akuma4u
-
Posts
653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Media Demo
Store
Collections
Videos
Posts posted by akuma4u
-
-
hey there so the SPL surround on my custom built zv3 12 tore up and i had it reconed.
I am limited with space.. i can at max run 2.2ish net cubes. I was told that the zv3 motor with the SPL surround needs to be in a 1.75 to 2.2 net box.
The sub i originally had used a brown spider, spl surround and a d2 zv4 coil
the box i had it in was 2.2 cubes net tuned to 33hz. the surround got ripped somehow.. i dont know how or why.. i guess i was pushing it too hard or maybe the spl surround couldnt handle the low tuning of the box i dunno??
anyways, i had it reconed and it was suppose to be the exact same build except this time i wanted a black spider to raise the fs a bit as i found the fs was too low with the brown spider.
so shop builds it but messes up and uses the mega roll surround instead of the spl
i was told by sundown that the megaroll needs 2.5net to work for a 12. this is space i do not have. UNLESS i tune high like 37 38hz and above,
so my question is this:
do i keep this black spider mega roll surround sub and run it in a 2.5 net box tuned to 37hz
OR
do i get it rebuilt using a black spider and spl cone which i can then properly fit it in a 2ish net box and tune it to whatever i want?
my goal is to get as loud as possible with the widest bandwidth and sound great on music. i dont listen to decaf or rap so super super low bass is not essential for me.
also.. the combo of black spider and spl cone,.. will this be musical? will it get loud? will it still play low? what would be a proper tuning for this sub? i was told spl surrounds need 40hz and above tuning then someone else told me i could tune below fs to 32 to 35 hz and it would be fine. I know using the black spider with the spl cone will raise the fs pretty high.
i am not super familiar with sundown parts so if someone can pls guide me in the right direction that would be appreciated.
thank you
-
Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for the help. I will let u know how this turns out.
I was under the impression that torres uses the physical port length as the actual length of the wood pieces you cut so when you had physical port length written there as 31.5 but the 2 pieces didnt add up to it, i got confused.
-
58 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
hey thanks for that. i appreciate the help.
just a question and then 1 problem:
question:
the physical port length is 31.5 but in the first pic you have the port wall side 1 as 13.75 and side 2 as 14 which adds up to 27.75 which is like 3 inches shorter than the 31.5 then in the 2nd diagram the picture shows port wall 1 as 13.75 and port wall 2 as 14.75..
so little confused there.. what should i be cutting the port wall pieces as 13.75 and 14 or 13.75 and 14.75 and how come they dont add up to 31.5?
problem:
remember my max dimensions are 13.5 tall x 32 x 17
to get to 2.3net i pushed the max dimensions a bit more to 13.5 x 32.25 x 17.5..this will be a test and it MAY get stuck or will be very hard to get in and out i will have to router all outer edges to make sure it gets in..however...
your diagram is 13.5 x 32.75 x 17.5 this will prob not work as the width you made .75 more instead of .25.. box will get stuck. i can manage .25 more but .75 is pushing it esp since im going .5 more on the depth.
i know it sounds ridiculous but i am really really pushing it with the extra .25 and .5
oh and what is the final tuning and net airspace and outer dimensions of this box?
-
21 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
I’ve been swamped with work. Almost every day I long for sleep. I’m gonna have it finished this weekend.
Ok sounds good. Thanks
-
So...What did the programs and calculators tell you???
-
1 hour ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
Your enclosure now is already small and you want louder and harder hitting bass on the same rms, which is minimal rms after rise for that subwoofer. The only thing that can be done in this case is increase the net volume. You are thinking too hard into this. And that straw and toilet paper tube analogy wasn’t used correctly. Of course more air velocity is generated throw a smaller tube on the same amount of rms. But if the rms is too high for that tube’s diameter then there would be port noise because the air would be traveling too fast. You don’t want high port velocity. You have to stop looking too hard into this because you are gonna keep running into contradictions and become more indecisive.
as i said im willing to build the bigger box, just waiting for the cut sheet/blueprints
those screenshots i thought it was worth showing you as that one dude said he used a 2.25 net enclosure on his zv3 12 on LOW power and was able to hit the backplate easily.. which means he reached mechanical limits on low power easily.. i thought it was worth noting.
regarding port noise, audiofanatics said that steve meade is using like 6 15s and like only 8-10 sq inches per cube and its very small port area for those subs and you would expect port noise but there is none at all and its violent.. i thought this was also worth noting as its proof that a over doing it on port area isnt always necessary and using little will not always cause port noise. I think this is worth noting as it is a great example. This is also why i showed the screenshot of the owner of sundown recommending only 12 sq in per cube... that is the same thing EMF audios owner told me to do..
anyways. in the end im going to be building 2 boxes.. the 2.3net enclosure will be first and hopefully it will turn out so good i wont need to build the 2nd one.
