# A little DIYMA X-mas present, a brand new DIYMA sub. :p



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

I finally decided to try out a DIYMA sub. I've seen a lot of rave reviews as well as mixed experiences. I didn't want to stay on the sidelines forever and the DIYMAs are selling out, so I jumped on one.

The packaging is quite interesting, and I must say it's the first time I've seen this type of cardboard structure. The sub was placed in a bag, in this goofy yet very protective cardboard structure, in another box, and finally the shipping box. There's definitely a lot of care taken to make sure the sub arrives safe. 

















Some pics moving around the sub. The sub is definitely...substantial.

















































Initial impressions are favorable. 

It's a hefty unit but also extremely sturdy in design. There's plenty of ventilation everywhere, and the design is quite open. It certainly looks the part of a high powered subwoofer.

The suspension feels relatively stiff out of the box. I'm sure it will loosen some after a little use. Most of the other subs I've used so far have been softer. The cone has a small amount of noticeable flex to it when pressed from one side, but it's not too bad. I'd like to see absolute rigidity, but being aluminum, I doubt it would affect the level of detail much. The cone feels extremely light to the touch. I'm sure it's quite effortless for the motor to move, and I hope (assume) creates quite a transparent sound. 

From my initial impression of the stiff suspension, very light and somewhat flexible cone, and obviously very powerful motor, I can see why there is some concern over cone damage during use. I can see it happening from an unexpected high output event, but I can't see it happening during normal use and not without a material defect or perhaps fatigue over some millions of cycles. I get the perception that there is very little room for error though and buckling would be an obvious form of failure. It's the nature of the beast though when playing with (relatively) thin materials like this. I don't want to get into a big discussion over this in this thread. This is just my initial impressions/opinions. At the same time, I don't plan to use this sub timidly. I plan to use it as I do any of my subs and see what happens. I honestly expect a long, healthy life for my use.

Well, I had my 1.5 cu.ft. sealed box sitting, waiting to be converted to a ported enclosure for the DIYMA sub, however I'm quite sure I don't have the internal space for the porting, at least not how I was planning to build it. It was an obvious oversight on my part (wasn't thinking), so now I need to decide if I want to build a new box for the sub.

The problem is the box is neither wide enough to allow the port to go beside the subwoofer nor deep enough to go under the subwoofer. It's a long, narrow box, measuring I think 11"x8"x35", and I'm planning to put a 4" diameter 30" long port in there. I'm piecing together Dayton's nice do-it-yourself port parts but only have one 90 degree elbow. I could snake it around in circles if I had a bunch more, lol, but it would still be a very tight squeeze just limited to one side only. I chose 4" because that was all I needed at my power level. 400w will only see about 9mm used. A 4" diameter port is plenty at this level. If I was running 1000w, I would be using something larger.

I could do an external port for the time being, if nothing else just as a test for the enclosure design. Then I could simply build a new one in the future. That might be what I will have to do.

By the way, modeled up, ideal, flat is 1.0 cu.ft. tuned to 29Hz ported, giving a F3 of 30Hz. Ported enclosures for this sub seem to be really neglected and my car has almost no subwoofer cabin gain, so that's what I'm doing. I'm shooting, at least for my makeshift 1.5 cu.ft. box, something in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 cu.ft. (lose some sub and port volume) tuned in the range of 28Hz-29Hz. Without the port inside, I'll probably have to put something inside to take up a little of the volume.

In the mean time while I play with the DIYMA beauty, npdang's getting my Pioneer PRS sub for a little while to test, so that should be fun to see.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

That is a nice sub. 38 LBS of American engineered goodness.


----------



## TJHUB (Oct 13, 2007)

I'm very happy with mine.  However, if the sub didn't work so well in small enclosures (mine is .65cF net), I would have picked some other sub. To me, if you're going with a larger enclosure and ported, there are better subs. This is of course my opinion and I am entitled to it.


----------



## kimokalihi (May 27, 2007)

None of your pictures are showing up for me.


----------



## Kahooli (Oct 17, 2007)

keep us posted, seems like you'll do a nice job of testing and reviewing. also, which vehicle is this going in?


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

those look pretty sweet. let us know how you like it.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

It's going in my Forester, but I plan to play with it in my house too in my ghetto home audio rig consisting of a $5 receiver off Ebay, some old Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble speakers again off Ebay for $60, and borrowing my bro's 300w plate amp off Parts Express for the sub.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

I'd like to see the results of this sub in a ported enclosure.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Well, I've got a little update for now.

