|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,280
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,280 |
Originally posted by dnewma04: The E8A from Elemental Designs looks like a viable candidate. 16.5mm xmax, .44 qts, and 185.00.
My vote. I've got an E12K and I'm very happy with it. Great company, great products, great service, yadda yadda yadda.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,163
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,163 |
Dave would it be possible to, for a free air application under the rear deck opening, use one of the mentioned 8" drivers along with two pieces of wood where the piece of wood that the woofer would be attached to has a circular cutout equaling the diameter of the cone and surround material and having a thickness equaling or no less than the one way xmax if the driver; then the piece of wood that will be attached to the bottom of the rear deck will be attached the top of the first piece of wood where this other piece of wood having a circular cutout equaling the diameter of the rear deck opening would be glued so that the air pressure from the speaker would not vibrate the thin metal or the thick piece of wood. Yes there will be some pressure loss but not much. The only problem I see is that a precision tool is needed to create the openings in the pieces of wood. A dremel tool along with a non steady hand would not give a accurate enough cut on an incorrect template drawing onto two pieces of wood 13"X9"X3/4" (LxDxH) to get things to fit correctly. Is this a good way to fire an eight inch driver into a smaller five inch opening without causing to much rear deck rattle?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,092
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,092 |
Originally posted by contour_phoenix_when: Dave would it be possible to, for a free air application under the rear deck opening, use one of the mentioned 8" drivers along with two pieces of wood where the piece of wood that the woofer would be attached to has a circular cutout equaling the diameter of the cone and surround material and having a thickness equaling or no less than the one way xmax if the driver; then the piece of wood that will be attached to the bottom of the rear deck will be attached the top of the first piece of wood where this other piece of wood having a circular cutout equaling the diameter of the rear deck opening would be glued so that the air pressure from the speaker would not vibrate the thin metal or the thick piece of wood. Yes there will be some pressure loss but not much. The only problem I see is that a precision tool is needed to create the openings in the pieces of wood. A dremel tool along with a non steady hand would not give a accurate enough cut on an incorrect template drawing onto two pieces of wood 13"X9"X3/4" (LxDxH) to get things to fit correctly. Is this a good way to fire an eight inch driver into a smaller five inch opening without causing to much rear deck rattle?
A thick enough baffle with the driver bottom-mounted to it really is sufficient to take care of the rattles from the rear deck as long as you mount it securely. I used 3/4" MDF for a pair of 8s, and it worked pretty well. The most rattling problems come from the rear deck cover. I cut out the backing above both subs to make it as transpearant as possible, and used some felt carpet padding to further quell rattles.
See here for some pics:
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/colinmthompson@sbcglobal.net/lst?&.
1999 Ford Contour SVT #900/2760 (SOLD)
2005 Mazda 6s
2003.5 Mazdaspeed Protege
1998 Ford Ranger 4x4
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,092
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,092 |
Originally posted by dnewma04: Fs 28.00 Hz Re 3.20 Ohm Qms 10.53 Qes 0.30 Sd 57.0 cm2 Vas 23.0 l Xmax peak 12.00 mm Le 1.49 mH Le2 0.00 mH Re2 0.00 Ohm Nominal Power 150.0 W qts .292
14l tuned to 31 hz looks nice.
Dave, how do you think the output and sound quality of a pair of the TB subs in a ported box with 75w each would compare to something like my PB12 in a 2ft^3 box being fed 300w???
Or, would a pair of the ID8's with 150w each in a ported box be a better choice for depth and output? I'm assuming the SQ between the two would be pretty close.
Having trouble deciding between the two... The price of the TB at $32/each is friggin' great tho!
But, what about a single 8w7 or E8A being fed 300w?
1999 Ford Contour SVT #900/2760 (SOLD)
2005 Mazda 6s
2003.5 Mazdaspeed Protege
1998 Ford Ranger 4x4
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
If it were me, I would get the tangbands. For 64.00, it is worth the experiment. If you decide they aren't adequate, use them for something else.
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,163
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,163 |
Where to go to get this woodwork done? My local hardware store that sells wood only cuts straight lines
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
have them cut the square pieces of wood and buy yourself a saber saw (you can get them for under 40.00) to cut the holes.
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,092
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,092 |
Update: I ordered a pair of the Tang Band subs from www.nuera-acoustic.ca for $80 shipped. They'll be going in a ported box in the hatch of my RX7. As they're 4ohm SVC subs, I'll only be giving them a "rated" 75w each. But, it's probably more like 100-125w each of available power which seems to be a good match as they're rated to handle 125w. I'll post my impressions after I've designed/built a box and have them installed. Thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions.
1999 Ford Contour SVT #900/2760 (SOLD)
2005 Mazda 6s
2003.5 Mazdaspeed Protege
1998 Ford Ranger 4x4
|
|
|
|
|