-
-
On 7/28/2020 at 10:03 PM, 1point21gigawatts said:
When you gather information from all over the place and don’t use that information correctly to weigh right from wrong then it’s easy to become confused and indecisive about a matter. I skimmed through them screenshots and seen facts and fiction and didn’t even have to study it and keep reading it to asses the general knowledge from it. If I were a noob that didn’t know how to build enclosures, I could use that information you posted and come to a conclusion quick because I’m smart. If you do the mathematics on the port area of both enclosures I told you to choose from, one has 12.3 square inches of port area per cubic foot and the other has 16 square inches of port area per cubic foot. That’s kinda what was told to you in the screenshots you posted. And 2.3 cubes is 15% bigger than 2 cubes that’s recommended. That’s not enough of an increase to cause the subwoofer to reach its mechanical limits and bottom out and damage the subwoofer. That’s 5-10% less than the maximum increase before bottoming out would occur and the amp would have to be stronger to cause that on that subwoofer. You have understand each subwoofer is different and designing an enclosure has to be done by factoring in the t/s parameters. The recommendations of sizing is just a basic idea. And when it comes to port noise, the more the rms and lower the tuning, the wider the port has to be to not have port noise. More rms increase port velocity and lower tuning increases port velocity. Some designers and builders use less port area to accommodate for the area available when building an enclosure with a lot of subwoofers and it helps with bandwidth and accuracy depending on the application and design, but takes away from the output. As long as it isn’t a crazy amount of port area, the bandwidth would be fine and it wouldn’t reach mechanical limits. That why I suggested an spl slot port enclosure with 16 sq” per cube and a musical aero port enclosure with a little less than 12.3 sq” per cube. And a 15% increase would increase output without reaching mechanical limits. Most pros that compete increase the sizing of their enclosures by 10-20% to increase output and they throw more than rated rms at the subwoofers. Plus recommendations about sizing is just to reference. You have to factor in the t/s parameters of the subwoofer and the rms of the amp. That amp 2400.1 you are using isn’t doing 2000 rms after rise. Rise differs on each frequency, subwoofer and application and cabin area surrounding said enclosure. Dude just messaged me earlier today and he is rising from 1 ohm to about 4 or 5 ohms and on a bass 30k only doing 9000 rms. So a 30,000 rms amp is only doing 9,000 rms after rise on his set up on whatever frequency he tested it on with an amm-1. So with that said, the enclosure has to be bigger because you are probably doing around 1000 rms. That figure is based off of the specs of that amp and the absolute lowest rise if the subwoofer, application and cabin area surrounding it permits minimal rise from about 1 ohm to 2.5 ohms. Rising from 1 ohm to 2.5 ohms is minimal rise and would make any bass head happy as shit. Before I begin to type or draw something up, I learn every piece of the equation and factor in so many different variables and calculations and base the variables off of facts and if facts are unavailable and it’s something like impedance rise, I would factor in the best possible scenario when it comes to that when designing an enclosure because if I calculated using the worse case scenario of impedance rise then it would leave too much room for error. Factoring the best case senecio leave no room for error when it comes to that variable. Then on some variables I have to factor it worse case scenario to ensure no errors arise. Averaging is something that works with some things but averaging can be problematic if something in the equation is below average or below average.
i didnt even realize you made this big ass reply until now. If you were a noob, how would you be able to tell between fact and fiction? thats right. you wouldnt. because you are a noob and dont know what is fact from fiction. which is kind of the situation I am in. I have a general understanding of enclosures and am still learning by way of building different boxes and playing around with port area and size etc.. its expensive to do this but i have no choice really.
gathering information is what ive been doing and do often on this site and other sites , it saves me from starting multiple new threads.
Regarding the box size and increasing it, yes this works from what i understand when people are on low power.. BUT lets say you have ample power or are overpowering,. lets forget about rise for a minute,. and you put this extra power to a sub in a larger than recommended box... is that potentially dangerous? I ask this because i found a user who used low power on a zv3 12 that was in a 2.3net box, which is prob quite similar to what i designed and check out his response (the screen shot will follow underneath) what do you make of that?
i think in the end i will be building 2 boxes,. the one i designed which you are going to be sending a cutsheet/blueprints of the 2.3net box.. btw, how are the calculations coming along?
and i will be building a 2nd box 2 cubes 32hz with 24 sq inches of port.. i wont be building this 2nd box until i build the 1st one as the 1st one may satisfy my needs to the point i dont need to do a 2nd box..
-
26 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
I’m gonna reference the numbers of the new enclosure in multiple programs and calculators before I draw up a cut sheet.
