Currently I am running this subwoofer Polk Audio MM1040 and it is being powered by this amp Polk Audio PA1100.5 pushing 280 watts to it. The subwoofer is in a Q-Logic enclosure with .65 cu.ft. I like this setup and don't get me wrong this sub bumps, but if I wen't with one of the above subwoofers pushing almost 400 watts to it would I see a big improvement in sound over my current setup??? Also which subwoofer would you go with???

 

Im partial to the ID i just went with idq's and coudlnt be happier. but your problem is the smaller space you have. It will take more power to achieve better output. Try taking your current setup and add about 1/2 - 3/4LB Of fiberfill to your current setup (put in the box) and see if it improves.

But yes more power and better sub should yield better results

 

I agree with PorkCereal.

 

The MOMO has significantly higher sensitivity and xmax than either the W3 or the ID. I'm nowhere near a pro in SPL projection, but I would think you'd have a limited increase from switching the subs out even at the higher power level because it will take a decent amount of power to get back to current output (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here).

If you're looking at the ID10D4V.3, you may want to check out these to save a few bucks: http://www.woofersetc.com/p8142/REFT...-Subwoofer.htm . Notice the specs are identical.

 

I have a single ID10D2 in a sealed 0.70 cu ft box and it's a monster. For my listening style this little powerhouse is more than enough. IMHO two of them would be brutal. Need some power to really get them to shine, though. I'm pushing mine with 400w from a Crossfire 705D.

Brad

 

Specs only tell you so much. Doesnt tell you how it actually performs or sounds. You only get that by testing or listening to what others say about em. If you want an SPL sub these are not really what you want. They are a SQ to a SQL type sub.

But yes, ina box that small 400w should work decently with the ID. Im only hitting my IDQ's with 450 in a .88 stuffed with fill and Beats the crap out of my memphis studios and alpine type R and ive only got 1 hooked up now.

 

The Momo and ID sub are not even in the same league. The ID with 400 watts and half pound of poly fill in the box will make you very happy.

 

mSall that is the type of answer I was lookin for something to slap some sense into me. I am going to order one today. I was actually surprised when I got my Q-Logic enclosure because it already had polyfill on all the walls inside of it.

 

Guess the 3-4 other people that said the ID was good stuff and would make you happy didnt tell you anything.

 

Care to explain why?

I know ID has a reputation, but beyond that, any reasons?

I see lower power handling (not an indicator of any "ESS QUE") but still a consideration.

Lower sensitivity, even assuming the MM series sub was taken at 2.83v/m rather than 1w/1m

Xmax is a hair higher, by about 2.5mm, but lets be honest, very very few ever come close to using full XMAX during regular play.

Beyond that I see nothing but typical, cheap drivers. No shorting rings, no special mfg technique, no special motor technology (both are standard overhung designs), and pretty standard materials all around.

Seems like any improvements would be minimal, if not psycho-acoustics, at best - assuming proper box and power is given to both.

At best it would be a minimal improvement for a significant cash outlay, why not get the Tidal audio sub linked above, or something cheaper in the generic sub genre? At least you know the Tidal is identical, and saves you 80 bucks.

 

Well if you just look at paper before you buy, you bring up some good points. Surely neither sound as good as a subwoofer with shorting rings, XBL^2 motor technology and custom tooled parts etc. My statement was based on the fact that I've heard installs with both particular subs first hand and found one to sound better than the other, simple as that. Could there have been other variables? Sure, maybe. But I guess first hand experience doesn't count nowadays...only the numbers put on the box....

 

You're missing the meat of the specs...
The IDv3 has a lower Fs and a lower Q. It'll play lower in a smaller box than the Polk, which does look like a great sub, but with a qts of .45 it'll looks like it'll sound "boomier" than the ID.

While I haven't listened to the Polk, I've done a few installations with the IDv3s and they're very impressive in both SQ and output.

 

No, far from that, personal taste are just that, personal. You gave no info as to the reason, and a simple "this one is better" means nothing.

Of course, unless your first hand experience was in the same car, again, with optimal power, box spec, crossover/tuning, and box placement, they are not really accurate comparisons, and should be announced with this information.

No, in fact, I did not miss the information. The fact is, I have actually modeled both, and found that the difference is minimal, at best. A 1db difference at 30 hz (lower wont matter for music, as a general rule)

Also of note, its optimal enclosure (based on a .71 qtc) is .636. when you put the ID in the same sized enclosure the differences are even smaller.



and "boomier" can be controlled by the enclosure and tuning, although, it is far from boomier based on specs and modeling.

I am simply pointing out that the "ID RULZ" line of thinking may not be correct, if you take the time to look. Other options may be more suited to an application.

 

Shiat these be slammin..
u all best be gettin summa dees

 

Chupo,

Computer modeling is great. There's only one small detail... modeling is not as real world as, well, the real world. You can model all day long to get a close approximation of actual performance, but the best "model" is still first-hand experience with a real-life install. You can tell someone they are wrong based on the computer models, but when they've heard the diff in real life it makes the validity of your models bit suspect.

In other words, theory sometimes doesn't perfectly equate to performance. Sucks, but that's the way life is sometimes. That's why this thing called "experience" is such a good thing to listen to.

I learned the hard way modeling engines with dyno software. I put up the good fight, giving all the theoretical reasons why my way was the right way even though the builder involved had about twenty years experience on me. Guess what? I was wrong. He was right. I continue to use the software and can get very close, but real life still intervenes on occasion to let me know that all the modeling in the world can't replace good, old-fashioned hard test data and the opinion of someone who's been there and done that.

Brad