tang band mini subs

[cheebs]

ok i have a 97 e320. it has two 6.5 subs and holes for two more(i have no idea why) i think the trunk is small and i would like to try and use the holes with some better subs(4). i have some other subs if this fails. i want as much of the bass i get in the cabin. (sarasota fl has just pass a law allowing cops to inpound your car for music being too loud no bull!!) so i'm not looking for king kong in the trunk bass. so i was thinking 4 tang bands or 6w0. if i had to i could even build a box under the subs under the rear deck. any advice?

[tsmith1315]

With 6's, you'd definitely get better perfomance with a box underneath the woofers. The issue with most Benz's is that the gas tank is usually underneath the rear deck behind the seat, making enclosures more difficult to integrate.

The Tang Band 6's are neat and very tempting, but efficiency is low. It would certainly be better to use 4 of them, and there are probably more forgiving choices for upgrades than the Tang Bands.

Is the rear deck perforated above the extra holes, or can you manage to get an extra pair to blend cosmetically with the existing speakers?

[shagone]

Those tang bands are known to work well free-air so your idea sounds reasonable. you may want to brace up the rear deck with some mdf or apply dynamat to it at least and then seal the trunk up as well as you can.

[cheebs]

Originally posted by tsmith1315
With 6's, you'd definitely get better perfomance with a box underneath the woofers. The issue with most Benz's is that the gas tank is usually underneath the rear deck behind the seat, making enclosures more difficult to integrate.

The Tang Band 6's are neat and very tempting, but efficiency is low. It would certainly be better to use 4 of them, and there are probably more forgiving choices for upgrades than the Tang Bands.

Is the rear deck perforated above the extra holes, or can you manage to get an extra pair to blend cosmetically with the existing speakers?

which ones? i have hheard about the elements designs and jl 6w0. jl has some new 6.5 subs but there 149$ a piece.

yes it has the same rear deck as the s class which has four subs.

Originally posted by shagone
Those tang bands are known to work well free-air so your idea sounds reasonable. you may want to brace up the rear deck with some mdf or apply dynamat to it at least and then seal the trunk up as well as you can.

the funny part is its sealed too well so it takes more power for a sub to punch thru. there is two and a half inches of foam under the rear deck

[shagone]

Same problem in my BMW e46 3 series, the trunk is a big time bass eater. I plan on running an ads 12" sub on a baffle board against the back of my seats flush mounted with a grill cover firing into the ski pass. i just need to get around to doing it.

over on the e46fanatic board they have had some success using the tang band subs as well as some others on the rear deck

[ppia600]

I would think if you used four of the tang bands and took the two stock ones out it would sound nice. They aren't expensive to try and since their enclosure size would be relatively large the efficiency of the overall setup for the frequency band you need would be decent.

[cheebs]

Originally posted by ppia600
I would think if you used four of the tang bands and took the two stock ones out it would sound nice. They aren't expensive to try and since their enclosure size would be relatively large the efficiency of the overall setup for the frequency band you need would be decent.

this is what i was thinking. i would run four of the tangs off my menphis belle amp. and a three way set up front. thanks for all your answers. i do have another ? whats better for a mid in a three way a dome or cone driver?

[tsmith1315]

ppia600;

I would think if you used four of the tang bands and took the two stock ones out it would sound nice.

I agree.

shagone:

Those tang bands are known to work well free-air so your idea sounds reasonable.

Certainly a reasonable idea, and I wouldn’t argue with known results.

My point being:
It’s always a good idea to hedge the bet in your favor. 83dB is low efficiency by any standard, the 6” cone doesn’t offer any leverage to overcome that, although the extended Xmax does.

BTW, I do like the TB's and would use them in a heartbeat in any situation that seemed appropriate.

cheebs:

which ones?

For example:

http://www.humanspeakers.com/diy/parts/007.htm

Derived from Epicure's 6-1/2", a stout performer.

Out of the box is 6dB more efficient than the TB.
The higher Qts and lower Fs will increase efficiency an additional 5 dB from 20 to 45 Hz, and is still an additional 3dB up at 60 Hz. Less xmax will not be as much of an issue with a 10dB increase in efficiency in the sub bass region.

Merely a suggestion, and car audio often proves wrong what is apparently logical.

[cheebs]

i more than likely will be going with the tangs but i wanted to hear what you thoughts on these. someone else told me about them. the only issue is i could only afford two (169$ each)

http://mobile.jlaudio.com/products_s...p?series_id=29

[tsmith1315]

i more than likely will be going with the tangs but i wanted to hear what you thoughts on these. someone else told me about them. the only issue is i could only afford two (169$ each)

In IB with the difference in efficiencies taken into account, the characteristic frequency response curves are nearly identical between this JL and the Tang Band, but the JL’s have less Xmax. Using 2 JL’s instead of 4 would put them behind the TB’s in terms of efficiency.

I’m sure they're good speakers, looks like they’d be a great (very) small box high power option. As in a 2-seater with no trunk, small pickup, front stage only, etc. 150W thermal power handling is pretty strong for a 6”, but I don’t see a great advantage in your situation.

i do have another ? whats better for a mid in a three way a dome or cone driver?

Domes tend to require a large amount of surface area for a given diameter when compared to cones. For example, TB’s 2” dome requires a slightly LARGER mounting surface area than their 4” cone with pincushion frame, and 1” more than the 3” cast frame. In addition, the larger cone drivers’ wider bandwidth offers much more flexibility in integration.

A grille to protect the fragile dome is also an issue in the auto environment. They protrude outwards much farther than cones. I think the installation considerations and the domes’ typically higher prices have prevented them from being used much in cars.

Opposing viewpoints welcome.