# What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --> two AF GB12s??



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

*What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --> two AF GB12s??*

I would be using my current amp, Zapco ST-1000XM, and they'd be wired to 1 ohm.

I would build a new sealed box to the appropriate specs... The current box I have the TW3s in is 35 x 17 x 6 = 1.352 cf, but I do have quite a bit more room for a larger box. I think I could easily give them 2 cf...

Here is my current. You can see there is plenty of room to expand without messing with the anesthetics or fitment much. I can go up and back a couple inches in each direction. 





















The TW3s are great, but I do find myself wanting a little more from time to time, especially in the low end. 

*Would it be worth it???*


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

More output, better SQ, a big ass smile on ur face 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

A really hot amp and a lot of current draw.  


Seriously, though, why wire to 1 ohm? I'm not worried about 'sq', but would think that load would be more of a drag on your electrical system. Don't they come in different VC configurations to permit you to run a lower load?


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

Won’t get as much power wiring 2ohm or 4ohm. Especially for two 12’s in a sealed enclosure 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

ErinH said:


> A really hot amp and a lot of current draw.
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, why wire to 1 ohm? I'm not worried about 'sq', but would think that load would be more of a drag on your electrical system. Don't they come in different VC configurations to permit you to run a lower load?


Dual 2 and 4 ohm...

At 2ohm, my amp puts out 828 rms and I feel like the GBs could handle more than that, no?


----------



## quickaudi07 (May 19, 2010)

DavidRam said:


> Dual 2 and 4 ohm...
> 
> 
> 
> At 2ohm, my amp puts out 828 rms and I feel like the GBs could handle more than that, no?


GB are underated subs.. they could take more... Just don't go to crazy at it 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

DavidRam said:


> Dual 2 and 4 ohm...
> 
> At 2ohm, my amp puts out 828 rms and I feel like the GBs could handle more than that, no?


I dunno man.... I'd guess you'll never reach the full power rating assuming the sub isn't completely overpowering the rest of your system or you're not running high-sensitivity drivers. 

Plus, you'd have to double the 828 rms to get only 3dB more output. If the spec above is indeed your amp then there's only 250w difference between the 1 ohm/2 ohm load. At 800w rms you're well above 120dB. And we're not even talking with cabin gain.

Also, if you look at the spec on the website for the sub:
•RMS Power Handling: 500 W

You're basically at the threshold recommended by the mfg. 


If you feel you really need that little bit of extra power then go ahead. I just don't see it, looking from the sidelines.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

And to answer your original question:

Model the two up in a modeling program like WinISD. You'll see right aware what trade offs you will get. I can only assume you'll have more lower end output but can't tell you how much at what frequency without modeling them myself.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

ErinH said:


> I dunno man.... I'd guess you'll never reach the full power rating assuming the sub isn't completely overpowering the rest of your system or you're not running high-sensitivity drivers.
> 
> Plus, you'd have to double the 828 rms to get only 3dB more output. If the spec above is indeed your amp then there's only 250w difference between the 1 ohm/2 ohm load. At 800w rms you're well above 120dB. And we're not even talking with cabin gain.
> 
> ...


Thanks! And that's exactly why I ask you guys about these things...  I am not very technically inclined. I am always thinking about JLs threshold for the TW3s and if kinda holds me back from twisting the happy knob as high as I'd like to... 

So let's say I go from the 10" Tw3s, which are currently wired to 1 ohm (1095 rms), to the 12" GBs and wire them to 2 ohm (828 rms), AND build a larger box, should I expect a significant increase in the low end?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

DavidRam said:


> Thanks! And that's exactly why I ask you guys about these things...  I am not very technically inclined. I am always thinking about JLs threshold for the TW3s and if kinda holds me back from twisting the happy knob as high as I'd like to...
> 
> So let's say I go from the 10" Tw3s (which are currently wired to 1 ohm (1095 rms), to the 12" GBs and wire them to 2 ohm (828 rms), AND build a larger box, should I expect a significant increase in the low end?


Significant?... well, that's kind of relative; is significant 6dB at 30hz or 3dB? No one can tell you for sure without modeling up a comparison. You have to factor in Fs, Vas and Qts of the drivers but you have to do so with the box in mind to get you the Fc and Qtc (which will tell you the point and severity of the roll off). 

I'd guess you'd gain some low end but wouldn't venture a guess past that. Model it, or ask someone here if they can do it for you.


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

To be fair, Audiofrog posted a build on their page earlier last year or the year before, with a guy with 1200 watts going to each GB12. I don’t think 500 watts is gonna hurt them lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metanium (Feb 2, 2007)

Just do it, then report back here on how much you gained. BTW, I've owned both of the subs discussed, but have only ran them as singles. The GB12 is a flipping monster! I've never had a sub that went lower/sounded better doing it, so effortlessly.


----------



## jsolo53 (Dec 8, 2015)

DavidRam said:


> *What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --> two AF GB12s??*
> 
> I would be using my current amp, Zapco ST-1000XM, and they'd be wired to 1 ohm.
> 
> ...


Two 12"s will give you extension and ability to move more air, i.e. lower and louder. (assuming the box volume is appropriate for the 12"s and that they are close to the 10"s in efficiency) 12"s are a good choice.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

How does that impedance switch work?? I have never seen such a thing...


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

DavidRam said:


> How does that impedance switch work?? I have never seen such a thing...












Instead of having to wire it differently, u just flip the switch over 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

MrGreen83 said:


> Instead of having to wire it differently, u just flip the switch over
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So it looks like the D2 would be 1 or 4 ohm, and the D4 would be 2 or 8 ohm. ****, that confused me even more! Lol

If I have two, which one would allow me to choose between 1 ohm or 2 ohm, the D2 or D4?


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

DavidRam said:


> So it looks like the D2 would be 1 or 4 ohm, and the D4 would be 2 or 8 ohm. ****, that confused me even more! Lol
> 
> 
> 
> If I have two, which one would allow me to choose between 1 ohm or 2 ohm, the D2 or D4?




Lmao I get confused all the time when I start thinking of doing more than 1...and start tryna figure out impedance. I’m the wrong person to ask 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

DavidRam said:


> So it looks like the D2 would be 1 or 4 ohm, and the D4 would be 2 or 8 ohm. ****, that confused me even more! Lol
> 
> 
> 
> If I have two, which one would allow me to choose between 1 ohm or 2 ohm, the D2 or D4?




1 ohm- two D4’s, 2 ohm- two D2’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> So it looks like the D2 would be 1 or 4 ohm, and the D4 would be 2 or 8 ohm. ****, that confused me even more! Lol
> 
> If I have two, which one would allow me to choose between 1 ohm or 2 ohm, the D2 or D4?


If you are doing a pair of DVC subs, a pair of D4 sub will give to the option of a combined impedance of 16ohms, 4 ohms or 1 ohm.

A pair of D2 subs will give to the options of running 8ohms, 2 ohms or 1/2 ohm.

What are you trying to improve upon from the JL's? Better SQ or betterSQ plus output? Do you feel you need to play lower? How would you feel about a pair of GB10's? I think that would give you better SQ, more output, and you could go ported if you wanted to play lower.

I just switched from a GB10 to a SI RM12, and to be all together honest i think i miss my GB10's. Don't get me wrong, i love the RM-12, but a part of me misses the GB10.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Dave, I don’t think it’s really worth it over those JL but I could model these for you in Bassbox Pro next time I have the laptop open. I know the GB12 D2 is more efficient than the D4 on the same power so you will get more volume if the wattage was the same. See the difference between the GB12D2 sealed in 1.8 yellow vs D4 green. 









Here is the difference between the two ported and all else the same. The D4 has a slight advantage below 48 Hz but above that the D2 is louder. 









I have a GB12 that i’m Just getting broken in. Haven’t had much play time with it yet.


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

I only had 300 watts going to my GB12 in a ported box. That thing hit so hard it was insane!!! (So loud in fact someone broke in my car and stole it along with my whole system) :-( 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

Do it!!!!! I'm going with 2 gb12d2 to run a final of load of 2 ohms. Currently I'm using 2 jl 10w3 in a ported box that I built before I knew about building boxes. I stuffed the port to help flatten the response but still don't have the low end I'm looking for. From everything I have heard I'm excited to go two 12"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

I disagree with those saying it wouldn't be that big a jump. Let me count the various ways going from a pair of JL 10TW3 to a pair of AF GB12 would improve performance.