Sounds good. From my analysis..the main thing that will be changing is the tuning will slightly decreased 2hz maybe and the net airspace will be increasing roughly half a cube. As long as this will make a noticeable audible difference than the box i have now then its all good. if you need to tweak anything, as long as it stays within my max dimensions, then go ahead. im willing to raise tuning a lil if a bigger port is necessary and if you think that would sound better..
-
2 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
I just noticed that Torres calculates end correction factors port width plus half of port width instead of just half of port width. Idk why he calculates end correction factors like that. Only half the port is added to the physical length to find the effective length of the port. End correction factoring is added because the end of the port shares a common wall with the enclosure making the subwoofer see a longer port. Only an extra half the width of the port is what the subwoofer sees as port length as long as the end of the port isn’t the width of the port away from the side wall which would add more effective length. I’ll calculate them specs to reference. Because port length is not something to miscalculate.
Wait wait b4 u do that i have to tell u. The design was made by a builder who used winisd. He told me the final specs. 3 x 12 width and 37 long for port roughly 33hz and 13.5 x 31 x 17 depth. I took these specs and input them into torres to get an idea of what im dealing with and to show you as well
-
8 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
That’s the specs of the enclosure you are using now?
Yes correct these are the specs of my current enclosure.
-
-
Just now, 1point21gigawatts said:
But just to let you know, that enclosure you design is excellent.
thanks.. i had to increase my max dimensions a tad bit so i hope it will fit. i may have to use some crisco and lube the hell out of it to slide it in LOL damn trunk is too tight.
all i need is the cut sheet/blueprint so i can send it off to my builder and then i can let u know in a week or so how it turned out.
btw, my current box which does sound pretty good is like this:
-
3 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
In this application since it isn’t a wall or something like that, an aero port would be louder and sound better. The ported enclosure I designed for myself was strictly spl because it was designed with a lot of port area and bandwidth wasn’t something I cared about when designing it. I could use a lot of port area in that build because the enclosure only being about 4.6 cubes after displacements on around 6000-8000 rms after rise. But I decided to change to an aero port because in most regular applications an aero port is better and louder because air flows better through a tube than a rectangle or square and the response is better because of that too. But on that spl slot ported enclosure I designed would probably be louder than the aero ported one I designed but not sound nearly as good. But when it comes to your build, an aero port is the best way to go, no doubt.
if you can make an aeroport design work , then pls go ahead. from what ive read a 6 inch port is needed.. i dont know if it can be done with my max dimensions though..remember that custom zv3 i got has a 10.5 inch depth. also another thing to keep in mind.. in my car the sub and port back sound best.. if you were to do an aero, the aero would have to be to the side and i dunno how that would sound.
if it cant be done.. then slot port is fine..
im leaning towards SLOT port simply because it will be easier to build and i can have the slot and sub facing BACK and that sounds best in my car.
-
Just now, 1point21gigawatts said:
What’s more important to you, sounding loud or sounding good? Are you more geared towards a system for everyone else to hear and like or a system for you to hear and like? Which means more?
thats a good question. im kinda torn between the two. however im leaning towards LOUD. I love the feeling of my face and body being impacted by the bass.. the physical sensations.
-
Just now, 1point21gigawatts said:
You are welcome. Question though, have you considered an aero ported enclosure? I was wanting to do a slot ported strictly spl enclosure on my application but, I decided to do a musical aero ported enclosure instead because it would have spl and be musical, have a wider bandwidth, more efficient, a better air flow and easier to design and build. Even though I could design and build a complicated and difficult enclosure, easier is always better.
im open to anything that will work in my max dimensions and the u12 and my custom zv3 12..
max dimensions 13.5 tall x 32.25 wide x 17.5 deep
i did have a builder try to do a aero ported box but it didnt work out..
you can try and see if it will work i think a 6 inch aero port is needed .. if not the slot port is fine..
-
2 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
Yes.
awesome, thanks 👍
-
2 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
That would work. Since I factored in the impedance rise best case scenario instead of doing port velocity calculations on 2000 rms. That enclosure would work just fine. It would have good bandwidth and good output. I like it.
praise the lord.
i shall get this made.
all i need now... is a cut sheet/blueprint so i can pass it to my builder. can you assist me with that?
-
7 minutes ago, 1point21gigawatts said:
Read this. People believe things when they hear it from reputable sources.
https://ddaudio.com/subwoofer-enclosure-design-bending-the-rules-maximize-output/
the design i just posted,. its honestly the best i could do and i actually had to increase my max dimensions which will make this super tight to get in the trunk. but anyways,. take a look, do you think this design will work? its got 2.3 net, its got 36 sq inches of port and its tuned to about 32hz..
-
49 minutes ago, Backwoods said:
Because again, different vehicles, different setups, some are obviously competing and burping, some are playing music, lots of different subs being used, Some are ignorant and some just regurgitate what they've read online.
