# Dayton HO vs. IDQ



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

Wait... Before I get bashed for a versus thread, please listen.

I'm working on replacing my entire set-up and handing down what I currently have to the Mrs.

I'm very interested in a Dyton HO after hearing all of the positive feedback on this site, but I don't want to pull the trigger if it's going to be a *lateral move*.

Has anyone heard both the IDQ and HO in the same, or very similar installs? Comments on one vs. the other would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## haibane (Sep 29, 2005)

IDQ is hands down the best sub I have ever heard. That being said I have never heard a dayon HO.


----------



## jj_diamond (Oct 3, 2007)

if you don't like the HO you can always keep the IDQ for your car and install the HO in hers.  

both subs also have a decent resale value.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

IDQ specs
http://www.imagedynamicsusa.com/products_page.php?id=idq&type=sub
HO specs
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=295-466

What "exactly" ,does the subwoofer have to accomplish in your vehicle ?


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

I've seen the specs. Hell, I damn near have them memorized.

What I'm looking for is...



> Has anyone heard both the IDQ and HO in the same, or very similar installs?


Things like...

Which one is louder?
Which one sounds "better"
etc., etc.

...Basically opinions on whether or not it's a lateral move, or if I would, in fact, gain something by making the switch.


----------



## kidwolf909 (Jan 15, 2008)

BEAVER said:


> I've seen the specs. Hell, I damn near have them memorized.
> 
> What I'm looking for is...
> 
> ...


Keeping in mind I've only heard the Dayton HO 10", in my car, in a 1ft^3 box tuned to 30Hz. I would venture to say the Dayton HO 10" and 12" are going to be able to _get_ louder considering they have the same cone area and can handle more power, but you'd have to supply that extra power. The 15" IDQ is obviously going to move a LOT of air, more than the HO's can.

But as far as which sounds "better", you need someone to comment who'd used both. IF you're looking for some tight bass, very accurate, keeps pace with even the heaviest double bass, the Dayton is awesome. The Dayton also sounds very well with sloppy bass in rap, it offers exceptional output if you really want it, my single 10" vibrates my rear view so hard I can't see anything out the back window.

Overall, I think for the $115 the HO is at PE right now, I would pick it up no matter what and see how it goes. You can't go wrong with it, it's a great sub!


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> Overall, I think for the $115 the HO is at PE right now, I would pick it up no matter what and see how it goes. You can't go wrong with it, it's a great sub!


I would pick one up without question if it were as simple as that.

My problem is that I will need new amps, too, as the set-up I am currently using is designed to create power at 1ohm. 

What I want to do is make the switch for a set of PDX amps and the Dayton, then give the Mrs. what I have now... But if I'm not going to gain much, I'll keep what I have and get her something less expensive.


----------



## kidwolf909 (Jan 15, 2008)

BEAVER said:


> I would pick one up without question if it were as simple as that.
> 
> My problem is that I will need new amps, too, as the set-up I am currently using is designed to create power at 1ohm.
> 
> What I want to do is make the switch for a set of PDX amps and the Dayton, then give the Mrs. what I have now... But if I'm not going to gain much, I'll keep what I have and get her something less expensive.


Ahh... didn't know you had that complication  

I've heard the IDQ is regarded as pretty much "the best" subwoofer for SQ applications, but I've never actually heard it to compare it to the Dayton, so who knows... Good choice if you go with PDX's though, I love mine! Beautiful power and great success lol


----------



## dftnz7 (Mar 2, 2008)

I think both are very good....just depends on how the rest of your setup works...


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

haven't heard an IDQ, but you already know i love my H.O.  can't honestly imagine anything sounding more accurate. and the output is plenty when ported.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

I know what I want to do. I just need to decide how much it's worth to me. I guess you could say that I'm cheap. 

On one hand, I'd like to make the best use of what I have, but on the other hand, I'll always question whether or not I would have been happier getting what I really wanted to begin with.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> Wait... Before I get bashed for a versus thread, please listen.
> 
> I'm working on replacing my entire set-up and handing down what I currently have to the Mrs.
> 
> ...


I have never heard the Dayton before but here are few things to consider and why.

The Dayton SPL is rated at 88dB at 2.83 volts at 1 meter, The IDQ12 V.2 rated in the same manner, with 2 watts or 2.83 volts relative to a 4 ohm load is a full 3.7 dB more efficient based upon nominal efficiency (88.7 No and 91.7 with 2.83 volts). That is the equivalent of doubling the amplifier power.

