[navin]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

That I was aware of. In fact the grapevine had it then that Bob actually developed his Magnetic Field Amp while at Phase Linear (at their cost) and then left. This was corroborated by the fact that for the first few years the M-400 was 'manufactured' in his garage!
I'd bought one in 1981, and it gave yeoman service for a full 20 years. Alas, it then gave up the ghost. I tried, but couldn't fix it..

Fully right about the Phase Linear. I have used the M1.5t, M1.0t, and M4.0t. These amps were really compact and ran cool. Ideal for concealed subs. Did you know there used to be a rack sold by carver that could accomodate 2 x M400 side by side.

We have a tendency at ICE to digress and wander after a solution is found. I dont know if everyone here likes that. Should we continue this trend? After all this is YOUR fourm, I'm just here to make sure everyone is polite and generally on topic (Audio is closely related to ICE). Besides all those engine vengine types rarely care to visit.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by navin

Ideal for concealed subs.

And everything else anyone might want to throw at them. Remember TFM?

Originally Posted by navin

Did you know there used to be a rack sold by carver that could accomodate 2 x M400 side by side.

I did not know. The M-400 length (or breadth, or height!!) was not standard rack size. Hence the need? A special rack for the Carver Cube?
How would that help anyone? They all ALREADY had their racks.
Don't tell me (my hero) Bob did such foolish things too.

[navin]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

And everything else anyone might want to throw at them. Remember TFM?
I did not know. The M-400 length (or breadth, or height!!) was not standard rack size. Hence the need? A special rack for the Carver Cube?
How would that help anyone? They all ALREADY had their racks.
Don't tell me (my hero) Bob did such foolish things too.

Yes I heard TFM 15, TFM 35, TFM 55 as well as the Silver Seven. But by that time Bob was more into marketing than designing.

The rack allowed you to stack 2 M400 side by side. The M400 was abut 7" wide. 2 of them would be 15" wide.

Anup, here is an old article on Carver's Magnetic tech.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pd...08-05-8002.pdf

[Su-47]

navin and anupmathur,

A humble request: Can we please stick to the topic?

Everytime there is an update to the thread, I check it out to see if some interesting observations, comments are made about "tighter bass from 6x9s". All I find is some audio history, which I am afraid is off-topic and irrelevant.

Thank You,
Su-47

P.S: Please don't get offended, I appreciate the knowledge you gentlemen bring to this forum.

[panky12345]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

STK 459s? They're good!

nope, audiodyne VA-M02 available at dukaan no. 602 (amritsar wale) are better.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by panky12345

nope, audiodyne VA-M02 available at dukaan no. 602 (amritsar wale) are better.

Thanks Panky. Will check them out perhaps. It's been years since I kinda gave up all the 'jugaad' hardware.

________________
Sorry, Su-47!

[Ramsagar]

I'm going to fix GTO937 @ rear and GTO407 in front driving with 6900 HU in my Alto...i'm confused wheather to fix them on a parcel shelf or use boxes for 6*9.which sounds good...

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Ramsagar

I'm going to fix GTO937 @ rear and GTO407 in front driving with 6900 HU in my Alto...i'm confused wheather to fix them on a parcel shelf or use boxes for 6*9.which sounds good...

Entirely YOUR decision. You know that boxes will give better sound. But how important is boot space to you?

[gopz]

Originally Posted by Ramsagar

I'm going to fix GTO937 @ rear and GTO407 in front driving with 6900 HU in my Alto...i'm confused wheather to fix them on a parcel shelf or use boxes for 6*9.which sounds good...

Also consider fixing it on the rear hatch door with a little bit of damping. It will considerably increase the bass, without compromising on boot space.

[kaadye]

Has any one tried using an enclosure for a 6x9 speaker. any specific volume that is needed? also whether a ported box is feasible for this.

[thelightening]

Originally Posted by kaadye

Has any one tried using an enclosure for a 6x9 speaker. any specific volume that is needed? also whether a ported box is feasible for this.

I have a different setup in my wagonR.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/sound-...-iced-evo.html

Here you can see that.

[navin]

Originally Posted by kaadye

Has any one tried using an enclosure for a 6x9 speaker. any specific volume that is needed? also whether a ported box is feasible for this.

Since most 6x9s are high Q drivers I'd recommend a small aperiodic box or a large sealed box.

[kaadye]

hi navin does some one makes vents for the aperiodic boxes. for a sealed box i feel i need atleast 0.5 cu ft per speaker, any one tried to measure the t/s parameters of any 6x9s here?

[navin]

Originally Posted by kaadye

hi navin does some one makes vents for the aperiodic boxes. for a sealed box i feel i need atleast 0.5 cu ft per speaker, any one tried to measure the t/s parameters of any 6x9s here?

Aperiodic boxes are not yet an exact science (a la bandpass, ported or sealed boxes) An aperiodic box is in effect a box which is lossier than than a sealed box. By making the box lossier you are in effect reducing the Q of the system (at the cost of some efficiency) and taming the peak of a high Q system.

[kaadye]

Originally Posted by navin

Aperiodic boxes are not yet an exact science (a la bandpass, ported or sealed boxes) An aperiodic box is in effect a box which is lossier than than a sealed box. By making the box lossier you are in effect reducing the Q of the system (at the cost of some efficiency) and taming the peak of a high Q system.

But my question is how do we make it lossier, there are vents sold in the US for aperiodic boxes from scanspeak. we have to probably make some trial on an aperiodic boxes. has anyone in india tried this in the car audio setup. any pointers to start here