# Dayton ultimax



## ou812

Anyone get the new parts Express catalog in the mail today? Page 176. dayton has a new subwoofer. The ultimax. I can't even find it on their site or dayton's site. They have it in a 10 and 12. 


The 10....500 watts, le 1.27, dvc 2 ohms, re 3.3 ohms, range 25-1k, fs 26.2, spl 86.4, vas 1.24 cu ft, qms 3.03, qes .054, qts .046, xmax 19 mm 
$159

The 12 1.22, same coil, same re, range 20-1k, fs 24.9, spl 87.7, vas 2.53, qms 3.45, qes 0.71, qts 0.59, xmax 19 mm. 

$179

Nomex honeycomb cone covered a glass fiber...No aluminum.


----------



## hrearden22

Saw it as well and am very curious.


----------



## hrearden22




----------



## narvarr

Nice find! Need to start stalking my mailbox now

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ou812

It does look interesting. Someone needs to buy one.


----------



## Richv72

From the specs it looks like an average subwoofer, nothing fancy, nothing bad.


----------



## ou812

Richv72 said:


> From the specs it looks like an average subwoofer, nothing fancy, nothing bad.


Compared to what? A little more efficient than the HO and a decent jump in xmax.


----------



## Horsemanwill

why wouldn't htey list it on the site


----------



## Spyke

Yup, saw it on the way back from the mailbox. Looks like a titanic with a nomex/glass cone instead of kevlar/paper cone. 3" dvc is a nice feature though. Fs and xmax is the same though.


----------



## Horsemanwill

does it have a part or model number


----------



## SPLEclipse

Horsemanwill said:


> does it have a part or model number


new p.e. drivers

Part numbers and more information can be found in this thread from the PE forum. Dayton's coming out with some AMT tweets as well.

Personally, I think they look amazing. They will probably be ignored by the car audio community in general though.


----------



## Whiskeyface

wish they were just a little bit more sensitive.


----------



## ATOMICTECH62

If you Google Dayton Ultimax,this thread is all there is.


----------



## Spyke

Spyke said:


> Yup, saw it on the way back from the mailbox. Looks like a titanic with a nomex/glass cone instead of kevlar/paper cone. 3" dvc is a nice feature though. Fs and xmax is the same though.


Oh wait, It says in the catalog that it has a 2.5" vc. It still looks like it will be a good sub though.


----------



## ou812

Spyke said:


> Oh wait, It says in the catalog that it has a 2.5" vc. It still looks like it will be a good sub though.


Thanks....I was thinking of the new FI X that now has a 3 inch coil.


----------



## subwoofery

Hybrid Dayton 
Half *Ulti*mo - Half ID*max*  

Kelvin


----------



## Horsemanwill

I just called asking about box size they said best response is in 3cubic feet sealed


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Horsemanwill said:


> I just called asking about box size they said best response is in 3cubic feet sealed


----------



## narvarr

Horsemanwill said:


> I just called asking about box size they said best response is in 3cubic feet sealed


I'm going to assume that is for the 12. Did they happen say what the f3 is for that?

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## subwoofery

Horsemanwill said:


> I just called asking about box size they said best response is in 3cubic feet sealed


3cuft for Home Audio maybe? What's the F3 for that enclosure size? 

Kelvin


----------



## ou812

subwoofery said:


> Hybrid Dayton
> Half Ultimo - Half IDmax
> 
> Kelvin


I'm sold.


----------



## Horsemanwill

didn't have time to ask about the f3 sorry guys.


----------



## chad

narvarr said:


> I'm going to assume that is for the 12. Did they happen say what the f3 is for that?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2





> Cabinet recommendations:
> • Sealed 2.0 cubic ft. (net internal), f3 of 36 Hz with a 0.715 Qtc alignment
> • Vented 3.0 cubic ft. (net internal) tuned to 22.5 Hz with two 3" diameter by 20" long dual flared Precision Port tubes, f3 of 22.5 Hz


Pow

Dayton Audio UM12-22 12" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Co 295-512


----------



## narvarr

chad said:


> Pow
> 
> Dayton Audio UM12-22 12" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Co 295-512


They just added that today. I called their sales department this morning to ask about the IMM-6 Mic since it wasn't on the site yet either. Neither will be in stock till ~12/10.

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Horsemanwill

hmmm just found out i can get them for 135.00. someone tell me how they think they would do IB


----------



## bigfastmike

Finally added to websight and out of stock already? Wtf?


----------



## chad

because there never was stock?


----------



## AAAAAAA

That is a handsome sub.... 3 cubes sealed pretty much kills it though.


----------



## chad

I'm thinking home use.


----------



## SPLEclipse

AAAAAAA said:


> That is a handsome sub.... 3 cubes sealed pretty much kills it though.


"• Sealed 2.0 cubic ft. (net internal), f3 of 36 Hz with a 0.715 Qtc alignment"

Even if it was 3 ft^3 how would that change anything? You don't _have_ to put it in a box that size. That f3 and alignment is stellar though.


----------



## chad

Wish it were not dual 2 ohm. I'd love to do a pair. 

Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## hurrication

Assuming the specs from PE are correct, I am showing it needing 6.5 cubes sealed to reach a qtc of .707. Two cubes sealed yields a qtc of .881. 
The qes is on the high side @ .71, to me that is implying that there isn't enough motor strength for the size of enclosures we're used to. Probably due to the shorting rings. I think it would be a good IB performer.


----------



## chad

Ugh, I modeled it.

Appears to do OK for IB, about the same as the big box 5.8 cubes for .71

vented LOOKS awesome till you factor in an 8 cu ft box, but it sure does get low. group delay is fuken huge.


----------



## subwoofery

chad said:


> Ugh, I modeled it.
> 
> Appears to do OK for IB, about the same as the big box 5.8 cubes for .71
> 
> vented LOOKS awesome till you factor in an 8 cu ft box, but it sure does get low. group delay is fuken huge.


Not enough motor force I guess for car audio use... 

Kelvin


----------



## chad

subwoofery said:


> Not enough motor force I guess for car audio use...
> 
> Kelvin


Probably not enough for an aassisted alignment either.. it would take a ****load of them to IB in a home too. 

Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## subwoofery

chad said:


> Probably not enough for an aassisted alignment either.. it would take a ****load of them to IB in a home too.
> 
> Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk 2


Last resort is to use them in a push-pull 6th order transmission line manifold 

Kelvin


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> Ugh, I modeled it.
> 
> Appears to do OK for IB, about the same as the big box 5.8 cubes for .71
> 
> vented LOOKS awesome till you factor in an 8 cu ft box, but it sure does get low. group delay is fuken huge.


It lost my interest at 2 and 3cu sealed. Just stuff it in .25 and call it a day. I'm a rebel, I like my group delay at 80hz.


----------



## thehatedguy

The AMT looks like an Airborne 4001.


----------



## chad

Spyke said:


> I like my group delay at 80hz.


Love it!

I'm actually looking to replace the enormous 18" enclosure in my shop.

I wanted to do a tiny sealed + assisted EQ but I don't think it has the motor to cope with the smaller enclosure and I'd end up roaching the coil. On top of that I can't do 2 because the impedance is wrong, I need to end up at 4 ohms because I run a Carver/Clair PM1.5M and the minimum impedance is 4 ohms due to it's internal config.


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> Love it!
> 
> I'm actually looking to replace the enormous 18" enclosure in my shop.
> 
> I wanted to do a tiny sealed + assisted EQ but I don't think it has the motor to cope with the smaller enclosure and I'd end up roaching the coil. On top of that I can't do 2 because the impedance is wrong, I need to end up at 4 ohms because I run a Carver/Clair PM1.5M and the minimum impedance is 4 ohms due to it's internal config.


15" Titanic? Haven't modeled it but I have the 10 and 12 in .63cu and 1cu respectively. I'd imagine the 15 wouldn't need an insanely large enclosure.


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> The AMT looks like an Airborne 4001.


Something isn't right... 
The Sd of the Dayton is 12.6cm2 for an OD of 96mm. 
The Airborne RT-20021's Sd is 25cm2 for an OD of 74mm
The Airborne RT-4001's Sd is 50cm2 for an OD of 85mm 

Is it me or the Sd of the Dayton is really small --> that doesn't help the freq response either coz the Airbornes are flatter overall... 

Kelvin


----------



## chad

Now I need to search airborne


----------



## thehatedguy

You won't find anything on Airborne...it's Solen's house brand. Their AMTs are made by Hygeia Electric though.

And the Dayton looks a bit different than the Airborne after more looking at it.


----------



## Ray21

I'm not impressed really. The Titanic will perform as well or better in a smaller enclosure SPL-wise and is actually usable in a ported box. The HO will "sound" better than either.


----------



## Whiskeyface

needing a 7 cu ft box to model slightly flat. . . yuck. 

give me that dayton HO 18 and call it a day.


----------



## Bayboy

The 12" Ultimax may not seem so alluring, but when comparing the 10" to other Dayton drivers I really don't see the negatives. Not a big advancement, but when modeled it has the best roll off between the HO & Titanic which are 60hz & up with the HO being the worse.

From prior experience in this truck with the Dayton DVC 12" and it's low roll off, that's a game changer for me being in a SUV. I'm heavily thinking about taking the leap of faith on that 10". Will allow me to run it with a spare amp (US Acoustics 2150 bridged) and still keep a smallish box.


----------



## tyroneshoes

10" looks pretty good. 

.63 cuft sealed is much more reasonable for car. 1.65 ported still go low for home.

Dayton Audio UM10-22 10" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coi 295-510


----------



## Bayboy

Hopefully the specs are dead on. I'd be willing to give up my trials on both sets of Peerless 830876 & HO. Had my fun with them, but just too much stress on meager amps when you have to boost below 40-50hz. 


Porting both subs requires a box with excruciating labyrinths just to keep down vent velocity. Not willing to give up that sort of real estate in a small SUV when a simple sealed can reach below 50hz. That will save me quite a bit on the EQ. 


Now only if they came out with a same series of mid woofers and with not so deep mounting depth, that would be awesome!


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> The 12" Ultimax may not seem so alluring, but when comparing the 10" to other Dayton drivers I really don't see the negatives. Not a big advancement, but when modeled it has the best roll off between the HO & Titanic which are 60hz & up with the HO being the worse.
> 
> From prior experience in this truck with the Dayton DVC 12" and it's low roll off, that's a game changer for me being in a SUV. I'm heavily thinking about taking the leap of faith on that 10". Will allow me to run it with a spare amp (US Acoustics 2150 bridged) and still keep a smallish box.


Well first of all, you can't compare the HO and the titanic as far as sealed enclosures. The HO is great ported but sucks sealed, the titanic could go either way. And where are you getting 60? I have the titanic at an f3 of 47 in .63. The ultimax looks like a good sub, but for a small sealed i'd still go titanic. imo


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Well first of all, you can't compare the HO and the titanic as far as sealed enclosures. The HO is great ported but sucks sealed, the titanic could go either way. And where are you getting 60? I have the titanic at an f3 of 47 in .63. The ultimax looks like a good sub, but for a small sealed i'd still go titanic. imo




That is quite subjective to deem the HO as such & if you noticed I stated "in my truck". Which is funny that you mention it, I actually had very little problems with the HO in pairs, ran off a BP1200.1, in a small sealed. I still have them, I wanted matching amps to build a rack with, then decided to just not run that much power any more.


I was modeling in BB to compare raw data between several which included cabin gain and the omittance of cabin gain due to what I know MY vehicle does. I'm not sure which model you were using, but I believe the 10" MKIII was the one chosen. I will have to check again, but are you using that one? Qtc doesn't matter, but what Q did you opt for as from what I can recall the F3hz was above 50hz in a Q of .707.......


----------



## Horsemanwill

Spyke said:


> Well first of all, you can't compare the HO and the titanic as far as sealed enclosures. *The HO is great ported but sucks sealed*, the titanic could go either way. And where are you getting 60? I have the titanic at an f3 of 47 in .63. The ultimax looks like a good sub, but for a small sealed i'd still go titanic. imo


i thought i read that the HO does good in one cubic foot sealed


edit the 12" that is


----------



## Bayboy

What's bad for one may be good for another simply. For several years I ran a single 10" HO with a mere 450 watts and was fine with it. It's "clinical" sound (as stated in a much earlier review) was actually quite refined for me and my listening preferences.

Of course, tastes changes after a while and so does source material we may listen to. That's when I added another to pick up the pace. As a space saving sub with smooth low end, it was hard to beat the pair. Then I ventured off into trying less power and smaller amps so they were put aside. Nature of the hobby I suppose. I have no experience with the 12" so I can not speak on it just like modeling & paper specs will do nothing for the Ultimax until someone actually gets their hands on one.


----------



## chad

did you have the 10" vented or sealed? What size enclosure?


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> What's bad for one may be good for another simply. For several years I ran a single 10" HO with a mere 450 watts and was fine with it.* It's "clinical" sound (as stated in a much earlier review) was actually quite refined for me and my listening preferences.
> *


Took the words right out of my mouth. I didn't mean it sounded bad necessarily, but clinical is a perfect way to describe it. There was just something it did too well or not well enough. Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. I had the 10" mk3 in .60 and loved it. So much so that I got the 12" and put it in 1cu. And no I wasn't taking CG into account in my original post. I don't pay much attention to qtc anymore but I believe the 10" titanic was around .7 maybe more maybe less.


----------



## Bayboy

chad said:


> did you have the 10" vented or sealed? What size enclosure?




I had the 10" HO sealed both times (single & paired). Paired off of a BP1200.1, but the exact size eludes me at this point. I still have both boxes now fitted with the Peerless 830876. I believe both boxes are in the range of Qtc=.6. The single is of a slightly lower Q than the pair to account for rise and is now in a Ford Ranger Xtra cab. Much better performance in the Ranger of course seeing that it dovetails at a higher frequency than in the Blazer where the Peerless was tried as well. The other pair of Peerless are in the Blazer and depending on tuning can almost equal the HO with slightly less extreme low end. Two different beasts I know, but not necessarily bad. 

The HO actually is much smoother overall with the Peerless presenting more midbass, but it's like Spyke stated, depending on source it's either very good or it's slightly lacking. Prior EQ adjustments were made off of a DQX in the Blazer while in the Ranger is a mere JVC active HU which does fine. 

I would have tried vented for both, but since switching to a 80prs in the Blazer I have no SSF and with the music I listen to I don't want to risk damaging a sub not to mention real estate in a S10 is quite limited (at least for me). The best extended low end in the Blazer without boosting was from the DVC 12" whose F3 was in mid the 40's despite it's mid Q box design (sealed 1.1 ft). If the Ultimax can achieve a similar F3 as the DVC but in the same size single box as the Peerless & HO I'd say that is an advantage for me. The Blazer has been hard to tame & could really use a separate EQ like a DQS.


----------



## chad

I hated (well, disliked) mine sealed, still have it to this day vented... works great for me. IT was lackluster, to say the least sealed, and I have a rather small vehicle.

Don't worry about a subsonic filter, it's a low tune, there's not much at all below there and I have yet to hear the driver under stress from anything too low... I have a VERY diverse listening taste, including live music that is unmastered so the nasties have nto been taken out yet.

I think too many people put too much into a SSF on a consumer basis to be honest.


----------



## Bayboy

In fact Chad, you're just the one I have questions for, but it will have to be later on. It is concerning the HO thread you started.


----------



## chad

Bayboy said:


> In fact Chad, you're just the one I have questions for, but it will have to be later on. It is concerning the HO thread you started.


Anytime man.


----------



## Bayboy

I'm on lunch break so I will keep this short even though it's about another thread. After Xtreme's counter to your suggestion on porting the HO the thread suddenly died. What was the conclusion? I still would at least like to try porting the HO if I can keep size to a minimum. Was he suggesting that it was not a good idea?


----------



## chad

He ended up contradicting himself in another thread after ****ting all over mine by saying "oh I thought you were making the enclosure twice as big....."  

It works just fine. Shockingly well actually for the amount of space taken up.. I don't shove a massive amount of power at it but in reality it was never meant as a SPL sub, there are other choices for that. With that low of a tune it's not boomy at all, but there is some port trickery that needs to be done, however someone recently did a vented titanic here in a standard cab truck and it worked out very well with the vent reaching across the back and hidden behind the amplifier rack.