1. GB12D4 has at least 20% more excursion and I expected it would be an even greater difference and could be down to how the excursion was calculated (19mm on GB12D4 to 15.2 on 10TW3)

2. GB12D4 has 20% greater power handling though as some said, the AF is rated conservatively and I'd assume it could handle more power than the JL since the GB has a larger magnet and some venting of the magnet.

3. The GB12D4 has greater sensitivity so would play louder on the same number of watts though it isn't a clean comparison since the GB12 measures at 92 dB sensitivity (2.83V/1M) vs the 82 dB of efficiency (1w/1m) of the 10TW3.

4. Saving the largest difference for last, the effective piston area (Sd) is almost 29% greater for the GB12 vs the 10TW3.

Taken all together, I'd expect there to be a significant difference across the board. You'll have more output at all frequencies but especially down low. I haven't tested the JL 10TW3 but have tested the 12TW3 and it is a nice driver but there are tradeoffs when building a shallow driver.Really these two shouldn't even be compared since you're comparing a shallow 10" subwoofer vs a quality normal 12" subwoofer. A more apt comparison would be a normal 10" with a shallow 12", at least that would give the 10" a chance.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> If you are doing a pair of DVC subs, a pair of D4 sub will give to the option of a combined impedance of 16ohms, 4 ohms or 1 ohm.
> 
> A pair of D2 subs will give to the options of running 8ohms, 2 ohms or 1/2 ohm.
> 
> ...


Thanks! I don't think think there is much improvement needed in SQ with the JLs, they are beautiful sounding subs... There is a slight roll off on the bottom end and that is what I would like to fix. So I guess I want to, at least, maintain the SQ of the JLs, but add some output to the equation. I also have a mental issue, and that is the limited wattage and abuse I feel like the TW3s can take... I don't want to be worried AT ALL, about letting it rip when I feel like it!  
I thought about the GB10s, but I'd be concerned that they wouldn't give me as much of an improvement as the 12s would. Price is not an object and I have roughly 2+ cf to play with.
Three builds ago, I had two SI BM MK IVs on 800 watts, and despite sounding amazing, they did not give me the output I wanted. 

In my previous Jeep, I had one of these in a large ported box and that thing gave me goose bumps form time to time...


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

V8toilet said:


> Dave, I don’t think it’s really worth it over those JL but *I could model these for you in Bassbox Pro next time I have the laptop open*. I know the GB12 D2 is more efficient than the D4 on the same power so you will get more volume if the wattage was the same. See the difference between the GB12D2 sealed in 1.8 yellow vs D4 green.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks! If you don't mind doing that, it would be awesome! I have approx 2 cf to play with, and it would be two GB12s at 2 ohm (or 1 ohm if need be). I'm fairly certain I don't have room for ported, so sealed it is.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> Thanks! If you don't mind doing that, it would be awesome! I have approx 2 cf to play with, and it would be two GB12s at 2 ohm (or 1 ohm if need be). I'm fairly certain I don't have room for ported, so sealed it is.


Sealed for a pair of GB12's would be 2cuft, and ported would be 3 cuft, plus ports space so closer to 4 by the time you add in driver and port.

Can i throw a curveball? the SI RM12 sealed is also going to be 2 cuft total for 2 sealed and if you are just talking sealed, i think the SQ of the RM is as good as the SQ of the GB. Its going to be cheaper to buy too. Only 2 downsides, its a lot heavier and is also a lot taller. 

Only reason i was saying earlier that i miss my GB, is that imo, the GB sounds better ported than the RM, and i like ported SQ boxes.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> Sealed for a pair of GB12's would be 2cuft, and ported would be 3 cuft, plus ports space so closer to 4 by the time you add in driver and port.
> 
> Can i throw a curveball? the SI RM12 sealed is also going to be 2 cuft total for 2 sealed and if you are just talking sealed, i think the SQ of the RM is as good as the SQ of the GB. Its going to be cheaper to buy too. Only 2 downsides, its a lot heavier and is also a lot taller.
> 
> Only reason i was saying earlier that i miss my GB, is that imo, the GB sounds better ported than the RM, and i like ported SQ boxes.


That is a great thought. I have looked at the RM12, and it's height might be a hair to tall... My trunk gets sealed off with the factory lid at factory height and I'd like to keep that level of stealth.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

I changed my mind and think if you want more output than you cant go wrong with these. Yeah the GB12 kill the TW3 10's in output. Modeled below is two TW3 you have sealed in 1.352 cu ft vs two BG12 D2 sealed in 2 cu ft. Both have 1000 watts applied in the model. GB12 are shown in red. 









EDIT: one GB12 in 1.8 cube net ported will have more low end output by 2.9 db at 35 Hz and 600 watts than 2 sealed in 2 cubes with 1000 watts.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

V8toilet said:


> EDIT: one GB12 in 1.8 cube net ported will have more low end output by 2.9 db at 35 Hz and 600 watts than 2 sealed in 2 cubes with 1000 watts.


I didn't model but that is a good point though it depends on what the OP wants. I like sealed as I want my subs to play below 30 Hz with authority and ported falls hard below port tune though you don't mention what the port tune is. And below port tune, the sub should have a high-pass to protect the sub. But you definitely make a good point and could be a good option depending on what the OP's goals are.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

dgage said:


> I didn't model but that is a good point though it depends on what the OP wants. I like sealed as I want my subs to play below 30 Hz with authority and ported falls hard below port tune though you don't mention what the port tune is. And below port tune, the sub should have a high-pass to protect the sub. But you definitely make a good point and could be a good option depending on what the OP's goals are.


Forgot that important spec, its 33 Hz. There isn't much information below 30 Hz anyway for most music.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Here is the normalized response so you can see the difference.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

V8toilet said:


> Forgot that important spec, its 33 Hz. There isn't much information below 30 Hz anyway for most music.
> 
> View attachment 239439


People often say the same thing about home theater content below 20Hz.  I like the option as there is some content that plays deep both in music and in movies. Some don't.


----------



## Garcbomber (May 26, 2017)

Gains.

1. Substantially lighter pocketbook 
2. The most bland looking driver ever assembled, your JL setup is an aesthetically impressive show peice. I’m afraid you’ll regret the little bit of output gained unless you bang music 24/7.

Keep the current setup, vent a new enclosure first if you want to experiment.

I’m sure the AF is great and it’s difficult to put a value on sound, but no where f*cking near $600 better than TW3s given the same power. JMHo.


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

*What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --&gt; two AF GB12s??*

Subs are for being heard/felt, not seen. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

*Re: What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --&gt; two AF GB12s??*



MrGreen83 said:


> Subs are for being heard/felt, not seen.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Come on man don't you look at your subs while your doing 65 on the highway?? Hahah 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

A single GB12 doesn't look bad at all. I prefer the GB10 subs if space is an issue. I've been thinking about switching to a JL 10tw3 myself


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Here. Modeled one of each in a 1 cubic foot enclosure (which they both end up with a VERY close QTC in), and applied power to reach their Xmax at 20hz in said enclosures (950 for the gb12, 420 for the tw3). Over 7.5 db more output across most of the board, then still up by 4.5db at 20hz


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

V8toilet said:


> I changed my mind and think if you want more output than you cant go wrong with these. Yeah the GB12 kill the TW3 10's in output. Modeled below is two TW3 you have sealed in 1.352 cu ft vs two BG12 D2 sealed in 2 cu ft. Both have 1000 watts applied in the model. GB12 are shown in red.
> 
> View attachment 239437
> 
> ...


the problem with applying the same amount of power is that one may or may not run out of steam before the other. In this case, one does run out of steam way before the other.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

V8toilet said:


> I changed my mind and think if you want more output than you cant go wrong with these. Yeah the GB12 kill the TW3 10's in output. Modeled below is two TW3 you have sealed in 1.352 cu ft vs two BG12 D2 sealed in 2 cu ft. Both have 1000 watts applied in the model. GB12 are shown in red.
> 
> View attachment 239437
> 
> ...


Cool, thanks so much for doing all this!!


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> Here. Modeled one of each in a 1 cubic foot enclosure (which they both end up with a VERY close QTC in), and applied power to reach their Xmax at 20hz in said enclosures (950 for the gb12, 420 for the tw3). Over 7.5 db more output across most of the board, then still up by 4.5db at 20hz


Thanks Nick! Do you think I would be under-powering 2 GB12s with the amp that I have? Again, I've got 828 @ 2 ohm, and 1095 @ 1 ohm... Erin got me thinking about 2 vs 1 ohm...


