Shallow mount 10" subs

[Hugh]

Besides the TC Sounds sub that CL65 Captain has been mentioning (apparently not yet for sale) does anyone else have recommendations for a shallow mount 10" sub.

I ran into this one, it looks beautifully crafted...anyone have experience with them?

Power Acoustik STW-10 (STW10) 10" 800W Shallow Mount Subwoofer Silver Edition.

http://www.poweracoustik.com/pa2006/product_AUDIO_SW_SD.htm

Features
* Wide Foam Surround
* One Piece Cone/Dust Cap Assembly
* Larget Diameter Poly-Cotton Spider
* Integrated Tinsel Leads
* Dual 4 ohm BASV Voice Coils
* Reinforced Alumium Voice Coil Former
* Die Cast Aluminum Basket
* 1-Piece Rubber Gasket
* Black Chrome Finish
* Chrome Push Terminals
* Vented Pole Piece

Specifications

* 800 Watts Power Handling
* 400 Watts RMS
* 100 oz. Magnet
* 2" BASV/Kapton Hybrid 18 AWG Voice Coil
* SPL 88dB
* Fs: 35Hz
* Vas: 0.08 cu.ft.
* Qms: 8.133
* Qes: 0.4778
* Qts: 0.458
* Xmax: 0.3"
* Sealed Box: 0.7 cu..Ft.
* Ported Box: 1 cu..Ft.
* Tuning: 38Hz
* Port Size: 3"(dia)x10"(length)
* # of Ports: 1

 

[Malibu Rapper]

Power Acoustik has a reputation for making junk though I haven't had experience with this particular piece. Could be good but coming from Power Acoustik that would be a surprise.

Other shallow subs to consider:

Critical Mass LS series - Most people haven't heard of them but they've been making quality products for a while. Front mounted magnet design.

Earthquake SWS - Very good sounding shallow subs that work in very small boxes. As low as .25 cubic feet for 10" model. Unmatched 5 year warranty.

Pioneer

Blaunpunkt OD series - Shallow but short on bass, not bad SQ. Does not function well in small boxes.

JL Audio W1v2 - At 4.34" it's ALMOST shallow and should be considered if you have the depth and volume. Shallow and performs like a regular sub. No sacrifice in extension or output.

 

[D'Ecosse]

Power Acoustik STW-10 (STW10) 10" 800W Shallow Mount Subwoofer Silver Edition.

Specifications

* Sealed Box: 0.7 cu..Ft.

It may be shallow mount but still requires 0.7 cu ' sealed box.

 

[nsxman2001]

Has anyone tried out the subwoofer and box offered by science of speed? I'm just guess when I say it must be shallow to fit nice tight in the small space.

cheers

 

[Hugh]

It may be shallow mount but still requires 0.7 cu ' sealed box.

Is this correct? 0.7 cubic feet = 5.2 gallons?

I need Zetoolman who will have my sub box in a day or so to fill it up with water so we can get an accurate volume measurement.

The SWS-10 looks like the winner. Where's the best place to find one? There's a seller on Amazon.com's marketplace offering them at $175.00.
This place claiming to be an authorized dealer has them for $169.95.

What is the recommended enclosure volume for the JL 10W1v2?

 

[Malibu Rapper]

Is this correct? 0.7 cubic feet = 5.2 gallons?

Yep, works with my math... One gallon = 231 cubic inches. One cubic foot = 1728 cubic inches. One cubic foot is 7.48 gallons.

The SWS-10 looks like the winner. Where's the best place to find one? There's a seller on Amazon.com's marketplace offering them at $175.00.
This place claiming to be an authorized dealer has them for $169.95.

What is the recommended enclosure volume for the JL 10W1v2?

If my wholesaler stocks the the SWS10, they run about $125. The 10W1v2 needs .625 cubic feet of space for the sealed enclosure. The minimum recommended box size for the SWS10 is the size of the box that it comes packed in. .25 cubic feet. Not many subs will function properly with that small amount of airspace. I ran it in a box that was .4 cubic feet and it sounded great, a lot better than the JL10W3v2 in the same box because the W3v2 wants .625 cubic feet and no less. I looked long and hard to find a 10" sub that would function in a .4 cubic foot box and in the end the SWS was the only sub I could find that would do so and I got one of the first subs off the assembly line. I found a few 10" subs that would work in .5 cubic feet but the difference between .4 and .5 cubic feet is a lot and can create very undesirable frequency response effects.