Someone not reading: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...mparisons/1953-dayton-reference-10-ho-13.html

Someone contradicting himself.



XtremeRevolution said:


> Alright, here's the model I like the most.
> 
> Tuning frequency is 29hz. Port is one 3" round port, 30.5" in length. You will probably need to use a 90 degree elbow for this one to maintain port length. Box volume is 19.5 liters, or about .7 cubic feet *before driver and port displacement*.





chad said:


> About 2 weeks ago we had a confrontation over that exact design.


Backpedaling:



XtremeRevolution said:


> You sure it was the same one? I remember us arguing about 1.5 cubes per driver and I had concerns about excursion control.


----------



## Spyke

I have mine in a 1.2 cu tuned to 29 iirc. It's my HT sub at the moment and it does a great job of it. If I had known it would end up in the house I would have gotten the 12" HO. Oh well. If I planned *all* of my purchases I wouldn't have that cool room in my downstairs with all that neat stuff to look at...


----------



## Bayboy

chad said:


> He ended up contradicting himself in another thread after ****ting all over mine by saying "oh I thought you were making the enclosure twice as big....."
> 
> It works just fine. Shockingly well actually for the amount of space taken up.. I don't shove a massive amount of power at it but in reality it was never meant as a SPL sub, there are other choices for that. With that low of a tune it's not boomy at all, but there is some port trickery that needs to be done, however someone recently did a vented titanic here in a standard cab truck and it worked out very well with the vent reaching across the back and hidden behind the amplifier rack.
> 
> Someone not reading: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...mparisons/1953-dayton-reference-10-ho-13.html
> 
> Someone contradicting himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backpedaling:




Ahhhhhhhh!!! Guess I didn't see that. I sort of lost interest between trying to come up with a internal port while keeping a aesthetic overall shape, considering the difference in what you drive vs what I drive, then what Xtreme put in. I always wondered what happened to that. Now I know. Thanks for clarifying that for me. 

There may be hope after all if I can figure out some things and possibly make some sacrifices. The most troublesome part was power & vent velocity. I will do some more modeling tonight to see what I can actually get away with on less power. A slot port just adds way to much in how much room I'm willing to give up. It's easy to become spoiled by small sealed enclosures.


----------



## Bayboy

Hmmmm... according to BB Pro (if my calculations are right) I still gain almost +6db around 30hz at roughly half power (240 rms) compared to the normal sealed fed the full 600 rms. That's still +4db more than what I have to boost on the EQ (where I normally make a deep cut around 50-60hz then bring up the gain a tad while still boosting 31hz by +1-2db). Theoretically, this should allow me to cut instead of boost even with less power. Will have to try that before the Ultimax comes out so I can make a final decision.

Thanks again Chad! :beerchug:


----------



## chad

That's the whole plan  You also lower distortion and power compression.


----------



## Bayboy

According to modeling, you should be able to get away with a 3" x 3" port but it's 41" long for about half power without exceeding vent velocity, but it's close. Could be quite troublesome. Will have to be creative to make the box look normal.

Still will have the itch for the Ultimax since it's a new cone material for Dayton. At least some curiosity of a good review. I'm sure someone here will take the challenge.


----------



## chad

Most everyone does some external venting of some sort. 

Pickup truck right?


----------



## Bayboy

S10 Blazer.... suv


----------



## chad

I was thinking straight s-10, that's a game changer. 

Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bayboy

Yep.... aesthetics is a factor.


----------



## chad

and the fact that there is a lot of cubic volume.... But it's totally possible.

Under this:










Is a vented Dayton 10HO, a large amplifier, and an iota power supply. Which seems pretty easy till you also realize that the is also a spare tire, tool kit, 2 umbrellas, a flashlight and some other ********.

That's a small Civic hatchback.

Proof:


----------



## Bayboy

WOW!!!! Someone did a heck of a job with the false floor! I love that!


----------



## chad

Someone drank a LOT of beer and got creative


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> and the fact that there is a lot of cubic volume.... But it's totally possible.
> 
> 
> That's a small Civic hatchback.
> 
> Proof:


I always pictured your car as being filled with clothes. Kind of like the way you expect someone to look based on how they sound. Nice job btw.


----------



## Bayboy

That's the sort of work that is inspirational! I have enough spare gear to utilize, but I want good extension, flexibility & capability in amp channels, but all in a small space as possible. Laying the sub down like that never really crossed my mind. Guess I had tunnel vision, but it is quite doable in the Blazer. The bass extension was one of the reasons I am considering the Ultimax, but if I can eek out a plan with what I have already I am willing to try. I have a couple of amp options to drive the sub (280 rms vs 450 rms), but I would like a amp rack that only allows top view. Right now I'm tight on space on what I want to use unless I stick with 2 amps. That's another story though, but a false floor would settle all of that if I can pull it off.


----------



## chad

There is a fiberglass tub into the flipped over spare tire. The wood portion is only like 3-4" thick.


----------



## Bayboy

Unfortunately, that's not happening in the Blazer. The whole cargo area is flat.  I'll have a couple of weeks to come up with something.


----------



## Spyke

Sorry to interject, but why is space a concern in a blazer? Is it not wanting a plain sight enclosure for aesthetic reasons?


----------



## chad

Needs room for Clothes.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke, unlike the days ago when giant subs in big boxes was prevalent and something to boast about while leaving nothing but seating room (I'm no spring chicken ), today I find that totally unnecessary as well as nothing impressive. 

I honestly see no need to render cargo space almost useless especially in a SQ install. The vehicle still must function as a everyday driver plus be able to pull double duty on long trips without sacrificing the enjoyment of having built a custom system.


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> Spyke, unlike the days ago when giant subs in big boxes was prevalent and something to boast about while leaving nothing but seating room (I'm no spring chicken ), today I find that totally unnecessary as well as nothing impressive.
> 
> I honestly see no need to render cargo space almost useless especially in a SQ install. The vehicle still must function as a everyday driver plus be able to pull double duty on long trips without sacrificing the enjoyment of having built a custom system.


Oh, no I totally agree with you. I keep size and imposition to a minimum but I just wasn't sure if you could get away with a <1cu standard enclosure. I wasn't suggesting quad 15's or anything. I like the idea of a hidden sub though, have you thought about the sides or back in the cargo area? Perhaps in the tail gate? Lots of empty space there. Iirc, I saw, I think a minivan with dual 10's or 12's in the lift gate. I thought it was pretty neat anyway.


----------



## Bayboy

I've considered most if not all of those things which is one of the reasons I chose the subs I've used in the past including the Peerless 830876 & HO 10". Albeit performance is not bad, you still can't beat Hoffman's.... and when you have a vehicle that has a transfer function that dovetails a little deeper than most small vehicles there's not much you can get away with besides utilizing high power subs. That I've noticed with the difference between the aforementioned subs. The Peerless is no slouch, but can not compete with the HO in terms of smoothness & low end output combined with a micro enclosure. 

This particular Blazer has been the hardest so far to implement deep bass (or the way I prefer it rather) without relying on single large or multiple subs, big boxes or high power. The smoothest to date was 2 HO 10" on a BP1200.1 in a smallish sealed while still retaining a lower than .707 Q value. I probably would have kept that system if I wasn't so stuck on having symmetrical amp widths. I had the matching P80.4 & P180.2, but the only JBL amp that matched in width was the BP600.1. That pissed me off at the time! Later as you read, now I wish I kept the 2 & 4 channel, then swapped the BP1200.1 for a BP600.1. UGHHHH! 

The way I was wanting to situate a simple flushed amp rack is right behind the rear seat which limits me to like 36-37" across. Not much room when you get into high power amps and multiple channels unless you go all class D or smaller amps. I can easily do a simple 4 channel + mono amp, or either a lower power 5 channel (none that I've seen can run 2 HO" sealed by the way) + 2 channel setup if I decide to go with a 3-way front stage which what I'm looking at doing now. 

Looking at the HO modeled ported shows quite a bit of impedance peak that luckily occurs in two useful places. One happens at 46hz where my usual EQ cuts are between 45-60hz. The other start at port tuning as usual, but progressively rises to the point of not needing a SSF. As long as you keep total power @ 4 ohms no more than 250-300 rms you are almost nowhere near reaching xmax below tuning during normal playback even with the genres I listen to. At 15hz the impedance has risen to about 29 ohms! I'm so tempted to just run with the cheap 5 channel I have (Cadence F100-5) to see how the HO would perform off of that. I just may surprise myself.

Sorry to make such a long reply, but this is the first time since reading Chad's thread that I've really looked into all the data. This just might work!


----------



## ZAKOH

The 10 inch Ultimax looks interesting to try in a small sealed box. A typical 12 inch subwoofer in a sealed box gives you F3 in the 40-50Hz range. A typical 10 inch sub gives you F3 in above-50Hz range. According to PE, this one gives toy F3 of 45Hz in a 0.63 cu ft box, which seems nice, also considering 19mm xmax and 500watt power handling. So you get F3 of a 12 inch sub, but in a relatively small box.


----------



## subwoofery

Bayboy said:


> ...I can easily do a simple 4 channel + mono amp, or either a lower power 5 channel (*none that I've seen can run 2 HO" sealed by the way*) + 2 channel setup if I decide to go with a 3-way front stage which what I'm looking at doing now...


Do your homework  

The Audison LRx5.1k (now Voce AV 5.1k) can do it easily (1150rms @ 2 ohm) 
The Hifonics ZXi60.4 + 1K is powerful enough for 2 x HO (750rms @ 2 ohm) 
If you can find a Rockford Fosgate POWER-1000, it's not bad with 600rms @ 2 ohm (might be underrated) 
The Mmats HiFi 6150D should do around 750rms @ 2 ohm 
The Zuki Class D 5 should do in today's rating around 900rms @ 2 ohm 

I'm sure there's more but those are the only ones I can think about...

Kelvin


----------



## chad

the power 1000 was on my short list but the 500/5 was just too easy to build around with the heatsink on one side (have to do forced air as the false floor is like 1/4" from the amp.)

The floor, the side of the box and the mounting plate with ducting made for fantastic airflow to cool it.

My goal was to put 20 Lbs of **** in a 10 Lb bag.


----------



## Bayboy

Maybe I should have been a bit more clear on that Subwoofery as I'm one of those who don't believe in spending that kind of cash on single pieces of gear especially the likes of the Audison. Nice, but you have to admit.... pricey! But we won't get into that which damn near caused a riot some years back on here.  


Anyway, that point is moot now since researching a bit more. Zakoh is spot on where I'm headed. Either a small sealed setup that pushes the F3 envelope or go ported on the Dayton. Since I already have a set of the Dayton HO, it's only sensible that I at least try ported first which will allow me to use smaller amps and squeeze more channels into the system as I am wanting to do. 


I still say the Ultimax may turn out to be a nice contender. I just don't like the look of that tall surround. Not sure why they chose that when the Titanic is not too far behind in excursion unless they were trying to increase cone area.


----------



## subwoofery

Well I've seen the LRx5.1k (old model) be sold for as low as $450 - nice condition too 
I'm sure the RF can be bought for not that much money either... 

New? The Zuki Class D 5 channels is really nice for the money. 

Paying that kind of money for a 5 channels amp is not too bad coz I paid (a long time ago) $2100 for a 30rms 2 channels amp 

Kelvin


----------



## Bayboy

An LRx5.1k for $400?! That deal must have been at gunpoint....


----------



## subwoofery

Bayboy said:


> An LRx5.1k for $400?! That deal must have been at gunpoint....


Just did not get much attention on eBay - started at $1 no reserve... 

Kelvin


----------



## Bayboy

Heck, the SR-5 & LRX 5.600 go for that much.....


----------



## Brian Steele

Bayboy said:


> Looking at the HO modeled ported shows quite a bit of impedance peak that luckily occurs in two useful places. One happens at 46hz where my usual EQ cuts are between 45-60hz. The other start at port tuning as usual, but progressively rises to the point of not needing a SSF. As long as you keep total power @ 4 ohms no more than 250-300 rms you are almost nowhere near reaching xmax below tuning during normal playback even with the genres I listen to.



I'm not following you here. Are you suggesting that, as the impedance is higher at those frequencies, excursion is going to be less?


----------



## Bayboy

Huh? What occurs with most amplifiers when you raise the impedance? Less power output.


----------



## Brian Steele

Bayboy said:


> Huh? What occurs with most amplifiers when you raise the impedance? Less power output.


Yes, but (1) a driver's excursion is dependent on the voltage applied to its terminals, and (2) most sub amps can be considered as voltage sources, once the driver's impedance is *above* a minimum impedance.


----------



## Bayboy

You are keeping in mind that we are talking about utilizing a smaller than normal amp for this particular duty right? Not saying that it is impossible to damage it, but it's not likely considering source material, such a low tuning, etc. 

Are you running or have modeled the HO?


----------



## Brian Steele

Bayboy said:


> You are keeping in mind that we are talking about utilizing a smaller than normal amp for this particular duty right? Not saying that it is impossible to damage it, but it's not likely considering source material, such a low tuning, etc.
> 
> Are you running or have modeled the HO?


I've modelled the HO a few times. I'm actually considering the 12" version to replace my two Infinity 122.7Ws - seems like one of them has developed a problem with the surround. 

Concerning your situation, I think you should be fine with that low tuning, because a smaller amp will likely not be be generating the voltage required to drive the speaker into over-excursion.


----------



## Bayboy

That's what I'm mainly considering, although I am concerned with good enough total output without clipping as supposed to the levels I'm used to listening at. Chad's car is smaller than mine, but it's worth a try. That very last bit of usable octave is what I struggle with.


----------



## chad

Bayboy said:


> Maybe I should have been a bit more clear on that Subwoofery as I'm one of those who don't believe in spending that kind of cash on single pieces of gear especially the likes of the Audison.


----------



## Bayboy

Here's the thing I'm looking at right now, I have currently 4 US Acoustics amps (two 4065, one 2080, & one 2150). There's plenty in that mix to use either the HO or Ultimax off of the 2 channel models, then leaves the 4 channels to do what ever I wish. Right now I'm considering both 4 channels with one bridged on midbass 160 x 2, the other on midrange & tweet 65 x 4, then the 2080 bridged on the HO ported @ 280. Even with the Ultimax, the 2150 comes in at 450 bridged which is perfect for it sealed. All I have to do is find the space to use either setup and keep it neat. Win, win situation....


----------



## Bayboy

One more day for the Ultimax arrival! How many plan on giving it a go?


----------



## 1fishman

Bayboy said:


> One more day for the Ultimax arrival! How many plan on giving it a go?


Got one coming. Will be building a 0.83 sealed box. (0.63 + speaker displacement 0.2) driving with a PPI 1000.1

Being a novice when it comes to subs, I probably should have gone a tried & tested speaker...


----------



## Griffith

Horsemanwill said:


> hmmm just found out i can get them for 135.00. someone tell me how they think they would do IB


Can you still get them for that price? If so, how?


----------



## Horsemanwill

i fogot i had a wholesale account


----------



## Bayboy

Okay people... enough of the BS'ing! Who's got the 10" Ultimax and how does it sound? I know someone has ordered it so spill it!


----------



## Spyke

It sounds like crap, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.


----------



## Bayboy

Yeah right.... let me go back through this thread to see who was claiming it was so much like the Titanic. I'm willing to bet they was curious too. Specs speak nothing of actual sound. Klippel only tells so much as well so somebody better come up with something. 

I've got 2 Crown XTI 2000 on the line and some funds are gonna get used. LOL


----------



## ou812

Waiting to hear some opinions before I order one...or two.


----------



## ErinH

Bayboy said:


> Yeah right.... let me go back through this thread to see who was claiming it was so much like the Titanic. I'm willing to bet they was curious too. *Specs speak nothing of actual sound.* Klippel only tells so much as well so somebody better come up with something.
> 
> I've got 2 Crown XTI 2000 on the line and some funds are gonna get used. LOL


Not really. When's the last time you built an enclosure without modeling software or using the specs and a calculator to determine the best box option(s)? 

The alternative is just throwing a woofer in a box. When has that ever worked well?


----------



## Bayboy

I think you're taking that out of context, besides aren't you the usual one that test (Klippel) drivers??? 


