Sealed Box size for polk SR104

br85

I just bought 2 of these babies, now I need to know whether the NET volume of the ideal sealed box for one of these is .66 or .88 cubic feet. Every corner I turn says one of these figures, and I'm not sure which is the actual answer. Frustration. :mad:

brettw22

Call Polk CS and ask.

Click on the telephone on the top of this page at the right........with the word CONTACT next to it.........

Good luck.

ShinAce

Don't sweat it. Use whatever fits in your ride.

The sub specs themselves vary greatly and the suggested box size is an average to start with. Use 0.75 cubic feet if you want.

ShinAce

You can also increase the effective volume by filling the box with pillow stuffing if you find it too 'boomy'.

brettw22

Technically, yes you can make it whatever size/shape you want............

If you want it to sound ideal, then follow the specs provided by the people that made the thing......

ShinAce

If you want it to sound ideal, measure the specs and design your own box.

The manufacturer compromises just as much as the rest of us.

brettw22

not really......the manufacturer sets the standards for their product........if you don't opt to follow those, then t's you that's compromised the sound, not the manufacturer......

killerb

follow polks specs, when i did the subs sounded perfect. i tried smaller and they sounded boomy, at 1.2 cubic ft. for the sr124-dvc they were right on!

MacLeod

ShinAce wrote: »

Don't sweat it. Use whatever fits in your ride.

The sub specs themselves vary greatly and the suggested box size is an average to start with. Use 0.75 cubic feet if you want.

Umm no. Using a box too big makes the sub sound flat, and not the good kind of "transparent" flat but just flat. Using a box too small created a pretty sizeable response hump in a pretty noticeable frequency range. Using a bigger box also decreases the power handling.

Its true you can use the T/S parameters to get the ideal box size but the manufacturer's specs are still a good place to start. Why would a manufacturer go to all the trouble and expense of R&D for a line of subs, work their balls of putting it together and then just randomly guessing at a box size?

dirthog

The first box I made was 1.1^3 and I was not pleased, too boomy and didn't blend well. Now I have it in 1.35^3 and me likey, a lot!

My bad I didn't notice you're talking about the 104. I run the 124.

Kinetic

read the white paper well, its here on the polks web, and call polks CS, they are very good, i have call them a few times

bluzrip

In the manual, downloadable from this very web site, is this quote:

"SR104 Sealed Enclosure 0.66 cu ft net. Important: add driver displacement (0.12 cu ft) to total volume."

Therefore... Polk recommends 0.78 cu ft total volume. Add SR104. Stir slowly. Enjoy.

http://www.polkaudio.com/downloads/manuals/car/SRSubwoofersManual.pdf

ShinAce

Whatever you do, don't listen to my earlier suggestion and build a 0.75 ft3 box.

brettw22

Or, when you make suggestions, don't do it in a way that implies you picked a number from your **** and posted it.

bluzrip

Whatever you do, don't listen to my earlier suggestion and build a 0.75 ft3 box.

ShinAce

I am just laughing at all the replies because I've been testing speaker specs and designing boxes for over a decade now.

I don't need to explain myself when someone asks for a suggestion and I provide one.

brettw22

Perhaps you have, but the way you posted sounded like you made something up for the hell of it........

MacLeod

ShinAce wrote: »

I am just laughing at all the replies because I've been testing speaker specs and designing boxes for over a decade now.

I don't need to explain myself when someone asks for a suggestion and I provide one.

And I am just laughing at you. You really need to get over yourself. Im sure youre a super master speaker genius man but this is a discussion forum and we DISCUSS things here.

If youre going to get your dress over your head everytime somebody dares offer an opinion contrary to yours, youre going to be pissed off a lot. Yours isnt the final word and when you come off with "use whatever size box you wont, in wont matter" and then your next post is to "calculate T/S parameters for the best sounding box" which pretty much contradicts your first statement, youre going to get a response. And unless your name is Richard Clark or Matt Polk, your opinion wont even be considered close to the "final word" on the subject at least not as far as Im concerned.

Lighten up son and lose the attitude and superiority complex.

exalted512

When I start getting around to my g/f's car later this year, its going to have a single SR10 and I'm going to try to squeeze about a cube of air space out of the box, then work my way smaller until I like it best. I like to think companies put the specs that are right for their subs, but needing a small box is essential for a lot of people, and sometimes companies will list a smaller box rating to fit in with that need. Not saying Polk does do that, but I do agree that their rating is a starting point, definitely not the only size that will work.
-Cody

MacLeod

Also, a slightly smaller box will give a bump in the frequency response maybe somewhere around 40 HZ and most people would actually prefer that as it makes the overall bass response seem to have more impact which is probably why manufacturers recommend slightly smaller than ideal box sizes. Also some consumers would rather have or need a smaller box so a sub using a box smaller than its competition is a good thing. However going too much smaller and you get a very large bump in response and the overall bass sound becomes one note'ish so while there is good reason for manufacturers to recommend slightly smaller than normal boxes, they wont do it by much and ruin the sound of their subs that theyve put so much time and effort into developing.

