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.