to?


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

ecbmxer said:


> I agree with this, if talking about IDQ10 v3 subs. I have mine in about 0.7 and wish it had 0.9. Not enough low end.
> 
> And 0.75 is nowhere NEAR enough volume for an IDQ12.


Thanks for the support......this guy is way out in left field with the enclosure volumes........he got a hold of some bad data.........it's all about the really world, now it behaves in the car


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> What kind of music do you listen to?




now you're really off....a proper sub and enclosure should sound accurate with all types of music


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Thanks for the support......this guy is way out in left field with the enclosure volumes........he got a hold of some bad data.........it's all about the really world, now it behaves in the car


"Way out in left field"...real mature. Its one thing to disagree with someone, and its another thing entirely to be blatantly rude. 

Read my post, and read this clearly over and over again till it sticks. 

What I modeled was factoring in room pressurization gain and boundary loading. Just because you may not have the tools to do so, doesn't mean I don't. Attached is the "cabin gain" response that was summed with the raw driver response.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> now you're really off....a proper sub and enclosure should sound accurate with all types of music


Yes, it should, but I'm not really off. Its a very valid question and I'm seriously going to report you if you continue being rude. Its very annoying. 

Someone who listens to primarily music such as dubstep and rap may want a more heavy bottom end than someone who listens to classic rock.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Those models include both boundary loading and room pressurization gain for a typical crew cab truck. No polyfill.



Give it up, guy, I don't buy your logic........I base my replies on real environment listening, not someone with an agenda testing speakers

.6 cf. will kill the sound quality of either one of the subs and .6 cf is what most 10's need


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Give it up, guy, I don't buy your logic........I base my replies on real environment listening, not someone with an agenda testing speakers
> 
> .6 cf. will kill the sound quality of either one of the subs and .6 cf is what most 10's need


I've posted proof of my claims. What have you posted? 

I have no agenda. I model speakers as accurately as I can to help other people make informed buying decisions, and I take the time to present them with the most accurate frequency response charts I can make given their specific application. 

All you've done is come in here and argue with me. .6 cf is also entirely irrelevant at this point as the OP's requirement is .75 cubic feet, and that's what I've modeled. I only stated .6 cubic feet to state that it would still sound decent in that alignment, which I already proved. Now, if you have the ability to produce a more accurate frequency response than I have, or if you have evidence to support your claims and somehow justify your attitude, by all means lets see it, but if you don't, I'd like to politely ask you to stop ****ting all over every post I make.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Yes, it should, but I'm not really off. Its a very valid question and I'm seriously going to report you if you continue being rude. Its very annoying.
> 
> Someone who listens to primarily music such as dubstep and rap may want a more heavy bottom end than someone who listens to classic rock.



I'm not being rude, I just don't buy what you told the OP about what size of enclosure to use for sound quality, before you started talking about enclosure sizes did you ask him what type of music he listened to?....I'm just trying to protect someone who was getting the wrong info.....Ha guy it's ok to disagree


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I've posted proof of my claims. What have you posted?
> 
> I have no agenda. I model speakers as accurately as I can to help other people make informed buying decisions, and I take the time to present them with the most accurate frequency response charts I can make given their specific application.
> 
> All you've done is come in here and argue with me. .6 cf is also entirely irrelevant at this point as the OP's requirement is .75 cubic feet, and that's what I've modeled. I only stated .6 cubic feet to state that it would still sound decent in that alignment, which I already proved. Now, if you have the ability to produce a more accurate frequency response than I have, or if you have evidence to support your claims and somehow justify your attitude, by all means lets see it, but if you don't, I'd like to politely ask you to stop ****ting all over every post I make.



All your modeling is great, but I'm talking IN CAR RESPONSE.....Come listen to my car then you will get some evidence to support my claims


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> I'm not being rude, I just don't buy what you told the OP about what size of enclosure to use for sound quality, before you started talking about enclosure sizes did you ask him what type of music he listened to?....I'm just trying to protect someone who was getting the wrong info.....Ha guy it's ok to disagree


You were being rude. Go back and read your posts. I even asked you to stop. Despite disagreeing with you and being frustrated about it, I tried to keep my cool as much as possible. 

