# the loudest Shallow Mount Subwoofer



## 037981

I want to know what would be the loudest Shallow Mount Subwoofer you can get today I'll will be running a rockford fosgate T1500-1BDCP yes I know this is overkill but this is what I have and I'm not changing it. I'll be running 2 subs I have absolutely no room for any other type of subs so don't recommend anything else apart from shallow subs.

I am currently thinking about 
Stereo Integrity's BM mkIII
Alpine SWR-T12
JL Audio 13TW5-3

thank you for your help


----------



## treylittlefield

What's your max depth your working with?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## treylittlefield

But out of those listed, either the jl or si...I like the look of the jl though

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## 037981

I think my max depth is about 8 inches but I will have to check


----------



## treylittlefield

You can get away with a sub that isn't shallow mount...sundown audio has came out with a sub with under 5 inches of depth I believe...beefy little booger. Lol

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## 95acc

The JL is a nice sub, but is VERY picky about box size, it really only works in one box, no room for errors. 
And it is more of a SQ sub. 
If you are looking for output look at the new typeR
These subs are power hungry but make a SUBSTANTIAL amount of bass. 
Very well built


----------



## tyroneshoes

treylittlefield said:


> You can get away with a sub that isn't shallow mount...sundown audio has came out with a sub with under 5 inches of depth I believe...beefy little booger. Lol
> 
> Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


What model? The SA10 is 6" deep. 

With 8" of depth, dont bother with a shallow sub. That is the only reason to use them. The majority of subs will fit.


----------



## treylittlefield

The new sd1 line they are coming out with. There is also the sa series. Which is a BEAST of a sub

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## madmaxz

no need for a shallow mount with 8".


----------



## tyroneshoes

treylittlefield said:


> The new sd1 line they are coming out with. There is also the sa series. Which is a BEAST of a sub
> 
> Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


Any link on this? All Im finding is a discontinued sub

found it. its the sd-2


----------



## 037981

I had a look at the Sundown SD-2 looks pretty beefy however I just don't know if it will fit it is in a single cab 2 door utility I have about 7 inches of clearance do you know if they going to be making this in a 8 inch Sub


----------



## Fricasseekid

037981 said:


> I had a look at the Sundown SD-2 looks pretty beefy however I just don't know if it will fit it is in a single cab 2 door utility I have about 7 inches of clearance do you know if they going to be making this in a 8 inch Sub


If you have 7", take a look at the Dayton HO 10"
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-462


----------



## xMplar

get the memphis S call slimline man so far i have listen to almost every slimline on market excepot the new alpine one and 2 x 12" of those badd boys is the loudest slimlines subs i have ever heard 1 of them in a 27L sealed box in a hatch on 1000 memphis pr amp doin 141db baby you should check them out my second choice is the rockford and pioneer mopdels but not always in that order
Ren
xMplar


----------



## 037981

I'll check them out thanks


----------



## xMplar

no wukkin furries champ good lcuk with it u gould also think about sum sort of custom built slim woofer or even sum type of hardcre 8" sub aswell just a thought there lots of companies who do custom gear round

Ren
xMplar


----------



## Fricasseekid

xMplar said:


> get the memphis S call slimline man so far i have listen to almost every slimline on market excepot the new alpine one and 2 x 12" of those badd boys is the loudest slimlines subs i have ever heard 1 of them in a 27L sealed box in a hatch on 1000 memphis pr amp doin 141db baby you should check them out my second choice is the rockford and pioneer mopdels but not always in that order
> Ren
> xMplar


I think the Memphis S-class is now street reference or something like that. I have two power bass shallow 12s and I auditioned them and the Memphis S-class at the same time, there was no difference in volume. 

The Rockford P3S pancakes get pretty loud though.


----------



## xMplar

nah the s class is now part of the memphis referenc range with the small foot print amps and cant say we have powerbass in oz its not unusual tho we dont get the less popular shoot off brands here only the big names and a very select few of the lesser knowns and here all i can say in the rite box 140-141 from a single 4ohm single 12" in a seald 27L box of 1000w power reference amp all from memphis and dman it was beating subs that should have dun at least 144-145 but it was the perfect box and powe combo and every s class i have heard since has pish on every other slimline i have heard me personally i dont mess with subs that small but in a space restricted car like here in oz we have the falcon and commadore utes which is a 2 seter with a big tray out back and a thumping 6L v8 engine they are the ducks nuts in them and well asl other utility trucks really if you can put a full size sub in go for a chronic 8" or a S calls but thats just my opinion 
Ren
xMplar


----------



## Fricasseekid

xMplar said:


> nah the s class is now part of the memphis referenc range with the small foot print amps and cant say we have powerbass in oz its not unusual tho we dont get the less popular shoot off brands here only the big names and a very select few of the lesser knowns and here all i can say in the rite box 140-141 from a single 4ohm single 12" in a seald 27L box of 1000w power reference amp all from memphis and dman it was beating subs that should have dun at least 144-145 but it was the perfect box and powe combo and every s class i have heard since has pish on every other slimline i have heard me personally i dont mess with subs that small but in a space restricted car like here in oz we have the falcon and commadore utes which is a 2 seter with a big tray out back and a thumping 6L v8 engine they are the ducks nuts in them and well asl other utility trucks really if you can put a full size sub in go for a chronic 8" or a S calls but thats just my opinion
> Ren
> xMplar


Huh?!