Anyways, my point was that someone earlier in this thread stated (or predetermined rather) that the Ultimax would be nothing special or dare to say offered nothing different due to their assumption it is just an Titanic with a different cone. My argument is that looking at those specs on paper does not give details to how it actually sounds regardless of what it is based off of. 

After all, I spec'd the JBL MS62-C and it shows nothing that stands out compared to most other drivers, but obviously that means little compared to everyone's experience with it.


----------



## ErinH

Bayboy said:


> I think you're taking that out of context, besides aren't you the usual one that test (Klippel) drivers???
> 
> 
> Anyways, my point was that someone earlier in this thread stated (or predetermined rather) that the Ultimax would be nothing special or dare to say offered nothing different due to their assumption it is just an Titanic with a different cone. My argument is that looking at those specs on paper does not give details to how it actually sounds regardless of what it is based off of.
> 
> After all, I spec'd the JBL MS62-C and it shows nothing that stands out compared to most other drivers, but obviously that means little compared to everyone's experience with it.


I'm taking it in the context you provided. 

Yes, I am the one who Klippels drivers. How is that in opposition to my reply? 


Anyway, you made the statement it speaks 'nothing' of the performance. Well, that's not entirely true... unless the data isn't there or you simply don't have enough of it. In this case, it's likely there just isn't enough to show a difference. Though, I haven't even compared the specs. I saw your statement and thought it was a bit off the wall so responded to that.
*shrugs*


----------



## Bayboy

bikinpunk said:


> I'm taking it in the context you provided.
> 
> Yes, I am the one who Klippels drivers. How is that in opposition to my reply?
> 
> 
> Anyway, you made the statement it speaks 'nothing' of the performance. Well, that's not entirely true... unless the data isn't there or you simply don't have enough of it. In this case, it's likely there just isn't enough to show a difference. Though, I haven't even compared the specs. I saw your statement and thought it was a bit off the wall so responded to that.
> *shrugs*


Ummmm shrugs.. nope this seems more of just debate out of nothing. No offense bro, but I already stated this and if you read from earlier it speaks on this. I clearly am going off from an earlier reply so yes, your reply is somewhat out of context because clearly you don't get what I was referring to. LOL I'll leave it alone at this point


----------



## ErinH

Honestly, I have no idea what you're even arguing at this point. You made a comment. I replied to that. I didn't pull something out of the air and just reply at will. So, given neither of us seem to understand wtf the other is talking about, I'm fine with dropping it.

Carry on, brosef.


----------



## Bayboy

bikinpunk said:


> Honestly, I have no idea what you're even arguing at this point. You made a comment. I replied to that.
> 
> Carry on, brosef.




Because it's not an argument... If you will read back through this whole thread you may understand what and who I was referring to. The fact that you have tested drivers to the extent that you was able to (which I respect very much) I figured you may have understood where I was coming from. 

I will say this again in a current perspective without continuance from a past reply so maybe it will be a bit more clear..... simply looking at and comparing specs between drivers does not tell everything. It does not give clues to power response. It only tells of Q's, F3's, etc... The Ultimax relation to the Titanic is pretty much meaningless at this point until it is actually tested & heard. 


Have a Happy New Year People! Stay safe please.....


----------



## 1fishman

Ooops DP


----------



## 1fishman

My 10" should be here today sometime. I still need to have a box built for it...

If someone in East-side of Atlanta Ga with a discerning ear for subs, want to audition it let me know. I would like to know how it compares also.


----------



## Bayboy

1fishman said:


> My 10" should be here today sometime. I still need to have a box built for it...
> 
> If someone In Atlanta Ga with a discerning ear want to audition it let me know. I too would like to know how it compares...




Lucky joker! I should have ordered one myself, but I have too much gear lying around as it is. Make sure to take some good pics if you can. Stock never seems to do much justice.


----------



## Spyke

Haha. 

Bayboy, Relax, I was kidding. Hence the . On second thought maybe  would have been a better choice.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Haha.
> 
> Bayboy, Relax, I was kidding. Hence the . On second thought maybe  would have been a better choice.




Spyke.... don't play! :laugh: You ordered one didn't you?! Damn, I want to hear one bad.... That's sad.... :laugh: Actually I had in mind to match it up with the MS-62c. Cosmetically and perhaps sonically. Yeah I'm a bit compulsive like that, but the thought of a lightweight, transient quick setup from sub to front stage is kind of eargasmic. That is if the two can mate up well.... hmmmm


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> Actually I had in mind to match it up with the MS-62c.


I don't have an ultimax but I do need to get a set of those jbl's. I swear, everyone who hears them loves them.


----------



## Bayboy

Honestly, I haven't heard them yet. I'm real bad about stocking gear in the closet until I gather up the whole setup of what I want to configure or have in mind rather, but I do have experience with JBL products and they never let down.

Right now I have some MLV en route so I'm trying to get some deadening done while I tear stuff apart before I install it. The Ultimax or porting the Peerless or Dayton are the options. The amps I have to run the JBL & Ultimax will fit an amp rack good so I'm kinda wanting to go that route as of now. As soon as my P.A. gear sells it's on.


----------



## ZAKOH

Someone measured T/S parameters:

Ultimax subs


----------



## Bayboy

Hmmmm... seems like they tested the 10" with the coil in series. Qts is rather high compared to published data in P.E. Wondering if P.E.'s data is erroneous. Either way, the high Qts should lend a lower F3 than it's siblings. I haven't tried to input that link's data into BB6 to see if all matches. The question is with that "tested" data I wonder if the same box size is still recommended? Still no subjective review other than the claim of how clean excursion was with voltage applied.

Will have to stay tuned....


----------



## Richv72

Bayboy said:


> Hmmmm... seems like they tested the 10" with the coil in series. Qts is rather high compared to published data in P.E. Wondering if P.E.'s data is erroneous. Either way, the high Qts should lend a lower F3 than it's siblings. I haven't tried to input that link's data into BB6 to see if all matches. The question is with that "tested" data I wonder if the same box size is still recommended? Still no subjective review other than the claim of how clean excursion was with voltage applied.
> 
> Will have to stay tuned....


Put your money where your mouth is and buy one. Then tell us how it sounds.


----------



## Xaborus

I dont know what is up with the posted specs. I get nowhere close to 3cubic feet for Qtc .707. I get 7 Cubic feet


----------



## Bayboy

Richv72 said:


> Put your money where your mouth is and buy one. Then tell us how it sounds.


Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## Bayboy

Xaborus said:


> I dont know what is up with the posted specs. I get nowhere close to 3cubic feet for Qtc .707. I get 7 Cubic feet




Modeling as spec'd (coils in series) I got Qtc= .707 boxes varying from about 2-4 cubes depending on the amount of internal damping. No fill nets 4.186 cubes with F3 of 31.62hz. Typical damping nets 2.843 cubes with a F3 of 33hz. Heavily stuffed nets 1.845 with a F3 of 36.5hz. 


I'll admit that's a wide variance solely depending on enclosure stuffing, but even with no stuffing I got nowhere near 7 cubes.


----------



## Xaborus

Bayboy said:


> Modeling as spec'd (coils in series) I got Qtc= .707 boxes varying from about 2-4 cubes depending on the amount of internal damping. No fill nets 4.186 cubes with F3 of 31.62hz. Typical damping nets 2.843 cubes with a F3 of 33hz. Heavily stuffed nets 1.845 with a F3 of 36.5hz.
> 
> 
> I'll admit that's a wide variance solely depending on enclosure stuffing, but even with no stuffing I got nowhere near 7 cubes.


I thought there was something wrong with my modeling. That's why i opened the specs window so somebody can compare it. So whats the issue with my modeling?

A simple online calculator here shows 5.8ft^3 w/ no stuffing. Still not sure why everyone is getting such wide variances with modeling this sub


----------



## Bayboy

That's a good question. I really haven't thought about it much as I only concentrated on the 10". By it being dvc, and some parameters were missing (at least I thought), modeling could lead to erroneous results at this point including on the 10" as well. P.E. & Dayton usually are good about giving specs that are spot on. Will have to investigate that...


----------



## Spyke

Just stuff it in a shot glass with 8lbs of polyfil, and let it rock.


----------



## Bayboy

I'm actually surprised no one here has run one already. I still want it, but my PA amps didn't sell. Oh well, I really didn't want to get rid of them anyway. Got some other stuff I need to dig out and let go for sure.


----------



## ErinH

I may be testing one toward the end of this month or early February. I'm waiting on Dayton to get back to me after CES.


----------



## 1fishman

How much does that Third party sub test specs change sealed the box size for the 10"?
I can't get a handle on the program for figuring this out myself.

Part Express recomended 0.63 cubic feet (net or +.2 for speaker = 0.83 ) But i believe this was based on the Publish specs. 

"Third party" Ultimax subs
Re: 3.278 ohm
Fs: 28.94 Hz
Qts: .579
Qes: .676
Qms: 4.006
Le: 1.269
Mms: 160.8
Vas: .9813 cu ft

Published

THIELE-SMALL PARAMETERS
(Fs) 26.2 Hz 
(Re) 3.3 ohms 
(Le) 1.27 mH 
(Qms) 3.03 
(Qes) 0.54 
(Qts) 0.46 
(Vas) 1.24 ft.³


----------



## Bayboy

1fishman said:


> How much does that Third party sub test specs change sealed the box size for the 10"?
> I can't get a handle on the program for figuring this out myself.
> 
> Part Express recomended 0.63 cubic feet (net or +.2 for speaker = 0.83 ) But i believe this was based on the Publish specs.
> 
> "Third party" Ultimax subs
> Re: 3.278 ohm
> Fs: 28.94 Hz
> Qts: .579
> Qes: .676
> Qms: 4.006
> Le: 1.269
> Mms: 160.8
> Vas: .9813 cu ft
> 
> Published
> 
> THIELE-SMALL PARAMETERS
> (Fs) 26.2 Hz
> (Re) 3.3 ohms
> (Le) 1.27 mH
> (Qms) 3.03
> (Qes) 0.54
> (Qts) 0.46
> (Vas) 1.24 ft.³




It's not going to change much in the way of being drastic. When you look at how the Vas has decreased, but Qts has somewhat increased, then it just about evens out to not make a difference. In an unstuffed box of about .79 cubes you are still looking at an impressive F3 of 42hz. Slightly stuffed and you can reduce size down to about what was originally recommended with a slightly higher F3 but still in the mid 40's. This is all within keeping Qtc around .707 so again there's not much of a change in the 10".


----------



## 1fishman

I think i see what your saying. There is really a lot to understanding specs, what roll stuffing plays ... Big learning curve for me. I appreciate your help.

The .79 cubes is net? or with speaker? 

Published ---------------- *Thrid party*
Vas 1.24 ft3 ------------- * Vas 0.9813*
Qts .46 ------------------- * Qts 0.579*
Fs 26.2 ------------------- *Fs 28.94*


----------



## Bayboy

I didn't account for the driver as the info wasn't given in any of the specs that I was aware of. It adds a negligible amount to the box as it probably won't exceed .1 cubes, but you can add that to any box size as you wish for a bit better accuracy. The 10" Titanic Mkiii is about .08 cubes and from what I can tell they are just about the same in structure so again, it's negligible like most subs when put into a sealed box. Ported is a different story.


----------



## corcraft

Looks like 2 or more 12s ib would be a good affordable project.


----------



## Bayboy

corcraft said:


> Looks like 2 or more 12s ib would be a good affordable project.




Honestly, for the price of $179 ea I think there would be better options. Even though the 10" is tempting, it's price too is a bit meh just to audition. I'm still debating though.


----------



## 1fishman

Got my box yesterday, just a quick report of my thoughts on the 10", FWIW.
0.89 sealed box no stuffing, ran it with a PPI P-1000.1, HU 80prs, wired @1 ohm, fires down, placed between the front seat of my Honda minivan.

This is a very sweet little Sub. Had some sorting out to do because this whole sound system is new. Found that reverses phase with the HU worked best (all wired correctly so i'm still not sure why this is). 
First thing is the volume was great filled the van with sound and then some. The big surprise to me was how low it got, WOW. My test CD did 30Hz with no problem, it dropped off somewhere before 20hz (it would be nice to find a test CD that went in smaller low freq increments, but hey...). It seems to have some extra mid bass also. 
The sound? Jazz was fantastic, Blues Rock incredible, Even hip hop was very good, but probably could have stood to go a little lower and maybe a little louder. 

I wish i had more exposer to other high end 10" car audio subs too give a fair comparison but... I can say my B&W home sub goes lower, but i can't say it sounds better. 

Cons, i have to say the terminals holes are too small imo, i could not fit two 10 ga in the whole and doubt two 12 would fit ether( not really a big deal just worth mentioning). That and still not sure about the phase thing yet. 

All in all this sub Rocks!!

I hope to dial in my JBL MS 62's and set up the active front stage and time align it etc today. But for now the Sub response is the best part the best part of my system. 

*Edit.* I am not even close to being qualified to give a fair review, because like i said, i have not had much chance to listen to any real good 10" subs. just my opinion. I look forward to hearing what other more experienced ears have to say about it.


----------



## Bayboy

The first real review..... 

What other subs have you tried? I've used various 10" in the past and currently use Peerless 830876. Pretty clean, but lack a little on the bottom. Have a pair of 10" HO (very clean, but power hungry!) on the shelf, but I see you are going the same route as I am thinking Ultimax with MS62C so now I'm very curious. :laugh:


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> The first real review.....
> 
> What other subs have you tried? I've used various 10" in the past and currently use Peerless 830876. Pretty clean, but lack a little on the bottom. Have a pair of 10" HO (very clean, but power hungry!) on the shelf, but I see you are going the same route as I am thinking Ultimax with MS62C so now I'm very curious. :laugh:


Just buy one. I have never been let down by dayton and this sub is sure to not disappoint. I would buy one, but I already have a titanic 10 that i'm not using so i'd be hard pressed to find a reason to buy another one. I already have the titanic 12 in my car and the 10" HO in my HT. Although, I could buy an ultimax 12" for my HT. No no, must resist!!


----------



## Bayboy

You just don't know how tempted I am Spyke! :laugh:


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I'm gonna weigh in on the terminals not accepting larger wire. With such a short run 16awg is more than enough. I actually run 16awg speakerwire throughout in my install and have full confidence that any db loss is inaudible. This is with a 150rms (maybe more) per channel 4 channel and then an a/b 4 channel putting around 500rms to each sub.


----------



## Spyke

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I'm gonna weigh in on the terminals not accepting larger wire. With such a short run 16awg is more than enough. I actually run 16awg speakerwire throughout in my install and have full confidence that any db loss is inaudible. This is with a 150rms (maybe more) per channel 4 channel and then an a/b 4 channel putting around 500rms to each sub.


True. Unless your enclosure is 12 feet deep 16ga is prob sufficient for in box wiring. I use 12ga for everything just because I have a crap load of it laying around.


----------



## chad

Bayboy said:


> Have a pair of 10" HO (very clean, but power hungry!)


Not hungry when vented.


----------



## Bayboy

chad said:


> Not hungry when vented.



Yeah yeah.... I know. Forgive me man! It's the bug I tell ya, the bug! Sadly, instead of getting the Ultimax, I could be putting 3 amps in the back pushing either Peerless or HO" sub I currently have, ported even in pairs. Trying to create a power ratio setup w/headroom (50 x 2 tweets, 160 x 2 mids, 330/560/800 subs) that will fit within the allotted 37" max width.  For not much more than a single Ultimax it can be done, have matching amps. So far I'm eyeballing the RE DTS series while they're on clearance (2 channel, 4 channel, & 1000.1) all for 227 shipped. Still the bug man.... still the bug. I need help! :blush:


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> Not hungry when vented.


Hungry hungry HO's


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Hungry hungry HO's


LOL well not necessarily hungry, just can get enough output with less wattage before vent velocity is maxed out vs it's requirements when sealed.


----------



## SynRG

Hey Chad, how about doing some public service work for the folks here, and do a killer ported design for the 10" Ultimax like you did with the Dayton HO, hint, hint?..... 
I had the opportunity to hear Strakele's application of the HO enclosure and its still vividly pounded into my subsonic memory.


----------



## Bayboy

After looking at P.E.'s recommendations for the 10" it doesn't look so alluring ported with 1.75 cubes without port added. Surely it would hit over 2 cubes total. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ghionw

Slight thread jack: What's the minimum wrms you would recommend running to the HOs? I was thinking of running 1 @ 240w rms in 0.7ft^3 net tuned to 33hz. Was concerned that it would be loud or pronounced enough.. Thoughts?


