Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:44 am
by Fishy
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
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 2:04 am
by spkrman
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.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 6:37 am
by sinister audio
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