Dual 8" subs or single 12" ??

[notorious97200]

an 8" is just...an 8" !

The single 12" can be cheaper, and won't need a huge box.

I'd get a better 12" than 2 budget 8"s.

[Quiet]

so much fail in this thread.

None of the factors that make bass "tighter" or "musical" or faster has anyone mentioned. Faster is just higher frequency. Transience has to do with enclosure build and also the qualities of the sub itself, not how much cone area it has. Long story short, there's no answer to the question you asked OP.

[bbeljefe]

With respect to overall size you only lose 13 square inches with two 8s v one 12. However, actual piston size will vary and 8s lose a larger percentage of their usable piston diameter due to surround and mounting rings so the loss is probably around 15-20 square inches in the real world.

Also, if we were talking about 8s that had high power handling capabilities and a lot of xmax then yes, they will sound as good as one 12 in most cases. But, since we're talking budget 8s, you'll have to build a large enclosure to get close to the same lows you'll get with one 12. And with not much xmax and not much piston diameter the result is not much boom. You can have deep bass with budget 8s.... you just won't feel much of it.

[pioneerforlife]

if you want good sound quality, I would go with 1 12. if you want ok sound quality and more SPL, I would go with 2 8's

[Mtnbikecrazy55]

With respect to overall size you only lose 13 square inches with two 8s v one 12. However, actual piston size will vary and 8s lose a larger percentage of their usable piston diameter due to surround and mounting rings so the loss is probably around 15-20 square inches in the real world.

Also, if we were talking about 8s that had high power handling capabilities and a lot of xmax then yes, they will sound as good as one 12 in most cases. But, since we're talking budget 8s, you'll have to build a large enclosure to get close to the same lows you'll get with one 12. And with not much xmax and not much piston diameter the result is not much boom. You can have deep bass with budget 8s.... you just won't feel much of it.

I run a single DD1508 running off 500w that I picked up off here for 100$ shipped, and it has plenty of "boom"

All depends on how you build the box dawg

[bbeljefe]

With respect to overall size you only lose 13 square inches with two 8s v one 12. However, actual piston size will vary and 8s lose a larger percentage of their usable piston diameter due to surround and mounting rings so the loss is probably around 15-20 square inches in the real world.

Also, if we were talking about 8s that had high power handling capabilities and a lot of xmax then yes, they will sound as good as one 12 in most cases. But, since we're talking budget 8s, you'll have to build a large enclosure to get close to the same lows you'll get with one 12. And with not much xmax and not much piston diameter the result is not much boom. You can have deep bass with budget 8s.... you just won't feel much of it.

I run a single DD1508 running off 500w that I picked up off here for 100$ shipped, and it has plenty of "boom"

All depends on how you build the box dawg

True. And, like I said, an 8 with high power handling capabilities and a lot of xmax makes up for a lot of what it doesn't have in piston diameter. OP is talking about three hundred watt systems... how much boom will that 1508 give with 300 watts?

[anthonyott99]

so much fail in this thread.

None of the factors that make bass "tighter" or "musical" or faster has anyone mentioned. Faster is just higher frequency. Transience has to do with enclosure build and also the qualities of the sub itself, not how much cone area it has. Long story short, there's no answer to the question you asked OP.

The entire thread got way of topic, i had only one simple question , which was in everyones opinion would they go with one 12" sub or two 8" subs , both setups in the 300w range, that is all i was asking. But it seems that on here as soon as you mention "BUDGET" everyone is on the attack.

[Quiet]

so much fail in this thread.

None of the factors that make bass "tighter" or "musical" or faster has anyone mentioned. Faster is just higher frequency. Transience has to do with enclosure build and also the qualities of the sub itself, not how much cone area it has. Long story short, there's no answer to the question you asked OP.

The entire thread got way of topic, i had only one simple question , which was in everyones opinion would they go with one 12" sub or two 8" subs , both setups in the 300w range, that is all i was asking. But it seems that on here as soon as you mention "BUDGET" everyone is on the attack.

Here's an "answer" for you.

Two RE Audio REX 8 (two Single 4ohm subs for 2 ohm at the amp or 2 D4 subs for either 4 ohms or 1 ohm at the amp)

1.25 cubic foot box, tune to 32Hz, give 20 sq inches port area, port on same side as subs. Will eat up 300-400 watts RMS and spit out balanced bass output. Face box rearward 6 inches from back of trunk. Ooohs and aaahs from people after you tell them those are $50 subs.

This is how I would go. There are no Pros and Cons of different size subs except how large the box might be. 8s are not "tighter" than 12s. 12s are not "more capable" of more output than 8s. It depends on the sub you get. There are single 8s capable of 150s in the right box, and there are 12s that wouldn't do 120s especially in the wrong box... and I might add there are a shit ton of 12s in your price range that wouldn't do 120dbs.

[anthonyott99]

Sweet, that was the kind of info I was looking for, thank you. And as far as the other posts go, I'm just saying guys that if there's people out there for whatever reason that can only spend 200 bucks on subs and an amp, just help them get the best possible $200 system they can get setup, that's all. Thanks again