# Dayton 10" HO enclosure size



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

After all the searching I have done, I keep coming back to the Dayton HO 10 for my '97 Chevy 1500 extended cab. I know these subs are great in ~.7cf ported boxes, but I don't think I can fit an enclosure like that under my rear seat. The pre-fab downfire boxes for my truck are ~.9-1cf sealed.

So will the Dayton work in a sealed box that big? I plan on bridging the rear channels of a DSC 4125, which is rated at 500w RMS @ 4 ohms.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Dayton RSS265HO-4 10" Reference HO Subwoofer 4 Ohm | Parts-Express.com

download the specifications


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

Thanks, I've already seen the specs. I'm asking for real world experience. I've seen guys go as small as .4 sealed with these, but I need to know about how they do in larger sealed boxes.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Vented

.7 CuFt tuned to 30 cycles.

You probably will not like the output sealed, it also works the driver too hard for my taste.


----------



## alfabit1 (Jun 12, 2008)

I really wanted to try the Dayton HO, but read a lot about output not being there from sealed enclosures. I was working w/ around .85 sealed. I ended up going w/ the Dayton Titanic. I get enough output from that, sounds great w/ 400W. I still may have to tinker around w/ an HO at some point.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

alfabit1 said:


> I really wanted to try the Dayton HO, but read a lot about output not being there from sealed enclosures. I was working w/ around .85 sealed. I ended up going w/ the Dayton Titanic. I get enough output from that, sounds great w/ 400W. I still may have to tinker around w/ an HO at some point.


The titanic and the HO series model very similar, the HO series has lower distortion figures and a more neutral sound IMHO whereas the titanic series has the capability of higher output, not sensitivity, but capability.


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

Like I said, I don't think I have enough room for a ported enclosure under the seat, so I guess I will have to pass on the HO 10. That was really the only Dayton sub that interested me. 

What else is out there in the 10" variety that can handle 500w RMS, likes sealed boxes around 1cf, and has a mounting depth of no more than 5.5"?

I've looked at the Kicker CVT, but I would rather go with something else. I know the IDQ would work but it's too expensive for me. I've had people recommend the MB Quart RWE-302 and the PG RSD10.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

just put some high density foam inside, or even a block of wood to take up the extra air space.


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

gymrat2005 said:


> just put some high density foam inside, or even a block of wood to take up the extra air space.


I may do that, but if I don't then what other subs should I look at?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

creep said:


> What else is out there in the 10" variety that can handle 500w RMS, *likes sealed boxes around 1cf,* and has a mounting depth of no more than 5.5"?


I'm sofa-king confused. You have room for a 1 CuFt sealed box but not a .7CuFt box+a vent?


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

Weird shape because it sits under the seat.

Sonic Sub Boxes OCCHV04-10 (occhv0410) - GM / Chevrolet Sub Enclosures - Sonic Electronix

My local box builder said he didn't think he could fit a ported box under the seat. If it can be done then I am all for that.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

you can vent that box no problem.

Nothing wrong with a weird shaped vented box


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

If it wasn't going under a seat it would fly, Chad.

He needs a shallow mount sub or to raise his seats


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

a$$hole said:


> If it wasn't going under a seat it would fly, Chad.
> 
> He needs a shallow mount sub or to raise his seats


He said less than 5.5inches, the dayton will fit the bill I believe, it's pretty shallow. My bowl is not for the sub, it's for airspace as to no t raise the hatch floor too much.


----------



## alfabit1 (Jun 12, 2008)

chad said:


> The titanic and the HO series model very similar, the HO series has lower distortion figures and a more neutral sound IMHO whereas the titanic series has the capability of higher output, not sensitivity, but capability.


Thanks for that info chad, that's the consensus I had come to, being sealed I opted for the titanic. I will say it's clean enough, and has plenty of output for what I was after.


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

I assumed external aero ports wrapped around the box would be the only way to port a box like the one I need with a 10" sub. 

Would it be easier to go with a smaller sub like a DD 1508 and front fire it?


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

No offense, but the DD1508 is a high distortion driver that is designed to play loud. In 1 cubic foot net tuned to 35 Hz, it didn't play with much authority below 35 Hz. It was loud though!


----------



## alfabit1 (Jun 12, 2008)

creep said:


> I assumed external aero ports wrapped around the box would be the only way to port a box like the one I need with a 10" sub.
> 
> Would it be easier to go with a smaller sub like a DD 1508 and front fire it?


[External ports] is what I had come up with for the size box I had when looking at the dayton HO. Wasn't an option for me. Maybe something along the lines of the polk mm1040 would be another option?


