In my usual browsing I ran across this...
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-862
Now to most this will seem as a another gimmick sub. However to some (if they're open minded), these will open up new doors to having a pair of 10" in a small truck or hatchback Not to mention this is a flat piston sub. Very rare in it's power class!
I've already ran some them thorugh WIN ISD, and the results are very decent...
Sealed:
Net volume = .34 ft^3
Qtc = .7
F3hz = 60hz
F6hz = 46
F10 = 35
Ported:
Net volume = .56 ft^3
Tuning = 35 hz
Port ID/length = 2.5"/ 17.2"
Group delay = peaked @ 35hz/ 12.5 ms (very good!)
The low power handling of 120 rms will easily mate two to a small monoblock amp though efficiency is rather low (88db @2.83v 1/m. Adding another of course will increase output.
In short, I think this sub can be quite competitive to others in it's class though price is somewhat high. Yet, the very shallow basket, long throw 9.5mm xmax, and micro enclosure capability makes it very attractive.
The low power handling and very usefull F3's could make them very doable for installs that are trying to keep the bass focused up front.
Space limited, and/or stealth installs could incorporate this one very nicely as well.
Whatcha think?
Replies (16)
swez on 12/18/2006 12:52:18
I'd have to agree with you Ash. This may indeed be a good option in small cars and trucks that don't have much space for larger sub enclosures.
There are a few shallow mount sub makers out there too. Pioneer makes one and so does Kole. There may be others that use a similar concept and also worth considering.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-p2ynBGIuWXO/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=520&I=130TSS2541 (10", 4 ohm SVC, 250 RMS)
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-p2ynBGIuWXO/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=520&I=130TSS3041 (12", 4 ohm SVC, 350 RMS)
Swez
Ash on 12/18/2006 15:21:17
True... Yet, there is something to me about the Pioneers that makes them somewhat of a misnomer. Though they are shallow, they still require a box size (for a low Q value) that doesn't seem to go well with their nature.
In my book, .70 ft^3 isn't necessarily small if you're cramped for space. In fact nowadays, that size is normal. I'm not sure if they hit the mark with those. Even the first Kicker Solobarics did better than that. Their power handling is still impressive though.
I'll admit that 120 rms on the Tang Band doesn't look good, but compiled with a upgraded from stock to medium modified front stage, I think two would be more than adequate. The 60hz rolloff starting point suggests that these will have a relatively nice response when coupled with most vehicles transfer function. A mildly exaggerated low end response most are looking for.
Of course this is crunching numbers and all. I would like to see some definitive reviews on this one.
cplkittle on 12/18/2006 22:26:52
Exile makes a nice shallow mount sub, the XTEC 10. They only have one 10" model.
http://www.exilecaraudio.com/2006/products/subwoofers/
It only requires .3 cuft.
Exile is made up of 3 guys from phoenix gold that went out to do their own thing.
They have a strict internet policy, so you will have to buy them from a dealer. (I have never seen them on Ebay)
The shop worked for became an exile dealer. I have been really impressed by thier stuff. I don't like the pioneer shallow mount sub, it is only a cone glued to an inverted cone.. no real spider (that I could see) And they tend to have a rattle sound to them.
I was really turned off by pioneer when I found out that on most products, the Premier line is the same spec for spec as the standard line.. just a premier sticker and a hefty price increase.
I love their HU, but that's about it. Oh, They did have the 2000SPL and the 5000SPL subs that were pretty bad ass.
ravin on 12/19/2006 15:02:13
Here is the kole version
http://cardiscountstereos.com/catalog%20page.asp?Product+%23=MFW12
Ash on 12/19/2006 17:08:03
Again, another one that has missed the point.....
Not to be sarcastic or anything because I'm sure those are decent drivers. However, my point is the fact that they are shallow but still require hefty enclosures which sorta defeats the point. Even if the enclosure is made shallow then you will have to add to some other dimension which still nets a clunky box.
Of course, one who would be willing to try the Tang Band would be a individual with specific space needs and is willing to give up the extra power handling. At the same time, if in a small suv, hatchback, or pickup, two 10" even with 240 rms total, I believe is going to be plenty enough.