ShinAce

exalted512 wrote: »

I like to think companies put the specs that are right for their subs, but needing a small box is essential for a lot of people, and sometimes companies will list a smaller box rating to fit in with that need.
-Cody

Both you and the manufacturer are thinking the same thing. This is expecially true for the recommended vented alignments.

If we're going to talk about the ideal box, the specs MUST be measured. I don't know of a single affordable sub that offers quality control good enough to trust the manufacturer's specs.

When I offer someone advice, I try to consider their situation as best I can. A person asking for clarification on a good size for a single ten is someone that just needs to get the job done without having to worry about it. If he was asking for the best box size to make his 3 IDQ subs shine, my advice would be different.

Brett said earlier to make it sound ideal, just use the manufacturer's recommendation. This is not kosher in my book.

brettw22

Right.......cuz the manufacturer would put specs out there to make their product sound like ****........

eloplayspolo

duh!!!

tinman67gz

WOW!! Can't we all just get along. The manufacturer will spec a size for a ported and for a sealed box. the further you vary from these the more the speaker will sound "like ****". They do extensive research at Polk and the other finer manufacturers.

For some good advise on box building in general try Crutchfield.com. It,s where I got my MOMO 8's for my F-150 ext. cab truck and they sound great. I needed very small boxes to fit them under my back seat. They don't rumble the neighborhood but they sound excellent in the truck.

br85

Well The manual and white paper lead me to think a .78 cubic foot box is ideal. The box design polk recommends is .85 cubic feet. The professional reviewer did some actual testing and came up with ~.815 cubic feet for a q of .707 (which some consider a perfect q). I might go with as close to that size as possible, even though my subs probably vary a little bit from the one he tested.

Question though, would the box size have to change based on the amp I was using? For example, class D amps (I will be running a jl 1000/1) are said to "lower the q factor or the drivers they are pushing". Do I have to take this into account?

exalted512

.707 is what most people strive for. My question is did Polk put .78 after driver displacement was taken out, and the reviewer said .815 before driver displacement? Who knows...

You dont have to take into account the amplifier.
-Cody

Thom

br85 wrote: »

Well The manual and white paper lead me to think a .78 cubic foot box is ideal. The box design polk recommends is .85 cubic feet. The professional reviewer did some actual testing and came up with ~.815 cubic feet for a q of .707 (which some consider a perfect q). I might go with as close to that size as possible, even though my subs probably vary a little bit from the one he tested.

Question though, would the box size have to change based on the amp I was using? For example, class D amps (I will be running a jl 1000/1) are said to "lower the q factor or the drivers they are pushing". Do I have to take this into account?

I just checked with Kim in Customer service and when I asked him what we recommend for an SR104 he said .82- I don't know how .66 is listed on the website. Sorry about that- and thanks for pointing it out. Someone must've copied/ pasted wrong a while ago and we never caught it.

Should be fixed soon.

Thom

http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/subbox/subbox_plan.php?id=100&mesurements=standard

We had it right on the box plans page, so just the manual had the wrong info. The manual should be fixed soon.

Thom

...and while we're on the topic of enclosures for the SR104 you could port it as well:

http://www.polkaudio.com/caraudio/subbox/subbox_plan.php?id=92&mesurements=standard

Although I don't know if you want to give up the space...

br85

exalted512 wrote: »

.707 is what most people strive for. My question is did Polk put .78 after driver displacement was taken out, and the reviewer said .815 before driver displacement? Who knows...

You dont have to take into account the amplifier.
-Cody

Polk had .78 WITH driver displacement. Listed as .66 net size box with a .12 size displacement. The .815 was also inclusive of the driver displacement, so the net air space in that box would have been around .695 cubic feet.

Thom wrote:

I just checked with Kim in Customer service and when I asked him what we recommend for an SR104 he said .82- I don't know how .66 is listed on the website. Sorry about that- and thanks for pointing it out. Someone must've copied/ pasted wrong a while ago and we never caught it.

Should be fixed soon.

It should probably be changed be changed to .7 net then, because .82 includes the driver displacement. Thanks for looking into it!

MacLeod

.66 is the recommended box size for the MM2104. Probably just got crossed up.