# Ported Midbass?



## jimbno1 (Apr 14, 2008)

I searched but there were so many ported sub threads I could not find threads about porting Midbass. 

If I were to build a door enclosure for Midbass, in this case JBL660GTi. Using JBL specs the sealed enclosure I get from WinISD is .14 ft3. But the F3 is 100 Hz. This seems very high. Making the box bigger actually seemed to make the F3 higher. 

If I model ported I come up with is .325 ft3 61 Hz tuning freq which is about the F3, 2.75” Dia x 10” port. 

The recommended sloped box is 14.3” x 9.5” x 6” tapering to 0”. This would seem to be possible, looking at my doors if I remove the bottom half of the door card and replace with the enclosure. 

I know stock answer is to try it. But what are the drawbacks to a ported Midbass in a car? 

Per the JBL Manual
The 660GTi woofer may be used in an infinite baffle or in a small sealed enclosure
with a volume equal to or larger than 1/8 ft3. The 560GTi woofer may be used in
an infinite baffle or in a small sealed enclosure with a volume equal to or larger
than 1/12 ft3.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

The real drawback is in the transition between midbass and subbass. The group delay is typically larger and the phase shift is larger as well. So the transition and "bass up front" illusion is tough to get right. Having said all this I am working on ported kicks right now. It will be a while but I will report results in my build thread.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Working on ported kicks to, I think it wil rule.


----------



## jimbno1 (Apr 14, 2008)

Cool I will check back with you guys. Per WinISD at 60 Hz there is 10.13 ms group delay and the phase shift is 180 deg. At 250 Hz it drops to .42 ms and 37 Deg. I see this could be a problem. But I would expect home speakers suffer from these same kind of problems.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> But I would expect home speakers suffer from these same kind of problems.


But typically in home speakers it is the lowest range speaker that is ported. This eliminates the integration issue (until you add a home sub to the mix).


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

I did alot of research on this when putting in my JBL midbasses (2204's) in my car. On Langsing Heritage, the closest thing to a JBL Pro Audio website that there is, they run 12 and 15" midbasses ported as a matter of practice. From what I have read on group delay there doesn't seem to be a solid agreement as to how much is acceptable. At lower frequencies more group delay is allowable. But I am certainly not an expert on this.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

I think you can match the subs TA/phase to it and be ok, IMO FR is more important but that is just me. Not sure at 60Hz even it is that big a deal.

There are threads on here about ported mids/midbass for sure, how you find them I'm not sure lol.

I plan to do IB midbass and not have this issue or an enclosure lol, but its because of depth.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

BANDPASS THAT ****  

Kelvin


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Don't worry about group delay because of the port. You'll do all the real integration with the EQ, crossover and time alignment anyway. If you have enough power and EQ, there's really no need to use the port. Just change the Q of the crossover (HP) or add the bump with the EQ to fill in the rolloff. Just as valid as the port and easier to fine tune.

Sorry, you sent me a PM on this and I got sidetracked halfway through my response and then SOMEONE unplugged my PC. Damn Basset Hounds...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I'm trying a port on my center midbass...just cause I want more output down low and can't fit a much larger driver.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

AAAAAAA said:


> Working on ported kicks to, I think it wil rule.


Crazy idea!



jimbno1 said:


> Cool I will check back with you guys. Per WinISD at 60 Hz there is 10.13 ms group delay and the phase shift is 180 deg. At 250 Hz it drops to .42 ms and 37 Deg. I see this could be a problem. But I would expect home speakers suffer from these same kind of problems.


No, they do not. 

Ported works very well for home systems because these speaker cabinets with 6.5" or 8" drivers can use the help in the 30-60 hz range, and the enclosure sizes are large enough to ensure smooth response and efficiency. 

I think the bad rep ported gets for being "slow" or "boomy" is all of the car audio sub enclosures that are just too small. 90% of a ported 10 or 12 in a car is smaller than a home audio enclosure with an 8" woofer. 

Ported, horn loaded and similar type designs work well in home. And none of them need infrasonic filters to prevent the woofers from unloading. 



SSSnake said:


> But typically in home speakers it is the lowest range speaker that is ported. This eliminates the integration issue (until you add a home sub to the mix).


Lowest range speaker? As in cheapest?

Sure you see that, but you also see ported in expensive setups too. In fact, I don't think I've seen too many sealed designs except for small studio monitors/bookshelves were low frequency extension is understood to be compromised or where the woofer was larger than normal (~12" - 15"). 

