Ned
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2000
- Messages
- 838
Due to size constraints, I have to reduce the size of the sub enclosure for my car. The shape is roughly like this from the side
..._____
../.......|
./........|
/______|
I estimate the internal volume around 0.5 cubic'
The driver is an Eclipse 86120.4 and the parameters are
Fs: 28hz
QTS: 0.75
VAS: 3.06 cubic'
RE: 4 ohms
QMS: 11.5
Qes: 0.42
Xmax: 1"
Sd: 485.5
Eclipse suggests the following designs:
0.5 Sealed - "competition"
1.0 Sealed - "boomy" (heh, desirable?)
1.25 Sealed - "Nat bass" (natural I guess)
1.75 Sealed "Ext bass" (extra or extended?)
What happens as I reduce the enclosure volume? Less extension but more SPL? Before the box was twice this size (I sawed it in half), and the sound was a tad "loose", with "overhang". Is this "competition" design what people call "punchy"?
I also have one of the old SVS 12" CS/PC drivers leftover from the driver upgrade. Is that driver much better than this Eclipse unit and suited for such an enclosure?
TIA
..._____
../.......|
./........|
/______|
I estimate the internal volume around 0.5 cubic'
The driver is an Eclipse 86120.4 and the parameters are
Fs: 28hz
QTS: 0.75
VAS: 3.06 cubic'
RE: 4 ohms
QMS: 11.5
Qes: 0.42
Xmax: 1"
Sd: 485.5
Eclipse suggests the following designs:
0.5 Sealed - "competition"
1.0 Sealed - "boomy" (heh, desirable?)
1.25 Sealed - "Nat bass" (natural I guess)
1.75 Sealed "Ext bass" (extra or extended?)
What happens as I reduce the enclosure volume? Less extension but more SPL? Before the box was twice this size (I sawed it in half), and the sound was a tad "loose", with "overhang". Is this "competition" design what people call "punchy"?
I also have one of the old SVS 12" CS/PC drivers leftover from the driver upgrade. Is that driver much better than this Eclipse unit and suited for such an enclosure?
TIA