# Best musical 8" sub?



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm currently downgrading due to needing space which has led me to doing an 8" sub with an available space of about .3-.5 mounting depth I'm guessing would be less than 5". I've never used an 8" sub so I'm looking for something SQ oriented and can handle a decent amount of power. I don't fully know the specs since I can only guess now. I'm going to have to glass a stealth enclosure in my spare jack area since no one makes a box for it, but just a general measure of the spot leads me to these specs.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Easy. Get the biggest. Baddest you can get. You can always take away. 

Mine scores very good and can also meter mid 130s on a SQ tune. But I think it's to deep for you. 

Have you considered a ported 6.5 sub?


----------



## maximus5403 (Aug 19, 2010)

Hertz Mille ML2000 8" Subwoofer


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't think there's a way to do a ported enclosure in the limited space I'm working with. It's in the jack area of a first gen Mazda 3 hatch. 

Will look up the Hertz btw. Didn't know they made an 8.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Down said:


> I don't think there's a way to do a ported enclosure in the limited space I'm working with. It's in the jack area of a first gen Mazda 3 hatch.
> 
> Will look up the Hertz btw. Didn't know they made an 8.


500 Series - DD Audio

I would see first. I'd take a ported 6.5 over sealed 8. In most cases.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Or the American made one you can get options on. 
1000 Series - DD Audio


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> 500 Series - DD Audio
> 
> I would see first. I'd take a ported 6.5 over sealed 8. In most cases.


Why's that? Genuinely curious


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I'd look into the ID8v3, IDQ8, or Arc 8. The ID8v3 in around .4 sealed is pretty impressive in my friend's ext cab truck on around 250 watts. And it's musical. I can't see a sealed DD sub being as musical. Louder and more power handling, probably. Would love to be proven wrong on the musical part though.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Down said:


> Why's that? Genuinely curious


More output but you can also tune the port around the weak spots. You are already giving up a lot of potential with low cone area. Might as well make the best out of the available space


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I'd look into the ID8v3, IDQ8, or Arc 8. The ID8v3 in around .4 sealed is pretty impressive in my friend's ext cab truck on around 250 watts. And it's musical. I can't see a sealed DD sub being as musical. Louder and more power handling, probably. Would love to be proven wrong on the musical part though.


You would be surprised. DD is designed around music first. Look at the history and roots. 

The Hi-Def line is designed around sealed and a low FS


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> You would be surprised. DD is designed around music first. Look at the history and roots.
> 
> The Hi-Def line is designed around sealed and a low FS


I had forgotten about the history and roots. Been a while. If my sealed Arc 10 wasn't exceeding my expectations right now I'd look into DD again. Just not into car audio like I used to be. And only replace something if it goes up in smoke.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

That's where I'm at now. If it's not broke don't fix it. And try not to break anything


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

I was eyeing the ID8 but haven't seen much of a review on it or first hand experience. I did have a set of ID12s before I had my 2 IDmaxes and was pretty happy with them. Though the 2 IDQs I had for a short while killed the IDs in SQ.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

ID was bought out by powerbass. That swayed me when I was picking out my gear. 
Just letting you know


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

DDfusion said:


> ID was bought out by powerbass. That swayed me when I was picking out my gear.
> Just letting you know


That being said the gear was all V2 other than the IDs which were V3. Still have the Maxes though.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

IDQ-8 V.4 - *Mounting Depth: 125.75mm (4.95")*
Hybrid Audio I8SW - *4" Mounting depth - 102mm*
Sundown Audio SD-2 8 - *Depth : 4.75"* - I have to say my SA12 performed really good as an SQ sub, and did very well in a sealed box.
Alpine Type R 8 - Seems to be the SQ 8 bargain of the century - *Top-mount depth: 4-1/2"*

Hertz - Sure, but you guys in the U.S. seem to pay through the nose for European brands!

DD for SQ, in my experience, no! This morning I was reading my previous post on what PWK had to say about DD and SQ 

My question to PWK


> Do DD make sub that can do SQ better than others in their range, and if so, what are they?