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Let's say money is not an object, what's better?

1. two GB12s in 2.0 cf sealed

2. one GB12 in 2.0 cf ported

3. two GB10s in 2.0 cf ported

I have never built a ported box before, so there's that. 

Staying with my current JLs is not an option, at least not long term. I'm going through a phase of trying to remove any limitations or weaknesses from my system. To me, the JLs are awesome, IF you need great sound quality and decent output in a restricted amount of space... I bought them for my Mazda, and with the above in mind. The Jeep is a different animal.


----------



## OCD66 (Apr 2, 2017)

Option 1


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Let's say money is not an object, what's better?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Option 1 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Thanks guys!

Damn, I wish I knew how to add a pole to this thread...


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

think we should to turn this into another "how to use winisd" thread?


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> think we should to turn this into another "how to use winisd" thread?


Yes, please do


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> the problem with applying the same amount of power is that one may or may not run out of steam before the other. In this case, one does run out of steam way before the other.


SkizeR, please keep in mind that those models are for two Tw3 and two GB12 for each model so 1000 watts to each setup or two drivers. I didn’t check the driver excursion though (good catch) so now the GB12’s look even better.


----------



## KillerBox (Jan 7, 2011)

I am running two GB10D2 in a divided and ported enclosure. Enclosure was built almost to AudioFrog’s maximum size recommendation of 1.7cu ft per side and tuned to 32hz. My amplifiers are capable of 600 watts @ 4 ohms to each sub (1,200w total)

To get to the standard Harmon Audio or House Curves of +9db, I had to cut a lot. When I first installed and running +5db gain overlap, my subs were over 25db louder than the rest of my system in the area of 32hz to 50hz.

To get my system to balance out, I am running my sub channel gains at the minimum (that decreased my output about -8db). Then with my Graphic EQ, I cut the frequencies from 32hz to 50hz -10db to -6db and it plays with the same intensity from 25hz to 50hz.

Now my system sounds great and my subs hardly move. Greater Efficiency = Easier load for Vehicle’s Electrical System. Less movement = Less distortion.

I might add the rest of my system is not lacking for power. My system is setup as Logic7 system (total system including the two subs is 150w x 6, 300w x 4 and 600w x2)

In my opinion the AudioFrog GB speakers are great speakers.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

With two GB12s, do I want to be able to wire them to 1 ohm, or 2 ohm?

(Zapco ST-1000 = measured, 1 ohm 828, 2 ohm 1095)


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

DavidRam said:


> With two GB12s, do I want to be able to wire them to 1 ohm, or 2 ohm?
> 
> 
> 
> (Zapco ST-1000 = measured, 1 ohm 828, 2 ohm 1095)




That seems very different from the numbers posted on the site 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

MrGreen83 said:


> That seems very different from the numbers posted on the site
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I got those from Zapco's president... Remember that thread about the Zapco dyno on Youtube? I sent Enzo my serial numbers and he looked up those numbers for me.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

KillerBox said:


> I am running two GB10D2 in a divided and ported enclosure. Enclosure was built almost to AudioFrog’s maximum size recommendation of 1.7cu ft per side and tuned to 32hz. My amplifiers are capable of 600 watts @ 4 ohms to each sub (1,200w total)
> 
> To get to the standard Harmon Audio or House Curves of +9db, I had to cut a lot. When I first installed and running +5db gain overlap, my subs were over 25db louder than the rest of my system in the area of 32hz to 50hz.
> 
> ...


Just a thought. Since you had to tame down the GB10's so much to get a good balance, would a good SQ sub with less output and just as capable of going low have been adequate. Or perhaps only using one GB10 vs. two. I only ask because I struggle with this question myself. I am only using one 12 inch sealed sub and sometimes I feel as though its not enough, but 90% of the time its perfect. By the time everything is level matched to a perfect house curve for sound Quality is there much difference going from one to two subs if one will do the trick once everything is level matched?


----------



## KillerBox (Jan 7, 2011)

Stycker said:


> Just a thought. Since you had to tame down the GB10's so much to get a good balance, would a good SQ sub with less output and just as capable of going low have been adequate. Or perhaps only using one GB10 vs. two. I only ask because I struggle with this question myself. I am only using one 12 inch sealed sub and sometimes I feel as though its not enough, but 90% of the time its perfect. By the time everything is level matched to a perfect house curve for sound Quality is there much difference going from one to two subs if one will do the trick once everything is level matched?


Stycker let me start with saying that I am an amateur and in the late 1980s, I ran sealed boxes because I couldn't afford the time or money to buy and adjust a 30 band EQ. 

Now with the cheap and easy processing power of EQs, I am a big fan of Ported enclosures tuned low enough not kill the bottom frequencies.

Some things the SPL crowd has done has helped this hobby thrive but, I think their running ports at higher frequencies and becoming a One Note Wonder has hurt people's image of Ported Enclosures.

Read This: https://www.diymobileaudio.com/foru.../129299-designed-sealed-ported-explained.html

To answer your question, I probably would have been perfectly happy with just one GB10D2 in a ported enclosure and I have been known to listen to bass heavy rap music - loud. 

With that being said, my dual subs should have less distortion than just one sub playing at the same volume level. And I have the options of adjusting my output more with two subs, so I am glad that I sparred the room for two subs. 

With my extra power and efficiency, I can listen for hours and never have to worry about my equipment overheating or breaking.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

KillerBox said:


> Stycker let me start with saying that I am an amateur and in the late 1980s, I ran sealed boxes because I couldn't afford the time or money to buy and adjust a 30 band EQ.
> 
> Now with the cheap and easy processing power of EQs, I am a big fan of Ported enclosures tuned low enough not kill the bottom frequencies.
> 
> ...


First off DavidRam I am sorry for jumping on your thread, but I do feel that this is relevant. If you want me to start a new thread just say the word. Thank you killerbox. I was one of those that always thought a sealed box was preferable for SQ Vs. a ported box. I have not used a ported box in over twenty years probably because I didn't have a processor or box calculator twenty years ago. If I increase my box size to go ported then the box would also be big enough for two 10 or 12 inch subs sealed. I will try my single 12 inch ported this spring and report back.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

First, I am a sealed guy and always have been which means I'm somewhat closed minded as the ported I've heard both in vehicles and some top "sound-quality" music and home-theater ported subs I've heard have sometimes had issues. Ported is more efficient above port tune, which means a comparable ported sub will have much more output near the port tune and above with the same amount of power or the same output as sealed with less power. My son plays trumpet and the same concept applies to ported subs, a little air in to the trumpet results in much more output at the other end. 

I'm going to start with sealed enclosures, also called acoustic suspension as they are incredibly simple with many good points but some downsides as well. Sealed are also known as acoustic suspension because the sealed box helps control the sub's suspension, pushing against it when the sub is moving its cone into the enclosure. This is why sealed subs are often able to handle more power than a corresponding ported enclosure, the sealed enclosure helps control the sub's suspension. As mentioned multiple times, sealed is also the simplest to build since you just need to calculate the internal airspace for the enclosure to match the driver but don't forget to account for the driver's displacement (magnet, frame).

Sealed does have some downsides as well. We've already discussed it doesn't have the efficiency of ported enclosures. Enclosures also roll off gradually on the low end though many that use sealed use a Linkwitz-Transform (DSP) to combat the shallow rolloff and extend the low end capability, essentially use more power since amplifier power is cheap to give the sub more low end capability.

Ported does have some issues though. The first is the complexity of building the enclosure as enclosure volume and port tune (area of port) are related and essential to proper sound reproduction. The second is choosing the port size as if you make the port too small, you could get "chuffing", which is where the air coming out of the port is moving too fast and will be audible. Another issue with ported subs though not necessarily in a car is the phase and matching up with your speakers. A sealed has sound coming off of the subwoofer while a ported has sound coming from the subwoofer and from the port so these need to be accounted for and aligned. Again, this isn't as big an issue in a smaller car as it is in the home with larger rooms. The final thing with ported is that since it isn't sealed, if strong output plays below the port tune, the sub will not have any protection and only the sub's own suspension will be involved, which is why ported subs need a high-pass crossover just below the port tune to protect the driver. This often means sealed, especially with a Linkwitz Transform, will play louder and deeper than a similar ported. 

