Subwoofer effeciancy in relation to SQ

Fishy · Post by **Fishy** » Sat May 07, 2005 1:44 am

I think it has a lot to do with the sub as well. I tried my 10w3's sealed .75 ft^3(JL recommends .625) and didn't like the upper bass "ring" they seemed to have. Even tried polyfill to no avail. Maybe I'm just used to the higher output of my ported box. Its tuned to 28 Hz and has a lot better low end extension and seems to blend better with my front stage. Then again it may be I turned the gains up a bit more with the sealed to compensate for the lack of bass in the 40-50 Hz range.

-Fishy

spkrman · Post by **spkrman** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:04 am

Fishy wrote:I think it has a lot to do with the sub as well. I tried my 10w3's sealed .75 ft^3(JL recommends .625) and didn't like the upper bass "ring" they seemed to have. Even tried polyfill to no avail. Maybe I'm just used to the higher output of my ported box. Its tuned to 28 Hz and has a lot better low end extension and seems to blend better with my front stage. Then again it may be I turned the gains up a bit more with the sealed to compensate for the lack of bass in the 40-50 Hz range.

-Fishy

same exact story with quite a few lower/midrange xmax woofs... its just too hard to get good extension while maintaining a decent amount of output.

sinister audio · Post by **sinister audio** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:37 am

well i didnt mean for a specific sub but one with the internal volume thats right. there are alot of sub boxes that have the right volume for a sealed box and sound great