Like I said, I provided some proof. I modeled the IDQ now in .6, .75, and .9 cf and modeled the Arc in .75 cf.

He already stated what kind of music he listens to; all kinds. Now, if he thinks two Alpine R12's sealed in .75 cubes sound too boomy, I figured it wouldn't hurt to give him something with a bit more snap in the 60-100hz region.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> All your modeling is great, but I'm talking IN CAR RESPONSE.....Come listen to my car then you will get some evidence to support my claims


Now you've really ticked me off. I did model in cabin response. Go read my posts again and again and again. Want more proof? Compare my boundary/pressurization gain simulation to actual tests on this very topic:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/448657-post9.html

Once you model the sub in a box, its accurate enough to where if you put it outside with a microphone, the response will be nearly dead on. I have the ability to model cabin gain, and my pressurization and boundary loading gain simulation is pretty damn close to what JBL tested in the graphs above. 

Its about as accurate as you can possibly get without actually measuring it in the car. If you have software that does a better job, lets have it. There will be small variances and peaks due to the fact that a car is not a perfect box, but those will be minor and this will still give you a good idea. I can make adjustments if need be, but I believe my response is pretty accurate. 

Its getting extremely old having you discredit everything I have to say with absolutely no basis, proof, or evidence. 



For the record, I'm running two IDQ10 V2's in .75 cubes each. I understand the concepts perfectly well.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> You were being rude. Go back and read your posts. I even asked you to stop. Despite disagreeing with you and being frustrated about it, I tried to keep my cool as much as possible.
> 
> Like I said, I provided some proof. I modeled the IDQ now in .6, .75, and .9 cf and modeled the Arc in .75 cf.
> 
> He already stated what kind of music he listens to; all kinds. Now, if he thinks two Alpine R12's sealed in .75 cubes sound too boomy, I figured it wouldn't hurt to give him something with a bit more snap in the 60-100hz region.



I'm sorry but you're just adding to the problem he already has, an undersized enclosure.......why why why


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

dave09bigborn said:


> I am looking at either 2 ARC 12 or 2 IDQ12V3's for a custom made box that sits under my rear seats in my 09 ram crew cab.
> 
> A local car audio shop built the box and supposedly it has 0.75 CF per side sealed, as they built it to spec for 2 Alpine type-R's. I don't know if the box is too small, or if the alpines are just not what I want, but I don't like the setup. (i didn't mind the old version type-R's in a bigger sealed box I had in a different car, but I am still shooting for better now) These are too boomy and not clean or musical enough.
> 
> ...



Here it is in a nut shell, with the given volume you have, make new baffles and go with a pair of IDQ10"s. the enclosure size you have is just too small to get the sound quality you're looking for, if you try to put either one of the 12's in that size enclosure you would be right back where you started at


----------



## Danometal (Nov 16, 2009)

I've tried both undersized and oversized (sealed and ported) enclosures for different subs, and oversized wins all over the place according to my ears.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> I'm sorry but you're just adding to the problem he already has, an undersized enclosure.......why why why


Where did I ever say he should run .6 cubes instead of .75? I said he could as an option. Obviously anyone with a pair of functional eyes will see that from the modeling I've done, .75 cubes is a bit more linear than .6 cubes. I also mentioned a few posts back that .6 cubes is completely irrelevant so why are we even on the subject anymore?

Why? Because here's what an R12 looks like in .75 cubes, which he considered to be boomy.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> the enclosure size you have is just too small to get the sound quality you're looking for, if you try to put either one of the 12's in that size enclosure you would be right back where you started at


I'd like to politely ask for some proof or evidence of that claim.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Now you've really ticked me off. I did model in cabin response. Go read my posts again and again and again. Want more proof? Compare my boundary/pressurization gain simulation to actual tests on this very topic:
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/448657-post9.html
> 
> ...




