Im getting 2 subs, they each have 6 ohm dvc's. Is there a way I can wire them to end up w/ a 3 ohms bridged on my amp???


This would give me 1.5 ohms in the end, right???




If this is possible to do, what would it give me??? 6 ohms, right???

 

The second diagram will still give you 1.5 ohms. You'll just have one sub out of phase from the other. What load can your amp handle?

 

yeah, i got to thinking i'd be out of phase w/ the second diagram...I'd like to be as close to 2 ohms as possible, as thats the lowest my amp can handle

 

If you wire dual voice coil subs like this, you get more bang. This trick is good for a couple extra decibels output at the same power level. It will drive the amp at 6 ohms, 3 ohms per channel in stereo.

 

If youre amp is 2 ohm mono stable then you shouldnt really have a problem at 1.5 ohm mono. Impedance rise will cause the amp to see more than 4 ohm usually anyway.

 

You should be alright at 1.5ohm... Depending on the manufacturer, they might have just said 2 ohms to cover their asses. What kind of amp is it anyway? A good one shouldnt even break a swet.
greg

 

I would stay away from the wiring scheme in the first post, second picture. They two drivers are out of phase and will cancel each other out, unless the speakers face each other in a box (one mounted backwards)

 

You don't EVER want to wire it like the diagram that Boxeat2469 included. Doing it that way will result in NO additional output vs. wiring both coils of a particular sub to the same amp channel.

All you'll get from that type of wiring is a good chance of blowing your speakers. When you run DVC subs, it's imperative that both coils get the EXACT same signal. That means you can forget about running separate amp channels to the coils. Unless you get them 100% identical (not likely), the two coils will see non identical singals, which causes a whole host of problems. If for some reason you played something that didn't have a mono bass track, you'd be in real big trouble. If you get one signal that wants the sub to zig when the other one wants it to zag, the result is usually a mechanical failure.

Plus, there's absolutely no benefit to doing it that way. As far as the amp is concerned, there's no difference between that way and simply paralleling the 2 coils of each sub.

If your amp can handle 1.5 ohms per channel, run each channel of the amp to each sub like the "parallel" figure in the pic below

If it can't handle that low of an impedance, play it safe and series-wire it like in the middle pic:

Just pretend that the "amp" in this pic is just 1 channel of your 2 channel amp

 

Jim85IROC,
Have you ever tried running subs like that? Didn't think so. That "trick" came from an audiophile who is a Professor at ITT Technical Institute in Hoffman Estates Illinois. I'd say that somebody with a masters in electrical engineering is a little more qualified than you in wiring. Besides that, I have two Cerwin Vega subs in my car right now wired this way, and I can guarantee you it won't blow the subs. I've had mine this way for over five years now, and my subs still hit just fine. And with a RadioShack sound level meter held at ear height with all windows up, my car plays 2 db louder with the same track playing at the soame volume level with this wiring coompared to just wiring the voice coils from the same sub in parallel. So please, don't try and discourage others from doing things just because you don't do something a certain way.

 

I find that highly unlikely....

 

Boxeat2469 is absolutely correct.
Jim,
"You don't EVER want to wire it like the diagram that Boxeat2469 included. Doing it that way will result in NO additional output vs. wiring both coils of a particular sub to the same amp channel."

That is not true. Although wiring in that manner would yield the same impedance at the amp's channels - the "trick" in that wiring scheme is one that can ONLY be done with dual voice-coil subs. Im surprised it's still widely unknown..perhaps because nobody knows what exactly it does.

The purpose of wiring in that scheme is it doesn't add POWER, but it raises the speakers sensitivity by 3db/w. In doing so - using your exact same equipment, and only wiring it this way will make your speakers play twice as loud given the same amplifier output. Plain & simple. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The amps see the same load, the speakers see the same signal since they are fed from a single left/right input source (remember - this is sub bass, people..80HZ MAX and below..there is no "stereo" here..its a mono-world at that point).

