# Adding a subwoofer, need some advice on design and specs



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Hi all, this is my first post and I'm hoping to get some help for my sub project!

I'm an audiophile/audio engineer with only a little car audio experience. I've got a 2019 Subaru Forester, and I decided to install a custom audio system since the stock system sounded like garbage. I replaced the 6 speakers and installed an Audio Control D6.1200 amp which lets me do EQ and processing from my laptop. A local audio shop did the work and got me interested in mobile audio. I think It sounds very good now. The one thing I held off on was putting in a sub. Now I'm ready to add a sub.

I'd love to get some advice on a sealed enclosure idea - is this a good way to go or are there some other suggestions that I should think about? My audio shop had suggested an easy way to add a sub: under the cargo area panel, there's room above the spare tire to fit a sub enclosure. It would rest on the spare and fill the space directly up to the removable panel. It would be shallow and wide, and would require a shallow mount speaker.

I did a cardboard mock up and I can fit a box that has outer dimensions of 24" wide x 14" long, 7" high at the rear and 5" high at the front. (The space is trapezoidal.) Volume calculates out to 0.74 cubic ft using 3/4" material, or 0.87 using 1/2".

From what I've learned, the volume determines the appropriate speaker size. I'd like to use a 12" speaker. I found a JBL or Infinity that work at 0.75 volume, and a few others will work at 0.8, according to the specs.

So, my first question is - how does this idea of a sealed enclosure under the cargo panel come across? It sure seems like an easy way to get a hidden sub in my car. (I don't want to use any cargo space for a sub cabinet.) Is the odd/shallow shape of this box a problem at all?

One consideration - Since the top of the enclosure is right up against the cargo panel, I don't want the speaker to protrude above the enclosure. I would want to figure out a way to flush mount the speaker...or maybe I should mount the speaker to the inside of the enclosure (attach it to the bottom-side of the top panel)?

My other main question is, since the enclosure is on the small side is it OK to go with 1/2" material rather than 3/4". With 1/2" I'd gain some volume and would have more room for mounting the speaker internally. I'm thinking of using Baltic Birch over MDF.

Thank you in advance!
Bob


----------



## BJG (Feb 7, 2021)

//make way for the masters of WinISD to teach you a thing or two.. unfortunately I do no fall into that category!

..at least as of yet.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Welcome to the board! I have a program called Bassbox and can run some numbers for you if you want.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

citysoundman said:


> ...
> My other main question is, since the enclosure is on the small side is it OK to go with 1/2" material rather than 3/4". With 1/2" I'd gain some volume and would have more room for mounting the speaker internally. I'm thinking of using Baltic Birch over MDF.
> 
> Thank you in advance!
> Bob


3/4" would be flexy. So you probably want stiffener gussets.
If you have those stiffeners, then the 1/2" may be enough.
And if you went 1/2" you may want a doubler around the subwoofer cutout.. maybe 2" either side (Up to a p[erpendicular holey stiffener)... which then ties the front and back together.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> Welcome to the board! I have a program called Bassbox and can run some numbers for you if you want.


Sorry for the newbie question, but can you give me an idea of what the program does? And what info do you need to run it? I appreciate the help!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks for the reply Holmz! I have some questions please.



Holmz said:


> 3/4" would be flexy. So you probably want stiffener gussets.
> If you have those stiffeners, then the 1/2" may be enough.


I had to look up what a gusset is...are you thinking of a solid triangle support piece? So I'm not sure but I think what you're saying, is the 24" wide span is probably going to bow without some additional support? If you could help with some specifics about where you might add gussets and what size you mean that would be really helpful.



Holmz said:


> And if you went 1/2" you may want a doubler around the subwoofer cutout.. maybe 2" either side (Up to a p[erpendicular holey stiffener)... which then ties the front and back together.


What is a perpendicular holey stiffener?
I'd really like to mount the speaker internally so it doesn't stick out above the enclosure. Is this doable?
And are you thinking 1/2" Baltic birch for this?


----------



## Destarah (Feb 24, 2019)

I am using a JL Audio 10TW3-D4 under the cargo mat in my 2012 Mazda 3 Sport with about 0.5cuft and my only complaint is that when the mat is in place it will buzz. For my purposes I just remove the mat temporarily so I can play my music as loud as I like without the buzzing, but I imagine that some velcro would go a long way to dealing with it /shrug.
Any particular reason you are planning to use a 12"? I am more than satisfied with the 10" ...


citysoundman said:


> Is the odd/shallow shape of this box a problem at all?


Nope


citysoundman said:


> Since the top of the enclosure is right up against the cargo panel, I don't want the speaker to protrude above the enclosure.


If you built the box 5" height (external) front to back the top of the enclosure would be at an angle and provide space for face of the speaker above. This would give a net internal volume of 0.57cuft (before displacement) which is pretty snug for a 12", but a 10" ...


citysoundman said:


> is it OK to go with 1/2" material rather than 3/4"


just about all the space savings you realize with 1/2" would be consumed with the extra bracing it would need and either way 1/2" wouldn't be sufficient for the baffle (the side the speaker is mounted to). Best to stick with 3/4"

Besides all of that, would you be willing to remove the spare and give yourself the whole space to work with?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Destarah said:


> I am using a JL Audio 10TW3-D4 under the cargo mat in my 2012 Mazda 3 Sport with about 0.5cuft and my only complaint is that when the mat is in place it will buzz.


Thanks for the reply Destarah! Sounds like my setup is very much like yours. Did you build your enclosure?



Destarah said:


> Any particular reason you are planning to use a 12"? I am more than satisfied with the 10" ...
> 
> If you built the box 5" height (external) front to back the top of the enclosure would be at an angle and provide space for face of the speaker above. This would give a net internal volume of 0.57cuft (before displacement) which is pretty snug for a 12", but a 10" ...
> 
> ...


I'm partial to a 12" speaker over a 10" for the additional low end response. But you make some good points for thinking about 10", thanks for that. And your suggestion about making a 5" high box that leaves a gap for the speaker face (with a grille for protection) sounds like a decent option. But I'd be worried about putting some heavy cargo in and not having support under the cargo panel. If I can have the enclosure top flush against the cargo panel I think that would be better. That's my thought about mounting the speaker internally - any issues with doing this?

If I go with 3/4" material would you use MDF or Baltic Birch?

And since I drive in upstate NY all the time and have a family in the car I don't want to be without a spare!


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Sorry for the newbie question, but can you give me an idea of what the program does? And what info do you need to run it? I appreciate the help!


Google WinISD
Download the program
For training and demo purposes use one of the subwoofer drivers that come in the install database
Pick a sub from the list
Start with sealed (since that's what you will have with the limited volume and yes; sealed is the easiest to work with and integrate.)
Accept the 0.707 alignment (optimum)
The s/w will show you what the "optimum" size is for that woofer

Smaller boxes raise the "Q" creating a bump in the response above tuning with a steeper cutoff below. You can really pour the power to these boxes and use tons of Eq to fill in the bottom octave but you'll likely hit mechanical limits.

Larger boxes decrease "Q" creating a flatter more "audiophile" response with better low frequency extension but less power handling. 

Subwoofers in cars benefit from something called cabin gain below the resonant frequency of the cars interior which increases the low frequency output below resonance (usually 40-70hz depending on interior volume and structural rigidity) so most manufacturers of subs and prefab boxes recommend going with a smaller than optimum box to increase power handling and rely on the cabin gain to fill in the lowest octave. 

Check out the Dayton Reference Series Subs which work well in small enclosures. www.parts-express.com 

If you're equipped with the proper millwork equipment for cabinet building then void free "real" Baltic Birch is the the best material for the lightest and most rigid box. With that being said MDF is fine for this size box and easier to work with...

Excursion clearance:
Small sealed enclosures require lots of excursion to produce lots of bass so you have a choice of bottom mount which might give you clearance problems unless you go with a shallow sub (more in that in a sec) or you can top mount "recessed" by making a double front baffle and a cutout big enough to recess the sub in the front layer and regular cutout in the lower layer. You can also get a third ring (these come pre-made or make ur own) to add under the lower layer to increase stiffness in the mounting flange. 

Make the box as big as you can cause the old adage holds true; there's no replacement for displacement. 

Shallow Subs: there are some very good shallow subs being made lately but none of them can keep up with a regular sub designed for the same size box simply due to the fact that they all make compromises in some way to get shallow. So if you can get enough depth for something like an Audiofrog GB12 or 10 (be sure to include space for the voice coil vent even if you have to cut a hole in the back of the box and add some extra material just to create that small space for air to vent) then you'll be well rewarded. But given the measurements you've specified and the bottom mounting option it's not likely you'll get that much room - so here's some prime contenders in the shallow market: 
"12″ BM mkV" 12″ BM mkV
"SD-4 SERIES – Sundown Audio" SD-4 SERIES
"12TW3-D4 - Car Audio - Subwoofer Drivers - TW3 - JL Audio" 12TW3-D4

Welcome to the fold! 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

Every panel resonates and the main thing you want to do with a subwoofer enclosure is keep the panel resonances so we don’t hear them. The primary way to do that is to brace the subwoofer panels so that you don’t have unsupported panels. I’d probably want every 7-9” supported with 3/4” enclosures and 5-6” with 1/2” material. This bracing could be simple 3/4” dowels or more elaborate window frame bracing (cut out like a window frame). You definitely want a strong mount so maybe 1.5” thickness there though the extra thickness could be on the inside maybe 14-15” around where the sub mounts and then well braced around that perimeter.

The main subs I’d recommend are too deep for you so I’d recommend a shallower sub. The JL 12TW3 wants at least 0.8 cu.ft. of airspace sealed and you might be a little tight there so I’d recommend the SI BM MK V. I did a comparison test on them here and found they are pretty close in output but the SI can do it with a slightly smaller enclosure. As daloudin mentioned, there is also the Sundaown SD-4 that is fairly popular but I haven’t heard it.









Shallow Sub Comparison - JL 12TW3 vs SI BM MK V


Since there have been several posts on shallow subs I figured this would be worthwhile on DIYMA. I am looking at offering a home theater inwall subwoofer and since I use Stereo Integrity drivers, I had to look at the new BM MK V as well as one of the JL shallow subs. In looking at the JL TW3...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin & dgage, excellent info thank you very much! I'm getting a much clearer picture of what needs to be done now. I just read up on speaker enclosure bracing and how important it is - seeing some examples of dowels and window frame bracing is super informative. So my original idea of building a trapezoidal box to fill this cargo space above my spare tire just won't work - bracing in a trapezoid sounds kinda ridiculous! Better to have a rectangle to work with 😀

My friend has a shop with CNC routers so it might be worth it to spend a little cash to have him cut the birch.

I'll take some time to explore the subs you guys recommend and I'll check out WinISD too.

Much appreciated!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

This page shows a ton of great bracing examples, with pictures and diagrams.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> daloudin & dgage, excellent info thank you very much! I'm getting a much clearer picture of what needs to be done now. I just read up on speaker enclosure bracing and how important it is - seeing some examples of dowels and window frame bracing is super informative. So my original idea of building a trapezoidal box to fill this cargo space above my spare tire just won't work - bracing in a trapezoid sounds kinda ridiculous! Better to have a rectangle to work with
> 
> My friend has a shop with CNC routers so it might be worth it to spend a little cash to have him cut the birch.
> 
> ...


If you're going to get the panels cut by cnc then by all means do a trapezoid. Whatever you can to get the maximum airspace possible. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

citysoundman said:


> Sorry for the newbie question, but can you give me an idea of what the program does? And what info do you need to run it? I appreciate the help!


Daloudin's response above hit the nail on the head perfectly.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

daloudin said:


> Google WinISD
> Download the program
> For training and demo purposes use one of the subwoofer drivers that come in the install database


Great post, thanks! You nailed it as far as explanation of optimum alignment, cabin gain, etc.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

The Dude said:


> Great post, thanks! You nailed it as far as explanation of optimum alignment, cabin gain, etc.


Once your comfortable with the built in drivers try adding one of the drivers your considering. Be careful with the units, entering things like VAS as cubic feet when the program has the units as Liters or CMS as mm instead of micrometers can throw the whole model off for that driver. Right-clicking on the unit label in the program will toggle the units through the available options. 

The help documentation is also an invaluable resource and can tell you how to enter drivers that may not have all the T/S specs available. 

Then it comes time to build your box. You have to decide whether to straight up build the box as big as possible and THEN find a driver that's close or design the box for the driver that you know will work. Luckily you're planning to go sealed so there's more wiggle room. A box that's only a few percentage points smaller than optimum can be stuffed with polyfill or many other absorptive products to fool the driver into thinking the box is a little bigger than it really is and also effectively dampen the backwave inside the box reducing distortion and unwanted cancelation or coloration of the audio. 

Feel free to post screenshots of any simulation that you have questions about and there are many members here who will be happy to coach you thru the finer points of simulation including, but not limited to, group delay, f3, f10, filters, excursion, spl, etc.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks so much daloudin! This gives me a lot to get going. I'll definitely report back after making some progress.


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

Since you are on tight with the enclosure volume, you might consider to make box out of fiberglass and attach 1 inch thick baffle to it with driver countersunk. In this case walls would be thick somewhere in a range of 0,4-0,5"

Take into consideration that 10" driver will need approy 20-25 litre of airspace to work properly - Qtc of up to 0,85-0,9 is still acceptable (on the edge)


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

LBaudio said:


> Since you are on tight with the enclosure volume, you might consider to make box out of fiberglass and attach 1 inch thick baffle to it with driver countersunk. In this case walls would be thick somewhere in a range of 0,4-0,5"
> 
> Take into consideration that 10" driver will need approy 20-25 litre of airspace to work properly - Qtc of up to 0,85-0,9 is still acceptable (on the edge)


Thanks for the message LB. Not sure how to work with fiberglass...I think I will stick with wood!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> You have to decide whether to straight up build the box as big as possible and THEN find a driver that's close or design the box for the driver that you know will work.


daloudin, this seems to be where I'm kinda stuck, and I can use some advice! I'm not sure how close to the driver volume spec I need to keep -

If I go with 3/4" material and build as big as possible I get 0.75 volume for my trapezoid enclosure. Can I use a driver like the JL Audio that shows 0.8 volume?

Or if I downsize to a 10" driver, which is what I may do, the JL driver shows 0.5 volume. This is quite a bit less then my enclosure.

Without any experience here I don't know which way to go


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> daloudin, this seems to be where I'm kinda stuck, and I can use some advice! I'm not sure how close to the driver volume spec I need to keep -
> 
> If I go with 3/4" material and build as big as possible I get 0.75 volume for my trapezoid enclosure. Can I use a driver like the JL Audio that shows 0.8 volume?
> 
> ...


JL subs are spec'd for smaller than optimal enclosures to start with... I wouldn't go any smaller than JL suggestions. 

