DiyMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey everyone,

I was hoping I could get some advice on choosing a sub (or 2). I have an 04 CC silverado, box is going behind the seat (2001-2007 Chevy Crew Cab Non HD Poly Sub Box - Car Audio Factory -).

Specs that the sub must have:
1) appropriate for 0.8 ft^3
2) mounting depth of 4.5" or less
3) 10" or 12", I am not too picky.
4) prefer less than $300 per sub.

I hope to run 2 subs in parallel from my Boston Acoustics GT-24, which should be capable of providing 750-900w RMS. I prefer punchy, tight, well defined bass rather than boom boom boom.

Cheers, thanks in advance
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
I would make these fit Polk Audio MM1240 . The price is excellent and so are the reviews. They only need 1/8" to clear your box...so maybe sand down the rear of the box just where the magnet pokes out OR add a thick gasket to space the driver out from the box.

Possibly add some polyfill to tune them a little lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
schmiddr2--thanks so much. That sub is actually the one I have been considered using. I just wanted to get input on whether there were any other/better options :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,895 Posts
On the thread I started about shallows the consensus seemed to be that I'd be better with multiple 8s (like four alpines or sundown) than I would with 2 or 3 shallow 10s or 12s.

Both brand of 8s look impressive but I'm an old school bass head and am very skeptical. I like 12s.

I'm planning a fiberglass build in my CC Sierra that should push 2.5 cubes behind the seat. Keep in touch, I'll be documenting it. Hopefully in the next couple months.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Chaos---Thanks for your suggestion. I do have a question though, why do you suggest a shallow sub over the Polk mm1240, which is a "thinner" sub but not the typical shallow mount style? Would the Polk not have a better low-end response than the CVT?

Fricasseekid--Ya, I was keeping up on your thread and saw the posts about the 8's. I know that Polk Audio makes the MM series of 10's and 12's that have a mounting depth of ~4.5", which in our case, is ideal, but I am still just a tiny bit hesitant.

So, I am still caught in the decision of whether to go with the Polk subs, or use a shallow mount driver, or now, maybe go with multiple 8's. I get the feeling that there are so many different ways to go that I might have to just choose one and hope it works to suite my needs.

Thanks for the replies ppl! :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
Just an FYI, the Polk have an xmax of 12.5mm. I chose them for the price. No thought to price then the SI BM MKIV or the TYPE R.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
So, I am on the SI mailing list about the release of the MKIV, but who knows when that will be... I am impatient, and would like to install something in the near future.

So I do appreciate the advice, but I need to know why people are choosing certain subs. Granted, you chose the Polk based on price, but why then choose the Type R? why not the JL (13w5, i think), or the pioneer (Pioneer TS-SW3001S4), or the Kenwood excelon thin sub?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,921 Posts
I do have a question though, why do you suggest a shallow sub over the Polk mm1240, which is a "thinner" sub but not the typical shallow mount style? Would the Polk not have a better low-end response than the CVT?
Mainly because I have had good results with the VT series thus far, and it looks as if the 12" would just fit in that box. The Kicker shallow subs have a more "traditional" style motor with a flatter cone, which in my opinion at least tend to perform more like a "standard" type sub.

Nothing against the Polk, but I haven't heard them so I can't really comment one way or another about how low they might play compared to the Kicker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
So, I am on the SI mailing list about the release of the MKIV, but who knows when that will be... I am impatient, and would like to install something in the near future.

So I do appreciate the advice, but I need to know why people are choosing certain subs. Granted, you chose the Polk based on price, but why then choose the Type R? why not the JL (13w5, i think), or the pioneer (Pioneer TS-SW3001S4), or the Kenwood excelon thin sub?
I have a pair of the Kenwoods. They do not sound like shallow subs. Loud and low AND effecient @ 91 dbs @1W/1M.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
The Polk db sound very good IMO. So I would expect relative SQ out of the MM series. Plus read some reviews of them.

The TYPE R have slightly more output and are only 3.5" deep. Same with the SI BM. But, for me and my money, I would rather have good subs at a great price so I can spend more on the frontstage.

I haven't heard the CompVT. They have 9.8mm xmax. Not that xmax is the only important number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks schmiddr2,

I have read many reviews of the Polk MM1040 and 1240's, and are likely going to go that route. The problem with most reviews is that the specs of the application are rarely included. Usually the reviews are something like "punchy, great SQ, i love them." blah blah. But those tell me nothing about how they will perform for my application.

Anyway, thanks again for your help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
schmiddr2,

Do you think that the box I posted the link to doesn't have enough volume to support 2 of the MM1240's? Perhaps I should go with the MM1040's instead?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,214 Posts
I have a pair of the Kenwoods. They do not sound like shallow subs. Loud and low AND effecient @ 91 dbs @1W/1M.
Just for your information, the Kenwood Shallows are no way near 91dBs @ 1w/1m
I calculated the efficiency to be about 83.38dB.

And even if they were 91dB efficient, they would need to be used either IB or in a huge sealed box (which would defeat the purpose of shallow subs) - law of physics... ;)

Kelvin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Just for your information, the Kenwood Shallows are no way near 91dBs @ 1w/1m
I calculated the efficiency to be about 83.38dB.

And even if they were 91dB efficient, they would need to be used either IB or in a huge sealed box (which would defeat the purpose of shallow subs) - law of physics... ;)

Kelvin
I wonder why they lied. The spec sheet I dug up had the SPL figure @ 1W/1M vs. the typical @ 2.83V. Either way, they get loud and low for a shallow.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top