95Honda

No. This has absolutely nothing to due with what happened.

You have no idea if that is enough power without knowing what alignment they will be in. Additionally, the power handling rating has absolutely nothing to do with a required power to get to full output, at all. Period.

Depending on whatever softparts you choose, the original specs had a higher overall Q. They work well 4th order vented, but the box needs to be a little larger and tuned a little lower to get a flat response. No big deal if you have the space... Arbitrarily choosing a vent area without modeling is kind of pointless, you may need less than you think making box design easier or you may need more to keep compression down and it may cause you to re-evaluate you design... They do have a really flat response sealed and don't require a very large box to get low with cabin gain, BUT they aren't efficient drivers to start with and going sealed is going to cost you some output...

Those T/S specs don't lend well to a transmission line...

Great motors...

Again, modeling will answer your questions once you find specs, especially since you already have the box built!

Well good luck! Just make sure you MODEL first and don't arbitrarily choose volumes and tuning... The High Qts (and other attributes) allow for extremely small sealed alignments with a low Fc. It might make designing tough due to a vented section being to small to properly support needed vent area, unless you go external venting... But again, be sure and model before hand so you know what you are getting!

Not sure what size driver that is, but if you are actually going to build a transmission line just choose a taper ratio and base it off a similar size driver with a similar surround. You'll have to tune it for flat impedance anyway, so getting the cross-sectional area dead-nuts-on isn't super critical... Additionally, take any transmission line reviews with a grain of salt on a car audio website. They are very subjective, and a majority aren't even transmission lines... They really aren't a great fit for car audio as they are less efficient than standard 4th order vented or band-pass alignments and they tend to be very large...

4th order vented or band-pass? It will have really bad ripple in a vented alignment...

Don't take this the wrong way, but until you figure out what you did wrong the first time around, no matter what you do (fix leads, FI recone or PSI recone) it is simply going to happen again. So, after you fix your driver(s), you need to make sure that #1 you aren't applying to much power to exceed thermal limits and #2 don't have an enclosure alignment, power level or active filter setting that is allowing over-excursion. I am not questioning your abilities, but I highly suggest you find out how to do both aspects, as it was NOT done before. There are people on here that can walk you through all the needed steps, just ask...

Your 2400 watt amp can be applying as much as 4800 watts of overall power to the subwoofer, at any gain setting. When you fry leads you are applying too much power, period. I would suggest trying to figure out what you were doing wrong in the first place.

Couple of things to point out about this thread- 1) The RMS rating is NOT a power requirement, nor is it any indication of how loud a driver will get with a certain amount of power. I has no relation to output whatsoever, it is simply a thermal rating of the voicecoil, nothing else. Do not base anything output wise off of an RMS rating, period. 2) The nominal impedance is an average rating, your overall alignment determines the final load the amplifier sees. Don't assume that an amplifier will be putting out half the power if you double the driver impedance. 3) There is no such thing as underpowering...

Mine works!

Yup, and I think the 152+db Tempest Durango wall was built well before that! We are getting old!

One is dampening completey different than the other. Almost makes me wonder is something is wonky with one of the suspension components and/or gap alignment...

These drivers look to be very well thought out and designed. I look forward to using one some day... Good job Quentin...

Hey man, first off, nobody is trying to muck up your thread. You don't have to take this to a personal level in your posts. Nobody has disrespected you. We wanted to inform the readers of different avenues of design, and we did that. You question our knowlege and skills without conducting proper research. Please don't take this as disrespect, because it isn't. This is a public forum. We will point these items out as they arise, it isn't a personal attack. I think the readers get the point, there isn't any reason for me to post about it anymore, so I won't. Good luck with your build! -Mike

We aren't saying you design an alignment on a computer and go with it without change, we are simply trying to get people off on an abjective start. When I was working with some of the MECA competitors in the early 2000's (about 200 or so complete builds ago) we would objectively start with a modeled design and then test/tweak from there. We did not arbitrarily start with volumes on a guess, we would still see how the loudspeakers were going to act as a starting point. Case in point, I completed a high efficieny build in 2003 using the first generation RE 8s. I was limited in power to roughly 150 watts. I modeled a multi-tune (pluggable ports, 6 in totall) 4th order vented enclosure and had 3 predicted peaks that went with my 3 tunings. I knew the modeled peak at the highest point was near the vehicle resonance (1978 full size Bronco) of 56Hz. When I modeled for the intended peak to coincide near vehicle resonance I was able to net over 143db, at the headrest, on the Termlab, using 153 watts of total input power to my 8 RE8s (19 watts per driver). This was all possible with little tweaking of the actuall alignment due to carefull planning and simulation. And I was able to hit my peak SPL at 56Hz, as predicted by both alignment peak and vehicle resonance. But again, I was only able to do this as easily as I did because I was fully aware of the alignment response BEFORE any actual testing... Again, we have no doubt that you can build great SPL systems, we are trying to stress to the readers of this thread that there are more objective ways to start. Just think of how many unknown alignment variables you can eliminate by modeling first... I have been doing this for well over 20 years and I still learn new things everyday.

I still don't think you understand what we are talking about, we aren't talking about the cabin gain, we are talking about your target alignment starting point. This where you reliably predict system response and know what the actual output before cabin gain is. It is loudspeaker 101. It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick volumes as a starting point, we just want to make sure the novice readers understand this. We aren't trying to clutter your thread, it is open for everyone. We are trying to ensure more than just you learn from this. Nobody is saying you can't design to your goals, we are just trying to let everyone understand that the approach isn't as objective as it could be...

Roger. I may not have been trying to help you as much as other, more novice, builders. You need to remember that many people are reading this thread, many with less knowledge than you. So I would like them to understand that there are objective ways to begin a design, and they may find another route to go that will get them off on a solid footing. The problem is, many will look at the fact that someone chose a band-pass ratio and ran with it without first checking how the drivers will behave. You may be able to get away with this, many others will not. It is important to remember, that while this is your thread, others are learning...

And if we could model everything there would be no need to test. everything would be a one shot build. we would have 20 craig butlers. I rough design for volume and tuning on "paper" then built ,test, and mod. Ive had many successful loud daily and spl builds. All from testing. No luck needed. Luck is builds that hit certain numbers and never get louder.If your knowledge of building and testing out weighs mine please feel free to contribute. Otherwise if your certain computer modeling is the way to go you have expressed it thoroughly and you have no further need to post about it in my thread. Look, this forum is about learning. Sometimes people will point things out that may help, don't get defensive. Other people will be reading this thread and may learn something. I asked a simple question because I was curious and looking for insight. I made a comment about objective data. No reason to get defensive. Again, the build looks good and good luck with the outcome, this isn't a smart ass comment, it really means good luck.

Yes, that is a common misconception in car audio. The actual alignment doesn't change in the cabin, and the output can be predicted. Lance Dickson did some pretty extensive testing with this a decade ago, comparing Qtc in and out of a confined environment. Changes were less than 5%. Everything can be modeled as far the actual alignment output... But again, good luck.

Pretty much a stab in the dark then, good luck...

How did it model with both tunings?

That response looks pretty nasty, it may work ok. Honestly though, 6th order alignments are hard to nail down right. Depending on how you design your venting and the way the cabin is, cancellation can become a huge issue... It sounds like your mind is set though, so good luck...