BEST SUB WITH 1000rms???????????

 

Bronze Member
Username: Chenzevy

Post Number: 33
Registered: Mar-05
im hopin someone will say the SX im trying to decide which is the best after researching it and others in its class this seems to be the top of the ladder in its class

im talkin about subs with reccomended 1000rms
 

Gold Member
Username: Hdubb

Farmington, Nm Usa

Post Number: 1227
Registered: Nov-04
sounds like you already have your choice. just do it.
 

New member
Username: Jimmyjames69

Post Number: 2
Registered: Mar-05
Hey the best subs I have ever are the pioneer TS-W5000SPL subs with a 2000watt rms rating they are the loudest and cleanest sub I have ever heard plus they were the subs used to grab the 172.2DB spl world record!
 

Gold Member
Username: Subfanatic

Walton, Ky

Post Number: 1488
Registered: Dec-04
yea thats 2000 watts rms, not 1000 like he was asking lol, but joe, isnt the w7 line 1000 watt rms?
 

Silver Member
Username: Addicted2bass

Miami, FLORIDA USA

Post Number: 345
Registered: Nov-04
yeh it is the 12w7 and the 13w7 but how much are you willing to spend
 

Gold Member
Username: Jonathan_f

GA USA

Post Number: 3540
Registered: May-04
The SX doesn't "need" 1000W RMS, I'd put that on an X.X.X. before I would an SX. Power handling is a thermal rating and shows the amount of heat the voice coil can withstand, but you won't necessarily need that much power to get full potential out of the sub. The reason RE and Adire typically get full potential with less than rated power is because they overbuild their voice coils, different enclosures mean different excursion levels and mechanical power handling abilities. So they make the coils handle more power than needed in most applications. The ID Max, SX, X.X.X., W7, Eclipse Titanium, and others recommended around here all work well in the 1000W RMS ballpark, but remember that the power you really need is highly dependant on enclosure used. Ported enclosures allow a sub to handle more power above tuning because of the increased cone control, sealed enclosures reach full excursion with less.
 

Gold Member
Username: Subfanatic

Walton, Ky

Post Number: 1490
Registered: Dec-04
i dont understand that jonathon could you please explain this to me its somen i havent been able to get a goood grasp on, HOW exactly does different boxes allow it to take more power, thank you for the help
 

Silver Member
Username: Rds11

Louisville, Kentucky

Post Number: 134
Registered: Nov-04
All I know is that the bigger the box the less power needed but I don't fully understand it myself either so Jonathan please enlighten us.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jonathan_f

GA USA

Post Number: 3541
Registered: May-04
With a sealed enclosure, you're depending on a mass of air behind the sub, which alters the suspension of the subwoofer due to backpressure provided. A sealed enclosure depends on the compression and rarefaction of the air behind the sub, which alters the suspension of the subwoofer and acts as an acoustic spring. Of course, a small enough sealed enclosure could limit excursion to a large amount, but we're talking too small for practical output, it would require high levels of power, sound horrible, and be very boomy.

A ported enclosure works differently. When you think of a ported enclosure, don't think of the port as just a bunch of air that leaks in and out. A port is considered a solid object, and performs as such, the air is fixed and trapped within the ports walls. It offers a resistance to motion, this is why certain port sizes (port area) changes the tuned frequency so drastically and the length needed to get that tuned frequency will differ with port size and box size as well. The interaction of the enclosure volume, port area, and port length all determine how a ported box is tuned. When the sub moves, it changes the pressure inside of the box. Since you have a change in pressure, it will want to equal barametric pressure of the atmosphere, which results in this fixed amount of air in the port moving either forward or backward to balance it out, and how far it moves is dependant on the level of internal pressure of the box (determined by cone movement). This is why box size affects tuning.