My experience is in the field installing the stuff and knowing what works in reality not what some computer program is saying......the IDQv2 and the IDQv3 are two different speaker with two different enclosure parameters, that v2 might work well for you in .75 cf, but the v3 needs a lot more airspace


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Dude, I'm out of piss....later on.....LOL


----------



## passtim (Sep 30, 2009)

dave09bigborn said:


> I am looking at either 2 ARC 12 or 2 IDQ12V3's for a custom made box that sits under my rear seats in my 09 ram crew cab.
> 
> A local car audio shop built the box and supposedly it has 0.75 CF per side sealed, as they built it to spec for 2 Alpine type-R's. I don't know if the box is too small, or if the alpines are just not what I want, but I don't like the setup. (i didn't mind the old version type-R's in a bigger sealed box I had in a different car, but I am still shooting for better now) These are too boomy and not clean or musical enough.
> 
> ...


Not to get off of box size, but to the point:

What are your lowpass crossover point/slopes. You may want to lower them to around 63hz or so and boost your low end. This may take some of the boominess out and add some depth to your lowend.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> My experience is in the field installing the stuff and knowing what works in reality not what some computer program is saying......the IDQv2 and the IDQv3 are two different speaker with two different enclosure parameters, that v2 might work well for you in .75 cf, but the v3 needs a lot more airspace


I mentioned my IDQV2 only to state that I understand the concepts, not to compare the two drivers. I also have a IDQ10, not an IDQ12, which I stated in that post. 

Some computer program? Are you insinuating that my modeling is inaccurate?

You use "I have experience" as a response to my request for proof as if to imply that you don't need to provide any proof and we should just take your word for it? Have you any idea how many people have been misled because they took someone's word for it? 

Let me give you an example. My cousin worked as an installer for about 10 years between around 1994 and 2004. Considering the length of time car audio has been around, I'd say that's very significant. Yesterday we had a conversation about it, and he maintains that the best subs he's ever heard were 6 8" subs in severely undersized sealed boxes that provided the best overall frequency response in any car he's ever heard, with tighter kick drum beats and more musical tones. He then went on to tell me how you can give a driver more than its thermal rating any time as long as you keep the box sealed to control excursion. His personal setup consisted of Kove audio equipment, with 4 way front components and a 15" U2 Armageddon sub.

I didn't say I agreed with him, I'm just posting the experience of someone who also says they had lots of experience installing in the field, yet you're on two completely differnet sides of the field. 

Both you and him could not back up their claims with any actual proof. If a random stranger asked you both to give your advice on this topic, who would he believe?


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I mentioned my IDQV2 only to state that I understand the concepts, not to compare the two drivers. I also have a IDQ10, not an IDQ12, which I stated in that post.
> 
> Some computer program? Are you insinuating that my modeling is inaccurate?
> 
> ...




Dude you got me all confused, you claim the Arc and IDQ will work great in a .75cf box, but your IDQ10 is in the same size box, why such a large box for the 10, sounds more like confusion on your part


Sound is a subjective matter and the proof is in my ears


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Dude you got me all confused, you claim the Arc and IDQ will work great in a .75cf box, but your IDQ10 is in the same size box, why such a large box for the 10, sounds more like confusion on your part


Just because I have mine in .75 cubes doesn't mean it wouldn't work in a smaller box. I'm heavily considering making it smaller because these bottom out way too easily right now at lower frequencies and the box doesn't control excursion worth a damn. 

The reason why they went in .75 cubes each is because that's what atsaurbey suggested when he sold them to me. 