> Originally Posted by Pete Kulicki
> Yeah, that's kind of like asking if Hybrid Audio or Fostex can do SPL better than others in their range. If you're looking for sound quality, why not start with a company that specializes in it? (Or at least not limit your options to companies that don't...).


But there again, Pete did a _"Variation of a transmission line"_ for a pair of DD subs and Steve Milton described it as; (taken from Hexibase - Car Audio Project Update 5 - video) 



> Absolutely the best sub-stage I've ever heard


so ... swings and roundabouts!


My money would be on the Sundown SD-2 8 i'm afraid, if the SQ performance from my SA-12 is anything to go by ......






.... or the IDQ 8 V4 but not by experience, but just because ID get kudos for being a good SQ/SQL brand.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Petes opinion is swayed by who he is working for.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> Petes opinion is swayed by who he is working for.


.. I can understand why someone would come to that conclusion. I find it interesting to get that POV from him, and then Steve comes out with that statement. So who's right? Pete's POV or his own ability to design an enclosure turning a seemingly acoustical dud subwoofer into one of the "Absolute best sub-stages I've ever heard!" I didn't see or hear Pete chime in on that video about DD's SQ credentials .. or lack of. 

Strange!


But to answer the OP, my money would be on the IDQ 8 or Sundown SD-2 8. Hands up, we in the UK don't have ID, but it's one of those brands on my *'Buy & Try'* list.... looking at the IDQ 8's in particular. Having the I6SW and some Peerless SLS 6.5's, I do love my small subs, but in particular, yes, I've had my eye on the IDQ 8's for a while.

I would also add; please don't be put off by Sundown's SPL credentials, IMO they really can do SQ.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

Truth is just about any woofer can sound good. Doing it with output isn't as easy and that's where the cost starts adding up


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

I did like my LE subs, but I wouldn't call them SQ by any stretch of the imagination. I've also heard a few other DD set ups mainly 1500 and 2500, but they wouldn't be my first choice for SQ. In terms of the LE subs, I can only conclude that the enclosure alignment doesn't lend itself to SQ! But there has been no other prefab subs that put a smile on me face as much as the DDLE312 and DD308 (old version). The DDLE310 seemed to be an unnecessary 'piggy in the middle'. 

I wonder if anyone can confirm my admiration for the IDQ 8? I see many people talk about the larger 12" and 15" IDMax, but i'm finding a lack of interest for the 8. Plenty about the lesser ID8 but nothing on the IDQ8


----------



## Majik (Jun 22, 2009)

captainscarlett said:


> I wonder if anyone can confirm my admiration for the IDQ 8?


I've listened to a few IDQ8 installs and they sound great when sealed. The only ported application that I heard was less than impressive...plenty of output for an 8" driver, but left a lot to be desired in the SQ department. Granted, I only had brief listening time with the IDQ8, but I wouldn't hesitate the recommend them to anyone looking for a nice SQ oriented 8" sub with acceptable output. I really liked them sealed...I believe he was running 800w to the pair, in an F250 Super Duty.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

DDfusion said:


> Truth is just about any woofer can sound good. Doing it with output isn't as easy and that's where the cost starts adding up


I think there is a lot of truth to this, especially with regard to subwoofers. Subs are truly the least important part of the system, usually only covering 2 octaves, less in many cases. With a properly designed enclosure, any subwoofer can sound very good, up to a certain SPL.


----------



## Dewey (May 29, 2013)

Sundown D2. Oh YAY


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

Majik said:


> I've listened to a few IDQ8 installs and they sound great when sealed. The only ported application that I heard was less than impressive...plenty of output for an 8" driver, but left a lot to be desired in the SQ department. Granted, I only had brief listening time with the IDQ8, but I wouldn't hesitate the recommend them to anyone looking for a nice SQ oriented 8" sub with acceptable output. I really liked them sealed...I believe he was running 800w to the pair, in an F250 Super Duty.


Thanks for that.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

What is a musical sub?


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

sqnut said:


> What is a musical sub?


One that plays music and not booming bass. Should be self explanatory


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Down said:


> One that plays music and not booming bass. Should be self explanatory


That is down to your box and tuning more than the sub itself. There's no such thing as a boomy or sq sub, just good and poor implementation.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

To each his own. That's another discussion for another thread. 