Adding a home sub should be avoided in most cases. For the home audio hi-fi experience, especially the "audiophile" music I hear at these meets, it is completely unnecessary. 



subwoofery said:


> BANDPASS THAT ****
> 
> Kelvin


Finally, the right idea in this thread. 

Ok, here's my problem with ported midbasses in cars:

Where are you going to put them?

I've joined that exclusive club a few years back of those that have attempted sealed enclosures for midbasses. I had an enclosure probably around 0.3 - 0.4 cubic foot for a Morel Elate 6.5", and it was too small. Sure that's what a "low Qts" driver would want, but the reality is that all the low end extension of a big car door is gone....the rich harmonics that is. 

It sounded tinny to me, sort of like crossing a woofer over at 100 hz instead of 60. If you happen to LIKE that sound, then by all means build a sealed enclosure for the woofer. You'll get a nice hump and get even more detail....

However, if you don't, bad idea. And as such I learned an expensive lesson.

As far as porting, I'm not sure how big an enclosure you will need but I'd imagine you'd want a nice size....I've seen some crazy pics of installs of a rebuilt door that was essentially all MDF. Perhaps something like that could work, but how many on here are ready to go through that level of effort?

I doubt that you can do that sorta thing in the kicks. So where is this gonna go?

I think if you could build a sealed enclosure in a car door about 2 cubic feet or so then maybe the conversation can begin. To simplify the bass reflex concept, I would go with a passive radiator mounted on the same plane as the woofer. Assuming the PR on the same plane would work, then this seems a lot easier to tune and get right than a tube.

Also in order to reduce enclosure size, I'd probably go to a 5.25" woofer over a 6.5". 

But at the end of the day, you go through this herculean effort to make it work and it works great, let's say. However, the SPL and bass is still going to be less than two woofers IB. 

Maybe the bass reflex is better in eliminating rattles or what not. But I gotta tell ya, my sealed enclosure wasn't perfect either. I don't think there is such a thing in car audio.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I wanted a lot more low end from the speakers I am using like in a home application, I would double the enclosure size and tune much lower.

However for the range I am playing the speakers, I can get away with a smaller enclosure tuned higher. This current enclosure I am working on has 4dB more output between 60 and 100 hertz over sealed...even with a 4th order filter high pass applied.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The group delay of the crossover will probably have more of an impact on the total group delay of the signal than sealed or ported would.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I wanted a lot more low end from the speakers I am using like in a home application, I would double the enclosure size and tune much lower.
> 
> However for the range I am playing the speakers, I can get away with a smaller enclosure tuned higher. This current enclosure I am working on has 4dB more output between 60 and 100 hertz over sealed...even with a 4th order filter high pass applied.


Which driver you want to port in the center? X57? Do you have specs so I can try to model it too? Thanks 

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

SDX7. Optimum ported is like half a cube tuned to 35. I'm at .25 cubes tuned to 45.

I have the T/S for the xS65, which is pretty similar to the xS57. I was going to send Erin the xS57 I have to be Klippel tested.

I have modeled the xS65 before...it was a tiny ported enclosure because of it having a pretty low Q. Something like .15 cubes tuned to 90.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Jimbo, I would decrease your port size to 2". There isn't any need to run almost a 3" port on a 6" speaker. I am going with a 1.5" port on mine.


----------



## Hertz5400LincolnLS (Mar 29, 2010)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the use of a passive radiator or aperiodic membrane. More difficult to tune, but I suspect it would be easier to build.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Nope on both.

A PR would have to remain vertical, you can't lay it down...and if you have the surface area for a drone cone, you would be better off using an active speaker. PRs make sense for subwoofers, not so much midbasses since you don't need or want to tune them super low.

And AP would have to be vented to another space. Not to mention tuning the AP mat takes either time to do it the old fashioned way or money to use a WT3. Generally AP systems have less output than sealed.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> SDX7. Optimum ported is like half a cube tuned to 35. I'm at .25 cubes tuned to 45.
> 
> I have the T/S for the xS65, which is pretty similar to the xS57. I was going to send Erin the xS57 I have to be Klippel tested.
> 
> I have modeled the xS65 before...it was a tiny ported enclosure because of it having a pretty low Q. Something like .15 cubes tuned to 90.


I like the group delay of a the SDX7 in a 0.4cuft tuned to 40Hz (2" round 11.71" long) HP set to 50Hz 12dB/oct slope 
The XS doesn't look too good ported coz it asks for a really small enclosure (0.07cuft) tuned high (80Hz-90Hz)... 

