What Q box to match car room gain? - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Car Audio
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th June 2004, 09:00 PM   #11
S.C is offline S.C  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milpitas
Send a message via ICQ to S.C Send a message via AIM to S.C
Um..... That's what I did apparently. I think my factory 6 speakers on my 96 Civic coupe EX sound pretty good. Anyway I had never heard a real good one before. Does BMW 3-series factory speakers system consider good? My aunt had brought a 325 with everything included. If it is good then I can compare my car with her's. hehe
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2004, 05:20 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
tsmith1315's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Doerun, GA
Matttcattt wrote:

You wouldnt get a very infinite baffle in a car... Or do you mean mounted in the parcel shelf?
and richie00boy replied:

I think he means a sealed box. Which you would have no option but to use if you intend on using a Tempest in a Fiesta.
There are ALWAYS other options!

I meant using the entire trunk as the enclosure, however that comes about. In sedans, that means woofer in the parcel shelf or against the back seat. In hatchbacks, that means in the parcel shelf.
Either way, a solid baffle and adequate surrounding reinforcement is assumed. Still simpler and less trunk space lost compared to other systems.

As Matttcattt mentioned, it technically isn't always an IB situation. This would be unquestionable IB for the Tempest:

Tempest IB

However, trunks *can* easily be >4x the Vas of an average woofer, or pair of woofers. The Tempest has a rather large Vas, but the trunk of even a Fiesta is large enough not to raise the Qts appreciably. You're left with a nice, gradual rolloff.

No, it isn't a well-sealed enclosure. More lossy than an aperiodic even. But the fact remains they *do* often work well. I guess it seems like heresy to put so little effort and thought into installing such a nice woofer.

Never the less, I stand by my dozen+ years of practical experience as a professional installer, and restate that this type of install consistently returned better LF (below 40Hz) performance than other types. The only exception would be a couple of electronically assisted (poles shifted by Leach filter, like LT) systems done by friends. They both had great LF, so that would be perfectly consistent.

To put my money where my mouth is, I've done it in every install for myself and I'll most likely be doing it again in my current ongoing installation. Midbass will be sealed...

To get back on the original topic, I had better results interfacing large subs with LPF frequencies in the 40-60Hz range to avoid excitation associated with cabin gain.

  Reply With Quote


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
room gain? garymck Subwoofers 46 29th March 2010 12:51 PM
Speakers to match t-amp with room shaking capabilites possible? zester Multi-Way 0 11th May 2006 11:12 AM
trying to match gain on differnt amps jasonharris Solid State 1 20th May 2005 06:36 AM
Room gain Vikash Multi-Way 31 13th March 2004 10:10 AM
Room gain Raka Multi-Way 6 16th September 2003 08:13 AM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:24 AM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2