Both have very similar bandwidth energy products HO 73.05 and IDQ 12 76.05 so they will have very similar response in a given enclosure alignment. That means the that the 3.7 dB of efficiency will prove a useful advantage against the HO.

The moving mass of the IDQ12 V.2 is 159 grams compared to the Dayton at 254 grams. This will be apparent when listening to material with quick transients and lots of detail. The lower mass is easier to control both stopping and starting so the lower mass will yield cleaner less distorted output.

Not sure how they rate their power handling but the IDQ12 350 watts is a continuous rating using EIA standards. Which is safe to double for program power or music power depending on who term you would like to use. The aluminum cone if implemented correctly and the aluminum basket will help the HO in the thermal department.

To play devil's advocate here the Dayton Ho is very reasonably priced, and has shorting rings implemented. Although the No of the IDQ12 would be even higher if had shorting rings improving its performance at the higher frequency ranges with lower inductance. 


Eric
Image Dynamics


----------



## Toxis (Feb 4, 2008)

Great explanation without trying to just say "Hey, my ****'s better!" Very professional and informative. ID > All.


----------



## dejo (Jan 3, 2006)

also note that the idq will take double its rated power without problems in a good sealed box.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Honestly, the two perform very similarly. The IDQ is more sensitive, so watt for watt you do get a bit more output from them. However, the HO series subwoofers are very, very good in a ported enclosure. You can tune lower, with a smaller box than you can the IDQ. The HO has a tad bit more Xmax, and has a higher power handling. Before you go on about how the IDQ can take double the power, well so can the HO. That part really comes down to alignment. An IDQ is not going to take 1000 watts in a .5 Qtc sealed enclosure, or a ported enclosure 1.5 cubes, tuned under 25 hz.

As far as how they sound. Both sound very good, not the same though. I'd give the edge to the Dayton in a ported enclosure though. I've had problems with an old IDQ v2 from yonder year with the coil slapping around. Yet to be fair, I had an HO 12 fail during extremely cold weather (don't crank your subs when it's -20 degrees, and they haven't had a chance to warm up). 

What it really comes down to, is the money. IMO you get a much better built driver in the Dayton, they're cheaper, and are very car friendly with their enclosure requirements. Downside, is they're only available in 4 ohm.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

have some of each in the garage, and I'd take the dayton. 

For the most part, EQ capability and box design, amp power, will make a greater difference then the choice between the two subs will.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

wow! the IDQ is even more sensitive than the dayton ho? and i thought the dayton was very sensitive. good read.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

backwoods said:


> have some of each in the garage, and I'd take the dayton.
> 
> For the most part, EQ capability and box design, amp power, will make a greater difference then the choice between the two subs will.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

backwoods said:


> have some of each in the garage, and I'd take the dayton.
> 
> For the most part, EQ capability and box design, amp power, will make a greater difference then the choice between the two subs will.


I agree as well. I wouldn't worry about the difference in mass affecting transient response... the buzzing of your enclosure and panels will far exceed any stored energy in the woofer itself, and even in those cases the motor will be the dominant force.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

Dayton puts a lot of work into there drivers it seems. awesome sub IMO.


----------



## zzed (Feb 29, 2008)

You guys are good.....

Somehow, this thread read my mind. I, too, have been waffling back and forth between the IDQ 12 and Dayton HO 12 for a week or so. Both are about the only subs I've found that say they feel at home in a 0.75 sealed box and will fit in a truck "wedge" box. My only decision was whether it was worth the extra $80 to go with the more sensitive IDQ or save the money for a decent box. While I still think the IDQ 12 may be better, I doubt my non-audiophile ears will notice it.

-=Zzed=-


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

zzed said:


> You guys are good.....
> 
> Somehow, this thread read my mind. I, too, have been waffling back and forth between the IDQ 12 and Dayton HO 12 for a week or so. Both are about the only subs I've found that say they feel at home in a 0.75 sealed box and will fit in a truck "wedge" box. My only decision was whether it was worth the extra $80 to go with the more sensitive IDQ or save the money for a decent box. While I still think the IDQ 12 may be better, I doubt my non-audiophile ears will notice it.
> 
> -=Zzed=-


Hehe. The IDQ is not better, it's just different. When factoring in money, I'll take the Dayton every time. 



npdang said:


> I agree as well. I wouldn't worry about the difference in mass affecting transient response... the buzzing of your enclosure and panels will far exceed any stored energy in the woofer itself, and even in those cases the motor will be the dominant force.