 

[Hugh]

Thanks a lot for the information. Now we just have to wait for Zeman to measure the volume of the box and I'll let you know.

 

[D'Ecosse]

Thanks a lot for the information. Now we just have to wait for Zeman to measure the volume of the box and I'll let you know.

Mine is exactly 0.6 cu ' Hugh so I suspect yours is substantially less.
It does look like there is opportunity for further volume from yours within the same outside shell profile as there appears to be a lot of unused volume with your current front face design - even so I'm still thinking a lot less than 0.6, possibly even half.
But of course the measurement will tell so speculation pointless I guess.

The SWS-10 looks like the winner.

Again, thin does not necessarily translate to small volume .....

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=629301&postcount=3

DUMAX measurements show that the Earthquake SWS-10 10-incher is a high-Q subwoofer best suited for use in sealed enclosures (which I prefer). Both DUMAX testing and computer modeling show that — although the SWS-10 doesn't requiremuch rear clearance — its compliant suspension means a Vas of nearly 3.5 cubic feet. This, in turn, means that the sub will need a sealed enclosure of 1.0 cubic foot or greater (1.75 cubic feet internal volume seems to be optimal) for the best in-vehicle response. This is larger than the enclosure needed by a typical 10 (0.6 to 0.75 cubic foot).

The whole article here

 

[Hugh]

But of course the measurement will tell so speculation pointless I guess.

This thread to be continued after Zeman measures the box's internal volume and rear mounting clearance.

Keep in mind he's using my box to make a mold. As you pointed out the internal volume could change when he constructs a unit based on the mold. If his wall thickness is thinner for instance this could have a measurable difference and I suspect that the box could be made perhaps 1/2" larger front to back. It would probably still fit nice and snug behind the carpeting.

Let's say for argument's sake that the box ends up being 0.4 cubic feet, what would your recommendation be for a 10" driver?

 

[Malibu Rapper]

Again, thin does not necessarily translate to small volume .....

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=629301&postcount=3

I have to disagree with several points in this post. Right on shallow does not mean small volume but you are wrong on the SWS sub. First, any sub you buy you should always go by manufacturer recommendations. So if Earthquake tells you to max at 200 watts, that is a very good guideline. It is no fault on a sub or manufacturing at all if you exceed the rated specs and smell glue melting. I can make the glue melt on any sub. Power handling is very heavily dependent on voice coil diameter no matter how you slice it. If you exceed those guidelines then you should be on your own and write the manuals and design the subs for them. You cannot do anything dumber than exceed the specifications for a given speaker. Power handling is also not a measure of the quality of a subwoofer, bassheads often fall into this trap of reading watts instead of FR graphs. I wish EVERY manufacturer would be so honest as to publish the proper specs.

Second, DUMAX measurements on at least 80% of car subwoofers you will find will require box volumes of double what the manufacturer recommends. Hence the manufacturers will give you a volume guideline and urge you to follow those guidelines. The manufacturers have done way more real world testing than an editor for a magazine will ever invest for a product review.

Earthquake has a recommended minimum sealed enclosure of .25 cubic foot sealed. That is SMALL volume and it's in their manual published as their minimum sealed enclosure. Bottom line is to go by what the manufacturer recommends, there is nothing more that they dislike than a propeller head trying to re-invent their subs. If you stay within their recommendations, you are warrantied and will be following their performance guidelines. I can tell you from experience that .4 cubic feet with a 10" SWS works fantastic and that is with years of building competition cars, owning a shop, and listening to competitive vehicles. You will not get the output level of a conventional sub but something has to give.

Let's say for argument's sake that the box ends up being 0.4 cubic feet, what would your recommendation be for a 10" driver

Hugh, your box is not going to be .6 cubic feet we know that. With the molding and a fiberglass face, you will gain some volume. I would guess .3-.4 cubic feet at best. Your options for a 10" sub are limited, honestly the only one I know of that works in that space is the SWS. 8" subs will give you a lot more options and there are quite a few that work great in .375 cubic feet. The only thing you lose with a good 8 is output level.

 

[needspeed]

I had been running the SWS-10 in a .3 box and it worked very well considering the limitations of the box. I must admit I am much happier running the ToolBox with a JL 10W3v3 in it. It plays lower and louder but the SWS-10 is no joke, it is a good product and can be had for cheap.......Steve

 

[Hugh]

Hugh, your box is not going to be .6 cubic feet we know that. With the molding and a fiberglass face, you will gain some volume. I would guess .3-.4 cubic feet at best. Your options for a 10" sub are limited, honestly the only one I know of that works in that space is the SWS. 8" subs will give you a lot more options and there are quite a few that work great in .375 cubic feet. The only thing you lose with a good 8 is output level.