I've got my box design made up and ready to build. I bought a 4" port from Parts Express, but I ended up not really being able to use the thing. I bought only one elbow, and I really have no good build options to make use of the thing. I spend a few days just fiddling with design ideas(avoiding just using an external port), and I had a really hard time being able to build a small enough enclosure size for the sub and still fit the port without probably affecting the tune frequency. It got messy. So...I went back to the good ol' slotted port approach and whipped up a design. 

The box is designed to give exactly 1 cu.ft. for the sub, takes into account woofer displacement and end correction for the slot design. I essentially made the "ideal" box for the sub, 1 cu.ft. tuned to 29Hz.

Here's what I've got for now. I plan to hopefully whip this up tomorrow(along with more pics). These are just pics of what I pieced together on Powerpoint.  The pics are a little fuzzy but well enough.

This is the box as well as a few specs for the design:









This is basically the parts list, using 3/4" MDF. The subwoofer cutout hole is 11" even and the port is simply a sum of the parts in their correct locations.









More pics to come as I get to building the enclosure.

An interesting note of the design is the heavy port to enclosure volume ratio. This is a difficult fact to work around when placing small box subwoofers in a ported configuration. It's essentially all port.  My setup isn't even that bad as I'm not using a lot of excursion. If I was putting 1kw to the sub and made a bit more use of the excursion range, I would see a design that's dominantly port versus the intended enclosure volume. I'm glad slotted designs are easy to work with in this reguard. For this, I'm simply wrapping the port around the outside. It gets a bit challenging with the PVC pipe type of design. At least I've still got my Sonicraft sitting around waiting to be placed in a ported box. I'll still be able to make use of the port I bought and have a large 6 cu.ft. box to easily place it in.


----------



## DonutHands (Jan 27, 2006)

good luck with that front baffle, it does not look like it will be too sturdy


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

agreed. Should make getting a nice seal interesting


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

cool, i'll be watching.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Well, the sub actually overlays 3 walls. The face, although goofy like that will be screwed and glued first, making a solid piece with the side walls. Then the hole will be cut out. The small piece isn't going to do a whole lot really since the sub will rest on 3 vertical walls anyways. This makes the large side the only side that's really free. I really don't expect any problems with the design. Just don't think of that piece as having the hole initially. Think of it as a finished piece, then cutting the hole. I can't imagine trying to cut that out without it as part of the rest of the enclosure.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

It's all where you put your priorities....

Stiff suspension = small vas = small box size

Heavy coil = low fs = improved low end extension

Light straight profile cone = increased rigidity, improved efficiency, much higher frequency/milder breakup mode, better transient response


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Yeah, I'm looking forward to listening to it. I'm part way done. I've got all the pieces cut and ready to screw/glue together.


----------



## jrouter76 (Dec 21, 2005)

mvw2 said:


> Well, I've got a little update for now.
> 
> I've got my box design made up and ready to build. I bought a 4" port from Parts Express, but I ended up not really being able to use the thing. I bought only one elbow, and I really have no good build options to make use of the thing. I spend a few days just fiddling with design ideas(avoiding just using an external port), and I had a really hard time being able to build a small enough enclosure size for the sub and still fit the port without probably affecting the tune frequency. It got messy. So...I went back to the good ol' slotted port approach and whipped up a design.
> 
> ...


what did you use to get your cut-sheets for the board measurements is that a program?


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Just Powerpoint. I put the grid on and set to 0.25", max out page size to have room to work with, and worked with that. I put in the numbering by hand(just insert text/line stuff). It's really just simple drawing. 

I need to revise the sheet though. I did end up doing two different things. One, I'm using two 2' x 4' boards and I couldn't fit all the patterns on two sheets without cutting up one of the long pieces. I ended up taking 4" off the 24.5" long piece, so I have the 20.5" and a separate 4" piece to make up that section. As well, I don't have two 8" wide pieces but rather one 8" wide one and one 6.5" wide one. I didn't notice that till after I made these pics.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Small update,
the box is now in one piece. 

I still have a few things to do like cut out woofer hole, seal with silicon, carpet, and run wire into the box.

I've got a bunch of pics so far, just not uploading them as of yet.

