# Stereo Integrity 12 Mag v3 Re-release



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

I would like to give my impressions of a Stereo Integrity's 12 Mag v3
because that fact is there isn't much out there for the new re-released
model. I am by no means an expert in audio but I have gotten to listen to
many main stream sub setups like the JLW7, W6, TW5, all of Alpines
offerings, Fi BTL and Team subs, Skar Audio's offerings, Soundqubed, and
Memphis Audio as well. The JL W6 being the most comparable.

Now for a little background, I have had this sub for a couple of months now
in my 97 Acura CL which is my daily driver and it is blending great with the
rest of my equipment in this car. I went more towards a budget build finding
deals were I could and trading some equipment for other pieces as well.
Source unit is a Clarion CZ702 running to an Audio Systems X-Ion 70.6. On
the first 4 channels of the 70.6 I have HAT Imagine 6.5 set and the 5 and 6
channels are bridged together running the SI 12 Mag v3. All of it is being
ran active with the CZ702 and man I can't be more happy with the $100 spenton that head unit.

Now for the 12 Mag v3, this subwoofer is fantastic. I have it in a 1.75 ft3
enclosure tuned to 33hz off of 380wrms. I am totally blown away with how
natural sounding and transparent this sub can be and how rowdy it gets the
next. Now I loved my 12W6v2 and before owning the Mag v3 I still consider
that sub to be in my top 3 of all time cause I beat the hell out of it and
it just took it like a champ now I'm not so sure.
Now for a little breakdown.
Listening habits: Rock/classic rock mainly and R&B when my wife is in the
car.

Songs:
Atomship- Agent Orange, around the end of the song there is a huge bass linein this song and actually sounds like a 40hz test tone. I use this to see
how well a sub can produce that tone at a high volume. Its surprising how
many can't without sounding strained specially going right into kick drums
immediately after. Mag v3 handled it perfectly.

Guns and Roses-Civil War, just a great classic rock song that isn't bass
heavy but I have found on less quality subs they can really stand out in the
song and make it sound sloppy. The Mag v3 just kept up with kick drums and
really re-enforced the mids to sound really natural, like being at the
concert.

Lorde- Royals, bass line can sound really odd in this song with a lesser
quality sub again the Mag v3 blended effortlessly
There are so many other songs out there but those are the ones that stand out to me the most.

Performance: The Mag v3 is every bit the sub that the W6v2 was.

Price: I don't think I could ever justify the price of the W6 again while
the Mag v3 is on the market, it's a third of the price!

Verdict: I don't think I could recommend a better subwoofer if space isn't
an issue, the enclosure is large and that maybe is the only downfall to this
sub, but I would be willing to sacrifice the room. For the folks out there
that have bass head tendencies like I do but also like a clean sounding sub
this is the ticket. Thanks for reading and all comments are welcome.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Please forgive me if I sound like I'm rambling, it's my first complete review I've attempted.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

No sir - that was just fine. I'm very glad to read your thoughts about this fantastic Stereo Integrity sub. I wish more guys would try it out and here what it is capable of.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Thank you, It really has impressed me, I will by changing my tw5 in my truck to one of these down the road.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Great time to snag one of these at $140 a piece.


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

Can't wait to get mine installed.


----------



## craiggus365 (Apr 5, 2009)

etroze said:


> I would like to give my impressions of a Stereo Integrity's 12 Mag v3
> because that fact is there isn't much out there for the new re-released
> model. I am by no means an expert in audio but I have gotten to listen to
> many main stream sub setups like the JLW7, W6, TW5, all of Alpines
> ...


Your review really helped me make up my mind to step up and buy 2 @ the *steal* of a price.
My only question, how much port area are you using?
Nick said 1 4" round per 1.5 cube. I modeled it in BBP and it gets `fairly high.' I'm not saying this is entirely bad since I have found my most musical enclosures had a higher port velocity. Your input is appreciated.
BTW this will be a 3-3.5 cube tuned 32-35Hz. ( 2 of 'em)


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

craiggus365 said:


> Your review really helped me make up my mind to step up and buy 2 @ the *steal* of a price.
> My only question, how much port area are you using?
> Nick said 1 4" round per 1.5 cube. I modeled it in BBP and it gets `fairly high.' I'm not saying this is entirely bad since I have found my most musical enclosures had a higher port velocity. Your input is appreciated.
> BTW this will be a 3-3.5 cube tuned 32-35Hz. ( 2 of 'em)