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Ported FTW...but I don't know by how much though.

I think it would win more using really low XO points on the bottom end with shallower slopes or no XO on the bottom end. With a sane XO point I think the benefits would go away.

Was a neat experiment where I had a known volume to work with and a driver that would work really well in that space. I don't know if I would do it over though.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Ported FTW...but I don't know by how much though.
> 
> I think it would win more using really low XO points on the bottom end with shallower slopes or no XO on the bottom end. With a sane XO point I think the benefits would go away.
> 
> Was a neat experiment where I had a known volume to work with and a driver that would work really well in that space. I don't know if I would do it over though.


With a large enough enclosure, you can eliminate the need for the infrasonic filter or at the very least cross over very low.

I don't see how half a cube is gonna do it. 

Where do you intend to put the enclosure?


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I wanted a lot more low end from the speakers I am using like in a home application, I would double the enclosure size and tune much lower.
> 
> However for the range I am playing the speakers, I can get away with a smaller enclosure tuned higher. This current enclosure I am working on has 4dB more output between 60 and 100 hertz over sealed...even with a 4th order filter high pass applied.


You see the issue isn't so much needing a lot of low end, but being able to get response to those frequencies and the rich harmonics they produce. 

It's nice to get the bump in 60-100 hz, but if the response falls off below that faster than a regular IB setup you run the risk of losing a full, robust sound. I saw what a small sealed enclosure did....it gives you a little bump but you lose a lot of low end. 

If you can find a way to preserve those fundamentals and boost output in the upper bass region go ahead. But I don't think that will be possible in a small enclosure, IMHO.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

FG79 said:


> You see the issue isn't so much needing a lot of low end, but being able to get response to those frequencies and the rich harmonics they produce.
> 
> It's nice to get the bump in 60-100 hz, but if the response falls off below that faster than a regular IB setup you run the risk of losing a full, robust sound. I saw what a small sealed enclosure did....it gives you a little bump but you lose a lot of low end.
> 
> If you can find a way to preserve those fundamentals and boost output in the upper bass region go ahead. But I don't think that will be possible in a small enclosure, IMHO.


Exactly my thoughts as well. Realistically you would need something along the lines of an "ABC" style enclosure, but then the size becomes a problem!!!


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Luckily mine didn't do that. The ported doesn't roll off faster until about 30 hertz where both meet. And by that point both are 16 dB down before crossover.

With the crossover in place, both enclosures have the same response shape...just the ported has about 3-4 dB extra output under the curve.


----------



## bginvestor (Jan 13, 2008)

FG79 said:


> It sounded tinny to me, sort of like crossing a woofer over at 100 hz instead of 60. If you happen to LIKE that sound, then by all means build a sealed enclosure for the woofer. You'll get a nice hump and get even more detail....


Yup , those sealed enclosures have much higher F3 values.. The compromise is better transient response..


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Luckily mine didn't do that. The ported doesn't roll off faster until about 30 hertz where both meet. And by that point both are 16 dB down before crossover.
> 
> With the crossover in place, both enclosures have the same response shape...just the ported has about 3-4 dB extra output under the curve.


If it does all of that then it is a win in my book. 

Could you send pics and/or describe the enclosure in more detail?

Not doubting you, just want to see more.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

If I ever get to that project I plan on 10" flat subs for midbass. Why, well I would have low xmax and they have a fairly good FR down to 50Hz. I plan to run them low, under 200Hz and a 4" mid. Install is problematic, but I don't have to have the entire cone exposed since it is really a woofer not a mid. The idea is not tons of output but a better native FR in an IB install, more efficient, low xmax means low distortion, should be reasonably low power no more than 100w each at most. Will have to put the 4" in an enclosure but at 200Hz and up it should be very small. An 8" might work but the FR on ones I could find is not as good, not near the choice in drivers either since I need about 3" depth for this and there are lots of flat 10s...its only another inch in each side lol. Nobody seemed interested in a post I did on this, but I can't find much downside. If you can fit it in the door somehow it would not be any different install than something else. In fact the basket might make the door stronger lol.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> *If you have enough power and EQ, there's really no need to use the port.* Just change the Q of the crossover (HP) or add the bump with the EQ to fill in the rolloff. Just as valid as the port and easier to fine tune.


