Jump to content
Second Skin Audio

Tell me what you think of this


Recommended Posts

Posted

Here is a link to the page which has the specs for the RE Sex 12's. http://reaudio.com/products/woofers_sex.php

Says 1.5cu ft ported tuned to 35hz for a compact enclosure or 2.0 cu ft ported tuned to 33hz for an optimal enclosure.

I would be looking around that size or somewhere between the two. 8 cu ft of air space. You'll have about .60 cu ft of displacement with subs. Then bracing displacement. Then shoot for around 15-16 sq in per foot in port area.

I'm sure Triticum could correct me if I'm wrong on that.

You could also download WinISD and work with that, although I've never had luck with it. WinISD > than me. I just can't seem to understand it personally. But there are plenty of tutorials out there.

Just my input.

Posted

Yea I don't understand WinISD. It's very complicated. Thank you for finding those specs for me that will make things a little easier. I will go back and design up something else and post it on here. Thanks Scooter99!

Posted

No problem. Like I said, I'd build close to those specs recommended by RE. My understanding about ports, is the lower the sq in per foot (i.e. 10, 11, 12) and you're flirting with port noise issues, unless you go with aero's and I think that's where you want to be is in those ranges. Again, my understanding, but after all this time in the hobby, I'm still trying to fully understand it. That's why it's good to have people like Triticum around to correct us. LOL

Good luck.

Posted

What about this? Same idea subs up square port back. I know the tuning is a little higher than I said but I have zero experience with these subs so I don't know it might sound good

I plugged the specs into WinISD and took a look. Pretty much like Scooter said, I wouldn't go outside the manufacturer's recommendations with these subs. They have pretty loose suspensions (high Vas), which is good for efficiency, but bad for cone excursion. If you go above 2 cu ft net per sub it could get pretty easy to break them. Even at 2 cu ft per sub you are going to have to be careful. Shrinking down to 1.5 cubes per sub would be safer for them, but it will cost you a little bit of low frequency output. I definitely would not put more than 3000 watts to the four of them.
For port area, I'd suggest no less than 150 sq in with an 8 cube box. If you decide to shrink the box down some you can get away with a bit less port area, no less than 125 sq in with a 6 cube box.

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Posted

Thanks Triticum! I read your post after I posted that last design. So hopefully this one right here will be the one. It's under 8 cubes after my displacement. Subs up, 3 6" aeros out the back

33%20hz%20below%208.0ft_zpswqowa7jh.png

Posted

You need more port area. Four 6" ports would be the minimum.

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Posted

That looks good to me.

When you build it be sure to brace the baffle to the bottom of the box well.

If you aren't stuck on using aero ports, a slot port could work well. Or a single 12" round port instead of the four 6" ones.

I'm not trying to make this more frustrating, I promise :-)

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 458 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...