I've recently returned to the car audio scene and am seeking some advice.
A few months back I decided to install and modest 2 way active front stage in my E55. I have been listening and feel the need to add a sub to reinforce the low end. In the past I have owned a few different subs, but most of the companies I've dealt with are no longer in business. One of the drivers that has come to mind is the W6. I've owned one before and love the sound. I can find one within my budget and I could easily fit an enclosure for the 12" or 13.5". However, I would love to hear any other recommendations that you think would fit the bill. I'm looking for something similar to the W6. If Adire were still around I'd be looking into a Brahma.
I'm looking for an excellent sound quality driver. Is the W6 still one of the best low distortion high excursion drivers around or have things changed while I've been away?
A few months back I decided to install and modest 2 way active front stage in my E55. I have been listening and feel the need to add a sub to reinforce the low end. In the past I have owned a few different subs, but most of the companies I've dealt with are no longer in business. One of the drivers that has come to mind is the W6. I've owned one before and love the sound. I can find one within my budget and I could easily fit an enclosure for the 12" or 13.5". However, I would love to hear any other recommendations that you think would fit the bill. I'm looking for something similar to the W6. If Adire were still around I'd be looking into a Brahma.
I'm looking for an excellent sound quality driver. Is the W6 still one of the best low distortion high excursion drivers around or have things changed while I've been away?
lol, not many takers here!
Try two cheaper subs isobarically mounted and you'll be surprised by the results: lower distortion, smaller box volume, better extension.
For something different Alpine's new Type R 8" are getting rave reviews and work out of tiny boxes-remove the glovebox and fit one up-front
Otherwise go for something IB in the shelf if you're looking for SQ and a challenge installing.
Try two cheaper subs isobarically mounted and you'll be surprised by the results: lower distortion, smaller box volume, better extension.
For something different Alpine's new Type R 8" are getting rave reviews and work out of tiny boxes-remove the glovebox and fit one up-front
Otherwise go for something IB in the shelf if you're looking for SQ and a challenge installing.
I wish I could install an IB setup, but would rather avoid the modifications necessary. I was planning on just going sealed. I have my mids crossed down to 40Hz and just need something to handle the bottom end. So, I don't need gobs of output just something to handle that bottom end. Something like a Soundsplinter Rl-i would fit the bill nicely, but sadly it seems as though they've had to shut their doors. This isn't a car audio forum, I realize this, but was hoping someone who appreciated sound quality could help me out. 
Kicker L5? Kickers have always seemed to have good low extension in sealed boxes.
Me personally, I'd cross the mids at 80Hz after installing a sub. Then you can crank them a bit more.
Isobaric doesn't affect low extension and actually increases distortion in cone to cone or magnet to magnet mounting because their behavior becomes non-symmetrical. It also requires twice the subs and twice the power output in a half volume box what one sub would do in a full size box. With the addition of the isobaric chamber the box volume is actually never half and is almost never useful unless you have two sentimental subs you want to put into a small space.
Me personally, I'd cross the mids at 80Hz after installing a sub. Then you can crank them a bit more.
Isobaric doesn't affect low extension and actually increases distortion in cone to cone or magnet to magnet mounting because their behavior becomes non-symmetrical. It also requires twice the subs and twice the power output in a half volume box what one sub would do in a full size box. With the addition of the isobaric chamber the box volume is actually never half and is almost never useful unless you have two sentimental subs you want to put into a small space.
I may increase the xo slightly, but in general I find it beneficial to keep as much sound up front as possible . Any thoughts on a TC Sounds Epic 10? I've modeled it along with a Dayton Titanic and am liking the responses out of both of them. Prices are inline with each other too. The TC might be the ticket as it's strikingly similar to the RL-i line.
. Any thoughts on a TC Sounds Epic 10? I've modeled it along with a Dayton Titanic and am liking the responses out of both of them. Prices are inline with each other too. The TC might be the ticket as it's strikingly similar to the RL-i line.The TC stuff gets good reviews and they OEM loads for other manufactures, the Dayton stuff consistantly gets good press-check diyma for more info on either.
RE the isobaric-extension is increased if box volume is maintained from a single sub arrangement, there are quite a few people who'd disagree about the lack of reduced distortion M4ick talks of. I'd agree that mag/mag or cone/mag mounting won't reduce box volume loads, but can still see a chunk taken off it.
RE the isobaric-extension is increased if box volume is maintained from a single sub arrangement, there are quite a few people who'd disagree about the lack of reduced distortion M4ick talks of. I'd agree that mag/mag or cone/mag mounting won't reduce box volume loads, but can still see a chunk taken off it.