I've given the box size and I can do the tuning. Apparently everyone else in the thread understood more or less what I was looking for. There's no room for sarcasm, and if your not helping please stay out of the thread. 

To everyone else, I'm leaning towards the IDQ8 now, or the ID8. Of course all other options are on the table still since I have zero experience with 8s.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Down said:


> There's no room for sarcasm,


I'm being factual, you want to take that as sarcasm :shrug: carry on. You do know that a sub is only as musical as the amp you hook it up to.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

sqnut said:


> I'm being factual, you want to take that as sarcasm :shrug: carry on. You do know that a sub is only as musical as the amp you hook it up to.


You started the sarcasm by asking what is a musical sub. Again, for the love of God, stay out of my thread.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Down said:


> You started the sarcasm by asking what is a musical sub. Again, for the love of God, stay out of my thread.


He wasn't being sarcastic, he was being pedantic. 

We all understood what you were looking for, but he makes a good point, and accuracy within communication is important.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

gijoe said:


> He wasn't being sarcastic, he was being pedantic.
> 
> We all understood what you were looking for, but he makes a good point, and accuracy within communication is important.


I understand his point 100%. Never argued it. I just don't want to go "there" with this thread. Then I'll get all amps sound the same speaker wire makes a difference in sound and that your only supposed to use dampening every X amount of inches. I don't want this to turn into an argument. Just shop talk. 

If someone came up to me in an audio store and asked what's a musical sub, after I ask the question, yeah, I'm going to take that as someone being a smartass. Never disagreed with it, just don't want to go that direction and keep it OT.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Down said:


> You started the sarcasm by asking what is a musical sub.


You're so hooked on to the question of which sub, that you're missing the point that any 8" (even the most sq one) will sound boomy, if 0.3-0.4 cu ft is all the breathing space you can give it.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

sqnut said:


> You're so hooked on to the question of which sub, that you're missing the point that any 8" (even the most sq one) will sound boomy, if 0.3-0.4 cu ft is all the breathing space you can give it.


If that's the case, why didn't you just say that before asking such an incredibly useless sarcastic question that did nothing but derail this thread. I'm not hooked on anything. I'm asking for advice. I've said it plenty of times. I have zero experience with 8's. I don't understand what you don't get about that. You telling me all I can give it is .3-.4 is useless as well. I didn't design the car and there's nothing I can do about the space. I'm giving specs based on rough measurements. 

You failed to listen to my original post. My attempt to tell you what I mean, & not listen to staying out of my thread. I doubt I'll listen to you. 

Shocking how everyone else is nothing but helpful. Guess there has to be that "one guy" in every thread now a days.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Down said:


> If that's the case, why didn't you just say that before asking such an incredibly useless sarcastic question that did nothing but derail this thread.


It's derailed in your head cause you're butt hurt you got called out for a silly question.



Down said:


> I'm not hooked on anything. I'm asking for advice. I've said it plenty of times.


And yet you're only open selectively to advice. Any advice that questions your beliefs is not welcome. 



Down said:


> I have zero experience with 8's. I don't understand what you don't get about that. You telling me all I can give it is .3-.4 is useless as well. I didn't design the car and there's nothing I can do about tu


Build a bigger box and FIND someplace to put it, wanting an sq sub in 0.3-0.4 space is an oxymoron.





Down said:


> You failed to listen to my original post. Shocking how everyone else is nothing but helpful. Guess there has to be that "one guy" in every thread now a days.


How is it my fault if others are feeding your fantasy without appraising you of basic facts, maybe they didn't figure it out or read your post closely enough. Good luck.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

I didn't read your whole post. Anyone that says 'butthurt' is either 14, or is upset at life. All I'm asking for is an 8" sub that sounds good in the box I've described. I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend that. I'll refrain from all of the 'butthurt' jokes that are going on in my head. All 1000 of them. Lol 

Jeremy


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

Morel Ultimo 8? Optimal enclosure is around .4

I think there's a used one floating around here somewhere.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

nineball76 said:


> Morel Ultimo 8? Optimal enclosure is around .4
> 
> I think there's a used one floating around here somewhere.


