Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | AF 350Z | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
| Latest | 0 Rplys |
|
Car Audio Do you live in your car? Then you need to be able to listen to some high-quality music. |
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread |
|
Thread Tools |
03-10-2005, 09:30 AM | #1 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Glendale, California
Posts: 284
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
SX to SE Comparison
I was wondering if the SX had better overall SQL than the SE series from RE. Or does its just get louder for SPL and carry less SQ?
|
|
03-10-2005, 11:19 AM | #2 | ||
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
Quote:
NG |
||
03-10-2005, 03:40 PM | #3 | |
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
RE claims that the SX can have just as good of SQ as the SE, but like NG said that's purely install dependant..... the SX will get hella louder in w/e application tho!!
__________________
2002 Ford Explorer Limited D31 yellow top Kenwood DDX-7017 2 Ascendant Audio Avalanche 18's 13 cuft NET ported box tuned to 27hz Autotek Mean Machine MX3000.1 Ascendant Audio Arco component set Orion 275SX (Mids) PPI Art Series A200 (tweets) Poly Mids for rear fill to come soon. |
|
03-10-2005, 04:20 PM | #4 | |
Banned
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
what are you talking about, the RE ownz.... and actually the 8's are pretty damn good for hte price...
|
|
03-10-2005, 05:12 PM | #5 | |
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
wtf are u talking about?
__________________
2002 Ford Explorer Limited D31 yellow top Kenwood DDX-7017 2 Ascendant Audio Avalanche 18's 13 cuft NET ported box tuned to 27hz Autotek Mean Machine MX3000.1 Ascendant Audio Arco component set Orion 275SX (Mids) PPI Art Series A200 (tweets) Poly Mids for rear fill to come soon. |
|
03-10-2005, 09:08 PM | #6 | |
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Glendale, California
Posts: 284
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
so would the SX be ported like the SES, or should it be sealed for better sq?
|
|
03-10-2005, 09:34 PM | #7 | ||
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: Re: SX to SE Comparison
Quote:
But I've fallen in love with ported tuned low, like 29-33hz or so. peace NG |
||
03-10-2005, 09:45 PM | #8 | |
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
SXs = ported.. do it.. youll be glad you did.
__________________
1996 Explorer 4.0 V6 4x4 Sold all my shit. waiting for more money |
|
03-11-2005, 12:31 AM | #9 | ||
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: Re: SX to SE Comparison
Quote:
NG |
||
03-11-2005, 03:15 PM | #10 | |
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: SX to SE Comparison
haha good point ill admit i havent heard the sub.. but how many sealed SX installs have you seen? and if your speanding that much more on the sub to get more SPL why wouldnt you>? it would suck to be disappointing if you didnt hear the output you wanted after you spent a day in the shop building a sealed box. and also the t/s params of the sub suit it much better for a ported box for the flatest responce curve(according to winisd anyways)
besides if you were that into SQ you probably wouldnt buy an SX anyways.. so odds are youll be looking for SQL and ported thi ssub will give that. now give me that many reasons why he would be better off sealed. edge on SQ, more power handling, easier to build?? i still say ported.. regardless of whether or not ive installed 20 SXs or not
__________________
1996 Explorer 4.0 V6 4x4 Sold all my shit. waiting for more money |
|
|
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
|
|