Last edited:
Check out the Polk Audio MM line of subs. In 10" and larger, they have 1" Max excursion one-way and are designed for quality over quantity. You should be able to get two Polk Audios for the cost of a single W6. W7 is JL's top line these years but in a 12" you are looking at about $350-$450. I think the Polks can be had for ~$120 each.
Then again, the JL 13" w6 is a flat piston woofer. Try Pioneer iBFlats also.
Then again, the JL 13" w6 is a flat piston woofer. Try Pioneer iBFlats also.
Last edited:
I accept it's not perfect, but it does reduce distortion overall in my and many other's opinions. This isn't particulary scientific but it does show a clear drop in distortion from conventional to isobaric mounting-ok these aren't clamshelled or tuneled-but the drop in distortion is evident:
Taken from DIYMA, http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...121064-search-bass-car-not-much-space-4.html:
"This thread got forcefully derailed at about page 3, but I'll try to pull it back on-topic. I spent a few hours taking THD measurements with HolmImpulse today. I'm by no means an expert in this, and will likely didn't do everything perfect, but the data I ended up with seems to be within reason.
Frequency response, with 1/3 octave smoothing:
Boomy, as expected for a small sealed enclosure. I will be low-passing them somewhere around 60-100 Hz, a subsonic filter at 25 Hz, and applying equalization as needed.
Distortion:
THD plot taken with two out of four SWR's playing in the 0.3 sealed box. This was done in my garage with a 60 amp 13.8 VDC power supply, with the doors open and garage door open in an attempt to eliminate room transfer function. Notice the second harmonic distortion that starts getting bad at 40 Hz.
Distortion, when converted from dB to %, is approximately:
17% at 20 Hz
17% at 30 Hz
10% at 40 Hz
3% at 50 Hz
0.5% at 100 Hz
Legend is as follows:
Black is total THD
Red is the 2nd harmonic
Orange is the 3rd harmonic
Yellow is the 4th harmonic
Green is the 5th harmonic
Blue is the 6th harmonic
Gray is what HolmImpulse calls "Noise" under the THD drop-down box
At the advice of Brian Steele, I flipped the second sub around and re-measured:
Using this method seems to give a 12% decrease in THD at 30 Hz, and almost 7% decrease at 40 Hz. It didn't help much at 20 Hz, however.
17% at 20 Hz
5% at 30 Hz
3% at 40 Hz
1% at 50 Hz
0.5% at 100 Hz
The distortion on the low end is actually slightly better than shown above, as the ECM8000 itself exhibits around 3% THD at 30 Hz, 115 dB SPL. The only way around this is to keep the volume down and try to manage the background noise, or buying a nicer (i.e. expensive) reference mic, likely in the 3-4 figure range. I definitely won't be trying the latter any time soon."
Also this guy went to a lot of effort to make something that doesn't work? http://www.whitledgedesigns.com/Whitledge_Designs/Audio_System_Photos/Pages/Subwoofer.html and has "the worlds best car stereo" according to "the abso!ute sound"
Taken from DIYMA, http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...121064-search-bass-car-not-much-space-4.html:
"This thread got forcefully derailed at about page 3, but I'll try to pull it back on-topic. I spent a few hours taking THD measurements with HolmImpulse today. I'm by no means an expert in this, and will likely didn't do everything perfect, but the data I ended up with seems to be within reason.
Frequency response, with 1/3 octave smoothing:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.
Boomy, as expected for a small sealed enclosure. I will be low-passing them somewhere around 60-100 Hz, a subsonic filter at 25 Hz, and applying equalization as needed.
Distortion:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.
THD plot taken with two out of four SWR's playing in the 0.3 sealed box. This was done in my garage with a 60 amp 13.8 VDC power supply, with the doors open and garage door open in an attempt to eliminate room transfer function. Notice the second harmonic distortion that starts getting bad at 40 Hz.
Distortion, when converted from dB to %, is approximately:
17% at 20 Hz
17% at 30 Hz
10% at 40 Hz
3% at 50 Hz
0.5% at 100 Hz
Legend is as follows:
Black is total THD
Red is the 2nd harmonic
Orange is the 3rd harmonic
Yellow is the 4th harmonic
Green is the 5th harmonic
Blue is the 6th harmonic
Gray is what HolmImpulse calls "Noise" under the THD drop-down box
At the advice of Brian Steele, I flipped the second sub around and re-measured:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.
Using this method seems to give a 12% decrease in THD at 30 Hz, and almost 7% decrease at 40 Hz. It didn't help much at 20 Hz, however.
