4 Attachment(s)
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
If I had enough power, I'd probably go with the dual HOs sealed - primarily due to the considerable vent length and displacement of such a small cabinet for the vented UM. But then, so much depends on your vehicle, sub placement, processing, preferences/tastes/expectations, etc.
Hopefully this will help you decide:
Green: 1x UM in 1.55 ft^3 at 26 Hz (500 watts) 22 Hz F3 (4" tube vent x 29.5" at 34.4 m/s peak velocity).
Blue: 2x HO in 1.3 ft^3 combined (1,200 watts) 44.4 Hz F3.
Attachment 7526
Attachment 7527
Attachment 7528
Attachment 7529
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
I need start by saying I have not worked with or heard an Ultimax sub. I would go with the HO's mainly for same reasons stated above. I could be biased since I listened to an HO in a car last year and that is what is going in my newest build. Ive also recently been doing sealed and IB setups after years of exclusively ported so that could a factor as well. I know the HO can sound very good in a sealed enclosure.
While we are on the subject of HO vs Ultimax, does anyone have any feedback based solely on SQ?
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Thanks so much for modeling that for me in WINisd. I have WINisd and have not had a chance to model the drivers. I am seriously thinking about giving a passive radiator a try.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DIY Audio Guy
Thanks so much for modeling that for me in WINisd. I have WINisd and have not had a chance to model the drivers. I am seriously thinking about giving a passive radiator a try.
Yeah, a PR could be just the thing for the UM in limited space.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grinder
Yeah, a PR could be just the thing for the UM in limited space.
We don't see a lot of PR's in car audio. But it is a viable solution for the tight confines of an under seat enclosure.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DIY Audio Guy
We don't see a lot of PR's in car audio. But it is a viable solution for the tight confines of an under seat enclosure.
It might bear mentioning that, due to their considerable added cone weight, PRs should only be mounted vertically.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Smitty
I need start by saying I have not worked with or heard an Ultimax sub. I would go with the HO's mainly for same reasons stated above. I could be biased since I listened to an HO in a car last year and that is what is going in my newest build. Ive also recently been doing sealed and IB setups after years of exclusively ported so that could a factor as well. I know the HO can sound very good in a sealed enclosure.
While we are on the subject of HO vs Ultimax, does anyone have any feedback based solely on SQ?
While the HO's can definitely hold their own (haven't heard my 10" HO yet, but based on what I've read), the UM series is no slouch either in the SQ department. The 8" Ultimax is used by Legacy Audio, in my Calibre speakers that I bought back in summer of '17. Suckers set me back $6,300 and they are worth every penny! The HNIC at Legacy Audio doesn't waste his time with anything that isn't truly SQ oriented with low-distortion. And neither do I. :D
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=v...2tQeG5rUHRNdW8
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=v...2DTs-FTqNQxtA3
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=v...2tQeG5rUHRNdW8https://drive.google.com/uc?export=v...2tQeG5rUHRNdW8https://drive.google.com/uc?export=v...2tQeG5rUHRNdW8
That's an 8" UM with dual 8" PR's with a s&#-ton of power behind them. Bass is awesomely clear, but it's the whole system that makes the bass sound great (with regards to music with bass-guitars and real bass-drums). It's funny because the heart of SQ-bass reproduction as I've come to find out, is in the midrange and lower-treble. The cleaner those are, the better real bass instruments are reproduced.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
15" Ultimax with 4.5 cubes, 1lb stuffing per cube, sealed in my little Insight (2-seater hatchback) and it does SQ with authority. :)
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oscar
Bass is awesomely clear, but it's the whole system that makes the bass sound great (with regards It's funny because the heart of SQ-bass reproduction as I've come to find out, is in the midrange and lower-treble. The cleaner those are, the better real bass instruments are reproduced.
Thank you. I completely agree. That is why I always install the sub last. I build in stages. While I do plan for a sub, my SQ builds have always had the mids and highs completed first. When I'm happy, I add the sub. A quality system without a sub is still very listenable.
Yesterday I experienced a prime example of highs making the mid bass sound better when I replaced the factory paper tweeters in the dash with Dayton Reference 3".
I don't listen at the volumes I used to, so I would be more than satisfied with a sealed 12" whether its an HO or Ultimax. Heck, I could probably get by with a 10" since I was good with a single 8W1 microsub in one of my builds.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigAl205
Very nice! I would love to hear that.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NoDestiny
15" Ultimax with 4.5 cubes, 1lb stuffing per cube, sealed in my little Insight (2-seater hatchback) and it does SQ with authority. :)
Wow, way more space than I'm willing to give up and that would probably kill me. [emoji3] I could barely handle the two 10W1's vented in my sons truck when I was tuning it on Saturday. It's an xtra cab Tacoma so the cabin gain is sick.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Smitty
Wow, way more space than I'm willing to give up and that would probably kill me. [emoji3] I could barely handle the two 10W1's vented in my sons truck when I was tuning it on Saturday. It's an xtra cab Tacoma so the cabin gain is sick.
If I can just get some free-time off from work, On my back-burner is a project to duplicate the results of a guy from the diyaudio site, where he dropped the Qts of a woofer (a significant amount) by adding Nd magnets around the ferrite ring of his woofer. Enclosure requirements are reduced as Qts^2.87, with the optimal Qts (IMO) ranging from 0.30 to 0.33 for ported, and a little bit higher for sealed. You give up just a little bit of dB in the middle (like a dB or 2), but the stronger motor makes up for it by padding up the low end, but when every cubic inch counts, I think it's worth it. Ultimax subs have a relatively high Qts to work in a multitude of enclosures, but IMO they could stand to be a little bit better.
As an example, the UM 15 has a Qts of 0.47, and say you had another one with Qts 0.35 (simply by way of more B, that's all it takes), the one with Qts 0.35 "needs" only 43% the enclosure volume than the one with the Qts of 0.47. Like I said, it does change the response profile, so modeling the system would give you a better idea of how the response changes.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...39-0-34-a.html
So long as the top-plate isn't already saturated, I have a feeling that I can indeed duplicate his results. Since Qts effectively rises as excursion goes higher (in over-hung designs), I'm going to aim for a final Qts in the 0.25-0.28 range.
Re: Ultimax vs Reference HO
Very interesting project. I just read through the thread. I have never even considered doing such but will be watching to see the results.