New one thrown into the mix! I'll check this one out as well:thumbsup:
Hadn't even considered this to be an option. Still learning what all companies make an 8" sub.


----------



## Ericm1205 (May 10, 2016)

i would not discount anything Sqnut says. some of the stuff i read about in his posts he knows obout SQ blows my mind. i bet he forgot more than you and i will ever learn.

but on topic. since your size will almost impossible, what about a JL audio 8w3v4 takes .3cuft or the 6.5 woofer that takes .14cuft?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

sqnut said:


> That is down to your box and tuning more than the sub itself. There's no such thing as a boomy or sq sub, just good and poor implementation.


ehhh.. there are some spl subs out there that im convinced will never sound 100% proper. ones with FS in the mid 40's that are made for ported boxes turned to 48hz that pump out 150's off sine waves.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

If anyone is interested in 1 or 2 IDQ8 D2 v4's, i am going to list them for sale soon. I think it is a very musical sub. I just decided to go back to my beastly 12" SDX12 because it also is a musical sub and it hits harder


----------



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

nineball76 said:


> Morel Ultimo 8? Optimal enclosure is around .4
> 
> I think there's a used one floating around here somewhere.


I was going to recommend the Morel Ultimo but I did not know if you had a budget to stay under. I don't have a Morel Ultimo sub, but I do listen to their Tempo Ultra 602 components in my car and when it comes to musicality, I think there are few that compare. If their subs are the same way, you won't go wrong with that selection.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> ehhh.. there are some spl subs out there that im convinced will never sound 100% proper. ones with FS in the mid 40's that are made for ported boxes turned to 48hz that pump out 150's off sine waves.


Ok I should have said that it's 90% implementation and 10% the actual sub..... BTW since the OP is looking for an 8" sub, what do you figure are common Fs figures for 8" subs? Wouldn't real world in a box numbers be in the 30-40hz region (mostly)? 


https://www.parts-express.com/cat/car-subwoofer-speakers/391?N=20454+4294967118+4294964970&Ne=10166&Nrs=collection%28%29%2Frecord%5Bendeca%3Amatches%28.%2C%22P_PortalID%22%2C%221%22%29+and+endeca%3Amatches%28.%2C%22P_Searchable%22%2C%221%22%29%5D&PortalID=1

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-8-woofers/


Now assume we find one with a really low Fs, or alternately a lowish Fs with a Qtc around around 0.4-0.5, what would happen if we put it in a 0.3-0.4 cu ft enclosure? That is the real problem here and everyone including the OP is missing it. Take an 8" with an fs of 25hz and stick it in a 0.3-0.4 cu ft box and I would be surprised if the F3/Fb isn't ~70-80hz. I bet the OP would be underwhelmed even after spending decent coin.


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: Best musical 8&quot; sub?*

I know I saw it mentioned but I don't think it got enough attention, for the price of 159 new and an fs of 22-25 depending on coil choice, a sealed enclosure of .35-.45, the Arc 8 should be a contender.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

sqnut said:


> That is down to your box and tuning more than the sub itself. There's no such thing as a boomy or sq sub, just good and poor implementation.


It's easier to mark your goals and find a driver to deliver your goals. Problem is, some, if not most don't do that. They/we tend to buy products based on emotional reaction, prejudicial parameters and/or misinformation. 

More expensive = Better
More Xmax = Better
QTS/sealed/ported/IB Myths
Name brands are better than drivers on Alibaba

But there are also (IMO) some simply [email protected]@dy awful products out there, that that I don't think anyone could do much with, and with which such things as enclosure or eq'ing can't in anyway improve the situation. And with randomized approaches like QTS figures wrongly dictating the enclosure alignment, the possibility of reaching the drivers full potential in bad products are greatly diminished, let alone in products that we deem good/quality.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

Down said:


> One that plays music and not booming bass. Should be self explanatory


The split seems to be simple, SQ or SPL products. SQ products are deemed to be designed for accurate musical reproduction over their _'Tractor tire rubber surround' '3 tonne magnet' 'Hair trick' _counterparts. The myth is that SPL subs, SPL looking subs and those that deem a brand 'SPL' .... can't do SQ as well. 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/member-reviews-product-comparisons/57705-ssa-dcon-12-review.html


elvisjer said:


