Hey guys,
I recently bought a Phoenix Gold Xenon x10d4 and will be building my enclosure for it Wednesday. However as I was reading though the spec sheet in regards to the volume required it states that the larger enclosure will result in a "Musical" sound and smaller "SPL."
As far as I know the smaller usually results in a tight SQ oriented sound and the larger is boomier and more SPL. I have chosen to go with approximately 0.8cuft sealed enclosure. Here is a link to the spec sheet.
http://www.rodinaudio.com/pgMobile/literature.php
(click the link " Please visit the Phoenix Gold FTP Server")
I would like to hear you opinions on this subject.
Thanks,
Jason
Replies (11)
swez on 01/13/2008 13:34:28
Nice to see you came back to the roost Ol Boy! SMILE Welcome back old friend!
After looking at the specs on this woofer, the SPL side of the equations means a smaller enclosure, more power handling and perhaps a bit less low end bass. (0.42 ft^3 is for high SPL use)
The other end of the spectrum is a larger sealed box for better low frequency extension, but trading accurate SQ and power handling for that aspect. The larger box, (0.85 ft^3) may give more deep bass, but not as chrisp at higher SPL levels and may be a tad boomy/sloppy too.
Here, I would suggest a sealed box of say 0.75 ft^3 initially for this sub. If this sounds good, tight and well balanced at rated power of your amp, the project is a done well.
However, if the woofer gets a bit muddy or sloppy on low bass notes, adding inner braces will help decrease the internal airspace and tighten up the bass. (Better SQL performance)
Finally, "cabin gain or "transfer functions" in the vehicle can have a huge impact on sub performance. Depending on the vehicle and where the sub is situated, we can expect a solid 10-15dB bump in SPL above ~50 Hz. In larger SUV's, Hatchbacks and Extended Cabin Trucks. This can be a positive additive factor.
In smaller sedans and coupes where the truck is sealed from the cabin, other issues are common. (Boomy, muddy bass and not much Bass SPL into the cabin are common) Keep that in mind if you don't have a flip down rear seat system for extended cargo capacity.
Comments?
Swez
LC1 on 01/13/2008 16:07:32
Hey Swez, thanks for the quick response. I have not started this box just yet. I have only done the drawings up on SolidWorks. I am going to shrink up the width slightly to get the 0.75ft^3 volume. As for the amp I am using it borderline enough power for this sub.
JL e1400D
Rated Power @ (12.5v)
400W RMS x 1 @ 2ohm
Rated Power @ (14.4v)
500W RMS x 1 @ 2ohm
I just went out and measured the input voltage at my amp with all accessories running and the stereo turned up pretty loud (louder then my normal listening level) and it was holding steady at 13.9-14v. Gotta love the stock 150amp alternator VW gave me! The 2008's got knocked down to 140amp.
Anyways I will let you know how it turns out. As I said in my first post I am building this Wednesday night.
Talk to you later,
Jason
swez on 01/13/2008 20:13:14
Sounds like a plan. In your drawing, consider adding additional mass, (Internal bracing) just in case the sub gets a bit sloppy at full power. I suggest starting at 0.75 ft^3 for now. If that is too large, add mass in 0.05 ft^3 increments should help a lot. I would not be too surprised if you wound up at 0.65 ft^3 before it sounds tight and full.
Good luck Jason,
Dave
SQLThump on 01/17/2008 17:20:21
Thats one hell of a stock ALT. I'm mad jealous!
LC1 on 01/20/2008 15:02:16
Well I finished my enclosure, tuned my amp and started playing some of my more favorite CD's. My first reaction was holy crap I love how tight and low the bass felt but when I changed to a rock song with a heavy kick drum I was less then impressed.
I find with rap and dance music the bass is super crisp and full sounding. However when I play something like rock it sounds like there isn't any bass at all. The entire low end is missing, even when I adjust the bass boost. I have tried increasing the gain slightly but when I pass the HU level it just gets sloppy so I have returned it back to 28.3v (calculated with Ohms law & adjusted with multimeter). Also I have the crossover set to 100hrz.
