ZV4 12 in a 4th order. How many cubes sealed?

[Sonic10]

Going to play with WinIsd and see what i come up with.

If you have som inputs on the box like tuning, let me know

[Sonic10]

can someone could design it for me?

Im not so skilld with WinIsd yet.

Max:

W: 31.49

D: 15.74

H: 16.92

I think a can tune the portet section my self, just need help with the box.

[CleanSierra]

I'd personally go bigger than 1 cube sealed. I'd start out with 1.5 and then shrink it if you need. That sub is VERY well mechanically controlled by its suspension and the larger the sealed section, the lower your sealed resonance ie, the better the lows will sound. I'd also choose more port area than 60" personally. My Crossfire C7s don't have nearly the Xmax those Zv4s have and I'm at over 60"(66" to be exact) per sub.

Why are you doing a 4th order bandpass enclosure for this sub? The answer to this question is important

[Sonic10]

I have heard noting but good about 4th orders, so i just want to try one.

I have a 3.67cub int custom portet box atm, so i just wonder if i have the space for it thats all

[CleanSierra]

Ahhh, the ever so popular "heard they're badass" scenario. That's kinda what I figured. Stick to regular ported enclosure, you have plenty of room for that.

[Triticum Agricolam]

+1 to what CleanSierra said about bandpass boxes.

However if you would like to try one anyway, here are some things to think about.

The reason people (like me) said to ignore bandpass box "ratios" is because they don't really tell you anything. Having a high aspect ratio does not guarantee you will end up with highly efficient box, and having a low aspect ratio doesn't guarantee you will have a wide bandwidth. These is because those attributes are not determined by the relationship between the two chamber sizes. Those attributes are both mostly a function of front chamber size. So if you have a box with a 3 cube front chamber and a 1 cube rear chamber, you have a 3:1 ratio. Now if you were the double the rear chamber to 2 cubes you now have a 1.5:1 ratio which by common (incorrect) wisdom would make the box have a lot wider bandwidth, but in practice its not going to make the box sound that much differently.

As far as sizing the rear chamber goes, I pretty much agree with CleanSierra. Larger is better. Making the rear chamber larger will improve you low end performance by reducing the sealed resonance frequency and the QTC. What limits how large you can make it is mechanical power handling. As you make the rear chamber larger your cone excursion below tuning also increases. You don't want to go too far. Modeling software can help give you an idea of whats going to happen.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Triticum Agricolam

[diegoclass2010]

+1 to what CleanSierra said about bandpass boxes.

As far as sizing the rear chamber goes, I pretty much agree with CleanSierra. Larger is better. Making the rear chamber larger will improve you low end performance by reducing the sealed resonance frequency and the QTC. What limits how large you can make it is mechanical power handling. As you make the rear chamber larger your cone excursion below tuning also increases. You don't want to go too far. Modeling software can help give you an idea of whats going to happen.

this is cool! i love reading Triticum Agricolam stuff... good stuff bro keep it up!