What kind of depth have you managed at 0.75 ft³?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> JL subs are spec'd for smaller than optimal enclosures to start with... I wouldn't go any smaller than JL suggestions.
> 
> What kind of depth have you managed at 0.75 ft³?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


24" x 14" top panel, average 6" high (actually 7" on one side and 5" on the other)


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> 24" x 14" top panel, average 6" high (actually 7" on one side and 5" on the other)


And is that 6" the inside to inside or top outside to inside bottom?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> And is that 6" the inside to inside or top outside to inside bottom?


these are exterior dimensions. I've attached a trapezoid calculation screenshot of the side section, exterior


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Here


citysoundman said:


> these are exterior dimensions. I've attached a trapezoid calculation screenshot of the side section, exterior


Ok - so if you move the woofer to the wider side as far as possible then you could probably use the Dayton 12HO-44 which is the best compromise of SQ/SPL/Space that I know of... the 12TW3 from JL would probably work as well - either one could use at least a pound of Polyfill dampening inside. I hate that you can't model JL subwoofers accurately cause their T/S specs are not complete and they always have some outrageous number auto calculated for the moving mass. Putting a sub in a box that's only 0.05 cuft too small is fine as the polyfill will fudge it that much. But the extra xmax, shorting rings and general construction of the Dayton will give you better SQ (and the Dayton is half the price of the JL!)


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> Putting a sub in a box that's only 0.05 cuft too small is fine as the polyfill will fudge it that much.


Ok nice! That’s great news. It gives me options for 12” drivers, thanks.

The Dayton you mention looks too big, I’m seeing it to be 6.2 inches total height. Dayton does have a shallow mount 12” though, LS12-44. How does that one look, compared to the JL?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Ok nice! That’s great news. It gives me options for 12” drivers, thanks.
> 
> The Dayton you mention looks too big, I’m seeing it to be 6.2 inches total height. Dayton does have a shallow mount 12” though, LS12-44. How does that one look, compared to the JL?


No, unfortunately the LS12-44 requires more space than the 12HO-44, why they made a shallow mount that takes more airspace than the standard depth Sub is beyond me. Any of the previously mentioned shallow subs are better than the LS12-44. Personally I'd go for the Stereo Integrity Shallow Sub but then I can drive to their facility NW of Charlotte, NC.


----------



## BJG (Feb 7, 2021)

daloudin said:


> JL subs are spec'd for smaller than optimal enclosures to start with... I wouldn't go any smaller than JL suggestions.
> 
> What kind of depth have you managed at 0.75 ft³?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


I agree.. ALWAYS go larger than JL specs if possible.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Not to throw a monkey wrench into things here, but I was very impressed with my Audiomobile Evo2410 ten inch sub in about .6 cubes sealed. I was running a pair. They are quite shallow, too.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

So I'm going to need to go with a 10" driver - I will have less volume than I was first calculating. Because of where the box will be sitting - right up under my Forester's cargo panel - I want to be sure the driver is out of harm's way by keeping it just under the top panel of the box, with a mesh protection or some grille. So to recess it I believe I'll need to have a double 3/4" top panel. That reduces the height by 3/4" and makes the volume around 0.6. With driver displacement and some bracing it will be a little less.

So the JL10TW3-D4 looks like a great option, its spec shows 0.5 volume.



The Dude said:


> Not to throw a monkey wrench into things here, but I was very impressed with my Audiomobile Evo2410 ten inch sub in about .6 cubes sealed. I was running a pair. They are quite shallow, too.


Dude, that Audiomobile looks good, but it's hard to find specs for. And it's $449 here. Not sure why it's not more available, I don't see it elsewhere.

Ideally I'd like to spend less than what the JL goes for, it's $330. But I don't want to get something mediocre. Any other suggestions on a good 10" driver in the $200 - $300 price range?

I'm looking at the Dayton LS10-44, but can't tell what volume it needs


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Yes, the Audiomobile gear seems to be hard to find at local dealers sometimes. Not sure on pricing, I am in Canada and got a decent deal on mine about 4 or 5 years back. I could check with my local dealer if you are interested, he usually cuts me a nice deal. The GTS series is another good option for you, from Audiomobile. Not too sure on pricing. I run older subs so I am afraid that I cannot on anything more current, but there are tons of people on here that can, I'm sure.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

daloudin mentioned Dayton's offerings, the LS10-44 sounds like a good possibility? The first review mentions impressive performance in a 19 litre (.67 cube) box off of 600 watts.









Home


Dayton Audio LS10-44 10" Low Profile Subwoofer Dual 4 OhmDayton Audio's shallow subwoofers let you put more bass into less space! The new LS10-44 Low Profile Subwoofer from Dayton Audio provides over 10 mm of controlled excursion, for bass that hits hard and goes deep -- even in places ordinary...




www.parts-express.com


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> daloudin mentioned Dayton's offerings, the LS10-44 sounds like a good possibility? The first review mentions impressive performance in a 19 litre (.67 cube) box off of 600 watts.


Yes, but there might be a problem with it needing a more deep enclosure...I'm not sure...daloudin mentioned that the 12" driver was odd that way.

And the Sundown SD-4 10 is also a good contender, that was one of daloudin's reco's.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

I think that he meant that the 12" shallow version called for a larger enclosure than the other version. On the Parts Express website they indicate that the LS10 will work in .45 cubes sealed.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

I just plugged the specs into Bassbox. Did you say that you could squeeze about .75 cubes into that space also?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> I just plugged the specs into Bassbox. Did you say that you could squeeze about .75 cubes into that space also?


No, it's gonna be around 0.6. Exterior dimensions are 24 x 14", with an average height of 5.25". I'll use 3/4" material.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Ah ok, very good.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

So I'm looking at:
JL 10TW3-D4 $330
Sundown SD-4 10 D4 $290
Dayton LS-10 44 $125

on Crutchfield I see some others, but I can't tell if these are good
Kenwood Excelon XR-W10F $280
Pioneer TS-Z10LS2 $250


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Not sure how much power you plan on running to the sub?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> Not sure how much power you plan on running to the sub?


Haven't really looked at an amp yet.

So is that the frequency response of the Dayton in the enclosure? Looks like it's not reproducing great low end but I'm not really sure what to expect!


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

The more knowledgeable guys on here will pipe up, looks to have pretty linear response and with the cabin gain from your vehicle should work well. I plotted the Sundown sub in the same size box, even though it claims nearly 50 percent more excursion the response looked pretty similar.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Time for bed for me! Thanks Dude for your help & the great conversation, I'll check back tomorrow


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> The more knowledgeable guys on here will pipe up, looks to have pretty linear response and with the cabin gain from your vehicle should work well. I plotted the Sundown sub in the same size box, even though it claims nearly 50 percent more excursion the response looked pretty similar.


OK understood, amazing!


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Thanks! Some more info for you for tomorrow:






Audiomobile GTS 10″ subwoofer







store.audiodesignscg.com














Audiomobile GTS 2110 Subwoofer


jQuery.ready );




www.pasmag.com





The low-profile "Iso-Barik" design series optimized for micro-box enclosures.

- Custom tooled, low-profile, powder-coated steel frame, features dual, bi-radial "delta" cooling vents.

- Compact, low-profile motor features unique, Aluminum "FSD" (Flux Stabilization Device) for lower inductance.

- Long-excursion (14.2 mm Xmax) with superb power-handing. Engineered for sealed or vented box applications.

- Specifically designed for smallest form-factor enclosures (.33 cf - .65 cf) or to work with MCAR "PST" drivers.

- Low-profile (4.5" deep). Optimized for micro-box app use. 450 watts.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Dayton Audio LS10-44 10" Low Profile Subwoofer Dual 4 Ohm | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Dayton Audio LS10-44 10" Low Profile Subwoofer Dual 4 Ohm at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



www.ebay.com





I put this on my watch list, they sent off an offer for $118 buy it now. Free shipping in the U.S.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> So I'm looking at:
> JL 10TW3-D4 $330
> Sundown SD-4 10 D4 $290
> Dayton LS-10 44 $125
> ...


If you can wait till maybe Monday when I'll be through with my honeydew list and this interminable shopping trip then I'll model all of them for Comparison. In the meantime if you can find specs for the Audiomobile Evo sub that's even better... they make really nice subs but finding one can be a burden.

FWIW - my hidden sub enclosure is the one from Audio Designs...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Thanks to @OCD66 for Evo specs.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

@citysoundman just wondering what types of music you listen to? Do you listen at extremely high volumes? When I ran my Evo 10's I was extremely happy with them. Ran them off of about 500 rms to the pair at first, and then closer to 800 rms to the pair. I listen to Alice in Chains, Tool, old school hip hop, some newer hip hop, a little bit of country, a fairly wide range of music. With some decent 6.5" components up front I found that the Evo subs blended very well, sound wise, and I didn't hear them bottom out once, despite some fairly high volume levels. I am an older dude (40+), and have abused my ears too much over the years already. Hope this helps.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Dude, thanks for posting about the Audiomobile GTS 2110 it looks really good! It's $250 on the audiodesignscg.com site you posted above, that looks like a great price. I'm very interested in the Single 4 ohm. I found the specs for their GTS series on another thread here.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> So I'm going to need to go with a 10" driver - I will have less volume than I was first calculating. Because of where the box will be sitting - right up under my Forester's cargo panel - I want to be sure the driver is out of harm's way by keeping it just under the top panel of the box, with a mesh protection or some grille. So to recess it I believe I'll need to have a double 3/4" top panel. That reduces the height by 3/4" and makes the volume around 0.6. With driver displacement and some bracing it will be a little less.
> 
> So the JL10TW3-D4 looks like a great option, its spec shows 0.5 volume.
> 
> ...


I have a pair of audiomobile EVO 10's i am thinking of selling. Used, but barely broken in and would ship in original boxes. I bought them to compare to my EVO 8's.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> @citysoundman just wondering what types of music you listen to? Do you listen at extremely high volumes?


I listen to a range of stuff and definitely on high volumes at times. Rock, classic rock, progressive, trip hop, ambient, jazz, classical, experimental stuff. Nothing super abrasive 😀 . I'm almost 57, I've played in lots of bands and I still compose electronic and groove type stuff. I think the Evo is gonna be too pricey but the GTS looks like it's right in the pocket, thanks for all your feedback!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> I have a pair of audiomobile EVO 10's i am thinking of selling. Used, but barely broken in and would ship in original boxes. I bought them to compare to my EVO 8's.


Hey man thanks for posting! I might make you an offer, but would you sell just one?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> If you can wait till maybe Monday when I'll be through with my honeydew list and this interminable shopping trip then I'll model all of them for Comparison. In the meantime if you can find specs for the Audiomobile Evo sub that's even better... they make really nice subs but finding one can be a burden.
> 
> FWIW - my hidden sub enclosure is the one from Audio Designs...
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Well maybe I'll be able to pick one up from @miniSQ 😀
Thanks for offering to model those drivers! Please don't go our of your way - I'm not sure if it's worth it to see models for everything? (again, this is all pretty new to me) But right now I'm very interested in the Audiomobile EVO and GTS, the Dayton, and the Sundown. 

I'm curious, when you do model, do you need to enter data for the enclosure dimensions, or just the enclosure volume?


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

miniSQ said:


> I have a pair of audiomobile EVO 10's i am thinking of selling. Used, but barely broken in and would ship in original boxes. I bought them to compare to my EVO 8's.


How did you like the 8's vs the 10s? Have you tried the Evos sealed and vented for both the 8s and 10s?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Well maybe I'll be able to pick one up from @miniSQ
> Thanks for offering to model those drivers! Please don't go our of your way - I'm not sure if it's worth it to see models for everything? (again, this is all pretty new to me) But right now I'm very interested in the Audiomobile EVO and GTS, the Dayton, and the Sundown.
> 
> I'm curious, when you do model, do you need to enter data for the enclosure dimensions, or just the enclosure volume?


No dimensions just cuft. The only reason to model them all is cause it's free, it's easy and it feeds my curiosity. Oh and it gives all of us terms of reference for what the model looks like and your eventual results. With sealed this small there's likely to be very little difference in the models but it also gives us a chance to look at excursion and spl to see how much power they need. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

The Dude said:


> How did you like the 8's vs the 10s? Have you tried the Evos sealed and vented for both the 8s and 10s?


Istill have both. I have the 8's in a T-line box and they are amazing little subs. I love them. I never tried them sealed. I bought the 10's to compare sealed 10's to the ported 8's and i get more output from the 8's. I like the SQ of the 10's sealed and i just would like a little more output. Right now they are firing down in a really cheap box i built. I think if I change the position of the box i would get a lot more output. I am debating on building a ported box for the 10's but would consider selling them. Or even 1 at a time.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Nice, @miniSQ , thanks for the info.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Apparently the MCAR passive radiator units work very well with the Audiomobile subs also.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

The Dude said:


> Apparently the MCAR passive radiator units work very well with the Audiomobile subs also.


i have heard that too.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks for the reply Holmz! I have some questions please.
> 
> I had to look up what a gusset is...are you thinking of a solid triangle support piece? So I'm not sure but I think what you're saying, is the 24" wide span is probably going to bow without some additional support? If you could help with some specifics about where you might add gussets and what size you mean that would be really helpful.
> ...


Yeah a triangle.
Yeah Solid.




citysoundman said:


> ...
> What is a perpendicular holey stiffener?
> ...


Imagine taking one of the sides of the box.
Then a hole saw to make it holey so thwind leaked through it.
Then putting two of them in the inside of the box to hold the front and rear panels stiff.




citysoundman said:


> ...
> I'd really like to mount the speaker internally so it doesn't stick out above the enclosure. Is this doable?
> ...


A = How deep is the box?
B = How deep is the bubwoofer basket?
C =. How much from is recommended for the motor vent
If A > (B + C) then it works




citysoundman said:


> ...
> And are you thinking 1/2" Baltic birch for this?


I am.
But I suppose that the gussets could be 3/4 MDF. They do not take up much room, and some of them are holey. Depends what is on the stockpile?


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

daloudin said:


> ...
> Smaller boxes raise the "Q" creating a bump in the response above tuning with a steeper cutoff below. You can really pour the power to these boxes and use tons of Eq to fill in the bottom octave but you'll likely hit mechanical limits.
> ...


I always read that bit about the power handling, but really when the sub is trying to compress the air and gets limited in stroke. So it is sort of like the other way around...They small box needs more power put to them to move the sub to the same stroke.




daloudin said:


> ...
> Larger boxes decrease "Q" creating a flatter more "audiophile" response with better low frequency extension but less power handling.
> ...


And in this case "less power handling before reaching mechanical limits".

If the sub is stroking to the limit, then is is a hard argument to suggest that the small seal one is superior because one needs 3x the amplifier. (Which you are not doing, but others seem to do)


At some point it needs to fit in the available space, and be DSP'ed or have a hump in the response.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

miniSQ said:


> i have heard that too.


How good did it sound


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Holmz said:


> I always read that bit about the power handling, but really when the sub is trying to compress the air and gets limited in stroke. So it is sort of like the other way around...They small box needs more power put to them to move the sub to the same stroke.
> 
> And in this case "less power handling before reaching mechanical limits".
> 
> ...


Yes - small box _needs_ more power cause it's compressing the airspace. I've done it both ways (small box big amp + dsp and big box smaller amp no dsp) and you can make it work either way. To me the small box with more power was more "audiophile" but then it had the dsp to make it perform as intended. The big box was more dynamic and way louder but without the dsp it would get all in your face when you turned it up... best of both worlds is to build the box the sub needs AND have the dsp + more than enough power to make it do what you want.

Back to why I like modeling subs - I've done enough over the last 3 decades to recognize when I simply should go with another sub or another box...