17% at 20 Hz
5% at 30 Hz
3% at 40 Hz
1% at 50 Hz
0.5% at 100 Hz
The distortion on the low end is actually slightly better than shown above, as the ECM8000 itself exhibits around 3% THD at 30 Hz, 115 dB SPL. The only way around this is to keep the volume down and try to manage the background noise, or buying a nicer (i.e. expensive) reference mic, likely in the 3-4 figure range. I definitely won't be trying the latter any time soon."
Also this guy went to a lot of effort to make something that doesn't work? http://www.whitledgedesigns.com/Whitledge_Designs/Audio_System_Photos/Pages/Subwoofer.html and has "the worlds best car stereo" according to "the abso!ute sound"
Last edited:
That does not appear to be isobaric. It looks like they are putting the subs in a push-pull configuration where the output of the out of phase subwoofers is summed which is known to reduce distortion. That effect does not occur in isobaric setups. Obviously the subs are connected to the amplifier out of phase as well.
This compares the two setups:
Isobaric
This compares the two setups:
Isobaric
It's not and that's my point-the subs do not share a common chamber and the enclosure was built so each chamber had the same volume with the drivers conventially mounted-so the volume of the box with the inverted driver is 0.035cf larger than the the enclosure with the sub mounted normally-which breaks the "fundemental truth" in the theory of the page you link to:
"This is fundamentally true and can be realized for dipole or infinite baffle woofers, and other woofer systems provided the air mass load on both sides of the woofers is identical"
In the post above there has been some reduction in harmonics, not complete cancelation-but I'd hazzard that the +10% increase in box volume for the inverted driver would have more negative effect than the small volume of air between the two drivers should they be clamshell mounted.
The page you link to is interesting and I have read it previously but is based on theory and not practical experience. 1000s of car audio and home audio users, as well as manufacturers, will have tried clamshell mounting a pair of their drivers and experienced less distortion for themselves-surely this cannot all be psychoacoustics.
I've pm'd the OP from the thread I linked to in the hope he will actually make some measurements of the drivers clamshelled and clear this up a bit
"This is fundamentally true and can be realized for dipole or infinite baffle woofers, and other woofer systems provided the air mass load on both sides of the woofers is identical"
In the post above there has been some reduction in harmonics, not complete cancelation-but I'd hazzard that the +10% increase in box volume for the inverted driver would have more negative effect than the small volume of air between the two drivers should they be clamshell mounted.
The page you link to is interesting and I have read it previously but is based on theory and not practical experience. 1000s of car audio and home audio users, as well as manufacturers, will have tried clamshell mounting a pair of their drivers and experienced less distortion for themselves-surely this cannot all be psychoacoustics.
I've pm'd the OP from the thread I linked to in the hope he will actually make some measurements of the drivers clamshelled and clear this up a bit
Last edited:
When did we go from whether isobaric increases or decreases distortion to clamshell and push pull setups? I never mentioned clamshell or made any claim about its affects on distortion.
I simply argued that isobaric increases distortion, then you post a push-pull setup. I argued the difference between the two, now suddenly we're on clamshell configurations. Your last post seems to imply that I claim clamshell doesn't reduce distortion, I NEVER MENTIONED CLAMSHELL. Oh well, my argument has been made. This is a subject for another thread, my apologies to the OP.
I simply argued that isobaric increases distortion, then you post a push-pull setup. I argued the difference between the two, now suddenly we're on clamshell configurations. Your last post seems to imply that I claim clamshell doesn't reduce distortion, I NEVER MENTIONED CLAMSHELL. Oh well, my argument has been made. This is a subject for another thread, my apologies to the OP.
Sorry, must have misunderstood when you said this:
Is cone to cone not clamshell? Is it not isobaric?
I posted the push-pull becuase there were distortion plots available and they clearly showed a reduction in harmonics depsite the differing enclosure volumes-something which the page you linked to with regard to isobarics not reducing distortion says shouldn't happen. I was trying to illustrate that the page you linked to may not be correct and that the theory may be flawed and back up mine and the general concensus' opinion that isobarics reduce distortion-not raise it as you state.
Cone to cone is a vague description of how the subs are mounted, is not an enclosure type, and does not imply clamshell. Clamshell does not imply isobaric, although you could build an isobaric clamshell.
You say you were trying to illustrate in post 11 that the page I linked to in post 12 may not be correct and that the theory may be flawed. You posted that push pull setup BEFORE I posted that page, even though we were talking about isobaric and not push pull. If you posted that in the past to show that my future link was wrong then I am utterly blown away. If we reversed posts 11 and 12 this would be true and it would be me who is changing the subject from one type of enclosure to another.
