Rep Power: 690

I bought a 350 RMS 4 ohm DVC 12 " sub ,, now the speaker specs tell me that it wants a .9 cubic' for a sealed and 1.3 cubic' for a vented box??? i built a beautiful seald box at a lil more then what was spec,,,,,, I am running 2 ohms in at 400 RMS,,, at first it SUCKED,, but after tinkering with ym amp as I had the Rockford P2 10" in it started to sound good but still not as much SQ as I would expect form a sealed box.... should i go ported because it seems my 10 hits a lil better but the 12 hits deeper, ,,,,, I have always been more for boom then SQ but thought I would change it up,,, should i go for ported cause there aint a massive amount of boom,,,???

Thanks for any help guys,,,,

 
Rep Power: 695

no harm in trynig

 
Rep Power: 694

Out of curiousity, what brand/model subwoofer is it? A 12 inch fitting in a .9 ft seems awful small. Probably that sub was designed for a ported box, or a larger sealed but for people that want a small box to save space they could fit in as small as .9 ft. My 12 inch recommends a 1.25 cu ft sealed or a 1.5 ported. If you run the thiele/small numbers through a program or do the math it is actually optimized for a 1.72 port or 1.43 sealed, leaning toward the ported box for better bass......Do you have the full thiele/small parameters for the sub? (qts, vas, xmax etc.) these usually come with the sub

 
Rep Power: 690

no it is a cheap off brand sub with no specs but RMS and enclosures, Nitro BMW i have it in a 2.5 box ported sounds like crap too much boom no SQ,,, i think i am putting it back into the sealerd

 
Rep Power: 694

I'm not familiar with that brand. I can't even find much on the net about it, other than as you already said, Nitro's reccommended box size. If they arent making the sub sound any good, not much you can do except experiment.