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

And so we get to the models... @citysoundman this is the quick and dirty version - let me know if you have any questions.

Audiomobile Evo 2410 in Red - best compromise between extension and Q bump
Sundown SD4 in Pink - more Q bump and slightly less extension (would be louder but need to be tamed)
JL 10TW3 in Blue - needs the most power and is the flattest and would be best for SQ if you're not going to do any DSP
Dayton LS10 in Green - needs to be ported, not really suited to sealed - could work for you if you can figure out how to fit a 36" x 4" Port
Audiomobile GTS 2110 in Orange - not really sure what all this would need it's way down and hits limits way too fast










Evo 2410 only needs 150 Watts at 2 ohms
GTS 2110 hits mech limit at 300 Watts at 2 ohms
Dayton LS10 hits limit at 300 Watts at 2 ohms
Sundown SD-4 needs 500 Watts at 2 ohms
JL 10TW3 needs 600 Watts at 2 ohms









Summary Evo 2410 needs the least power and has 2nd best response.
JL 10TW3 has best response but needs the most power (4x as much.)
Sundown SD4 has the most output and only 2x as much power as the Evo.
Dayton LS10 - only if you want to tackle a Ported box.
GTS 2110 - not really a contender based on specs


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

daloudin said:


> Yes - small box _needs_ more power cause it's compressing the airspace. I've done it both ways (small box big amp + dsp and big box smaller amp no dsp) and you can make it work either way. To me the small box with more power was more "audiophile" but then it had the dsp to make it perform as intended. The big box was more dynamic and way louder but without the dsp it would get all in your face when you turned it up... best of both worlds is to build the box the sub needs AND have the dsp + more than enough power to make it do what you want.
> 
> Back to why I like modeling subs - I've done enough over the last 3 decades to recognize when I simply should go with another sub or another box...


Very clear and well put.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

daloudin said:


> ...
> 
> Dayton LS10 in Green - needs to be ported, not really suited to sealed - could work for you if you can figure out how to fit a 36" x 4" Port
> ...
> ...


What about a PR?


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Nicely done @daloudin ! Audiomobile make the MCAR passive radiator units to work with the EVOs also. I can't seem to find it anywhere, but there was a review for them that indicated huge gains over a standard sealed box, in a tiny enclosure also. I just checked, after many many years of no updates Audiomobile redid their website. Unfortunately I could not find T/S specs, enclosure recommendations, or any reviews.....doh.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

I found this on the Audiomobile FB page.

_*Audiomobile once again has "raised the bar" of high-performance, low-frequency reproduction, in mobile applications. The recently introduced Evo "24" and "MCAR" Modular Component Acoustic Radiators are proprietary, Pre-tuned, Subwoofer, Transducers ("PST"), specifically optimized and engineered to meet the demands for the unique vehicle applications, typical of today's discerning audio customer.

The Evo series now represent the 'State-of-the-Art" in slim-line subwoofers, combining the optimum balance of low-frequency extension, with micro-enclosure air-space requirement, low-profile front-edge, plus class-leading linear X-max, and up to 500 watts RMS power-handling, all from mounting depth of only 92 - 99 mm!
This composite performance envelope has never before been achieved.

Similarly, the "MCAR" components were introduced after an intensive 5-year development program, and now allow our stellar "GTS" or "Evo" series subwoofers to seamlessly be converted into a 13" (or even a 16") 'subwoofer system,' but incredibly, the enclosures need be only .60 - 1.25 cu. ft (thats total net air), and no, that's not a typo...

Best of all, the enclosures deliver true 'SQ SPL' output, without the distortion or port-noise, typical of larger / deeper 'reflex' type boxes, yet require a low-profile 5 - 6 inches of enclosure depth!

How cool is THAT!?

Checkout the link from recent review, and look at how the SPL response compares to 'other' recently tested systems, including another '13-inch' system, in enclosures up to twice as large, which cost far more, but clearly deliver far-less...








*_


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

@daloudin thank you for the models! It's really cool seeing the overlays like that.

Just confirming, did you use 0.6 cuft?

I guess I'm not 100% sure what the graphs represent. Is it showing the frequency response of each driver/enclosure combination? Is each graph using the same input level?

Not sure why 'Sundown has the most output' if it's looking like it's in the middle of the pack.

Editing/adding to my reply - I think I did not realize you posted 2 separate graphs. What are the two graphs for?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> @daloudin thank you for the models! It's really cool seeing the overlays like that.
> 
> Just confirming, did you use 0.6 cuft?
> 
> ...


Yes, each sub was modeled with the same 0.6 cuft spec. You'll lose about 0.09 cuft to the woofer but you can use polyfill to get that back so it's close enough. 

Yes, the sub/box combined. 

The first graph shows the anechoic response (open air - non-resonant space) SPL for each woofer at the predicted mechanical limit. Which means that they're NOT all getting the same power to create that SPL. Each was modeled up to its excursion limit by inputting different wattage amounts till that woofer reaches the theoretical xmax limit. They'll take more than that as most drivers have mechanical limits (damage limits) that are beyond their BL 70% xmax spec. But it's simply an easy way to take them all to the same theoretical limit based on the manufacturers spec.

The Sundown gets the biggest Q bump from being in too small a box so it has more output higher in the frequency range and can take more power as well (back to what @Holmz was getting at earlier.)

Don't forget cabin gain. Just cause the graph drops off below tuning doesn't mean that the woofer has quit producing those frequencies, they're just at a lower level. Cabin gain reinforces frequencies below the resonant frequency or primary room mode of the vehicles interior by about 0.8db/octave and if you then get an amp or dsp with the ability to boost those frequencies even a little you still get that bass at levels sufficient for quality listening. 

You're not going to wake up the neighbors with one shallow mount 10 but you'll definitely feel it in the car. 

Don't discount using the Dayton if you can squeeze a 10 or especially a 12 inch passive radiator on the front baffle. If you've got the space to put that in let me know and I can model that as well. BIG increase in output that way. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

The Dude said:


> Nicely done @daloudin ! Audiomobile make the MCAR passive radiator units to work with the EVOs also. I can't seem to find it anywhere, but there was a review for them that indicated huge gains over a standard sealed box, in a tiny enclosure also. I just checked, after many many years of no updates Audiomobile redid their website. Unfortunately I could not find T/S specs, enclosure recommendations, or any reviews.....doh.


Yes, I put the question to OP if he had enough room for a PR then we definitely need to take a look at modeling that and a showdown between the Dayton and Evo. I've always wished Audiomobile would get their act together as they make some quality stuff. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

daloudin said:


> Yes, I put the question to OP if he had enough room for a PR then we definitely need to take a look at modeling that and a showdown between the Dayton and Evo. I've always wished Audiomobile would get their act together as they make some quality stuff.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


For sure. Looks like in a .6 cube box with one Evo 10 and one PR they saw a 6dB gain at 40hz, as I posted in the pic above.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

daloudin said:


> ...
> Don't discount using the Dayton if you can squeeze a 10 or especially a 12 inch passive radiator on the front baffle. If you've got the space to put that in let me know and I can model that as well. BIG increase in output that way.



And one des not loose 1/2 of a cubic foot for a slotted port.

One option is have the OP make two fronts and screw the box together.

Then after testing the OP can glue it in the front that they want to use... assuming that they like using glue.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Full review of Evo 10 and PR Audiomobile Evo 2410 / M-Car Subwoofer System Review


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> The first graph shows the anechoic response (open air - non-resonant space) SPL for each woofer at the predicted mechanical limit. Which means that they're NOT all getting the same power to create that SPL. Each was modeled up to its excursion limit by inputting different wattage amounts till that woofer reaches the theoretical xmax limit.


Fantastic explanation, very clear now thank you. I see the wattage values you added.



daloudin said:


> Don't forget cabin gain. Just cause the graph drops off below tuning doesn't mean that the woofer has quit producing those frequencies, they're just at a lower level. Cabin gain reinforces frequencies below the resonant frequency or primary room mode of the vehicles interior by about 0.8db/octave and if you then get an amp or dsp with the ability to boost those frequencies even a little you still get that bass at levels sufficient for quality listening.


Nice



daloudin said:


> Don't discount using the Dayton if you can squeeze a 10 or especially a 12 inch passive radiator on the front baffle.


I'm just now trying to understand what a passive radiator is - I'll get there soon enough 😀 

FYI My Audio Control amp has a dedicated EQ channel for the line out which will feed whatever monoblock amp I end up getting for the sub.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> Full review of Evo 10 and PR Audiomobile Evo 2410 / M-Car Subwoofer System Review


Nice link, thanks for sharing. What I just learned: 
_A passive radiator is basically a woofer that has no magnetics and no voice coil. It is driven by the air pressure in the enclosure, and it is tuned via adjustments to its suspension stiffness and moving mass._

So since my front baffle is 24" x 14" it looks like I could have the both the EVO driver and the PR? I would basically need two 10" cutouts?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Nice link, thanks for sharing. What I just learned:
> _A passive radiator is basically a woofer that has no magnetics and no voice coil. It is driven by the air pressure in the enclosure, and it is tuned via adjustments to its suspension stiffness and moving mass._
> 
> So since my front baffle is 24" x 14" it looks like I could have the both the EVO driver and the PR? I would basically need two 10" cutouts?


Yes - that's correct. Let me see if I can find the Specs for the Audiomobile PR.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> Yes - that's correct. Let me see if I can find the Specs for the Audiomobile PR.


Here's a link
'- 10" (250 mm) Pre-tuned for .50 - .60 cf enclosure / may be used in pairs (2.5" depth).

- 8" (200 mm) Pre-tuned for .30 - 40 cf enclosure / may be used in pairs (2" depth).

- Modular-Coupled-Acoustic-Reflex ("M-CAR") radiators deliver up to 2-inches peak-to-peak excursion.

- Low-profile, SLX cast-alloy frames featuring Carbon Diamond powder-paint (optimized for Evo / GTS series).

- Companion, pre-tuned subwoofer transducers ("PST"). Optimized for use with all GT or E-series subwoofers.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Yeah - I found that same stuff but that's not really what I need for WinISD...


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> Yeah - I found that same stuff but that's not really what I need for WinISD...


 I think it's here on page 3 of this thread


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Here's a fun You Tube of someone's F150 with an EVO and 2 M-CARs. Seeing it in action is kinda cool.


----------



## jheat2500 (Mar 1, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> I think it's here on page 3 of this thread


Yup, far right column...they snuck it in there.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

citysoundman said:


> Here's a fun You Tube of someone's F150 with an EVO and 2 M-CARs. Seeing it in action is kinda cool.


A little bit of feedback on the GTS 10 here, last post: Anyone familiar with Audiomobile


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> I think it's here on page 3 of this thread


Yes, you are correct and holy mother of pearl does the Evo LOVE a Passive Radiator.

Bear with me in the explanation of this model...
Bright Pink is the Evo with the MCAR passive Radiator
Black line in the background is the Dayton with a Dayton 12" PR
The Blue and Green lines are the Evo with the Dayton 12" PR that can be tuned by adding more mass to the cone to help smooth the response.

Passive Radiators need to be bigger than the Active Driver since they are reacting to the back wave coming off the Active they are more efficient if they are larger in diameter and due to the increase in pressure causing more cone movement due to not having any electrical Q the cone moves further. The MCAR radiator is tuned to work as well as it can and still be the same diameter as the Evo but the Dayton radiator is a 12" with almost double the Xmax of the Evo and 6 x 75 gram weights that can be added to the cone to decrease resonance and flattening out the curve you see. 

That's a 6-8 db increase in volume between 30-40 Hz - almost double the volume at the same power level.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

In the full test I linked to it picked up 12dB at 53hz too...👌👌


----------



## Destarah (Feb 24, 2019)

This seems to have moved very far away from a SQ goal ... not sure how a massive output bump in the 40Hz range is a good thing. Going WAY back to the set of graphs posted regarding the power requirements of the 10TW3-D4, JL only rates it for 400W and I am only running mine with 300W. It has an impressive 15mm Xmax, but the idea isn't to push it that hard ... it has a very smooth and flat response and I believe that part of that result is from running in the 11mm range (approx. 75%) which is where 400W would get it in 0.6cuft
Low distortion and 100dB output @ 30Hz before cabin gain is a wonderful thing.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

It's up to the original poster to determine which route he wants to take. I gave him my personal feedback on the Evo 10s sealed, plus let him know about the PR option, in case he wants some other options. When you're new to something it is good to know what is possible. @daloudin has been very helpful with all of this.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

I would look At the 10" Earthquake S.L.A.P.S M10, wherever the high excursion one is...









Amazon.com: Earthquake Sound SLAPS-M10 10-inch Passive Radiator for Home or Car Subwoofer : Electronics


Buy Earthquake Sound SLAPS-M10 10-inch Passive Radiator for Home or Car Subwoofer: Component Subwoofers - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com





With 24" and 1/2" wood one could probably use 12' Sub and 12" PR, but 10" is probably easiest.

You will still want a holey 10" divider in the middle, which doesn't divide... It just stiffens the box up.

A sealed box is the only other option for when one is constrained with low available spatial volume.
(So it is one or the other, or test both)


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

@daloudin wow the passive radiator really bumps up the low end response, that is remarkable! Thanks for these new models.

@Destarah makes a good point though about that massive bump in the bright pink EVO pair. That just seems too spikey.

Your point about a larger PR is well made, seeing the smoother responses using the Dayton PR.



daloudin said:


> The Blue and Green lines are the Evo with the Dayton 12" PR that can be tuned by adding more mass to the cone to help smooth the response.


So what's the difference between these two curves? The green curve has more extension and looks smoother - I would think this is preferred?

And which Dayton PR did you model? I see 3 different ones on Dayton's site here


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Holmz said:


> A sealed box is the only other option for when one is constrained with low available spatial volume.
> (So it is one or the other, or test both)


Thanks for making this point, that adding a PR means it's no longer a sealed box.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks for making this point, that adding a PR means it's no longer a sealed box.


The idea being that the sealed and PR are using the same box so if you make it so the front is removable with some sort of gasket then you can try the sealed with the woofer offset and then add the PR and try out both before making a final front baffle with your preferred alignment and doing a more permanent glue job on that final baffle. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> @daloudin wow the passive radiator really bumps up the low end response, that is remarkable! Thanks for these new models.
> 
> @Destarah makes a good point though about that massive bump in the bright pink EVO pair. That just seems too spikey.
> 
> ...


I'm going to do a full comparison and explanation of the Evo Sealed at 0.707 vs your box size and then the PR compared to those with a full explanation of which PR gives the flatter response and why. The Audiomobile PR with the huge peak is a definite no-no and designed simply to give maximum output boom. 

The graphs last night were very quick and my post even quicker cause I was getting the stonk eye from my wife for having the laptop in the bed. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks for making this point, that adding a PR means it's no longer a sealed box.



If you want the speaker mounted internally, you then may also want a removable front?
So you are sort of most of the way there towards being able to test both box arraignments.
And how low do you want it to play?
And is there any musical content at low frequencies, in the music you listen to?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

daloudin said:


> I'm going to do a full comparison and explanation of the Evo Sealed at 0.707 vs your box size and then the PR compared to those with a full explanation of which PR gives the flatter response and why. The Audiomobile PR with the huge peak is a definite no-no and designed simply to give maximum output boom.
> 
> The graphs last night were very quick and my post even quicker cause I was getting the stonk eye from my wife for having the laptop in the bed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Here goes my attempt at explaining Subwoofer alignments.