> My first thought after hearing this sub is, “I want to test an Icon really bad.” I’m afraid many people will be turned away from this subwoofer because of its 300w RMS power handling, but they will be wrong in whatever causes the assumption that it will not perform as wanted. With the subs I’ve tested, the DCON lies between the DIYMA and the SiMag. The DIYMA produces unbelievably accurate tones and blending abilities, but lacks the thump that hip-hop and so much modern music needs. The DCON has more tonal presence than the SiMag, but cannot handle as much power. In my opinion, the DCON was a pleasure to test and will become eventually the subwoofer for my 1963 beetle build.


Sure, you have the obvious choice, Morel Ulitmo, Dynaudio 1200, Hybrid Clarus, DLS Nordica etc, but I really wouldn't discount SPL orientated brands. The thing is, when you want that extra something, will an SQ sub do? Like Corporal Ferro said in the film Aliens, referring to having condom handy; i_*'d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it!*_ I'd rather have a SPL sub with good SQ for when I want to have a blast, than to have an SQ sub that really won't fulfill my SPL needs. That's when you get people asking about two Morel Ultimo's, or reaching for a second. That get costly right quick!


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

captainscarlett said:


> I'd rather have a SPL sub with good SQ for when I want to have a blast, than to have an SQ sub that really won't fulfill my SPL needs. That's when you get people asking about two Morel Ultimo's, or reaching for a second. That get costly right quick!


This, right here, is great advice. Got me thinking. Opened my options up. Made me realize I may need to revamp my enclosure for more space. I guess you could say this will all be a gamble. There were a few big magnet tall surround subs I've been eyeing, but was hesitant due to their so called 'SPL' branding. I can honestly say I have heard a few SPL subs that surprised me. (The recommendations I've been getting and PMs really help quite a bit btw) I'm thinking the MOST I can get is .5 of space.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainscarlett said:


> But there are also (IMO) some simply [email protected]@dy awful products out there, that that I don't think anyone could do much with, and with which such things as enclosure or eq'ing can't in anyway improve the situation.


The difference is that you and Nick are including all subs in your reference group, including those with ****ty specs. I'm starting from a base that excludes junk and now everything is down to implementation. 

C'mon the sub is only going to play ~ 2 octaves, if that. No frickin way would I spend more than $ 200 on it, that's enough to buy you good honest specs and then get the box right and then get the timing and response right between the sub and mids, done.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

A crappy product is a crappy product.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

sqnut said:


> The difference is that you and Nick are including all subs in your reference group, including those with ****ty specs. I'm starting from a base that excludes junk and now everything is down to implementation.
> 
> C'mon the sub is only going to play ~ 2 octaves, if that. No frickin way would I spend more than $ 200 on it, that's enough to buy you good honest specs and then get the box right and then get the timing and response right between the sub and mids, done.


A good sub can handle 20-150hz. Well into your midbass range. Its hard to know why a good sub is worth it till you hear it but I promise you. 200$ for a sub is bare minimum you should spend.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Jscoyne2 said:


> A good sub can handle 20-150hz. Well into your midbass range. Its hard to know why a good sub is worth it till you hear it but I promise you. 200$ for a sub is bare minimum you should spend.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


You can get excellent response in the bottom 2 octaves for under $200. Telling him that he needs to spend at least $200 is ridiculous. The bottom 2 octaves are not only the least important, but probably the easiest to reproduce.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

gijoe said:


> You can get excellent response in the bottom 2 octaves for under $200. Telling him that he needs to spend at least $200 is ridiculous. The bottom 2 octaves are not only the least important, but probably the easiest to reproduce.


Alright but including wood to build a box, and having power handling ability to get loud when one wants. Its very hard for under 200$

You want subs under 200. SSA Dcon or alpine type R


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

100 plus should be midbass. Unless it's some special install. 80 plus should really be midbass duty. 60 even. As low as possible.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Jscoyne2 said:


> 200$ for a sub is bare minimum you should spend.


gijoe already hit it, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on DIYMA in a long time. 