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

ChrisB said:


> No offense, but the DD1508 is a high distortion driver that is designed to play loud. In 1 cubic foot net tuned to 35 Hz, it didn't play with much authority below 35 Hz. It was loud though!


I know the 1508 is primarily an SPL driver, but I have heard they actually sound good too. Not a full on SQ sub like the Dayton HO by any means, but I'm not exactly an audiophile either.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

creep said:


> I assumed external aero ports wrapped around the box would be the only way to port a box like the one I need with a 10" sub.
> 
> Would it be easier to go with a smaller sub like a DD 1508 and front fire it?


given the enclosure is already 1 cubic foot right? you have .3 Cu feet to waste inside on venting!


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

chad said:


> given the enclosure is already 1 cubic foot right? you have .3 Cu feet to waste inside on venting!


Box design is not my forte. I built the last one I did, but it was a simple cube with an L port for 2 Type R's in my Tahoe. If it can be done then I will gladly do it, I just didn't know if it was possible to port a weird box like that and still have room for anything but a shallow mount sub.

I'm completely open to suggestions on what direction to take this.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Geometry, remember that the sub depth is not that depth throughout the diameter of the sub.. Just for the magnet. 

People tend to overlook this, especially when shopping for door speakers.


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

So am I looking at a custom box or modifying a pre fab sealed box?


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

After thinking about it, I'm going to ditch the down fire box and go with a front fire box. That will give me enough depth to open up my options. So after spending all day at work looking at different subs, I have come to these 2. I'm leaning towards the IXL-10, but the reviews for the Titanic sound good too. What do yall think?

IXL-10 v2 SL [IXL-10 v2 SL] - $149.00 : Mach 5 Audio

Dayton TIT280C-4 10" Titanic Mk III Subwoofer 4 Ohm | Parts-Express.com


----------



## 60ndown (Feb 8, 2007)

nice box 

is that like 4 sq inch of port area 



chad said:


> you can vent that box no problem.
> 
> Nothing wrong with a weird shaped vented box


----------



## alfabit1 (Jun 12, 2008)

creep said:


> After thinking about it, I'm going to ditch the down fire box and go with a front fire box. That will give me enough depth to open up my options. So after spending all day at work looking at different subs, I have come to these 2. I'm leaning towards the IXL-10, but the reviews for the Titanic sound good too. What do yall think?
> 
> IXL-10 v2 SL [IXL-10 v2 SL] - $149.00 : Mach 5 Audio
> 
> Dayton TIT280C-4 10" Titanic Mk III Subwoofer 4 Ohm | Parts-Express.com


I run that Titanic right now, sealed in approx .85 cuft. It definitely likes the 400W I'm sending to it, would probably like more. Probably the cleanest sub I've had (but I haven't had a lot). Well built, goes surprisingly low, delivers a nice punch up high, and isn't too boomy. 

Don't have any experience w/ the Mach5, but I've looked into that recently too and would love to try one. More power options w/ the DVC setup there, maybe that tips the scales?


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

alfabit1 said:


> I run that Titanic right now, sealed in approx .85 cuft. It definitely likes the 400W I'm sending to it, would probably like more. Probably the cleanest sub I've had (but I haven't had a lot). Well built, goes surprisingly low, delivers a nice punch up high, and isn't too boomy.
> 
> Don't have any experience w/ the Mach5, but I've looked into that recently too and would love to try one. More power options w/ the DVC setup there, maybe that tips the scales?


Titanic.
Better design and more efficient. Will play just as low, almost same sized box.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Titanic MK III = Nice and LOW


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm kinda worried I wouldn't have the power to move the IXL-10 since it says 800w RMS and I only have 500, if that. Decisions, decisions...


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

creep said:


> I'm kinda worried I wouldn't have the power to move the IXL-10 since it says 800w RMS and I only have 500, if that. Decisions, decisions...


1. it will move it fine. Just not as much as your second choice. The IXL is only like 80-83db at the most efficient compared to the 85 of the titanic. The titanic is a tried and true performer, cheaper more efficient and a way better design for the motor meaning less distortion and sounding better. Even pounding out da bass.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Maximum power handling is not a good representation of how a driver will perform in the sensitivity arena.


----------



## creep (Jul 26, 2010)

cubdenno, you may have just sold me on the Titanic.I'm going to get my hands on a box first and make sure I have enough mounting depth before I pull the trigger on anything.


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

chad said:


> Maximum power handling is not a good representation of how a driver will perform in the sensitivity arena.


Yo! True Dat!


----------