Optimum frequency response is from an Infinite Baffle arrangement where the front and the back airspaces do NOT mix in anyway. For such an alignment you want the Subwoofer to have a Qts at Resonance as close as possible to 0.707 for the smoothest response. This alignment has the greatest LF extension, the most accurate bass but the least power handling since there's no box to help provide any control of the backwave. Then comes Transmission Line and Open Baffle where the front and back can mix (not in any way recommended for car audio.) The next best option is Acoustic Suspension or Sealed where the box aligns the driver's Qts to 0.707 Qtc and smooths out the response. Then passive radiator, ported, 4th Order Bandpass, 6th Order Bandpass, etc. In each alignment you want the box or port or passive radiator to help get the driver as close to 0.707 Qtc as possible for the best combination of LF extension and smooth transition to the midbass driver without any big bumps or humps along the way that have to be tuned out with DSP or Equalizer creating phase shifts and other time based anomalies that detract from having the smoothest bass possible.

All of that to say that if you look at the Audiomobile Evo 2410 D4 specs it's at 0.70 Qts in free air so it's technically an Infinite Baffle sub which explains why it takes to Passive Radiators so well. BUT that also means that the box has less effect on the sub than most so in reality it _*wants *_a really big box, it just doesn't hurt the response as much to go smaller. That takes us to the spaghetti model I've created.

Optimum 0.707 Sealed = 9 to 11 cuft - This is the flattest pink trace that has an F3 of 28.3 Hz and is Flat from 60Hz up.
All the lines between that and your theoretical box are listed on the left hand side so you can see how it bumps up in the midbass and rolls off faster below tuning as you get smaller.
Then we get to your box which is +1.8db at 60Hz, -3 at 35Hz and -10 at 25Hz (really not bad for such a small box.)
Then there's the MCAR with it's HUGE midbass bump of 7.7db at 56Hz and if you're car is sufficiently small enough this could be in the range of cabin gain as well making it even more boomy.
(*Note how fast this curve rolls off... -3db at 42.3Hz and -10db at 37.2Hz resulting in virtually no LF bass [IIRC the Low string on a Bass is 32Hz] even with cabin gain.)
That brings us to finding a PR that WILL work which means it needs really low VAS, really low Fs and High Qms to tame the backwave coming off the Evo.
The Dayton Reference Series Aluminum PR was tried 1st and then a bunch of the other ones with nothing really approaching a good response - till I found the Wavecor 12" PR312WA03 (which is $260 BTW) and loaded it up with all the weights that come with it and got the response that's as close as we can get to Sealed and easily tameable with a little Eq (if needed.)

Wavecor PR = +3.6db at 53Hz, -3db at 31.6Hz and -10db at 18.4Hz
Sealed 0.6cuft = +1.8db at 60Hz, -3db at 35.0Hz and -10db at 25.0Hz
Optimum = +0.0db at 60Hz, -3db at 28.3Hz and -10db at 15.0Hz

So the Wavecor is the only PR that (IMO) should be considered (it really needs a 15" PR but you don't have room for that.)

Oh and BTW with only needing 150 Watts - I'm going to compare the D4 with the S4 to see which one works better with the PR as well since the S4 has lower Fs and a little better specs. Edit: the Single Coil looks better at first glance but due to the increased Qes from the higher impedance it's actually worse and requires WAY more power to get the same result (500 Watts at 4 ohms vs 150 Watts at 2 ohms.) Stick with the D4 based on the model.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Spaghetti it is! But it's really cool, thanks for all the great work 😀 And the awesome explanation. I really appreciate everything, I am learning a ton!



daloudin said:


> Optimum 0.707 Sealed = 9 to 11 cuft - This is the flattest pink trace that has an F3 of 28.3 Hz and is Flat from 60Hz up.
> All the lines between that and your theoretical box are listed on the left hand side so you can see how it bumps up in the midbass and rolls off faster below tuning as you get smaller.
> Then we get to your box which is +1.8db at 60Hz, -3 at 35Hz and -10 at 25Hz (really not bad for such a small box.)


Super instructive seeing the changes this way!

My feeling about all this is I prefer a flatter response with maximum possible bass extension. The idea of a PR adding so much is intriguing, but the resulting curve while louder is not as flat. And it seems like having a PR makes the build more complicated. I'm actually glad to see that you think the EVO (or similar) in the sealed box looks pretty good - that's likely what I'll do.


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

What about an Alpine Type S 10"? I use one in my Ridgeline under the seat. It's not exactly billed as a shallow sub but it's depth is 4 11/16". I think Crutchfield lists the optimal sealed enclosure as 0.58. I think my box is smaller than that. I think it would sound better in a larger box. It might be perfect in your 0.6 box.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Spaghetti it is! But it's really cool, thanks for all the great work 😀 And the awesome explanation. I really appreciate everything, I am learning a ton!
> 
> 
> Super instructive seeing the changes this way!
> ...


Now comes the real technical part and I don't even know if you want or plan to do a DSP but as a function of simply showing you what can happen and why everyone uses a DSP now - here goes.

You can model the Equalizer settings in WinISD to compensate for the bump in response and also to simulate what's possible within the mechanical limits of the driver.

Here is the EQ'd Response of Sealed vs the PR setup: (and before everyone jumps on the Linkwitz vs. Butterworth wagon I used BW cause it models better and IME better replicates what happens in the car.) OP these would generally be recommended to be Linkiwitz Riley crossovers during install as they keep phase alignment from being a problem.

Lowpass 24db/Octave at 80Hz on both.
HP 24db/Octave at 25Hz on the PR setup to prevent overexcursion below tuning.

-3.6db at 48Hz and +8db at 25Hz on the PR.

-1.5 at 55Hz on the Sealed

We formulate these settings by looking at the second graph where mechanical excursion is plotted and keep the graph under the red horizontal line.
THIS IS NOT A WIN/WIN SCENARIO THOUGH
The 3rd graph shows what the Group Delay is with the PR and Big EQ changes - that's almost 50msec worse on Group Delay at 23Hz which is definitely detectable but generally low enough in frequency that it would not be noticed unless you listen to a lot of pipe organ or synthesized bass and if you wanted the extra 7db at 30Hz from the PR it would be worth it (IMO) but that's ONLY if you want the extra output.

As stated previously, if you make the front baffle removeable/replaceable then you can try the sealed and if it's simply not enough output then go back and fab up the PR. Not trying to convince you of either option, just making sure you have all the facts on both alignments and pointing out what's possible with a DSP.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Taking it to the next level @daloudin 
I'll have to come back to this when I'm ready to tune the sub!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

I'm trying to tell whether I can fit the EVO in my box, and I think it may be too deep.

I'm not sure of something in regards to mounting the sub, and if it will fit in my very shallow box - in my enclosure I want to keep the sub recessed enough so the speaker will always be behind the front edge of the front baffle. Obviously the speaker cone will be in motion. Is there a way to know how much the speaker moves? Or maybe just a general rule of thumb for clearance amount in front of a sub cone?

And on this same note - is it OK if the back of the sub gets very close to the back panel of the box?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Xmech tells you the maximum the cone will move out before mechanical damage and the spec sheet you posted says 2.1" peak to peak so that's 1.05" from rest. The spec sheet does not list a depth for bottom mount so you may want to ask someone who's got one to measure the actual height of the surround above the mounting flange and also the bottom mount depth.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> Xmech tells you the maximum the cone will move out before mechanical damage and the spec sheet you posted says 2.1" peak to peak so that's 1.05" from rest. The spec sheet does not list a depth for bottom mount so you may want to ask someone who's got one to measure the actual height of the surround above the mounting flange and also the bottom mount depth.


Xmech OK! I had a look at some other speakers and didn't see that spec so I guess it's not so universal.
I did reach out to miniSQ who gave me the overall height of the EVO 10, it's 4 7/8".
I think I will go re-measure my Subaru to see if I can squeeze any more space into this box!

@daloudin do you know about clearance behind the sub speaker to the inside edge of the box? Is it important to leave a certain amount of air gap?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Xmech OK! I had a look at some other speakers and didn't see that spec so I guess it's not so universal.
> I did reach out to miniSQ who gave me the overall height of the EVO 10, it's 4 7/8".
> I think I will go re-measure my Subaru to see if I can squeeze any more space into this box!
> 
> @daloudin do you know about clearance behind the sub speaker to the inside edge of the box? Is it important to leave a certain amount of air gap?


I can try to remove the gasket from mine to see if that lends itself to bottom mounting. With the gasket on i don't think you would want to mount the EVO from the back of the baffle.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Xmech OK! I had a look at some other speakers and didn't see that spec so I guess it's not so universal.
> I did reach out to miniSQ who gave me the overall height of the EVO 10, it's 4 7/8".
> I think I will go re-measure my Subaru to see if I can squeeze any more space into this box!
> 
> @daloudin do you know about clearance behind the sub speaker to the inside edge of the box? Is it important to leave a certain amount of air gap?


Yes, not every mfr publishes Xmech or Xdamage or Xlimit but most every one uses the same standard for Xmax which is 70% BL so you can kind of infer that Xmax (one way) + 50% will get you close. 

The standard for clearance behind a voice coil vent is to have the diameter of the vent in actual clearance but mathematically you only have to have the same area. So the area of the vent vs the area of a column the same diameter as the vent. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> I can try to remove the gasket from mine to see if that lends itself to bottom mounting. With the gasket on i don't think you would want to mount the EVO from the back of the baffle.


Thanks for offering...but right now my enclosure space is 4.5" deep. Although I can probably position the speaker better in my box to gain a bit more depth, since it's in a trapezoid the bottom panel is on a slant and if I move the cutout toward the taller end I can gain some depth. Let me check and I'll reply.

Without actually removing the gasket can you measure the bottom-mount depth (assuming the gasket can be removed), just to confirm what it is? It would be great to get the exact size!


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks for offering...but right now my enclosure space is 4.5" deep. Although I can probably position the speaker better in my box to gain a bit more depth, since it's in a trapezoid the bottom panel is on a slant and if I move the cutout toward the taller end I can gain some depth. Let me check and I'll reply.
> 
> Without actually removing the gasket can you measure the bottom-mount depth (assuming the gasket can be removed), just to confirm what it is? It would be great to get the exact size!


I just looked at it closely. The gasket is glued on. So yes you could remove it, but not without a bunch of effort, and the possibility of damaging it. But let's say we remove it. You would need 4.25" to mount it from behind. Also remember there is not a vented pole piece so you don't need to worry about clearance behind the driver and you could remove some wood below the magnet to let it nestle in better.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> The standard for clearance behind a voice coil vent is to have the diameter of the vent in actual clearance but mathematically you only have to have the same area.


Is the hole in the back of the driver the vent? As in this picture of a Pioneer?










daloudin said:


> The standard for clearance behind a voice coil vent is to have the diameter of the vent in actual clearance but mathematically you only have to have the same area. So the area of the vent vs the area of a column the same diameter as the vent.


Sorry but I'm not understanding...how does area translate to clearance amount?


----------



## jheat2500 (Mar 1, 2021)

Yes, that hole is the vent.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Is the hole in the back of the driver the vent? As in this picture of a Pioneer?
> View attachment 294658
> 
> 
> Sorry but I'm not understanding...how does area translate to clearance amount?


If the vented pole piece has a 1" openign they want you to provide 1" behind the driver. The EVO does not have a vented pole piece.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> I just looked at it closely. The gasket is glued on. So yes you could remove it, but not without a bunch of effort, and the possibility of damaging it. But let's say we remove it. You would need 4.25" to mount it from behind. Also remember there is not a vented pole piece so you don't need to worry about clearance behind the driver and you could remove some wood below the magnet to let it nestle in better.


OK that is encouraging! So there is no vent hole on the back of the driver magnet, very nice. I will double check my space and reply back. Thanks miniSQ!


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> OK that is encouraging! So there is no vent hole on the back of the driver magnet, very nice. I will double check my space and reply back. Thanks miniSQ!


Did you provide pictures of this tight location? I am still not sure where this is going and what subaru you have.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

@miniSQ


miniSQ said:


> Did you provide pictures of this tight location? I am still not sure where this is going and what subaru you have.


I can get some pictures posted today. It's in my 2019 Subaru Forester.
If you can let me know the outer diameter of the mounting rim that would be very helpful.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> @miniSQ
> 
> 
> I can get some pictures posted today. It's in my 2019 Subaru Forester.
> If you can let me know the outer diameter of the mounting rim that would be very helpful.


10 3/8" with the gasket. 10 1/4" without.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> 10 3/8" with the gasket. 10 1/4" without.


Awesome, thank you!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

@miniSQ just to confirm, the total depth (to very front edge of speaker) is 4 & 7/8"?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> @miniSQ just to confirm, the total depth (to very front edge of speaker) is 4 & 7/8"?


yup and the surround sits a tad lower than that.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Or you use a doubler ring and have it mount on the front of the inner ring.
So it looks more recessed,, but it could still come out of the front?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

miniSQ said:


> If the vented pole piece has a 1" openign they want you to provide 1" behind the driver. The EVO does not have a vented pole piece.


That's the safe assumption to prevent any problem. If you're trying to squeeze out the last mm of clearance it's a 4:1 ratio that gives you the same amount of area for airflow.

For example if you have a 1" vent then 1/4" clearance gives you the same amount of airspace for the air to flow. 

But in your case there's no vent on the magnet back so it can sit flush on the back panel (or angled in your case) and if you need another mm or so of clearance then you can create a "dish" on the back panel for the magnet to sit in and if you get your tolerances correct the driver ends up being a brace for the front baffle.









Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

daloudin said:


> That's the safe assumption to prevent any problem. If you're trying to squeeze out the last mm of clearance it's a 4:1 ratio that gives you the same amount of area for airflow.
> 
> For example if you have a 1" vent then 1/4" clearance gives you the same amount of airspace for the air to flow.
> 
> ...


i am aware yes. But since the EVO i was talking about didn't have a VPP, i didn't feel the need to add in...."but you can always go smaller if needed, thats just the recognized standard."


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

miniSQ said:


> i am aware yes. But since the EVO i was talking about didn't have a VPP, i didn't feel the need to add in...."but you can always go smaller if needed, thats just the recognized standard."


Sorry - that wasn't meant as any kind of correction or rebuttal to ur comment. I was clarifying for the sake of the OP who's new to this whole diy subwoofer madness. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Well I looked closely at my Forester's space for the sub, and there's no room to make the box any bigger than my original dimensions. I'm going to check again but I don't think the EVO will fit.

Here's some pictures. I cut out the lower part of the foam storage area to make room for the sub (pic 2). I'll probably want to cut a hole in the cargo panel where the speaker is eventually positioned.

In the 2nd pic you can see a bit of my Audio Control amp under the small panel to the left of the spare. Closeup of the amp in pic 5.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> If you're trying to squeeze out the last mm of clearance it's a 4:1 ratio that gives you the same amount of area for airflow.
> 
> For example if you have a 1" vent then 1/4" clearance gives you the same amount of airspace for the air to flow.
> 
> But in your case there's no vent on the magnet back so it can sit flush on the back panel (or angled in your case) and if you need another mm or so of clearance then you can create a "dish" on the back panel for the magnet to sit in and if you get your tolerances correct the driver ends up being a brace for the front baffle.