Wow, I didn't expect to see this one from Andy W (you tend to be a proponent of ported sub boxes because of increased efficiency and decreased excursion). Is there any reason that you are not a big fan of ported midbass as opposed to ported subs?



> Lowest range speaker? As in cheapest?
> 
> Sure you see that, but you also see ported in expensive setups too. In fact, I don't think I've seen too many sealed designs except for small studio monitors/bookshelves were low frequency extension is understood to be compromised or where the woofer was larger than normal (~12" - 15").
> 
> Adding a home sub should be avoided in most cases. For the home audio hi-fi experience, especially the "audiophile" music I hear at these meets, it is completely unnecessary.


Lowest range speaker as in lowest freq range speaker (not cheapest). I would completely disagree about the need for a home audio sub (as would some of the best minds out there - Geddes for one). You will get uneven subbas response in almost all in home listening rooms. Multiple subs can very definitely help to smooth this uneveness (IMO mains alone are not as effective in this area as you are fairly limited in placement choices to establishing your stereo imaging cues. Subs offer much greater placement options and therefore the potential to really smooth out that subbass response.)


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

IMO depends on what home speakers you have. Some of them can dig out 30Hz but a whole lot of them don't. I do like the idea of multiple subs for HT and auto. A friend of mine had four dual 12 sub boxes in his garage, with at least four full size home speakers, all in the corners of the room. Just him screwing off but the impact in the bass is great. I think he had a big old 5.1 and two 2ch amps for the boxes.


----------



## bginvestor (Jan 13, 2008)

sqshoestring said:


> If I ever get to that project I plan on 10" flat subs for midbass. Why, well I would have low xmax and they have a fairly good FR down to 50Hz. I plan to run them low, under 200Hz and a 4" mid. Install is problematic, but I don't have to have the entire cone exposed since it is really a woofer not a mid. The idea is not tons of output but a better native FR in an IB install, more efficient, low xmax means low distortion, should be reasonably low power no more than 100w each at most. Will have to put the 4" in an enclosure but at 200Hz and up it should be very small. An 8" might work but the FR on ones I could find is not as good, not near the choice in drivers either since I need about 3" depth for this and there are lots of flat 10s...its only another inch in each side lol. Nobody seemed interested in a post I did on this, but I can't find much downside. If you can fit it in the door somehow it would not be any different install than something else. In fact the basket might make the door stronger lol.


10's in the doors,huh?

You may enjoy this... How to Build an Audiophile Car Stereo System, part 7 - Competition Cars - Car Audio and Electronics


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Crazy install, very nice. But no way I am doing all that work in this car and not possible with its tiny doors. This will be stealth though I might move the tweets up to the pillars. I can fit the 4" in stock location and part of the 10, then cut hidden holes above the cubby there for more air flow. I wonder if it would matter if the 10 were inverted. Since I don't expect them to act like subs and moderate power level it might work out. I could actually fit a 10 easy in the rear but undecided what to do there would rather MB be in front first.


----------



## madhouse12 (Oct 13, 2011)

pardon my ignorance, but if the space in a ported midbass is an issue, can we not put them in the rear parcel shelf? or would that pull the stage too much to the back?


----------



## rawdawg (Apr 27, 2007)

Rear quarter panels.

Very nice thread here:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-advanced/74088-midbass-arrays-revisited.html


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> Wow, I didn't expect to see this one from Andy W (you tend to be a proponent of ported sub boxes because of increased efficiency and decreased excursion). Is there any reason that you are not a big fan of ported midbass as opposed to ported subs?


Because i'm also not a big fan of trying to make little midbass speakers play a bunch of low bass. Eliminating distortion is really the key and you'll have to have a huge port--well huge for a midbass--to make this work appropriately without a bunch of port noise. It's a trade-off, as are all things car audio. If your midbass speakers have long enough coils and you have enough power, EQing the response at the bottom of the midbass is so much easier. In addition, if the port is obstructed by a grille, it'll change your tuning frequency and make additional noise.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

madhouse12 said:


> pardon my ignorance, but if the space in a ported midbass is an issue, can we not put them in the rear parcel shelf? or would that pull the stage too much to the back?