That's going to rock man, I have actually a 2.5 in round port (it's what I had on hand), but I also never get close to driving the sub to xmax. When I do let it buck it does have a good deal of Port noise. I say Nicks recommendation would sound great.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## craiggus365 (Apr 5, 2009)

etroze said:


> That's going to rock man, I have actually a 2.5 in round port (it's what I had on hand), but I also never get close to driving the sub to xmax. When I do let it buck it does have a good deal of Port noise. I say Nicks recommendation would sound great.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Thanks for the quick reply, I just remembered the temp enclosure I will be trying these in has a removable port section so I'll attempt the 2x4" 1st and step up to 3x4" if needed.
I'm glad I got in before the $999 hit!


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Lol men to man as soon as I saw Nicks post I bought a second one and my wife bought the TM65s. I'm going great to get a bigger port one day as I still haven't put a finish on my box.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Just got one myself, should be plenty given my preference in output levels. May try putting it into the JL 12W7 HO enclosure I have. 

Looking to pick up a set of TM65's in about 8 weeks when they "should" be back for sale (hopefully at the same $99 price).


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

I bet it does well in the HO enclosure, I had a W6 in a sealed W7 box and it was impressive. I can't wait to get the 6.5s, I like my hertz ml1600s but to have an entire xbl front stage will be cool in my truck.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

I hope so, I had planned to originally put an Infinity 1260w into it, but decided not to. Still need to get an MDF ring for mounting a sub into it, as the JL W7 has many more mounting holes and I think/feel it'd be easier to put some T-nuts into the existing holes and then mount the ring to mount the sub.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Not bad idea.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

I'm hoping it's a good idea, but I know it'll alter the internal volume and alter the port tuning ever so slightly. Don't remember 100%, but want to say the enclosure is 2.5cuft tuned at 34Hz. Probably remembering incorrectly though. LOL


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Lol if it's that big after port don't throw 1000w at it or you'll have a bad time.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Yeah, I honestly don't remember what I calculated it to be once upon a time and I think a member on here actually told me what it they found it to be, which was an active member who claimed to have been around many of said enclosure. 

I'm sure it's no smaller than 1.75cuft, but want to say it was 2.5cuft. Then again, that may have been before accounting for port and bracing displacement.


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Oh, and given the MAG is supposedly DVC 2 ohm, I'd be forced to either buy a new amp or run it at 4 ohms as I don't have anything that does 1K at 1 ohm. 

Wait, yeah I do. Well, rated to do anyways. Memphis 16-MCD1000. 

But I could potentially wire it for 4 ohms and feed it up to 700RMS or as little as 300RMS depending on the amp I opt to use from my collection.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

I'd just keep gains low when you first give it a go.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

I'll be giving my next one 1100w at 4 ohms so I'll be sticking closers to the recommended specs.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

That's no fun. LOL


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Lol its a stout sub just wouldn't wanna see anyone taking it to the max in the first few mins.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Yeah, I've always gone with the "allow break-in time with lower power" route. Don't have the cash to afford to go the "give it hell from the get go" route in case it results in a quick death.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Had an elemental design sub that I gave the bean from the start and it didn't last 30 mins. I leave gains low to start from now on.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Wise decision. I learned from a few of friends who gave lower and mi-grade subs hell from the start, which lasted anywhere from minutes to days before giving out. That and I'm not really into LOUD overbearing bass that completely dominates my music, which helps. LOL


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Yep I'm there to, my truck has a 13tw5 it's not a loud sub at all.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Electrodynamic (Nov 27, 2007)

Weigel21 said:


> Oh, and _given the MAG is *supposedly DVC 2 ohm*_, I'd be forced to either buy a new amp or run it at 4 ohms as I don't have anything that does 1K at 1 ohm.
> 
> Wait, yeah I do. Well, rated to do anyways. Memphis 16-MCD1000.
> 
> But I could potentially wire it for 4 ohms and feed it up to 700RMS or as little as 300RMS depending on the amp I opt to use from my collection.


Haha, there's no "supposedly". It *IS* a dual 2 Ohm subwoofer. 

T/S parameters are always taken with the coils in series (or are taken in series unless the manufacturer is trying to inflate certain numbers and measure them in parallel).


