Originally Posted by Pj0312
I was thinking IB because if the ability of the ability to go lower on less power.
Right now will be one driver, but you think sealed will perform better then IB?
That reason, is an outstanding reason and one I speak of often.
IB, when executed and optimized correctly is superb. However, if I was limited to one driver, I'm not sure if I would utilize an infinite baffle alignment.
Typically, one employs more drivers when implementing an IB approach to subwoofing. I'm not well versed on a single IB driver configuration, but perhaps there are some workarounds. High-passing the IB, even quite low, ie., somewhere 20 and below, could get some of the output back and maybe closer to what a single sealed sub would do.
It's a typical IB power conundrum. With a sealed you have an acoustic limiter, and you can have more power on tap above the knee, without concern below the knee. With the IB, you power according to excursion capability, with the sealed you power more according to thermal capability.
You could easily hit Xmech with the IB, yet still be way under the thermal limitations. This is good and allows a very low compression, highly responsive system. But typically you make up for the lower power handling with additional drivers. With a small sealed you have all the power availed to the driver both above and below the knee. This is due to the back-pressure associated with the lowest frequencies, inherently limiting the driver. This must be overcome with a strongly EQ'd response, boosting the power needed below the knee to overcome the incredible pressure involved with the deepest frequencies. Thus, properly designed, the thermal limits are encountered prior to the physical limits. Exactly opposite of the IB, whereby the physical limits of excursion are encountered at quite modest power levels.
Tell me, how close to the proposed IB location is the primary listening position?