The caveat in this situation is that it doubles the harmonic distortion. So - you trade 3db for twice the THD...okay..take a .05 amp and double the distortion...you still couldn't hear it even with an RTA and the best q-tips money can buy. Like box said - 5 years running with no problems. As i can vouch as well - i've been ruuning this configuration for 5-6 years as well without a hint of problems. The SPL meter doesn't lie - there is a measurable difference/advantage by wiring these in such a way. It takes physics to explain it fully - but nothing is for free - and in this case you trade sensitivity for amp distortion. With a good amp and good wiring, i'd put my setup up against any in the world and offer $1000 to anyone who can hear a difference at 40HZ which subs have more distortion. Harminic distortion is moot at the subwoofer level. Harmonics are exact doubles of frequencies..so, say at 50HZ you have 1% THD. at 100HZ you'd have twice that (given the same power), but GUESS WHAT!?!!..it's crossed over at 80HZ, so you also have a db cut at that 100HZ frequency....
see the relationship now?

Just like cars..there's a way to tune audio, and this is one of the ways. In my opinion - there is no better way to wire an amp with dual voicecoil subs than boxeat's suggestion. By the way - Cerwin Vega has had 98db sensitivity DVC subs for ages...you can make those 101db with just 1 watt of power!

...or i'll just keep my SPL trophy and let the common-DVC-wirers duke it out 3db below me for 2nd place..


If anybody's curious, or has questions - you can email me and i'll explain as much as i can. Im no professor, but i've heard the theory explained - i think i've got a pretty good grasp on it. It's definitely on the "engineering" side vs. "technical" side. No tech i've known has any clue that this situation exists in the world of audio. Tech's dont care about sensitivity, and "additive output transistor coupling" - they just care about ohms, volts, and amps.
Guess that makes it a "trade secret"

Sorry for the long post - i just thought i'd tip my hat to Boxeat and prop him back up after being shot down. He IS right though.

 

It doesn't take a masters in electrical engineering to know how to use Ohms Law. My Bachelors in Electrical Engineering works just fine. I'm not about to get into a pissing match with you over this. I don't care how qualified your buddy is. This is not complicated electrical analysis here. it's ohms law. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with whether I do it that way or not. it has to do with working in a retail store and needing to warranty subs from every idiot that thinks he figured out how to defy physics. If yours haven't blown, that's great. The fact is, if the levels are not set properly, it's not going to last long, and 95% of the people that read this board that are likely to try it do not have the proper equipment to set it.

But.. if you're using a radio shack meter to test your SPL, I'm beginning to wonder just how much of an "authority" you or your buddy are. That radio shack meter will only read 50 to 126dB SPL. That's not nearly enough to get any sort of accurate reading on anything except for very low power, low-output systems. Even my old Urban Audio subs powered by a Boss amp exceeded the capabilities of the Radio Shack meter.


sbcfreak, I would like to hear the theory explained if you're willing to do it. I've been around audio for a very long time, and have never found this to be true. I also do not see how electrical theory or physics in general can support it. If both channels of the amp have identical output, then whether you power both coils from 1 channel or 1 coil from each channel should not make any difference whatsoever. The exact same relationship between coils is maintained. In the situation where all levels are set accurately, this wiring configuration poses no threat... but the average joe that's going to run out into his back yard and try this does not have the calibration equipment necessary to set levels accurately, and as a result the 2 coils of the DVC sub will have non-identical signals, which will quickly end the life of his subs.

But anyway... if you've got the math I'd love to see it. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, and if you can show me that I am, I'll walk away knowing that I learned something... although I still won't reccomend that anybody wires their system this way unless they have the proper level-matching equipment or they leave it up to a pro.

 

Jim,

You just about answered your question - half of it anyway when you said:
"In the situation where all levels are set accurately, this wiring configuration poses no threat... but the average joe that's going to run out into his back yard and try this does not have the calibration equipment necessary to set levels accurately, and as a result the 2 coils of the DVC sub will have non-identical signals, which will quickly end the life of his subs."

That would be true..if the inputs of the amp weren't identical. Thats where you control the signal coming in. Ideally, a summed-mono setup is what you want, but it is not necessary.

The theory that allows the subs to gain in sensitivity is not based on power, but phase relationship. As the sine wave is crossing the 0v line, it has a certain phase. Coming from the other channel is another (either identical depending on input, or LEVEL-matched if not) sine wave. Since you're using separate channels, the amplifier itself actually acts like another final amplification stage in a power-amp. This is where it gets tricky.