----------



## xMplar

just breathe wher nessesary and it kinda makes sense in a bit i wrote to fast for my fingers lolz


----------



## BowDown

xMplar said:


> just breathe wher nessesary and it kinda makes sense in a bit i wrote to fast for my fingers lolz


Got a larger pic of the install in your signature?


----------



## hitch.united

I have a shallow mount P3, Powered by an MRP-m500 Gets pretty loud. It's enough for me in my silverado


----------



## [email protected]

Polk MM series would fit the bill.


----------



## tyroneshoes

So would an IDQ, alumapro, TC epic, ssi....any sub fits the bill here that isnt a jbl gti . Im working with 5.35" depth and got the ID, IDQ v2, Alumapro mx, the ultimo to fit. Where is the issue

As far as shallow mounts go, the shallow alpine incorporates an extremely clever design utilizing shorting rings and is a low inductance sub. It is supposedly the best sounding sub alpine offers and it rivals the output of the full size type rs. .35cuft sealed a 10, .65 a 12. You dont need a shallow, but if you think you do, go alpine.


----------



## Fricasseekid

Ive also Heard good things about the MB Quart Ref shallow mount subs.


----------



## xMplar

yeah bowdown i have a large pic its an italian build by impact car audio its kinda cool it has like a w style front face and heaps of speakers in the doors its insane shoot me a pm ill send it you 
Ren
xMplar


----------



## simplicityinsound

to me its more than just pure loudness, IMO its kinda pointless to have a shallow mount sub if it doesnt work in a smaller than usual enclosure at the same time.

i have installed and heard jl alpine xi, exile, mtx kenwood, pioneer, and i think a few other brands, but to me, at this moment, i cant imagine using anything else other than the SI...however it is really the issue of getting them that may prevent you from using the BM.

when i did the 370z, i finally had a chance to put a SI BMMKIII on the RTA in a .4 cubic foot sealed enclosure, and that is simply insane...it sounded good with no real eq, but the truth on the rta showed that there was hardly any bumps in the 60-90hz range as you may find when you stuff a sub in too small of a box, it was a nice and gentle roll off at around 25hz ish iirc...simply amazing when you consider the size of hte sub and the enclosure. i have yet to personally find a direct match against it.

out of the other ones you listed, the alpine is a good performer, the JL is a nice sub, but a lil too expensive for my taste...

so my vote is for a Si if you can find one.


----------



## Fricasseekid

The Polk MMs model very nicely in small enclosure.
I modeled 4 10s in a 2.5 cu ft box, ported @ 31 hz. The polks were the loudest followed by the Alpine SWRs, then the Dayton HOs. 

But the Daytons had the flatest response curve followed by the Polk MMs and the Alpines were a little peaky.


----------



## Mr. Randy

Earthquake SWS


----------



## PottersField

Mr. Randy said:


> Earthquake SWS


For real? I was looking at shallow mounts the other day and the SWS was kind of appealing. They look good on paper, don't know anyone who has actually used anything from Earthquake though.


----------



## Fricasseekid

Mr. T. said:


> For real? I was looking at shallow mounts the other day and the SWS was kind of appealing. They look good on paper, don't know anyone who has actually used anything from Earthquake though.


Never exactly heard anything bad about them, but they look kinda cheap to me and don't handle much power either.


----------



## Mr. Randy

Fricasseekid said:


> Never exactly heard anything bad about them, but they look kinda cheap to me and don't handle much power either.


they do look cheap and ugly...but it will surprise you and also has lots of travel.


----------



## hypeboy

wow maybe that's the loudest


----------



## chevyrider96

I have 2 re audio sl 12's n.i.b. i plan on installing some day, check out the specs below

heres a link for specs:RE Audio SL-12 12" Shallow Mount Dual 4 ohm Car Subwoofer


----------



## Fricasseekid

chevyrider96 said:


> I have 2 re audio sl 12's n.i.b. i plan on installing some day, check out the specs below
> 
> heres a link for specs:RE Audio SL-12 12" Shallow Mount Dual 4 ohm Car Subwoofer


Still doesn't look as impressive as the Polk MMs (which is technically not a "shallow mount"). But at 4 5/8" for a 12 it's definitely a contender.


----------



## cvjoint

I would think the Alpine sounds the best and gets the loudest. Just look at the Polk for example, it claims 25mm one way xmax and they say they used the Klippel analyzer in the driver production. If so, where is the Klippel report? Alpine publishes it right on their website which imo adds a lot of credibility to their work. Looking at the curves it seems to have 12mm of one way xmax using the most stringent of definitions. 

The only other piece of evidence is a suspension klippel report on the SI, which seems great up to 12mm but the graph is not complete nor do we get the motor plot which is more important. 

Based on the available information the Alpine is the best. The rest is all marketing and boasting. Even the Alpine could use a lot more specifications, we still don't have the inductance curve and there isn't even a BL, or MMS specified in the white sheet. I'm not sure how you guys plotted this sub, I couldn't. 