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Yeah, and I bet you get more of a laugh when you realize I requested a DVC 4 ohm when ordering. LOL


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Oh boy forgot to address that part of my review lol.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

So, given T/S parameters are with coils wired in series, what does one do when looking to run the sub with coils wired in parallel for a 1 ohm load? I mean parameters change some with the coils wired differently, right? So an enclosure with the sub wired for 4 ohms may not perform the same with the sub wired at 1 ohm, right? Or wrong?


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

It should be pretty negligible when wiring different loads. Your amp could possibly lyrics play I bigger difference, depending on the amp.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## TheAlchemist9 (Apr 29, 2015)

Weigel21 said:


> Wise decision. I learned from a few of friends who gave lower and mi-grade subs hell from the start, which lasted anywhere from minutes to days before giving out. That and I'm not really into LOUD overbearing bass that completely dominates my music, which helps. LOL


I gave mine hell right from the start and it never flinched.


----------



## Electrodynamic (Nov 27, 2007)

Weigel21 said:


> So, given T/S parameters are with coils wired in series, what does one do when looking to run the sub with coils wired in parallel for a 1 ohm load? I mean parameters change some with the coils wired differently, right? So an enclosure with the sub wired for 4 ohms may not perform the same with the sub wired at 1 ohm, right? Or wrong?


The parameters will change, yes. But they change in ways that offset each other but the enclosure size, type, etc, remains the same. The short of it: Don't worry about it. 

Speaking in non-precise units here: going from series of 4 Ohms to parallel of 1 Ohm will reduce Re and Le and lower BL. BUT you have to look at Re when you look at BL. You also have to look at Le in relation to Re. All three specifications change with the other and in the end the driver behaves the same regardless of how you wire it. Your amplifiers damping factor will change with substantially higher or lower impedance but the driver itself will behave the same if your amplifier specs stayed the same. But the latter is nit-picking.


----------



## Gomer Pilot (Nov 30, 2014)

Nick,

Are these completely sold out or just on hold like the TM65?


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

Electrodynamic said:


> The parameters will change, yes. But they change in ways that offset each other but the enclosure size, type, etc, remains the same. The short of it: Don't worry about it.
> 
> Speaking in non-precise units here: going from series of 4 Ohms to parallel of 1 Ohm will reduce Re and Le and lower BL. BUT you have to look at Re when you look at BL. You also have to look at Le in relation to Re. All three specifications change with the other and in the end the driver behaves the same regardless of how you wire it. Your amplifiers damping factor will change with substantially higher or lower impedance but the driver itself will behave the same if your amplifier specs stayed the same. But the latter is nit-picking.


Good to know it's marginal and nothing to worry about. I'd always wondered about such and with subs that are DVC 4 ohm or the DVC 6 ohm MKII I picked up, it'd be quite difficult to feed them rated power at 8 ohms or 12 ohms with their coils wired in series if the difference was vast between series and parallel wiring.


----------



## soap94 (Sep 27, 2015)

and how much does it costs?


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

When it was available this last round it was $140.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Weigel21 (Sep 8, 2014)

May well be available again at the same discounted price in a matter of weeks. Sure hoping the Mids, when available, are at the same discounted price.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

I wanted to bring this back up, I have one of these subs and I'm building a very intricate but fiberglass-free box design to maximize a hatchback trunk (Speed3) and I'm having a difficult time modeling (Sketchup and WinISD Pro a.) a solution that will handle the port sizing properly. Simply put, this thing wants tons of port Like 40+ inches of 4" port X 2. Realistically, what velocity would you consider below threshold (for a hatchback aka non-sealed trunk to the cabin) for audible chuffing? I am heavily considering flared ports of various types to go along with that.

Alternately I came across this: Creative Sound - Product Details and while it isn't pretty at all, it models BEAUTIFULLY in WinISD, with tons of weight near 900g to get the fs down. I mean just on the model at 700W or so, the thing is working perfectly and it goes very deep on the response plot, with no sign of bottoming either the sub or the PR. The 15" one clearly would have to be the one to use, or a pair of the 12" models but there's no space.