The build went pretty smoothly. I had to trim a few pieces slightly to get to exact length. The port was a little tricky getting centered in the box. I ended up tossing spare MDF around it to take up the gap and get my the 1.5" spacing I needed all around. A bunch of drilling, glueing, and 70 or so screws later, it's in one piece and looking good. I'll tackle the rest tomorrow and should have a bunch of pics up soon. Then I get to finally listen to the thing.


----------



## Mano_X (Oct 12, 2007)

Like that ass 

Only have seen a "similar" motor design on Focal Be Sub's


















Mvw2 get that review done.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Show that ass !!


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Lol, getting there.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Finish already!


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I really like the design of the port on your box !


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Got the hole cut and a bead of silicon around everything. Now I've got to wait for that to cure a bit so I can carpet.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

you like your Z series amp?


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Nothing to complain about, and the price was great. Each only cost me around $125, and there's just nothing to complain about. They have fans that run, but in a car, it's sort of a mute point. I can't say anything about their power. I've got nothing to test them with, however, with a pair up front, I have yet to be lacking. I'm not a showy person, so bright orange isn't my thing, but they're snuggled up under the seats, so it really doesn't matter.

You're sort of asking the wrong guy about amps. To me, they're still all about the same. Power is power unless you're overusing the thing or the manufacturer built cheap, poorly designed junk. In either case, you run into audible problems. I understand there are variations in design and certain effects associated with a particular design, but I don't see amps as all that influential towards the end sound when compared to driver choices, install, and tuning.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Thanx  

You know it!

If you install a driver the best you can and run power to it  there should be no issues as far as any amplifier is concerned.

How long have you had your Z running ?


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Somewhere around 3 years now.

Hmm, wonder if I should bring the box inside the house. It's probably only 20F in the garage, and I have no clue how long it's going to take for the silicon to cure. I just don't feel like stinking up the house with ammonia smell.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

a little hairdryer action will move that along


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Don't own one.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

resistance , aka milkhouse heater ?


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Ok, I finished up the carpetting and threw the DIYMA in for a couple pics as well. I still need to wire the sub though. However, I've got lots and lots of pics. The pics aren't the greatest being at night off just garage light, but I did some auto color/brightness balance to get rid of the orange and darkness. I few of the last ones I used flash.

This is the initial design sheets I whipped up.









I broke out the table saw and got to work.









Here I'm measuring up some of the smaller parts to cut on the saw.









Finsihing up the pieces.









Here's a layout of the finished parts in the same pattern as the original design sheets.









I decided to test fit all the parts. Here's all of the parts lined up on the table.









Now it's time to get to work. I break out the glue and wood screws and get to piecing together the port.









The process continues...




































She's starting to look respectable.









Liberal use of glue and screws. Interesting tidbit. I've got 27 screws on each side. 









Finished. Horay!









I broke out the household calk and made sure the whole box is sealed nice and tight.









A pic inside the woofer hole facing the port entrance. 









Finally on to carpeting. I start on the top and work my way down the sides.









Wrapping around the bottom.









Now it's starting to look like a good box.









For some additional eye candy, I plopped in the DIYMA sub for a little looky looky.









For those of you who like the hiney. Sorry, it won't be mounted this way though.:blush:


----------



## OgreDave (Jul 13, 2005)

Looks good .. wish I had tools.

DIYMA's a beautiful subwoofer IMO.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Me too. I just visit my brother's to work on my car audio.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Thank You , I thoroughly enjoyed that !  

Nice Box


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

I guess having a table saw makes a quick easy box, nice job lets hear something about the sound now


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Oh noes, someone needs a new blade on their table saw!


----------



## Guy (Feb 16, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> Oh noes, someone needs a new blade on their table saw!


x2!!! I love the Freud thin kerf blades- super quiet and clean cuts.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

What, from the burning? That's just me letting the part sit there while I turn off the saw.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Ok, I got some initial listening impressions. I likey!  

I don't have much to complain about with the sub. It's very nice. Sound is completely transparent. I can't even pinpoint the subwoofer at all. Upper end response is very usable and has no problem running well above 100Hz. Sensitivity seems somewhere in the middle. It doesn't give me the impression it's lacking in power for the level I'm running, but I'm sure I could make use of a bit more if available. The subwoofer reminds me of the TC Sounds I had, but not thick like the TC Sounds. There's a good sense of power and effortless behavior. I haven't pushed the sub much yet, so I'm not yet sure where my 400w runs out of steam.