Here is my setup:
Factory 6disc MP3 HU
Audiocontrol LC6 line level converter.
JL e1400D sub amp
Phoenix Gold Xenon x10d4 (0.7ft^3 sealed enclosure)
JLe4300 frontstage amp
CDT HD 642 3way components
Basically I want to get my new sub sounding more musical with all genres of music. My 12" Alpine SWR-1241D did this very well while still sounding tight. Do I need to increase the size of the enclosure etc?
You help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jason
swez on 01/20/2008 19:53:19
Give the new sub some time to break in. (1-2 weeks) If the bass does not improve after that, you might want to add about 1 lb of polyfill to the box and see that helps. If that does not cut it, then a larger box may be needed.
FYI: Most Rock music does not have the bass content we find in Rap, Hip-Hop and other genres of music. This is especially true of older Rock music that was not digitally mastered. They just did not have the head room in tape media masters, (Analog signals) to produce the "juiced" bass we now get from digital mastering.
Try something like "Jump" from Van Halen. The bass will sound pretty weak/thin in this mix except for the low synth tones. Then try something like "My Maria" from Brooks and Dunn. The bass and kick drum will be much stronger. (Deep, throbbing bass and nice kick drum too) Another cut to listen to, "Summer of 69" or "Run to You" from Bryan Adams. These rock tunes have better low bass in the cut and the floor toms really bump along w/ the bass.
For the most part, Rock is comprised of a narrow band of bass, above 40 Hz. For example, in the key of "A", the lowest bass note is ~55 Hz. That's going to sound punchy at best, but not the thunder that comes from low "E, F or G" cord progressions and intervals.
One of the best cuts I have heard was an old analog song called "Lucky Man" from Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Fat bass tones, decent kick drum, crisp acoustic guitar, snappy snare and decent cymbal crashes too. It's when they bring in the low synth tones, things really get low. Note the dynamic range in this cut. It shifts from delicate acoustic guitar, drum kit and vocals to deep, powered lows from the synth. (That's where the thunder rolls in... at the 3:12 mark and beyond)
Try it, you'll like it,
Swez
LC1 on 01/20/2008 20:07:12
Thanks for the recommendations, I will definitely have to check those tracks out.
Also I should have mentioned in my last post the rock songs are ones that I have listened to with my last setup. The songs used to be much more full sounding. I have made it sound a bit better by starting with a new spot to tune my sub amp. Before I used approx 3/4 full volume whereas now I am using approx 2/3 and the results are a little better. Just have to adjust the bass down a bit on the bass heavy tracks.
Thanks,
Jason
swez on 01/20/2008 20:24:39
I gathered that as your reference point. The Alpine 1242D does very well in smaller sealed (0.85) or ported boxes (1.7). It was designed that way to deliver great SQL bass in a compact box.
Also, if you changed vehicles since then, that can have a big impact on bass performance as well. Going from a larger vehicle to a compact car will decrease low bass performance too. (Cabin gain and resonance nodes change a lot in smaller cars)
Just for hits and giggles, go out to an unpopulated area and crank up the bass with the windows open a bit. That might change your bass performance for the better too. However, when the sub breaks in, the bass will get stronger and fuller too.
Swez
LC1 on 01/20/2008 21:12:43
LC1 on 01/20/2008 21:18:28
Thanks for the advise once again. This place is an oasis of car audio experts ha ha. I will keep you updated over the next few weeks of how it turns out.
Also Swez if my memory is correct I will be venturing down towards your area Tuesday/Wednesday this week. I have a meeting a GM Powertrain in Bay City, MI (north on I 75 from Flint) Wednesday morning. I am an engineer for a company that produces the V8 cams for GM and we shipped a few down there out of spec. So I have to do a problem solving report in front of the business team. Should be lots of fun.