So really it all comes down to what you want. As you heard from KillerBox, he had a pair of GB10s ported and had to turn them down between 35-50 Hz, especially in the area where the port provides greatest efficiency, the subs won't be working hard at all and will have reduced distortion. You'd need to get dual sealed GB12s to (almost?) equal the capability of the ported GB10s but you'd be able to play them more naturally from below 30-80+ Hz. Airspace would be similar but the sealed GB12s would need more amp power for the same output. Sound quality wise it should be similar though sealed handles being pushed harder than SOME ported setups.

I'm sure I'm simplifying some things and even missing some points but I've come back to this post multiple times and need to move on to other tasks. You really can't go wrong with either choice as you'll have nice output and good sound quality with either.


----------



## MrGreen83 (Jun 11, 2015)

I’m gonna go ahead and say I prefer 4th order over both sealed & ported (I’ve had all 3). You’d be very surprised at the results (if built correctly). 

I mean...it’s the best of both worlds....it’s sealed and ported. U get all the benefits of each type. It’s also easy to get wrong...when it comes to building an SQ setup. 

But hey, if this was all easy, we’d never have any questions & it wouldn’t be as fun  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Attached below are graphs that show the cone displacement with Dave's current configuration and the response in regards to SPL at 1000 watts. Shown in red are two TW3 in a 1.352 cu ft sealed enclosure. In Bassbox Pro the program shows that excursion is held in check with 1000 watts applied to two JL Audio TW3 and as dgage noted, the smaller sealed enclosure helps. Because Dave only has one amplifier for the GB12 as he noted I also applied the same power to two GB12's, but in 2 cubic feet sealed as he had suggested. See below graphs.









As noted before its pretty obvious that the GB12's are the clear winners when it comes to overall SPL ability.









Shown below are two GB10 sealed vs two GB10 ported in 2 cu ft (fb 33) with the same 1000 watts of power.









Shown below is the same graph with the two GB10 sealed and ported but with two GB12 sealed in 2 cu ft for comparison with the same 1000 watts. The GB12 is shown in green.









Below in purple is a GB12 D4 ported in 1.5 cu ft and tuned to 33 hz compared to two GB12 D2 sealed in 2 cu ft but I cannot show two different sub configurations with two different power levels in the same graph in this program. Without a subsonic filter the GB12 D4 would run out of excursion at 26 Hz and also note that the GB12 is really rated for 600 watts power handling so the two GB12D2 should still be louder sealed on 1000 watts vs the GB12 D4 ported on 600 watts. 









Because I cant show it in one graph I'll just post the numbers comparing the 2 GB12 sealed on 1000 watts to one GB12 on 600 watts here. 

The two GB12 D2 sealed in 2 cu ft and on 1000 watts does:

@ 25 Hz 107.9 db
@35 Hz 113.6 db
@ 40 Hz 115.5 db
@ 50 Hz 118.2

The one GB12 D4 ported in 1.5 cu ft (fb 33 Hz) and on 600watts does:

@ 25 Hz 105.7db
@35 Hz 113.3db
@ 40 Hz 114.9db
@ 50 Hz 117

As you can see they are damn close so it really should come down to your cabin gain and what type of box sound you prefer. I'll be experimenting with my GB12 with ported vs sealed come late spring when I'm done with some required training and the weather is conductive to cutting outside. I'll take some REW measurements and compare them.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

dgage said:


> First, I am a sealed guy and always have been which means I'm somewhat closed minded as the ported I've heard both in vehicles and some top "sound-quality" music and home-theater ported subs I've heard have sometimes had issues. Ported is more efficient above port tune, which means a comparable ported sub will have much more output near the port tune and above with the same amount of power or the same output as sealed with less power. My son plays trumpet and the same concept applies to ported subs, a little air in to the trumpet results in much more output at the other end.
> 
> I'm going to start with sealed enclosures, also called acoustic suspension as they are incredibly simple with many good points but some downsides as well. Sealed are also known as acoustic suspension because the sealed box helps control the sub's suspension, pushing against it when the sub is moving its cone into the enclosure. This is why sealed subs are often able to handle more power than a corresponding ported enclosure, the sealed enclosure helps control the sub's suspension. As mentioned multiple times, sealed is also the simplest to build since you just need to calculate the internal airspace for the enclosure to match the driver but don't forget to account for the driver's displacement (magnet, frame).
> 
> ...


Man, thanks... Awesome explanation! I am quite sure I am sticking with sealed, too. 



V8toilet said:


> Attached below are graphs that show the cone displacement with Dave's current configuration and the response in regards to SPL at 1000 watts. Shown in red are two TW3 in a 1.352 cu ft sealed enclosure. In Bassbox Pro the program shows that excursion is held in check with 1000 watts applied to two JL Audio TW3 and as dgage noted, the smaller sealed enclosure helps. Because Dave only has one amplifier for the GB12 as he noted I also applied the same power to two GB12's, but in 2 cubic feet sealed as he had suggested. See below graphs.
> 
> View attachment 239455
> 
> ...


Hey man, you're awesome! Thanks for doing all this!


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

I did some measuring: I have 3 inches between the current box (6" high) and the deck lid... I know I need about 6 3/4" of hanging depth and about 3/4" sticking out on top of the baffle... 

*I am going to estimate the space I have for the box is 34.5"w x 21"d x 7"h.*

I might have another .5" in height if I can figure out how much the subs move. That .5" on top would add 10% to the box size, so it's something...


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

FWIW, there is another thread here about 10" shallow sub suggestions...maybe you could sell him your 10Tw3's


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> I did some measuring: I have 3 inches between the current box (6" high) and the deck lid... I know I need about 6 3/4" of hanging depth and about 3/4" sticking out on top of the baffle...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In that internal size?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> In that internal size?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Total exterior box size... And I will be using 3/4" baltic birch plywood (because I hate mdf).


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> FWIW, there is another thread here about 10" shallow sub suggestions...maybe you could sell him your 10Tw3's


Thanks! I will be pulling them out, taking pics and posting them FS in the next few days.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Which direction are you going with the subs now Dave?


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

V8toilet said:


> Which direction are you going with the subs now Dave?


Most likely the GB12s, thanks to you, it looks like they will give me exactly what I'm missing...

It looks like my final measurements came back pretty close to what I'd guessed. Is there any way of knowing how much space I need above the sub so it doesn't hit the trunk's deck lid?


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

DavidRam said:


> Most likely the GB12s, thanks to you, it looks like they will give me exactly what I'm missing...
> 
> It looks like my final measurements came back pretty close to what I'd guessed. Is there any way of knowing how much space I need above the sub so it doesn't hit the trunk's deck lid?


That would be a question I would shoot over to Any at AudioFrog, he's very helpful.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

V8toilet said:


> That would be a question I would shoot over to Andy at AudioFrog, he's very helpful.


Just sent him an email


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Here is my dilemma trying to fit the GB12s:

_The top line is the trunk's lid, the total available height is 9"... I need a minimum of 6.75: to hang the sub. The box is .75" thick birch..._










*Is this too tight and too close???*


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DavidRam said:


> Most likely the GB12s, thanks to you, it looks like they will give me exactly what I'm missing...
> 
> It looks like my final measurements came back pretty close to what I'd guessed. Is there any way of knowing how much space I need above the sub so it doesn't hit the trunk's deck lid?


xmax is about 19mm aka 3/4". I would probably go with at least 1.25 inches.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> xmax is about 19mm aka 3/4". I would probably go with at least 1.25 inches.


Well in that case, the GB12s just got nix'ed... :bigcry:

(did you see what I did there? ^^^)


I have a max total of 9" of height to work with, in the trunk to be able to keep the subs concealed under the deck lid...


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

DavidRam said:


> Well in that case, the GB12s just got nix'ed... :bigcry:
> 
> (did you see what I did there? ^^^)


how much space do you have? you can always flush mount it, and add a grill the JL Audio grills work. I think the S-GRU models


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

like this


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Sadly, it's starting to look like I can't fit the GBs in the Jeep... Does anyone think squeezing them into the above specs is a good idea??

Andy replied with "2 or 3 inches should be ok". I don't have 3/4"...


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Sadly, it's starting to look like I can't fit the GBs in the Jeep... Does anyone think squeezing them into the above specs is a good idea??
> 
> 
> 
> Andy replied with "2 or 3 inches should be ok". I don't have 3/4"...




Is the surface right above the speaker hard wood?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> Is the surface right above the speaker hard wood?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's that composite material they make the trunk lids out of... It's like a plastic layer, with honeycomb shaped carboard inside, another layer of plastic on top, and then carpet...