Doesn't energy storage present itself more in the upper end of a drivers bandwidth? I guess my point is, if I had to pick between the two to run full range, then absolutely I'd take the IDQ. But that seems to be more of a question of paper vs. metal cone.

I could be grossly mistaken so please correct me if I'm way off base. 

Designers have been looking for the best compromise between strength and weight every since engineering began. It's no different when it comes to speaker design. So, if the cone of the IDQ is superior, why doesn't everybody use the same material for their speakers? 

There is no material that comes without compromise.


----------



## dftnz7 (Mar 2, 2008)

Are we talking about the new IDQv3? Man if the Dayton can come even close to it, it shouldn't even be a contest...have you seen what the IDQv3 costs?

I would have thought going in that it ought to be IDv3 vs. Dayton HO....Similar price points, etc. I am considering the IDv3, IDQv3, and Dayton HO subwoofers myself, and I guess it looks like there is no need to spend almost double for the IDQv3 regardless.


----------



## fredridge (Jan 17, 2007)

there is one advantage to the idq, you can find several of then right now in the FS section.

I have an idq 15 sitting in the garage waiting to be used.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

If you want to measure the "start and stop" time response of a driver it's quite easy to do. It's not something that's limited to only the upper end response of a driver, but in my experience that's where it seems to be more critical. With subwoofers, the enclosure tends to dominate the time response of the woofer.. that is you'll see a much larger difference between different enclosure sizes than you will between drivers in bass region.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

npdang said:


> If you want to measure the "start and stop" time response of a driver it's quite easy to do. It's not something that's limited to only the upper end response of a driver, but in my experience that's where it seems to be more critical. With subwoofers, the enclosure tends to dominate the time response of the woofer.. that is you'll see a much larger difference between different enclosure sizes than you will between drivers in bass region.


You couldn't possible mean that the enclosure has more to do with how the subwoofer will sound than the subwoofer itself? I'm going to have to go throw myself down a flight of stairs now.

Seriously though, you're right. The biggest differences I've come across with different subwoofers are how that particular enclosure works in the vehicle I'm currently using. I've been through a whole slew of subwoofers, and in the end, it's been the enclosure that would make or break the setup. 

300 watts to an IDQ12 may sound great in a sedan. In a minivan, it might as well not even be there.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

MiniVanMan said:


> You couldn't possible mean that the enclosure has more to do with how the subwoofer will sound than the subwoofer itself? I'm going to have to go throw myself down a flight of stairs now.
> 
> Seriously though, you're right. The biggest differences I've come across with different subwoofers are how that particular enclosure works in the vehicle I'm currently using. I've been through a whole slew of subwoofers, and in the end, it's been the enclosure that would make or break the setup.
> 
> 300 watts to an IDQ12 may sound great in a sedan. In a minivan, it might as well not even be there.


Haha no... I'd say overall the room is more important, and secondly the integration with the frontstage. But if you want to talk about start and stop, rise and decay time if I were to ping a sub in the bass region... I'd say the enclosure will have a greater impact than the differences between subs in most cases.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

npdang said:


> Haha no... I'd say overall the room is more important, and secondly the integration with the frontstage. But if you want to talk about start and stop, rise and decay time if I were to ping a sub in the bass region... I'd say the enclosure will have a greater impact than the differences between subs in most cases.


Actually, that is what I said, except the integration with the front stage. Which I wholeheartedly agree with.

That goes back to the "room", or vehicle. I always go back to when I had my Civic, my setup was COMPLETELY different. When I got my minivan, everything needed to change. The IDQ I was running was now non-existent in the cavernous volume of the minivan. The midbass drivers needed a ton more power to get to normal listening levels, necessitating the need for a higher high pass point on the midbass, meaning sub integration was even more difficult. More power, and more displacement was the cure for the low end, but with that more power, I needed to make sure the 50-60 hz area would not be overpowering, and I'd still have enough presence on the bottom end. Since it was a company vehicle, I still needed to maintain space for equipment, so I couldn't do a 5 cu/ft enclosure. Since vented provided the best results, I needed a subwoofer that operated well in a vented enclosure but also required a smallish enclosure to do so. Hence the Dayton HO 12s. What they lack in sensitivity can be made up with power, since power is cheap. Goes way beyond, "the Daytons sound great".