I did do a little EQing with the sub to flatten out the response in the car. I'm down about -7dB on the EQ by 30Hz, -5dB at 60Hz, and nothing above that. That ends up pretty good for response. The sub's just in the back, far corner facing up. I haven't had a sub specifically there before. Blending with the front stage is very easy with the very good upper end response. It was simply a matter of level balancing and fine tuning the TA.

I should have a good bit of fun with this sub.

Now to compare with a few of the other subs I've used:
TC Sounds TC2+
PG RSD12d
Sonicraft SC12NRT
Pioneer PRS
Dayton Reference HF

The DIYMA is the only sub I would truely call invisible. All the other subs I've used could be located mentally. The natural sound and authority reminds me very much of the TC2+, but the TC2+ had a much thicker presence, very heavy and thick in relative comparison. It was almost muddy in nature but not quite. Lightness and crispness is more comparable to the SC12NRT, Reference HF and PRS subs but the DIYMA is the only one that's not colored in some manner that would create an unnatural and locatable presence. The Dayton is very close, but it has an odd but very likable squeaky clean sound that is very light and crisp in presence, well overly light, making the sub actually sound weak. The PRS has a dry kind of sound but is also punchier/quicker in behavior with a sense of power, what I call gusto. There's a good sense of authority. The SC12NRT is punchy and sharp, a very fun sub to listen to with good authority and very quick beats. Both the PRS and SC12NRT is quicker/punchier in nature but also unnaturally so that does make them stand out. The RSD12d doesn't really compare to any of these and is a much different sub. It is thick like the TC2+ but worse so. It has better low end sensitivity but lacks usable excursion to make use of it, and it doesn't have the clean, usable upper end response of the TC2+ which makes it pretty much a 60Hz on down and quieter kind of sub. However, it's also a sub you could throw a lot of power at and just go to town. The PRS has better sensitivity than any of the other subs by a decent margin. The RSD12d is the only one that felt like it needed more power for anything above normal listening. I'm kind of assuming the DIYMA will show me a similar need but at a high enough level where it really won't be needed for my install.


----------



## skylar112 (Dec 8, 2005)

mvw2 said:


> Ok, I got some initial listening impressions. I likey!
> 
> I don't have much to complain about with the sub. It's very nice. Sound is completely transparent. I can't even pinpoint the subwoofer at all. Upper end response is very usable and has no problem running well above 100Hz. Sensitivity seems somewhere in the middle. It doesn't give me the impression it's lacking in power for the level I'm running, but I'm sure I could make use of a bit more if available. The subwoofer reminds me of the TC Sounds I had, but not thick like the TC Sounds. There's a good sense of power and effortless behavior. I haven't pushed the sub much yet, so I'm not yet sure where my 400w runs out of steam.
> 
> ...


Totally agree about the most transparent sub out there, even at high volume imo.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Accidently made a thread in the For Sale section here instead of CAF, but got a response from a DIYMA member:



60ndown said:


> almost an excellent review, but i found it hard to understand EXACTLY which sub you were talking about 3/4 of the time
> 
> you seemed to be mentioning one sub but takling about the performance of another sub compared to the one you were talking about?
> 
> ...


I'll see if I can put things in numbers... I understand my wording is a big jumbled.


----------



## TJHUB (Oct 13, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> Ok, I got some initial listening impressions. I likey!
> 
> I don't have much to complain about with the sub. It's very nice. Sound is completely transparent. I can't even pinpoint the subwoofer at all. Upper end response is very usable and has no problem running well above 100Hz. Sensitivity seems somewhere in the middle. It doesn't give me the impression it's lacking in power for the level I'm running, but I'm sure I could make use of a bit more if available. The subwoofer reminds me of the TC Sounds I had, but not thick like the TC Sounds. There's a good sense of power and effortless behavior. I haven't pushed the sub much yet, so I'm not yet sure where my 400w runs out of steam.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with your comments with one exception. I think of "transparent" to sound like the tones are not being created by a speaker. My DIYMA R12 is very transparent by my definition. It's truely a pleasure to listen to.

My previous sub to the R12 was a 10" Type-X. It too blended with my front stage very well, but did not sound transparent. It was a pleasent sound and the thing had good low end extension, but it sounded "thick" as you mentioned about the TC sub. I suppose that "thick" sound must be distortion. I loved the Type-X, but it's just not nearly as good as the R12 in my setup.


