Need WinISD help from Woofer Tester results! 8" In-Wall Coaxial to Sealed or Vented!

[CZ Eddie]

Folks, I need some help here.

I purchased some 8" Pioneer "TAD Inspired" in-wall coaxials.

Pioneer S-IW851-LR CST Series 8" In-Wall Speaker Pair

The seller was kind enough to test them on his "Woofer Tester" prior to
mailing them to me. This is so I can build two custom enclosures that will fit
into an A/V wall unit "cubby hole".
I've got a max of 2 cu.ft. for each coaxial available, but certainly don't NEED
to use that much space. But it's there if needed. These are the cubby hole
dimensions available.



Here are the parameters that I'm working with. I've tried to enter them into
WinISD, but I'm not having much luck. For example, WinISD auto-calculated
an FS of 40hz while the Woofer Tester says 55hz. HUGE difference.
This is what I came up with (horrible!):



Could someone help me come up with a proper WinISD file, or suggest an
enclosure design?

These 8" Coaxials will be used with a 25hz tuned 12" Subwoofer mounted
close by. This will be for home theater & pop music. Max SPL is the goal,
since these speakers are all undersized for the room size (IMO).

Here are the "Woofer Tester" parameters (crossover was bypassed):
***Open in NEW TAB to view in full size***

[Pano]

That's a pretty high Qts driver. Looks like sealed box would be best with plenty stuffing.
You could go into a 45L box (1.6 feet) and play down into the mid 30s. Not too shabby. Even as small as a cubic foot could work, tho it might be a bit boomy.
It will need plenty of power as the efficiency is low.

EDIT: Oops, I took the wrong Fs. Roll off would be about 50Hz in a 1.6ft box. Mid 80s efficiency.

[CZ Eddie]

Thanks for looking at it, Plano!
I do have 2.17 cu.ft. internal volume to work with. Do you think 1.6 cu^3 is better?

Naturally I prefer a vented enclosure for extra efficiency. But not at the expense of quite a bit of sound quality.

[CZ Eddie]

Originally Posted by CZ Eddie

I do have 2.17 cu.ft. internal volume to work with. Do you think 1.6 cu^3 is better?

Ehhh, WinISD says there is negligible difference between 1.6 and 2.17 cu^3 frequency response.
But 2.17 does appear to hit x-max quite a bit sooner. So 1.6 does look safer. At least when run without a 40hz high pass.

Which btw, high pass may end up being 80hz after Audyssey is done with it. I'd rather they be full-range capable though.


I just wish I could figure out how to transpose the figures to WinISD so the auto-fill in WinISD matches up all figures better.
This experience makes me feel the $100 WT3 from PartsExpress isn't worth the $100 if I can't get it to play nicely with WinISD.
And I've been LOOKING for an excuse to buy the WT3. But this isn't doing it for me.

[Pano]

If you have MS Excel, check out Unibox. It's very, very good. And Unibox agrees with you, better to stick with a well stuffed 1.6 foot box.

[CZ Eddie]

Gracias, Sir.

I have now finalized my enclosure design and will start the build this weekend!
Ignore the "unable to calculate" section in red. If I use 8 7/8 instead of the
8 5/8 I'll be using (necessary), it gets happy & applies a "green" to all fields.

[CZ Eddie]

Can anyone recommend a 20" x 22" x 1/8" rubber mat material to use underneath these enclosures to minimize vibration in the cubby holes from speaker enclosure that may be just a tad "wobbly"?
I was thinking of mouse pads.

With a 1/8" rubber mat, I'll still have 1/8" of free play in height left over in the cubby hole.

[CZ Eddie]

Btw, here's a build-in-progress of the 12" Lab 12 in a 25hz tuned enclosure for the third cubby hole in the wall a/v cabinet.





And now you see why I bought coaxials. Because of the HORRIBLE mounting
location for the speakers.

[Pano]

Hey, not so bad! It's a modern console stereo, that's all. A vertical model.
It is too bad you can't use the whole volume for the Coaxes. But I do think you'll be better off restricting them some.

You could fill some of the volume with sand bags or something.