Desite all the confusion about the use of these I had a very good experience.
I'm currently running some Peerless 5-1/4's I purchased @ partsexpress ($9.00ea) along with a set of Massive 3/4" silk domes @ a local shop. The Peerless was simply running free-air in the lower doors of my 240. Response was okay but could have been better. Power handling of course was down a bit even though bass response was a tad noticable due to the type of install. They were crossed over around maybe 200-250 running off a USX2080 with a natural low roll-off around 3K. Barely any midbass with a strong lower resonance around 60hz if crossed lower. Not too good!
I finally got enough nerve to try the foam baffles before resorting another set of mids. Well! Bam! I used a little polyfill (enough to fill the rear) and man did they sound good. Detail is now of high quality with less strain. Midbass is now strong enough to blend perfectly with the 8" Credence subs (JBL300.1). Power handling has drastically improved. In fact they can handle close to full power with the x-over defeated though I don't intend to run them that way. Yet that will allow a lower setting than before for better performance.
I must strongly note that the Peerless are a lower Qts/Vas woofer (.39) and this is why the baffle and woofer combo works. I chose them for that reason even though I was kinda lazy in fulfilling the design @ first. I don't recommend trying this with higher Q midwoofers as they are meant to run free-air.
Hope this helps anyone!
Replies (3)
swez on 07/22/2004 07:52:58
Good piece of work on this one and saved a ton of cash on your comps too huh?
The baffles are definitely better than free air for most Low Q drivers. Need some kind of enclosure to control the cone and stabilize the MB output.
Thanks for the tips,
Swez
cplkittle on 07/22/2004 08:25:45
We use those here some.. They do enhance the midbass dramatically. They are airtight, but do flex. For a stiffer response you can either fiberglass them or clearcoat them with some type of spray shellac or polyeurethane. Coating the outside leaves the foam on the inside soft and works somewhat like polyfill.
asplundher on 07/23/2004 18:25:39
I don't really believe the flexing is that much of a problem. The response I was looking for is there, plus the flex helps when the windows are rolled down. If the enclosure needed to be stiffer then you might as well build some type of fiberglass box which would call for some complex contours and many work hours.
I think the "bad experiences" with these in the past from others might have came from putting speakers in them that required more airspace than the baffles supply. That is the main factor that isn't stated with their use. Unfortunately most only use the theile small parameters on subs or don't have them on their mid's.
I rate them as a simple but, effective solution for low Qts, low Vas mid woofers that won't perform freeair.
I'm currently running some Peerless 5-1/4's I purchased @ partsexpress ($9.00ea) along with a set of Massive 3/4" silk domes @ a local shop. The Peerless was simply running free-air in the lower doors of my 240. Response was okay but could have been better. Power handling of course was down a bit even though bass response was a tad noticable due to the type of install. They were crossed over around maybe 200-250 running off a USX2080 with a natural low roll-off around 3K. Barely any midbass with a strong lower resonance around 60hz if crossed lower. Not too good!
I finally got enough nerve to try the foam baffles before resorting another set of mids. Well! Bam! I used a little polyfill (enough to fill the rear) and man did they sound good. Detail is now of high quality with less strain. Midbass is now strong enough to blend perfectly with the 8" Credence subs (JBL300.1). Power handling has drastically improved. In fact they can handle close to full power with the x-over defeated though I don't intend to run them that way. Yet that will allow a lower setting than before for better performance.
I must strongly note that the Peerless are a lower Qts/Vas woofer (.39) and this is why the baffle and woofer combo works. I chose them for that reason even though I was kinda lazy in fulfilling the design @ first. I don't recommend trying this with higher Q midwoofers as they are meant to run free-air.
Hope this helps anyone!
Replies (3)
swez on 07/22/2004 07:52:58
Good piece of work on this one and saved a ton of cash on your comps too huh?
The baffles are definitely better than free air for most Low Q drivers. Need some kind of enclosure to control the cone and stabilize the MB output.
Thanks for the tips,
Swez
cplkittle on 07/22/2004 08:25:45
We use those here some.. They do enhance the midbass dramatically. They are airtight, but do flex. For a stiffer response you can either fiberglass them or clearcoat them with some type of spray shellac or polyeurethane. Coating the outside leaves the foam on the inside soft and works somewhat like polyfill.
asplundher on 07/23/2004 18:25:39
I don't really believe the flexing is that much of a problem. The response I was looking for is there, plus the flex helps when the windows are rolled down. If the enclosure needed to be stiffer then you might as well build some type of fiberglass box which would call for some complex contours and many work hours.
I think the "bad experiences" with these in the past from others might have came from putting speakers in them that required more airspace than the baffles supply. That is the main factor that isn't stated with their use. Unfortunately most only use the theile small parameters on subs or don't have them on their mid's.
I rate them as a simple but, effective solution for low Qts, low Vas mid woofers that won't perform freeair.
Copyright ClubKnowledge 2009 * All Rights Reserved