Dude from all of this I'd say if you're building your own box, just build what sundown told you to build. Otherwise pay a pro. Because it seems like no matter what you build, you're going to think it would of been better another way and look for someone to blame. And at least if you build what sundown told you to build, you can't blame us.
Everyone is not going to give you the same answers because everyone has had different builds and has had different results. The same guy saying he did better with a smaller box may do better with a bigger box in a different car. Or the same guy doing better with a big box with one sub may do better with a smaller box with another sub. And vice versa. The manufacturer recommended enclosure is a good starting point. Build that. Don't like it, try bigger, try smaller, try different port volumes and tunes... Keep all the boxes that weren't perfect.
Then once you get it perfect, get a new vehicle... And you're likely to see one of the previous "lesser" boxes do better in the new vehicle.
There's no one size fits all for all vehicles and subwoofers, or everyone would have the same exact setups and same exact enclosure.
im not looking to blame anyone. help is appreciated no matter what.
what i find is that people just have different opinions on enclosures and what works. port area is a big area where there are opposing opinions.
yes, i can build several boxes and test and this is what i will probably end up doing. will be costly but i guess i have no choice.
as for now,. i am trying to build the box 1point21gigawatts told me to , but since i am limited in space, the closest i could come up with is the following. mind you my max dimensions are 13.5 tall x 32 wide x 17 deep , i had to push it .25 in the width and .5 in the depth to get more airspace.. i will have to router the outer edges to slide this thing in .. it will be TIGHT.
maybe 1point21 can take a look and tell me what he thinks.. this is the BEST i can do with the space i have...
-
Those screenshots i posted is just am example of why i am confused cuz i read so many opposing views and advice...
-
-
Its not that im ignoring advice. The problem is 3 things:
1) i am limited space so the ideal optimal box wont be able to fit
2) i got several people telling me different things 1 guy says go up another says go down. For example, the port area issue. A few have told me to use a ton of port area. Then guys like the mod of this site i forgot his name but he has a bird in his display pic, and the dude that runs emf audio told me that a lot of port area is good for maximizing spl but bad for music and that 12 to 14 per cube is ideal as it will have better roll off. That guy told me he builds 2 cube 24 sq inch of port boxes for 1500 to 2500rms 12s all the time and it turns out great. Then the sundown tech dude on phone told me to use 1.75net with 28 sq inches of port tuned to 35hz...
So a lot of different guys telling me different things makes it confusing.
3) then my own research on the topic creates more confusion as i read peoples advice and its opposite of someone elses advice. Like this:
-
hey.. im attempting to build a new enclosure for my u12 d2 sub and my custom zv3 12 with x spider and spl cone sub..
according to sundown, they both will be able to use the same enclosure which is great cuz i just need to build 1 single 12 ported box and not 2.
so sundown recommends using 2 cubes and tuning 32 to 35hz.. however,. i have been told 3 things
1) go bigger than 2 cubes like 2.15net to 2.20net as it will be louder and sound better
2) go smaller to 1.75 net and use a lot of port area and some say use 12-16sq in per cube, exm 1.75net with 28sq inches of port tuned to 35hz
3) sundown recommends 16sq inches of port per cube but users here tell me to use up to 20-25 per cube which is obviously much more. they say using more port area will result in much more output due to lower port compression and lower velocity. however, others have told me to use 12 to 14 per cube as this will have better roll off and sound better on music.
so .. these 3 things have me confused,. i dont know whether to build a 1.75 and use a lot of port area or use 12-16per cube , or should i just build what they recommend which is 2net with 32 sq inches of port area , or should i go bigger?
what exactly will happen if i make the box smaller i.e 1.75 and use a lot of port area vs less port area vs a bigger box with more or less port area? etc
any help would be appreciated so i can build this box properly.
i am using 2000rms for my power.
Would like Enclosure help for custom sundown 12 inch
in Subwoofers / Enclosures
Posted · Edited by akuma4u
So i got a zv3 12 motor which is being reconed using a black spider and spl surround with the new deeper basket. FS will be around 42hz or so on that sub. Sundown said it needs about 2 cubes net or so. its basically a zv4 drop in with a black spider and spl surround.
Goal is to get as loud as possible with the widest bandwidth as possible. Having a high FS makes me wonder if it will be able to play 25hz to 37hz with authority or if it will be more muted in that range and then be real loud on the 40hz and up range? Can i tune low 30-35hz on a high fs sub? Looking for it to play all types of music esp EDM!
I do have the option of changing parts. Megaroll surround is a no go as those need 2.5net and i dont have that kind of space.
13.5 tall x 32.5 wide x 17.25 depth is my max dimensions, using a jp23 v1.5 / 2000rms at 1 ohm for power.
any and all help would be greatly appreciated!