I think you'll be disappointed with that, only because of marginal gains from such a large enclosure. Your cars are smaller than ours.calum112 said:
If you have a trunk (or boot) you could build an aperiodic enclosure. It's basically the smallest possible sealed enclosure that vents through a mat. The vent does not play into the listening area.
It won't work with a hatchback, the vent needs to be isolated.
Many in the US use a section of yellow commercial insulation sandwiched between window screens to get the same effect that box purportedly has, but without the bulk. You need a driver whose Qts is less than 0.45 (the lower the better), and as much excursion capability as you're willing to pay for.
It's not a loud alignment by any means, but is the most accurate. Tuning is a major pain, you have to remove the mat and adjust the amount of material in it until you measure a flat impedance curve with a frequency sweep.
If you're still interested in trying it, here's a pictorial of one of the cleanest Aperiodic build ups I've seen, uses xtant subwoofers. His midbass up front also uses aperiodic mats.
calum112 said:
I can't see any real benefits of that design over simply making the box that big in the first place. It might get you a little more power handling in a smallish region above the vent tuning frequency, but this will be offset by the peaky response and shelving roll-off action.
Nothing more than a nasty boom box IMO.
I've tried a few different ported and sealed boxes and I do prefer sealed however trying an aperiodic enclosure is attractive. I've got a hatchback so if/when I get something where I can make one ten I'll give it a shot, IB will also be on the cards.beerman said:
You can tune it such that it acts like a large box for low frequencies and a small box at highs.richie00boy said:
I've yet to try it so cannot comment on output properly, two reviews I've read have both rated it very highly. On paper you can get it to have near enough the same response as a normal sealed enclosure however with exended reponse on the lower end. You do get a peak a bit above tuning however if you design t such that it's above 100Hz then it's not a problem.
All in all it doesn't hold anything over a ported box, on paper, but then neither does a normal sealed enclosure.
Worth a shot me thinks
.
I appreciate how it acts like different box sizes for different frequencies. What I'm getting at, is that is largely pointless.
The response will not be extended down below what a sealed box of the same size gives, nor will power handling be increased. And a bit higher up in frequency you get a peak that is not present with a sealed box of the same size. It all seems a bit pointless to my mind, then again I'd rather have SQ over boom.
The response will not be extended down below what a sealed box of the same size gives, nor will power handling be increased. And a bit higher up in frequency you get a peak that is not present with a sealed box of the same size. It all seems a bit pointless to my mind, then again I'd rather have SQ over boom.
Ah I see what you mean and I have to totally agree with you. I guess, as with all box designs, it's a trade-off.richie00boy said:
I personally like the response of a large sealed box and that of a small sealed box; any chance to have a bit of both is a bonus. I appreciate what you're saying about the peak though.
I can't really argue further than the above as I haven't tried it, when I do I'll try to remember to post a review, which ever way it falls
.My thoughts on that box:
It will result in added group delay, resulting in a bit of an "echo" effect with the lower frequencies, like a ported enclosure.
Considering your small European hatchback and your love of sealed enclosures, it might be to your benefit to manipulate the signal to the amplifier as opposed to manipulating the air mechanics at the woofer side. I would prefer a linkwitz transform circuit to make the sub sound bigger while maintaining the sound quality you prefer and maintain a usable trunk, er, I mean boot.
Then back the gain off on the amplifier, so the LT effectively attenuates the signal to the woofer at higher frequencies.
Then again, cabin gain (car interior/woofer interaction) will have a much larger effect on what finally arrives at your ear. It's why many car-specific woofers result in 55hz F3 when Qtc=0.7, most cars begin "gaining" at 12db/oct in the 50-60hz range. Making a subwoofer with flat response down to 20hz in a large room makes a sloppy sounding box in-car.
In a nutshell, just build a bigger box (Qtc=0.577) and deaden the heck out of your up-front midbass installation, make it reach down to 60hz without rattling or popping.
Leave that snake oil box alone.
It will result in added group delay, resulting in a bit of an "echo" effect with the lower frequencies, like a ported enclosure.
Considering your small European hatchback and your love of sealed enclosures, it might be to your benefit to manipulate the signal to the amplifier as opposed to manipulating the air mechanics at the woofer side. I would prefer a linkwitz transform circuit to make the sub sound bigger while maintaining the sound quality you prefer and maintain a usable trunk, er, I mean boot.
Then back the gain off on the amplifier, so the LT effectively attenuates the signal to the woofer at higher frequencies.
Then again, cabin gain (car interior/woofer interaction) will have a much larger effect on what finally arrives at your ear. It's why many car-specific woofers result in 55hz F3 when Qtc=0.7, most cars begin "gaining" at 12db/oct in the 50-60hz range. Making a subwoofer with flat response down to 20hz in a large room makes a sloppy sounding box in-car.
In a nutshell, just build a bigger box (Qtc=0.577) and deaden the heck out of your up-front midbass installation, make it reach down to 60hz without rattling or popping.
Leave that snake oil box alone.
That is a fair point. I do much prefer good midbass upfront with the LPF to the sub set low. Ahh soo many variables to play withbeerman said:My thoughts on that box:
It will result in added group delay, resulting in a bit of an "echo" effect with the lower frequencies, like a ported enclosure.
Considering your small European hatchback and your love of sealed enclosures, it might be to your benefit to manipulate the signal to the amplifier as opposed to manipulating the air mechanics at the woofer side. I would prefer a linkwitz transform circuit to make the sub sound bigger while maintaining the sound quality you prefer and maintain a usable trunk, er, I mean boot.
Then back the gain off on the amplifier, so the LT effectively attenuates the signal to the woofer at higher frequencies.
Then again, cabin gain (car interior/woofer interaction) will have a much larger effect on what finally arrives at your ear. It's why many car-specific woofers result in 55hz F3 when Qtc=0.7, most cars begin "gaining" at 12db/oct in the 50-60hz range. Making a subwoofer with flat response down to 20hz in a large room makes a sloppy sounding box in-car.
In a nutshell, just build a bigger box (Qtc=0.577) and deaden the heck out of your up-front midbass installation, make it reach down to 60hz without rattling or popping.
Leave that snake oil box alone.
From the sound of it you like a deep bass that is lean and tight, but also one that can be punchy. This kind of goes against each other.
My suggestion would be to build a (large) sealed box to get the lean and tight bit, then dial in a bit of punch with parametric EQ, and/or maybe a slightly peaking high-pass filter.
My suggestion would be to build a (large) sealed box to get the lean and tight bit, then dial in a bit of punch with parametric EQ, and/or maybe a slightly peaking high-pass filter.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.