Eclipse 88120.4 tuning Help Please
07-19-2004, 11:53 PM
#12
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,417
from what I have read, the prefered is .9-1.1 soo I am thinking around .8 -.9 or so I found an online qtc calculator which said 1.25 was .7342 and .9 cu foot as you mentioned was .8372 so are you really gonna notice a differnce from .734 to .837?
Is it lower the cu foot the higher the qtc? you would think bigger box the sub has more space and it would be louder? not the opposte? Here's the link that I found it at.
http://www.carstereo.com/help/Articles.cfm?id=30
[ July 20, 2004, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: ChizzerZ24 ]
Is it lower the cu foot the higher the qtc? you would think bigger box the sub has more space and it would be louder? not the opposte? Here's the link that I found it at.
http://www.carstereo.com/help/Articles.cfm?id=30
[ July 20, 2004, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: ChizzerZ24 ]
07-20-2004, 06:28 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
think of it this way, a box with a qtc of .707 is supposed to be the box with the quickest acceleration and stopping capabilities, the box that will accelerate and stop the woofer the fastest and closest to it starting point, assuming non clipped signal input, aka, its supposed to be the best sounding sealed qtc, will you notice the difference between a q of .737 and .83, unlikely. usually the bigger sub box will be more efficient but that "theory" ends at a point when the box gets too big.
07-20-2004, 10:57 AM
#15
With this sub, I build one of two boxes, 1.0 or 1.25 cu.ft. and they both sound great. Remember that you can be out by approx 30% on a sealed box before it will have highly noticeable effects on how the sub performs. While these subs can go in smaller boxes and they do sound fine, the bottom end comes to life in the larger box.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
slammed_gsr
Install related
3
07-27-2007 12:10 PM