And that is saying A LOT.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Its hard to know why a good sub is worth it till you hear it but I promise you. 200$ for a sub is bare minimum you should spend.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


And what do you feel is the optimum amount to spend?


----------



## nineball76 (Mar 13, 2010)

Value is an exceptionally personal thing. What one person thinks is too much, is too little for another. I have a $3000 sub. That's sitting on a shelf in the garage with no use in the near foreseeable future. Another pair of $1k subs, that I feel are extreme overkill for a little hatchback like mine, I'd bought for an SUV that I traded off a month after the subs were built. I don't live in regret over a few lost dollars that we can't take with us.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

*Re: Best musical 8&amp;quot; sub?*



miniSQ said:


> And what do you feel is the optimum amount to spend?


Well considering you have to go with an 8in sub. Id get something with alot of xmax and alot of power handling so you can get louder since you dont have cone area. You can get a great sounding sub for amd under 200$. Used subs or something like a SSA Dcon which is less than 200 and is very musical but doesnt have alot of power handling. 

Id match your sub budget to the power constraints you have and the amp youd like to use. If you have an electrical system that can handle 2000rms then you can get a sub thatll take 1000 (remember mids/highs and stock car needs)


As for the "SQ" of the sa12 mentioned earlier. Have you heard an actual sq subwoofer. It puts the sa12 to dirty shame. Its not a very accurate sub. Better than kicker... but just a mediocre all around sub


----------



## V 2the C (Mar 12, 2015)

Type R 8's on sale for @$110.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

V 2the C said:


> Type R 8's on sale for @$110.


I believe the dcons are as well.


----------



## Down (Apr 7, 2009)

Jscoyne2 said:


> I believe the dcons are as well.


Where is everyone finding an 8" dcon?


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Down said:


> Where is everyone finding an 8" dcon?


...looks...oh there isnt one...well now I feel stupid..


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

V 2the C said:


> Type R 8's on sale for @$110.


Even cheaper on Amazon.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

I believe the type r would be a good choice then

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


----------



## stills (Apr 13, 2008)

$200 is as far as I go too.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

stills said:


> $200 is as far as I go too.


Whats the most accurate sub you've ever heard?


----------



## stills (Apr 13, 2008)

I'd say I'd my Jbl gti's, Celestions, and 10w6v1s were the best I've owned personally. I'm sure I'm forgetting something. I'm not going to say something sounds "good" or not unless I've owned them and lived with them.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

stills said:


> I'd say I'd my Jbl gti's, Celestions, and 10w6v1s were the best I've owned personally. I'm sure I'm forgetting something. I'm not going to say something sounds "good" or not unless I've owned them and lived with them.


All those are over 200$ arent they

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


----------



## stills (Apr 13, 2008)

I think the JL were @ 170 ea. the others less.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

Will the 8w7 work in .5?


----------



## claydo (Oct 1, 2012)

bassfromspace said:


> Will the 8w7 work in .5?


Jl recommends .875......but I like mine in 1 cube each.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Alright but including wood to build a box, and having power handling ability to get loud when one wants. Its very hard for under 200$


Don't twist my words please. Go back and read my post, I'm talking about $ 200 for the sub only. Box, amp, processing, hu are not included .


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Jscoyne2 said:


> A good sub can handle 20-150hz.


Technically speaking, a decent 8" should be able to do ~25-1,500, however running your sub 20-150 begs asking the question, do you like to listen to your midbass in mono? I don't.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

sqnut said:


> Technically speaking, a decent 8" should be able to do ~25-1,500, however running your sub 20-150 begs asking the question, do you like to listen to your midbass in mono? I don't.


150 is still omni directional. So yes you do


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

^

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

DDfusion said:


> 150 is still omni directional. So yes you do


He's talking about losing the left/right phase relation in the midbass region by crossing that high to a mono sub channel. Directivity doesn't apply here.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> He's talking about losing the left/right phase relation in the midbass region by crossing that high to a mono sub channel. Directivity doesn't apply here.


