Dual Stonehenge build - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 10:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Dual Stonehenge build***Updated with measurements

First of all, many thanks to Erich at DIY Sound Group. This is the third pair of subs I've built from flat packs and they've all been great. Without DIYSG, I probably never would've attempted a sub build.

My previous subs were Dayton 18" HO's in 4 cu/ft sealed boxes. I was happy with them. But then, I started planning to install an electric AT screen, and I wanted something that would be a bit closer to the wall. Plus, I always wondered...should I have gone ported vs sealed???

The Stonehenges fit the bill with a relatively shallow depth as well as having the benefit of raising up my center channel so that it's almost in line with my L/R's.

So far they sound great. I'll be taking measurements in the next couple days and posting comparisons of the sealed 4cu/ft boxes vs the Stonehenges in my room. Stay tuned.

Here's some pics...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	464
Size:	102.9 KB
ID:	1146914   Click image for larger version

Name:	2.jpg
Views:	393
Size:	91.4 KB
ID:	1146922   Click image for larger version

Name:	3.jpg
Views:	404
Size:	101.5 KB
ID:	1146930   Click image for larger version

Name:	4.jpg
Views:	348
Size:	87.1 KB
ID:	1146938   Click image for larger version

Name:	5.jpg
Views:	351
Size:	61.9 KB
ID:	1146946  

Click image for larger version

Name:	6.jpg
Views:	362
Size:	73.9 KB
ID:	1146954   Click image for larger version

Name:	7.jpg
Views:	404
Size:	162.2 KB
ID:	1146962   Click image for larger version

Name:	8.jpg
Views:	398
Size:	80.8 KB
ID:	1146970   Click image for larger version

Name:	9.jpg
Views:	363
Size:	82.2 KB
ID:	1146978   Click image for larger version

Name:	10.jpg
Views:	363
Size:	81.7 KB
ID:	1146986  

Click image for larger version

Name:	11.jpg
Views:	426
Size:	84.9 KB
ID:	1146994   Click image for larger version

Name:	12.jpg
Views:	481
Size:	52.2 KB
ID:	1147002   Click image for larger version

Name:	13.jpg
Views:	422
Size:	50.5 KB
ID:	1147010   Click image for larger version

Name:	14.jpg
Views:	414
Size:	59.9 KB
ID:	1147018   Click image for larger version

Name:	16.jpg
Views:	415
Size:	173.0 KB
ID:	1147034  

Click image for larger version

Name:	17.jpg
Views:	353
Size:	130.5 KB
ID:	1147042   Click image for larger version

Name:	18.jpg
Views:	360
Size:	167.6 KB
ID:	1147050   Click image for larger version

Name:	19.jpg
Views:	408
Size:	187.9 KB
ID:	1147058   Click image for larger version

Name:	20.jpg
Views:	419
Size:	126.6 KB
ID:	1147066   Click image for larger version

Name:	21.jpg
Views:	374
Size:	122.4 KB
ID:	1147074  

Click image for larger version

Name:	22.jpg
Views:	342
Size:	158.2 KB
ID:	1147082   Click image for larger version

Name:	23.jpg
Views:	326
Size:	129.0 KB
ID:	1147090   Click image for larger version

Name:	24.jpg
Views:	423
Size:	157.3 KB
ID:	1147098  
LTD02, Erich H and Matthew Pool like this.

Last edited by dftkell; 12-29-2015 at 06:27 PM.
dftkell is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 01:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
chadamir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Nice job. What did you paint them with?
chadamir is offline  
post #3 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 01:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadamir View Post
Nice job. What did you paint them with?
Thanks. They are two Benjamin Moore colors that go with the wall color of the room. Deep Caviar and Silver Gray.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2015-12-28 at 4.07.58 PM.png
Views:	145
Size:	12.7 KB
ID:	1147610  
dftkell is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 01:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bgtighe23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,472
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1846 Post(s)
Liked: 1231
Very nice and clean build! You make it look as easy as possible.

------------------------------------------------
Receiver : Denon x5200
Front Stage : L/R - Statements by Jim Holtz
Surround Speakers : Klipsch RF-82II x 4 / RP-280F x 2
Subwooferage : 6 UM18/4 HT18 Subwoofer Log
bgtighe23 is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 02:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgtighe23 View Post
Very nice and clean build! You make it look as easy as possible.
Thanks. The flat packs are really easy to assemble. It was the size and weight of these boxes that became difficult, especially after I lined the inside with denim insulation.

My first thought was to veneer them like I did with my previous set of subs but these were so big and heavy that I painted them instead. They're not perfect if you look up close, but from a few feet away they look nice.

