2016 Porsche Macan S - stealth SQ build

My sub came in:
Attachment 10796


Not really impressed with the push terminal locations on a shallow mount sub. Hoping I won't have an interference fit one the recessing rings go in. I may need to rotate the sub but then the logo will not be aligned:
Attachment 10797


All I need is for my prefabbed recessing rings to come in so I can get started on my baffle:
Attachment 10798

I'll let you know how these rings work out. They were very fairly priced from a domestic seller on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/TABBED-FIBERG...884863&sr=8-14

Ge0

Here is my idea for recess mounting a shallow mount sub in my cargo area sub-floor:


Attachment 10860


This is a functional idea if your sub had a good enough surface to flush mount to its top face. However, sub manufactures have went the way of making their stuff look cool with pretty design features vs. being functional. Meet the JL Audio 10TW3-D4:

Attachment 10861Attachment 10862


They rounded the surface of the top plate to make it look cool. However, in the mean time they only left a 1/8" freaking lip to seal the sub against a baffle from the top side:
Attachment 10863

This is weak as hell and I don't trust it. So, what is one to do? Mount it like it is supposed to be mounted from the bottom side of the flange?

Attachment 10864

But, this solution is clunky and requires a mounting ring way larger than the diameter of the sub. In some cases this may work. But, in my case it prevents me from using this sub.

Attachment 10865


Even after loosening the spare tire and sliding it 2" forward there is still a tight press fit due to collisions. I can only think about how much this will rattle when put into use.
Attachment 10866


The recessed mounting option made the effective diameter of the 10TW3-D4 greater than the diameter of a 12" sub. This is a huge disappointment to me. I was geaked about using this sub but it just won't work for me.

Ge0

All other dimensions were in check even with the screwy wire terminal binding posts:

Attachment 10868Attachment 10869Attachment 10870



So, let's re-think things. Another sub option for me was the Sundown Audio SD4-10 D4.

Attachment 10948

Attachment 10872

Attachment 10873

Attachment 10874

Attachment 10875

It models just slightly better than the JL Audio 10TW3-D4 in my available space. But, the most important feature it has that made me switch was a flat front mounting bezel. No fancy plastic rounded flares. Now I can work with this.

Ge0

nice work so far!

I see what you are saying about that JL sub, but I think it's really just your Amazon trim ring that's too large of a diameter - and I think you could shape that in different ways.
Don't get me wrong - going with that Sundown sub could be an option too, that gasket definitely is friendlier to a reverse-mount option - but just food for thought there: (coughNeverTemptMurphysLawcough)
If you do design this baffle to reverse mount the sub, then fall in love with what looks to become a cool looking baffle, then find out you DO have to 'glass a rear into this... you won't be able to mount the sub, then.

Even if you reverse mount this or a Sundown, I feel like you'll need to do a little dressing-up with the front of that baffle (the actual round hole, behind the plexi) - even if just giving it a nice routed quarter-round for the surround and cone to peek out through, right?

So, two thoughts on making the JL work:

1) Reverse mount it, 1/16" silly lip and all. Skip the foam tape even. But run a bead of clear silicone around the sub after you've mounted it. That'll seal it better than anything, and will peel off the sub's front frame if you change things up downstream (if you are worried about that, run electrical tape around the sub's front frame first, as a barrier to prevent staining).

2) Trim that wood baffle you bought. One advantage of the JL sub is that it sort of has a square outer shape... so you could either
2a) just reduce the overall diameter, probably 1/4" all around, leaving just four spots that would be relatively thin wall, where the mounting tabs are - but would still seal fine and I'm sure not present any structural problems or risk of any kind of "blow out".
2b) could trim one of the sides more into a flat edge, and rotate the sub 1/8th of a turn... yes, the logo would either fire to the corner or... the hatch opening. That might actually look intentional - good even, facing right at you. And you could likely also trim the side and front wall obstructions into a bit of a "flat" also, allowing you to shift the sub in general away from the spare as well. Once mounted below to the baffle, you'd never see any of that from above.

