michael hurd Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 I hit 127.4 db with two Jbl power series 10" in a small sealed enclosure, in the hatch area of an 86 honda civic. ( 0.69 cu ft each ) They were being powered by an older kenwood kac-626? or 606 amp, and that was a peak measurement with a coustic rta-33. Playing music, and not sine sweeps! Granted, the subs rolled off early, but had a much higher efficiency ( 92 db ), than some. Given their relatively short x-max they would not be bottom dwellers, and probably have worked better in a larger ported enclosure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 ---------------- On 5/12/2004 10:53:42 PM michael hurd wrote: I hit 127.4 db with two Jbl power series 10" in a small sealed enclosure, in the hatch area of an 86 honda civic. ( 0.69 cu ft each ) They were being powered by an older kenwood kac-626? or 606 amp, and that was a peak measurement with a coustic rta-33. Playing music, and not sine sweeps! Granted, the subs rolled off early, but had a much higher efficiency ( 92 db ), than some. Given their relatively short x-max they would not be bottom dwellers, and probably have worked better in a larger ported enclosure. ---------------- Funny you mention those Kenwood amps. I used to own both of those. They were great little amps, sounded great for the money and power, and never gave me a single problem. I had those amps for years too. I used them to bi-amp my front components in my old car ('96 Nissan 200SX SE-R). I miss that car, especially when the turbo was in it... 344HP at the crank!!!! Hey look, you can kinda see me in there. BTW, I was in 2nd gear there when I did that drive-by. jt1stcav took the pic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 ---------------- On 5/11/2004 10:47:23 PM michael hurd wrote: It is however, very inefficient, coming in at 88 db/w/m. It's sole purpose is to play loud and deep in a small enclosure, while requiring thousands of watts and hundreds of amperes of current to feed equally massive amplifiers. ---------------- That's unfortunately the physics of it... if you want max SPL and bass extension in a small enclosure, you'll end up with an inefficient driver. There are tradeoffs and we even see this in home audio with subs like the Sunfires, etc... I've been itching to experiment with a new driver for my car... and was actually thinking of trying a DIY type driver (Shiva, DPL, GR Research 12... etc...) I haven't modeled any yet so I don't know how they would perform in a relatively small sealed enclosure. I'd be looking for SQ and not SPL, as I don't see much need to go beyond 125db... either in car or home. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 ---------------- On 5/13/2004 1:13:13 AM formica wrote: ---------------- On 5/11/2004 10:47:23 PM michael hurd wrote: It is however, very inefficient, coming in at 88 db/w/m. It's sole purpose is to play loud and deep in a small enclosure, while requiring thousands of watts and hundreds of amperes of current to feed equally massive amplifiers. ---------------- That's unfortunately the physics of it... if you want max SPL and bass extension in a small enclosure, you'll end up with an inefficient driver. There are tradeoffs and we even see this in home audio with subs like the Sunfires, etc... I've been itching to experiment with a new driver for my car... and was actually thinking of trying a DIY type driver (Shiva, DPL, GR Research 12... etc...) I haven't modeled any yet so I don't know how they would perform in a relatively small sealed enclosure. I'd be looking for SQ and not SPL, as I don't see much need to go beyond 125db... either in car or home. Rob ---------------- There's a lot of people out there using the Shiva drivers in both large and small sealed or ported enclosures with excellent results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 chops: Your pictures show that you do some real fine work. Very nice! PICTURE BELOW: EAR at +140 db (Apologies, Ear I could not resist): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Thanks picky-picky. I'll post some more pics tonight after work. Actuall, I should just update my website and show it there. Oh well, gotta go back to work now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Maybe I should put a sub in the back of my Mk. IV Supra (I mean Camry) to lessen the understeer...I did put a fat anti-sway bar in the rear, and now the back end steps out in a loss of grip situation. The handling difference is amazing. It feels neutral now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench_peddler Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 My son and I put a lot of time and money in a $1000 "69 Ford Pick UP about 6 years ago. We built it for SQ. Silk domed component speakers, Sealed Kickers in the back and everything else is Clarion. It still did 136 on the dash. He still drives it. His last truck did 142 with a single 10" Kicker Solo Baric and a Memphis 1100 watt digital amp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.