Besides check other subs specs in it's power class and I believe you will find that it isn't far off or might be even better. The rest will have to be left up to a full audition.
swez on 12/19/2006 23:31:01
Ash, I'd have to agree with you on the Tang's. They give very good bass response and good power in a very compact enclosure. The only question one would have to figure out, is the transfer function issues in a given vehicle. The Tang's are a nice plan for tight spaces and those who demand high SQ performance and modest SPL.
Your thoughts are not being totally ignored. Merry Christmas Bro!
Swez
Ash on 12/20/2006 07:53:15
Wah, wah, waaaahh, what? Oh, Merry Xmas to you too! GRIN
cplkittle on 12/20/2006 10:27:29
While I agree with Ash, there is a little more to take into consideration than the notion that all shallow mount sub applications require very small airspace as well. Today, there are basically two main 'fads' or styles when it comes to subwoofers. The shallow mount and the 'bigger the better' subs. There are not many 4-6" deep subs on the market that are of above average quality and power handling. While 4 years ago, there was an abundance of subwoofers that would fit under the backseat of a truck or behind the bench seat of a single cab. Once the double stacked magnet drivers were introduced, the market went to the bigger the better subs. Now the 13v7, the Audiobahn immortal, pioneer's SPL subs, Diamond's D9 series, Eclipse titanium are all in the 10-14" deep category. So the cheaper brands and cheaper models (the rockford p1 has a 3" plastic cap on the back to make it look bigger) are doing what they can to mimic the appearance of a massive sub.
Bottom line is, that sometimes a shallow mount sub is necessary because of the depth, and these models offer comparative power handling and quality as some of the bigger subs. However, it is not always that difficult to get 1.0-1.5 cu ft of airspace in these situations.
It is definitely a key aspect of consideration when planning, but let's not rule them out all together because of recommended air space for an enclosure.
Ash on 12/20/2006 17:35:31
True...
I was just a little ecstatic on seeing one that may actually fit into that rare category and still show decent performance (on paper anyway).
I myself have always thought out of the box and and maybe to the extreme sometimes. Yet, it was always to serve a function. Ideas that I come up with that sometimes makes it hard to find the proper material to make it work. This just so happens to be one of them.
As far as the idea, I can't tell you unless you give your address and what time you go to bed!
swez on 12/20/2006 19:39:27
Ash, this might be a reasonable option to the next guy that comes in w/ a single cab Ranger, Mazda, S-10 or Dakota and needs a small enclosure, but not huge SPL.
For now, file the idea and when you see one, toss it out there. Can't hurt and we all might learn a new option in the process too.
Swez
Ash on 12/20/2006 21:15:53
Hey, no fair! That sorta sounded like blackmail....
Okay, that's a fair deal. GRIN
In short, my reasoning on this is some re-studying on sound quality and up front bass. The latter effect being the hardest to attain as we all know. Mostly, I believe because we tend to overpower the low end and struggle to compensate with the front stage.
Of course to best attain this effect with a "normal" front stage is to find an efficient sub/enclosure combo. Efficient by means that if the right frequencies are targeted then extra power is really not needed, unless your a SPL fanatic.
Sounds simple right? Nothing new? That's exactly it. Just like cplkittle stated how the market is jumping on bandwagons
even if it's going the wrong way. Well I believe this is one in the bunch that is exactly opposite. One that reminds me of how it used to be. Capabilities without the added "power flair", except now with less space.
If I'm not trying to boom the block, then why should I have to fill my trunk?!!!
Makes sense?
swez on 12/20/2006 23:00:06
Quote: "Hey, no fair!"
Who said life was/is fair??? SMILE
Naw, I get the drift and it's a good one too. The question is more of one with a need for such things is all. Most may not, but some may be very interested in this option.
Blackmail? Please... this is one of the most fair minded sites on the Internet and open to many fresh ideas. Perish the thought my man.
Stick with it as this idea will have merit to those who wnat compact systems, and not just a bunch of boom.