Anyways talk to you later,
Jason
swez on 01/20/2008 22:17:18
Hehe, we know that drill huh bud. Hopefully it's a minor issue and their engineers are collaborators and not castigator's. It's not always fun walking into a room full of aggitated engineers, factory workers and QC Managers and have to face them all alone. (At least not as a Regional Sales Mgr.) But, when we came in with our team of Engineers, techs and R&D Managers, the tone was a lot more collaborative. Funny how that all worked back then. (Bean-ball the Sales guy whenever possible, but treat the team entirely different, was the order of the day)
Yes, I live west of Dearborn and have worked with Ford, GM and several OEM Sub-suppliers in a previous life. Many times, these meetings were all about internal politics and bean-balling the Salesman whenever possible. (Until rapport and action plans were firmly established)
Design changes, specification mods and QC issues usually brought a receptive and open-minded group to the table. They tended to listen well, share ideas and collorate very openly on the early engineering and design levels.
On the other hand, contract negotiations and price slashing meetings were generally more like playing hardball on every point, jot and tiddle. There were lots of poker faced players to shake the trees as hard as they could. Their goal was to squeeze every penny out of the vendors' profit margins with the inducement of huge orders when the product hit the production stages. Gee, I can remeber those like it was yesterday.
Talk about hard-nosed negotiation tactics... "We want an arm, a leg and your first male born child by the time it's all said and done". LOL
After these sessions were over, would take a pile of people to lunch or dinner and spend a ton of money and then they'd loosen up after a few drinks and become a lot more friendly after their bellies were full. (Is it still that way in the Automotive sector?)
This was mostly true back in the mid/late 90's when I called on large OEM's, Sub-suppliers and aftermarket vendors for the Big 3. It was so predictable. They had big guns back then and loved pushing vendors hard as they knew there was big money on the table back then. I wonder if they have changed over the years?
Yes, most meetings went very well and all walked away with very good results. But there were times when things got a bit testy too. In our case, much work was more about teaching/guiding them on how to use the product as designed. That was a lot easier when you are on the "preferred vendor list". However, if a vendor is trying to break into a new product design and not yet on the "PVL", it's a long uphill battle. (Especially when the encumbant is DuPont)
Comments???
Swez
I recently bought a Phoenix Gold Xenon x10d4 and will be building my enclosure for it Wednesday. However as I was reading though the spec sheet in regards to the volume required it states that the larger enclosure will result in a "Musical" sound and smaller "SPL."
As far as I know the smaller usually results in a tight SQ oriented sound and the larger is boomier and more SPL. I have chosen to go with approximately 0.8cuft sealed enclosure. Here is a link to the spec sheet.
http://www.rodinaudio.com/pgMobile/literature.php
(click the link " Please visit the Phoenix Gold FTP Server")
I would like to hear you opinions on this subject.
Thanks,
Jason
Replies (11)
swez on 01/13/2008 13:34:28
Nice to see you came back to the roost Ol Boy! SMILE Welcome back old friend!
After looking at the specs on this woofer, the SPL side of the equations means a smaller enclosure, more power handling and perhaps a bit less low end bass. (0.42 ft^3 is for high SPL use)
The other end of the spectrum is a larger sealed box for better low frequency extension, but trading accurate SQ and power handling for that aspect. The larger box, (0.85 ft^3) may give more deep bass, but not as chrisp at higher SPL levels and may be a tad boomy/sloppy too.
Here, I would suggest a sealed box of say 0.75 ft^3 initially for this sub. If this sounds good, tight and well balanced at rated power of your amp, the project is a done well.
However, if the woofer gets a bit muddy or sloppy on low bass notes, adding inner braces will help decrease the internal airspace and tighten up the bass. (Better SQL performance)
Finally, "cabin gain or "transfer functions" in the vehicle can have a huge impact on sub performance. Depending on the vehicle and where the sub is situated, we can expect a solid 10-15dB bump in SPL above ~50 Hz. In larger SUV's, Hatchbacks and Extended Cabin Trucks. This can be a positive additive factor.
In smaller sedans and coupes where the truck is sealed from the cabin, other issues are common. (Boomy, muddy bass and not much Bass SPL into the cabin are common) Keep that in mind if you don't have a flip down rear seat system for extended cargo capacity.