----------



## ZAKOH

Bayboy said:


> After looking at P.E.'s recommendations for the 10" it doesn't look so alluring ported with 1.75 cubes without port added. Surely it would hit over 2 cubes total. Just my 2 cents.


Try to model their Peerless XXLS 10 835016 in a ported box . 1cu ft net box tuned to 30Hz looks pretty good in WinISD, with F3 in mid 30s. The port length looks pretty short. The box could use less than 1.5 cu ft overall. I think buying a prefab 1.2-1.5cu ft sealed box and inserting a flared port tube would work pretty well. The model suggests better SPL and power handling (with a subsonic filter) than a 12 in XXLS model in a sealed box. Yes, this is a more expensive subwoofer than Dayton. Hybrid Audio I10SW gives similar results as Peerless XXLS but has less xmax and costs even more (any thoughts which would sound better?)


----------



## Bayboy

ghionw said:


> Slight thread jack: What's the minimum wrms you would recommend running to the HOs? I was thinking of running 1 @ 240w rms in 0.7ft^3 net tuned to 33hz. Was concerned that it would be loud or pronounced enough.. Thoughts?




Although I have not ported the HO yet, I have played with them in several sealed configurations and I can tell you that they are quite inefficient and need the power to perform decently unless your vehicle's acoustics dovetails nicely with it. After some extensive modeling comparisons including excursion plots, it is quite hard to not go vented with it since such a minimal power range that you are looking at results in just as much output (on paper). Depending on the port size, the advantage in low power input is it won't exceed vent mach. Adding considerably more power will require a bigger & longer port. Chad's example is right where you are so you should be fine and modeling proves so. I can't recall, but in my modeling I believe the wattage limit with such a small port was around 300 or so that doesn't exceed vent mach or xmax.


The main advantage is the extra amount of low end which is impressive in it's extension vs enclosure size if you can find a way to keep the long port cosmetically appealing (if that even matters to you). There's a whole thread on it so it would be best to look there and keep this one uncluttered.


----------



## Bayboy

ZAKOH said:


> Try to model their Peerless XXLS 10 835016 in a ported box . 1cu ft net box tuned to 30Hz looks pretty good in WinISD, with F3 in mid 30s. The port length looks pretty short. The box could use less than 1.5 cu ft overall. I think buying a prefab 1.2-1.5cu ft sealed box and inserting a flared port tube would work pretty well. The model suggests better SPL and power handling (with a subsonic filter) than a 12 in XXLS model in a sealed box. Yes, this is a more expensive subwoofer than Dayton. Hybrid Audio I10SW gives similar results as Peerless XXLS but has less xmax and costs even more (any thoughts which would sound better?)



I couldn't begin to tell you on any comparison of sound. The bug bites hard sometimes, but my gut instinct keeps telling me to use what I have first. I just have to get settled on which configuration I want to go with then roll with it. Strictly sealed and the Ultimax would probably be the best bet with it's low F3, but ported... meh.. The HO is just too appealing with .7 cubes and if you can manage to stay away from a large diameter port then it's even more alluring.


----------



## Spyke

ghionw said:


> Slight thread jack: What's the minimum wrms you would recommend running to the HOs? I was thinking of running 1 @ 240w rms in 0.7ft^3 net tuned to 33hz. Was concerned that it would be loud or pronounced enough.. Thoughts?


I'm running one on 240w in a 1.2cu tuned to 27hz. It sounds very smooth and gets very low. I'd tune lower than 33 if I were you.


----------



## chad

you really think 6 cycles makes that much of a difference? The design calls for between 29 and 30 cycles though.

My amplifier puts out 250 watts at 4 ohms and I'm gonna leave it at that before I make everyone **** bricks in a number fixation circle jerk.


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> you really think 6 cycles makes that much of a difference? The design calls for between 29 and 30 cycles though.
> 
> My amplifier puts out 250 watts at 4 ohms and I'm gonna leave it at that before I make everyone **** bricks in a number fixation circle jerk.


From 12,000 to 12,006...no. From 27 to 33...ehh, i'd rather go 27 than 33. Let's compromise and say 30.

Edit: Besides, I said lower than 33 *******. Don't ****ing twist what I said.


----------



## chad

Spyke said:


> Edit: Besides, I said lower than 33 *******. Don't ****ing twist what I said.


Get that vent close to another boundary and the tuning is gonna change anyway windowlicker.


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> Get that vent close to another boundary and the tuning is gonna change anyway windowlicker.


LOL


----------



## chad

you have no idea how long I have been saving that.


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> you have no idea how long I have been saving that.


I can't look at it without cracking up. :laugh:


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

A single ported ho10 wasn't enough on 416rms for my big cab. Or maybe I'm just used to higher distortion subs making their presence more known


----------



## Bayboy

I think that is where most of the HO's infamy comes from, not that it doesn't produce, just that it is too clean for most and they do not realize it. 


For several years I ran a single HO sealed with a simple USB-2150 bridged in a 4 door S10 Blazer. The box was sized to utilize most of the sub's excursion capabilities for the power allotted. I can honestly say it was very, very clean compared to other subs I've used in the past. Low notes were not lacking in the least. I've even used a SSF below 20hz to clean it up a tad at times because below 40hz was quite gratuitous. The problem was output at upper volumes didn't seem to reach that "edge" like most subs so it always felt like you weren't getting enough from it. Now after playing around with other setups for a while I realize just how much it did do..... blending with the doors was much easier, upper bass was so smooth it seemed to be no peaks in it's response. Crossing it over was very easy & definition was quite uncommon. Sometimes I wonder why did I take it out. 

One thing I can say is I can't bring myself to get rid of either of the set. Can the Ultimax match that same tenure? That will take some time to see, but so far I haven't ran across too many Dayton drivers that didn't impress when properly implemented. I just can't justify buying any more subs at this time unfortunately.


----------



## Spyke

I guess that solve it then. I've always said about the HO's. They are either doing something too well or not well enough. Turns out that it's both in a way. They produce squeaky clean bass but because of that, they don't have that dynamic wow factor. Mine is doing a killer job in my HT though. Movie bass should be clean and music should have a little edge to it.imo


----------



## Bayboy

Thing is this, as I've auditioned other drivers and had fun doing so, I keep coming back to the same issue that once wasn't as bad even before I had t/a. The more I try to get away from the sound the HO produced, the more problems I have with my front stage being robust enough to stay dominant, and keep it's composure while doing so. I can remember a local shop who used to hold many records back in the days using RF listening to it one day and complaining "Man you've got some hella fire midbass, but your sub isn't keeping up!" LOL Little did he know that the sub played fine down into the lowest regions within the vehicle. It just didn't have that travel that most SPL dudes like. That's the part I miss... being able to get that low end without having to disturb the car next to you (which could be the law  ) 

At some point I may very well return to what was while being able place more focus on the front stage. At least at this point I know what it takes to get the doors sounding good and where the best placement for mids & highs are. The main key is I have t/a to utilize now. I have gone in complete circles ignoring the fact the missing link has been the sub. I may need to get the HO back in duty.


----------



## Sgriffin

Got two of the 10" ultimax in the mail today, they look incredible, very beefy and cool looking with the new cone and tall boy surrounds.
Unfortunately I will need a few days to get them playing (doing some changing to system). I should have a new box being delivered to the house tomorrow, along with new head unit.
The box is 1.25 cu ea. sealed, and will be going into the trunk of my 2012 Challenger. The subs will get 500 watts (ea) from the sub channels of 2 pdx V9 amps. 
I am planning on bracing, sealing, adding better terminals and possibly some more screws for reinforcement. Should I decrease internal volume of box or is the 1.25 gross better. What about some kind of lining or stuffing? I am fairly new at designing my own sub system, but I am fairly handy. Some help would be very appreciated. 
Thanks 
Steve

The sound that I am trying to achieve would have a nice kick in the chest, but still go low with good sound quality at a decent volume. I mostly listen to rock and some rap.


----------



## Spyke

Sgriffin said:


> Got two of the 10" ultimax in the mail today, they look incredible, very beefy and cool looking with the new cone and tall boy surrounds.
> Unfortunately I will need a few days to get them playing (doing some changing to system). I should have a new box being delivered to the house tomorrow, along with new head unit.
> The box is 1.25 cu ea. sealed, and will be going into the trunk of my 2012 Challenger. The subs will get 500 watts (ea) from the sub channels of 2 pdx V9 amps.
> I am planning on bracing, sealing, adding better terminals and possibly some more screws for reinforcement. Should I decrease internal volume of box or is the 1.25 gross better. What about some kind of lining or stuffing? I am fairly new at designing my own sub system, but I am fairly handy. Some help would be very appreciated.
> Thanks
> Steve
> 
> The sound that I am trying to achieve would have a nice kick in the chest, but still go low with good sound quality at a decent volume. I mostly listen to rock and some rap.



1.25 should be fine. I always add some stuffing(polyfil). I came to the conclusion that I like stuffed better than non stuffed, just my preference. If you go sealed you'll either need to cross low or add some boost to the lower freq. I found that I prefer a low xo below 40 or 50. It works the same way but a lower xo allows you more flexibility than boost, especially if you are band limited.


----------



## Sgriffin

Thanks I will just brace and seal the boxes and loosely pack them with polyfil. Should have them bumping by the weekend I will let you guys know how they sound then.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> 1.25 should be fine. I always add some stuffing(polyfil). I came to the conclusion that I like stuffed better than non stuffed, just my preference. If you go sealed you'll either need to cross low or add some boost to the lower freq. I found that I prefer a low xo below 40 or 50. It works the same way but a lower xo allows you more flexibility than boost, especially if you are band limited.



I'd be a little leary of stuffing a box that is already past the recommended size unless you are trying to attain a lower Qtc. At the same time, the Ultimax 10" already presents a F3 into the mid 40's with it's recommended enclosure. I wouldn't think you would want to add any boost to such a alignment. With a wide bandwidth, crossing low isn't such a necessity. Should actually be able to cross them a tad higher (100-120hz) and still have good output down low.


----------



## 1fishman

Spyke said:


> 1.25 should be fine. I always add some stuffing(polyfil). I came to the conclusion that I like stuffed better than non stuffed, just my preference. If you go sealed you'll either need to cross low or add some boost to the lower freq. I found that I prefer a low xo below 40 or 50. It works the same way but a lower xo allows you more flexibility than boost, especially if you are band limited.


I think his 1.25 cf is for *EACH* speaker, not for both speakers. So the box would be on the large side. Not sure if you caught that with the stuffing recommendation. My understanding is that stuffing is for boxes on the small side.


----------



## 1fishman

Sgriffin said:


> Got two of the 10" ultimax in the mail today, they look incredible, very beefy and cool looking with the new cone and tall boy surrounds.
> Unfortunately I will need a few days to get them playing (doing some changing to system). I should have a new box being delivered to the house tomorrow, along with new head unit.
> The box is 1.25 cu ea. sealed, and will be going into the trunk of my 2012 Challenger. The subs will get 500 watts (ea) from the sub channels of 2 pdx V9 amps.
> I am planning on bracing, sealing, adding better terminals and possibly some more screws for reinforcement. Should I decrease internal volume of box or is the 1.25 gross better. What about some kind of lining or stuffing? I am fairly new at designing my own sub system, but I am fairly handy. Some help would be very appreciated.
> Thanks
> Steve
> 
> The sound that I am trying to achieve would have a nice kick in the chest, but still go low with good sound quality at a decent volume. I mostly listen to rock and some rap.


I can't help but wonder if 500 watts will be able to get all that these subs can do in a sealed box. It might, i'm just not sure.


----------



## Bayboy

1fishman said:


> I can't help but wonder if 500 watts will be able to get all that these subs can do in a sealed box. It might, i'm just not sure.


Don't see why not. They're rated 500 each and he plans to feed them with as much as that. Actually, in the larger sized enclosure they may not handle as much.


----------



## 1fishman

Bayboy said:


> Don't see why not. They're rated 500 each and he plans to feed them with as much as that. Actually, in the larger sized enclosure they may not handle as much.


You're absolutly right, I was just thinkig out loud.


----------



## Spyke

1fishman said:


> I think his 1.25 cf is for *EACH* speaker, not for both speakers. So the box would be on the large side. Not sure if you caught that with the stuffing recommendation. My understanding is that stuffing is for boxes on the small side.


I caught it. I still recommend stuffing. It changes the sound, it doesn't just change the "proverbial size" of the box.


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> I'd be a little leary of stuffing a box that is already past the recommended size unless you are trying to attain a lower Qtc. At the same time, the Ultimax 10" already presents a F3 into the mid 40's with it's recommended enclosure. I wouldn't think you would want to add any boost to such a alignment. With a wide bandwidth, crossing low isn't such a necessity. Should actually be able to cross them a tad higher (100-120hz) and still have good output down low.


Try my recommendation with your subs. You may surprise yourself. I'd suggest it with any sealed alignment.

Edit: Btw, by recommendation I mean xo point, not stuffing.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I've had subs that loved stuffing and some that hated it. These days I try my hardest to build to a .7qtc or below and let it ride.


----------



## Spyke

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I've had subs that loved stuffing and some that hated it. These days I try my hardest to build to a .7qtc or below and let it ride.


I used to be anal about qtc. These days, if I need to put a 12 into .75cu ft but it means a .9qtc, i'll do it. Perfect Qtc is great and all but i'm not gonna pull my hair out and make concessions just to achieve it. I can't make a sub sound the same and get just as loud in .5 vs 1.5.


----------



## Bayboy

In a hatchback or suv it matters most to me especially if you don't have the EQ processing power to overcome any anomalies. Sedan, not so much but staying close to your ideal target is best. You don't really want to cause unnecessary problems that will have to be corrected.


----------



## Spyke

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/138639-smaller-than-optimum-sealed-enclosure.html

I just don't think that chasing .7 is worth it. Power is cheap. And sure, group delay may go up, but you need to align your drivers anyway right?


----------



## hurrication

Qtc is not consistent in a cabin anyway so it's really not worth chasing the perfect .707 enclosure because of the change in system Q. It will change with the windows open, doors open, rear seats down, etc. In all reality, a sub box inside a car is a bandpass system and you are just sitting inside the vented chamber. An enclosure that might yield a .707 qtc in a certain cabin configuration is more than likely not going to be .707 itself.


----------



## Bayboy

Within reason..... Just because there's other ways to manipulate the result afterwards doesn't mean to throw any measures beforehand out the window. My common goals in every setup is to get close enough in design first, then manipulate later when limitations have been reached through design. 

The Ultimax 10" seems to be one of those subs (on paper) that could easily reach diminishing returns by going much bigger plus stuffing. It can use a medium size box (under 1 cube) to reach a common ideal Qtc, but the main advantage is it's F3hz which is below the avg car sub's 50-70hz sealed. This means you already can begin to make EQ cuts down low to smooth out the bottom end which will also create headroom. How much more of a size increase before you start losing performance? Not sure, but really no need to find out with a sub of that character. 


Getting Qtc exact is not as important, but I wouldn't dismiss it altogether. Build one with a Qtc of .577 & one for 1.1, then come back tell which one you prefer...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I've definately had better luck with lower qtc sealed and also ported boxes in my truck vs a sub being in a smaller than optimal sealed. What's sad though is I'm fixing to put my pair of 10's that work in rediculously small boxes sealed and ported in close to the minimum recomended sealed under my back seat so I can keep my truck in stock class. They'll also have to be inverted firing into the storage wells under the seat.


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> Within reason..... Just because there's other ways to manipulate the result afterwards doesn't mean to throw any measures beforehand out the window. My common goals in every setup is to get close enough in design first, then manipulate later when limitations have been reached through design.
> 
> The Ultimax 10" seems to be one of those subs (on paper) that could easily reach diminishing returns by going much bigger plus stuffing. It can use a medium size box (under 1 cube) to reach a common ideal Qtc, but the main advantage is it's F3hz which is below the avg car sub's 50-70hz sealed. This means you already can begin to make EQ cuts down low to smooth out the bottom end which will also create headroom. How much more of a size increase before you start losing performance? Not sure, but really no need to find out with a sub of that character.
> 
> 
> Getting Qtc exact is not as important, but I wouldn't dismiss it altogether. Build one with a Qtc of .577 & one for 1.1, then come back tell which one you prefer...