Swez
cplkittle on 12/20/2006 23:24:34
"if you want that much bass, you need a bigger car"
I have used that line many many times. I never could lie to people and promise them the moon when I knew it wouldn't fit in their car.
and most of them only have a $300 budget
ShootuhMcBustaCap on 12/21/2006 00:28:05
Definetily Agree with Kit's statement on the P1 Rockford sub. When I opened the box to put it in my lady's car, I almost died laughing. There is more plastic in that sub then there is in a Bic factory! The silly little plastic "cone" spiderwebbed after a month, so since Ultimate Electronics has an over the counter replacement policy, I intentionally underpowered the thing till it blew! That was fun! In short, it was a good thing a freind sold me the sub I bought for her, and was cool enough to swap it out with a Type E Alpine. Freinds Don't let Freinds Do Punch Stage 1 I guess. LOL
Ash on 12/21/2006 07:31:33
Dang "Shootuh".... I never tried to intentionally ruin a sub, I've always tossed them off to the next guy. I guess that would be worse though, huh? Now I feel bad!
The same thing on the Tang Band is what drew me to want the Dayton Reference HO 10". The fact that it could reach a relatively low Qtc in as small as .33 ft^3 and still have just the right -F3hz. I just didn't like the fact that the Dayton handling was 600rms. I could run it, but I felt it was just unecessary. Especially after the 8's went back in (sealed .33ft^3).
That's when I realized just how much I didn't need all the extra sub output.
I"m still running the Audax 6.5's and 4's in a three way configuration and they sound darn good. I'm just looking for options to mate a subwoofer to this " low budget/ low power" SQ system and possibly get a little stealth to it.
Though the 8's lacked somewhat on the low end (F3hz is around 78hz), the amount of bass output is actually pretty pleasing. They have just enough punch and meat to blend good with the front, so there is some fullness. It's not like they are anemic by far. So more power isn't necessary at this point.
I just need to find a sub with just a little lower resonance (60hz could work) to pick up a tad more low notes, plus it would be nice to keep the space I gained with the small subs.
ShootuhMcBustaCap on 12/21/2006 21:17:08
I had to blow it to get it replaced under warranty. I hated that sub, I whould have shot, stabbed, otherwise malmed it if they still would have replaced it. Never heard a blown sub sound so good.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-862
Now to most this will seem as a another gimmick sub. However to some (if they're open minded), these will open up new doors to having a pair of 10" in a small truck or hatchback Not to mention this is a flat piston sub. Very rare in it's power class!
I've already ran some them thorugh WIN ISD, and the results are very decent...
Sealed:
Net volume = .34 ft^3
Qtc = .7
F3hz = 60hz
F6hz = 46
F10 = 35
Ported:
Net volume = .56 ft^3
Tuning = 35 hz
Port ID/length = 2.5"/ 17.2"
Group delay = peaked @ 35hz/ 12.5 ms (very good!)
The low power handling of 120 rms will easily mate two to a small monoblock amp though efficiency is rather low (88db @2.83v 1/m. Adding another of course will increase output.
In short, I think this sub can be quite competitive to others in it's class though price is somewhat high. Yet, the very shallow basket, long throw 9.5mm xmax, and micro enclosure capability makes it very attractive.
The low power handling and very usefull F3's could make them very doable for installs that are trying to keep the bass focused up front.
Space limited, and/or stealth installs could incorporate this one very nicely as well.
Whatcha think?
Replies (16)
swez on 12/18/2006 12:52:18
I'd have to agree with you Ash. This may indeed be a good option in small cars and trucks that don't have much space for larger sub enclosures.
There are a few shallow mount sub makers out there too. Pioneer makes one and so does Kole. There may be others that use a similar concept and also worth considering.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-p2ynBGIuWXO/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=520&I=130TSS2541 (10", 4 ohm SVC, 250 RMS)
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-p2ynBGIuWXO/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=520&I=130TSS3041 (12", 4 ohm SVC, 350 RMS)
Swez
Ash on 12/18/2006 15:21:17
True... Yet, there is something to me about the Pioneers that makes them somewhat of a misnomer. Though they are shallow, they still require a box size (for a low Q value) that doesn't seem to go well with their nature.
In my book, .70 ft^3 isn't necessarily small if you're cramped for space. In fact nowadays, that size is normal. I'm not sure if they hit the mark with those. Even the first Kicker Solobarics did better than that. Their power handling is still impressive though.