Awesome that's super helpful, thanks. I am definitely trying to squeeze out all the clearance I can


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

10TW3-D4


TW3 10-inch Subwoofer (400 W, dual 4 Ω voice coils) Building on the core technology of our TW5 thin-line subwoofers, the TW3’s deliver a powerful combination of shallow mounting depth and excursion capability. In fact, they are capable of greater excursion than the W3v3’s. To allow this...




www.jlaudio.com


----------



## jheat2500 (Mar 1, 2021)

Is there a gap between the the cardboard mock-up and the center of the rim? If so, you can gain additional clearance for the magnet with a slight modification to the enclosure design. As an example, you may want to cut a 6" diameter hole directly underneath the magnet then attach an 8" diameter piece of wood to the surface of the box to cover that hole. Assuming you're using 3/4" thick material, you just bought yourself 3/4" additional clearance. Obviously if there isn't room to do so, this is a moot point.


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

Just to give you another idea...what about building a shallow box that mimics the rear area of the cargo space? So instead of the box taking up space, the box will just BE your cargo floor and have the subs downfiring. Your height would be a little restricted because I'd assume you don't want a 10" high floor, but you could have right much volume from the rest of the box. You could probably do two 12" shallow mount if you wanted. You'd have to deal with removing the box if you had to get to the spare but that should not be a big deal no more than you'd have to get to it (hopefully).


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

jheat2500 said:


> Is there a gap between the the cardboard mock-up and the center of the rim? If so, you can gain additional clearance for the magnet with a slight modification to the enclosure design. As an example, you may want to cut a 6" diameter hole directly underneath the magnet then attach an 8" diameter piece of wood to the surface of the box to cover that hole. Assuming you're using 3/4" thick material, you just bought yourself 3/4" additional clearance. Obviously if there isn't room to do so, this is a moot point.


That's a good suggestion I will have a look!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> 10TW3-D4
> 
> 
> TW3 10-inch Subwoofer (400 W, dual 4 Ω voice coils) Building on the core technology of our TW5 thin-line subwoofers, the TW3’s deliver a powerful combination of shallow mounting depth and excursion capability. In fact, they are capable of greater excursion than the W3v3’s. To allow this...
> ...


Unfortunately it won't fit, the JL has a pretty high gasket on the mounting flange and +1" speaker excursion, so it needs a lot of top clearance space.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

blammo585 said:


> what about building a shallow box that mimics the rear area of the cargo space? So instead of the box taking up space, the box will just BE your cargo floor and have the subs downfiring. Your height would be a little restricted because I'd assume you don't want a 10" high floor, but you could have right much volume from the rest of the box. You could probably do two 12" shallow mount if you wanted. You'd have to deal with removing the box if you had to get to the spare but that should not be a big deal no more than you'd have to get to it (hopefully).


Blammo I'm not totally sure what you mean...in my plan the sub box does become the cargo floor in the rear of the cargo area, although it sits under that covering panel which is very thin.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

I've been going through lots of subs, looking over the specs to be sure of front and back clearance, and so far I found one that does fit, it's the Kenwood Excelon KFC-XW1000F. It mounts internally (bottom mounting seems better for my situation). There's a few more that I need to double check (a couple of Cerwin Vegas) so I'm hopeful I'll have a few options.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> I've been going through lots of subs, looking over the specs to be sure of front and back clearance, and so far I found one that does fit, it's the Kenwood Excelon KFC-XW1000F. It mounts internally (bottom mounting seems better for my situation). There's a few more that I need to double check (a couple of Cerwin Vegas) so I'm hopeful I'll have a few options.


how about this one? 





12″ BM mkV







stereointegrity.com


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Blammo I'm not totally sure what you mean...in my plan the sub box does become the cargo floor in the rear of the cargo area, although it sits under that covering panel which is very thin.


So instead of trying to make a box with funky angles and small volume that fits under the cargo area, why not just build a box that looks just like your cargo area? It would basically be a false floor. That way if you still wanted to set groceries or whatever else it would just sit on top of your box. Carpet the top and/or lay a rubber mat on top and you wouldn't really be able to tell much difference between it being the top of your box or the floor of the cargo. You could build the top of it to the curves of the cargo area but the sides and bottom could just be rectangular which would make the volume much easier to figure. If you stick with shallow subs you could get away with 4" or 5" + whatever to raise the box off the floor to give the subs room to down fire. So you'd only lose 6" or 7" from floor to the roof of the vehicle.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> how about this one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well the price is so much higher than I want to spend! $459 wow. I think it will fit...


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

blammo585 said:


> So instead of trying to make a box with funky angles and small volume that fits under the cargo area, why not just build a box that looks just like your cargo area? It would basically be a false floor. That way if you still wanted to set groceries or whatever else it would just sit on top of your box. Carpet the top and/or lay a rubber mat on top and you wouldn't really be able to tell much difference between it being the top of your box or the floor of the cargo. You could build the top of it to the curves of the cargo area but the sides and bottom could just be rectangular which would make the volume much easier to figure. If you stick with shallow subs you could get away with 4" or 5" + whatever to raise the box off the floor to give the subs room to down fire. So you'd only lose 6" or 7" from floor to the roof of the vehicle.


OK I gotcha. I don't think I want to lose that much cargo space. But it is something to think about, thanks for the idea!


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

May not spec out as nicely as the others, but it is shallow and is well reviewed (as far as Crutchfield reviews go, not exactly technical reviews).








Pioneer TS-Z10LS4


Z Series shallow-mount 10" 4-ohm subwoofer




www.crutchfield.com


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

@blammo585 I came across an install like what you described with downfiring subs, but a small footprint. These are discontinued Pioneer 12" subs. 
It doesn't take up much cargo area and is pretty stealth. But I guess the enclosure volume is very small?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> May not spec out as nicely as the others, but it is shallow and is well reviewed (as far as Crutchfield reviews go, not exactly technical reviews).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I've been looking at that one. It might not fit top mounted. But do you think it can be bottom-mounted? Just from the pics it looks like it has a flat top to the flange. It would probably fit mounted internally.

There are a number of subs like this that show a top mount depth but don't show a bottom mount depth, so I'm assuming these are not designed for bottom mounting?


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Yeah you could bottom mount it looks like.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

I guess its time to ask the question...130 something posts in. What is the goal and the expectations for this build? It seems like you are trying to keep the tire, and not raise the floor even an inch?
What kind of output are you expecting and where are the amps going to go?
Also i did the two EVO 10's in a downfire box similar to that red car pic in a 18 crosstrek similar to your forester and i was not happy with the output. I think going with a single kenwood or pioneer or even the SI 12 is going to leave you in that same spot, looking for more.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> I guess its time to ask the question...130 something posts in. What is the goal and the expectations for this build? It seems like you are trying to keep the tire, and not raise the floor even an inch?
> What kind of output are you expecting and where are the amps going to go?
> Also i did the two EVO 10's in a downfire box similar to that red car pic in a 18 crosstrek similar to your forester and i was not happy with the output. I think going with a single kenwood or pioneer or even the SI 12 is going to leave you in that same spot, looking for more.


Good question.
-Listening to music now I just don't feel much bass, so my goal is to feel the bass. It doesn't need to feel massive, but I definitely want to feel it.
-The cargo area is already small so I don't want to give up usable space.
-I want to keep my spare
-The mono amp I'm thinking can go in the opposite cargo corner of my existing Audio Control amp (rear passenger corner, there's space under the side pane)
-The area I'm planning on using is average 6" high and I want the sub to be recessed enough so the front of the cone will remain behind the front edge of the top panel (which is the front baffle). I hadn't thought about speaker movement before and how much excursion plays a factor. So top-mounting a sub means recessing it pretty far down and using at least two 3/4" layers for the baffle. Bottom-mounting on the inside of the top panel, I may only need a single 3/4" layer depending on the sub and the Xmax amount. This would be great to give me more volume in the box.

So that's where I am now, trying to see what fits, and it looks like there's only a few subs that will fit. Once I get my short list together I'll post it and would love to get some help making a decision.

This has been a huge learning curve for me and I really appreciate everyone's help! 😀


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Good question.
> -Listening to music now I just don't feel much bass, so my goal is to feel the bass. It doesn't need to feel massive, but I definitely want to feel it.
> -The cargo area is already small so I don't want to give up usable space.
> -I want to keep my spare
> ...


I have a single Type S 10" sub under the rear seat of my Ridgeline with 500 watts from a Rockford amp. I can tell you I am looking for more. I like a lot of bass though. If you truly just want to ADD some bass then you might can get by. But if you like a lot of bass you're probably not going to get it.

I can't seem to wrap my head around your box idea inside with the spare.

With my idea of building the box to the size of the whole cargo area you wouldn't be so restricted by volume, and you would retain the entire use of your cargo space.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Good question.
> -Listening to music now I just don't feel much bass, so my goal is to feel the bass. It doesn't need to feel massive, but I definitely want to feel it.
> -The cargo area is already small so I don't want to give up usable space.
> -I want to keep my spare
> ...


Not sure you're gonna get what you want from a shallow mount 10 in 0.5cuft... could be wrong but my Standard 10 (Dayton HF) in 0.7cuft is only on the verge of "feeling" the bass and I'm running Morel 6x9s in the front doors with 150wpc to help out with the feeling. How much room is under your front seats?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

OK good to get that feedback. The good news is I did find a shallow 12" sub that fits, the JBL Club WS1200. The Infinity REF1200S appears to be exactly the same, both are made by Harman. It's designed for bottom mounting and it has only about 1/2" excursion so I can make this work in a 0.75 volume space (only need one layer of 3/4" for the front baffle). Here's specs with a model. The power handling is lower than others, so I'm not sure what that means for sound quality. But going with a 12" sub in 0.75 volume, do you guys think I'll feel the bass? It has a switch to select 2 or 4 ohms.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

citysoundman said:


> Good question.
> -Listening to music now I just don't feel much bass, so my goal is to feel the bass. It doesn't need to feel massive, but I definitely want to feel it.
> ...


Habe you considered maybe a tactile transducer under the seat?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

jheat2500 said:


> Is there a gap between the the cardboard mock-up and the center of the rim? If so, you can gain additional clearance for the magnet with a slight modification to the enclosure design. As an example, you may want to cut a 6" diameter hole directly underneath the magnet then attach an 8" diameter piece of wood to the surface of the box to cover that hole. Assuming you're using 3/4" thick material, you just bought yourself 3/4" additional clearance. Obviously if there isn't room to do so, this is a moot point.


@jheat2500 your idea will work really well! The center of the box does sit over the spare and if I was to cut a hole for the sub magnet like you suggest I could get the hole pretty wide. There's enough additional depth to actually gain 1 & 1/2" using two 3/4" layers (unless adding two layers compromises the box's seal?)


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> @blammo585 I came across an install like what you described with downfiring subs, but a small footprint. These are discontinued Pioneer 12" subs.
> It doesn't take up much cargo area and is pretty stealth. But I guess the enclosure volume is very small?
> View attachment 294911
> 
> View attachment 294912


Hey somehow I missed this post. Yes, that's pretty much what I mean. But in my thought process you would build the box to come all the way back to the rear of the vehicle. That way your entire space remains flat. The benefit would be two-fold; one your cargo area stays flat and two it gives you extra volume inside.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> @jheat2500 your idea will work really well! The center of the box does sit over the spare and if I was to cut a hole for the sub magnet like you suggest I could get the hole pretty wide. There's enough additional depth to actually gain 1 & 1/2" using two 3/4" layers (unless adding two layers compromises the box's seal?)


It's not uncommon at all to make stacked enclosures for odd shapes. This is the back of my subwoofer box from the Audio Designs group in Florida.









Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

blammo585 said:


> But in my thought process you would build the box to come all the way back to the rear of the vehicle. That way your entire space remains flat. The benefit would be two-fold; one your cargo area stays flat and two it gives you extra volume inside.


Yeah that is a good idea - but my cargo space is pretty small as is. When I take my trash cans to the dump they just fit in, rubbing against the roof inside. It just won't work to give up height back there.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> It's not uncommon at all to make stacked enclosures for odd shapes. This is the back of my subwoofer box from the Audio Designs group in Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That shape is crazy! Is it cut out (hollowed) on the other side?


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

miniSQ said:


> I guess its time to ask the question...130 something posts in. What is the goal and the expectations for this build?




This hits the nail on the head. To get bass you need to give up some space. Maybe you have room under your front seats for some 6.5 or 8 inch subs? Maybe you could build a small box to put on the floor right behind your driver's seat? Make it quickly removable if you have passengers?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> That shape is crazy! Is it cut out (hollowed) on the other side?


Yes, 3/4" MDF rings with the full disc you see to close off the column. The entire enclosure is made the same way by cutting out that shape and stacking. This picture of the inside is from the Audio Designs website showing them epoxieing the inside for a better seal.









Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> Maybe you have room under your front seats for some 6.5 or 8 inch subs? Maybe you could build a small box to put on the floor right behind your driver's seat? Make it quickly removable if you have passengers?


There is room under the front seats. But why would that be better than my box with a 12" shallow sub?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> How much room is under your front seats?


I'll take a look tomorrow.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

We always try to get the illusion of up front bass when adding a sub or subs, I believe. You have so many limiting factors in your requirements, just trying to help with some other ideas. If it was me I'd do whatever I could to make the Evo 10 work, and send it about 500 watts rms. Should be more than enough. My two Evo subs were more than enough.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

When trying to figure out space, quality, and size, I ended up with a gently used BM mkV 12" sub. I didn't want to spend that much either, but one of our members here made me a deal I couldn't resist. The sub has a mounting depth of 3.4" and is highly regarded by enthusiasts. My space is also very limited, wanting to utilize the area under the rear seat of a 2nd gen Toyota Tundra dual cab. You are lucky that you can gain a little bit of room going down into the axle cavity of your spare. I don't have that luxury. 

Btw, the Sundown shallow woofer has a design that allows it to sit on the rear of the body, meaning you don't need any space behind the speaker. Others may have a similar design, but that was one of the speakers I looked into before making my final choice. Sundown seems to care about the end user and makes a great shallow mount sub - I'm not affiliated with them, but have had several conversations with them with great feedback. You can probably use a few of the speakers you are considering since the drop into the wheel will help you out. Looking forward to the end results of your project.


----------



## Robrt RockHard Audio (Mar 17, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> Hi all, this is my first post and I'm hoping to get some help for my sub project!
> 
> I'm an audiophile/audio engineer with only a little car audio experience. I've got a 2019 Subaru Forester, and I decided to install a custom audio system since the stock system sounded like garbage. I replaced the 6 speakers and installed an Audio Control D6.1200 amp which lets me do EQ and processing from my laptop. A local audio shop did the work and got me interested in mobile audio. I think It sounds very good now. The one thing I held off on was putting in a sub. Now I'm ready to add a sub.
> 
> ...