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> It's that composite material they make the trunk lids out of... It's like a plastic layer, with honeycomb shaped carboard inside, another layer of plastic on top, and then carpet...




Does a lot of sound transmit through there? Or do you only have that on when your hauling stuff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> like this




I think your speaker measurements are a bit off here the speaker from mounting surface to back of the magnet is 6 5/8"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> I think your speaker measurements are a bit off here the speaker from mounting surface to back of the magnet is 6 5/8"?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I rounded it to 6.75" from mounting surface to bottom of magnet

The box height would be 7.5", deduct .75" the thickness of bottom panel and that leaves me with 6.75". The magnet would be about .125" (1/8") away from the wood.
Above the baffle, I rounded the sub height to .75". At 7.5" box height and a total available height of 9" that leaves a gap of 1.5". Deduct the sub height and that leaves .75" between the top of the sub and the lid.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

I guess my next thread would be: 

_What sub performs like the GB12 but is less than 6" high_

Illusion Audio C10 or C12?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> I guess my next thread would be:
> 
> _What sub performs like the GB12 but is less than 6" high_
> 
> Illusion Audio C10 or C12?


Audiomobile Elite 2212


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> I rounded it to 6.75" from mounting surface to bottom of magnet
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes your right. I vote raise the floor 1"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

I often get requests for shallow sub install with my home theater subs. One option I use is to put .2” steel plate right behind where the sub magnet is so that I can reduce the height while still maintaining a strong panel. So instead of 3/4”, I cut a circle a little bigger than the magnet. And then I use a router (really I have a CNC) to rout a circle/square on the outside of the enclosure where I use PL Premium 3X construction adhesive to glue steel so the enclosure is air tight, thin, and strong. This would save you at least 1/2-5/8”. 

You could potentially do the same where you mount the subwoofer such that the steel is glued/screwed on the bottom side of the enclosure top. Then you’d mount the sub to the steel which would flush mount the sub some there as well. 

So you can get there with some judicious use of denser materials.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> Yes your right. I vote raise the floor 1"
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would love to, but that would mess with the usability of the trunk AND look ugly... 

The only other option (that I really don't want to do) is cut openings into the lid... I did that in my last build and ended up disliking it.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

I know some people will cringe but I really like my Sundown SD3 10 still for its very good sounding bass. I could model those for you at some point.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

dgage said:


> I often get requests for shallow sub install with my home theater subs. One option I use is to put .2” steel plate right behind where the sub magnet is so that I can reduce the height while still maintaining a strong panel. So instead of 3/4”, I cut a circle a little bigger than the magnet. And then I use a router (really I have a CNC) to rout a circle/square on the outside of the enclosure where I use PL Premium 3X construction adhesive to glue steel so the enclosure is air tight, thin, and strong. This would save you at least 1/2-5/8”.
> 
> You could potentially do the same where you mount the subwoofer such that the steel is glued/screwed on the bottom side of the enclosure top. Then you’d mount the sub to the steel which would flush mount the sub some there as well.
> 
> So you can get there with some judicious use of denser materials.



That's actually a really cool idea! I would actually gain the full .75" thickness of the plywood back... There are some low spots in the floor and if I position the subs in those low spots, I have about 1 more inch of depth to play with. 

I'm going to take another look at where those low spots are in relation to where the subs would sit in the box... I might even be able to use the .75" plywood to patch the hole the magnets would recess into. 

Here is a pic. The black tape is approx where the sub box starts. Can you see the recessed area?


----------



## dsquared (Aug 10, 2016)

You won’t regret it . I have 2 on 1500 and can’t believe the output and SQ all in one. Hell you can always double up on the power down the road if need be


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Like this. The subs would be positioned over the recessed area so they can drop down the thickness of the plywood...


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

David, I would confirm with Andy on how much clearance he recommends behind the GB12 motor. If you can't make it work with wood and need steel, let me know. My brother has a CNC plasma table and I am sure he could cut a couple discs out of whatever thickness steel you need for a very reasonable price.


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Like this. The subs would be positioned over the recessed area so they can drop down the thickness of the plywood...




Hell yea that is what I'm talking about 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

It looks like the hole would only have to be about 5 or 6"...


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> It looks like the hole would only have to be about 5 or 6"...




If you go on audiofrog website it will tell you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

rton20s said:


> David, I would confirm with Andy on how much clearance he recommends behind the GB12 motor. If you can't make it work with wood and need steel, let me know. My brother has a CNC plasma table and I am sure he could cut a couple discs out of whatever thickness steel you need for a very reasonable price.


Thanks a bunch, man! I'm gonna measure the depth, but I think I remember it being an inch or so...


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> If you go on audiofrog website it will tell you
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are a smart man.  6.5" diameter on the magnet. 

I'm gonna ask Andy how much gap there needs to be between the magnet and the wood...


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Damn it! Andy says to give the magnet about an inch to breath... ****, I just can't win! Lol


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

Try modeling the ScanSpeak 12 inch sub. It can't take as much power as the GB but on the same amount of power it models slightly better than GB. It sounds great and goes deep and only needs 5.6 inch mounting depth. https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...s/scanspeak-discovery-30w/4558t-12-subwoofer/


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

I'd be willing to bet it could handle being closer than an inch but Andy is the manufacturer and if there are any issues, he could use this as a reason to not provide a warranty. 

Another option and now that I see the pictures would be to use fiberglass. That would get you the most airspace by following the floor and could be made very thin. You could tie it in to a plywood front (or plywood and steel). And if you go with steel for the subwoofer mount, use a tap and die to turn the steel mount into your "bolts" as well.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

dgage said:


> I'd be willing to bet it could handle being closer than an inch but Andy is the manufacturer and if there are any issues, he could use this as a reason to not provide a warranty.
> 
> Another option and now that I see the pictures would be to use fiberglass. That would get you the most airspace by following the floor and could be made very thin. You could tie it in to a plywood front (or plywood and steel). And if you go with steel for the subwoofer mount, use a tap and die to turn the steel mount into your "bolts" as well.


I'm at the point where I am going to force these subs to work well in my Jeep, and I think using that recessed area is key. 
I have never done any fiberglass work and I'm trying to limit the number of "firsts" I have on this build! Lol
I'm pretty confident I can't make this work with wood and metal if need be. But thanks again, your idea might make these subs a possibility!


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

*Re: What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --&gt; two AF GB12s??*



dgage said:


> I'd be willing to bet it could handle being closer than an inch but Andy is the manufacturer and if there are any issues, he could use this as a reason to not provide a warranty.
> 
> 
> 
> Another option and now that I see the pictures would be to use fiberglass. That would get you the most airspace by following the floor and could be made very thin. You could tie it in to a plywood front (or plywood and steel). And if you go with steel for the subwoofer mount, use a tap and die to turn the steel mount into your "bolts" as well.


Andy wouldnt come up with excuses to warranty a product. If you have him on Facebook, I'm sure you know. Hint: stories of "tweeter guy"

Also, putting the pole vent to close to the back wall of an enclosure wouldnt damage a driver. It would just create a nasty impedance bump. 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> I'm at the point where I am going to force these subs to work well in my Jeep, and I think using that recessed area is key.
> I have never done any fiberglass work and I'm trying to limit the number of "firsts" I have on this build! Lol
> I'm pretty confident I can't make this work with wood and metal if need be. But thanks again, your idea might make these subs a possibility!


i wonder if steel so close to the magnet would be a good solution? My OCD would not allow a speaker with a magnet to be and inch away from solid steel.


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> I'm at the point where I am going to force these subs to work well in my Jeep, and I think using that recessed area is key.
> 
> I have never done any fiberglass work and I'm trying to limit the number of "firsts" I have on this build! Lol
> 
> I'm pretty confident I can't make this work with wood and metal if need be. But thanks again, your idea might make these subs a possibility!




Maybe not use steel maybe use 1/4"-1/2" hdpe glued and screwed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

I'm not sure what to make of this discussion:
https://www.diymobileaudio.com/foru...cussion/407821-magnets-against-metal-bad.html

I'd use stainless (i.e. non-ferrous) steel.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> i wonder if steel so close to the magnet would be a good solution? My OCD would not allow a speaker with a magnet to be and inch away from solid steel.


Actually, with steel so close to the magnet I'm not going to need to screw or glue it in place, the magnet will hold it.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> Maybe not use steel maybe use 1/4"-1/2" hdpe glued and screwed?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True. Or I could get some .5" birch for the area that will be patched...