Don't get me wrong, I do respect your reasoning, and it is true. I was plugging so many numbers at one time, that I almost went crazy. As far as which would I prefer, a .6 or a 1.1 qtc? I'd prefer the 1.1 qtc because I could fit more subs or a larger sub in the same space. Which will sound better? I could get them both to sound exactly the same. I'm really not knocking the large sealed and ib alignments. Lower qtc enclosures will have superior group delay and need less power but need more space which in a car is at a premium. So **** it, i'll use double the subs in the same space, double the power, align out the gd, and have a much louder sub stage that will play much deeper.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Don't get me wrong, I do respect your reasoning, and it is true. I was plugging so many numbers at one time, that I almost went crazy. As far as which would I prefer, a .6 or a 1.1 qtc? I'd prefer the 1.1 qtc because I could fit more subs or a larger sub in the same space. Which will sound better? I could get them both to sound exactly the same. I'm really not knocking the large sealed and ib alignments. Lower qtc enclosures will have superior group delay and need less power but need more space which in a car is at a premium. So **** it, i'll use double the subs in the same space, double the power, align out the gd, and have a much louder sub stage that will play much deeper.




The key to choosing & properly implementing drivers is knowing what your vehicle will do to the response ahead of time. If you are able to do that then you often can reduce the amount of EQ manipulation afterwards. Not so easy because a EQ is one of the most important pieces in car audio, but it is not to be abused either. Sometimes it is just as simple as a specific driver is just not optimally suited to your application and should not be used. 

I've used Q values between .577 & 1.2 at times. I prefer the lower since I can make EQ cuts down low rather than boost. I don't utilize a lot of power so cutting is more appealing than trying to put what is not there in the beginning. Still, there's several ways to skin a cat.


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> The key to choosing & properly implementing drivers is knowing what your vehicle will do to the response ahead of time. If you are able to do that then you often can reduce the amount of EQ manipulation afterwards. Not so easy because a EQ is one of the most important pieces in car audio, but it is not to be abused either. Sometimes it is just as simple as a specific driver is just not optimally suited to your application and should not be used.
> 
> I've used Q values between .577 & 1.2 at times. I prefer the lower since I can make EQ cuts down low rather than boost. I don't utilize a lot of power so cutting is more appealing than trying to put what is not there in the beginning. *Still, there's several ways to skin a cat.*


I'll agree with that.


----------



## chad

Bayboy said:


> I prefer the lower since I can make EQ cuts down low rather than boost. I don't utilize a lot of power so cutting is more appealing than trying to put what is not there in the beginning. Still, there's several ways to skin a cat.


Dude, that sort of common sense is not tolerated around here. [/sarcasm]


----------



## krisfnbz

So what was the final verdict on the Dayton UM12-22 12"? This was the only thread that popped up searching it.


----------



## Bayboy

krisfnbz said:


> So what was the final verdict on the Dayton UM12-22 12"? This was the only thread that popped up searching it.




Unless you're a glutton for lack of space, then it's a no-go pretty much. One of the conundrums in the DIY world is not every performance driver are sensibly suitable for auto use.


----------



## Mixman

Tempted to buy a 10" Ultimax and try it out vs my JBL 10GTI. It will probably need less space.....but will it sound as good???


----------



## Sgriffin

Finally got everything up and running. These subs sound really good not as loud or as much vibration as my 15 with one pdx amp, but the bass is clean and needs little adjustment from song to song. I do have to adjust the level when I switch back and forth from rock to rap. I am still tweaking the whole setup, but so far so good.

I did shrink the airspace to .91 before sub displacement, and I did not use any polyfil.


----------



## Spyke

Mixman said:


> Tempted to buy a 10" Ultimax and try it out vs my JBL 10GTI. It will probably need less space.....but will it sound as good???


I'm not sure what size enclosure your gti is in, but it seems like the ultimax needs a fairly large enclosure. Get the Dayton titanic if you need a small enclosure sub. I had the 10" in .6cu and currently have the 12" in 1cu.


----------



## Spyke

Sgriffin said:


> Finally got everything up and running. These subs sound really good not as loud or as much vibration as my 15 with one pdx amp, but the bass is clean and needs little adjustment from song to song. I do have to adjust the level when I switch back and forth from rock to rap. I am still tweaking the whole setup, but so far so good.
> 
> I did shrink the airspace to .91 before sub displacement, and I did not use any polyfil.


Was this the 10" or 12"? Where are you crossing it? Sealed or ported?


----------



## Mixman

Spyke said:


> I'm not sure what size enclosure your gti is in, but it seems like the ultimax needs a fairly large enclosure. Get the Dayton titanic if you need a small enclosure sub. I had the 10" in .6cu and currently have the 12" in 1cu.


Right now my GTI is in a .75 box. When I get another I will give them each 1 cu ft. It doesn't look like the Ultimax needs more than 1 cu ft. As a matter of fact that may be a bit too large.


----------



## Spyke

Oh never mind, They recommend a .63 for the 10". .75 will be fine. The more I look at this sub the more it looks like the titanic with a different cone and dvc's. Either way, it looks like a good sub.


----------



## Bayboy

It may very well be based up the same motor structure & frame as the Titanic, but similarities may stop there. Actual sonic characteristics is what will count and may have to be heard to see the difference.


----------



## ou812

Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coi 295-514


And a 15.....6 cubes ported!!!!!!!


----------



## Bayboy

I wonder if they will come up with an 8"?


----------



## Mixman

An 8" might actually be able to use a real car sized box. It seems like the larger the Ultimax's are, the larger exponentially the boxes need to be.

I see the sale runs out on these 2/7. May just have to get one by then to see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> I wonder if they will come up with an 8"?


I keep waiting for a titanic 8", an ultimax 8 would be nice too. They did recently add an 8" to the HO line so anything is possible.


----------



## Bayboy

I only modeled one of the Reference 8" subs. Wasn't too impressed, but the other probably looks better. Not sure why they haven't expanded on the Titanic series yet. It would be nice to see some more midwoofers as well.


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> I only modeled one of the Reference 8" subs. Wasn't too impressed, but the other probably looks better. Not sure why they haven't expanded on the Titanic series yet.* It would be nice to see some more midwoofers as well.*


Yeah the MB selection leaves a little to be desired. I'll tell you what though, If you're stuck with a 5", this:Dayton Audio ND140-4 5-1/4" Aluminum Cone Midbass Driver 290-216 isn't a bad choice. Now, they just need a 6.5 and 8" model.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Yeah the MB selection leaves a little to be desired. I'll tell you what though, If you're stuck with a 5", this:Dayton Audio ND140-4 5-1/4" Aluminum Cone Midbass Driver 290-216 isn't a bad choice. Now, they just need a 6.5 and 8" model.


 Funny you mention that oddball series. I was quite curious of the 4" & 5.25" when it first came out. Sensitivity isn't all that great but xmax is pretty nice along with specs suitable for a bit of lower end response IB. I've been waiting & waiting to see if they were going to finish that series with at least a 6.5" or 7" with a similar EBP or something. It just died off or something.  Perhaps the past neo situation put a halt to it?


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> Funny you mention that oddball series. I was quite curious of the 4" & 5.25" when it first came out. Sensitivity isn't all that great but xmax is pretty nice along with specs suitable for a bit of lower end response IB. I've been waiting & waiting to see if they were going to finish that series with at least a 6.5" or 7" with a similar EBP or something. It just died off or something.  *Perhaps the past neo situation put a halt to it?*


Good point. They are pretty impressive for what they are though. I can get them uncomfortably loud on a [email protected] and they still sound clean.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Good point. They are pretty impressive for what they are though. I can get them uncomfortably loud on a [email protected] and they still sound clean.


That was going to be the ticket for me.... a final alternative solution to Reference 3-ways. It never happened. I was sure a 6.5-7" was going to be a winner with a good choice from the 5.25" and down playing mids... However, if you can get the them down to that, perhaps the smaller ones doing a low xover point set (wideband) would do pretty good... that is impressive to be able to play them down that low being that many larger drivers have problems down there.


----------



## krisfnbz

Im looking into the Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coil

Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coi 295-514

This is one of the only Dayton woofers that can be ran down to 1ohm.(everyone knows power is cheaper at 1ohm.) Has anyone ran this in the recommended 3.1cuft sealed enclosure?

Im currently running a MB quart RWE352 600wrms in 2cuft sealed and im extremely happy with the SQ, though I feel I am lacking in the output, and I really dont want to go ported. Im thinking the extra 200w, 8mm xmax, and 1.1cuft bigger will have the output I desire, while keeping the bass tight and accurate.


----------



## krisfnbz

Edit: Somehow my post was doubled, no idea how.


----------



## Navy Chief

I picked up a 10" Ultimax to try and it is huge for a 10", it is beefier than a JL 10w6 v2. In any case I am not going to be using it so if somebody wants to try one cheap shoot me a pm, it's still new in the box.


----------



## tru tech99

Please Help>>> im curing run Tru technology Billet 2200 Bridge at 4ohm Mono and pushing a single 12 Dayton audio HO in a 1.60 Seal box.... my question is the box is to big for the sub? if so should i exchange the HO for the ultimax ? or should i go for a sub that with less RMS watt to get the best out put from the Amp?(try technology Billet 2200 bridge @4ohm mono 600 watt rms)


----------



## Bayboy

1.6 cubes is way up there for the HO 12 I believe. If I remember correctly it's more around 1 cube but I don't know if I'd trade going to another sub over simply using the proper size enclosure.


However, the best output from the amp seems a bit obscured if a larger enclosure will bring more low end efficiency. Simply make a few EQ cuts down low unless you are needing more upper bass SPL. What is it doing that you don't like?


----------



## tru tech99

yea... the HO call for .75 seal for car i think? but to see the ultimax call for 2.0 cubic for seal , fingers the box is closer spec to the ultimax...My box is made to customs fit my trunk.... what can i do you make the box internal smaller? should i stuff it with polly fill or something lol?


----------



## thehatedguy

Nevermind, someone else mentioned the 15.

Looks like might be good IB in the car.


----------



## Bayboy

tru tech99 said:


> yea... the HO call for .75 seal for car i think? but to see the ultimax call for 2.0 cubic for seal , fingers the box is closer spec to the ultimax...My box is made to customs fit my trunk.... what can i do you make the box internal smaller? should i stuff it with polly fill or something lol?


Personally I'd switch box size first before trading subs unless there's a good reason for keeping that box.


----------



## ZAKOH

WinISD recommend something like 1cu ft box for the DVC Dayton HO, but something closer to 0.75 for the SVC version (these two subs look quite different if you look at TS parameters). On the other hand 1.5 cu ft may be too small for Ultimax 12. You get box qtc of 0.95 with a 1.5 cu ft box.


If you want to keep your box, I suggest to try out the Peerless XXLS 12 or Scanspeak discovery 12 from madisound or parts express. Stuff the box with a bit of polyfill if necessary (they achieve perfect qtc in a 1.8cu ft box or so). Those are very good SQ subwoofers.


----------



## tru tech99

Bayboy said:


> Personally I'd switch box size first before trading subs unless there's a good reason for keeping that box.


i know it hard in my case... the box is a keeper, it custom made to fit direct in to the trunk of the car... or i have a couple option LOL.

1-add stuffing into the box to trick the HO sub it in a smaller box
2-trade it for a Ultimax , have to deal with .40 cubic smaller then the spec.. witch it i dont think is a big deal, and i can get 100 rms less so the amp wont have to work so hard... what you think?


----------



## ghionw

From what I have read on here, stuffing let's the box appear bigger. You could add blocks of wood to decrease the size.
You could add stuffing to the box if you go to the ulitmax.

I am no expert in the matter, so i will defer to the pros


----------



## tru tech99

ZAKOH said:


> WinISD recommend something like 1cu ft box for the DVC Dayton HO, but something closer to 0.75 for the SVC version (these two subs look quite different if you look at TS parameters). On the other hand 1.5 cu ft may be too small for Ultimax 12. You get box qtc of 0.95 with a 1.5 cu ft box.
> 
> 
> If you want to keep your box, I suggest to try out the Peerless XXLS 12 or Scanspeak discovery 12 from madisound or parts express. Stuff the box with a bit of polyfill if necessary (they achieve perfect qtc in a 1.8cu ft box or so). Those are very good SQ subwoofers.


i really like the spec of the speaker you recommended ! especially the wattage of the two sub.... very effusion .... thanks....


----------



## Bayboy

I'd temporarily add something solid to the box to detract from the total volume and audition for a while. .4 smaller on the Ultimax is not as much as twice the size on the HO. It's just that the HO is a tried & trued sub.


----------



## ZAKOH

tru tech99 said:


> i know it hard in my case... the box is a keeper, it custom made to fit direct in to the trunk of the car... or i have a couple option LOL.


If you want a cheaper replacement subwoofer, consider a RE Audio SEX12. I think it will be fine for your box. The Peerless or Scanspeak may be more accurate, but also more expensive.

In the end, I don't think a box that's too big, will necessarily make the Dayton subwoofer worse. It may lose some power handling on the low end. If it sounds good, keep it.


----------



## tru tech99

Peerless sound good right now LOL ... i call Madison sound just now and the tech putting in the spec right now and ill call back in 20min... to get the result.... also on the madison sound web the spec here for seal .... box 

Peerless 835017 XXLS 12" Aluminum Cone Subwoofer

4 ohm impedance
Black aluminum cone
Large roll rubber surround
Low distortion motor
50mm voice coil diameter
12.5mm linear excursion (x-max peak)
Suitable for home or autosound systems
This 12 inch 4 ohm member of the XXLS product family has all the design features suitable for a high performance, high excursion subwoofer driver. The motor features a double ferrite magnet motor, supporting high excursion, and aluminium shorting rings and pole extenders, lowering and linearizing the inductance of the overhung voice coil. The PP cone is vented under the dust cap, to reduce air compression. The suspension system features a low-creep rubber surround, and a nomex spider, ensuring long-term reliability under high power conditions. The product also features a rigid cast aluminium basket.

Sealed Box Alignment:

Home: You can use this woofer in a sealed and stuffed box of about 1.25 cubic feet for an in home F3 of 45Hz. If used with a plate amp that has a built in boost, it might get down to the mid to upper 30's.

Car: If a 1 cubic foot sealed box is used in a vehicle, assuming 6dB of cabin gain, your F3 would be about 27Hz.


----------



## tru tech99

Ok so i just order the peerless...... and also decide to return the dayton audio HO...... thanks for your help guy : Bayboy , Zakoh , ghionw ......


----------



## krisfnbz

deal of the day! $32 off w/ free shipping! enter coupon code save52012 for another $5 off, total is $163!

Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coil

Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coi 295-514


----------



## tru tech99

krisfnbz said:


> deal of the day! $32 off w/ free shipping! enter coupon code save52012 for another $5 off, total is $163!
> 
> Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coil
> 
> Dayton Audio UM15-22 15" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Coi 295-514


:laugh: im so greedy .... i think, i will get me one


----------



## edzyy

Have 3 10's on the way

Can't wait!


----------



## krisfnbz

Arrived in the mail today. Super excited to hear it! This sub looks amazing. 15" ultimax I will be running sealed 4cuft.


----------



## Spyke

Congrats. I'm sure it won't disappoint you.


----------



## fish

Nice! Let us know how it sounds. How about some motor pics?


----------



## krisfnbz

Holy freakin crap, this thing is awesome. I have finally found the exact sub and box combo after years. I have been very pleased with my past subs/boxes.... but this one nailed it. I'm like a little kid on christmas. Gets plenty loud, low and accurate. Cant wait to throw this thing a bit more power. Didnt see the request for motor pics before I installed it. I may be able to take it back out in a few days.


----------



## edzyy

Do you have space to port it?


----------



## jmacdadd

If anyone is interested in buying these from PE, let me know...I have a dealer account and the discount is solid (see below). I will ship direct to you AT DEALER COST...

Model Size PE P/N List Catalog 1-10 10+
UM10-22 10" 295-510 $207.99 $159.60 $125.39 $119.12
UM12-22 12" 295-512 $233.99 $179.90 $127.92 (any qty)
UM15-22 15" 295-514 $259.99 $199.80 $166.33 $158.02

PM me if you want to get something going...