I'll admit that 120 rms on the Tang Band doesn't look good, but compiled with a upgraded from stock to medium modified front stage, I think two would be more than adequate. The 60hz rolloff starting point suggests that these will have a relatively nice response when coupled with most vehicles transfer function. A mildly exaggerated low end response most are looking for.
Of course this is crunching numbers and all. I would like to see some definitive reviews on this one.
cplkittle on 12/18/2006 22:26:52
Exile makes a nice shallow mount sub, the XTEC 10. They only have one 10" model.
http://www.exilecaraudio.com/2006/products/subwoofers/
It only requires .3 cuft.
Exile is made up of 3 guys from phoenix gold that went out to do their own thing.
They have a strict internet policy, so you will have to buy them from a dealer. (I have never seen them on Ebay)
The shop worked for became an exile dealer. I have been really impressed by thier stuff. I don't like the pioneer shallow mount sub, it is only a cone glued to an inverted cone.. no real spider (that I could see) And they tend to have a rattle sound to them.
I was really turned off by pioneer when I found out that on most products, the Premier line is the same spec for spec as the standard line.. just a premier sticker and a hefty price increase.
I love their HU, but that's about it. Oh, They did have the 2000SPL and the 5000SPL subs that were pretty bad ass.
ravin on 12/19/2006 15:02:13
Here is the kole version
http://cardiscountstereos.com/catalog%20page.asp?Product+%23=MFW12
Ash on 12/19/2006 17:08:03
Again, another one that has missed the point.....
Not to be sarcastic or anything because I'm sure those are decent drivers. However, my point is the fact that they are shallow but still require hefty enclosures which sorta defeats the point. Even if the enclosure is made shallow then you will have to add to some other dimension which still nets a clunky box.
Of course, one who would be willing to try the Tang Band would be a individual with specific space needs and is willing to give up the extra power handling. At the same time, if in a small suv, hatchback, or pickup, two 10" even with 240 rms total, I believe is going to be plenty enough.
Besides check other subs specs in it's power class and I believe you will find that it isn't far off or might be even better. The rest will have to be left up to a full audition.
swez on 12/19/2006 23:31:01
Ash, I'd have to agree with you on the Tang's. They give very good bass response and good power in a very compact enclosure. The only question one would have to figure out, is the transfer function issues in a given vehicle. The Tang's are a nice plan for tight spaces and those who demand high SQ performance and modest SPL.
Your thoughts are not being totally ignored. Merry Christmas Bro!
Swez
Ash on 12/20/2006 07:53:15
Wah, wah, waaaahh, what? Oh, Merry Xmas to you too! GRIN
cplkittle on 12/20/2006 10:27:29
While I agree with Ash, there is a little more to take into consideration than the notion that all shallow mount sub applications require very small airspace as well. Today, there are basically two main 'fads' or styles when it comes to subwoofers. The shallow mount and the 'bigger the better' subs. There are not many 4-6" deep subs on the market that are of above average quality and power handling. While 4 years ago, there was an abundance of subwoofers that would fit under the backseat of a truck or behind the bench seat of a single cab. Once the double stacked magnet drivers were introduced, the market went to the bigger the better subs. Now the 13v7, the Audiobahn immortal, pioneer's SPL subs, Diamond's D9 series, Eclipse titanium are all in the 10-14" deep category. So the cheaper brands and cheaper models (the rockford p1 has a 3" plastic cap on the back to make it look bigger) are doing what they can to mimic the appearance of a massive sub.
Bottom line is, that sometimes a shallow mount sub is necessary because of the depth, and these models offer comparative power handling and quality as some of the bigger subs. However, it is not always that difficult to get 1.0-1.5 cu ft of airspace in these situations.
It is definitely a key aspect of consideration when planning, but let's not rule them out all together because of recommended air space for an enclosure.
Ash on 12/20/2006 17:35:31
True...
I was just a little ecstatic on seeing one that may actually fit into that rare category and still show decent performance (on paper anyway).
I myself have always thought out of the box and and maybe to the extreme sometimes. Yet, it was always to serve a function. Ideas that I come up with that sometimes makes it hard to find the proper material to make it work. This just so happens to be one of them.