Please find out if you can get one and PM me on what my cost would be and the best way to send you the money and get the transaction done.

Thanks.

 

[D'Ecosse]

I have to disagree with several points in this post.

Ok - remember you're primarily disagreeing with Tom though! :biggrin:
(although his report makes some excellent points it's hard for me to ignore)

It is no fault on a sub or manufacturing at all if you exceed the rated specs and smell glue melting.

It does not say he exceeded the rated spec until he made it melt - I guess it does not specifically state but I read the implication that was already occurring at spec 200W rms.

Second, DUMAX measurements on at least 80% of car subwoofers you will find will require box volumes of double what the manufacturer recommends. Hence the manufacturers will give you a volume guideline and urge you to follow those guidelines. The manufacturers have done way more real world testing than an editor for a magazine will ever invest for a product review.

OK fine - their spec is ~3.5 Vas - that is 2x that of a 10W1v2 for example. At 3.5 with a Qt of 0.5 that does indeed suggest an ideal box of ~1.75 cu' - he actually tested in a 0.6 cu' box. His point is absolutely valid that the results do dictate a higher volume requirement than a 'typical' 10" sub.

The manufacturers have done way more real world testing than an editor for a magazine will ever invest for a product review.

Yeah - the manufacturers never stretch their specs, do they?
C'mon Brad - I know you know better than this!

It's important to recognize that the author is not slamming this product - actually has some very complimentary things to say about it. Earthquake actually reference the Tom Noussaine article on their web-site as a positive endorsement

 

[Malibu Rapper]

It does not say he exceeded the rated spec until he made it melt - I guess it does not specifically state but I read the implication that was already occurring at spec 200W rms.

I've been reading Tom for years and actually met him at an IASCA event years ago. Let's re-read the quote.

Power handling of the Earthquake SWS-10 is rated at 200 watts RMS. That's a useful limit. Following power testing (always my last test), both samples I tested produced that telltale smell of voice-coil glue softening up.

He said he could smell voice coil glue softening up after power testing. This is a guy that uses a Crown Macro-Tech 5000VZ for his power testing. That amp pushes out 5000 watts into a single channel at 4 ohm. Again, the recommended power spec is one of the most important to follow as speakers rarely fail from clipping so much as they do from being overpowered. If Acura put out a boost spec for a supercharger, would you exceed that spec? So there was nothing negative in what he stated here whether or not he overpowered the sub that is negligible. He clearly stated that it was a useful limit so to use it in your original post to reflect negatively on the subwoofer is to use his quote in the wrong context. In fact, if anything it's a positive comment about the power recommendation actually being accurate.

OK fine - their spec is ~3.5 Vas - that is 2x that of a 10W1v2 for example. At 3.5 with a Qt of 0.5 that does indeed suggest an ideal box of ~1.75 cu' - he actually tested in a 0.6 cu' box. His point is absolutely valid that the results do dictate a higher volume requirement than a 'typical' 10" sub.

You actually need more parameters than that to build a proper box (Vas, Qts, Fs, SPL, Dia, xmax, Qb, and Vb). Also a very important consideration is transfer function of a given vehicle. These things notwithstanding, it is always a good idea to follow the manufacturer recommendations on implementation. Hence the reason why manufacturers like JL do not provide full thiele smal parameters for their subs. The point made about the Earthquake SWS not being a small box volume sub I disagree with for this very reason. They provide you with a manual that provides you with several box configurations and some of which are VERY small in volume. My 10W3V2 did not come with any suggestions that it should be used in anything less than .625 cubic feet sealed. When I ran it in a .4 cubic foot box, it was apparent from the moment I powered the sub that I was clearly out of the box volume boundaries. It sounded terrible. But when I put the SWS in the same box, it put the JL to shame. JL in a properly sized box would spank the SWS in output and slightly better it in sound quality.

So my point is, Earthquake has a box recommendation for the SWS in a small volume configuration and therefore it is a low box volume sub. The sub was designed with versatility in mind and can be used for several different configurations. I already know what JL would say if I told them I'd run their subs out of spec.

Yeah - the manufacturers never stretch their specs, do they?
C'mon Brad - I know you know better than this!