Above the resonant frequency (tuning) of the port, the port has a high resistance to motion (I'm referring to motion of the port itself). A port has a tuned frequency that it resonates at, but above that tuned frequency it does not instantly react to the pressure that the cone exerts on it. This occurs more and more so as the frequency gets higher, the more the port becomes too slow to react to changes in direction of force due to the resistance of the port (think about something that is wedged in a pipe, if you used a longer, powerful push for a couple of seconds, you would move it more easily than if you used shorter, less forceful strokes for only a split second. So after a certain point, those shorter strokes wouldn't be powerful enough to move the object). This is where resistance to motion comes into play, especially when we're talking about where a box is tuned at, you are tuning where the port resonates, and above that point the resistance to motion will rise considerably. The port moves less and less air as frequencies get further away from tuning, and eventually the port basically doesn't contribute or detract from the output or sound quality of the driver, the damping and excursion levels are about the same as sealed after a certain point. Enclosures in general don't do that much once you go to so high a frequency due to the small excursions needed, that applies for sealed or ported enclosures. So, in conclusion, above the tuned frequency (really, above the range of frequencies that the port affects) the excursion levels are about the same as sealed. No big change except minor phase differences between the port and speaker.

At tuning or near tuning, the port begins to reach it's frequency of resonance, which absorbs energy to produce it's own output and limits excursion of the driver by a large amount, but still boosts output. The reason a ported enclosure controls excursion levels more around and at the tuned frequency is because it becomes more able to react to changes in direction of force, which makes the port move more air and thus provides damping to the subwoofer because of the acoustic energy absorbed to move the port mass. At resonance, the port instantly reacts to the pressure put on it, this is where the port becomes most active. This is where subwoofer excursion is at it's least, this is an advantage of a ported box since sealed enclosures see their highest excursion levels at resonance, which results in much more driver distortion out of a sub that is in a sealed box. The subwoofer excursion levels at a ports resonance are very low and SPL competitors take advantage of that. The increased power handling allows them to keep piling power to the driver without stressing the subs mechanical limits.

Below tuning, the port is not resonating and does not provide any control over the subwoofer cone, but the port still moves a considerable amount of air since the port is still "fast" enough to react to changes in direction of force. Because the port is not resonating, it now performs as a venting of air (hole in a sealed box, basically) and the subwoofer relies upon it's own suspension, the mechanical power handling is that of an infinite baffle enclosure. The difference is that since that vent freely moves air, the waves from front and rear cancel each other out to a degree, which is why there is a 24db/oct rolloff from a ported enclosure below tuning.

Hope this helps clear it up :-)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Chenzevy

Post Number: 35
Registered: Mar-05
i was going to put the sx in a snail shell i would get the X.X.X. but i dont want to have to spend an extra $500 for the X.X.X. and a more expensive amp. doesnet the SX have better spl than the X.x.X. with 1000rms?

would 800rms be enough to power the SX at its full potential?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jonathan_f

GA USA

Post Number: 3545
Registered: May-04
It won't really have better SPL than the X.X.X. at 1000W RMS, they will be close to each other, hard to say which one would be louder. You'd need ported to make the most of that 1000, sealed you'd get overexcursion most likely. 800W RMS is about right for the SX in sealed enclosures and other similar applications.
 

Gold Member
Username: Subfanatic

Walton, Ky

Post Number: 1519
Registered: Dec-04
thanks jonathon, that didnt make much sense to nme, but helped, im pretty dumb lol, its just gonna take me a few more times readin it
 

will cowart
Unregistered guest
would 600w be enough for a sx? the birth sheet of the kicker kx600 says 740w. im between the RE SE and the ED 13Ov.2, but if t he sx works off 600ish w then thats my choice(re-wiring my car for 1000w isnt going to happen right now).
 

Silver Member
Username: Addicted2bass

Miami, FLORIDA USA

Post Number: 424
Registered: Nov-04
yeh 740 watt rms should be good for a SX, as long s the enclousre is built to spec
 

will c
Unregistered guest
alright awsome, i just dont want to damage that sub. also later i will buy a new amp and was wondering how many watts can my 4gauge batt. wire take? i think it was like 800w. so if thats true, whats a good 800w amp to power this sub?
 

Gold Member
Username: Subfanatic

Walton, Ky

Post Number: 1723
Registered: Dec-04
what do you mean? what 4 gauge batt wire, the one from alt to bat or bat to amp
 

Bronze Member
Username: Chenzevy

Post Number: 41
Registered: Mar-05
i think the ORION 1200d would be a great match for the SX.

its 725rms @ 2ohms

you know it will be a TRUE 725w rms

also are these amps underrated?
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us