Reza

I'm going to swing the box the other way around, i have a feeling that the sound wave doesn't allow to enter the cabin in a good manner due to the width and height of the box. Thanks for all the replies

Hmm.... might have to change the box design.

I've tried reversing the polarity and doesn't make big difference, if any. I try to mount the sub normally but the box doesn't have the depth. Seriously i've heard this sub hit much2x harder in a smaller box (0.8) and bigger box (1.5) in a normal mounting position despite the lack of low freq extension and peaky response respectively. The new box has just the right SQ for me but lack the punchiness and tightness both box has provide. Does the motor structure in RL-p prohibit for inverted mounting?? I'm really puzzled.

One member here reported the same thing but then the mounting hole was a bit tight and made this noise, he enlarge the hole and the sound was gone. I had the sme problem too, i thought the box was fine, then when i tried pulling the sub out it was stuck and had to force the sub out, work fine with other sub though.

At first i only want to clean it, but i got overboard and here's what it come out to be, one shiny backplate (for some reason the flat bottom won't go shine), only use my hand and some polishing product . The beast just get sexier. As i'm mounting the sub inverted, i think this is a good outcome PS: Mike can u make the Terminal hole bigger??!!!, it's a PITA when u trying to insert two 12ga wire (paralel wiring), i like to hide my wire as much as possible .

that's ok mate, yeah i'm thinking about stripping some of the strand in the wire, the lenght of the cable won't be that long after all. Thanks for the suggestion mike.

My cousin's RF 1001BD does the same thing too, myabe just the amp.

yeah i might use those buffing wheels and see what it'll do , thx for the comment guys

I'm about to make a new box for my RL-p, due to space restriction and the sexiness of the magnet , i have to mount my sub inverted. Now what would be the ideal cuthole size?? I notice that the rubber surround is fat and leave only slight gap in regard to the screw hole. Also about the polarity, i heard that u need to reverse the wiring, how u do that?? I'm wiring the sub in parralel. Now, would 1.27cuft and 1.38cuft yield different output?? The sub will receive 1000rms clean power and gear for SQ applcation, i like it to get low too. Thanks in advace

Ah ic, what would be the correct size then?? i.m guessing around 11inches??

I found the IDmax has more grunt in lower frequency, but RL-p sounded sweeter and smoother.

Looks awesome, wanna get my hand on the sub sometimes in the future (i hope), maybe Mike can give me a special price for a customer from Down Under

I'm using LOC as well in my Merc E class. The sub sounds really good (eventhough it's not in the recomended box), it definitely sounds better and louder than newer Type S (used to have 2 of em) and older Type R. It doesn't sound as clean as it can be, due to the crappy HU in merc. And due to the box i'm using it's very peaky at certain frequency. I'm hoping to get the sub in my C ASAP, since it has the proper HU and amplification and of course built an optimum box. The only 12 inch sub in my household that eclipse the performance of the RL-p is the IDMAX in it's optimal box and it cost twice as much. I don't have that sort of problem u having with my LOC.

Have to wait till tommorow when i can get the owner of the ID to do h2h listening test.

Yesterday morning i received my new RL-p , finally after waiting for 6 weeks. It's a very meaty subwoofer, i underestimate the size of the packaging and thought it would be light, big mistake. Anyhow, the unit is in perfect condition, the box is damn strong. Here's the pic.... I also tried the new woofer last night for a very brief time (comparing with IDmax), i use the box that is designed for IDMAX, around 0.8-1.0 cuft, i know RL-p won't like that box given 1000rms (using RF 1001BD). Preliminary listening session was sattisfying, i really like the characteristic of the woofer (not as 'dry' as IDMAX), almost the same as my old Orion 2NT, bass is clean and puncy. In that particular box, IDMAX can really hit low note , while RL-p doesn't seem to get it, ID also hit harder. I'll build a bigger box for RL-p for a rematch and will use Tru tech Hammer for the amp. However, given the price i paid for RL-p compare to IDMAX (RL-p is exatcly half the price of IDMAX in AUS), IDMAX doesn't sound twice better, and i believe with bigger box, sonic performance will be closely match albeit ID will give louder output. Some pic with IDMAX.....

Found an unused larger box around 1.5, i use some program to determine the volume, i don't think it's accurate though. Well the sub seems to hit better, it can go real low and manage to shake my car's floor (Mercedes E class), my 2 15's in my C class cannot do this at same volume. I listen to Jazz music on the way home, and it's a very sweet experience. I only use 500rms from the Pioneer monoblock, hmm can't wait to try it with my hammer and build a proper box.

Keep us posted

Ported box eh?? I'm willing to try that enclosure, how about do i build one?? I have idea about building a sealed one, but haven't think much about ported one. Willing to help me?? I want to hear RL-p spank some IDMAX arses , people down under are in IDMAX 'bandwagon'. Cheers.

Hmm i might try 1.35, since i have room to spare.

How much power you feeding the RL-p?? I want to build a box that's perfect match for RL-p with 1000rms.

In case you guys wondering, RL-p is heavier than IDmax only by a fraction.

I paid for AUD1k, retail price down under is around AUD2.1K.

Never thought Hammer could be so expensive Some shot with Eton Xover, very sexy!!!

For the time being, 2 15's orion 2ntense. I ordered Rl-p 12 inch, should sound sweet with it.

No chrome means serious business . I bought the amp second hand, previous owner really took care of it, not a single scratch