Securing a sub box?

[Xcel 7]

ported subs are the work of the devil! sealed box is faster and more tuneful! #8 )

Not necessarily, ported enclosures are more efficient and go much lower so it's a bit of a waste to go sealed unless the sub is designed for it or you don't like low frequency bass.

This is a comparison I did in WinISD with my box compared to a sealed enclosure with a Qtc of 0.71. The phase plot was identical down to 50hz and group delay identical down to 70hz, increasing by 2ms at 50hz so I don't think they would sound very different in terms of quality since anything below 40hz is reduced by my subsonic filter. The main difference is around twice the output through it's useful frequency range.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Xcel

[Xcel 7]

Evans comparison is invalid because we don't know the driver parameters and whether they are optimised for a ported enclosure

It was for my sub in both graphs, I posted the driver parameters and a Qts of 0.4 is suitable for either ported or sealed enclosures so it's a fair comparison.

I'm not sure what your scale is for the excursion, but in reality the sub is operating within it's 30mm xmax which means it's not "flopping around". Everywhere I've read seems to confirm that a subwoofer with a Qts of 0.4 should have a ported enclosure equal to it's Vas and the two calculators I used all provided results in the mid 20's so if anything I made my box slightly too small.

[Xcel 7]

At this stage I'm not worried about the box at all because it performs superbly, it's still punchy and others can attest to this. The main issues I'm finding in terms of sound quality is rattles in the car and quality of the music files that I'm playing. Perhaps a good reason to run sealed is that you won't generate nearly as many rattles with powerful low frequency bass. Anything below 192kbps compression tends to sound bad and can have muddy bass when played so loud and some artists have bass boosted their songs so it's far too overpowering. There is also a noticeable frequency response drop between 100hz and 250hz where my front speakers just can't keep up in the mid bass but I'm not too worried about this.

I could dynamat the car but that would be adding weight and building a custom enclosure for the kick panels to get in larger mid drivers is not a priority for me.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Xcel

[zero 1162]

Using compressed music as your source is the first mistake.

Use lossless like flac or similar, otherwise the time and money spent on the rest of your system is wasted.

Garbage in = garbage out.

[Xcel 7]

Using compressed music as your source is the first mistake.

Use lossless like flac or similar, otherwise the time and money spent on the rest of your system is wasted.

Garbage in = garbage out.

I do have some FLAC but MP3's are just so much easier to get a hold of. To my ears 320kbps MP3's are pretty much indiscernible from lossless though, I'm sure some will disagree

[zero 1162]

I do have some FLAC but MP3's are just so much easier to get a hold of. To my ears 320kbps MP3's are pretty much indiscernible from lossless though, I'm sure some will disagree

Yup, I disagree

[Olaf 3320]

I do have some FLAC but MP3's are just so much easier to get a hold of. To my ears 320kbps MP3's are pretty much indiscernible from lossless though, I'm sure some will disagree

yup, me too. once you're using a decent sytem with good resolution, 320k sounds sh#t, Actually no, even my iPhone with simple Sennheiser PXC-250-II noise cancelling cans reveals 320k is shh**tt compared with lossless. And on a good hifi, lossless is laughable compared to WAV or CD.

short version: Yup, I disagree.