Keep the 3/4 put cotton in th box it tricks the sub into thinking its in a larger box you shoul get the sound your looking for


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> When trying to figure out space, quality, and size, I ended up with a gently used BM mkV 12" sub. I didn't want to spend that much either, but one of our members here made me a deal I couldn't resist. The sub has a mounting depth of 3.4" and is highly regarded by enthusiasts. My space is also very limited, wanting to utilize the area under the rear seat of a 2nd gen Toyota Tundra dual cab. You are lucky that you can gain a little bit of room going down into the axle cavity of your spare. I don't have that luxury.
> 
> Btw, the Sundown shallow woofer has a design that allows it to sit on the rear of the body, meaning you don't need any space behind the speaker. Others may have a similar design, but that was one of the speakers I looked into before making my final choice. Sundown seems to care about the end user and makes a great shallow mount sub - I'm not affiliated with them, but have had several conversations with them with great feedback. You can probably use a few of the speakers you are considering since the drop into the wheel will help you out. Looking forward to the end results of your project.


Thanks for your post Eric. I'm looking at the SD4 and it really looks good. Now that I can gain some more depth like you said I think it will fit! The top of the mounting flange looks flat so I can probably bottom mount it, and the speaker cone on the SD4 12 is sitting recessed below the face of the flange which is great for front clearance. No rear pole vent is great too. I'm gonna contact Sundown to ask about bottom mounting.

I'd love to get the 12" sub, although the recommended volume of 0.8 to 1.0 is larger than my space. Maybe by adding some more of the spare tire area I can gain some volume. I'm gonna look at my space again.

Nice video


----------



## Whtbullitt (Mar 11, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> Hi all, this is my first post and I'm hoping to get some help for my sub project!
> 
> I'm an audiophile/audio engineer with only a little car audio experience. I've got a 2019 Subaru Forester, and I decided to install a custom audio system since the stock system sounded like garbage. I replaced the 6 speakers and installed an Audio Control D6.1200 amp which lets me do EQ and processing from my laptop. A local audio shop did the work and got me interested in mobile audio. I think It sounds very good now. The one thing I held off on was putting in a sub. Now I'm ready to add a sub.
> 
> ...


Don't skimp on 1/2", keep 3/4" but I always use ultra lite MDF instead of regular MDF - saves a decent amount of weight.
You can also use fiber fill if you box is a tad under the actual .8 volume. I wouldn't mount the sub under or flush as that would make it weak IMO.
Are you keeping the spare tire in? If you are, I would remove it and just carry a can of fix-a-flat and/or a small air pump.
Also, IMO, sealed is the only way to go and the shape doesn't matter, just inside volume.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Go for the 12 if you can manage. Get some more space out of the tire axle area and don't undermount the speaker, instead recess it a bit to gain more room. The pic shows one possible scenario of recessing and using a stepped ring from below. Put some poly fill or more efficient fiberglass in the box, not letting it touch the speaker. As a general rule, use about 1 to 1.5 lbs of stuffing per cubic foot. It can be trial and error and you be the judge what sounds best to you.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Whtbullitt said:


> I wouldn't mount the sub under or flush as that would make it weak IMO.





EricTundra said:


> don't undermount the speaker, instead recess it a bit to gain more room


Thank you guys for the replies! And that is an excellent diagram @EricTundra 

What I'm taking from this, is that my idea of bottom/internal mounting the sub under one or two layers of 3/4" is not a good idea?

Since the front of my baffle will essentially be the floor of my cargo area (under the carpeted cargo panel) I don't want the speaker excursion to be in motion above the top edge of the baffle. This way I can keep the cargo area completely flat and not worry about damaging the cone. But will this amount of recess compromise the sound quality or output of the sub?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

This is getting out of control. It should not be this complicated to place a sub in the floor.

1. do not mount it from underneath that is asking for complications down the road.
2. 3/4" is enough of a top plate to become your floor
3. create a 3/4" baffle for the sub to be mounted to from the top and recess it 1/4-1/2" into that baffle and cut a 3/4" ring for the inside of the box to in effect give you 1" to 1 1/4" thickness to support the woofer and give you the option of screwing into it or doing rivnuts.
4. If you need more depth than this provides, then cut a circle out of the bottom under the magnet to give you clearance and then fiberglass that bottom in from behind.

If you can't make it work with those 3 steps move to a different sub solution than floor mounted.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

One of the issues is the thickness of the mounting collar - if that's the right term. From the diagram I saw, it's 3/4 thick, and that just seems wrong. Get the correct size when you get in touch with Sundown and then you can get a clear idea of what you have to do.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Would humbly suggest you not sandwich the woofer mounting collar in between two layers of MDF as it will be a mess to take apart later. Here's a quick and dirty version of what I think you box might end up looking like:


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> Would humbly suggest you not sandwich the woofer mounting collar in between two layers of MDF as it will be a mess to take apart later. Here's a quick and dirty version of what I think you box might end up looking like:


Wow @daloudin that is impressive work! I really appreciate your effort and expertise 😀


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

The double top, per daloudin, would be the better way to mount if you have the space and volume. But like I said, you need to get the spec on the height of the mounting flange and then figure out how much space the protective grille is going to require. A standard protective grille isn't going to cut it since you may be placing some heavy loads right on it. Come to think of it, I've never even considered putting a sub under a load bearing cargo area and am curious to see what other members have used as a protective measure? In my estimation, anything thin isn't going to work and then you have the issue of finite space again for anything strong enough to be load bearing. I'll get off my doggy downer soap box now


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> In my estimation, anything thin isn't going to work and then you have the issue of finite space again for anything strong enough to be load bearing.


I'm going to look for some strong grill or mesh material as a flat protective grill to go over the cutout...not a speaker grill but something that will bear some load. Maybe I can cut out a piece of an old Weber grill or something


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

citysoundman said:


> I'm going to look for some strong grill or mesh material as a flat protective grill to go over the cutout...not a speaker grill but something that will bear some load. Maybe I can cut out a piece of an old Weber grill or something


Which sub are you going with, the Sundown?


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> I'm going to look for some strong grill or mesh material as a flat protective grill to go over the cutout...not a speaker grill but something that will bear some load. Maybe I can cut out a piece of an old Weber grill or something


Now you're cookin'


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

The grille part that holds the coals is made of thicker, stronger metal, but I've not seen that in a large diameter. Which size speaker did you decide on, 10 or 12?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> Which sub are you going with, the Sundown?





EricTundra said:


> Which size speaker did you decide on, 10 or 12?


It's taken quite a journey but I've finally wrapped my head around a plan to top mount the sub, recessed using additional spacer rings to allow for ample front clearance. And with the bottom panel cutout extension making use of the interior of my spare, I'm adding a whopping 2.25" for the driver (3 layers). So now I have room for a sub with either 6", or possibly 5.25", top mount depth (depending on front clearance amount). In either case, I'm thrilled to say that I can now look at most any of the subs mentioned here which I had previously thought would not fit. Thanks for putting up with my seemingly unending quest! With everyone's help I now feel like I have a plan that should work well. As for the speaker, I'm partial to a 12" over a 10", so maybe the Sundown or JL, or maybe the EVO 10, but I'm gonna sleep on it for now. Peace out!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Here's the list of subs I'm considering. Three 12" subs and the EVO 10".
Sundown SD-4 12 specs
JL 12TW3-D4 specs
Focal 30A4 specs
Audiomobile EVO 2410 specs

@daloudin would you be so kind as to do a model comparison of these please, in a 0.75 volume space? The previous model you did was in a smaller volume so I'm assuming this may be a bit different. You are the model maven!

The Focal is the one speaker that hasn't been mentioned. I love Focal's pro audio stuff, and I'm sure their car speakers are excellent. This is not shallow mount, it's 5 7/8", so if it has a pole vent I doubt it will fit. I can't really tell from this photo if it's a vent on the back?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Found another photo and yeah it looks like a vent. But not a big one.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Here's the list of subs I'm considering. Three 12" subs and the EVO 10".
> Sundown SD-4 12 specs
> JL 12TW3-D4 specs
> Focal 30A4 specs
> ...


Go with the JL.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

miniSQ said:


> Go with the JL.


All though with all this new found space you should go with a pair of EVO 2410's 

$300 plus shipping and fees.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Single of each driver modeled in 0.75 cuft with 80Hz LP at 24db/Octave - JL 12TW3-D4 Highlighted as the preferred so far (EVO has best Transfer Function but can't keep up on SPL due to power handling and deficit in cone size)...
*Sundown Blue*
*JL Red
Focal Green*
*Evo Pink*









JL Flattest and best roll off by far as shown by SPL graph when excursion limited (take note that all drivers are pushed to excursion limits in this graph by the wattage indicated even if that's more than the recommended RMS since the smaller box increases power handling) - Note the Evo tries to keep up but can't due to power handling (Evo says 250 W but it's WAY over Excursion limit at that point... 100 to _maybe_ 125 W is all it will take in the model - JL can take 9x as much power) and cone size:
*Sundown Blue = 750 Watts
JL Red = 900 Watts
Focal Green = 250 Watts
Evo Pink = 100 Watts*









Results when you simulate actual cabin gain from 15-90Hz:









Now comes the hard part - do you want to use the JL with a 1,000 Watt Amp and all the monies that entails or go with the Evo with it's increased efficiency and double up on the driver? Next post will compare Dual Evo 2410 to a Single JL 12TW3. Sundown is too boomy (needs a bigger box and the Focal doesn't have the xmax to compete with the JL or Evo.)


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Here is the JL 12TW3-D4 Excursion Limited at 900W vs Dual Audiomobile EVO 2410-D4s at 400W with LP and Cabin Gain calculated:









The Dual Evo setup might have to be tamed at 50Hz - could be a little boomy but might be good since it's going to be under your load floor.
Anyway - this final comparison:
Dual Evo 2410-D4 at 1 Ohm on 500 Watts
JL Audio 12TW3-D4 at 2 Ohms on 1,000 Watts

OR IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET JIGGY...
Here's the Dual Evo on 400W vs Dual 12TW3 at 1 Ohm on 3,000 Watts (and yes that's all in the same 0.75 cuft box - assuming you could somehow figure out how to put dual 12s in the front baffle but given that the extra depth is all in the bumped out back in the middle of your spare I doubt this will be possible!)


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

OK wow the dual EVO setup looks like it kicks butt! My enclosure will only allow for a single driver though. I need to use the extra depth for the magnet inside my spare. Thank you @daloudin for the models and all your explanations!

So for a single 12" driver the JL does look the best. The Sundown looks good too. There's not a big price difference, only $80 more for the JL. But I have a question about power.



daloudin said:


> Now comes the hard part - do you want to use the JL with a 1,000 Watt Amp and all the monies that entails


Regarding power, clearly the JL needs more than the EVO. But why do you suggest needing an amp that delivers 900 or 1000W RMS for the JL when the specs show this:









Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that more power means a cleaner signal at all volumes.
But can you let me know what RMS would be optimal for both the JL and the Sundown?
I'm adding up the total $ for the project now and want to get a good idea of what the amp cost will be.


----------



## jheat2500 (Mar 1, 2021)

He modeled all the options based off what power caused them to reach their excursion limits.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

All i got out of this thread is that i need to build the 2 EVO's i have into the floor of my subie


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

jheat2500 said:


> He modeled all the options based off what power caused them to reach their excursion limits.


OK gotcha. But when looking for an amp, is that the RMS that the amp should put out? Seems maybe it's too high.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> OK wow the dual EVO setup looks like it kicks butt! My enclosure will only allow for a single driver though. I need to use the extra depth for the magnet inside my spare. Thank you @daloudin for the models and all your explanations!
> 
> So for a single 12" driver the JL does look the best. The Sundown looks good too. There's not a big price difference, only $80 more for the JL. But I have a question about power.
> 
> ...


The JL driver "Models" best - the Sundown is a tad louder at 50Hz but the better low frequency extension of the JL wins out for Sound Quality. Either one should have an amplifier rated for 750-1000 Watts RMS at 2 ohms. Given your experience in the Studio I'm sure you'll know when you push too much power to the sub. Not having enough power to fully maximize the driver and possibly running the amp in to clipping is WAY worse and more damaging than overpowering and have the cone bottom out or give you an audible indication that you need to back down. Clipping can get lost in the distortion (especially when hidden away like this) and overheating the coil and yanking the cone around (or possibly holding it still with DC) with that slighly clipped (or in the case of some of the newer Class D amps a pseudo frequency modulated waveform with high frequency on top of the signal) will really mess up a voice coil and is the most common cause of driver failure.

The JL driver handles more than it's rated power due to being in a smaller sealed box. This raises the "Q" and the airspace dampens the cone movement. It's not really handling more power - it's probably more accurate to say that it "requires" more power to reach xmax due to being in a smaller than optimal box. Manufacturer's rate their drivers based on a free air space model and the Qts of the woofer, once it's installed in a box Qts changes to Qtc and the new Q changes the power requirements to reach xmax. Based on the model and experience the recommendation is for a 1,000 Watt amplifier that can hit 1,000 Watts at 2 ohms so that you have dynamic headroom and enough power to be able to add in extra EQ below the tuning frequency of the box if your cabin gain and room modes need anything augmented in that area.

I can model the driver in different sized and even ported boxes to show you how the different airspace behind the driver affects power handling by way of excursion modeling if you'd like?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

miniSQ said:


> All i got out of this thread is that i need to build the 2 EVO's i have into the floor of my subie


And put a Big Ole 15" PR in there as well!


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

daloudin said:


> The JL driver "Models" best - the Sundown is a tad louder at 50Hz but the better low frequency extension of the JL wins out for Sound Quality. Either one should have an amplifier rated for 750-1000 Watts RMS at 2 ohms. Given your experience in the Studio I'm sure you'll know when you push too much power to the sub. Not having enough power to fully maximize the driver and possibly running the amp in to clipping is WAY worse and more damaging than overpowering and have the cone bottom out or give you an audible indication that you need to back down. Clipping can get lost in the distortion (especially when hidden away like this) and overheating the coil and yanking the cone around (or possibly holding it still with DC) with that slighly clipped (or in the case of some of the newer Class D amps a pseudo frequency modulated waveform with high frequency on top of the signal) will really mess up a voice coil and is the most common cause of driver failure.
> 
> The JL driver handles more than it's rated power due to being in a smaller sealed box. This raises the "Q" and the airspace dampens the cone movement. It's not really handling more power - it's probably more accurate to say that it "requires" more power to reach xmax due to being in a smaller than optimal box. Manufacturer's rate their drivers based on a free air space model and the Qts of the woofer, once it's installed in a box Qts changes to Qtc and the new Q changes the power requirements to reach xmax. Based on the model and experience the recommendation is for a 1,000 Watt amplifier that can hit 1,000 Watts at 2 ohms so that you have dynamic headroom and enough power to be able to add in extra EQ below the tuning frequency of the box if your cabin gain and room modes need anything augmented in that area.
> 
> I can model the driver in different sized and even ported boxes to show you how the different airspace behind the driver affects power handling by way of excursion modeling if you'd like?


2 things...I don't know who you are , or what your background is, but i LOVE reading your posts. Not only for the content which is phenomenal, but for the way you present it. #slowclap.

Second i would love to see a comparison between a pair of EVO 2410 in a sealed box and a ported box. I have my 8" EVOs in a t-line box and they blow me away.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

miniSQ said:


> 2 things...I don't know who you are , or what your background is, but i LOVE reading your posts. Not only for the content which is phenomenal, but for the way you present it. #slowclap.
> 
> Second i would love to see a comparison between a pair of EVO 2410 in a sealed box and a ported box. I have my 8" EVOs in a t-line box and they blow me away.