Also, the sites claim that the lower distortion is realized so long as the same air load is applied to both subs would be correct. That doesn't mean lower distortion can't be realized with slightly different sized boxes (differing only by the displacement of the sub) reconfigured to push pull, it just means it would be best if they were the same. If the same push pull setup were done with something in the box to take up the additional airspace, the distortion should be further reduced, making the claims in both posts 11 and 12 valid.
You say you were trying to illustrate in post 11 that the page I linked to in post 12 may not be correct and that the theory may be flawed. You posted that push pull setup BEFORE I posted that page, even though we were talking about isobaric and not push pull. If you posted that in the past to show that my future link was wrong then I am utterly blown away. If we reversed posts 11 and 12 this would be true and it would be me who is changing the subject from one type of enclosure to another.
Also, the sites claim that the lower distortion is realized so long as the same air load is applied to both subs would be correct. That doesn't mean lower distortion can't be realized with slightly different sized boxes (differing only by the displacement of the sub) reconfigured to push pull, it just means it would be best if they were the same. If the same push pull setup were done with something in the box to take up the additional airspace, the distortion should be further reduced, making the claims in both posts 11 and 12 valid.
Last edited:
Also, the "fundamental truth" actually doesn't apply to that experiment. They are talking about the air load being the same on BOTH sides (front air load the same as rear air load of the same sub), not the difference in box volume. That claim doesn't apply in sealed, just dipole and IB.
It then goes on to talk about boxed configurations.
It then goes on to talk about boxed configurations.
Hi M4ick,
I'm not trying to pick a fight, be a d!ck or what have you-I'm trying to understand how your claim and the claims on the linked sites are true. If it came across like that I'm sorry-it was not my intent-I'm here to learn (doing lots of that) and "teach" with what I know (doing less of this)
How so? To me cone to cone would imply a clamshell-what else could be achieved by mounting the drivers cone to cone?
lol-my mistake-I re-edited the post several times and by the looks of it got myself confudeled-was refering to post 10 I originally mentioned isobaric, clamshell/tunnel doesn't matter to me, the push-pull setup was to illustrate that differing conditions for each driver did not preclude the setup from acheiving reduced distortion as said in the wiki link.
Then surely it would reduce distortion in a clamshell or tunneled isobaric too-as the stated reason that they do not work is the differing air load on the two drivers creating non-linerarities. Any compression of the air within the tunnel/clamshell would surely translate as differing air load?
Totally agree here, again if you can back up any of this with actual results over theory I'd love to see them-as we're all well aware even the best simulations do not represent real life-they may give us a view of what could happen-but not always a clear one.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, be a d!ck or what have you-I'm trying to understand how your claim and the claims on the linked sites are true. If it came across like that I'm sorry-it was not my intent-I'm here to learn (doing lots of that) and "teach" with what I know (doing less of this)
How so? To me cone to cone would imply a clamshell-what else could be achieved by mounting the drivers cone to cone?
lol-my mistake-I re-edited the post several times and by the looks of it got myself confudeled-was refering to post 10
I originally mentioned isobaric, clamshell/tunnel doesn't matter to me, the push-pull setup was to illustrate that differing conditions for each driver did not preclude the setup from acheiving reduced distortion as said in the wiki link.Then surely it would reduce distortion in a clamshell or tunneled isobaric too-as the stated reason that they do not work is the differing air load on the two drivers creating non-linerarities. Any compression of the air within the tunnel/clamshell would surely translate as differing air load?
Totally agree here, again if you can back up any of this with actual results over theory I'd love to see them-as we're all well aware even the best simulations do not represent real life-they may give us a view of what could happen-but not always a clear one.
Let's say each enclosure in the clamshell is 3cu ft. That's a total of 6 cu ft together. Let's say it does 130dB.
The isobaric box would operate with the enclosure size being half of each in the clamshell (1.5cu ft), but on the same power would produce 3dB less than the clamshell (127dB). Essentially you would have the output that 1 of the subs has in the clamshell, but with 2 subs in an almost half sized box with twice the power requirements to achieve the same SPL. So twice the subs, twice the power, to save ALMOST half the space and get the same output as 1 sub.
The isobaric box would operate with the enclosure size being half of each in the clamshell (1.5cu ft), but on the same power would produce 3dB less than the clamshell (127dB). Essentially you would have the output that 1 of the subs has in the clamshell, but with 2 subs in an almost half sized box with twice the power requirements to achieve the same SPL. So twice the subs, twice the power, to save ALMOST half the space and get the same output as 1 sub.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.