Maelstrom X-II, box design and x-max.

**Andreas** · **11-04-09, 08:14 AM**

Hi,
I've recently bought the Maelstrom X-II and now I am looking at my options for an enclosure. Running the numbers through software tells me it's best suited for sealed designes. I'm looking for a box between 80-170 litres, sealed or vented does not matter. Now, what I'm curious about is that the predicted maximum cone excursion @ 1500 watts is merly 17mm (approx. for all designes I've tried). Is this correct? Would be a shame to only put little over half of it's potensial into use =/

**Mike P.** · **11-04-09, 09:23 AM**

Small sealed to large ported work for the Maestrom-X. Depending on what you're using it for, there are plenty of builds in the Database for you to look at. Click the link in my signature.

**Andreas** · **11-04-09, 05:43 PM**

I've now tried WinISD, WinISD Pro, Unibox and more software to try and designe a box for my maelstrom. All of them turn up errors, I think they're too old for Windows 7 (yes, I've tried "compatible mode"). I did get WinISD to run, but not great and it has very limited information. Pro version would not accept the T/S paramerters, even though I tripple checked them (.pdf spec sheet @ diycable) =(

Could anyone suggest a sealed box that is a good compromise between size vs performance? I need to know the size in litres, f3 and excursion specs would be nice. I'll mate the sub with a behringer EP2000. Thanks a lot for taking the time to help me, this is driving me nuts =(

**fredk** · **11-04-09, 06:46 PM**

You can download the driver files from here. Save to the Drivers directory (Program Files\Linear Team\Drivers I think) and then start a new project and select the file from the supplied list.

When entering the t\s parameters manually, you need to enter them in a certain order per instructions in the help file.

**Mike P.** · **11-04-09, 10:13 PM**

Have a look at this sub. It performs extremely well.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...m-x-build.html

**Andreas** · **11-05-09, 06:14 AM**

Thanks alot, both of you! Now I'll be able to work it out for myself =)

Edit:
I've now played with WinISD Pro a little, so I've got a question. The software suggests by default a 128,7 litre sealed box. Since you recomended the 176 litre designe by WillyD, I compared it to the 128,7 litre box. The two frequency response curves are very similar and at 20Hz, there is only a 0,3dB difference, which is honestly, next to nothing. So why would you go for the larger designe, it seems it offers next to no additional performance, or am I missing something?

**fackamato** · **11-05-09, 08:43 AM**

Quote:

Andreas wrote:

Thanks alot, both of you! Now I'll be able to work it out for myself =)

Edit:
I've now played with WinISD Pro a little, so I've got a question. The software suggests by default a 128,7 litre sealed box. Since you recomended the 176 litre designe by WillyD, I compared it to the 128,7 litre box. The two frequency response curves are very similar and at 20Hz, there is only a 0,3dB difference, which is honestly, next to nothing. So why would you go for the larger designe, it seems it offers next to no additional performance, or am I missing something?

The larger the box, the less power is required to get your SPL. Also, a larger box means less compression which leads to less distorsion. (theory)

**Andreas** · **11-05-09, 09:34 AM**

Quote:

fackamato wrote:

The larger the box, the less power is required to get your SPL. Also, a larger box means less compression which leads to less distorsion. (theory)

Would there be a significant difference between these two sizes, so the larger one is worth considering? Also, modelling cone excursion the larger box results in peak movement of 38mm (2000w@10Hz), while the smaller one stays within specs (just, at 32mm).

**Kevin Haskins** · **11-05-09, 01:55 PM**

Quote:

Andreas wrote:

Would there be a significant difference between these two sizes, so the larger one is worth considering? Also, modelling cone excursion the larger box results in peak movement of 38mm (2000w@10Hz), while the smaller one stays within specs (just, at 32mm).

Either size is going to be fine. As you point out, there is not a large difference between 140L sealed, and 170L sealed.

Ignore the xmax, and just use as much power as you can afford. These drivers will happily exist with 2000-3000W amps driving them. You just have to use common sense in use. The output at the limits of the device are high enough to give you plenty of headroom.

With a 12" sealed sub, it is another story. It is much easier to push it into failure mode, especially with that kind of power on tap.

Kevin Haskins
Exodus Audio

**Drizt** · **11-06-09, 03:28 AM**

Quote:

Kevin Haskins wrote:

Either size is going to be fine. As you point out, there is not a large difference between 140L sealed, and 170L sealed.

Kevin Haskins
Exodus Audio

That makes me feel a bit better about my up coming 125L Maelstrom-X subs

After confirming the size I had been browsing all the DIY jobbies on here and had a severe case of cabinet envy... all those guys with 200L+ cabinets

, if I had the room, Id be with you. Just hope my smaller units are good enough for my needs.

**Andreas** · **11-06-09, 07:20 AM**

Thanks for the input Kevin, that confirmed my thoughts. Drizt, don't you think it's more impressive with a small box that plays loud, than one 3 times bigger that certainly dosn't play 3 times louder?

**Drizt** · **11-06-09, 07:29 AM**

Quote:

Andreas wrote:

Thanks for the input Kevin, that confirmed my thoughts. Drizt, don't you think it's more impressive with a small box that plays loud, than one 3 times bigger that certainly dosn't play 3 times louder?

I do like the idea of getting more from less if that makes sense :P

Advertisement