----------



## jmacdadd

fish said:


> Nice! Let us know how it sounds. How about some motor pics?


Is this what you're looking for??


----------



## fish

jmacdadd said:


> Is this what you're looking for??


Seen those plenty of times, but I like personal pics better to possibly show reference to size.


----------



## jmacdadd

fish said:


> Seen those plenty of times, but I like personal pics better to possibly show reference to size.


Sorry...wasn't sure if anyone had seen the pics since it was stated earlier they weren't yet on the website...

I might order in one of each to have as demos...we'll see what the budget looks like next week...would be nice to have them all lined up next to each other for comparison...

If I end up ordering, I might just have to hook the 15" up to my PPI 2200M...that sounds like a match made in audio Heaven...


----------



## krisfnbz

edzyy said:


> Do you have space to port it?


I do.



jmacdadd said:


> If anyone is interested in buying these from PE, let me know...I have a dealer account and the discount is solid (see below). I will ship direct to you AT DEALER COST...
> 
> Model Size PE P/N List Catalog 1-10 10+
> UM10-22 10" 295-510 $207.99 $159.60 $125.39 $119.12
> UM12-22 12" 295-512 $233.99 $179.90 $127.92 (any qty)
> UM15-22 15" 295-514 $259.99 $199.80 $166.33 $158.02
> 
> PM me if you want to get something going...


Wish I knew this a few days ago!!!!


----------



## chad

fish said:


> Seen those plenty of times, but I like personal pics better to possibly show reference to size.


pervert.


----------



## fish

chad said:


> pervert.


Oh yeah!


----------



## thisgsx

krisfnbz said:


> Holy freakin crap, this thing is awesome. I have finally found the exact sub and box combo after years. I have been very pleased with my past subs/boxes.... but this one nailed it. I'm like a little kid on christmas. Gets plenty loud, low and accurate. Cant wait to throw this thing a bit more power. Didnt see the request for motor pics before I installed it. I may be able to take it back out in a few days.


Did you stuff the enclosure? What kind of power are you sending it? I'm thinking about putting one in the same size enclosure you are in my CRX. How does it do with rock/metal/trance?


----------



## krisfnbz

thisgsx said:


> Did you stuff the enclosure? What kind of power are you sending it? I'm thinking about putting one in the same size enclosure you are in my CRX. How does it do with rock/metal/trance?


No stuffing. Im sending it 600w. I have only listened to it for about 2 hours total or so....I cant give a big review yet. I commute 10 hours a week for work.. so I can write back on here in a week or so.


----------



## bark424

P.E. just sent us an ultimax 12" for testing and evaluation, and to send them feedback. i must say, upon opening the box i was somewhat disappointed. i guess i was expecting a little more from their "premier" sub. but sitting there next to the dss sdx12 CSS, SDX12, it looked rather puny. i understand there is about $110 difference. For modeling purposes, the specs that P.E. advertises are spot on. After my brother gets done doing what he does in is home it should end up in the trunk of my car to evaluate the mobile application. at that time i will post the findings on either this thread or start another one.


----------



## Ray21

Wow the SDX12 motor looks a lot like the Avalanche motor... nice wide, single slug. 
I wish there were T/S on it.


----------



## bark424

It is a monster, but there is no way he'll let it go to try in my car. I'll see if i can find the t/s specs.


----------



## bark424

Creative Sound Solutions - Loudspeakers, Parts and DIY Speaker Kits
You'll have to download the spec sheet (pdf file) but its all there


----------



## Ray21

bark424 said:


> Creative Sound Solutions - Loudspeakers, Parts and DIY Speaker Kits
> You'll have to download the spec sheet (pdf file) but its all there


Thanks. Don't mean to derail this thread but the SDX is beastly and plots out very very nicely both sealed and ported. Very similar to the Avalanche.


----------



## krisfnbz




----------



## edzyy

why does 1 sdx 12 cost more than 2 sdx 10's?


----------



## schmiddr2

On sale: Dayton Audio UM12-22 12" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohm Per Co 295-512


----------



## bark424

The sdx10 has been around for a while and is probably the best 10" for under 2 bills, the sdx12 is totally new design with the under hung motor. I'll try to get a pic of the sdx12 and ultimax12 side by side for comparison.


----------



## thisgsx

bark424 said:


> The sdx10 has been around for a while and is probably the best 10" for under 2 bills, the sdx12 is totally new design with the under hung motor. I'll try to get a pic of the sdx12 and ultimax12 side by side for comparison.


Let's hope they make a 15 and 18.


----------



## bark424

Dayton ultimax beside the css sdx12


----------



## chad

looks like it's under the CSS to me.


----------



## bark424

I guess i didn't rotate it huh.


----------



## Bayboy

WHOA!!!


----------



## fish

Has anybody modeled these "IB" in a trunk?


----------



## subwoofery

fish said:


> Has anybody modeled these "IB" in a trunk?


I'm sure you will... soon 

Kelvin


----------



## bark424

I didn't model it, but actually put it in. I think if you had at least 1000 watts, no bigger than 1.5cf sealed it would be great, but with my 500 the Dayton dvc blew it away. In fact that dvc was a better performer than the titanic, HO, or the HF.


----------



## Bayboy

The Dayton DVC 12" has always been a stout bare bones sub. Being cloned after the Shiva, most snub their nose at it, but I"ve had some fun with it long ago before I started getting into smaller subs in micro enclosures.. The only cons to it are the cheapish gasket and outdated foam surround, but I've never had the foam rot on me. I did mess up the coil once, but I received a warranty replacement. It's a great sub if you like robust bass with a low roll-off.


----------



## bark424

We put 6 different subs in the same box with the same amp and the dvc was hands down the best performer.


----------



## Bayboy

Was that a fair assessment? IE all 6 subs have the same optimization in the same box? Same Q, same optimal use of excursion, etc? I'm not sure I could go with that unless it was a limitation that had to be placed upon all subs, then it's a matter which one suited best. Other than that a fair comparison would have to include some common ground which would probably be a .707 Q


----------



## bark424

The only real limitation was the 500 watts. It used to be hard for me to under stand but my brother can "hear"the differences based on his woofer box software that is used by more diy'ers than any other software. (on a different forum).


----------



## bark424

I don't understand the numbers like he does, which i guess is why he's one of the top speaker designers in the country right now.


----------



## Horsemanwill

was the box used suited for each subwoofer? some woofers require a bigger box then others.


----------



## bark424

For the most part i would agree with you, however after designing subwoofers for 35 years there are tricks and methods that John q. Public aren't going to recognize using something like bass box pro out winisd and in my opinion can give you a very serious advantage.


----------



## Bayboy

It goes much further than just box building software. They are only as good as the info you feed them. Testing the driver that you plan to model is entirely important unless it's a brand that you can trust to be consecutively accurate with their given specs. Most brands like Dayton, Peerless, Vifa, etc.. are, but when it comes to car audio specific gear you have to be a bit careful.


----------



## bark424

I understand all that I. But if my brother designs subwoofer systems for speaker that cost more than most cars his 35 years experience to me is worth more someone who's been doing car audio for 10 years


----------



## fish

bark424 said:


> I understand all that I. But if my brother designs subwoofer systems for speaker that cost more than most cars his 35 years experience to me is worth more someone who's been doing car audio for 10 years


Who's your brother, and who does he do designs for?


----------



## Spyke

bark424 said:


> We put 6 different subs in the same box with the same amp and the dvc was hands down the best performer.


I'm gonna have to agree with the others. Testing by putting 6 different subs in the same enclosure is gonna give about as useful results as putting a sub in six different enclosures. You may be digging a hole here. May want to research before going any farther, perhaps you misunderstood the test.


----------



## ou812

Waiting for this response.


----------



## Spyke

ou812 said:


> Waiting for this response.


How are the steel mills up there?


----------



## bark424

He tests everything. That's why companies like P.E., CSS, TC sounds and others send him drivers for testing and evaluation. When's he's done sometimes we test them in a mobile environment. All the info gathered is sent to the respective companies.


----------



## Horsemanwill

that's like saying putting a 12" subwoofer that doesn't recommend a sealed box but a ported box in a one cubic foot sealed box and then putting an idq 12" in the same box. you can't compare subs like that.


----------



## Bayboy

Vance Dickason??


----------



## bark424

You'd be surprised.


----------



## Bayboy

Surprised of the comparison results or who your brother is?


----------



## bark424

The results


----------



## Bayboy

Oh.... well I don't have any experience with any of those particular 12" except the DVC so I have no clue. I do know it has great output & digs deep even in a tad less than a foot (F3hz is quite down there for most autos), but they need to revamp how the tinsel leads are implemented. 

As far as the results & what was the scope of the test... well I'm a bit hungry so I'll sit this one out. :laugh:


----------



## Spyke

Good point. Are we talking t/s testing, spl, or what? T/S testing is done free air so i'm not sure why an enclosure, aside from a baffle, would be needed. I guess we need a little more info.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> Good point. Are we talking t/s testing, spl, or what? T/S testing is done free air so i'm not sure why an enclosure, aside from a baffle, would be needed. I guess we need a little more info.




With the WT3 you can use a kown enclosure size to help draw certain parameters, but I've never used that method. I've always used weights. Perhaps it was that and they also decided to audition them while at it??


----------



## ou812

Spyke said:


> How are the steel mills up there?


Steel mill gone....Casino moved in...Good times for all. And I wasn't directing that at you....


----------



## subwoofery

We still don't know who your brother is... Does he have a website to browse those tests? 

Kelvin


----------



## bark424

His name is Jeff Bagby. Google it.


----------



## Spyke

ou812 said:


> Steel mill gone....Casino moved in...Good times for all. And I wasn't directing that at you....


Sweet, gambling addictions for all. 

And, Yeah I know.....


----------



## Bayboy

bark424 said:


> His name is Jeff Bagby. Google it.


Yes I've heard of Jeff Bagby. Projects in P.E.'s flyers from time to time. Still, wondering what was the scope of those tests. Was the enclosure size the requirement? If so, then it would make more sense as you could simply model it, but that only tells so much. Hearing the results (plus it's power response) and how it mates with the intended environment is a lot more valid.


----------



## bark424

Enclosure size did matter, but more the fact i didn't want to replace the amp. If i had more power then that changes everything. I'd be afraid that adding more power would put more strain on my alternator and i don't want to get into that.


----------



## Bayboy

Ahhhh.... so now we're getting into the variables.  

Response, output, given power & enclosure then that makes a difference. The DVC still is a nice sub. Along the lines of the Lab-12. Both Eminence designs if I remember. I have a pair of Labs and sold the DVC about a year ago. Kind of miss it. But was going for smaller more powerful subs (pair of HO 10).


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> Ahhhh.... so now we're getting into the variables.
> 
> Response, output, given power & enclosure then that makes a difference. The DVC still is a nice sub. Along the lines of the Lab-12. Both Eminence designs if I remember. I have a pair of Labs and sold the DVC about a year ago. Kind of miss it. But was going for smaller more powerful subs (pair of HO 10).


I don't mean to side track, but what enclosure do you have those HO's in? I get odd, really small sizes when I put it in winisd.


----------



## Bayboy

Ooohh damn Spyke ... I don't want to lie. I'd have to recall or measure. Computer crashed hard after I modeled it in BB6 and built the box so all of my project files were lost. I do think I shot for around .6 something Qtc which would put it around .4-.5 cubes each??? You have to remember that I'm in a small suv (S10 Blazer).


----------



## Spyke

That makes sense. I get a .3cu for sealed and .6cu or so for ported. So yeah, .5 cu should get you a pretty low qtc. I think chad has his in .7cu ported tuned to 30. Funny subs they are.


----------



## Bayboy

With the amount of power they can take you would think they would be quite robust, but it is the microenclosure performance that you sacrifice for. As far as extension down below 50hz..... it's definitely there, but if most of your music resides higher then sealed will suck for you. I listen to quite a bit of electronic music so I don't mind plus it allows my door midbass to be more effective. The Peerless XXLS are great, but are somewhat the opposite.


----------



## Dugan661

Hey guys I'm considering a dayton audio ultimax 15" as my first diy sub build if powered by an inuke 1000w or a bash 500w plate amp (open to sugeations in the sub $250 price range) in a smaller sealed box around 3 to 4 cubes net displament. would it most likely perform better then a pair of the dayton audio sub 1200s? It will be used for home audio / music in a smaller 14x13 theater room complete with energy c7 tower speakers and a energy take classic 5.1(currently using the stock 8"sub) set rounding out the rest of the 7.1 audio system. Everything is currently powered by a pioneer vsx 1019 (I need to upgrade my center speaker). 
I'm mostly looking for hard hitting bass u can feel, but want it loud and clean also. I'm open to all ideas and suggestions thanks!


----------



## Spyke

Hmm. You may want to start a new thread for better results/ suggestions. You do know this is a car audio forum? Not that the people here can't help you, It's just odd that your first post is home audio related.


----------



## bark424

If you go to the parts-express tech talk forum they will definitely be able to help. In my opinion, 500 watts pushing the ultimax (i think you'll want smaller than 3-4 cf) will smoke the sub 1200. But if its primarily for home theater the sub 1200's might be better. My suggestion is go to the techtalk forum.


----------



## fish

Dugan661 said:


> Hey guys I'm considering a dayton audio ultimax 15" as my first diy sub build if powered by an inuke 1000w or a bash 500w plate amp (open to sugeations in the sub $250 price range) in a smaller sealed box around 3 to 4 cubes net displament. would it most likely perform better then a pair of the dayton audio sub 1200s? It will be used for home audio / music in a smaller 14x13 theater room complete with energy c7 tower speakers and a energy take classic 5.1(currently using the stock 8"sub) set rounding out the rest of the 7.1 audio system. Everything is currently powered by a pioneer vsx 1019 (I need to upgrade my center speaker).
> I'm mostly looking for hard hitting bass u can feel, but want it loud and clean also. I'm open to all ideas and suggestions thanks!



From what I've gathered on the home audio forums is 4cf sealed with about 1k watts.


----------



## bark424

I'll check with my brother


----------



## bark424

He personally doesn't care for the ultimax. It didn't work out in my car either. There are a lot of Dayton subs that model better. If you can get on the parts express tech talk forum look up Jeff B. and get his opinion. I promise he'll steer you the right way. btw...stay away from the sub 1200.


----------



## chad

bark424 said:


> He personally doesn't care for the ultimax. It didn't work out in my car either.


Methinks we determined that on the second page.

Did not have to ask your brother either.


----------



## bark424

Well since page 2 P.E. sent him a12" UM to test and evaluate. All of your conclusions were drawn from a computer. When you can play with it in real life it can make a difference.


----------



## chad

bark424 said:


> All of your conclusions were drawn from a computer.


As was the moon landing.... we made it.


----------



## bark424

chad said:


> As was the moon landing.... we made it.


Why the 'tude? I was just trying to get the best advice i could give.


----------



## jmacdadd

I drove all the way down to PE Tuesday (550 mile round trip) and the Ultimax weren't even on the showroom floor...

The conversation went like this:

Me: "Do you have any of the Ultimax subs on the showroom floor?" 
Clerk: "Nope."
<dead silence>

Since it wasn't offered to grab one from the warehouse (some 100' away), I left it alone. The clerk already seemed kind of irritated to have to be dealing with me in person. Maybe wholesale clients are only supposed to order online.

I just paid for my basket full of goodies, and left...only to find that one of the part numbers for an item I bought (a replacement cigarette lighter plug) was keyed incorrectly and instead of being $1.54 I was charged $49.97. Had to call the next day to get that taken care of.

The highlight was that they had "scratch and dent" models of their 2 way bookshelf speaker pairs for $20 (and actually weren't scratched or dented-just Amazon store returns)...to which I said "I'll take 2" (since they come in pairs, to me, means 2 pairs, or 4 speakers) but when I went to load them up he says "Did you want 2? I only charged you for one...pair." I wanted to say, "well, did I say I'll take a pair or did I say I'll take 2 and since they come in pairs, that would mean 2 pair." Lesson learned, apparently, when buying things in pairs, 1 means one pair, and 2 also means one pair but if you want 2 pair, then you better say "2 pair." It just wasn't worth getting back inline to process another transaction...