Thanks!! Yes, that's what I meant. I should have accounted for average comprehension levels and explained myself better.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

sqnut said:


> The difference is that you and Nick are including all subs in your reference group, including those with ****ty specs. I'm starting from a base that excludes junk and now everything is down to implementation.
> 
> C'mon the sub is only going to play ~ 2 octaves, if that. No frickin way would I spend more than $ 200 on it, that's enough to buy you good honest specs and then get the box right and then get the timing and response right between the sub and mids, done.


I don't know what a sub with "****ty specs" would look like. For me a driver has both objective and subjective measurements. The truth is that there are drivers/products with 'so-called' perfect specs/parameters that I wouldn't give 10 pence for! 

I agree there are some good low cost subs, there are quite a few home audio drivers, that are grossly overlooked by the car audio industry, but that's because most of us are infatuated with brand names and marketing (xmax) than we are about performance. But to assume that equally costly products can't deliver acoustically is also a questionable view. Sure, it's only two octaves and we should put our money and effort into a broader spectrum, but having heard a bad sub stage, I know that it's not what I would want from even the most basic system. So putting the effort into researching other options can only be a good thing, surely? Don't you agree that it's where most of us go wrong, lack of research? 

To exonerate PWK ... a little:snobby:, I do understand what he was getting at, as he'd mentioned it a few times. It's about us putting drivers into situations that they're really not meant for. *People wanting two Ultimo's for example.* What does that suggest to you? Does that suggest the person really wants two Morel Ultimo's, or does the person want to film a flex video on the one hand, but on the other, listening at more reasonable levels, they want the best SQ that they can get? If so there are products better suited at delivering that than two Morel Ulitmo's. IDMax seems to get the shout above Morel for that. 


As for my choice in 8's (which is why we're here) I'll stick to my selection. 

Sundown SD-2 8
IDQ 8 v4
Alpine Type R 8


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainscarlett said:


> The truth is that there are drivers/products with 'so-called' perfect specs/parameters that I wouldn't give 10 pence for!


That is one of of those audio myths. There's no magic pixie dust that makes a speaker better than another, other than its good and honest specs and the right implementation (install/tuning). So if a speaker with good parameters sounds ****ty, then its down to crappy implementation not the speaker itself (as long as you're using it in the pass band for which it was designed).




captainscarlett said:


> But to assume that equally costly products can't deliver acoustically is also a questionable view. Sure, it's only two octaves and we should put our money and effort into a broader spectrum, but having heard a bad sub stage, I know that it's not what I would want from even the most basic system. So putting the effort into researching other options can only be a good thing, surely? Don't you agree that it's where most of us go wrong, lack of research?


More expensive doesn't mean better, so if with the right implementation I can get a $ 200 sub sounding as good as a $ 1,000 sub again with the right implementation........why would I spend the extra $ 800? How can you totally discount the implementation in the sub stage that didn't sound good and zone in on the driver?


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

sqnut said:


> That is one of of those audio myths. There's no magic pixie dust that makes a speaker better than another, other than its good and honest specs and the right implementation (install/tuning). So if a speaker with good parameters sounds ****ty, then its down to crappy implementation not the speaker itself (as long as you're using it in the pass band for which it was designed).


I wish you the best with your Bose speakers! 






sqnut said:


> More expensive doesn't mean better,


If you can find where I said it does, please let me know!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainscarlett said:


> I wish you the best with your Bose speakers!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're missing the point but whatever rocks your boat is fine with me.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

I guess he should have accounted for your comprehension


----------



## Mless5 (Aug 21, 2006)

Down said:


> To everyone else, I'm leaning towards the IDQ8 now, or the ID8. Of course all other options are on the table still since I have zero experience with 8s.


Go for IDQ. I've done side by side ID and IDQ and IDQ was a clear winner, however ID had more output.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

sqnut said:


> You're missing the point but whatever rocks your boat is fine with me.


Go for it! The second point you can't rebut because it doesn't exists, but on the first point go for it.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

Mless5 said:


> Go for IDQ. I've done side by side ID and IDQ and IDQ was a clear winner, however ID had more output.


Sorry to be the selfish one here, but I say go for it (IDQ) get some YouTube vids up for equal measure. As I say, there seems to be a lot said about the ID 8 but next to nothing about the IDQ


----------



## Jim85IROC (Jun 8, 2005)

sqnut said:


> That is one of of those audio myths. There's no magic pixie dust that makes a speaker better than another, other than its good and honest specs and the right implementation (install/tuning).