Comments?
Swez
LC1 on 01/13/2008 16:07:32
Hey Swez, thanks for the quick response. I have not started this box just yet. I have only done the drawings up on SolidWorks. I am going to shrink up the width slightly to get the 0.75ft^3 volume. As for the amp I am using it borderline enough power for this sub.
JL e1400D
Rated Power @ (12.5v)
400W RMS x 1 @ 2ohm
Rated Power @ (14.4v)
500W RMS x 1 @ 2ohm
I just went out and measured the input voltage at my amp with all accessories running and the stereo turned up pretty loud (louder then my normal listening level) and it was holding steady at 13.9-14v. Gotta love the stock 150amp alternator VW gave me! The 2008's got knocked down to 140amp.
Anyways I will let you know how it turns out. As I said in my first post I am building this Wednesday night.
Talk to you later,
Jason
swez on 01/13/2008 20:13:14
Sounds like a plan. In your drawing, consider adding additional mass, (Internal bracing) just in case the sub gets a bit sloppy at full power. I suggest starting at 0.75 ft^3 for now. If that is too large, add mass in 0.05 ft^3 increments should help a lot. I would not be too surprised if you wound up at 0.65 ft^3 before it sounds tight and full.
Good luck Jason,
Dave
SQLThump on 01/17/2008 17:20:21
Thats one hell of a stock ALT. I'm mad jealous!
LC1 on 01/20/2008 15:02:16
Well I finished my enclosure, tuned my amp and started playing some of my more favorite CD's. My first reaction was holy crap I love how tight and low the bass felt but when I changed to a rock song with a heavy kick drum I was less then impressed.
I find with rap and dance music the bass is super crisp and full sounding. However when I play something like rock it sounds like there isn't any bass at all. The entire low end is missing, even when I adjust the bass boost. I have tried increasing the gain slightly but when I pass the HU level it just gets sloppy so I have returned it back to 28.3v (calculated with Ohms law & adjusted with multimeter). Also I have the crossover set to 100hrz.
Here is my setup:
Factory 6disc MP3 HU
Audiocontrol LC6 line level converter.
JL e1400D sub amp
Phoenix Gold Xenon x10d4 (0.7ft^3 sealed enclosure)
JLe4300 frontstage amp
CDT HD 642 3way components
Basically I want to get my new sub sounding more musical with all genres of music. My 12" Alpine SWR-1241D did this very well while still sounding tight. Do I need to increase the size of the enclosure etc?
You help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jason
swez on 01/20/2008 19:53:19
Give the new sub some time to break in. (1-2 weeks) If the bass does not improve after that, you might want to add about 1 lb of polyfill to the box and see that helps. If that does not cut it, then a larger box may be needed.
FYI: Most Rock music does not have the bass content we find in Rap, Hip-Hop and other genres of music. This is especially true of older Rock music that was not digitally mastered. They just did not have the head room in tape media masters, (Analog signals) to produce the "juiced" bass we now get from digital mastering.
Try something like "Jump" from Van Halen. The bass will sound pretty weak/thin in this mix except for the low synth tones. Then try something like "My Maria" from Brooks and Dunn. The bass and kick drum will be much stronger. (Deep, throbbing bass and nice kick drum too) Another cut to listen to, "Summer of 69" or "Run to You" from Bryan Adams. These rock tunes have better low bass in the cut and the floor toms really bump along w/ the bass.
For the most part, Rock is comprised of a narrow band of bass, above 40 Hz. For example, in the key of "A", the lowest bass note is ~55 Hz. That's going to sound punchy at best, but not the thunder that comes from low "E, F or G" cord progressions and intervals.
One of the best cuts I have heard was an old analog song called "Lucky Man" from Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Fat bass tones, decent kick drum, crisp acoustic guitar, snappy snare and decent cymbal crashes too. It's when they bring in the low synth tones, things really get low. Note the dynamic range in this cut. It shifts from delicate acoustic guitar, drum kit and vocals to deep, powered lows from the synth. (That's where the thunder rolls in... at the 3:12 mark and beyond)
Try it, you'll like it,
Swez
LC1 on 01/20/2008 20:07:12
Thanks for the recommendations, I will definitely have to check those tracks out.