3) Instead of one 10, how about two eights? Those Dayton Ultimax eights really do have some throw, you'd have more total surface area on top of it, and would eliminate this headache... and I think you are still at a lower price point.

Just some "solutioning" ideas..

Sorry Bitches. I got the last pair of these before inventory ran out. They will be here Friday. Woo Hoo!!!

Attachment 10923

Ge0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geolemon

I see what you are saying about that JL sub, but I think it's really just your Amazon trim ring that's too large of a diameter - and I think you could shape that in different ways.
Don't get me wrong - going with that Sundown sub could be an option too, that gasket definitely is friendlier to a reverse-mount option - but just food for thought there: (coughNeverTemptMurphysLawcough)
If you do design this baffle to reverse mount the sub, then fall in love with what looks to become a cool looking baffle, then find out you DO have to 'glass a rear into this... you won't be able to mount the sub, then.

---

I have this covered if it goes that route. I can raise the entire floor up 2" if need be to accommodate a glass enclosure. However, I believe my concept will work if I can seal the baffle good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geolemon

Even if you reverse mount this or a Sundown, I feel like you'll need to do a little dressing-up with the front of that baffle (the actual round hole, behind the plexi) - even if just giving it a nice routed quarter-round for the surround and cone to peek out through, right?

---

I was thinking silver duct tape would look nice. Seriously though, these daigrams are rough just to show a point. Of course I'll put some lipstick on this design. I plan on consulting with a few forum experts to critique my designs and to lend insight. Maybe even to fab a few pieces for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geolemon

So, two thoughts on making the JL work:

1) Reverse mount it, 1/16" silly lip and all. Skip the foam tape even. But run a bead of clear silicone around the sub after you've mounted it. That'll seal it better than anything, and will peel off the sub's front frame if you change things up downstream (if you are worried about that, run electrical tape around the sub's front frame first, as a barrier to prevent staining).

2) Trim that wood baffle you bought. One advantage of the JL sub is that it sort of has a square outer shape... so you could either
2a) just reduce the overall diameter, probably 1/4" all around, leaving just four spots that would be relatively thin wall, where the mounting tabs are - but would still seal fine and I'm sure not present any structural problems or risk of any kind of "blow out".
2b) could trim one of the sides more into a flat edge, and rotate the sub 1/8th of a turn... yes, the logo would either fire to the corner or... the hatch opening. That might actually look intentional - good even, facing right at you. And you could likely also trim the side and front wall obstructions into a bit of a "flat" also, allowing you to shift the sub in general away from the spare as well. Once mounted below to the baffle, you'd never see any of that from above.

---

That is technically 3 thoughts :)

I will not reverse mount on the small lip. After closely studying the sub I don't think that would be mechanically sound. Plastic would crack. I modified my drawings to show fit of the 10TW3 with a shaved ring if I decide to go that route. I have a 60 day return policy on the sub. I have time to evaluate. I also have enough wood to try a few options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geolemon

3) Instead of one 10, how about two eights? Those Dayton Ultimax eights really do have some throw, you'd have more total surface area on top of it, and would eliminate this headache... and I think you are still at a lower price point.

Just some "solutioning" ideas..

---

Mother Fugger. I started this thread by mentioning I could fit up to three 8" drivers. Folks convinced me to try a single 10" to see if that would satisfy me. I liked the idea because I could still maintain a little cargo space. What are you doing to me :)

Seriously, I already looked at the little Dayton monsters. Ain't gonna happen.

Ge0

Lets take a peek at some options:

Premise:

* All drivers driven with 500W
* All drivers mounted in a 2 cu/ft enclosure
* All drivers are 4ohm DVC tied in parallel with the exception of the SBA driver which was 3ohm DVC tied in parallel
* No high pass set on any driver. All lowpass set at 200Hz 24dB/octave
* No expectations set for cost vs. perfomance
* This is only a modeling program used to select the top few drivers I should evaluate. It by no means suggests sound quality of one driver over the other.