Adding 2 sine waves of the same frequency on an oscilloscope will allow you to see what the speaker sees, and when you look at it - it's pretty obvious where the advantage comes from. The sine waves add themselves, and the slight difference in levels actually HELPS the speaker move more efficiently. That part is more difficult to imagine - but on an oscilloscope it can be seen quite easily. You were correct in saying it can hurt the subs - because it definitely can if the phase-relationship sent through the amp changes, but that is VERY uncommon in a mosfet amp these days. Where that might pose a problem is a home-audio setup with DSP and time-delay effects like reverb/hall/stadium effects, etc. In a car setup for subwoofer use only - that is a non-issue. So yes, it's dangerous as a "rule", but safe in the application in question.

Now - back to the nitty-gritty.
When one channel activates one VC on one of the subs, it does so at a certain voltage and phase. Taking that same signal to a different sub, different VC will place it's same effects on the other sub. No biggie there. Now - add a separate channel and slightly different level (in real-world applications gains will never match 100%), and you end up with 2 subs thinking they are actually one. It's kind of like asking your buddy to hold out his hands, and give you a foot-hold boost to climb onto a tree branch or something. You jump out of his hand with the same force as you would off the ground, but his additional (non-equal) boost is adding to your own force, and using the same power you originally exerted - you just propelled yourself twice as high as you could have without your buddy helping. It's a similar relationship between voicecoils, and the key is the phase (timing) to where they help each other, or kill each other. Its like running around with someone constantly pushing you just a little bit behind you..you must move your legs faster to keep up (spider cone and suspension-characteristics of woofer), but you share some of the work required to move faster with that other person pushing you around (voltage in relation to phase applied to terminals adding to their increased "ease" in which they can now do their work)


Anyway - thats the basis of the theory. I tried to use examples to help clarify it, but is definitely NOT an Ohm's Law topic. This is more along the lines of AC phase characteristics in power-adder circuits. Ohm's law goes out the door as soon as the amp turns on. Go ahead and measure your impedance while playing a 40HZ signal to see what im talking about. AC Impedance is not equivalent to DC resistance.

Hope i got the basics across here..

 

I can't for the life of me visualize how the phase is changing based on the wiring configuration. I might have to whip out the o-scope in my free time and fool around. I just don't see a situation here that would cause the phase to shift. The only thing that's going to cause a phase shift between signals is an imbalance in impedance (not resistance) and I don't see an impedance imbalance here. Furthermore, even if there was a phase shift, I don't see how that could increase SPL. Any time you have 2 identical signals with a slight phase shift, their maximum combined output can not be achieved.

 

Not to jump in on this, because i havnt really been following, but are you actually saying that adding two sound waves together that are slightly out of phase with each other HELPS? Level difference or not, the peak constructive interference of two sound waves comes if they are perfectly in phase with one another (whether being the same level or not), peak over peak, trough over trough.

And also, i think that comparison of me getting a foot-hold boost is rediculous. By that theory, everytime i add a subwoofer to my system, it should get TWICE as loud as before. Its just not like that though.

If youre talking, and i start talking simultaneously, it doesnt get twice as loud. Adding a second sub (assuming it gets the SAME amount of power) adds what, 6 dB? Doesnt it take 10dB to "double" the level of what we hear? Thats a 40% difference.....

And the wave thing, i mean.......

 

"And also, i think that comparison of me getting a foot-hold boost is rediculous. By that theory, everytime i add a subwoofer to my system, it should get TWICE as loud as before. Its just not like that though."

That IS what the theory is stating.

Adding a 2nd speaker - with the same power - will increase the output 3db! That is technically "twice as loud". Though the human ear detects "twice as loud" as 10db. That 3db increase is what the outcome gains..you dont gain that 3db in adding another sub, but you increase the sub's sensitivity by 3db - which using 96db subs will net you more output using the same speakers with the same power. You will turn your 96db subs into 99db subs with 1 watt@1 meter.