Sounds like no confusion on my part. Sounds I like have my own preferences and they have absolutely nothing to do with what I've modeled so far. For your information, they also sound a bit heavy on the bottom end and need some equalization to bring out some of the higher bass from 80-125hz. Do they sound good? Oh hell yes. Do they sound better than any other sub I've ever heard? You bet. You can't get sound quality like this very easily. atsaurbey happened to win MECA State Class A championship with these in his wife's car in this specific alignment. Not saying they don't sound great. 

What I am saying is that .75 cubes would also sound good, and that .6 cubes would sound decent as well. You're claiming that nothing but .9 cubes and up would sound remotely acceptable and anything below would sound boomy, yet all of the charts I've posted so far with math that cannot be argued against seem to indicate otherwise.

Now, did I ever say they wouldn't work great in .9 cubes? No, I didn't actually say that. If I did, I'd be an idiot because in .75 cubes, the IDQ12V3 doesn't even reach xmax at its rated power. What I did say is that they would not sound boomy in .6 or .75 cubes, and that its more likely for subs to sound boomy in excessively larger boxes instead of smaller ones. The more linear your response is pre-cabin gain modeling, the more of a peak you'll have after you model cabin gain. 

I took the liberty of modeling an IDQ12V3D2 ih 1.75 cubes to prove the above point. I've attached the frequency response. Here you see a 8-9db increase at 30hz compared to 100hz. Your synthesized bass (dubstep, rap, hip-hop, etc.) would sound great in this alignment, but your kick drums would leave much to be desired. Considering the lowest a bass guitar will hit is ~41hz, with everything else being above that range, it doesn't do anyone a whole lot of good to have a very heavy bottom end. 

I maintain that .75 cubes will sound just fine, and I encourage the OP to try out the Arc Audio subs and see how he likes them compared to the R12s.


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

Well..... I will try the arcs with my current setup and see if there is an improvement over the type R's. I'll let everyone know how it goes. 

The shop said they could not put 10's in the current box, I would have to pay another $200-300 for them to build another box (I'm already at $4500 total now, which is way over my original budget)


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Just because I have mine in .75 cubes doesn't mean it wouldn't work in a smaller box. I'm heavily considering making it smaller because these bottom out way too easily right now at lower frequencies and the box doesn't control excursion worth a damn.
> 
> The reason why they went in .75 cubes each is because that's what atsaurbey suggested when he sold them to me.
> 
> ...



Now I'm more confused, why would try to boost 125hz with a subwoofer and a certain box volume, talk about a boomy sounding response....where do you come up with this stuff...LOL

Have you ever heard of a midbass speaker?


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

hey extreme, after reading through this whole thread, this little saying comes to mind when I think of you...."If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with ********"


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

dave09bigborn said:


> Well..... I will try the arcs with my current setup and see if there is an improvement over the type R's. I'll let everyone know how it goes.
> 
> The shop said they could not put 10's in the current box, I would have to pay another $200-300 for them to build another box (I'm already at $4500 total now, which is way over my original budget)



Sorry to hear the 10's will not work...if you go with the Arc's don't be afraid to experiment with stuffing the box with polyfill..give and take with the stuffing until get the sound you like....good luck


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

Anyone think either the new pdx amps or arc ks amps will have a SQ advantage? The pdx's have way more power, but not sure I need it with my speakers. The price is the same either way I go. I'm talking sub and 4 channel amps.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Put a bunch of polyfill in that enclosure and the arcs will sound great. Even without polyfill, it will work. Optimum is .9 a 12 but the people in arc have said they will work from .7 - 1.25 cuft

The arc 10 is optimum .65 but the arc tech guy I spoke to uses them in his car in .5 cuft and adds a lil eq.


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

How would a Jl 12tw5-3 compare to the arc or IDQ?


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

Danometal said:


> I've tried both undersized and oversized (sealed and ported) enclosures for different subs, and oversized wins all over the place according to my ears.



X2....Try explaining that to xtreme


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

tyroneshoes said:


> Put a bunch of polyfill in that enclosure and the arcs will sound great. Even without polyfill, it will work. Optimum is .9 a 12 but the people in arc have said they will work from .7 - 1.25 cuft
> 
> The arc 10 is optimum .65 but the arc tech guy I spoke to uses them in his car in .5 cuft and adds a lil eq.