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

*Re: What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --&gt; two AF GB12s??*



SkizeR said:


> Andy wouldnt come up with excuses to warranty a product. If you have him on Facebook, I'm sure you know. Hint: stories of "tweeter guy"
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


I didn't take it like that either... I think he genuinely would like his subs to sound good in my car. That's good for me and good for his business.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Great news!!! The recessed area in the trunk is about 1.75"!!! I could even drop the magnet holes 2 layers of plywood (1.5"), which could give me more room on top, AND add a little volume to the box. 


I'm stoked! 

Here is the revised, crappy drawing:


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

DavidRam said:


> Great news!!! The recessed area in the trunk is about 1.75"!!! I could even drop the magnet holes 2 layers of plywood (1.5"), which could give me more room on top, AND add a little volume to the box.
> 
> 
> I'm stoked!
> ...


YAAAAAY!!! That's awesome!

Seems like the added room at the top would help them move air effectively.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Grinder said:


> I'd use stainless (i.e. non-ferrous) steel.


I hate to be THAT guy, but if it's non-ferrous it's not steel.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steel
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stainless steel


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Grinder said:


> YAAAAAY!!! That's awesome!
> 
> Seems like the added room at the top would help them move air effectively.


Yep, and all specs would be within Andy's recommendations, which keeps my ocd quiet...


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

ckirocz28 said:


> I hate to be THAT guy, but if it's non-ferrous it's not steel.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steel
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stainless steel


Thank you. I ought to have said non-magnetic instead.


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

DavidRam said:


> Yep, and all specs would be within Andy's recommendations, *which keeps my ocd quiet*...


I know all too well how you feel.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Grinder said:


> Thank you. I ought to have said non-magnetic instead.


Damn, I gotta do it again, stainless steel IS magnetic, it has iron in it. Non-magnetic "stainless steel" is aluminum being misrepresented as stainless steel. Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves!


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

More to the point, a piece of aluminum would work in this application just as well as steel.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

ckirocz28 said:


> More to the point, a piece of aluminum would work in this application just as well as steel.


That's what I would use if I need to use metal... I love working with aluminum anyways.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

I'd chamfer the area around the edge of the recessed magnet area. Other than that it looks sweet!


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

GreatLaBroski said:


> I'd chamfer the area around the edge of the recessed magnet area. Other than that it looks sweet!


Yes sir, definitely planned on doing that... or at least a 1/2" roundover.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

I’d personally use fiberglass to get you the most airspace and depth by following the floor. I’d probably put several coats of liquid rubber (Flex Seal or similar) and after that cured, I’d put thick plastic down to protect the rubber from the fiberglass mess. Then I’d put several layers of fiberglass mat down with each layer at 90 degrees. Of course each layer needs to be impregnated with fiberglass resin and needs to be rolled to get air out. Once that cures you could build the sides and top out of plywood. Don’t forget to bolt it in somehow so it doesn’t go flying in an accident. 

Looks like you will have a nice setup.


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

ckirocz28 said:


> Damn, I gotta do it again, stainless steel IS magnetic, it has iron in it. Non-magnetic "stainless steel" is aluminum being misrepresented as stainless steel. Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves!


Gimme a break... 

I've worked with various grades of stainless steel for nearly a decade, in the design and manufacture of water treatment and bottling equipment.



> Austenitic steels are non-magnetic stainless steels that contain high levels of chromium and nickel and low levels of carbon. Known for their formability and resistance to corrosion, austenitic steels are the most widely used grade of stainless steel.


https://www.thebalance.com/metal-profile-austenitic-stainless-2340126


----------



## nyquistrate (Apr 17, 2011)

DavidRam said:


> Great news!!! The recessed area in the trunk is about 1.75"!!! I could even drop the magnet holes 2 layers of plywood (1.5"), which could give me more room on top, AND add a little volume to the box.
> 
> 
> I'm stoked!
> ...


From your drawing it looks like you decided on one GB10 and one GB12. I kid. As another said, I would also look to fiberglass the bottom for max usable depth. One question that I have is what is the depth on the other side of the black tape, where your amps are? From the trunk shot it appears to have deeper recesses there. Is it an option to swap the amp rack and sub box locations? Is it actually deeper there? If so you might not have to modify the box so much.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

nyquistrate said:


> From your drawing it looks like you decided on one GB10 and one GB12. I kid. As another said, I would also look to fiberglass the bottom for max usable depth. One question that I have is what is the depth on the other side of the black tape, where your amps are? From the trunk shot it appears to have deeper recesses there. Is it an option to swap the amp rack and sub box locations? Is it actually deeper there? If so you might not have to modify the box so much.


Haha! That was a quick and dirty drawing and the scale was way off... 
Where the amp rack is actually shallower... I'm getting close to 2.3 cuft with latest design and that's not figuring the volume gained in the cutouts that drop down, but it's also not deducting for the subs themselves.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Alright guys, better drawing 

*Recommended gap between the sub and lid is 2", I've got 1.5"

*Recommended gap between the magnet and box is 1", I've got 7/8"

Does anyone see any flaws or problems in this design??

Box dimensions are going to be: 34.5" wide x 21" deep x 7.5" high (not including the drop down pockets around the magnets)


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

If it makes you feel any better I've been making a sealed spare tire enclosure just like this for my accord. I made a temporary box for the Jetta that mimicked your issues. It sounded great 

I'm only gonna have 3/4" from the woofer to the floor and about an inch free under the magnet

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

I800C0LLECT said:


> If it makes you feel any better I've been making a sealed spare tire enclosure just like this for my accord. I made a temporary box for the Jetta that mimicked your issues. It sounded great
> 
> I'm only gonna have 3/4" from the woofer to the floor and about an inch free under the magnet
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


Cool, then if I have any issues, I can blame you! :laugh: 

j/k


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

DavidRam said:


> Alright guys, better drawing
> 
> *Recommended gap between the sub and lid is 2", I've got 1.5"
> 
> ...


Use a piece of 1/4” aluminum plate on the bottom below the magnet so you can gain the little extra clearance you need.

BTW, what program did you use to make that drawing?


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

V8toilet said:


> Use a piece of 1/4” aluminum plate on the bottom below the magnet so you can gain the little extra clearance you need.
> 
> BTW, what program did you use to make that drawing?


MS Word! Lol

I pasted a picture of the GB12 diagram on the page and added the details around it...


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

It looks like the top deck board is spec'd at 3/4" ?

you could easily reduce that to 1/4" in the area of the woofers to gain the remaining 1/2" clearance.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Grinder said:


> Gimme a break...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last time I checked, my refrigerator magnets are still stuck to my stainless steel refrigerator, magnets still stick to my stainless steel water bottle, and to every stainless steel knife I've ever owned. Austenitic stainless may not be magnetizable, but it certainly is ferromagnetic.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> It looks like the top deck board is spec'd at 3/4" ?
> 
> you could easily reduce that to 1/4" in the area of the woofers to gain the remaining 1/2" clearance.


Hmmm, I don't think I understand what you mean... All of the layers in the drawing are .75" plywood. Which layer did you mean?


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

ckirocz28 said:


> Last time I checked, my refrigerator magnets are still stuck to my stainless steel refrigerator, magnets still stick to my stainless steel water bottle, and to every stainless steel knife I've ever owned. Austenitic stainless may not be magnetizable, but it certainly is ferromagnetic.


There are (obvious) reasons why SS skinned refrigerators (to hold refrigerator magnets) and SS knives (a product of their relatively high carbon content, in order to form a sharp and durable edge) are magnetic. It does not follow that austenitic SS is magnetic. Go try one of your refrigerator magnets on a quality SS pot/pan. I've got a stack of ridiculously strong neodymium magnets taken from wind turbine rotors. Even those bad boys have zero attraction to my SS cookware.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Grinder said:


> There are (obvious) reasons why SS skinned refrigerators (to hold refrigerator magnets) and SS knives (a product of their relatively high carbon content, in order to form a sharp and durable edge) are magnetic. It does not follow that austenitic SS is magnetic. Go try one of your refrigerator magnets on a quality SS pot/pan. I've got a stack of ridiculously strong neodymium magnets taken from wind turbine rotors. Even those bad boys have zero attraction to my SS cookware.