😊😝😎 Thanks - the only problem with the EVO 2410 is their lack of power handling (from a modeling standpoint - I have no personal experience with the EVO line only the Elite Series which is a totally different animal) so going ported helps augment their output. They are actually suited to being an Infinite Baffle Sub but their lack of power handling means it would take a bunch of them to be very effective but with that being said - here is the sealed model with a 20 cuft box to show what they model like vs a 6 cuft Ported at 22Hz. The IB model hit's excursion limits at only 75 Watts of Power (and that's for dual Subs) while the ported with a 20Hz BW4 HP can handle 175 Watts.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

daloudin said:


> 😊😝😎 Thanks - the only problem with the EVO 2410 is their lack of power handling (from a modeling standpoint - I have no personal experience with the EVO line only the Elite Series which is a totally different animal) so going ported helps augment their output. They are actually suited to being an Infinite Baffle Sub but their lack of power handling means it would take a bunch of them to be very effective but with that being said - here is the sealed model with a 20 cuft box to show what they model like vs a 6 cuft Ported at 22Hz. The IB model hit's excursion limits at only 75 Watts of Power (and that's for dual Subs) while the ported with a 20Hz BW4 HP can handle 175 Watts.
> View attachment 295270


Thanks... i have a pair of 8's in a ported box on a Mosconi Zero 3 @4ohms. So that is over 1000 watts. But i have not measured with a DMM as to how much power is actually on the speakers.


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Here's the list of subs I'm considering. Three 12" subs and the EVO 10".
> Sundown SD-4 12 specs
> JL 12TW3-D4 specs
> Focal 30A4 specs
> ...


I'm confused on the choice of subs now. In the beginning I thought you were limited in choice due to using a shallow mount sub. But now we're talking about an almost 6" depth sub. If this is possible then it opens up a world of "normal" subs that would be much cheaper and without the limitations of a shallow sub.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

blammo585 said:


> I'm confused on the choice of subs now. In the beginning I thought you were limited in choice due to using a shallow mount sub. But now we're talking about an almost 6" depth sub. If this is possible then it opens up a world of "normal" subs that would be much cheaper and without the limitations of a shallow sub.


Yeah it's been quite a long and winding road...some of the folks here helped to suggest a way to gain depth for the magnet by using the cavity within my spare, just below the center of my box. So I'll be extending down another 2.25" of around an 8" diameter in the middle of the box. I figure I can fit a max 6" bottom mount depth sub (if it's vented than a bit less than 6"). But I am still limited by the 0.75 volume. I did check out a bunch of standard subs and many need 1cuft or larger.

So the added depth will allow a 12" shallow mount sub - but I just realized my box is 14" long (12.5" interior). And I need 2 layers of internal mounting rings to recess the sub. This reduces the working space to 11" max for the diameter of the cutout. The JL and Sundown 12's are a bit too big to fit this.  I should have checked that before I got all excited about fitting a 12! Gonna see if I can eek out another 2 inches in my car for the length. If not I'll be going with a 10" driver.


----------



## DaveG (Jul 24, 2019)

miniSQ said:


> I have a pair of audiomobile EVO 10's i am thinking of selling. Used, but barely broken in and would ship in original boxes. I bought them to compare to my EVO 8's.


If they're the pair that was recently in the classifieds (that I missed out on by 10 minutes) I may be interested in one. What ohm? PM me when you decide your plans.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

DaveG said:


> If they're the pair that was recently in the classifieds (that I missed out on by 10 minutes) I may be interested in one. What ohm? PM me when you decide your plans.


They might be  They are D4's. I can decide which ones to keep, the 8's or the 10's.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> Yeah it's been quite a long and winding road...some of the folks here helped to suggest a way to gain depth for the magnet by using the cavity within my spare, just below the center of my box. So I'll be extending down another 2.25" of around an 8" diameter in the middle of the box. I figure I can fit a max 6" bottom mount depth sub (if it's vented than a bit less than 6"). But I am still limited by the 0.75 volume. I did check out a bunch of standard subs and many need 1cuft or larger.
> 
> So the added depth will allow a 12" shallow mount sub - but I just realized my box is 14" long (12.5" interior). And I need 2 layers of internal mounting rings to recess the sub. This reduces the working space to 11" max for the diameter of the cutout. The JL and Sundown 12's are a bit too big to fit this.  I should have checked that before I got all excited about fitting a 12! Gonna see if I can eek out another 2 inches in my car for the length. If not I'll be going with a 10" driver.


It can be done for sure, just a little bit of out of the box wood work.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> It can be done for sure, just a little bit of out of the box wood work.


If you give me all the exact dimensions, which speaker, and how you want to mount it, I'll draw up the box. No charge or anything, just been following this and would like to contribute.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

citysoundman said:


> ...
> Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that more power means a cleaner signal at all volumes.
> ...


^that^ is incorrect.

More power only helps at high volume levels...


----------



## blammo585 (Feb 1, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Yeah it's been quite a long and winding road...some of the folks here helped to suggest a way to gain depth for the magnet by using the cavity within my spare, just below the center of my box. So I'll be extending down another 2.25" of around an 8" diameter in the middle of the box. I figure I can fit a max 6" bottom mount depth sub (if it's vented than a bit less than 6"). But I am still limited by the 0.75 volume. I did check out a bunch of standard subs and many need 1cuft or larger.
> 
> So the added depth will allow a 12" shallow mount sub - but I just realized my box is 14" long (12.5" interior). And I need 2 layers of internal mounting rings to recess the sub. This reduces the working space to 11" max for the diameter of the cutout. The JL and Sundown 12's are a bit too big to fit this.  I should have checked that before I got all excited about fitting a 12! Gonna see if I can eek out another 2 inches in my car for the length. If not I'll be going with a 10" driver.


If you look on Crutchfield's site you will see a lot of normal subs that will work in that size enclosure. In fact, I'd say most of the subs on there are listed to work in, or around, that size enclosure.

Heck, a Dayton HO 10" at Parts Express is listed as optimum in a 0.3 sealed enclosure and 0.5 ported. The 12" is listed as 0.33 sealed. Mounting depths are 5.37" and 5.75" respectively.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> If you give me all the exact dimensions, which speaker, and how you want to mount it, I'll draw up the box. No charge or anything, just been following this and would like to contribute.


Thank Eric for the generous offer! I'm close to getting things finalized. I might take you up on it 😀


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Don't fret y'all - it took us all this time to figure out how to get the depth he needs and now he's working on getting a little extra width in the box and then we'll figure out the sub.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Destarah (Feb 24, 2019)

I think it may be prudent to also consider the thermal limits that the subs can handle. WinISD just does the math to resolve the excursion ... it doesn't consider what running 900W through the VCs of a 12TW3 would do to them. I am not saying that you can't use a 1000W amp to power the sub, just that you don't need it and in point of fact won't use it ... it will basically amount to a whole lot of headroom unless you decide to destroy the sub. The good news is that with 400W the 12TW3 will put a great big smile on your face, which is in fact the purpose of this endeavor. It has the flattest curve and shallowest roll-off ... the subs missing those things can be sorted out with DSP, but most people will agree that the closer you can get to your goal without tampering with the signal the better off you are. Also, the JL on 400W stays well below excursion limit which implies distortion free output even at significant levels.
In short, unless you have a compelling reason to use something else it would seem that the JL is your prime choice for this setup.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Destarah said:


> I think it may be prudent to also consider the thermal limits that the subs can handle. WinISD just does the math to resolve the excursion ... it doesn't consider what running 900W through the VCs of a 12TW3 would do to them. I am not saying that you can't use a 1000W amp to power the sub, just that you don't need it and in point of fact won't use it


Interesting, thanks Destarah.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

So I CAN eek out some more space to fit the 12" sub! Going to double check my dimensions, but all is looking good for getting the JL 12.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

I'm going with the JL12! It's going to fit well. I need to recess the front quite a bit to be sure the speaker excursion stays under the edge of the front baffle - 3 layers of 3/4". (thanks @daloudin for explaining how to do this!) My volume is coming out at 0.78 cuft, and I'll add poly fill to help that number. I did a side view drawing to see what the driver would look like with the front recess and the 3 layers of bottom extension that will be inside my spare. FYI the tan is the driver's outermost dimension, which is the cutout of the baffle. The green are the 3/4" support rings, with the bottom layer being the cap.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

blammo585 said:


> Heck, a Dayton HO 10" at Parts Express is listed as optimum in a 0.3 sealed enclosure and 0.5 ported. The 12" is listed as 0.33 sealed. Mounting depths are 5.37" and 5.75" respectively.


You do have a point. I did a search on Crutchfield and didn't see any other non-shallow-mount 12's that can work in my small volume and are under 6" mounting depth.

I'll have a look at the Dayton HO 12. If there are any other non-shallow-mount 12's that can fit my specs I would like to check them out before pulling the trigger on the JL. Please let me know!


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Regardless of depth - the 12TW3 models about the same as all the usual suspects for small box consideration.
Obviously if you were going to run the SQL12 or 12W6 you'd be planning to use a whole lot more power.
But for this application SPL model with 600W mono to each driver and the JL is good
The 12HO, SQL-12 and 12W6 won't fit anyway:


----------



## DaveG (Jul 24, 2019)

Pull the trigger! You won’t be disappointed! It’s a quality sub.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Don't forget the protective grille. You have to make sure this will not be an after thought since it serves such an important function and needs to be an integral part of the enclosure. You will most likely have to recess it so it sits flush, which means preparing the baffle in some way. I don't remember what the excursion is on the J12, but from your diagram, it looks like that shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure it isn't. Changing a component on the drawing board is easy. Making a change on a physical product can be a pain in the ass or downright impossible.

With your constraints, I wonder if it would be possible to taper the speaker recess?

Is the tire in your car stowed at an angle, and does that account for the angle in the bottom of your box? I foresee that the angle of the extension into the wheel could pose a problem if the clearances are tight. If you have no lateral room to wiggle the box left or right as seen in the drawing, then the left side of the extension could hang up on the rim. Something to consider if you haven't already.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> Don't forget the protective grille. You have to make sure this will not be an after thought since it serves such an important function and needs to be an integral part of the enclosure. You will most likely have to recess it so it sits flush, which means preparing the baffle in some way.


You're right Eric, and I was giving that some thought today. I have a Weber grill which is way too large, and there's some old metal wire shelves in my basement, as well as an old dog cage  If I'm lucky I'll find a circular grill at Home Depot that's about 14 or 15" diameter. And yes it will need to be recessed to keep a flush top. Pretty sure that won't be a problem for my friend who has CNC routers, he's gonna cut the wood.

this might do the job



EricTundra said:


> I wonder if it would be possible to taper the speaker recess?


What would tapering do?


EricTundra said:


> Is the tire in your car stowed at an angle, and does that account for the angle in the bottom of your box?


Correct, that angle matches the spare. The box will sit right on the spare and the top/front baffle will be level. The extension fits nicely inside the spare and isn't too close to the inner rim. I did a cardboard mock up and cut out the 13" hole to be sure. I definitely don't want to be off after cutting the wood!

BTW I came across your thread - did you choose an amp for your sub?


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

I have used a 2 piece fine mesh grill that seems to be pretty strong, not sure if that would work for you @citysoundman ? 





McBride SG-M12 - 12" Mesh Grill


These 2 piece mesh speaker grills Provide for a more attractive fit and finish than waffle grills.




qcomponents.ca


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

The Dude said:


> I have used a 2 piece fine mesh grill that seems to be pretty strong, not sure if that would work for you @citysoundman ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure they'll hold a sack of potatoes or a tool box, lol.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

EricTundra said:


> Not sure they'll hold a sack of potatoes or a tool box, lol.


 Haha, yeah I guess he needs something more durable for sure.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> What would tapering do?
> 
> BTW I came across your thread - did you choose an amp for your sub?


Sound waves don't like vertical or perpendicular surfaces that could cause bounce back in undesirable ways. Think of ocean waves crashing up against a vertical retaining wall. The waves hit, some of them make it over, but a lot of them get diverted up and back the way they came. This phenomenon actually results in beaming, an effect that concentrates the sound waves ahead rather than spreading out in a fan. Now granted, this doesn't affect subwoofers with their low frequencies as much, but a smooth roll off in a recessed speaker housing is never a bad thing. Like my tech jargon here, lol? Besides, it looks much cooler that way 

Yeah, I picked the Sundown SFB-1000D. Sundown is a small outfit back east that makes quality speakers and they also have a small line up of amps. Granted the amp is made in China, but Sundown put's their faith in it with a 2 year warranty.

Power Handling:

RMS Power at 14.4V DC 1 ohm Mono: 1410-watts
RMS Power at 14.4V DC 2 ohm Mono: 860-watts
RMS Power at 14.4V DC 4 ohm Mono: 510-watts
I'll run the BM mkV at 4 ohm, so that little amp will do nicely. It's "D" class and very small. I'm currently re-designing my sub enclosure to integrate the amp into the box. Still a work in progress  Btw, this is a down firing box, so the image below shows the top of the box with a clear window showing the back of the speaker. The speaker has a unique look to it that should display well with a bit of in box lighting. The sub will also be back lit.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks Eric. I can probably do some tapering by hand once I get the wood cut.

As for the amp, the Sundown you chose, the Taramps Bass 800 and the Soundigital 800.1 are what I'm looking. The Sundown 2 year warranty is nice! All three manufacturers were recommended by @daloudin (kudos!) - and it's interesting that Taramps and Soundigital are both Brazilian companies.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Tapering or contouring this edge is fine but it's purely cosmetic. @EricTundra what you're talking about is edge diffraction and only happens with frequencies smaller than the distance this covers. Bass frequencies are omnidirectional and anything longer than the vertical distance of the column travels through it rather than bouncing or reflecting off of it. Same goes for the discussion about those corner braces in your original box design. They are purely structural and other than reducing standing waves inside the box (which is an effective method of reducing distortion) don't help as much as they rob you of internal volume which is way more important than distortion in a box this small. 

Taramps and SoundDigital are both effective budget amps from the "Brazilian" design which uses a higher voltage rail inside so there's less component cost and heat (Google Half Bridge vs Full Bridge Amp design is you want the full story) vs the "Korean" design which is high current and requires much more capacitance and heat load thus a larger footprint. Either one is fine and each have their own positives and negatives. 

None of these amps can compete with something like an mmats or in your case @citysoundman Audio Control which you are already using. Personally I love the idea of matching amp lines when they're installed visibly but when they're hidden below a load floor... ehh - use what you got. But, if you've got the ear, the pockets or simply the desire to entertain the pursuit of SQ then I'd recommend looking at the better class of amplifier. It's a better long term investment. 

I've got a Taramps 3K in my current install mostly as an experiment but I've also got a JL 1200/1 sitting on the shelf if it happens to go sideways. But install space, available electrical and impedance load all play into an amplifier decision. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> Taramps and SoundDigital are both effective budget amps from the "Brazilian" design which uses a higher voltage rail inside so there's less component cost and heat (Google Half Bridge vs Full Bridge Amp design is you want the full story) vs the "Korean" design which is high current and requires much more capacitance and heat load thus a larger footprint. Either one is fine and each have their own positives and negatives.
> 
> None of these amps can compete with something like an mmats or in your case @citysoundman Audio Control which you are already using. Personally I love the idea of matching amp lines when they're installed visibly but when they're hidden below a load floor... ehh - use what you got. But, if you've got the ear, the pockets or simply the desire to entertain the pursuit of SQ then I'd recommend looking at the better class of amplifier. It's a better long term investment.