Also I should have mentioned in my last post the rock songs are ones that I have listened to with my last setup. The songs used to be much more full sounding. I have made it sound a bit better by starting with a new spot to tune my sub amp. Before I used approx 3/4 full volume whereas now I am using approx 2/3 and the results are a little better. Just have to adjust the bass down a bit on the bass heavy tracks.
Thanks,
Jason
swez on 01/20/2008 20:24:39
I gathered that as your reference point. The Alpine 1242D does very well in smaller sealed (0.85) or ported boxes (1.7). It was designed that way to deliver great SQL bass in a compact box.
Also, if you changed vehicles since then, that can have a big impact on bass performance as well. Going from a larger vehicle to a compact car will decrease low bass performance too. (Cabin gain and resonance nodes change a lot in smaller cars)
Just for hits and giggles, go out to an unpopulated area and crank up the bass with the windows open a bit. That might change your bass performance for the better too. However, when the sub breaks in, the bass will get stronger and fuller too.
Swez
LC1 on 01/20/2008 21:12:43
LC1 on 01/20/2008 21:18:28
Thanks for the advise once again. This place is an oasis of car audio experts ha ha. I will keep you updated over the next few weeks of how it turns out.
Also Swez if my memory is correct I will be venturing down towards your area Tuesday/Wednesday this week. I have a meeting a GM Powertrain in Bay City, MI (north on I 75 from Flint) Wednesday morning. I am an engineer for a company that produces the V8 cams for GM and we shipped a few down there out of spec. So I have to do a problem solving report in front of the business team. Should be lots of fun.
Anyways talk to you later,
Jason
swez on 01/20/2008 22:17:18
Hehe, we know that drill huh bud. Hopefully it's a minor issue and their engineers are collaborators and not castigator's. It's not always fun walking into a room full of aggitated engineers, factory workers and QC Managers and have to face them all alone. (At least not as a Regional Sales Mgr.) But, when we came in with our team of Engineers, techs and R&D Managers, the tone was a lot more collaborative. Funny how that all worked back then. (Bean-ball the Sales guy whenever possible, but treat the team entirely different, was the order of the day)
Yes, I live west of Dearborn and have worked with Ford, GM and several OEM Sub-suppliers in a previous life. Many times, these meetings were all about internal politics and bean-balling the Salesman whenever possible. (Until rapport and action plans were firmly established)
Design changes, specification mods and QC issues usually brought a receptive and open-minded group to the table. They tended to listen well, share ideas and collorate very openly on the early engineering and design levels.
On the other hand, contract negotiations and price slashing meetings were generally more like playing hardball on every point, jot and tiddle. There were lots of poker faced players to shake the trees as hard as they could. Their goal was to squeeze every penny out of the vendors' profit margins with the inducement of huge orders when the product hit the production stages. Gee, I can remeber those like it was yesterday.
Talk about hard-nosed negotiation tactics... "We want an arm, a leg and your first male born child by the time it's all said and done". LOL
After these sessions were over, would take a pile of people to lunch or dinner and spend a ton of money and then they'd loosen up after a few drinks and become a lot more friendly after their bellies were full. (Is it still that way in the Automotive sector?)
This was mostly true back in the mid/late 90's when I called on large OEM's, Sub-suppliers and aftermarket vendors for the Big 3. It was so predictable. They had big guns back then and loved pushing vendors hard as they knew there was big money on the table back then. I wonder if they have changed over the years?
Yes, most meetings went very well and all walked away with very good results. But there were times when things got a bit testy too. In our case, much work was more about teaching/guiding them on how to use the product as designed. That was a lot easier when you are on the "preferred vendor list". However, if a vendor is trying to break into a new product design and not yet on the "PVL", it's a long uphill battle. (Especially when the encumbant is DuPont)
Comments???
Swez
Copyright ClubKnowledge 2009 * All Rights Reserved