Jim,

You're almost right on..reread carefully..the phase is not adding to the speakers..it's the LEVEL of the signal. The difference in impedance will be seen by the amp channel (running 2 VC off one channel) so the impedance of either subs VC will not matter to the amp. However, the difference WILL matter to the sub because the sub with the lower/higher impedance will be the sub to help the other to "boost" itself. You're right on because no 2 subs will be EXACTLY the same in impedance. The slight difference is what actually (mechanically) allows the subs to react quicker given the same power. Add that to the slight difference in amplifier channel output, and you have yourself an electrical "spring" in addition to the subs' mechanical movement mechanisms (magnet & voicecoils).

If you dont have an o'scope..follow boxeat's suggestion, and try it. You dont have to play at 126db - thats SPL competition-level sounds. I'd bet most "high-end" cars dont hit over 121db cleanly...the radio shack meter is more than sufficient. Play your radio at half volume or whatever you feel comfortable with. Wire the subs in this way, and in parallel, etc. If you measure the change in SPL - there ya go. If not - don't wire it that way. Either way - you wont hurt your speakers, and you just might learn something. Im not saying "all other wiring ways are wrong"..im saying "you will get more output wiring your subs this way".

You are correct about the amateur mucking things up - but the advanced users also should have something to play with and learn - and for those users who are adept, this option is available, and it works.

 

For ****s and grins, I posted this over on carsound.com to see what some of the experts over there had to say about this topic. This is what Richard Clark said:
I'm not posting everybody elses responses because they all basically say the same thing.

I was apparently wrong, however, about non-identical signals causing damage to a DVC sub.

 

WOW, I never thought that my wiring suggestion would cause such contoversy. I didn't know the technical aspect of it as sbcfreak does, but I'm not lying about it. It does work. Just give it a shot and see for yourself.

 

I agree with Box. I wish i knew the exact details - I was trying to sort through what I had heard the theory was about. I know Richard Clark is an audio genuis, and look at what he said though >it wont hurt the speakers! Even more reason to try it! I dont agree with his saying it's no different, because the difference is visual on a scope, and it's measurable with an SPL meter. That you can't argue with. So you got the go-ahead to try it per Mr. Clark..so have at it, grab your favorite SPL meter, and go for it. I know it increases SPL because by changing nothing but the wiring method, i increased my SPL 2.4db playing the same tracks, same level, same everything - consistently. You can argue the theory - sorry i just cant nail it down, but you cant argue the numbers. If it's safe, try it.

 

I don't have an SPL meter at hand or I'd try it. The junk from radio shack doesn't mean anything.

But regardless... if you know how an amp works and if you know how a transducer works, you don't need an SPL meter to know that it's crap. You can't change physics, and nobody here has come close to proving that physics supports this nonsense.

 

I have to agree. After reading Richards statement, he NEVER says that the output would SURPASS a more traditional (and physically proveable) setup, he only says that if everything was adjusted to PERFECTION, it *could* achieve the same output level.

Plus, if it can *only* achieve a maximum of the SAME output (when perfectly adjusted) this supports what i was saying earlier, that theres no way any phase difference as you described can help in any way shape or form.

And on a radio shack SPL meter you saw a difference of 2 dB? Id just as fast attribute that to not having a precise comparison set up anyway. EVERYTHING was untouched except the wiring? You made sure voltages at the amps were the same, volume was identical, and took the reading at the exact same point in the exact same track???

 

this is all so stupid guys, I know i'm gonna make enimies by saying this but it is. I am MECP certified, and that won't make a difference. going from series to parralel will, but combining the two channels NO. thats and also you can never truely compare a difference when it comes to SPL, you can move a whole DB by things you CAN'T CONTROL like temp,voltage, air density, the list goes on and on. also I know from experience that those radioshack SPL meters are pure crap. they give you a ROUGH estimate. I've seen them be off more that 5dbs from one test to the other while a termlab is only off .2 difference. k enough said I"m sure jim and me are gonna get flamed even more now but we are correct. Sorry jim if I make this matter worse

 

Im surprised at all of your closemindedness. One guy says the theory doesn't make sense, and you all hop on his bandwagon. If that was the case - where would car audio be right now? Not nearly as advanced as it is now thats for sure.

Sorry - but Richard is wrong in this case. You can tell him that, and have him test with his bazillions in equipment. Bet he's never tried it, either.
Whatever you posted to him was most likely not the whole story - phase relationship is not "the" only phenomenon at work here. There's more, but I just dont know all the details to lay it all out. For that i wish i knew everything, but im not the enginer behind the theory..im just an example of it's benefits.