As far as box requirements go none of them are true small box subs, and like all speakers it's best to keep a lot of room behind the subwoofer for airflow. These types of low depth installations almost always give up sound quality for ease of install.


----------



## Fricasseekid

cvjoint said:


> I would think the Alpine sounds the best and gets the loudest. Just look at the Polk for example, it claims 25mm one way xmax and they say they used the Klippel analyzer in the driver production. If so, where is the Klippel report? Alpine publishes it right on their website which imo adds a lot of credibility to their work. Looking at the curves it seems to have 12mm of one way xmax using the most stringent of definitions.
> 
> The only other piece of evidence is a suspension klippel report on the SI, which seems great up to 12mm but the graph is not complete nor do we get the motor plot which is more important.
> 
> Based on the available information the Alpine is the best. The rest is all marketing and boasting. Even the Alpine could use a lot more specifications, we still don't have the inductance curve and there isn't even a BL, or MMS specified in the white sheet. I'm not sure how you guys plotted this sub, I couldn't.
> 
> As far as box requirements go none of them are true small box subs, and like all speakers it's best to keep a lot of room behind the subwoofer for airflow. These types of low depth installations almost always give up sound quality for ease of install.


Well I have two Polk MMs sitting on the table now. I should be able to get back to y'all on how loud they get next week sometime. 

No doubt the Alpines look like amazing subs but at the price of $120/ea. the polks are nice too. I've heard the Alpines get loud and low but I found it difficult to model a smooth curve with them. 

Also shallow mount and small box are not always synonymous. The Dayton HO is not a shallow but works in very small boxes and the JL TW5 is a shallow but needs a decent sized box. One should not confuse the two different characteristics.


----------



## cvjoint

Fricasseekid said:


> Well I have two Polk MMs sitting on the table now. I should be able to get back to y'all on how loud they get next week sometime.
> 
> No doubt the Alpines look like amazing subs but at the price of $120/ea. the polks are nice too. I've heard the Alpines get loud and low but I found it difficult to model a smooth curve with them.
> 
> Also shallow mount and small box are not always synonymous. The Dayton HO is not a shallow but works in very small boxes and the JL TW5 is a shallow but needs a decent sized box. One should not confuse the two different characteristics.


What BL and MMS did you use to model the Alpine? I can't find them anywhere.


----------



## Fricasseekid

cvjoint said:


> What BL and MMS did you use to model the Alpine? I can't find them anywhere.


Can't remember right now. I'll have to get back to you later this evening. 

Although if you use WinISD alpha it will automatically calculate missing specs.


----------



## Fricasseekid

Ok, I just looked into it and I have no idea where I got the specs, LOL.
Maybe Jim Walter could provide them if you asked him.


----------



## MaxxG

Fricasseekid said:


> Huh?!


hahahaha i got about half way through that post and just skipped it and was thinking just that when i saw your post?! haha


----------



## Fricasseekid

Lol

PUNCTUATION!
It matters!


----------



## cvjoint

I'm not getting my hopes up, I asked for the inductance plot a long time ago, still no sign of it. It seems to me they only release the stuff that looks good.


----------



## subwoofery

Fricasseekid said:


> Still doesn't look as impressive as the Polk MMs (which is technically not a "shallow mount"). But at 4 5/8" for a 12 it's definitely a contender.


FYI, I just modelled both the SL10 and MM1040DVC & both the SL12 and MM1240DVC... 
You put both 10" in the same enclosure, sealed or vented, and they perform EXACTLY the same - the SL10 being 1 1/2" shallower, it's a better choice 
You put both 12" in the same enclosure, sealed or vented, and they perform EXACTLY the same - the SL12 being 1 1/8" shallower, it's a better choice too... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

cvjoint said:


> I would think the Alpine sounds the best and gets the loudest. Just look at the Polk for example, it claims 25mm one way xmax and they say they used the Klippel analyzer in the driver production. If so, where is the Klippel report? Alpine publishes it right on their website which imo adds a lot of credibility to their work. Looking at the curves it seems to have 12mm of one way xmax using the most stringent of definitions.
> Again comparing both the SL12 and the MM1240DVC, I can't see it having reaching that much Xmax. Looking at both pics, the surround shape looks quite similar and sure doesn't look like a high-roll type of surround like seen on TC Sounds subwoofers...
> Mounting diameter for both is the same @ 11" yet the SD of the Polk is much larger @ 520cm2 VS 470cm2 for the SL12
> 
> Maybe that's what the extra depth is for I guess  - sure doesn't help with the performance as seen in my previous post...
> 
> The only other piece of evidence is a suspension klippel report on the SI, which seems great up to 12mm but the graph is not complete nor do we get the motor plot which is more important.
> 
> Based on the available information the Alpine is the best. The rest is all marketing and boasting. Even the Alpine could use a lot more specifications, we still don't have the inductance curve and there isn't even a BL, or MMS specified in the white sheet. I'm not sure how you guys plotted this sub, I couldn't.
> 
> As far as box requirements go none of them are true small box subs, and like all speakers it's best to keep a lot of room behind the subwoofer for airflow. These types of low depth installations almost always give up sound quality for ease of install.