Same thing I was thinking he should try


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

dave09bigborn said:


> How would a Jl 12tw5-3 compare to the arc or IDQ?



I don't think JL ever made this sub


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> X2....Try explaining that to xtreme


I'm still waiting for you to post some proof or evidence of your claims.

Reported by the way. I've had enough of your casual insults.

To the op, I'm out of this thread. Pm me if you would like my help or advice.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I'm still waiting for you to post some proof or evidence of your claims.
> 
> Reported by the way. I've had enough of your casual insults.
> 
> To the op, I'm out of this thread. Pm me if you would like my help or advice.


I will give you proof, but how do you post something your ears can't see...LOL


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

trojan fan said:


> I don't think JL ever made this sub


Didn't see it on the Jl website, but saw it for sale online. What about the 13tw5 if the 12 doesnt exist? How would it compare to the arc and IDQ? It doesn't need as big a box. Would the output and SQ be equal or better?


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I'm still waiting for you to post some proof or evidence of your claims.
> 
> Reported by the way. I've had enough of your casual insults.
> 
> To the op, I'm out of this thread. Pm me if you would like my help or advice.



So far everyone has rebutted your claims.....The advice you were giving this guy was going in the wrong direction and others would agree... I don't understand why you're all uptight


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

dave09bigborn said:


> Didn't see it on the Jl website, but saw it for sale online. What about the 13tw5 if the 12 doesnt exist? How would it compare to the arc and IDQ? It doesn't need as big a box. Would the output and SQ be equal or better?



I don't have any experience with this sub, but try a search in the forum and see if you can find some info...my choice would be the Arc's and stuff the box


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> So far everyone has rebutted your claims.....The advice you were giving this guy was going in the wrong direction and others would agree... I don't understand why you're all uptight


Who is everyone and with what basis? Claims of experience with no proof? One guy who has an opinion?

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

I will be trying the arc 12's tomorrow with polyfill. If those don't work out, I may try the JL TW5's. 

I don't understand what the BX version of the ARC KS1000.1 amp does? Anyone know. I currently have the non BX version. The guy at the shop said he wants to try the BX version to see if it helps?


----------



## ecbmxer (Dec 1, 2010)

XtremeRevolution said:


> What kind of music do you listen to?


I listen to a lot of music. Mainly classic rock type of stuff. But I also like some hip-hop. It sound good for most music in general, but it just feels like it's working hard to try to produce low bass sometimes. I think it would have a more effortless/smoother type of sound it just a tad bigger box. I have some polyfill in the box. Kind of hesitant to put any more in. But remember this is a V3 IDQ10. I think the v2 would have no problem at all in the box I have. I may actually see if I can find somebody who would want to trade.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

ecbmxer said:


> I listen to a lot of music. Mainly classic rock type of stuff. But I also like some hip-hop. It sound good for most music in general, but it just feels like it's working hard to try to produce low bass sometimes. I think it would have a more effortless/smoother type of sound it just a tad bigger box. I have some polyfill in the box. Kind of hesitant to put any more in. But remember this is a V3 IDQ10. I think the v2 would have no problem at all in the box I have. I may actually see if I can find somebody who would want to trade.


The V2 would actually have a problem in .75 cubes. I've been having a hell of a time trying to make my box sound good. I'm only using it temporarily while I finish up my new IDMax box. Way too heavy on the bottom end. It really drowned out the higher "tight" bass notes above 70hz and it was pretty annoying. I'll be either adding MDF to the current box or building a new one closer to .5 cubes for each sub.


----------



## wildnimal (Mar 29, 2008)

XtremeRevolution said:


> So she used 2 Arc subs and then went to 2 IDV3's?
> 
> This is why we have a thing we like to call cabin gain, so that when you do limit the bottom end output of a given subwoofer, the cabin accounts for the rest.
> 
> ...


