View Single Post
  #4  
Old 09-04-2013, 04:30 PM
EarmarkMarine's Avatar
EarmarkMarine EarmarkMarine is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Boat: TBD
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig3972 View Post
the two subs are in parallel but in separate sealed enclosures.
Do you think that the IB might be more resistant to over excursion/damage? I have blown this sub before and it would be advantageous to a more robust unit.

Thanks for the reply on MC as well!
craig,
That's not the thinking you want to follow. An IB sub has greater internal damping, which you might think sums with the air spring of a small sealed enclosure for more collective control. But, that would elevate the resonance and low frequency roll-off point turning it into the world's best midbass driver....but with no more deep bass. Also, IB is a less linear form of suspension so an IB woofer trades MORE control for LESS excursion....ie less maximum output. A design element that you cannot escape. So, get back to creating a woofer and enclosure that is matched and balanced.
On another note. You can double the same woofer's power handling by doubling the voice coil, doubling the inductance, and doubling the sluggishness. In other words, muddy and indiscriminant sound quality. Eventually you sacrifice responsiveness or sound quality with a narrow focus on one objective. It's another one of those design trade-offs with compromises that you cannot escape. Look, woofer voice coils are made from a copper winding insulated by an enamel coating. Copper and enamel pretty much burn and melt at the same temperature from speaker to speaker and brand to brand. So figure out why you blew the sub and correct that issue. It could be equalization, crossover selection, system tuning, a non-airtight enclosure like with no terminal cup, questionable program material, usage, hard clipping, etc. etc.

David
__________________
Earmark Marine
www.earmarkmarine.com
Reply With Quote