----------



## Weightless (May 5, 2005)

Nice design and build on the box. Good job...

I wish I lived/worked closer to you. I have only listened to the DIYMA 12 in a sealed box and would love to hear it vented. 

Good stuff...


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

These are the subs I've used in the order of recent use. Now I've modeled all of these subs up on paper but the DIYMA and PRS subs are the only ones that I've built specific boxes for. I've used the TC2+ and SC12NRT in my 2.6 cu.ft. @ 26Hz ported box along with my PRS. I've used all but the DIYMA in my 1.5 cu.ft. sealed, well stuffed box. This being said, not all the subs were in their ideal enclosures, but none were significantly compromised either. Also realize that low end response will be dependent on the enclosure and my ranking is hopefully based off relative ability instead of box bias. I'm not certain what areas I should cover, but I'll go with this:
Low/Mid/High usability (say <50Hz/50-100Hz/>100Hz)
Sound
Coloration
Level of Detail
Impact
Comments

I may add some later. I don't really want to use numbers but rather comment on the areas.

DIYMA 12"
Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usability with a F3 of 30Hz ported, 50Hz sealed, and easy use well above 100hz
Sound - neutral/natural
Coloration - none
Level of Detail - very high
Impact - medium
Comments - very invisible, non-offending sub

Pioneer PRS 12"
Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usablity with a F3 of 25Hz ported, 40Hz sealed, and easy use well above 100Hz
Sound - neutral/dry/bite
Coloration - slightly dry
Level of Detail - very high
Impact - high
Comments - Clean, quick with good perception of power

Sonicraft SC12NRT 12"
Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usability with a F3 of 20Hz ported, 35Hz sealed, and easy use well above 100Hz
Sound - neutral//slightly soft/strong kick
Coloration - slightly unnaturally punchy
Level of Detail - high
Impact - very high, chest pounding
Comments - near transparent, very punchy with impact you can feel in the chest, the only sub that does this.

Phoenix Gold RSD12d 12"
Low/Mid/High usability - very low sealed F3 of 30Hz, not that usable above 60Hz due to lack in detail/speed, very incoherent above 100Hz
Sound - warm, very smooth, muddy/slow at higher frequencies
Coloration - warm/smooth
Level of Detail - low, medium at lower frequencies
Impact - medium, good authority.
Comments - good, small sealed, low frequency performer but not what I'd consider a "musical" sub, very low Xmax for clean low frequency output

Dayton Reference HF 12"
Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usabilty with a F3 of 20Hz ported, 40Hz sealed.
Sound - squeaky clean/crisp/light.
Coloration - squeaky clean
Level of Detail - very high
Impact - *quick but short, slightly weak in feel in lower frequencies
Comments - squeaky clean and fun to listen to, very light and crisp sound, low Xmax for high output sealed use

TC Sounds TC2+ 12"
Low/Mid/High usability - ported gives a somewhat high F3 of 40Hz, sealed 60Hz, mid and high end usability is very good, just lacks low end sensitivity
Tonality - warm/natural
Coloration - warm/heavy
Level of Detail - medium
Impact - medium/powerful
Comments - overly heavy notes, almost seeming muddy, a bit early sensitivity roll off for my liking, pretty much requiring porting or EQing boost. This is the Oaudio version which is geared for smaller enclosures, losing around 10Hz on low end sensitivity versus TC spec.

*minor clarification


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> Dayton Reference HF 12"
> Low/Mid/High usability - very wide usabilty with a F3 of 20Hz ported, 40Hz sealed.
> Sound - squeaky clean/crisp/light.
> Coloration - squeaky clean
> ...


the Dayton 10 HO must be a totally different animal than the 12 HF. especially on the impact part. in .7 ported to 30hz on an amp that can only give it 400 WRMS it slams me in the chest on rock and metal. fast double bass kicks are insane on it. so it must be totally different than the HF. i wish you had experience with the 10 HO so i would know how it compares with the DIYMA 12. 

good review though and i'm glad you like it. it looks like an awsome woofer.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