Well it wasn't that ARC was bad, She just wanted more loudness so shifted to 2 V3's which were getting around 500 WRMS @ 2ohm. Arc was playing at 300W RMS @ 4ohm. Then auditioned iDQV3 in a similar Civic on 250W RMS and she decided that's what she wants. So shifted to iDQV3 playing at 300 WRMS @ 4 ohm. Future plans to add 1 more if needed. 

Comparison between Arc and iDQV3 in Civic was iDQ was more attacking, faster and a lil louder on higher notes compared to Arc. Plus Q had a lil more hard hitting bass in POP songs she generally listens too. iDQ is playing in a .95cuft enclosure and there is actually no BOOM.

I agree with Xtreme on a lot of points that specially regarding cabin gain of different cars. I am also not a Pro audio guru or anything just laid down my experience i recently had. 

P.S. Which software are you using to plot graphs Xtreme ?


----------



## ZAKOH (Nov 26, 2010)

dave09bigborn said:


> A local car audio shop built the box and supposedly it has 0.75 CF per side sealed, as they built it to spec for 2 Alpine type-R's. I don't know if the box is too small, or if the alpines are just not what I want, but I don't like the setup. (i didn't mind the old version type-R's in a bigger sealed box I had in a different car, but I am still shooting for better now) These are too boomy and not clean or musical enough.



I think it had been reported that 0.7 cu ft box is more or less perfect for 12inch Dayton Reference HO subs. I have been debating my sub upgrade a lot but I think in the end I will go with 2 DVC HO12 in a dual chamber 1.5cu ft box. WinISD reports that something like 1-1.1cu ft is a good sized box for perfect qtc with IDQv3. So, a 0.75 stuffed with polyfill will be a little off, but not by much. Type R need roughly 1.7 cu ft box for perfect qtc. So, 0.75cu ft is definitely too small for it.


----------



## trojan fan (Nov 4, 2007)

XtremeRevolution said:


> The V2 would actually have a problem in .75 cubes. I've been having a hell of a time trying to make my box sound good. I'm only using it temporarily while I finish up my new IDMax box. Way too heavy on the bottom end. It really drowned out the higher "tight" bass notes above 70hz and it was pretty annoying. I'll be either adding MDF to the current box or building a new one closer to .5 cubes for each sub.



Dude we are talking about 12" subs, not a older 10" sub...how can a guy with all your know how have problems...LOL


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

trojan fan said:


> Dude we are talking about 12" subs, not a older 10" sub...how can a guy with all your know how have problems...LOL


Perhaps people with my knowledge don't exactly have all the time in the world? I'm in the process of designing a very high end set of speakers for a client, building my own $650 studio monitors, building a box for my idmax10, working my 40 hour job, and helping everyone I can model sub boxes and cabin gain in ways that people here apparently have never seen. The idq box is temporary and not even my daily driver. 

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

wildnimal said:


> Well it wasn't that ARC was bad, She just wanted more loudness so shifted to 2 V3's which were getting around 500 WRMS @ 2ohm. Arc was playing at 300W RMS @ 4ohm. Then auditioned iDQV3 in a similar Civic on 250W RMS and she decided that's what she wants. So shifted to iDQV3 playing at 300 WRMS @ 4 ohm. Future plans to add 1 more if needed.
> 
> Comparison between Arc and iDQV3 in Civic was iDQ was more attacking, faster and a lil louder on higher notes compared to Arc. Plus Q had a lil more hard hitting bass in POP songs she generally listens too. iDQ is playing in a .95cuft enclosure and there is actually no BOOM.
> 
> ...


I'm using jeff bagby's woofer and circuit designer and boundary and pressurizization simulator spreadsheets. Stuff used primarily for home theater but works amazingly well for mobile audio when the values are adjusted accordingly. So far it has been amazingly accurate. Let me know if you'd like the link to the software and if you want me to teach you how to use it.