Yes, but those specs are not often known for most subs. Sure, the t/s parameters will help you determine a lot regarding frequency response & output, but it still can't predict the non-linear behaviors of the driver. Klippel testing helps, but also doesn't give you the whole story. I find THD sweeps to be a far better indicator of how a driver will sound, but even they don't tell you everything. THD analysis at specific frequencies can show even more, but unless you take a million of them, you still only get part of the story.

unfortunately, all we get with 95% of the subs on the market is an incomplete set of t/s numbers.


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

Jim85IROC said:


> unfortunately, all we get with 95% of the subs on the market is an incomplete set of t/s numbers.


Or inaccurate T/S parameter... which then throws an even bigger curve ball when using free enclosure design software programs .. and that's before the installation which is also another puzzle for which such free software don't really take into account with any deal of accuracy.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Jim85IROC said:


> Yes, but those specs are not often known for most subs. Sure, the t/s parameters will help you determine a lot regarding frequency response & output, but it still can't predict the non-linear behaviors of the driver. Klippel testing helps, but also doesn't give you the whole story. I find THD sweeps to be a far better indicator of how a driver will sound, but even they don't tell you everything. THD analysis at specific frequencies can show even more, but unless you take a million of them, you still only get part of the story.
> 
> unfortunately, all we get with 95% of the subs on the market is an incomplete set of t/s numbers.


Music and the Human Ear


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

captainscarlett said:


> Or inaccurate T/S parameter... which then throws an even bigger curve ball when using free enclosure design software programs .. and that's before the installation which is also another puzzle for which such free software don't really take into account with any deal of accuracy.


This could be a handy tool if you want to make sure you have accurate T/S parameters. Of course, it requires that you already have the specific drivers you want to use in your possession. 

Dayton Audio DATS V2 Computer Based Audio Component Test System


----------



## captainscarlett (Mar 15, 2011)

rton20s said:


> This could be a handy tool if you want to make sure you have accurate T/S parameters. Of course, it requires that you already have the specific drivers you want to use in your possession.
> 
> Dayton Audio DATS V2 Computer Based Audio Component Test System


I suspect that amount of enthusiasts that will buy the Dats to find out the true parameter, is very low. Whether installers would use such programs fro each of their customers/installs i suspect would be even lower. however that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## DDfusion (Apr 23, 2015)

DATs is only as good as the speaker is broken in. Unless you are going to remeasure every few weeks.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

DDfusion said:


> DATs is only as good as the speaker is broken in. Unless you are going to remeasure every few weeks.


If it is important enough to know the actual T/S Parameters to do an enclosure design, then it is important enough to run the driver through break in.


----------



## cgm246 (Jun 27, 2011)

has this info changed or expanded since?? I am in the market for a good SQ 8" woofer.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

I’m probably going to get slammed for this.. but if you are able to audition one, check out the Kicker Q Class L7QB8:

https://www.kicker.com/L7QB8_subwoofer_enclosure

I was pleasantly surprised by its performance. Think of it as a mini SQL setup. Not very muddy/boomy, very transient, and decent output (for being an 8” sub).


----------



## cgm246 (Jun 27, 2011)

i hear this was a nice sub...i will have to audition it....thanks! it definitely looks nice!


----------



## Oscar (Jun 20, 2010)

Dayton 8" Ultimax. Cone stiffer than nearly anything out there, copper pole cap and shorting ring, decent excursion, good suspension. Put it in ~0.5 ft³ with twin 8" PR's, and I guarantee you it will sound good. It does have a very low Vas which kills sensitivity via killing the enclosure volume requirements, but hey that's just physics for ya. Nothing you can do about it. You'll have to feed it good power, and it won't be devastatingly loud, but hey that's physics for ya. Enclosure volume is the grand leveller for all things bass.


----------



## pw91686 (Apr 1, 2015)

I absolutely loved my soundsplinter rl-i8. Ended up selling it to a friend. But now I have some BNIB Tc-1000 8s, fairly equivelant driver, can’t want to use them at some point. ??


----------