Would love to play with the Type R seeing all the rave reviews about them... 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

subwoofery said:


> FYI, I just modelled both the SL10 and MM1040DVC & both the SL12 and MM1240DVC...
> You put both 10" in the same enclosure, sealed or vented, and they perform EXACTLY the same - the SL10 being 1 1/2" shallower, it's a better choice
> You put both 12" in the same enclosure, sealed or vented, and they perform EXACTLY the same - the SL12 being 1 1/8" shallower, it's a better choice too...
> 
> Kelvin


Did you take into account that the Polk has more excursion and handles more power? They might have the same transfer function, but what about SPL?


----------



## Fricasseekid

I can't even find a price on those SLs. They are discontinued at sonic and techronix.


----------



## cvjoint

But we don't know how much xmax the Polk has. I seriously doubt it has 25mm of linear throw. I doubt it has 12mm of xmax. That's the point, with Alpine you are guaranteed to have 12mm of linear excursion. That's really good considering the low depth.


----------



## Fricasseekid

All we have to go off is the specs at this point. So why not assume all the specs are false? 

And at almost 5" mounting depth is it that hard to believe the Polk can't do 12mm?

Besides, my last two post were in reference to the polks vs. the RE SLs.


----------



## subwoofery

Fricasseekid said:


> Did you take into account that the Polk has more excursion and handles more power? They might have the same transfer function, but *what about SPL*?


EXACTLY THE SAME... Xmax figures, group delay, Amp apparent load, etc...

The SPL curve are within 0.5dB of each other from 10Hz to 60Hz with the SL playing higher better (above 60Hz) probably due to less inductance... but above 60Hz it shouldn't matter coz it's as much as 0.9dB @ 100Hz  

True that the Polk has more excursion but that doesn't help in SPL figures (thread is "the loudest shallow mount subwoofer") 
True that the Polk handles more RMS power but you should know that RE Audio are used to overbuild their subs to handle tons of power. 
FYI please click here - I'd like to know if the Polk can handle as much 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

I'm not arguing, just learning. 

What's the price on the SL?


----------



## Fricasseekid

And as far as the post in your link goes; isn't that true of any decent sub's RMS rating?


----------



## subwoofery

Fricasseekid said:


> And as far as the post in your link goes; isn't that true of any decent sub's RMS rating?


To be honest, I *think* that it's not necessarily true... It all depends on how they managed to get their ratings. 
Some manufacturers (Dyns for eg.) play for 100 hours and then increases by 6dB in order to rate their drivers. 
Others' (JL Audio for eg.) power ratings are made for a speaker to play at their spec'd power for 8 hours continously - it used to be conservative but now are much closer to how others rate/find their RMS. Good read... and here and another

As you can see RMS ratings are just here to fool us into thinking one driver handles more when we are actually not comparing apples to apples  

Regarding power ratings, here's a good read
Some use AES, others use IEC and a lot use "I don't know what kind of method" :laugh:

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

Fricasseekid said:


> I'm not arguing, just learning.
> 
> What's the price on the SL?


Dunno... I got my SL10 for free  My cousin was a dealer but closed down. 
After plotting a few subs that was actually the one I wanted that was giving me the best performance for the small enclosure I was making... 

Used to be around $200 if I remember correctly... It has been discontinued though for whatever reason 

Kelvin


----------



## cvjoint

Fricasseekid said:


> All we have to go off is the specs at this point. So why not assume all the specs are false?
> 
> And at almost 5" mounting depth is it that hard to believe the Polk can't do 12mm?
> 
> Besides, my last two post were in reference to the polks vs. the RE SLs.


Only a small fraction of the subs we tested hit 12mm at a true 10% distortion threshold. Think that the mighty JBL differential drives only managed 8mm or so. How deep are those, a foot? I do assume all specs are false. I even bought and sent speakers to Erin to get them Klippel tested before using them. There is too much smoke in this industry to make useful decisions. Alpine posted that Klippel result on their website because they know there is no slim sub with that kind of performance out there. There also isn't a slim sub with that kind of mechanical throw. 

That brings me to another point. When you simulate subs in WinISD you have to know the true xmax performance of each driver to know how much you can push them. There are other things as well like motor noise (the reason I won't buy RE products anymore) and voice coil performance that won't be reflected in T/S specs.


----------



## Fricasseekid

By voice coil performance you mean thermal capabilities?


----------



## cvjoint

Fricasseekid said:


> By voice coil performance you mean thermal capabilities?


Yep, and with it the effects of compression on T/S parameters, just like how the T/S parameters move about under excursion due to motor, suspension and inductance nonlinearities. Simulations only hold given the parameters don't change at all. In fact they do,starting with the first watt, so if you start modeling hundreds of watts the results could be quite different from real life. 

I used a set of Polk Momos, they were my first subs. All in all I think Polk is quite mediocre. There was a bit of motor noise and the cones seemed to maybe flex a bit under high excursion. It was painfully obvious they were not very linear, the rise in Q with excursion was very audible. It was as if under more power they sounded boomy or lost steam (Q goes up and motor force drops). So when they claim 25mm of xmax with these new subs I just don't buy it. They seem to use the Klippel moniker in the same way car manufacturers use the Nurburgring to build company image. Few of the cars actually get revisions with a pro car driver at the Ring, they merely roll on the track once or twice. I did that too, doesn't mean I perfected the vehicle dynamics.