After I get my screen and projector up and running, I might go back and build some grills for them.
dftkell is offline  
post #6 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 02:58 PM
Member
 
spieg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portage, MI
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Nice build! Im interested to see the measurements and impressions.
spieg is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 03:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
clubwerks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Very nice looking subs.
clubwerks is offline  
post #8 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 05:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
luisev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 111
They look great! Fingers crossed they come back in stock soon as I would like to build one. Which plate amp did you use?

DIYSG 893 | Emotiva ERD-1 | Dual DIY 18" Subs
Emotiva XMC-1 | XPA-2 | XPA-5 | Dual Crown XLS 2502
Samsung 58" Plasma | BenQ HT1075 100" Screen
Nvidia Shield | Oppo BDP-103 Bluray Player
luisev is offline  
post #9 of 36 Old 12-28-2015, 05:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisev View Post
They look great! Fingers crossed they come back in stock soon as I would like to build one. Which plate amp did you use?

Thanks.

I'm using Dayton SPA1000 plate amps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dftkell is offline  
post #10 of 36 Old 12-29-2015, 08:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bgtighe23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,472
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1846 Post(s)
Liked: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post
Thanks. The flat packs are really easy to assemble. It was the size and weight of these boxes that became difficult, especially after I lined the inside with denim insulation.

My first thought was to veneer them like I did with my previous set of subs but these were so big and heavy that I painted them instead. They're not perfect if you look up close, but from a few feet away they look nice.

After I get my screen and projector up and running, I might go back and build some grills for them.
Flat packs are great! I agree about the size and weight, well, being that I had to carry them up to the 2nd story of the house It was all worth in the end though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post
Thanks.

I'm using Dayton SPA1000 plate amps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any reason you decided on Plate amps instead of separate amps such as Behringer or Crown?

------------------------------------------------
Receiver : Denon x5200
Front Stage : L/R - Statements by Jim Holtz
Surround Speakers : Klipsch RF-82II x 4 / RP-280F x 2
Subwooferage : 6 UM18/4 HT18 Subwoofer Log
bgtighe23 is offline  
post #11 of 36 Old 12-29-2015, 12:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I have all of my AV equipment in the adjoining bedroom hidden in a closet and controlled with my Harmony remote and IR repeater. From what I saw, it didn't look like the Behringer could be operated with IR. Plus I had already run two 50 ft runs of subwoofer RCA cable through the floor across the garage and up through the bedroom for my previous subs. I'm also a MAC guy and it looked like I needed a PC to set up the dsp in the Behringer.

I know the Behringer and Crown offer more bang for the buck than a plate amp. But I paid more for convenience in the end. And the 1000 watts each seems to be plenty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dftkell is offline  
post #12 of 36 Old 12-29-2015, 12:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Gonna do some measurements tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dftkell is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 12-29-2015, 05:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I just ran some measurements using Fuzzmeasure and the same equipment I used when I ran measurements with the sealed boxes last year. I'd like to get some opinions on them.

The blue graph is the Dayton 18 HO's in the old 4 cu/ft sealed boxes. I measured them probably a year ago and from what I remember I applied a boost around 20hz with the plate amp. (Phase of both subs was "norm.")

The green graph is the new Stonehenge boxes in the same locations. The phase of both subs is set to "norm" and I applied a small cut at around 53hz. (Not a big result but helped a little.)

The red graph is the Stonehenge's in same locations with the sub in the front set to "norm" and the phase of the rear sub set to "rev."

And the last graph, is an overlay comparison of all three.

The measurements I'm getting from sealed vs ported appear very close. It's making me question if all of the work I put into the new boxes was worth it.

What does everyone think?

Thanks.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Sealed Subs with boost.png
Views:	204
Size:	61.4 KB
ID:	1150370   Click image for larger version

Name:	Stone Norm:Norm cut 53hz.png
Views:	191
Size:	60.4 KB
ID:	1150378   Click image for larger version

Name:	Stone Norm:Rev.png
Views:	192
Size:	58.5 KB
ID:	1150386   Click image for larger version

Name:	comparisons.png
Views:	227
Size:	76.8 KB
ID:	1150394  
dftkell is offline  
post #14 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 06:00 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
sealed vs ported

Here is a direct comparison of the sealed vs ported. After levels were calibrated, each had a 3db bump so they're a little hot.

Blue = same drivers in 4 cu/ft sealed boxes with PEQ boost around 20z (from what I remember)

Orange = same drivers in Stonehenge boxes
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sealed vs ported.png
Views:	239
Size:	61.1 KB
ID:	1151042  
dftkell is offline  
post #15 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 07:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vitod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pocono, PA
Posts: 3,639
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 165
They pretty much have the same response. Try different sub placements. I know it'll look off, but try it if you can. Maybe put both subs up front? Move the rear sub to the left?