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

So, if I'm reading correctly, the Dayton has a definite edge in vented applications?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

If you want my opinion, the dayton has a few more bells and whistles but at the end of the day it's a lateral move.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> Actually, that is what I said, except the integration with the front stage. Which I wholeheartedly agree with.
> 
> That goes back to the "room", or vehicle. I always go back to when I had my Civic, my setup was COMPLETELY different. When I got my minivan, everything needed to change. The IDQ I was running was now non-existent in the cavernous volume of the minivan. The midbass drivers needed a ton more power to get to normal listening levels, necessitating the need for a higher high pass point on the midbass, meaning sub integration was even more difficult. More power, and more displacement was the cure for the low end, but with that more power, I needed to make sure the 50-60 hz area would not be overpowering, and I'd still have enough presence on the bottom end. Since it was a company vehicle, I still needed to maintain space for equipment, so I couldn't do a 5 cu/ft enclosure. Since vented provided the best results, I needed a subwoofer that operated well in a vented enclosure but also required a smallish enclosure to do so. *Hence the Dayton HO 12s. What they lack in sensitivity can be made up with power, since power is cheap.* Goes way beyond, "the Daytons sound great".


you really think the HO's lack sensitivity? the HO i have replaced a sub that was the same size but had twice the x-max, was getting a lot more power, that was in a bigger box with 3 times the port area. the Dayton HO keeps right up output wise if i want to crank it that loud.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tcguy85 said:


> you really think the HO's lack sensitivity? the HO i have replaced a sub that was the same size but had twice the x-max, was getting a lot more power, that was in a bigger box with 3 times the port area. the Dayton HO keeps right up output wise if i want to crank it that loud.


The 10" HO is really a different beast than the 12". The 12" does lack a bit of sensitivity, but it digs deeper, and I can achieve a flatter response down to 25 hz with the 12". That's more important to me in my application. The wife has two 10's. Both are fantastic drivers, but coming from the same line, they are a good bit different.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> The 10" HO is really a different beast than the 12". The 12" does lack a bit of sensitivity, but it digs deeper, and I can achieve a flatter response down to 25 hz with the 12". That's more important to me in my application. The wife has two 10's. Both are fantastic drivers, but coming from the same line, they are a good bit different.


they must be a LOT different. the ten, even when i only had it on about 350 watts was pretty damn loud when i wanted it to be. loud enough to shake lots of stuff in my car including my steering wheel. and even with the 600+ watts i have on it now i don't feel that i'm beating on it or anything. i'm definitely not using the whole 600+ watts that i have for it though, it really (at least in my install) doesn't need it. 

i really feel that i couldn't have picked a better sub for ME.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

tcguy85 said:


> they must be a LOT different. the ten, even when i only had it on about 350 watts was pretty damn loud when i wanted it to be. loud enough to shake lots of stuff in my car including my steering wheel. and even with the 600+ watts i have on it now i don't feel that i'm beating on it or anything. i'm definitely not using the whole 600+ watts that i have for it though, it really (at least in my install) doesn't need it.
> 
> i really feel that i couldn't have picked a better sub for ME.


Different vehicles as well. Remember I have my 12s in a minivan.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> Different vehicles as well. Remember I have my 12s in a minivan.


yup, that of course is true. i have a pretty small hatch where the cabin gain seems to help quite a bit, especially down low.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

I don't believe I can think of a single person that runs the Daytons sealed. Has everyone concluded that these things need to be ported?

Having the space to run 1 12" ported, or 2 10's sealed, is the 12 the way to go?


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

BEAVER said:


> I don't believe I can think of a single person that runs the Daytons sealed. Has everyone concluded that these things need to be ported?
> 
> Having the space to run 1 12" ported, or 2 10's sealed, is the 12 the way to go?


I think there is a few still, or they sold them off due to lack of output.

I've said it before and will say it again, they don't suck AT ALL sealed, BUT you need the power to get them rolling. I'll admit that I don't have that power.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I don't believe I can think of a single person that runs the Daytons sealed. Has everyone concluded that these things need to be ported?
> 
> Having the space to run 1 12" ported, or 2 10's sealed, is the 12 the way to go?


run a single ten ported or a pair of tens ported. 

they NEEEDS to be ported!  i really like a strong bottom end though, but thats just the difference between ported and sealed.

ask chad, he ran his single ten sealed for a while. he'll tell you about it sealed.