Read that thread posted, what happens is you need a front to play it all then you can add midbass in the rear....but only if the front is playing it enough to sound like it is from the front. Another issue is some like to play the midbass high, into the midrange, then use a small mid like a 3 way would. That would be different than others who would add a midbass that only plays something like 500Hz at most and then down to the sub.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> Lowest range speaker as in lowest freq range speaker (not cheapest). I would completely disagree about the need for a home audio sub (as would some of the best minds out there - Geddes for one). You will get uneven subbas response in almost all in home listening rooms. Multiple subs can very definitely help to smooth this uneveness (IMO mains alone are not as effective in this area as you are fairly limited in placement choices to establishing your stereo imaging cues. Subs offer much greater placement options and therefore the potential to really smooth out that subbass response.)


We'll have to agree to disagree....if your mains can play low your job is done. I don't recall uneven subbass response in any of the hifi setups I've heard...maybe it's just the room.

As far as the real heart of the matter - how it sounds - subs are only really necessary if you want very high SPL listening of music that demands the low bass and your mains are not cutting it. 

You talk about uneven subbass without subs, but if you add subs to a regular 2 channel setup you're definitely affecting coherence and tonality. To be able to integrate it to audiophile standards is not easy. 



Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Because i'm also not a big fan of trying to make little midbass speakers play a bunch of low bass. Eliminating distortion is really the key and you'll have to have a huge port--well huge for a midbass--to make this work appropriately without a bunch of port noise. It's a trade-off, as are all things car audio. If your midbass speakers have long enough coils and you have enough power, EQing the response at the bottom of the midbass is so much easier. In addition, if the port is obstructed by a grille, it'll change your tuning frequency and make additional noise.


Agree that it's just easier to go IB with a good amp and door install. Going with two drivers would be even better if you really want the muscle.

However, what's your definition of low bass? I agree you do not need nor want a lot of SPL of 30 hz coming from your woofers. But I would say a low crossover point is very nice in making the sound richer and pulling the bass up front......if you can pull it off, between 40-60 hz would be great.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> Because i'm also not a big fan of trying to make little midbass speakers play a bunch of low bass.


Agreed completely with this statement. 6.5" minimum, 8" preferred



> Eliminating distortion is really the key


Agreed again, an increase in displacement helps here as well.



> and you'll have to have a huge port--well huge for a midbass--to make this work appropriately without a bunch of port noise.


I guess it depends upon where you are trying to tune the box. I am looking at around 80hz. If you go much lower things get pretty tough pretty quick. Even at this tuning freq I am worried about port noise and will be using precision ports. The other factor for this one is orientation of the port. If it is blowing on your ankles then your imaging is always going to pull to the near speaker. 

For me it should be worth the effort because I would prefer to go with HE speakers. 8" HE speakers aren't known for their deep bass extension. At this point the only other option would be going with some ridiculously expensive home audio drivers. Since I have the 8" HEs (B&C 8NDL51s) on hand I figure it is worth a shot even with the potential difficulties. Besides the best midbass I have ever had in a car came from a ported enclosure. The imaging sucked but the output was stellar.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Very likely I will run around a 50Hz LP if I get the 10s in the doors to work. The only issue is it is harder to use the sub level to control bass output, since it is kind of low to do that. What I really need is a bass knob on the HU, or 5 band EQ, etc., or resort to a PEQ after the HU above the MB and sub. Why do they make it so hard.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> You talk about uneven subbass without subs, but if you add subs to a regular 2 channel setup you're definitely affecting coherence and tonality. To be able to integrate it to audiophile standards is not easy.


TA and EQ help. If you don't have either than subs are a no go. However, I have never heard a high end setup that didn't have at least EQ to adjust for the listening environment (room treatments are the preferred method but these typically fall short in some respect).


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

FG79 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree....if your mains can play low your job is done. I don't recall uneven subbass response in any of the hifi setups I've heard...maybe it's just the room.
> 
> As far as the real heart of the matter - how it sounds - subs are only really necessary if you want very high SPL listening of music that demands the low bass and your mains are not cutting it.
> 
> ...


I can answer that one for Andy since he said it countless of times already... 
His definition of low bass depends on the midbass' FS figure. If the midbass has an FS of 30Hz, lowest he'll use would be 60Hz (x2) - FS of 40Hz, lowest would be 80Hz. That's how you minimize distorsion. 
The only driver that gets to play down to FS is the subwoofer coz there's no way around it... 
Using a lower Xover point is easier for upfront bass coz it minimizes rattles from the back - however, I prefer to let the bigger cone handle freqs up to 80Hz. Been using Andy's technique for a couple of years now and it works great... 

Kelvin


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

SSSnake said:


> TA and EQ help. If you don't have either than subs are a no go. However, I have never heard a high end setup that didn't have at least EQ to adjust for the listening environment (room treatments are the preferred method but these typically fall short in some respect).