Probably not if they are giving you a 5 year warranty. My JL's suspension failed and had to be replaced as a result of running the sub out of spec. If the point you are making is that they are publishing small box specs that should never be used then I'd say you're wrong. I've owned this sub Ken. I know how it performs in the applications I've used it in and I know what other subs sound like when you run them in boxes that are too small. This sub was made to run in small boxes, no doubt in my mind. I've owned and still own a lot of subs, one of these days I'll take a picture of my garages so I can show you the subwoofer graveyard. I would not hesitate to recommend the SWS for any shallow, small volume application.

It's important to recognize that the author is not slamming this product - actually has some very complimentary things to say about it. Earthquake actually reference the Tom Noussaine article on their web-site as a positive endorsement

I never thought he slammed the product at all, it was just your original post that I think used some of his comments in a negative light to prove your point about thin not meaning small box volume. Other thin subs I'd agree with your point but not with this sub and my opinion comes from real world experience.

 

[Hugh]

This is turning into "As The Audiophile Turns". I have a bootleg Zeppelin CD recorded right off the sound board from one of their last shows in Europe. Zurich, Switzerland on June 29th, 1980, just 3 months before Bonzo's death. All I want to do is to feel the thud of his beater striking the bass drum as crisply and cleanly as I do on my Voice Of The Theatres or my Apogee Duetta IIs and Velodyne subwoofer. Is that too much to ask?

Rest in peace John, you are missed by millions every single day.

 

[NSX@40]

If only Velodyne made a subwoofer system for the NSX

 

[zetoolman]

WOW!! What a thread.

I am starting from scratch on the enclosure to go behind the factory carpet. It looks like the volume will be about .4 - .45. Looking at the size of the existing box at .67, having the new one that will fit in the factory spot at 3" shallower is going to loose a lot of air!

I think it is best to go with a 8". Unless Malibu has a good line on that 10" that fits in .4. But, what about a grill?

Watch for the new box:biggrin:

 

[Hugh]

I have an Earhtquake SWS-10 on the way Zeman. My installer told me that he could either build me a suitable new box for the 10" or modify my existing one that you took a peek at. I might give him first dibs. he did do a damn nice job on the 8" box. Then again I might buy a second SWS-10 and send it to you for testing purposes.

 

[Hugh]

If only Velodyne made a subwoofer system for the NSX

Who needs Velodyne when we have Hal?

 

[zetoolman]

I have an Earhtquake SWS-10 on the way Zeman. My installer told me that he could either build me a suitable new box for the 10" or modify my existing one that you took a peek at. I might give him first dibs. he did do a damn nice job on the 8" box. Then again I might buy a second SWS-10 and send it to you for testing purposes.

You are better off with the new enclosure I am going to make. It will use ALL the space available! I am already working on it!!

What are the specs on that sub?

 

[Hugh]

You are better off with the new enclosure I am going to make. It will use ALL the space available! I am already working on it!!

What are the specs on that sub?

If you promise that I'll be the first in line to "beta test" it.

Specs can be found here my "search challenged" friend.

 

[Hugh]

Unless Malibu has a good line on that 10" that fits in .4. But, what about a grill?

The Earthquake SWS-10 should be right at home in a .4cf to .45cf box.
If you can recess the sub's mounting surface 1" from the front of the box that will compensate for full excursion and you can use a flush mounted grille according to the document I linked to in the previous post.

In the SWS instructions it shows the dimensions for the minimum sealed enclosure to be 14" x 12" x 3 1/2" meaured from the outside using 5/8" MDF. Am I measuring the inside volume correctly? I get 12.75" x 10.75" x 2.25" which equals 308.4 cubic inches which is 0.1785 cubic feet. That's pretty damn low.

 

[TURBO2GO]

Finaly Hal! yes, thank you.... how heavy is this SWS10? can't we get a sub with neodymium magnets? I am a focal home dealer if need be I am pretty sure I can get a set of killer subs for everyone at a cheap cost.

Please, can we try to keep this one light as well?

 

[Hugh]

Finaly Hal! yes, thank you.... how heavy is this SWS10?

Would you like me to come over and wipe your ass too? :biggrin:

I posted a link in this post with full specs and mounting requirements for the sub.

 

[TURBO2GO]

Would you like me to come over and wipe your ass too? :biggrin: .

if you don't mind... :biggrin:

11 pounds.... man its heavy... isn't there anything lighter? you guys be slowin' me down... OK flame suit is on...