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

Thought I'd let you know that so far the arc's are a huge improvement over the type-R's. It may be that the box is more suited for the arcs, or the arcs are more SQ oriented, not sure . I also got a line driver, so that may have helped. I am not sure the arcs are perfect, but they are much closer to what I am looking for. I can still imagine subs being a little tighter, more accurate, and dynamic, but I'm not far off. 

Wonder if the IDQ12v3's would be better, or would I run into the same issues I had with the type-R's needing a larger box?


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

You wont hear much of an audible difference going from the arcs and the idq unless youre planning to add more power as well.

Give the arcs some time to loosen up. Theyre great sounding subs.


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

I am using a 1000 watt arc amp with is more than needed for the arcs I think. 

The guy at the shop said they need to break in for a week or two? Is that BS? If not, what improves after break in?


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

generally, the woofer loosens up. They become somewhat smoother


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

i second extremerevolution.. (first post)


----------



## turbo5upra (Oct 3, 2008)

I haven't read this whole thread.... but my take, I've really come to like arc. I've got a arc15 in my car sealed. not my cup of tea for sq but it is a smaller sealed box. it's great windows down @ 70mph. 2 arc 10's in my old ladies car are great. 

IDQ12 v2, in my short list of subs.

All that said best small box sub I've used is the Soundsplinter RLI. Or might as well be the TC sounds epic 12 on PE. TC sounds made em both. Specs almost the same.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

tyroneshoes said:


> You wont hear much of an audible difference going from the arcs and the idq unless youre planning to add more power as well.
> 
> Give the arcs some time to loosen up. Theyre great sounding subs.





tyroneshoes said:


> generally, the woofer loosens up. They become somewhat smoother


What he said. You do need to let them get broken in, and you need to go easy on them during that time. You can't just give them full power or you'll risk breaking something. You need to gradually increase power over those two weeks. 

This is one of the biggest reasons why some people have terrible experiences with IDMax subs. They install them out of the box and give them massive amounts of power. They require a break in period and bass won't sound quite right until then.


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

The arc12's where a step up from the Type-R's as far as SQ. Would the IDQv3D2's be another step up, or a lateral move?


----------



## glidn (Apr 21, 2007)

I feel you may end up going backwards going from the ARC amps to the new line of PDX amps. As far as sound quality is concerned.

As for the sub dilemma. The IDQ12V3 will be a step up from the ARC's.
But are limited to space. If worst comes to worse. You can feed them the full power of the ARC KS1000.1, But I would suggest if that is the space you are able to work with.

Try wrapping the back of the sub with one or two layers of stockings (I know this sounds strange) but it will help greatly in the box size dilemma. You would still have to use poly fill.

I did this above mentioned technique a few times. Mainly due to size restraints. So far have always netted great results.


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

glidn said:


> I feel you may end up going backwards going from the ARC amps to the new line of PDX amps. As far as sound quality is concerned.
> 
> As for the sub dilemma. The IDQ12V3 will be a step up from the ARC's.
> But are limited to space. If worst comes to worse. You can feed them the full power of the ARC KS1000.1, But I would suggest if that is the space you are able to work with.
> ...


Has anyone else heard of or tried this?


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

i am getting IDQV3D2's tomorrow to replace the arcs. I am also switching the ARC ks1000.1 to a ks1200.1. Don't know if 200 watts extra will be noticable, but it cant hurt. I guess i am sticking with the arc amps over the alpines based on all the opinions I have gotten


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

dave09bigborn said:


> Has anyone else heard of or tried this?


Never done that, but I imagine it would be the equivalent of fill. If you feel that the box is too small, add some fiberglass insulation. It is infinitely more effective than polyfill. Start by lining the walls with 3" of it, then add more to suit your preferences.