EDIT: chad beat me to it!


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

tcguy85 said:


> i really feel that i couldn't have picked a better sub for ME.


Wise choice of words


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> run a single ten ported or a pair of tens ported.


I see this a lot and am a bit confused. If one has the space to run a 12", why step down to the 10"?


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

chad said:


> Wise choice of words


thanks! 

i am sure there are better subs out there. but what REALLY makes any particular sub BETTER? the user thinking or knowing that sub fits them better. there is no single sub out there that will please everybody the same. i took a gamble, i heard what others thought of it, and i lucked out and love it.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

BEAVER said:


> I see this a lot and am a bit confused. If one has the space to run a 12", why step down to the 10"?


Because I believe that the 12 does not offer much more performance than the 10, you can fit 2 10's in a cube and a half vented and it will beat you up. You ain't gettin 2 12's in that space.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I see this a lot and am a bit confused. If one has the space to run a 12", why step down to the 10"?


because everybody who has tried both or even plotted both out have said that they are two totally different subs. supposedly they are nothing alike.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> Because I believe that the 12 does not offer much more performance than the 10, you can fit 2 10's in a cube and a half vented and it will beat you up. You ain't gettin 2 12's in that space.


I have 1.58cft GROSS. After taking driver and port displacement into account, I really don't think I can get 2 10's in there. I would have to use a pile of elbows in the enclosure to keep the port from running into the subs. This is why I thought the 12" would be the better choice... adequate volume and a simple, straight port.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I have 1.58cft GROSS. After taking driver and port displacement into account, I really don't think I can get 2 10's in there. I would have to use a pile of elbows in the enclosure to keep the port from running into the subs. This is why I thought the 12" would be the better choice... adequate volume and a simple, straight port.


depending on the car and how much bass you really like the single ten might be plenty. i was very doubtful that it would be enough for me until i tried it. i honestly was and still kind of am blown away at the output of this thing. it's no joke.

but once again, i must add, in MY install and with MY tastes it is plenty.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

Chad,
You touched on this in a thread a few months ago, but I'll put my money on the table to say I can get just about any sub to do what I want it to do-within reason.
Problem I've noticed over the years is that many put more thought into which subwoofer driver to buy vs. the application of the sub,istall,and the enclosure of the sub. 

Example, many said the $13.50 eD sub was dirt of a sub. Well, when I spoke to people who purchased them, they failed to understand the eD subs needed room and lots of it. I played with a 2.3 cf box tuned @25hz with that sub and it was something beautiful. Granted it's not a JL W7, but it was a heck of an entry level sub, provided if a person had enough room to install it.

One last mistake I see people doing with ported applications, they try to make the box fit the install instead of the install fiting the box, if you know what I'm saying.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> depending on the car and how much bass you really like the single ten might be plenty. i was very doubtful that it would be enough for me until i tried it. i honestly was and still kind of am blown away at the output of this thing. it's no joke.


I, like you, can't help but be a bit doubtful. 

A little background...

I had an IDQ 12, .85 cft. sealed on 400W in an S-10 Blazer. While it was enough for me, in the beginning, I found myself craving a little more.

I'm now in a reg. cab pick-up. I'm assuming the transfer function from the smaller cabin, along with the fact that it's going to be ported, will give me the "little more" that I am looking for, but I don't know for sure.

*I am* going to buy a Dayton HO, reguardless. If it doesn't find a home in my truck, it will in the Mrs. car.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> One last mistake I see people doing with ported applications, they try to make the box fit the install instead of the install fiting the box, if you know what I'm saying.


This is why I'm asking for direction, instead of just buying something and trying to make it fit. I fully understand the need for the correct enclosure.

But, you are right... I see it all the time, too.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

BEAVER said:


> I, like you, can't help but be a bit doubtful.
> 
> A little background...
> 
> ...


You won't be disappointed. I assure you. The worst that will happen is that you find it doesn't necessarily fit your application (room acoustics). It's a solid driver, at a phenomenal price, that sounds fantastic.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> You won't be disappointed. I assure you. The worst that will happen is that you find it doesn't necessarily fit your application (room acoustics). It's a solid driver, at a phenomenal price, that sounds fantastic.


Now, the million dollar question...

Given the space constraints I have and the criteria mentioned above, which way would you go? Single 12, or single 10?