----------



## Fricasseekid

cvjoint said:


> Yep, and with it the effects of compression on T/S parameters, just like how the T/S parameters move about under excursion due to motor, suspension and inductance nonlinearities. Simulations only hold given the parameters don't change at all. In fact they do,starting with the first watt, so if you start modeling hundreds of watts the results could be quite different from real life.
> 
> I used a set of Polk Momos, they were my first subs. All in all I think Polk is quite mediocre. There was a bit of motor noise and the cones seemed to maybe flex a bit under high excursion. It was painfully obvious they were not very linear, the rise in Q with excursion was very audible. It was as if under more power they sounded boomy or lost steam (Q goes up and motor force drops). So when they claim 25mm of xmax with these new subs I just don't buy it. They seem to use the Klippel moniker in the same way car manufacturers use the Nurburgring to build company image. Few of the cars actually get revisions with a pro car driver at the Ring, they merely roll on the track once or twice. I did that too, doesn't mean I perfected the vehicle dynamics.


That makes sense, I read a great quote once (I wish a could remember who said it, it was someone credible) it went, "if a speaker moves, it distorts, point blank". 

For the record I never thought the Polks were top of the line speakers. I just think they are probably very capable for the price. I got my 2 12s for $240 shipped, I haven't seen anything else comparible for that much money. If I could afford it I'd definitely go with JL's 13TW5, Alpine's type R, or some BM MKIIIs.


----------



## Fricasseekid

But, the evidence still doesn't show that the polks can't get as loud as any of the other speakers mentioned.

The specs may not be entirely accurate and the polks may not be the best SQ sub, but they are still a contender as far as the thread topic is concerned.


----------



## subwoofery

cvjoint said:


> What BL and MMS did you use to model the Alpine? I can't find them anywhere.


For the SWR-T10, WinISD calculates the MMS to be 203.6 and BL to be 16.61377 
For the SWR-T12, the MMS is 255.3 and the BL is 16.2329 

Hope that helps, 
Kelvin


----------



## Mr. Randy

I just received my alpine swr-t10 a couple days ago to test out..so far im loving it...gets down pretty low and the output is enough for me...I installed it in a .3 cu ft box too =) with fiberglass insulation and a little polyfill of course.

I have owned numerous shallow subs...and the alpine are one my top list. Blended real well with my front stage.


----------



## Fricasseekid

Mr. Randy said:


> I just received my alpine swr-t10 a couple days ago to test out..so far im loving it...gets down pretty low and the output is enough for me...I installed it in a .3 cu ft box too =) with fiberglass insulation and a little polyfill of course.
> 
> I have owned numerous shallow subs...and the alpine are one my top list. Blended real well with my front stage.


.3 cf sealed? When you say it gets low, how low we talking here? Does it have any authority at 30 hz?


----------



## subwoofery

Mr. Randy said:


> I just received my alpine swr-t10 a couple days ago to test out..so far im loving it...gets down pretty low and the output is enough for me...I installed it in a .3 cu ft box too =) with fiberglass insulation and a little polyfill of course.
> 
> I have owned numerous shallow subs...and the alpine are one my top list. Blended real well with my front stage.





Fricasseekid said:


> .3 cf sealed? When you say it gets low, how low we talking here? Does it have any authority at 30 hz?


Another question, just modelled and the High extension is good, but @ .3cuft I feel that even with cabin gain, 80Hz would be to loud compared to 30Hz... so I was wondering where do you LP your SWR-T10? 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

I just hooked up my polks and they are very loud. They hit 40 hz with much authority. I'm not real happy with the transients right now but I think I need to tune em in a bit better and break em in too. 

May be exceeding xmax a bit but the way they jump out the box reminds me of some W7s. I built the box so the speakers are counter sunk into the face about an 1" and I'm still worried about the cones slapping the seat.


----------



## subwoofery

Fricasseekid said:


> I just hooked up my polks and they are very loud. They hit 40 hz with much authority. I'm not real happy with the transients right now but I think I need to tune em in a bit better and break em in too.
> 
> May be exceeding xmax a bit but the way they jump out the box reminds me of some W7s. I built the box so the speakers are counter sunk into the face about an 1" and I'm still worried about the cones slapping the seat.


Need more infos... 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

Without any instruments to take actual measurements, I don't know what kind of info I can give you. 

What you wanna know?


----------



## 808Munkyeee

what the number on the TL anything lower than 130 is weak


----------



## subwoofery

Fricasseekid said:


> Without any instruments to take actual measurements, I don't know what kind of info I can give you.
> 
> What you wanna know?


Simple stuffs... Enclosure size, closed or ported, tuning, power applied. Really simple stuffs... 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

Oh... Der...

Just over 2.5 cf sealed with 1500 watts RMS (I have the gains dialed back a good bit though).