Secondary question, say the sub is firing toward the rear of the trunk in this hatch. Could I possibly fire the PR forward toward the seat to hide it? Would this in any way cause surprise cancellation or other issues? My gut instinct says no but I thought I'd defer to others for confirmation.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

IIRC 26m/s is the port velocity you shoot for when building inaudible ports. The thing is when you model does the program use information such as a constant sign wave at the tuning you are shooting for? I know with a 2.5" flared port it will for sure be audible at xmax. I will have bass box pro and model it this week to see what I come up with. If all goes well ill take my small port out and throw a 4" in to see what happens.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

etroze said:


> IIRC 26m/s is the port velocity you shoot for when building inaudible ports. The thing is when you model does the program use information such as a constant sign wave at the tuning you are shooting for? I know with a 2.5" flared port it will for sure be audible at xmax. I will have bass box pro and model it this week to see what I come up with. If all goes well ill take my small port out and throw a 4" in to see what happens.


I've always heard 17 m/s target so 26 m/s is a bit of a shock, as it is .1 mach or 58 mph. That seems quite aggressive.

Appreciate the input, hoping for more from other members as well.


----------



## Electrodynamic (Nov 27, 2007)

fourthmeal said:


> I wanted to bring this back up, I have one of these subs and I'm building a very intricate but fiberglass-free box design to maximize a hatchback trunk (Speed3) and I'm having a difficult time modeling (Sketchup and WinISD Pro a.) a solution that will handle the port sizing properly. Simply put, this thing wants tons of port Like 40+ inches of 4" port X 2. Realistically, what velocity would you consider below threshold (for a hatchback aka non-sealed trunk to the cabin) for audible chuffing? I am heavily considering flared ports of various types to go along with that.
> 
> Alternately I came across this: Creative Sound - Product Details and while it isn't pretty at all, it models BEAUTIFULLY in WinISD, with tons of weight near 900g to get the fs down. I mean just on the model at 700W or so, the thing is working perfectly and it goes very deep on the response plot, with no sign of bottoming either the sub or the PR. The 15" one clearly would have to be the one to use, or a pair of the 12" models but there's no space.
> 
> Secondary question, say the sub is firing toward the rear of the trunk in this hatch. Could I possibly fire the PR forward toward the seat to hide it? Would this in any way cause surprise cancellation or other issues? My gut instinct says no but I thought I'd defer to others for confirmation.


At full linear Xmax you will want to stick with a 6" flared round port to avoid chuffing. Or you can use what you "have heard" and/or modeled over the manufacturers recommendations and do what you want regardless.


----------



## cubdenno (Nov 10, 2007)

According to what John from AE told me regarding port velocity, stay at or under 20m/s under full power. It has worked very well. By 30 m/s you have severe port compression. Distortion is off the charts and your port stops acting like a port.

http://aespeakers.com/forums/topic/ports/


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

cubdenno said:


> According to what John from AE told me regarding port velocity, stay at or under 20m/s under full power. It has worked very well. By 30 m/s you have severe port compression. Distortion is off the charts and your port stops acting like a port.
> 
> Ports - AE Speakers


Thanks Sir it's been a while since I figured out port velocity.


----------



## wanderer1 (Dec 22, 2014)

I just went to the website since this review peaked my interest. $999?! Really. Then I looked at the TM65, $999 each? Wow, must be something real special, glad you got yours at a more realistic price. Sounds like a great driver.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Electrodynamic said:


> At full linear Xmax you will want to stick with a 6" flared round port to avoid chuffing. Or you can use what you "have heard" and/or modeled over the manufacturers recommendations and do what you want regardless.


Nope I prefer to take my advice directly from the experts, thanks Nick. Sewer pipe it is! LOL.

She's gonna big one big sonofa.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

I have a 6" port sitting in my PE cart for when I stuff two of them in my regular cab pickup .


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

actually sourcing 6" pipe that can elbow properly is proving near-impossible. I may have to do the dual 4" to get something that will work.

Or go Passive Radiator (big).


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Talk to your local plumbing shop. They should be able to source pvc main line that big.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

FYI I ended up not being able to make a ported box (with huge port requirements) work in this design, and instead "settled" on a large low Q sealed box. The high excursion of the sub and sufficient power handling (as well as sufficient power on the sub amp I'm using in this build) nets me a still-impressive output curve in modeling. I'll know how it will sound in a few days as I'm wrapping up the build, but I suspect it will sound fantastic in a false floor design, in a hatchback. The shape of the car will net me tons of gain just like a ported box does, so I'm sure I'll still get an excellent response.

edit: and I did get pricing on big pipe, but the cost is insanely high for use in a car audio port.


----------



## etroze (Dec 24, 2013)

Awesome man, I'm sticking to 1.5 tuned to 35hz as it's what I can fit in my truck lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------

