Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About image91

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Trinidad & Tobago
  • Interests
    Car Audio

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

image91's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Still doing research & hoping to do something soon. Aiming for 8 ft^3 net. Tuning at either 28 or 29. Trying to decide between 112 & 120 in^2 port area for the least. Subs forward, port up.
  2. Plotted the other set of t/s parameters into WinISD for comparison & it was a completely different response. The smaller enclosures did look more reasonable but to get the relationship between the frequencies that I believe I want, I ended up liking 7 ft^3 net, 100 in^2 port area tuned to 28 Hz. It's showing a 2 dB increase at 28 Hz & a 1 db increase at 30 Hz with a 0.5 dB to 1 dB drop in the peak from around 39 Hz go up. I know it's not exact but it's giving me a rough idea at least. Using the smaller sizes you suggested, to get a flat-ish response which also gave me a decent increase in the 28-30 Hz wasn't possible. At 8 ft^3, even 28 Hz was looking a bit peaky. From the many combinations I tried, this one seems like a good go. Thoughts on the 7 ft^3 net, 100 in^2 port area, 28 Hz tuning?
  3. "if I can achieve a semi-flat response with significant output still possible down to 28 I'd be happy" What would be your ideal enclosure recommendation to achieve this bro? Again, not too heavy on the 40/50 etc. I luv my 28-38 Hz & like my higher notes clean/subtle. Stabbing higher notes are not my thing. Flat-ish down to 28 is a guideline as to what I'm hoping for. Or 28 within 3-4 dB of my peak at least. With regard to t/s parameters, the parameters on the screen shots you sent from the website are different than the others available on the same website. There are two different sets. I don't know which is correct. I don't know which recommendation is correct. I understand that working with the specs & calculating what the woofer would perform optimally in is ideal, but which t/s parameters are you going on? Thanks again. Apologies for spaced out responses, things have been a little hectic.
  4. Appreciate the write up bro. Those were the same specs that got me confused in the first place. I purchased these subs thinking I could go that sized enclosure for the two 15s & sound great. When I got the subs the manual said an entirely different thing. I also saw the same specs I saw on the manual somewhere on the website so they have two different specs on the site for that sub. Another thing is that the versions of the subs may be different. The safest thing I figured was to go with what came with the sub as a guide. 3.2 compact, 4.0 ideal. Will expand later.
  5. The previous enclosure is 6 ft^3 net, 80 in^2 port area tuned to 30 Hz. That is the biggest I could have fit with everything fitting under the stock trunk pull so nothing was visible. As far as I could see, it's performing nowhere near what I hoped for on low end. My previous single 15 sounded more impressive on low end than these two. The ideal recommended for these is 4.0 ft^3 net per sub as per the manual. Saw that you mentioned 2.3-2.5 & 3.0 per sub? That seems pretty small for any 15 from my limited experience. I am chasing a significant/impressive low end reproduction & so a larger enclosure (not oversized) would be beneficial as far as I know. I am using WinISD as more of a guideline to be honest. I have seen many have the same opinion that you shared. Not doubting you at all. Very open-minded when it comes to these things. To clarify, using two 15s. I have also been using Triticum's port area calculator to try my best to stay within at least the minimum recommended port area. I can no longer fit 9 ft^3 net. After removing older system & offering up new layout, I am more limited on space than I expected. I also ran into the issue of not being able to install the subs in the vehicle due to height limitations. I will probably be doing two separate enclosures so that I can install the subs outside of the vehicle & then put the enclosures in. This would be more feasible than trying to install a mono-chamber enclosure with 150 lbs. of subs as I do everything myself. I am leaning towards each being 4.0 ft^3 net, 55 in^2 port area tuned to 30 Hz. This is not final but seems to be do-able at the moment. Thoughts? Thanks again
  6. I plotted everything out & did a fair amount of comparisons in WinISD. Not a fan of a heavy 40 Hz + & lack in the low 30s. Just my personal preference. Ideally, if I can achieve a semi-flat response with significant output still possible down to 28 I'd be happy. Was trying to get my 30Hz within 3 db of the peak,or close to. For some reason when I plot this sub the response seems to peak a lot higher than the tuning frequency. At 8 net 30Hz, shows a peak of 40/41 Hz & 30Hz is - 5db from there. I got the specs from the manual. The large recommended spec on these is 4 ft^3 net 32Hz.
  7. Can barely go 9 ft^3 100 in^2 to be honest. That would be the absolute largest I can probably go & that's very inconvenient at the moment. Will be using a pair of Steg k1.2500. Appreciate the input bro.
  8. What would be more recommended between going with 9 ft^3 net using 100 in^2 port area tuned to 28 Hz, & going 8 ft^3 net using 110 in^2 port area tuned to 28Hz? Some in-between (8.5/105/28) is also an option. Any feedback is appreciated.
  9. So if I get the volume up to 8 ft^3 net somehow, shouldn't the port area increase accordingly? To at least 100 in^2?
  10. I had an AAK-5500.1 on it I'm wondering if I would benefit from net volume or port area? Not sure if I'm having compression issues & losing output at the moment. The low end is definitely not what I am looking for. Still very tempted to try one in an ideal-sized enclosure but that's a huge cut in cone area of course.
  11. Ended up fitting 6.0 ft^3 net, 80 in^2 port area, tuned to 30. Lacking the low end of course. Crossed low to accentuate the 30s, flatten the response a bit. Trying to fit at least 8.0 net, 100 in^2 port area tuned to 30. Gonna be a task though.
  12. Got some advice today to go with a mono-chamber around 5.5 ft^3 net, 60 in^2 of port tuned to 27 Hz. Does anyone have any experience with these subs & can chime in? Worste-case i'll block the ports & run these sealed.
  13. Not sure if anyone can pitch in on this but according to this page: https://reaudio.com/products/woofers_xxx.php The recommended enclosure is around 4.816 ft^3 net, 6.0 ft^3 gross, tuned to 27.5 Hz, 20 inch^2 of port, 10" long. In numerous posts/forums around the net I'm seeing people saying the recommended specs or the specs they are using are considerably larger than this. Is this a legitimate spec for two of these 15s & is it reasonable to go with this VS a much larger alternative? I have around 7.8 ft^3 gross available in my vehicle. Using around 5000wrms. Looking for output down to my subsonic @ 25Hz & a roll off after 40 Hz. If I can obtain more of my output between 28-36 Hz would be ideal. Doesn't necessarily have to be a large peak, prefer more of a flatter response. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
  14. Nice figures O_o Thanks for sharing bro. Having a strong preference towards the Nsv4 15. Just hoping it's the best bet out of the current options. Was told it'll take 2 months to get it from the day I place my order. Quite the wait unfortunately. This is due to the fact that I have to order a black spider kit & also considering a carbon fiber dust cap with a black Sundown logo.
  15. Still having issues making a decision. Any input would help from anyone having experience with the mentioned subs. The FS on the 12s are mid 30s & looking to play down to 28 comfortably. Am I paying too much attention to the FS ratings? This also bothered me about the Nsv4 15 as it was still low to mid 30s with the softer black spider pack. The Xv2 15 & Zv5 15 are 28 & 29 FS. Options right now are Zv5 15, Nsv4 15, DB-SA415/418. Deaf Bonce Apocalypse AAK-5500.1. Thoughts? Thanks!
  • Create New...