----------



## cvjoint

subwoofery said:


> For the SWR-T10, WinISD calculates the MMS to be 203.6 and BL to be 16.61377
> For the SWR-T12, the MMS is 255.3 and the BL is 16.2329
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Kelvin


I forgot to put in the SD, silly me. I got something similar. Holly **** I've never modeled anything like it before. Even if I use them IB, with all my 5 cubes of trunk space they are still super high Q, .88 or so. 1db or ringing in IB, I can't imagine how much resonance the small boxes yield. Heck, we can model it right. 3.5 db of ringing for 3 of them in one cube. 

I think I'm going to stop looking at slim subs now, they all seem to require massive boxes for a decent Q. If you want a standard .7 Q you need over 30 cubic feet for one of them.


----------



## Fricasseekid

cvjoint said:


> I forgot to put in the SD, silly me. I got something similar. Holly **** I've never modeled anything like it before. Even if I use them IB, with all my 5 cubes of trunk space they are still super high Q, .88 or so. 1db or ringing in IB, I can't imagine how much resonance the small boxes yield. Heck, we can model it right. 3.5 db of ringing for 3 of them in one cube.
> 
> I think I'm going to stop looking at slim subs now, they all seem to require massive boxes for a decent Q. If you want a standard .7 Q you need over 30 cubic feet for one of them.


Two of the dvc Polk 12s will give .8 Q in a 3 cf box and get loud. Check em out. .707 alignment could easily be had with one, and the SVC looks awesome ported.


----------



## cvjoint

Fricasseekid said:


> Two of the dvc Polk 12s will give .8 Q in a 3 cf box and get loud. Check em out. .707 alignment could easily be had with one, and the SVC looks awesome ported.


Yeah, that sounds reasonable. I just can't believe those Alpines. It takes 2x the power compared to my existing subs to get the same output simply due to the sharp rolloff. At least the SI shallow subs have good low end sensitivity.


----------



## Fricasseekid

Well, there are better subs out there for sure. But at $120 a pop, you wont find better performance than the polks. These things have impressed the **** outta me and I haven't owned em 24 hours yet.


----------



## 808Munkyeee

best shallow sub is?


----------



## subwoofery

808Munkyeee said:


> best shallow sub is?


Up to you to decide... 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

808Munkyeee said:


> best shallow sub is?


Sub modeling software is free. Go download WinISD, and go to town.


----------



## cvjoint

Since we were talking about Polks, I found a klippel test of the SR series, it tests godawful:

Subwoofer Test Report - Polk Audio SR124DVC - Subwoofer Reviews - Car Audio and Electronics

Without accounting for suspension or inductance nonlinearities it has less than 10 mm of stroke before it reaches 10% distortion due to motor nonlinearities alone. The suspension is just as bad based on the reading so pretty crappy.


----------



## Fricasseekid

cvjoint said:


> Since we were talking about Polks, I found a klippel test of the SR series, it tests godawful:
> 
> Subwoofer Test Report - Polk Audio SR124DVC - Subwoofer Reviews - Car Audio and Electronics
> 
> Without accounting for suspension or inductance nonlinearities it has less than 10 mm of stroke before it reaches 10% distortion due to motor nonlinearities alone. The suspension is just as bad based on the reading so pretty crappy.


Lots of companies have there crap speakers and their quality lines. I don't know much about the Polk SR but I can say the Polk MM is either nowhere near that bad, or that much distortion is inaudible. 

But even still, seeing as how the title of the thread is "the loudest shallow mount" and not the best, my vote still goes to the Polks. These things pound their ass off.
It's not the best sound quality I've ever heard but they sound real good at reasonable listening volumes (which is any volume low enough to blend with the mid bass in my setup). But I'm running them at 1 ohm so you can't say the speakers are to blame for any distortion heard at high volume. What's it called, power compression, or something like that?


----------



## cvjoint

Fricasseekid said:


> Lots of companies have there crap speakers and their quality lines. I don't know much about the Polk SR but I can say the Polk MM is either nowhere near that bad, or that much distortion is inaudible.
> 
> But even still, seeing as how the title of the thread is "the loudest shallow mount" and not the best, my vote still goes to the Polks. These things pound their ass off.
> It's not the best sound quality I've ever heard but they sound real good at reasonable listening volumes (which is any volume low enough to blend with the mid bass in my setup). But I'm running them at 1 ohm so you can't say the speakers are to blame for any distortion heard at high volume. What's it called, power compression, or something like that?


The SR stands for Signature Reference, usually their best offering. I would think that's as good as they can come up with. 

Power compression is still the woofer's fault as it can't dissipate heat quick enough through it's voicecoil and heatsinks. 

I would think the loudest shallow woofer is simply the one with the most mechanical throw. Xmech is given most of times and if not you have to dissect a speaker for it. The Alpine has that motor structure that goes through the spider. That should make it king of the hill for it's depth. The Polk could outdisplace it but then again it's not as shallow.


----------



## subwoofery

cvjoint said:


> Since we were talking about Polks, I found a klippel test of the SR series, it tests godawful:
> 
> Subwoofer Test Report - Polk Audio SR124DVC - Subwoofer Reviews - Car Audio and Electronics
> 
> Without accounting for suspension or inductance nonlinearities it has less than 10 mm of stroke before it reaches 10% distortion due to motor nonlinearities alone. The suspension is just as bad based on the reading so pretty crappy.