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Dec 3, 2010)

dave09bigborn said:


> i am getting IDQV3D2's tomorrow to replace the arcs. I am also switching the ARC ks1000.1 to a ks1200.1. Don't know if 200 watts extra will be noticable, but it cant hurt. I guess i am sticking with the arc amps over the alpines based on all the opinions I have gotten


What will you be doing with the arc subs?

Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


----------



## dave09bigborn (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm returning the arc subs to the store I bought them from. Is it worth getting the ks1200.1?


----------



## Florida Rep (Aug 12, 2011)

Here is a step up from the "Arc" series & you should research, consider this option for your upgrade..

Talk to your local dealer about ordering them. They started shipping Friday so ask your local dealer about pricing & availability.

Black 10"
RMS Power 400w
Max power with music 800w
Resonant Freq. 32hz
Mounting Depth 5 11/16"
Optimum Sealed Enclosure .75 cuft

Black 12"
RMS Power 500w
Max power with music 1000w
Resonant Freq. 22hz
Mounting Depth 6 1/8"
Optimum Sealed Enclosure 1.1 cuft


----------



## Florida Rep (Aug 12, 2011)

Upgrading to the 1200.1 will be minor. 
Also consider that the amplifier does 1200w at 2ohm & 1000w at 1ohm.

The "BX" acts kinda like a epicenter.

Instead of polyfill, look into using the BlackHole "Stuff". You can find it at local focal dealers as it comes from ORCA. This "stuff" is very effective & will work better than your typical polyfill. In short, it will increase the enclosure size up to 30%.. Might solve alot of your issues..

The Arc "Arc" series do require a good break-in time, more than any sub I have worked with... BUT with the right enclosure (.9-1.2 sealed) these subs are remarkable for the price-point.


----------



## Scooby (Feb 23, 2008)

XtremeRevolution said:


> Never done that, but I imagine it would be the equivalent of fill. If you feel that the box is too small, add some fiberglass insulation. It is infinitely more effective than polyfill. Start by lining the walls with 3" of it, then add more to suit your preferences.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Awesome using Tapatalk


Don't use polyfill. Fiberglass insulation is the way to go (no paper on back). The Black Hole 5 also works very well just pricey.

Florida Rep


> Instead of polyfill, look into using the BlackHole "Stuff". You can find it at local focal dealers as it comes from ORCA. This "stuff" is very effective & will work better than your typical polyfill. In short, it will increase the enclosure size up to 30%.. Might solve alot of your issues..


Can you please show me where you found it says BlackHole 5 will increase enclosure size up to 30%. The only information I find says each sheet displaces 0.250" of incompressible air which would make the enclosure smaller.


----------



## Florida Rep (Aug 12, 2011)

More info on BlackHole "Stuff"
Blackhole / High Efficiency Dampening Products

Black Hole Stuff in enclosure - Up Front Bass


----------



## Scooby (Feb 23, 2008)

Florida Rep said:


> More info on BlackHole "Stuff"
> Blackhole / High Efficiency Dampening Products
> 
> Black Hole Stuff in enclosure - Up Front Bass



Thanks,

Not much information out there on Blackhole "stuff". As a matter of fact, that was the only info I found.


----------



## ecbmxer (Dec 1, 2010)

Well damn, I think I need to try some real fiberglass insulation or this black hole stuff vs my ****ty polyfill.


----------



## Scooby (Feb 23, 2008)

Try the insulation first, it's gonna be cheaper. If you like the results then step up to the Blackhole stuff.


----------



## ecbmxer (Dec 1, 2010)

Yea for sure. I might have some sitting in my basement actually. The pink stuff right? Can I just rip it off the backing if it is the paper backed kind?


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

ecbmxer said:


> Yea for sure. I might have some sitting in my basement actually. The pink stuff right? Can I just rip it off the backing if it is the paper backed kind?


Never use Pink unless you want breathing problems and itchy feeling.
Use yellow or white . White is basically the same as yellow in most areas


----------



## Scooby (Feb 23, 2008)

Yes, gently peel the paper off.


----------