Also, don't ever say "those ones" in reference to anything in the showroom...it's just "those." Even if the question asked is "which ones did you want?"


----------



## fish

So you only got the one pair? Was it the same guy that was so helpful when asking about the Ultimax?


----------



## Spyke

bark424 said:


> Why the 'tude? I was just trying to get the best advice i could give.


Prob something to do with this. 



bark424 said:


> All of your conclusions were drawn from a computer. When you can play with it in real life it can make a difference.


----------



## bark424

Am i wrong?


----------



## bark424

I apologize if i offended someone. If you want a roof put in your house you call a roofer. If i want a subwoofer designed I'm calling a subwoofer designer.


----------



## jmacdadd

fish said:


> So you only got the one pair? Was it the same guy that was so helpful when asking about the Ultimax?


Yes, I did only get one pair of the B652s (linked below)....and, yes, the clerk was one in the same...

Dayton Audio B652 6-1/2" 2-Way Bookshelf Speaker Pair 300-652

And, for the money, you will not find a better bookshelf speaker...will be getting more of these to use when I upgrade my home theatre to 7.1 (to use as my front, rear, and rear fill speakers)...I will keep my center channel and subwoofer, though...


----------



## Spyke

Ha, yeah those are some pretty nice speakers for the price. Even better if you got a good deal which it appears you did.


----------



## Brian Steele

jmacdadd said:


> Yes, I did only get one pair of the B652s (linked below)....and, yes, the clerk was one in the same...
> 
> Dayton Audio B652 6-1/2" 2-Way Bookshelf Speaker Pair 300-652
> 
> And, for the money, you will not find a better bookshelf speaker...


You might want to read this link:

The Dayton B652 - What on earth happened to them! (Old Vs New Stock Comparison))


----------



## Spyke

Brian Steele said:


> You might want to read this link:
> 
> The Dayton B652 - What on earth happened to them! (Old Vs New Stock Comparison))


Hmm, good thing I got my set back in 2011. Good to know though. Thanks Brian.


----------



## jmacdadd

Brian Steele said:


> You might want to read this link:
> 
> The Dayton B652 - What on earth happened to them! (Old Vs New Stock Comparison))


Thanks for the info Brian...

So, I forwarded that link to my wholesale account rep at PE. I didn't think the speakers sounded bad, but I have no basis for comparison. And, I really wanted it to be known that there is this negative feedback sitting out there about these speakers.

What I was told is that there is a design change coming, but nothing that has happened as of yet, and it's just a change to the tweeter.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this since the B652s are one of the most widely recognized budget bookshelf speakers available and have been a flagship for the Dayton lineup for quite some time...


----------



## sqgodz

Sorry to bump an old thread...

I have the Ultimax 10" in a 1 ft fiberglass box and I am very happy with it. I have it wired to 1ohm and seeing about 800w rms off of a pioneer gm-d8601.
Can someone post a screenshot of the ultimax 10 modeled in 1 ft^3 I want to see what the graph looks like. I know I'm probably going to hear a lot of moans and groans about my amp, but I got it for $100 BNIB and this is my first system in about 10 years and it is in my wife's honda insight.

Thank you in advance...

-jb


----------



## Bayboy

Why would anyone not like that amp?


----------



## sqgodz

I don't know... I'm just assuming so because it is not one of the more mainstream amps that you find on here. I'm just braced to hear some flack from it, but I love it. It sits on a small footprint, is fully digital, and has a 4ch companion that puts out 100 w/ch at 4 ohm. Just what I need and fits the bill for what I wanted in the car. I have had it in the car for about 1 week and I love it!!! I will not buy a different amp for this application...


----------



## Boostedrex

Screw what anybody thinks about your choice of gear. If the price was right and it makes enough clean power to do what you want it to do then it's a good piece of gear in my book.


----------



## Bayboy

Pioneer class D amps always seem to get good reviews from those who choose them so I wouldn't worry about other opinions. I heavily thought about both amps you mentioned but I wanted another 2 channel to match. 


Back to the sub..... I'm still up at arms about it. Doesn't seem to have many takers or reviews as the Reference series still dominates the Dayton line when it comes to car audio. The larger Ultimax subs are really geared towards home audio and it appears they have in-wall mid/hi sets to match so that could be a factor. IIIRC the 10" could take a smaller box with a rolloff in the 50's so I definitely would watch the power you feed it in a foot. Other than that, the install environment is going to matter most so if it sounds good then so be it.


----------



## sqgodz

About the gear, you're right Boosted, I don't care much what others think about what I bought. It was a great price, and both together set me back about $225. I couldn't ask for too much more. 

The reason that I want to see how the ultimax models in a foot is to see what freq it is/should be reproducing and what I need to get interms of my midbass set-up. Just from a layman's observation with an untrained ear, it seems that the ultimax with my set-up rolls off very steep at about 125-150hz. I was wondering if this should have been expected mathematically, and how much space I need to fill with expanding foam, or if adding polyfill would help with response? I have a gm-d8604 that I was planning on running my front and rear-fill off of, and I was planning on getting a second 8604 and bridging them for my mids (about 300x2 @ 4ohm). 

On this subject, I am lost and looking for someone who can answer my questions. I'm just and idiot surrounded by genius...

Thanks again...

-jb

P.S. As for the ultimax working better in a HT set-up, that is the next build I plan to tackle... For now though, I want to see if I can make this sound good and if I can't I will recycle it into my HT and get something better for the ride...


----------



## Boostedrex

What midbass are you using? I wouldn't think you would need the sub to reach up as high as 150Hz.


----------



## Bayboy

When I referred to HT I was talking about it's larger siblings and their huge box requirements. The 10" seems reasonable for car audio to me. It's allure is excursion and bass extension for it's size. I wouldn't change anything at this point.

Maybe someone will model it up for you if the info isn't already somewhere within this thread (I thought it was). I can but I'm away from my computer until this eve. 

There's no specific low pass cutoff point it HAS to be at. It's whatever you can derive that sounds best to you. 80-120hz isn't unreasonable if the bottom end extension is there naturally. Whatever stress you relieve of your mids will help.dynamics. You just have to get in there and do some experimenting with added seat time after each adjustment.


----------



## krisfnbz

I have the 15 ultimax in my car and I really enjoy it. Though my trunk is practically useless but I dont mind. Audio is more important than trunk space in my book.


----------



## sqgodz

Boosted - I am just now trying to find a mid bass and I wanted to know where the sub cuts off so I can find what to buy based on that. I have thought if getting some 8's but I despise the idea of cutting up the doors. Hell, everything might correct itself once I get the amp on my front stage. I've been sitting on that thing for about 6 months. I'm just too damn lazy to tear into my car again. Maybe I will stay sober long enough to do something with it. 
Bayboy - I was thinking that the ultimax would appreciate a larger box anyways so it might stay in the car after all if I can get the higher bass freq worked out.


----------



## sqgodz

Haha. That's the way I was before. All I needed was room for my golf clubs. Then I got married. No time for golf. Now, I have a new born so I have to make room for a stroller.


----------



## Bayboy

If you're looking for a good 2-way I'm biased towards the JBL MS62c. Out of the box its great and digs deep enough for most. At 80hz it's fine as it's midrange is smooth and has good snap. It can go lower but I see no need for that. But I also am biased towards it in this regard because of cosmetically matching up with the Ultimax's cone. 

Yeah I'm a bit finicky like that.


----------



## sqgodz

I'm running the pioneer TS-D1320C in the front doors and the pioneer TS-D1602R in the back doors right now. Both off of the head unit. I'm starting to think that once I amp the doors, the rear doors can be used to fill in the midbass instead of as rear fill.


----------



## Diezel10

So I keep reading and reading and reading about the ultimax.....I have decided I am going to install two of them in the Megacab!!


----------



## sqgodz

Not a bad idea. I was planning on doing 2 of them but I have since decided that one is enough.


----------



## Diezel10

Thanks SQGod...............I've already acquired, JBL 4-2118H, USD Full SIze Horns w-BMS4540nd.......and I will follow thru with the 15's


----------



## KRAZYK

How do you think an ultimax UM12-22 12" would do in a 2ft^3 sealed box like this:

NET Audio » 2011-2013 Toyota Tundra Crewmax Sub Box

^ if built for a single 12, with a pound of polyfill.


----------



## Bayboy

Model it and try to account for the cabin gain of YOUR vehicle.


----------



## tru tech99

Bayboy said:


> If you're looking for a good 2-way I'm biased towards the JBL MS62c. Out of the box its great and digs deep enough for most. At 80hz it's fine as it's midrange is smooth and has good snap. It can go lower but I see no need for that. But I also am biased towards it in this regard because of cosmetically matching up with the Ultimax's cone.
> 
> Yeah I'm a bit finicky like that.


hey do you think i can go with Dayton Audio ND140-4 for mid, and Dayton Audio RS28F-4 1-1/8" Silk Dome Tweeter for high, and put them both in my old Hertz HSk crossover . YOU think it would work?


----------



## Bayboy

Personally, I'm very against using prefab passive xovers on drivers other than what they were designed for. Unless you have a way to test the values of the xover's components, you will have no way of predetermining what the combined result will be when coupled with different drivers. Either go fully active, use components w/ optimally designed passives, or build your own passives (learning experience, but doable).


----------



## tru tech99

Bayboy said:


> Personally, I'm very against using prefab passive xovers on drivers other than what they were designed for. Unless you have a way to test the values of the xover's components, you will have no way of predetermining what the combined result will be when coupled with different drivers. Either go fully active, use components w/ optimally designed passives, or build your own passives (learning experience, but doable).


Good to know thanks


----------



## bark424

so after my brother got done testing the 12"ultimax he decided to give it to me (must be christmas), when we tested it a few weeks ago it was only for a short time. but its been a few days now and all i can say is OMG! for the money probably not a better value than the dayton DVC, but considering my price....i'm afraid i'm gonna blow my rear window out. we're going to do some in car measuring, so hopefully more results to come.


----------



## HiloDB1

Just read a review of the Ultimax UM12-22 by Vance Dickason. He gave it a positive review. Seems like quite the driver for the price.


----------



## bark424

That's the same thing my brother did, but FOR P.E. i don't know if his findings will be published. It was just a favor for the VP of marketing.


----------



## bark424

So far.....not overly impressed.


----------



## Bayboy

So you didn't like the sub? Or you did at first?


----------



## bark424

A week ago when i put it in my initial reaction was "OMG". But after listening to it for a week i would have to say there are better subs in that price range. And in the car it didn't perform as well as the Dayton DVC. I believe this makes the 7th sub/amp combo I've tried in the past 6 months, and for the performance/cost/power ratio the Dayton dvc wins. Period.


----------



## ErinH

HiloDB1 said:


> Just read a review of the Ultimax UM12-22 by Vance Dickason. He gave it a positive review. Seems like quite the driver for the price.


Finally read this as well.

VC mag published Klippel results with the sub's Bl and Cms limited suspension at 22mm and 21.9mm, respectively at the prescribed 20% THD threshold. So, measured linear excursion is at a pretty heft 21.9mm one-way. Pretty nice!


----------



## krisfnbz

15" ultimax by far the best sub I have ever owned. Was about $160. Sure my entire trunk is gone, but thats not something I care about. Solid clean loud bass.


----------



## bark424

I took mine out last night. I guess if i had more power....anyway, in my car the Dayton DVC sounded better.


----------



## Bayboy

Lots of people just get bit by the audio bug and keep trying new gear. I can personally attest that the DVC is not only a excellent performance to price ratio product, but it's performance is a bit underrated as well. Only caveat is size which still isn't bad at all for a 12".


----------



## acid_burn

are you referring to the dayton dvc model subwoofer when comparing to the ultimax sub? what did you not like about the ultimax or what do you like more about the dvc?


----------



## bark424

Wow....i don't really know how to answer that. It just sounded better. But here's the good one...i put the ultimax back in 2 days ago. I want to give it another try. Overall its a better sub and i want to make it work but i just don't if it will.


----------



## KRAZYK

"Just sounded better"

From a SQ point of view? 
For me I want to know which one will hit harder/lower/louder.
I think both will keep me happy from a SQ point of view but I want to know which one will get silly when I want it to.


----------



## bark424

Feed the ultimax 1200 watts, keep him sealed up in 3cf and I'm sure he'll keep you happy. I didn't want to lose that much of my trunk and i only have 500 watts. So in my particular parameters, the DVC performed better. If you want to get "silly", buy 2 12" DVC's for about the same money as one ultimax.


----------



## bark424

Modeling only gets you so far. Until you can actually hear them where you're going to listen to them, that's what matters. That's where i had an advantage of being able to try just about any sub i had an interest in


----------



## acid_burn

what type of enclosure did you use for the dvc and can it handle the full 500w? im on the hunt for a sub that can play loudish and sound great from 25-85hz but that will also give me headroom for more power in the future. right now I have an obsidian 18 that is awesome but it really only murders the lows and leaves a pretty big gap in music from like 60hz to wherever my ****ty mids decide to become noticeable. I have been looking for a few highpower single sub set ups like an ssa xcon or aa havoc but if the Dayton dvcs are really that good Id consider coppin a few because of price. are there other subs you can compare the dvc or ultimax to sound/performance wise?


----------



## bark424

The12" DVC is rated at 350 watts per coil rms, 700 max per coil. Add far as pet handling goes the dvc will handle more than the ultimax. I had my dvc in 1cu ft. sealed. In that price range there are literally thousands to try. The thing about me is, if its marketed and sold specially for mobile use i tend to shove it the bottom of the list. Once a company slaps on their bling and shine and name, the price can go up as much as 60%. Without effecting the performance any. For example TC sounds makes drivers for a ton of people, why not just buy the tc sounds. Thelo will appreciate it.


----------



## chad

bark424 said:


> The12" DVC is rated at 350 watts per coil rms, 700 max per coil.


It doesnt really work that way in terms of thermal power handling...

-OR- really mechanical for that matter.


----------



## Bayboy

From what I remember it's total power handling was 600 continuous. I believe P.E. tests dvc drivers in series unless noted otherwise.


----------



## acid_burn

the ultimax is 600w and the dvc is 350w, but the dvc can handle more than the ultimax? how


----------



## Bayboy

acid_burn said:


> the ultimax is 600w and the dvc is 350w, but the dvc can handle more than the ultimax? how


I know nothing about handling more but it was already noted that P.E.'s specs was/is a misprint. The DVC has always been rated at 350 per coil, 600 combined, 1000 Max. That is thermal of course.


----------



## bark424

....just going by what the catalog says.


----------



## chad

The coils are not separately wound in 2 different gaps... Dumping X amount of heat is dumping X amount of heat.. granted in in a DVC config it MAY handle more than it will in SVC config but each coil used individually will handle more than .5 of both coils driven because there's a lot of undriven copper to heat up.


----------



## acid_burn

bark424 said:


> Add far as pet handling goes the dvc will handle more than the ultimax.





bark424 said:


> ....just going by what the catalog says.


thought you tested them both. which one handles more power before distortion?

now that i know the dvc's are suppossed to be 600w rms and not 350w I am a lot more interested in them.

and from what im reading the dvc is actually a better sub in a car install than the ultimax is. also very interesting because theyre inexpensive.


----------



## bark424

What the heck is pet handling? What was i saying? Anyway, we tested a bunch. When i say we, i don't understand the technical side of things. That's my brothers thing. I just thought the dvc sounded better. I don't think either one distorted, but i don't listen to it that loud. From the very beginning he told me the ultimax was better suited for home use.


----------



## Bayboy

Yeah, the 12 Ultimax seems more suited to home audio due to it's large box requirements as well. Not sure if anyone would be so willing to allocate such space in a car when there's other less space requiring subs to be had.


----------



## bark424

Don't get me wrong, they both sounded great. And since i didn't pay for them....well, i still messing with them.


----------



## chad

bark424 said:


> What the heck is pet handling?


Depending on how you view it... Illegal in most countries.



Bayboy said:


> Yeah, the 12 Ultimax seems more suited to home audio due to it's large box requirements as well. Not sure if anyone would be so willing to allocate such space in a car when there's other less space requiring subs to be had.


That's what I am seeing too, then after you make this HUGE enclosure it's not the most efficient thing on the block.



bark424 said:


> Don't get me wrong, they both sounded great. *And since i didn't pay for them....well, i still messing with them.*


Hells yes....