Strange??? Coz I had that white paper for a long time and thought it was a pretty good sub: http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/whitepapers/SR_WhitePaper.pdf 

Quality control problem? Or just play lie? :worried:

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

cvjoint said:


> The SR stands for Signature Reference, usually their best offering. I would think that's as good as they can come up with.
> 
> Power compression is still the woofer's fault as it can't dissipate heat quick enough through it's voicecoil and heatsinks.
> 
> I would think the loudest shallow woofer is simply the one with the most mechanical throw. Xmech is given most of times and if not you have to dissect a speaker for it. The Alpine has that motor structure that goes through the spider. That should make it king of the hill for it's depth. The Polk could outdisplace it but then again it's not as shallow.


Wonder what's your point of view regarding the SL10 and SL12 and their "Spiderless push pull suspension"... 
Since you said that Alpine made a _"motor structure that goes through the spider - making it king of the hill for it's depth"_ ; wouldn't a spiderless design be even better? Honest question really  

The voice coil is usually centered in the magnetic gap by the use of a spider suspension that limits its excursion. Cones high forces are created and the non-linear elasticity of the spider causes distortion. For better control of the excursion most manufacturers feature a double spider suspension to provide better control. Wonder what a spiderless suspension does... 

Here's a quote I found from a forum poster: "_Specifically, they provide returning force and a little damping. However, they are never ideal springs, and this contributes to distortion. They do have the benefit of both returning and locating the coil former, though_" 
^ wouldn't that mean that RE found a way to lower distorsion? 

Kelvin


----------



## Fricasseekid

I wish I could find a white sheet like that for the Polk MM. That info is nearly 6 years olds, If Polk's technology hasn't gone anywhere since then I'll be a monkey's uncle!


----------



## cvjoint

subwoofery said:


> Wonder what's your point of view regarding the SL10 and SL12 and their "Spiderless push pull suspension"...
> Since you said that Alpine made a _"motor structure that goes through the spider - making it king of the hill for it's depth"_ ; wouldn't a spiderless design be even better? Honest question really
> 
> The voice coil is usually centered in the magnetic gap by the use of a spider suspension that limits its excursion. Cones high forces are created and the non-linear elasticity of the spider causes distortion. For better control of the excursion most manufacturers feature a double spider suspension to provide better control. Wonder what a spiderless suspension does...
> 
> Here's a quote I found from a forum poster: "_Specifically, they provide returning force and a little damping. However, they are never ideal springs, and this contributes to distortion. They do have the benefit of both returning and locating the coil former, though_"
> ^ wouldn't that mean that RE found a way to lower distorsion?
> 
> Kelvin


Sounds to me like this spiderless design cannot center the voicecoil in the gap that well. I would think the clearances would be bigger as a result and therefore there would be less motor strength. If it's centered by the means of some funky surround that may take up the place of the spider in creating it's own distortion. 

I like that companies are innovating a lot nowadays, although I couldn't care less about the shallow subs given that all subs should have a minimum amount of room behind them. Sadly we don't have the tools and resources to test whether these new inventions work well. Look at all the tools the big boys are using:

Expanding Our Measurement Capabilities

I'm sure there are scientific ways to see the resonance in parts just like there are ways to check for their nonlinearities and they work quite well. 

I'm not sure why the white sheet on the SR varies so wildly from the 3rd party test. In this case the 3rd party is well experienced too. Not big into conspiracy theories but it would be nice to get a second opinion here, maybe send one to Erin for testing.

Alpine publishes their xmech I think, if the Polk does to it should be easy to check which one got it better.


----------



## subwoofery

cvjoint said:


> Sounds to me like this spiderless design cannot center the voicecoil in the gap that well. I would think the clearances would be bigger as a result and therefore there would be less motor strength. If it's centered by the means of some funky surround that may take up the place of the spider in creating it's own distortion.
> 
> I like that companies are innovating a lot nowadays, although I couldn't care less about the shallow subs given that all subs should have a minimum amount of room behind them. Sadly we don't have the tools and resources to test whether these new inventions work well. Look at all the tools the big boys are using:
> 
> Expanding Our Measurement Capabilities
> 
> I'm sure there are scientific ways to see the resonance in parts just like there are ways to check for their nonlinearities and they work quite well.
> 
> I'm not sure why the white sheet on the SR varies so wildly from the 3rd party test. In this case the 3rd party is well experienced too. Not big into conspiracy theories but it would be nice to get a second opinion here, maybe send one to Erin for testing.
> 
> Alpine publishes their xmech I think, if the Polk does to it should be easy to check which one got it better.


Gonna try to e-mail RE Audio in order to have more infos regarding this. 
Do you have questions I should ask on top of that? Regarding the design of the driver? 

Am gonna ask if they have some klippel measurements (don't think they will send me anything regarding this though - one can hope :blush and what the spiderless suspension adds to the performance. Also want to know the voice-coil size/dimensions... 

Kelvin


----------



## jdizzle0305

hahahahaha


----------



## subwoofery

^ hell of a first post... 