The impact is quick, however, there isn't a lot of heft behind the note. I think it's more of a duration thing. The notes are just too light in presence. Now with kick drum, we start getting into higher frequencies, and here, the Dayton is very good, and yes they have a good deal of impact and presence. I really loved crossing the Dayton quite high. I would have no problem running the thing at 200Hz all day long. I'd love to hear a pair in a home audio tower. However, it is not present throughout the whole frequency range. I would like to run a Dayton in a ported configuration as I do feel this is the sub's weakness, primarily the lack of excursion and the ease of the sub to reach Xmax in the box size. Sealed in 1.5 cu.ft. I found low end to almost be, well, muddy. It also took either a high crossover frequency or quite a bit of output to actually _feel_ the sub. I should clarify my ranking a hair. Impact is quick but light in weight. I would assume the HO in a small ported box will be different to some extent. I'd like to hear one.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> The impact is quick, however, there isn't a lot of heft behind the note. I think it's more of a duration thing. The notes are just too light in presence. Now with kick drum, we start getting into higher frequencies, and here, the Dayton is very good, and yes they have a good deal of impact and presence. I really loved crossing the Dayton quite high. I would have no problem running the thing at 200Hz all day long. I'd love to hear a pair in a home audio tower. However, it is not present throughout the whole frequency range. I would like to run a Dayton in a ported configuration as I do feel this is the sub's weakness, primarily the lack of excursion and the ease of the sub to reach Xmax in the box size. Sealed in 1.5 cu.ft. I found low end to almost be, well, muddy. It also took either a high crossover frequency or quite a bit of output to actually _feel_ the sub. I should clarify my ranking a hair. Impact is quick but light in weight. I would assume the HO in a small ported box will be different to some extent. I'd like to hear one.


from what i have read the HF and the HO are very different. the HO's love small sealed and small ported but doesn't extend quite as low as i guess the HF does. the HF seems to be better suited for home audio, and the HO seems to be better suited for car audio. the HO in a small ported box is a sweet setup!


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Well yes. The _design_ is very different, however, I have no clue about the difference in _sound_.

The HF one runs in 1.4 cu.ft. sealed, 3.5 ported. The HO runs in 0.7 cu.ft. sealed, 1.3 cu.ft. ported. The difference is basically half the box size and the ability to double the power without reaching xmax. Plus there's a difference of around 10Hz in low frequency range extention.

Other than the design specifications, running in appropriate boxes, I just have no clue how their actual sound differs.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> Well yes. The _design_ is very different, however, I have no clue about the difference in _sound_.
> 
> The HF one runs in 1.4 cu.ft. sealed, 3.5 ported. The HO runs in 0.7 cu.ft. sealed, 1.3 cu.ft. ported. The difference is basically half the box size and the ability to double the power without reaching xmax. Plus there's a difference of around 10Hz in low frequency range extention.
> 
> Other than the design specifications, running in appropriate boxes, I just have no clue how their actual sound differs.


sorry to keep getting off topic here but the 10" HO actually likes .7cuft net ported. ask, chad, bass lover1, and minivanman about that as well. we are all running the HO in that amount of airspace ported and it loves it.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Sorry, I was referencing to the 12". Parts Express indicates 0.3 sealed, 0.5 ported. Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> Sorry, I was referencing to the 12". Parts Express indicates 0.3 sealed, 0.5 ported. Sorry about the confusion.


it's all good. the DIYMA 12 looks very good and i was just wondering how it compares to my HO 10. but i guess we might not ever know. i just got the HO so i'm not looking to change anytime soon, but was just wondering.


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

I have a little update.

I've been running the DIYMA in my car for a little while now, still liking it. I redid my ghetto home theater setup converting it from a simple stereo setup to a full 5.1 surround sound system. This basically consists of a $20 cheapy receiver(works but zero features) and 5 satellite speakers from Electro-Voice's EV SonicXS PC sets (own a 2.1 and 4.1 set). I brought the DIYMA into the house in place of the PRS sub. I level balanced and set the x-over for the sub (Bash plate amp).

This is the first run with this new setup. Impressions are more favorable than from in-car use. The sub is sitting center facing forward right next to the center channel. I played some TV and popped in a movie to test surround sound. This sub keeps on impressing me. The thing is absolutely invisible. Crossover is a little higher than before to blend with the smaller 4" mids of the SonicXS satellites. Even so, I can look right at the sub and not tell it's actually playing music. I'm still liking this sub a whole lot. I think it's going become a permanent fixture in my home audio setup. As for my car, I'm heavily considering subless, something I've been feeling for some time.


----------