OK thanks for the clarification. Very helpful!

I purchased the JL 12, so things are in motion!


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Class "D" are full bridge, correct? Are the Brazilian amps full bridge? @daloudin you said half bridge vs full bridge, so I wasn't sure?

And about the bevel, yeah, that's why I said it doesn't affect the sub as much but it looks cool, lol. I'm a hobby woodworker and always bevel edges.

Gotta dig out my old Physics textbook and re-read low frequency waves, pressure waves, and the effect they have on each other.

@daloudin at what frequency do sound waves become omnidirectional and what is the casue for this phenomenon? Is it the speed at which they travel or something else? If you are so inclined, you can give me the rundown on my build page. Hijacked Soundman's thread long enough, lol.

@SoundMan, what part of the country are you in? I'd love to put our cars side by side and compare our builds once they're all done. Since we are both doing a hidden 12" sub powered by similar amps, I think it would be a blast, literally to do that. I'm in Los Angeles.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Class D can be either full bridge or half bridge design - the topology and the Class are not mutually exclusive.
Fundamentals of Class D Amplifiers

The Brazilian philosophy is to use higher voltage levels to reduce current draw negating the need for capacitance in both the power supply and the output.
Korean or Chinese philosophy follows the trend of standard voltage levels with big current draw.
Both produce the same wattage just in different ways. 12V x 100A = 1,200 Watts and 48V x 25A = 1,200 Watts
Same deal with Avionics in the military : they use 400VDC in airplanes so that the wires can be smaller and lighter in fighter jets.
Same deal with the Electric Transmission Grid : High Voltage Transmission lines run up over a Million Volts to reduce the size of the wire needed for the same amount of watts.
How they get to those voltages and their negative counterpart for the bottom half of the sine wave are where the topology come in to play.

I'll answer your question about directivity here as the OP will likely find this interesting as well - but, yes, please put questions not directly related to the OP in your own thread.

For the purposes of Car Audio you can generally say that anything below the Fs of the car interior becomes omnidirectional - as a ballpark number it's generally around 80Hz. But it is not accurate to say that only bass is omnidirectional, any transducer producing frequencies that are longer in the fundamental than the diameter of the cone will be omnidirectional and exhibit some degree of polar response emanating from the back and sides. Beaming is when the frequencies are less than the diameter and even worse when less than the radius of a driver and become very directional. Domes are often used in tweeters to help eliminate this but the dome isn't really a dome any more when observed with high speed stop action photography and becomes multi-modal the louder and harder you push the tweeter (thus the idea of using things like phenolics and beryllium to make the dome stiffer). Using multiple drivers in bipolar or cardioid arrays can create steering of sound and help contain their omnidirectional manner to some degree but to put all this in laymans terms: One Foot or 12" (common subwoofer diameter) is about 1.1khz so pretty much all frequencies coming out of a subwoofer are omnidirectional.
Low Frequency Directivity


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

It is a treat to have you on this board! Thank you for taking the time to make it easy to understand.


----------



## DaveG (Jul 24, 2019)

EricTundra said:


> It is a treat to have you on this board! Thank you for taking the time to make it easy to understand.


I assume you’re talking about @daloudin and I totally agree 100%! Very knowledgeable and always super helpful!


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> @SoundMan, what part of the country are you in? I'd love to put our cars side by side and compare our builds once they're all done. Since we are both doing a hidden 12" sub powered by similar amps, I think it would be a blast, literally to do that. I'm in Los Angeles.


I'm in NY, so a bit of a drive 
I didn't realize yours is also a hidden 12" sub - do you have a thread for your build?


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Hot Deals


Post your tips on hot deals and bargain buys here. No Craigs List ads allowed!




www.diymobileaudio.com





2nd gen Tundra from base to mo betta - $1500

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> I'm in NY, so a bit of a drive
> I didn't realize yours is also a hidden 12" sub - do you have a thread for your build?


Here's the actual link: 2nd gen Tundra from base to mo betta - $1500
Well, when I say hidden, I mean under the seat due to space restraints.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Now that I've ordered the JL 12TW3, I'd like to get some help with speaker wire gauge and enclosure connections.

I'm interested to know what speaker wire gauge is recommended. I'm looking at running a monoblock amp 800 watts RMS into 2 ohms, wiring the JL dual voice coils in parallel. Wire distance will be short, should be around 4 feet total from amp to speaker terminals on driver. There are some online calculators for wire gauge but I'm not sure how accurate they are. I'd like to get info here from the pros!

@daloudin you suggested to @EricTundra on his thread to have both sets of the dual coil terminals wired to the enclosure (cool idea), and I'm wondering if you recommended that specifically for his situation or is it a general rule of thumb. For me I doubt I'll run the sub on anything but the 2 ohm load.

Since my box is sitting on my spare, I think it will be important to have a quick disconnect connector, like banana plug, on the enclosure. Especially if another family member is driving it and has a flat. I want to make is very easy for someone else to be able to disconnect and remove the box. What type of connector might be best? 

And how do most custom boxes incorporate connectors? Another thread here suggests Dayton binding posts, and Parts Express has a bunch listed here. Gold or nickel? Fully insulated?
Just drill the proper size hole into the box and attach the posts?


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Just purchased an AudioControl LC-1.800 amp! Open box from an authorized dealer, got a good price at $309.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Any cheap OFC 14ga and these would work fine for quick dissconnect, or you could use neutrik connectors too.



Amazon.com


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Any of a hundred different disconnects will work. I love neutrik but the layperson may get confused by those (I know... but I've seen it happen) so this is a simple as I know: 








Amazon.com: LIXIN 14AWG SAE Connector Extension Cable, SAE Quick Connector Disconnect Plug SAE Automotive Extension Cable, Solar Panel SAE Plug (1m/3.28ft) : Patio, Lawn & Garden


Amazon.com: LIXIN 14AWG SAE Connector Extension Cable, SAE Quick Connector Disconnect Plug SAE Automotive Extension Cable, Solar Panel SAE Plug (1m/3.28ft) : Patio, Lawn & Garden



www.amazon.com





Wiring both coils to the outside if you're considering running in series or adding future subs for series/parallel options is a good idea. But in your case it doesn't sound like that would happen so that's up to you. Eric wants to run his at 4 ohm vs 1 ohm so I advised him to be able to test both configurations. 

You can run binding posts or just drill a hole, run the wire and seal it with silicone on both sides. One less connection to worry about. It's not going to be on display so again that's up to you.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> Any cheap OFC 14ga and these would work fine for quick dissconnect, or you could use neutrik connectors too.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com


Thanks for the link! Those connectors look great. I found them just the connectors and I’ll use some 12 gauge speaker wire cut to fit.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks for the link! Those connectors look great. I found them just the connectors and I’ll use some 12 gauge speaker wire cut to fit.


I find soldering to the connector to be a *****. Thats why i linked to the ones with pigtails. But if you are good with a gun then go for it.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

daloudin said:


> just drill a hole, run the wire and seal it with silicone on both sides. One less connection to worry about.


Love it


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Hey folks,
I have a question about power distribution. Right now, power is going to my existing Audio Control amp, pretty sure it's an 8 gauge wire. There's a 40amp fuse inline. I want to use this wire to get power to my new monoblock amp for the sub.

I was thinking to use a 1 in, 2 out distribution block. It looks like these are meant to step down the wire gauge. But is there any problem with using the same 8 gauge wire when splitting the power to both amps?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Hey folks,
> I have a question about power distribution. Right now, power is going to my existing Audio Control amp, pretty sure it's an 8 gauge wire. There's a 40amp fuse inline. I want to use this wire to get power to my new monoblock amp for the sub.
> 
> I was thinking to use a 1 in, 2 out distribution block. It looks like these are meant to step down the wire gauge. But is there any problem with using the same 8 gauge wire when splitting the power to both amps?


I think you should upgrade to a single 4ga, split down to either 2 4ga or 2 8g.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

miniSQ said:


> I think you should upgrade to a single 4ga, split down to either 2 4ga or 2 8g.


Ah OK...so maybe 8 gauge isn't enough for both amps. I'll look into this a bit more.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Ah OK...so maybe 8 gauge isn't enough for both amps. I'll look into this a bit more.


It is not. The new amp you bought asks for 4ga just for it, but with your short runs i think you can split a 4 ga between two. I'm not even sure i would run a pair of 8ga in your case, step up to 4ga to be safe.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

miniSQ said:


> I think you should upgrade to a single 4ga, split down to either 2 4ga or 2 8g.


Second that motion. 

Use the 8 to pull in 4 from the battery and then reuse the 8 from the distribution blocks (note plural - ground should be done the same way.) But to answer your original question if you have to buy more 4 gauge than you need then the answer is No, it doesn't create a problem to have the same size wire on both sides of a distribution block. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks guys. Not sure if I'm diving too deep...but I calculated the current draw for both amps, pretty sure the total is 140.4 amps. Not sure the exact wire length from battery to amps, but if the current figure is right perhaps I need 2 gauge? I looked at a chart on JL's page

6 channels x 125w RMS = 750w; and 1 channel 800w RMS
1550 total RMS/.8 efficiency = 1937.5w
1937.5/13.8v = 140.4 amps



daloudin said:


> note plural - ground should be done the same way.


My existing amp has a short ground wire to a metal nearby metal screw - it's not running from the battery. I assume this is OK? I was going to do the same idea for the new amp.


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks guys. Not sure if I'm diving too deep...but I calculated the current draw for both amps, pretty sure the total is 140.4 amps. Not sure the exact wire length from battery to amps, but if the current figure is right perhaps I need 2 gauge? I looked at a chart on JL's page
> 
> 6 channels x 125w RMS = 750w; and 1 channel 800w RMS
> 1550 total RMS/.8 efficiency = 1937.5w
> ...


Your calculating maximum rms when using test tones. Musical load is less than half that (usually more than half) and especially so in a SQ install. I have close to 4 kW installed in my Jeep and musically I rarely see more than about 20-30 amps on average. Obviously if you can measure in-rush during attack on deep bass you'll see much higher numbers but the wire ratings are for continuous duty so they'll handle MUCH more dynamically. 

With all that being said if you've got the space and inclination then 2 gauge certainly won't hurt anything. 

Grounding: 
As long as your vehicle is made of sheet metal and not aluminum you're fine grounding close to the amps. The point of using a distribution block for grounding is called equipotential grounding so there's no possible difference in the voltage potential between the two amps which could be a potential noise source. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks @miniSQ & @daloudin I really appreciate your help. I'll replace my 8 gauge power wire with 4 gauge, and I'll probably also use it to go from the distribution block to both amps.

Just to confirm, the 40amp fuse for the power wire will be large enough?



daloudin said:


> The point of using a distribution block for grounding is called equipotential grounding so there's no possible difference in the voltage potential between the two amps which could be a potential noise source.


That's really interesting to know! So using a ground distribution block coming off of the chassis near the amps sounds like the way to go.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

citysoundman said:


> Thanks @miniSQ & @daloudin I really appreciate your help. I'll replace my 8 gauge power wire with 4 gauge, and I'll probably also use it to go from the distribution block to both amps.
> 
> Just to confirm, the 40amp fuse for the power wire will be large enough?
> 
> ...


40 seems a little low to me, can you up that to a 80 or 100?


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

@citysoundman all great advice here, be careful when checking out 4 awg power wire, or complete kits, that it is OFC from a reputable company. Some shady companies try to pass off 6 to 8awg wire in a large outer jacket and market it as 4awg. Pretty sure Sky High and Knuconceptz make decent power wire (although the Knuconceptz KCA cable is copper clad aluminum which many people seem to avoid), another option that may be more cost effective would be 2awg welding cable, although it will generally not be as flexible. Sorry if you already knew all of this....


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks Dude - I have heard about the shady wire thing but I'm glad you reminded me. I didn't know about welding cable, so that's great to know there's a cheaper option.


----------



## NW JLUR (Dec 3, 2018)

Have you found a grill material for the subwoofer? If you haven’t look for some expanded or perforated steel. You can find it at Home Depot, Lowe’s which are more expensive and have a smaller selection. In my area there’s a steel distributor and reseller that carries a good selection with varying thickness.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

NW JLUR said:


> Have you found a grill material for the subwoofer? If you haven’t look for some expanded or perforated steel. You can find it at Home Depot, Lowe’s which are more expensive and have a smaller selection. In my area there’s a steel distributor and reseller that carries a good selection with varying thickness.


Perforated steel looks really cool! But I actually did get a cast iron grill grate on Amazon, it's 15" diameter so just the right size. It was a little pricey at $40 but it is heavy duty so no rattling around. It's 3/8" thick. The cargo panel sitting on my enclosure is 1/4" thick, and I'll cut out a 15" hole for the grill. Then I'll recess the front baffle 1/8" so the grill will be flush with the cargo panel.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

The Dude said:


> Knuconceptz make decent power wire


yeah they have some nice stuff - this cable is tinned OFC, and they have some good fuses & distribution blocks


----------



## NW JLUR (Dec 3, 2018)

citysoundman said:


> Perforated steel looks really cool! But I actually did get a cast iron grill grate on Amazon, it's 15" diameter so just the right size. It was a little pricey at $40 but it is heavy duty so no rattling around. It's 3/8" thick. The cargo panel sitting on my enclosure is 1/4" thick, and I'll cut out a 15" hole for the grill. Then I'll recess the front baffle 1/8" so the grill will be flush with the cargo panel.
> 
> View attachment 296244


That should look very nice. Good idea for the grill.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

JL driver and AudioControl amp sitting on my shelf  just waiting on wood. I ordered OFC 4 gauge cable and fuse distribution blocks from KnuKonceptz, they seem like a great place. Also got some wire loom, a bunch of wire ferrules, two ring terminals and a 4 gauge crimper. Wow I did not know how many things were gonna be on the list!


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

citysoundman said:


> Wow I did not know how many things were gonna be on the list!


Projects have a "Hey that won't be so bad" cost, and a "holy ****, this is getting out of hand" cost, lol.


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Progress! I picked up the wood my friend cut at his shop, and put together the enclosure today. It was pretty satisfying putting it all together!









First I put together the top and bottom panels with their extension rings
















Then I attached the sides to the bottom panel








With the top panel sitting in place


----------



## citysoundman (Mar 10, 2021)

Sub is installed! Wow I am thrilled, and I want to thank everyone for helping me make it happen! Xtra special thanks to @daloudin for going above and beyond! Still need to do an RTA tune, but even as-is I am hearing some absolutely kick-ass bass  I'm really happy with the AudioControl LC1.800 amp too. Today I listened to Aphex Twin Collapse EP (hi res playback), the second track 1st 44 has got to be one of the most intense low end tracks I've ever heard. Was hearing a bit of buzz coming from somewhere, so will have to check it out. But boy did my jaw absolutely drop open!
PS getting the 4 gauge wire, fuses and distribution blocks installed was some major work!


----------



## daloudin (Nov 2, 2020)

Really glad it all worked out for you. Nice job! 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------