Kelvin


----------



## cvjoint

subwoofery said:


> Gonna try to e-mail RE Audio in order to have more infos regarding this.
> Do you have questions I should ask on top of that? Regarding the design of the driver?
> 
> Am gonna ask if they have some klippel measurements (don't think they will send me anything regarding this though - one can hope :blush and what the spiderless suspension adds to the performance. Also want to know the voice-coil size/dimensions...
> 
> Kelvin


If they send Klippel results that would be good enough. You'll find that a lot of car audio brands simply do not have the overhead to test their drivers, no Klippel no AES power ratings etc. If they don't have these tools to optimize their speakers they will likely perform very bad as well, why test if you know it's not going to be good.


----------



## cvjoint

subwoofery said:


> Strange??? Coz I had that white paper for a long time and thought it was a pretty good sub: http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/whitepapers/SR_WhitePaper.pdf
> 
> Quality control problem? Or just play lie? :worried:
> 
> Kelvin


I looked at this again. Patrick at Red Rock A. was the tester, that guy really knows his stuff. Not sure what's going on. The white sheet gives about 14mm of linear BL, while the 3rd party is only at 9mm. Some of that is due to a motor offset, but even then there are 2 mm of BL missing if centered. 

Let's say the white sheet is the true performance. It's got 14mm of motor throw and about 11mm of suspension throw. Inductance isn't even tested but i'm guessing is very poor since no shorting rings are mentioned. A cheap Dayton RS sub, at only $130 has just as much motor and a bit more suspension throw. Add on top of that an intricate web of shorting rings to address inductance. The Dayton is flat out superior. I'm also basing this comparo on a 3rd party Klippel test on the Dayton. I tend to favor Patrick's results as more unbiased. The Dayton is far far superior anyway you put it. 

This is everyday life in the car audio world, lots of $ spend on inferior product and shiny fat baskets. For better performance I would seriously look into DIY products, either the Dayton shallow sub or maybe this SB acoustics:

SB Acoustics SW26DAC76-4 Shallow 10" Subwoofer 4 ohm: Madisound Speaker Store


----------



## Fricasseekid

The chart published by Polk may not show alot of throw but it is very symmetrical.
CA&E's test came from a DVC sub. Is it possible that the test report posted by Polk could've been a SVC sub and that might explain the difference in symmetry? 

I know a speaker Q can vary widely from DVC and SVC, could the same be said for BL?


----------



## Fricasseekid

cvjoint said:


> I looked at this again. Patrick at Red Rock A. was the tester, that guy really knows his stuff. Not sure what's going on. The white sheet gives about 14mm of linear BL, while the 3rd party is only at 9mm. Some of that is due to a motor offset, but even then there are 2 mm of BL missing if centered.
> 
> Let's say the white sheet is the true performance. It's got 14mm of motor throw and about 11mm of suspension throw. Inductance isn't even tested but i'm guessing is very poor since no shorting rings are mentioned. A cheap Dayton RS sub, at only $130 has just as much motor and a bit more suspension throw. Add on top of that an intricate web of shorting rings to address inductance. The Dayton is flat out superior. I'm also basing this comparo on a 3rd party Klippel test on the Dayton. I tend to favor Patrick's results as more unbiased. The Dayton is far far superior anyway you put it.
> 
> This is everyday life in the car audio world, lots of $ spend on inferior product and shiny fat baskets. For better performance I would seriously look into DIY products, either the Dayton shallow sub or maybe this SB acoustics:
> 
> SB Acoustics SW26DAC76-4 Shallow 10" Subwoofer 4 ohm: Madisound Speaker Store


Yet the SR is not the sub being scrutinized here, it's the Polk MM which is cheaper than the Dayton.


----------



## cvjoint

Fricasseekid said:


> The chart published by Polk may not show alot of throw but it is very symmetrical.
> CA&E's test came from a DVC sub. Is it possible that the test report posted by Polk could've been a SVC sub and that might explain the difference in symmetry?
> 
> I know a speaker Q can vary widely from DVC and SVC, could the same be said for BL?


No dice, the BL will shift from one coil configuration to another but the shape will remain the same. It could be production variance, or maybe Polk tested a test version while RRA had an actual production unit. Concept vs production unit thing.


----------



## muhammd

I believe the Rockford Fosgate P3D2 is the loudest shallow mount subwoofer out there. it has magnificent build quality and it is awesome with the lows


----------



## BP1Fanatic

Well, you are comparing a 2017 sub to a 2011 sub. My Polk MM1540DVC's are still going strong!


----------



## Red Saber

I would put the Digital Designs shallow in that loudest list. High power handling for a shallow.


----------



## SkizeR

Red Saber said:


> I would put the Digital Designs shallow in that loudest list. High power handling for a shallow.


Just modeled this out of curiosity.. You clearly havent used it, or many other shallow mounts, have you? on paper this thing is more of a beefy midbass


----------



## Red Saber

I’ve installed a few. They get pretty nasty.


----------



## rton20s

Was there really a need for a thread revival here? It died in 2011 and there was already a failed attempt at revival a year ago.


----------



## SkizeR

rton20s said:


> Was there really a need for a thread revival here? It died in 2011 and there was already a failed attempt at revival a year ago.


absolutely


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Shallow is shallow does


----------



## BP1Fanatic

Lol!


----------