As far as the idea, I can't tell you unless you give your address and what time you go to bed!
swez on 12/20/2006 19:39:27
Ash, this might be a reasonable option to the next guy that comes in w/ a single cab Ranger, Mazda, S-10 or Dakota and needs a small enclosure, but not huge SPL.
For now, file the idea and when you see one, toss it out there. Can't hurt and we all might learn a new option in the process too.
Swez
Ash on 12/20/2006 21:15:53
Hey, no fair! That sorta sounded like blackmail....
Okay, that's a fair deal. GRIN
In short, my reasoning on this is some re-studying on sound quality and up front bass. The latter effect being the hardest to attain as we all know. Mostly, I believe because we tend to overpower the low end and struggle to compensate with the front stage.
Of course to best attain this effect with a "normal" front stage is to find an efficient sub/enclosure combo. Efficient by means that if the right frequencies are targeted then extra power is really not needed, unless your a SPL fanatic.
Sounds simple right? Nothing new? That's exactly it. Just like cplkittle stated how the market is jumping on bandwagons
even if it's going the wrong way. Well I believe this is one in the bunch that is exactly opposite. One that reminds me of how it used to be. Capabilities without the added "power flair", except now with less space.
If I'm not trying to boom the block, then why should I have to fill my trunk?!!!
Makes sense?
swez on 12/20/2006 23:00:06
Quote: "Hey, no fair!"
Who said life was/is fair??? SMILE
Naw, I get the drift and it's a good one too. The question is more of one with a need for such things is all. Most may not, but some may be very interested in this option.
Blackmail? Please... this is one of the most fair minded sites on the Internet and open to many fresh ideas. Perish the thought my man.
Stick with it as this idea will have merit to those who wnat compact systems, and not just a bunch of boom.
Swez
cplkittle on 12/20/2006 23:24:34
"if you want that much bass, you need a bigger car"
I have used that line many many times. I never could lie to people and promise them the moon when I knew it wouldn't fit in their car.
and most of them only have a $300 budget
ShootuhMcBustaCap on 12/21/2006 00:28:05
Definetily Agree with Kit's statement on the P1 Rockford sub. When I opened the box to put it in my lady's car, I almost died laughing. There is more plastic in that sub then there is in a Bic factory! The silly little plastic "cone" spiderwebbed after a month, so since Ultimate Electronics has an over the counter replacement policy, I intentionally underpowered the thing till it blew! That was fun! In short, it was a good thing a freind sold me the sub I bought for her, and was cool enough to swap it out with a Type E Alpine. Freinds Don't let Freinds Do Punch Stage 1 I guess. LOL
Ash on 12/21/2006 07:31:33
Dang "Shootuh".... I never tried to intentionally ruin a sub, I've always tossed them off to the next guy. I guess that would be worse though, huh? Now I feel bad!
The same thing on the Tang Band is what drew me to want the Dayton Reference HO 10". The fact that it could reach a relatively low Qtc in as small as .33 ft^3 and still have just the right -F3hz. I just didn't like the fact that the Dayton handling was 600rms. I could run it, but I felt it was just unecessary. Especially after the 8's went back in (sealed .33ft^3).
That's when I realized just how much I didn't need all the extra sub output.
I"m still running the Audax 6.5's and 4's in a three way configuration and they sound darn good. I'm just looking for options to mate a subwoofer to this " low budget/ low power" SQ system and possibly get a little stealth to it.
Though the 8's lacked somewhat on the low end (F3hz is around 78hz), the amount of bass output is actually pretty pleasing. They have just enough punch and meat to blend good with the front, so there is some fullness. It's not like they are anemic by far. So more power isn't necessary at this point.
I just need to find a sub with just a little lower resonance (60hz could work) to pick up a tad more low notes, plus it would be nice to keep the space I gained with the small subs.
ShootuhMcBustaCap on 12/21/2006 21:17:08
I had to blow it to get it replaced under warranty. I hated that sub, I whould have shot, stabbed, otherwise malmed it if they still would have replaced it. Never heard a blown sub sound so good.
Copyright ClubKnowledge 2009 * All Rights Reserved