Panasonic AE-8000, Carada BW 120", Paradigm Studio 40v3 x 2, Paradigm 690v4, Paradigm ADP 470v3 (rears), Micca M-8C x 4, Volt 6 x 2 (SR), SI DS4-18 in 12cuft X 2, Marantz 7702MKII, OPPO 103D, Emotiva XPA-3,
vitod is offline  
post #16 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 07:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
When I had the sealed subs, I tried every combination of dual subs I could think of--both in various setups up front, both in various setups behind the couch and multiple setups of one up front and in the rear.

This front-back setup gave me the best overall response.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dftkell is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 07:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vitod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pocono, PA
Posts: 3,639
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post
When I had the sealed subs, I tried every combination of dual subs I could think of--both in various setups up front, both in various setups behind the couch and multiple setups of one up front and in the rear.

This front-back setup gave me the best overall response.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah. Then it's just your room. I think if your room were sealed, they'll be a difference. Or a driver upgrade? UM18?

Panasonic AE-8000, Carada BW 120", Paradigm Studio 40v3 x 2, Paradigm 690v4, Paradigm ADP 470v3 (rears), Micca M-8C x 4, Volt 6 x 2 (SR), SI DS4-18 in 12cuft X 2, Marantz 7702MKII, OPPO 103D, Emotiva XPA-3,
vitod is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 08:08 AM
Member
 
spieg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portage, MI
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Interesting results. Not really what I expected to see. I wouldve guessed the lower end wouldve rolled off faster at the port tune on the stonehenges and that there would be a a couple more db gained at port tune and a little higher (looks like there is only a db or so gained there). I think showing graphs with both configurations without any EQ would be ideal, but I know thats not necessarily possible now that things are switched over. Thanks for sharing your results!
spieg is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 08:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Face2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitod View Post
Ah. Then it's just your room. I think if your room were sealed, they'll be a difference. Or a driver upgrade? UM18?
That box is a bit small for the UM18.

I too am a bit stumbled why the responses are so similar. Although, it is possible that there is now more headroom.
Face2 is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 10:54 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by spieg View Post
Interesting results. Not really what I expected to see. I wouldve guessed the lower end wouldve rolled off faster at the port tune on the stonehenges and that there would be a a couple more db gained at port tune and a little higher (looks like there is only a db or so gained there). I think showing graphs with both configurations without any EQ would be ideal, but I know thats not necessarily possible now that things are switched over. Thanks for sharing your results!
Yeah, it's not really possible since I only kept the best measurements I could get from the sealed boxes when I measured them back in May. From what I remember I gave them a PEQ boost at around 20hz. And that was with 500 watt plate amps. I now have 1000 watt plate amps on the Stonehenges.

Anyway, I went back and took the measurements again. Here is a comparison--Sealed boxes is blue, Stonehenges with a slight cut at 53hz is red. Crossover is set at 60hz--same as it was before. This yielded a slightly better FR.

The results are so close that the differences are negligible, in my opinion. Which is disappointing because I went to a lot of trouble to build the new boxes. But if I hadn't, I would have always wondered, "what if?" Either way, they sound great.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	final comparison.png
Views:	170
Size:	72.2 KB
ID:	1151322  
dftkell is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 12:19 PM
Member
 
spieg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portage, MI
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 78
That looks a little better. It looks like the ported are about 2-3db higher at port tune. And if you take away the gain from the boost on the sealed plot, you'd probably see the db gain at around 19-20hz that would be expected. All that said, I boost my sealed subs as well, and after seeing the minimal differences, I cant really see a reason to switch. If nothing else, you saved me the time and trouble by answering "what if" for me!
spieg is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
LTD02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,216
Mentioned: 862 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2955 Post(s)
Liked: 3685
nice work on your subs, though I'm not sure what you are asking about.


you mentioned that you applied eq to the sealed boxes and are showing that they have a response similar to the ported enclosures with no eq--that is what one would expect.


ported cabs have more output for the same amount of amp, so your new system won't run out of headroom as fast as the old system.


the difference would be really clear in series of sweeps where each one was +5db. the sealed sub would compress out on the low end quite a bit before the ported.

Listen. It's All Good.
LTD02 is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 02:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post
nice work on your subs, though I'm not sure what you are asking about.


you mentioned that you applied eq to the sealed boxes and are showing that they have a response similar to the ported enclosures with no eq--that is what one would expect.


ported cabs have more output for the same amount of amp, so your new system won't run out of headroom as fast as the old system.


the difference would be really clear in series of sweeps where each one was +5db. the sealed sub would compress out on the low end quite a bit before the ported.
Thanks. I guess I was expecting to see a big difference in the graphs on the low end but that makes total sense. I wasn't thinking about headroom vs compression. I was listening to them again just now and they sound great. And on big movie scenes, I'm sure the extra headroom will come in handy.