----------



## Bayboy

This is where the point of diminishing returns are reached in using raw drivers aimed at home audio vs car audio specific drivers. Clearly these should be overlooked for obvious reasons, but I still give Dayton much respect for their products. It's the consumer who must choose wisely in what they're used for. With that said, is it a bad product? Perhaps not when used as it was intended for which I think was IB along with their other matching in-wall speaker series.


----------



## acid_burn

how high did you have the lpf set on the dvc when you played it in the car?
I can't play my sub with anything higher than 55hz lpf or it loses sq. I miss being able to have the sub play a little midbass; my friend has a diamond d3 15 that sounds so good with a lpf at 125hz but is a lot quiter on the lows than my obsidian, mostly because his box is sealed but I doubt it would touch the oa anyway on low end. I'm looking for a sub that can play both sub bass and some midbass with authority. would I get what I'm looking for with the dvc do you think?


----------



## chad

I run a Dayton HF10HO up to 100 in a vented enclosure... NO PROBLEM. The vented enclosure actually helps because you are not relying on the car for TF and yo can back it all down a bit.

I tried it with a different, possibly lesser sub, in a different enclosure.. did not go so well.

but there were a LOT of variables there.

I still swear at least 90% of sub problems and the need to cross low is too small of an enclosure and playing the damn thing just too loud.


----------



## bark424

I believe i had it crossed over at about [email protected] slope, with my silver flutes coming in at 80.


----------



## thisgsx

acid_burn said:


> how high did you have the lpf set on the dvc when you played it in the car?
> I can't play my sub with anything higher than 55hz lpf or it loses sq. I miss being able to have the sub play a little midbass; my friend has a diamond d3 15 that sounds so good with a lpf at 125hz but is a lot quiter on the lows than my obsidian, mostly because his box is sealed but I doubt it would touch the oa anyway on low end. I'm looking for a sub that can play both sub bass and some midbass with authority. would I get what I'm looking for with the dvc do you think?


What size sub and enclosure are you using? I'm running an 18" OA v2 in a slot ported 5 cubed enclosure tuned to 28hz and the sub is hitting every single bass note I've played with so far. IMO, it sounds just as good as my 12w7.


----------



## krisfnbz

My 15" ultimax is crossed at 125hz and in a 4 cuft sealed box. Ideally I would cross around 80/100hz, but the mids im running are terrible, and my doors have no treatment. Most of the time it sounds ok to me.


----------



## acid_burn

@kris - Im using the pb 2xl's right now too and the mids are garbage lol. don't mind the tweets but they're just decent.

@this - box is slot ported 5.5 cb ft at 28hz. I'd imagine the w7 and oa would perform similarly bcuz from what I've read they're both low end monsters but drop off in 60-80hz range. nick from obsidian told me that and I read that about the w7 on forums. [i have the 18 v1 btw]

I think my car can take some blame bcuz the plastic panels rattle so loud above a certain frequecy that it ****s with the midbass from the sub, though it isn't loud either way.
I am aware that my front stage should handle most of the midbass but I wanna feel that **** not just hear it.


----------



## Spyke

chad said:


> I still swear at least 90% of sub problems and the need to cross low is too small of an enclosure and playing the damn thing just too loud.


I'm gonna go ahead and sort of....agree with you. I think that sub to mid integration problems come from a trying to get gobs of low sub bass by simply cranking the level up. In the process of tuning, if you get to the point where your sub amp gain won't go any higher, you may want to back off a tad and start over. You can get deep bass from a sealed enclosure but it requires more than a little eq.


----------



## Brian Steele

chad said:


> I still swear at least 90% of sub problems and the need to cross low is too small of an enclosure and playing the damn thing just too loud.


Don't forget crappy box construction .


----------



## acid_burn

isn't part of it the specific sub you're dealing with as well? obviously some subs were made to do things that other subs were not. I've been looking at the ssa xcon but someone on another thread told me that they also lack in midbass output. I'm thinking this problem is more than just bad enclosures but idk enough about this stuff to be confident.


----------



## Spyke

I'm not sure about any subs having poor midbass response. That kinda seems like the one thing that any sub would be really good at. 

I just happened to look back and see this.



acid_burn said:


> can't play my sub with anything higher than 55hz lpf or it loses sq. I miss being able to have the sub play a little midbass; my friend has a diamond d3 15 that sounds so good with a lpf at 125hz but is a lot quiter on the lows than my obsidian,


I think you answered your own question. Like chad was saying. The reason yours sounds bad crossed high is because you have the level too high. So when you try to cross at 80-100 there is waaay too much output at those freq and it will naturally sound bad. 
Your buddy has his level adjusted properly. That's why his sub doesn't overpower the mids. Also why he has less sub bass. And yes, the boxes might be a factor. Though generally you should be able to cross a ported box higher.


----------



## acid_burn

I'm not sure what you mean by levels and how they're set differently between our cars. I'm assuming you mean gain on the amp or eq on the hu. I can tell when my amp is clipping bcuz the bass knob as an indicator that flashes more when the lpf is set higher but doesnt flash on low bass.

i thought the inductance of the vc had a lot to do with a subs ability to produce midbass. I thought if the inductance of one subs vc is higher it will not be able to move the speaker cone as quickly as a sub with a lower inductance vc.

the inductance of the obsidian is the highest compared to pretty much every sub I've looked at specs of online. I've seen so many posts about different subs that lack midbass such as the w7, fi q, ed a13, ssa xcon, mach5 subs, tc sounds lms-r, and a lot more. I figured that most subs can only do one or the other, play midbass great and slack on super lows or slam lows and slack on midbass; then I read a comparison thread about a few subs and the dude did a proper experiment between some on par 12s and he said the Phoenix gold rsd and image dynamics idmax were able to be authoritatively loud both very low and up high while the others could not. so that's what im asking if the dvcs can do, or even ultimax's though I've never used a sealed sub in my car.
there's not much info out there about the specific things I'm asking so sorry to steer off thread a bit lol but I'm still trying to be relevant with asking about the dvc vs ultimax bcuz I am interested.


----------



## Bayboy

The easiest way to get good midbass and still have good lows is utilize a ported enclosure. Use a higher xover point, slight eq cuts down low if needed, and level matching.

The problem with sealed is the low end roll-off may be steep enough and too high in frequency for the car's transfer function that causes you to lower your xover point and raise the level to get more bottom end. Some systems do not exhibit this issue, but perhaps they have fully maximized the sub/box to mate with their car's specific transfer function which should be the goal to begin with. That also may necessitate the use of a different driver than originally desired. The latter is a more common problem most do not address.


----------



## krisfnbz

acid_burn said:


> @kris - Im using the pb 2xl's right now too and the mids are garbage lol. don't mind the tweets but they're just decent.
> 
> @this - box is slot ported 5.5 cb ft at 28hz. I'd imagine the w7 and oa would perform similarly bcuz from what I've read they're both low end monsters but drop off in 60-80hz range. nick from obsidian told me that and I read that about the w7 on forums. [i have the 18 v1 btw]
> 
> I think my car can take some blame bcuz the plastic panels rattle so loud above a certain frequecy that it ****s with the midbass from the sub, though it isn't loud either way.
> I am aware that my front stage should handle most of the midbass but I wanna feel that **** not just hear it.


are you running the 2 way or the 3 way. Im running the 3 way. The mids in my opinion are just fine. The woofers on the other hand have a very limited low end. Overall the set is great, especially for the price.


----------



## acid_burn

Bayboy said:


> Some systems do not exhibit this issue, but perhaps they have fully maximized the sub/box to mate with their car's specific transfer function which should be the goal to begin with. That also may necessitate the use of a different driver than originally desired. The latter is a more common problem most do not address.



what i underlined is something I am completely unfamiliar with but am fully interested in learning about. if you could throw me some links about how to match sub/box to a car's tf I'd be most appreciative. ill soon be changing cars as well so that info would help greatly with my sub shopping.


----------



## acid_burn

@kris 
im using the 2way coax and the mids distort badly at high vols well before the tweets do. i think they might just not be loud enough for me at full power handling. i recently somehow blew one pair that ive had for a few years, one speaker at a time about a week apart, both ended up having a slight tear in the mid near the surround. my doors arent sealed or anything so i keep my hpf at 135hz and keep bass eq at zero @200hz so its not low freq damage. idk they just sound a little muddy to me but that could very well be my install. i luckily had a spare pair in the back doors which sound a lot better at higher vols than the pair that just blew but i suspect i will eventually run into the same issue of loudness.


----------



## Bayboy

I'm mobile right now (at work), but I really learned through reading Vance Dickason's Cookbook and actual experimenting. I'm sure it's covered here more than enough, but Vance touches on different drivers, enclosures, and includes graphs for different vehicles as an example. 

Some say it isn't that drastic between different vehicles, but I tend to differ. It becomes obvious when you use the same sub/box combo in various cars and hear it for yourself. 

Of course there's reactive manipulation like xover slopes, points, & EQ'ing, but IMO, it is more efficient to have the design match the vehicle. This means RTA your car beforehand!


----------



## Spyke

Bayboy said:


> I'm mobile right now (at work), but I really learned through reading Vance Dickason's Cookbook and actual experimenting. I'm sure it's covered here more than enough, but Vance touches on different drivers, enclosures, and includes graphs for different vehicles as an example.
> 
> Some say it isn't that drastic between different vehicles, but I tend to differ. It becomes obvious when you use the same sub/box combo in various cars and hear it for yourself.
> 
> Of course there's reactive manipulation like xover slopes, points, & EQ'ing, but IMO, it is more efficient to have the design match the vehicle. This means RTA your car beforehand!


I prefer no enclosure at all.


----------



## Bayboy

Spyke said:


> I prefer no enclosure at all.



And that is a very good alternative as well! Most fear IB due to hearsay misconceptions, but the IB's I've installed and had decent time to experience was very good.


----------



## ghionw

Bayboy said:


> And that is a very good alternative as well! Most fear IB due to hearsay misconceptions, but the IB's I've installed and had decent time to experience was very good.


My biggest drawback to IB is modifying the trunk area to get a tight seal. Am I the only one with this concern?


----------



## Bayboy

I'm sure it exists, but I was lucky to only have dealt with older model GM cars where a complete single baffle was just about all that was needed. I did have to split one in half, then butt it back together (wouldn't go in as one). Sealed it off with some deadener & foam weatherstripping and was done.... sounded good. 

I will have another IB coming up in a 97 LS400, but am going to stick with a single 8" or maybe a 10" if it will fit in the stock location. Will see...


----------



## krisfnbz

acid_burn said:


> @kris
> im using the 2way coax and the mids distort badly at high vols well before the tweets do. i think they might just not be loud enough for me at full power handling. i recently somehow blew one pair that ive had for a few years, one speaker at a time about a week apart, both ended up having a slight tear in the mid near the surround. my doors arent sealed or anything so i keep my hpf at 135hz and keep bass eq at zero @200hz so its not low freq damage. idk they just sound a little muddy to me but that could very well be my install. i luckily had a spare pair in the back doors which sound a lot better at higher vols than the pair that just blew but i suspect i will eventually run into the same issue of loudness.


we are running two completely different sets of speakers. im running the 3 way version with dome midranges.

2XL-60.3C, Powerbass 2XL-60.3C, Powerbass Speakers, Powerbass Component Speaker Kits


----------



## bark424

well, since i didnt use the ultimax in the car, i wasnt going to let a driver like that go to waste. i didnt need a sub in the house but my son recently completed a diy build and was itching for one pretty bad. 60 year old cedar chest, 2.5 cf sealed downfiring powered by a 500 watt bash amp. my brother measured it today and although i didnt understand all the numbers i do remember he said it will easily play down to 18hz. lower than you'd want for music, but great for HT.


----------



## bark424

BTW...its not finished yet


----------



## silver6

Is it finished now?


----------



## bark424

yes, but my son's crazy ass g girlfriend destroyed a bunch of his speakers ( along with some of mine) so I wasn't about to let that Ultimax end up in his living room. so, after carefully redesigning my box for the car, the Ultimax is living happily in my trunk, blending perfectly with my new SB's and the dvc is in the cedar chest. and honestly, you can't tell the difference in the house. they both shook every window and knocked pictures off the wall.


----------



## acid_burn

did you mean crazy ass ex gf?


----------



## silver6

Any more on the ultimax 10"?


----------



## lawbadman

Ultimax vs HO vs HF, which one would have more low bass in a 1cf sealed box?


----------



## ghionw

How much power on tap? I am assuming you are talking about a 10" sub. I would say the Ultimax, but a quick model should be able to answer this. Unfortunately, I can't get winIsd to work on my windows 8 machine.

Which part a yaad yuh deh?


----------



## lawbadman

ghionw said:


> How much power on tap? I am assuming you are talking about a 10" sub. I would say the Ultimax, but a quick model should be able to answer this. Unfortunately, I can't get winIsd to work on my windows 8 machine.
> 
> Which part a yaad yuh deh?


Iv got 1k watts available. I have modeled (Bassbox) the Ultimax and the HO, but they seem to give pretty much the same response curves. Although the Ultimax edges out the HO by just a smidgen. But I am really looking for a 12 inch driver with killer low bass.


Deh a mobay bossy.... trying to sort out my Starlet...


----------



## ghionw

Which year Starlet? Mi did always want a turbo starlet when mi did deh a yaad.

If you are going for a 12 and that box size, I wouldn't look at the Ultimax. It wants a bigger box for the 12. Closer to 2cuft. I think the Dayton Reference 12 HO dvc will work decently in a 1.25cuft box if I recall correctly but would require an 2 0r 8 ohm load. 

I am currently running 2 HO 10s ported in my car (~1.4cuft @ 28hz). In such a small car, you should be fine with a good 12 or a pair of 10s sealed. Cabin gain should help out the bottom end. You can run a pair of Ultimax 10s in 1.5cuft off of that 1k and shake your car apart. That's the route I want to take if I ever fiberglass the corners of my trunk. But honestly, you can probably get more efficient subs for cheaper and get good results.
Here is my Ultimax 15 in 4 Cubes I built for the house.


----------



## lawbadman

ghionw said:


> Which year Starlet? Mi did always want a turbo starlet when mi did deh a yaad.
> 
> If you are going for a 12 and that box size, I wouldn't look at the Ultimax. It wants a bigger box for the 12. Closer to 2cuft. I think the Dayton Reference 12 HO dvc will work decently in a 1.25cuft box if I recall correctly but would require an 2 0r 8 ohm load.
> 
> I am currently running 2 HO 10s ported in my car (~1.4cuft @ 28hz). In such a small car, you should be fine with a good 12 or a pair of 10s sealed. Cabin gain should help out the bottom end. You can run a pair of Ultimax 10s in 1.5cuft off of that 1k and shake your car apart. That's the route I want to take if I ever fiberglass the corners of my trunk. But honestly, you can probably get more efficient subs for cheaper and get good results.
> Here is my Ultimax 15 in 4 Cubes I built for the house.




I have read that the Ultimax hits lower and louder than the HO so I think I might stick with it. But it seems I may have to switch to the 10 inch instead.

But now my decision is whether to get the Ultimax 10 or Sundown SD-3 12 in a 1cf box sealed. 
I need to figure out which one goes lower...


----------



## ghionw

I am not familiar with the Sundown. Not sure what the xmax is on it, but being a 12, it is already ahead of the curve in comparison to the ultimax.
I like the look of the Daytons. And if you like to feel like you have exclusive stuff, I would go the Dayton route since I doubt anyone down there running Daytons.


----------



## Lycancatt

has anyone tried the ultamax with passive radiators? I'm thinking of a box for an ultamax 12 with a Dayton 12 passive on each side for a compact but likely pretty ballsy sub for home use.


----------



## ghionw

Lycancatt said:


> has anyone tried the ultamax with passive radiators? I'm thinking of a box for an ultamax 12 with a Dayton 12 passive on each side for a compact but likely pretty ballsy sub for home use.


 You're probably better off using the HO15 ported. And you would save money.


----------



## Lycancatt

ghionw said:


> You're probably better off using the HO15 ported. And you would save money.



and I already have a pair of boxes for fifteens..but I'm bored of them lol.


----------



## drop1

Lycancatt said:


> and I already have a pair of boxes for fifteens..but I'm bored of them lol.


I'll pm you my address and you can get those out of your way.


----------