Sundown audio SD4 D4
Attachment 10930

The Sundown is the champ here by a small margin. It closely resembles the response of the JL 10TW3-D4 but a few dB higher with the given power. The Dayton sub is 1dB higher at 100Hz but that does not matter for most sub installs. It is equal to the Sundown at 70Hz and falls quickly from there. Interesting sub though. Hmm. I didn't mention the SBA sub because it fell behind in all simulations.

JL Audio 10TW3-D4
Attachment 10931

The 10TW3 is a great sub. But, it falls behind both the Sundown and Dayton by a very small 1 --> 2 dB margin. There is more to audio than raw numbers. One or two dB is hard to tell the difference. I'll need to revert to subjective data to say for sure.

Dayton Audio LS10-44
Attachment 10932


Much better performance than I expected out of a budget brand. Worthy of a closer look. By simulation in my vehicles environment it slightly beats the JL Audio 10TW3-D4


SB Acoustics shallow mount from Madisound
Attachment 10933

Not going much further with this driver. It came in last by a small margin. But, the Dayton is cheaper and clearly out performs it. Why would I select this?

In the end I already own a 10TW3-D4. I plan on ordering a Sundown SD4. Is it enough just to compare these two? Or should I grab a Dayton LS10-44 as well?

Ge0

If there was a big cost savings I would check out the Dayton as well, sure - and I'd also compare excursion capability for linearity and output considerations, among other specs - but otherwise like you show, it's pretty clear the Sundown is likely the better choice.

My thought on "why suggest with the two Ultimax 8's NOW" is because I didn't realize before that they would be THAT squeezed, from a diameter perspective - especially if you are recessing.
Seems like a good, if not great option to maintain (or exceed) output with a smaller, easier diameter.
Curious why didn't you include them in your model? Aren't you shooting for a 2 ohm load? I'd think 500 to a pair would be nearly perfect, and in 2 cu.ft - you'd likely even want it smaller for that 0.7Qtc, which would give you an easier installation overall:
Attachment 10936
And from that you are right, technically you could even fit three, but that spare probably wouldn't leave you with room for a middle on, or you'd be squeezed in the same way as the 10 on the end.

There probably IS more risk with [these] two eights [in particular], to supply enough displacement to break your seal, as opposed to a single ten - but I don't know the excursion or Qes (or BL) on all the above. Note if you modeled up one eight on 500w, two would just be a mental shift of the line 3dB higher... or you could simulate by fudging the power number to push it 3dB higher.

Glad you highlighted the JL in the comparison - you can tell from the .28 Qts that it would likely underperform in a sealed box. That's really surprising to me - people who shop for shallow subs are usually squeezed for space, they really need all the "small box sub" alignment you can give them... and it's easier to design a sub with LESS motor strength than it is with MORE - I'd think if JL simply made the coil longer on this sub here, they'd easily lower Qes, Qts, and increase Xmax all in one fell swoop (provided that didn't make thevVC former strike the back plate - maybe a bump would be needed)

Anyway - just wondering how that option compares. But of what you modeled, especially if the Xmax is similar and the Qts/Fs is more "sealed box friendly", I'd buy the Sundown and be done with it. :cool:

Addendum:
Not sure if you can model these (WinISD handles PR's pretty well), but since you have the space and might be looking for extension, but it's another consideration:
Two of these: https://www.parts-express.com/dayton...iator--295-494 (there's an aluminum cone version for $2 more) that would have to be mounted on the outer side of the enclosure, obviously...
Two of these: https://www.parts-express.com/dayton...-coil--295-508
Essentially, that would be the vented box option, in a box so small a vent would be tough to pull off.
Just another option.

(I'd model these up for you but I'm typing these up while on conference calls)