Thanks
Dan
dftkell is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 12-30-2015, 09:54 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
LTD02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,216
Mentioned: 862 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2955 Post(s)
Liked: 3685
this is roughly what you gain going from 1 sealed to 1 ported of the enclosures that you chose:





that's 5-6db from about 17hz up through about 30hz of headroom. pretty good when you consider doubling subs and amps gives +6db.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	svp.png
Views:	895
Size:	26.0 KB
ID:	1152698  

Listen. It's All Good.
LTD02 is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 12-31-2015, 05:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Thanks for the graphs! That helps explain it. Definitely feels like I made an upgrade now.

Happy New Year everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dftkell is offline  
post #26 of 36 Old 12-31-2015, 06:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 419 Post(s)
Liked: 254
It's also important not to forget that a room dominates low frequency response. Your room is the majority of what your low frequency response looks like, so no matter what subwoofer you put in there, no matter what design, the response will look highly similar. Differences will come mostly when you move the subs around or add additional subs which then energize the room differently and excite modes in different ways.

As was already mentioned, going ported is going to add 5-6 db of output in the low end from an efficiency standpoint. It may reduce compression but that is also tied to the port size and thermal limits of the driver. The sealed system should have thermally stressed the system more than the ported, so then I think the real issue is port compression issues. I'm personally very curious about these same boxes but I think the issue is, are those ports large enough to have inaudible chuffing noises at the levels achieved in the sealed system. My guess is yes, otherwise people would have complained about the box, but since you have the boxes maybe you can test and see.

i helped in the study of and testing of some band pass ported subwoofer designs that used many small ports and special reticulate foam filters lining the ports, as well as a special ported qb3 aligned subwoofer based in a tc sounds 3000 driver, also with a smaller than ideal set of ports using duct liner and reticulate foam. All in an attempt to improve flow and reduce noise. Experiment was an utter failure and left me with five very useless boxes and the manufacturer needing to switch to passive radiators. While the experiments were not successful, with a correctly sized port, I think the same approach would still reduce some of the higher frequency noise coming from the ports. You could always give it a shot.
Mpoes12 is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 12-31-2015, 06:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 419 Post(s)
Liked: 254
It's also important not to forget that a room dominates low frequency response. Your room is the majority of what your low frequency response looks like, so no matter what subwoofer you put in there, no matter what design, the response will look highly similar. Differences will come mostly when you move the subs around or add additional subs which then energize the room differently and excite modes in different ways.

As was already mentioned, going ported is going to add 5-6 db of output in the low end from an efficiency standpoint. It may reduce compression but that is also tied to the port size and thermal limits of the driver. The sealed system should have thermally stressed the system more than the ported, so then I think the real issue is port compression issues. I'm personally very curious about these same boxes but I think the issue is, are those ports large enough to have inaudible chuffing noises at the levels achieved in the sealed system. My guess is yes, otherwise people would have complained about the box, but since you have the boxes maybe you can test and see.

i helped in the study of and testing of some band pass ported subwoofer designs that used many small ports and special reticulate foam filters lining the ports, as well as a special ported qb3 aligned subwoofer based in a tc sounds 3000 driver, also with a smaller than ideal set of ports using duct liner and reticulate foam. All in an attempt to improve flow and reduce noise. Experiment was an utter failure and left me with five very useless boxes and the manufacturer needing to switch to passive radiators. While the experiments were not successful, with a correctly sized port, I think the same approach would still reduce some of the higher frequency noise coming from the ports. You could always give it a shot.
Mpoes12 is offline  
post #28 of 36 Old 01-02-2016, 08:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rhodesj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,159
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 600
How much PEQ did you give the sealed subs? 6 dB of boost requires 4 times as much power as no boost. So if you had a 500W plate amp, when you maxed out the subs before, you were using 500W around the PEQ frequency and only 125W the rest of the time. Now you get the same output with 125W at all frequencies, including the old PEQ frequency, so you can crank the volume even higher and get more bass at every frequency.
rhodesj is offline  
post #29 of 36 Old 01-02-2016, 09:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I don't remember for sure but it was probably around 5-6 db's of PEQ and at the time I had 500 watt plate amps. Now I'm using 1000 watt plate amps on the ported boxes.

Thanks. I have a much better understanding of the advantages now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dftkell is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 01-02-2016, 09:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Face2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Does the current setup sound any different to you?
Face2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off