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I, like you, can't help but be a bit doubtful.
> 
> A little background...
> 
> ...


it's going in a small regular cab truck? if so i think you will be amazed. let me say this again. it is enough to totally still kill the music if i turn the sub level up a bit. it has plenty of output to be "fun" and overpower the rest of the music. 

it truly is amazing at how much this sub does in .7net ported(tiny ass box) tuned to 30hz with only 7sq inches of port(tiny ass port) with very little power(at first had it on only about 350 watts). it gets very low, gets pretty damn loud, it is pretty light, and takes up very little space. who says you can't get big sound from a small package. 

but you'll just have ot try it and see.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> You won't be disappointed. I assure you. The worst that will happen is that you find it doesn't necessarily fit your application (room acoustics). It's a solid driver, at a phenomenal price, that sounds fantastic.


X2. Completely right.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> Now, the million dollar question...
> 
> Given the space constraints I have and the criteria mentioned above, which way would you go? Single 12, or single 10?


another big question is how you are going to port it and how you are going to run the port. i'd say use an aero port. the ten will like a 3" port, the twelve i will guess would prefer to have a 4" port. with the .7 cubic foot box the ten takes, tuning to 30hz with a 3" round port will require roughly a 25 inch long port. so you might have to get creative with the port. the simple way would be to have it external or partially external. just something else you'll need to think about.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

I already have a 3" flared port. The 12" in 1.5cft. only requires about a 15" port, which I have covered. If I went with the 10" I'd have to buy a second port and connect them, since they max out at 17".


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Dr.Telepathy SQ said:


> One last mistake I see people doing with ported applications, they try to make the box fit the install instead of the install fiting the box, if you know what I'm saying.


I know all too well, It takes patience and planing to find you you are about to do it all wrong  I got REALLY lucky in the purchase of this sub and stumbling on the venting, adn even luckier when I got it all to fit where I wanted it.

Chad


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I already have a 3" flared port. The 12" in 1.5cft. only requires about a 15" port, which I have covered. If I went with the 10" I'd have to buy a second port and connect them, since they max out at 17".


so you think a 3" port would be enough for the 12? i would seriously try a 4 inch port if you are going with the 12.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

chad said:


> I know all too well, It takes patience and planing to find you you are about to do it all wrong  I got REALLY lucky in the purchase of this sub and stumbling on the venting, adn even luckier when I got it all to fit where I wanted it.
> 
> Chad


yes, your setup worked out very nicely. you did get pretty lucky. 

i got a little lucky as well with my setup. i originally bought the box i am using to house a different sub. then i decided to try the HO ported and use the box i had just bought and not used yet. it worked out that i was able to get the needed volume and hide half my port inside it at the same time.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

> i would seriously try a 4 inch port if you are going with the 12.


I know. I considered that to be a possible necessity after the purchase. I'm still learning... lol.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I know. I considered that to be a possible necessity after the purchase. I'm still learning... lol.


yea, i'm not 100% positive but i don't think a 3" port would cut it at high volumes/high excursion for the 12". i could be wrong though.


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

After a few calculations I've discoverd that if I do need a 4" port, it will drop my net volume down to 1.28 cft. 

It sounds to me like the 12" may not work as well as I would have liked.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> After a few calculations I've discoverd that if I do need a 4" port, it will drop my net volume down to 1.28 cft.
> 
> It sounds to me like the 12" may not work as well as I would have liked.


just do the single ten. i think you'll really be happy with it.

how much power will you have for it at 4 ohms?


----------



## BEAVER (May 26, 2007)

I plan on getting a PDX 1.600 for my truck.

If it ends up in the Mrs. car, it will only see 200W.


----------



## tcguy85 (Oct 29, 2007)

BEAVER said:


> I plan on getting a PDX 1.600 for my truck.
> 
> If it ends up in the Mrs. car, it will only see 200W.


it'll do GREAT on that pdx, might not do so great on 200 watts. i have just over 600 available for mine. its more than enough.


----------



## jayr0c (Feb 2, 2011)

How big of a difference would there be between the 2 on how low they could get? Has anybody modeled the 2 in a .7 ported box for the dayton and probably a .75 sealed for the idq to see?


----------



## winegamd (Mar 3, 2010)

The answer is, Yes, it would be an almost lateral move given normal listening volumes, same size driver, in same type enclosure (being the proper size i.e. Q's being equal). Granted each one has its own characteristic, but nothing that would make one enough better than the other to make a swap necessary.

Edit: I have used both.


----------