A paragraph from the article you linked to.......first sentence.
Austenitic steels are non-magnetic in the annealed condition, although they can become slightly magnetic when cold worked. They have good formability and weldability, as well as excellent toughness, particularly at low or cryogenic temperatures. Austenitic grades also have a low yield stress and relatively high tensile strength.
I had this same argument with my dad (a machinist), until he brought home some of this magical SS and I stuck a magnet to it.


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

ckirocz28 said:


> A paragraph from the article you linked to.......first sentence.
> Austenitic steels are non-magnetic in the annealed condition, although they can become slightly magnetic when cold worked. They have good formability and weldability, as well as excellent toughness, particularly at low or cryogenic temperatures. Austenitic grades also have a low yield stress and relatively high tensile strength.
> I had this same argument with my dad (a machinist), until he brought home some of this magical SS and I stuck a magnet to it.


Whatever, dude... Believe what you want to believe.

Apologies for pissing contest on your thread, David.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> Hmmm, I don't think I understand what you mean... All of the layers in the drawing are .75" plywood. Which layer did you mean?


The actual board you are using for the floor.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Grinder said:


> Whatever, dude... Believe whatever you want to believe.


More to the point, SOME alloys of stainless are non-magnetic, NOT ALL, be specific. Here's a quote for you......"This corresponds to a somewhat larger magnetic susceptibility than we might expect for other nonmagnetic materials, but is still well below what might be considered magnetic." From here https://www.greenwoodmagnetics.com/...fference-between-304-and-316-stainless-steel/

The OP should not use any form of steel plate that close to his sub magnet because it WILL distort the magnetic field, and aluminum is easier to cut and drill.


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

ckirocz28 said:


> More to the point, SOME alloys of stainless are non-magnetic, NOT ALL, be specific. Here's a quote for you......"This corresponds to a somewhat larger magnetic susceptibility than we might expect for other nonmagnetic materials, but is still well below what might be considered magnetic." From here https://www.greenwoodmagnetics.com/...fference-between-304-and-316-stainless-steel/
> 
> The OP should not use any form of steel plate that close to his sub magnet because it WILL distort the magnetic field, and aluminum is easier to cut and drill.


....


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> The actual board you are using for the floor.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Hey, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about... It would give me another .25" on top.


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Hey, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about... It would give me another .25" on top.




And .50 under the sub if used .25 to cap those low spots. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

DavidRam said:


> Hey, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about... It would give me another .25" on top.


Oops, the problem is that it would reduce the distance between the magnet and the bottom, and it's already less than the recommended 1"...


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> Oops, the problem is that it would reduce the distance between the magnet and the bottom, and it's already less than the recommended 1"...


I wasn't suggesting changing the baffle, I assumed that the top piece in your drawing was the free standing carpeted piece that went over the top of everything. I was saying remove some material from that to give the subs more space between the surround and the bottom of that board.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

miniSQ said:


> I wasn't suggesting changing the baffle, I assumed that the top piece in your drawing was the free standing carpeted piece that went over the top of everything. I was saying remove some material from that to give the subs more space between the surround and the bottom of that board.


Oh, sorry. Now I get you... 

All of the boards in the drawing are structural... The top board is going to have a second baffle suspended below it that the subs will hang from. I realize the drawing is sorta vague.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> And .50 under the sub if used .25 to cap those low spots.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unfortunately, because of the trunks low and high spots, both levels of the bottom boards would be touching the floor. So if reduced the low spot it would just put air between the box and the floor.


----------



## Golden Ear (Oct 14, 2012)

Just out of curiosity, what kept you from considering a pair of 12tw3s? Lots more cone area than the 10s and still nice sq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Golden Ear said:


> Just out of curiosity, what kept you from considering a pair of 12tw3s? Lots more cone area than the 10s and still nice sq.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I did consider them, but I felt they weren't a big enough jump in performance to satisfy what I'm after... Then there's my severe OCD, and having all matching AF drivers appeals to that mental disorder of mine!


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Unfortunately, because of the trunks low and high spots, both levels of the bottom boards would be touching the floor. So if reduced the low spot it would just put air between the box and the floor.




So from your drawing you have 3/4" then a 3/4" spacer and then 3/4" for the bottom cap. So if you used 3/4" then 3/4" spacer then added a half inch spacer and used 1/4" bottom cap that would gain you 1/2" under the magnet 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> So from your drawing you have 3/4" then a 3/4" spacer and then 3/4" for the bottom cap. So if you used 3/4" then 3/4" spacer then added a half inch spacer and used 1/4" bottom cap that would gain you 1/2" under the magnet
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh, I see what you mean... The 1/2 spacer helped me understand.


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Oh, I see what you mean... The 1/2 spacer helped me understand.




Yea! You would gain 1/2" under that part of the magnet! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

*Well, subs are on order, (2) GB12 D4s.*

Bad news is that one sub is in stock, but the other one won't be in until end of April...  No biggie, I guess I can take my time building the box.


----------



## nyquistrate (Apr 17, 2011)

DavidRam said:


> *Well, subs are on order, (2) GB12 D4s.*
> 
> Bad news is that one sub is in stock, but the other one won't be in until end of April...  No biggie, I guess I can take my time building the box.


You could build the box and cover the empty hole with wood.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DavidRam said:


> *Well, subs are on order, (2) GB12 D4s.*
> 
> Bad news is that one sub is in stock, but the other one won't be in until end of April...  No biggie, I guess I can take my time building the box.


I would think if i was doing 2 GB12's i would want D2's. For a final load of 2 ohms.


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

miniSQ said:


> I would think if i was doing 2 GB12's i would want D2's. For a final load of 2 ohms.




I think he's shooting for 1phm load


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Redliner99 said:


> I think he's shooting for 1phm load
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i figured as much, too many pages to go back and confirm the amp he is using.

2 ohm is easier on the amp and the car, so i thought i would throw it out since D4's are backordered.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

GBD2 has higher sensitivity than GBD4 and thus plays louder on the same power.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Damn it guys, I thought I had made a final decision, but now I'm second guessing it. :laugh: :worried:

With a 2.3 cuft box, will I still have a significant increase in bass (especially down low) if I do two D2s wired to 2 ohm?? The actual measured numbers again on the amp: @ 2ohm = 828, @ 1ohm = 1095).

My last three builds were subs/amps at 1 ohm with zero issue at all.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

nyquistrate said:


> You could build the box and cover the empty hole with wood.


My local dealer is actually loaning me a used GB12 so I will have two on hand to build the box around! How's that for service?! 

My whole system is torn apart right now anyways, as I am making some major changes, so I'll probably not it up and running until the subs come in anyways.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

DavidRam said:


> Damn it guys, I thought I had made a final decision, but now I'm second guessing it. :laugh: :worried:
> 
> With a 2.3 cuft box, will I still have a significant increase in bass (especially down low) if I do two D2s wired to 2 ohm?? The actual measured numbers again on the amp: @ 2ohm = 828, @ 1ohm = 1095).
> 
> My last three builds were subs/amps at 1 ohm with zero issue at all.


Considering this ^^^, is there a way to model the pair of GB12 D2s at 828 watts, vs the GB12 D4s at 1095 and compare the difference??
I can still change the order to D2s if I decide to...


----------



## Redliner99 (Mar 26, 2018)

DavidRam said:


> Considering this ^^^, is there a way to model the pair of GB12 D2s at 828 watts, vs the GB12 D4s at 1095 and compare the difference??
> 
> I can still change the order to D2s if I decide to...




Do you listen to bass at super high volume? My sub amp is rated at 1100 at 2ohm. When I put it at above comfortale listening volume it was pulling 22-26amps with my battery at 14v. With that math it's putting out 377 watts to my subs that are wired at 2ohm. Don't quote my math just using a basic calculator on google. But my point is it was stupid loud 828 should be enough 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

DavidRam said:


> Considering this ^^^, is there a way to model the pair of GB12 D2s at 828 watts, vs the GB12 D4s at 1095 and compare the difference??
> I can still change the order to D2s if I decide to...


With WinISD modeling, the GB12D4 has about a 1.1 dB advantage on the GB12D2 and that is all due to the power difference between 828 and 1095.


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Comparison of D2 in red on 828 watts vs D4 in orange on 1095 watts. all models are 2 drivers in a 2 cube sealed box. 