I've heard many great systems without TA or EQ. The necessity of them in a car is far, far greater than in a home. 

A digital EQ for a digital setup....that could help. But you never want too much EQ as it takes away from dynamics.




subwoofery said:


> I can answer that one for Andy since he said it countless of times already...
> His definition of low bass depends on the midbass' FS figure. If the midbass has an FS of 30Hz, lowest he'll use would be 60Hz (x2) - FS of 40Hz, lowest would be 80Hz. That's how you minimize distorsion.
> The only driver that gets to play down to FS is the subwoofer coz there's no way around it...
> Using a lower Xover point is easier for upfront bass coz it minimizes rattles from the back - however, I prefer to let the bigger cone handle freqs up to 80Hz. Been using Andy's technique for a couple of years now and it works great...
> ...


I've been crossing low for years without a problem (50-60 hz, 12-18 dB/octave). I still don't get how this is such a big deal. Even when I had my PDX 4.150 with the Morel Elate woofer not mounted to the door metal I was using a 60 hz crossover point. And that was a lot worse than what I have now....all setups so far have been passive to boot. 

Yes, you can play louder with a 100 hz crossover point than a 50 hz crossover point but it's so much thinner sounding that I'd rather quit an aftermarket setup and just go back to stock. I really don't like anything over 70 hz to be honest, it becomes noticeable pretty quickly. 

This is without EQ....I'm talking strictly setting crossover points without some sort of compensation on the low end. Maybe there's some EQ magic I don't know about to fix it, but I've equated the high crossover point sound to a woofer in a small sealed box.

It's also harder to blend the subs with the mids at higher crossover points, as well as achieving the bass up front image. 

There's an incredible richness to running a woofer full range. Unfortunately you can't really blast a system too loud in that scenario, but if there was a way to do a proper ported or horn loaded enclosure for the midbasses full range, the system would be sweet.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

FG79 said:


> I've heard many great systems without TA or EQ. The necessity of them in a car is far, far greater than in a home.
> 
> A digital EQ for a digital setup....that could help. But you never want too much EQ as it takes away from dynamics.
> 
> ...


Am just the messenger here  

I do feel that it's easier to cross your sub low in order to have an upfront bass feeling yet I still prefer Xing higher. 
It actually depends on the vehicle too... Some have a suckout around 70Hz, I have don't have a suckout until about 90Hz so I can cross my sub higher than most without any problem... 

In my girlfriend's car, I'm Xing my mids (2-way horn) even higher @ 100Hz 12dB/oct and find that it gives me a much better sound than Xing lower... Midrange is less "fuzzy" that way too and I can play my system louder than I can listen and still follows the horns' dynamics... 
Xover+EQ+T/A gets me a better upfront bass than my own car. Sub is 63Hz 12dB/oct slope BTW. 
Planning a subwoofer in the kick panels as my next project  

I'm pretty sure some cars can reproduce accurate kick drums with a midbass crossed lower (50Hz) but I'd rather leave that to the bigger cone (subwoofer) since the bottom/punch is between 50Hz and 100Hz... 

Kelvin


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Using MS8, I could xover my fronts at 80hz and it was all pure upfront bass, better then without MS8 and 10's without high pass in my doors ha!

Clearly, one doesn't need the low to come from the front for them to sound like they are coming from up front.


----------



## FG79 (Jun 30, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Am just the messenger here
> 
> I do feel that it's easier to cross your sub low in order to have an upfront bass feeling yet I still prefer Xing higher.
> It actually depends on the vehicle too... Some have a suckout around 70Hz, I have don't have a suckout until about 90Hz so I can cross my sub higher than most without any problem...
> ...


Subs going high, like 80-100 hz is fine and preferable in a number of cases...I agree with that. 

What I find most fascinating about all of this crossover tuning is that with the right recording, your midbass will be fine crossed over high, low, or full range. It's the garbage recordings that screw everything up....and there are many of them out there.

Your girlfriend has horns in her car?? Really??

Haha....great stuff.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

FG79 said:


> Subs going high, like 80-100 hz is fine and preferable in a number of cases...I agree with that.
> 
> What I find most fascinating about all of this crossover tuning is that with the right recording, your midbass will be fine crossed over high, low, or full range. It's the garbage recordings that screw everything up....and there are many of them out there. Agreed here...
> 
> ...


Kelvin


----------