D2 in red and on 828 watts








D4 in orange and on 1195 watts








Both compared and on 1200 watts

numbers separate are as follows:
D4 1195 watts vs D2 828 watts
20Hz....103.9...103.3
30Hz....110.6...110.2
35Hz....113......112.8
40Hz....115......114.7
50Hz....116.6....116.1
60Hz....120.......119

You can see that the D2 has a tiny low end advantage and if you get a different amp the D2's will be a force to reckon with.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Redliner99 said:


> Do you listen to bass at super high volume? My sub amp is rated at 1100 at 2ohm. When I put it at above comfortale listening volume it was pulling 22-26amps with my battery at 14v. With that math it's putting out 377 watts to my subs that are wired at 2ohm. Don't quote my math just using a basic calculator on google. But my point is it was stupid loud 828 should be enough
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





dgage said:


> With WinISD modeling, the GB12D4 has about a 1.1 dB advantage on the GB12D2 and that is all due to the power difference between 828 and 1095.





V8toilet said:


> Comparison of D2 in red on 828 watts vs D4 in orange on 1095 watts. all models are 2 drivers in a 2 cube sealed box.
> 
> View attachment 239881
> 
> ...


Thanks guys! I changed my order to D2s... Hopefully, they are in stock and hopefully they satisfy the secret bass head in me.


----------



## jrwalte (Mar 27, 2008)

if not you just get a new amp with more power


----------



## captainbuff (Mar 11, 2017)

dgage said:


> First, I am a sealed guy and always have been which means I'm somewhat closed minded as the ported I've heard both in vehicles and some top "sound-quality" music and home-theater ported subs I've heard have sometimes had issues. Ported is more efficient above port tune, which means a comparable ported sub will have much more output near the port tune and above with the same amount of power or the same output as sealed with less power. My son plays trumpet and the same concept applies to ported subs, a little air in to the trumpet results in much more output at the other end.
> 
> I'm going to start with sealed enclosures, also called acoustic suspension as they are incredibly simple with many good points but some downsides as well. Sealed are also known as acoustic suspension because the sealed box helps control the sub's suspension, pushing against it when the sub is moving its cone into the enclosure. This is why sealed subs are often able to handle more power than a corresponding ported enclosure, the sealed enclosure helps control the sub's suspension. As mentioned multiple times, sealed is also the simplest to build since you just need to calculate the internal airspace for the enclosure to match the driver but don't forget to account for the driver's displacement (magnet, frame).
> 
> ...


With no intention of blowing smoke up others <whatevers> or any such thing; I think that is one of the best 'couple of paragraph summations' of sealed vs ported enclosures I have ever read. Whether new or have some knowledge that is pretty well wrapped up IMHO!

If I could add my two cents in the KISS is really the biggest principle I use when doing <anything> nowadays. I have been through the phase of designing ported box's for hours and now I just look at the manufacturer spec sheet and go with roughly what they suggest (a quick look at the T/S to see if there is anything different but other than that). For me I feel the same...sealed enclosures are my preference. 

I'll try to phrase this so it is not offensive to any; but another advantage to sealed is that less can go wrong. Along the KISS side of things...port location and velocity and size and surrounds and so many things that just don't need to worried about with a sealed enclosure. My apologies if blatant pragmatism is offensive.

However!



dgage said:


> First, I am a sealed guy and always have been which means I'm somewhat closed minded as the ported I've heard both in vehicles and some *top "sound-quality" music and home-theater* ported subs I've heard have sometimes had issues.


Not in my experience! OT; but all HT subs I have had have been ported (bought; I have not DIY'ed anything here) and they have been most capable!! I am looking at a Jamo Concert 10 series HT currently so I am not talking about crud; nevertheless I will politely disagree with that statement! No offence intended as per the first paragraph...great post.

Peace


----------



## gbrnole (Jul 5, 2009)

Not to throw too much of a curveball, but this post from several years ago is relevant in this thread simply because the interior proportions of DavidRam's Jeep are very similar to the older model tested here.

https://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=2#!prettyPhoto

As is the case in many SUV's and vans, it's great to know what your half wavelength frequency point is and if you're building a sealed enclosure, try to either center your box frequency (the Fc) or alternatively your F3 on that frequency. 

For example, taking a corner to corner (i.e. where windshield and dash meet at passenger corner to the furthest most point in the rear of the trunk on the driver's side measured flat at approximately ear level in my 4runner) is 11'-1". The resulting half wavelength frequency is right about 50.8 Hz which is where I reasonably expect to see approximately 12 dB boost from cabin gain.

The post linked above is very useful in how it compares the measured outdoor response of the sub (similar to the modeled curves) and then shows the effects of cabin gain in a Jeep similar to yours.

I would have to bang the sub and enclosure parameters into WinISD to know what the Fc and F3 are for the combo the author is using. He's using a MASSIVE 4 cube box though for a single 10.

Either way, don't beat yourself up too much on amp power unless you're looking for 150+ dB!


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

gbrnole said:


> Not to throw too much of a curveball, but this post from several years ago is relevant in this thread simply because the interior proportions of DavidRam's Jeep are very similar to the older model tested here.
> 
> https://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=2#!prettyPhoto
> 
> ...


Great read, even I understood it! 

Thanks for posting it...


----------



## gbrnole (Jul 5, 2009)

I stuck the approximate numbers into WinISD for the driver and box - BTW it's an 18" sub with a 10" motor - I glossed over that originally, sorry!

I adjusted the WinISD defaults for Ql of 30 assuming a likely well-sealed box (as opposed to the very leaky Ql default in WinISD of 10) and adjusted Qa from 100 to 120 assuming no stuffing at all.

The resulting curve has an F3 of 53 Hz and a box resonance (Fc) of 36.3 Hz which both seem to correlate with the peaks on the measure cabin gain graph.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Well, I finally got a chance to listen a bit and I think I got what I was looking for with the two GB12s!

I have only set gains, crossovers and TA so far, but it sounds very promising!


----------



## ToNasty (Jan 23, 2013)

Whats the little mosconi on the left there?


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

ToNasty said:


> Whats the little mosconi on the left there?


It's a Pico 2 amp that's powering the little GB25s for rear fill... It's crazy tiny but has great output for what it is!


----------



## Mullings (Jan 31, 2016)

I just noticed that we have similar enclosures, except I’m using the most hated subs on the forum


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Mullings said:


> I just noticed that we have similar enclosures, except I’m using the most hated subs on the forum


Really cool. What subs are those? Did you do the drop down to allow the subs to sit lower inside them?


----------



## Mullings (Jan 31, 2016)

12w6v3 but I’m not sure what design I’m going with around them yet


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Mullings said:


> 12w6v3 but I’m not sure what design I’m going with around them yet


A pair of those should be awesome, imho


----------



## ToNasty (Jan 23, 2013)

Damn im tempted as hell to grab a gb10. Even though i already have a beast of a 10 to use


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

ToNasty said:


> Damn im tempted as hell to grab a gb10. Even though i already have a beast of a 10 to use


I can tell already these GBs are gonna be great...


----------



## ToNasty (Jan 23, 2013)

DavidRam said:


> I can tell already these GBs are gonna be great...


This is for a regular cab truck. You have cabin gain on your side but i hope youre right

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Mullings said:


> 12w6v3


No your not

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

SkizeR said:


> No your not


I agree, the JL 12W6 is a perfectly competent subwoofer. That is a good subwoofer so the enclosure, install, and tune will matter more.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

ToNasty said:


> This is for a regular cab truck. You have cabin gain on your side but i hope youre right
> 
> Sent from my SMusing Tapatalk


Why not a 12?

In my reg Ram I had 2 SI BM MK IVs and that wasn't enough output for me.


----------



## ToNasty (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --&gt; two AF GB12s??*



DavidRam said:


> Why not a 12?


Space. But i just looked atspecs and i can fit a 12 ported

Have to remember. I have a regular cab truck ut the centerconsoleis going to be the enclosure
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mullings (Jan 31, 2016)

Well everyone will get a chance to gauge how better their subs are vs them


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

*Re: What could I gain if I went from two JL 10TW3s --&gt; two AF GB12s??*



ToNasty said:


> Space. But i just looked atspecs and i can fit a 12 ported
> 
> Have to remember. I have a regular cab truck ut the centerconsoleis going to be the enclosure
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Oh, forgot about the console sub... But if it fits, do it.


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

Mullings said:


> Well everyone will get a chance to gauge how better their subs are vs them


Lol... A sore subject, huh?!


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

Mullings said:


> 12w6v3 but I’m not sure what design I’m going with around them yet


Wait, that's not a Skar tho.


----------