As far as the SPL meter goes..you can measure it with the Radio Shack one..or do like i did, and have the meter at a sound-off competition do the more accurate work for you. Just so you know - they both read 2db higher.

If you follow Clark's advice so easily..do like "Richard does", and try it since he said it wont make a lick of difference.

..but it does. I can switch my wiring back and lose 2db. Revert back and gain 2db. The Radio Shack meter doesn't matter how far it's "off"..its job is to measure sound pressure. It does this, and there's no reason to doubt the readings over and over since i can bet my house that wiring it like box and i have it will gain SPL. Reverting right back will lose it...no matter what is measuring it.

Again guys..dont just jump on the bandwagon and knock it until you try it. Then you're free to say whatever you want. The fact remains:
1) It's harmless (according to Clark)
2) Myself, Box, and others notice measurable, and consistent gains
3) its easy
4) it will give you an edge if you compete
5) it will teach you there's more to audio engineering than the manufacturers market to the consumers.


Even following Clark's advice you can't lose. Don't knock it until you try it. Thats all i can say. :\
Sure made for a great discussion though!
Take care fellas.

 

fact is sbfreak you said yourself you don't understand or know all the 'details' (read theory) behind it, so how can you say you know more than Richard Clark? That is extremly funny and ignorant on your part.

You now have 1 EE, 1 student in EE, and an MECP certified guy saying it won't work....unless you provide PROOF your just a guy behind the keyboard that can say anything he wants to. And the only way to prove it is to provide the electric theory of WHY it works. So far your attempts at explaining theory is very wrong (ie ohms law goes out the window when the amps turns on, LMFAO).

I don't understand how people think the LAWS of electricity and physics no longer apply when dealing with car audio (or home audio and any number of other things)

 

Richards advise also said that it could match, but NOT surpass.

Im soooooooo done with this thread. LOL.

 

Closedmindness is what prevents me from dropping bolts down a carburator to see what happens. Closedmindedness is what prevents me from licking electrical sockets. I've never tried either of those two things, but I'm smart enough to know what would happen.

You seem to be confusing "intelligence" with closemindedness. Nobody here has presented ANY information to support any legitimate theory. Not only that, but if there were such a theory, I'm confident that I would have heard of it by now. Everybody that comes here thinks he's got some trick up his sleve that nobody else has ever seen or heard of... and it's all bull****. Every time. I've been involved in car audio long enough to know what's real and what isn't.

But audio aside, the fact is that no matter how bad you wish you could, you're not changing the laws of physics. I'm an electrical engineer and I've spent enough time building, analyzing, testing, and repairing amplifiers and transducers of all types that I know 100% that there are no secrets with these devices. All of their characteristics are understood and easily quallified with math.

I never bought into this bull****, but at first I was willing to be openminded. I don't deal with electronics every day like I used to, so I was not even close to being able to offer mathmatical proof off the top of my head, and I've been too busy to dig into my textbooks. Because of that I waited for an explanation, but still haven't gotten one that's worth a damn or gives any sort of plausible evidence that it's legit. I still haven't had time to write up a real explanation that uses fact instead of fiction (but since it still won't convince the nonbelievers, I doubt if I will anyway), so in the meantime I checked with Richard Clark and the others at carsound.com to see if in fact I was missing something that I wasn't aware of.

If you guys want to keep believing that you defied physics... feel free. Run your asses to the patent office as fast as you can, because you obviously know something that has somehow been overlooked by every single car audio installer and every single electrical engineer in the history of the world.

I'm not the least bit closedminded. I'm sensible and educated enough not to be bowled over with nonsensical bull**** that doesn't make any sense. If I told people that they could get more horsepower by crossing your plug wires, a bunch of them would criticize those who didn't try it and call them closedminded. This sounds ridiculous to you (at least I hope it does) because you know enough about cars to realize that it's crap. Same situation here.

 

Wow Jim, you write much better replies than i do

 

Well, it's one thing to have a discussion where we all disagree, but when somebody starts insulting me I take it personal and then it's time to put up or shut up. Until somebody offers proof beyond what a half-assed radio shack meter says, I'm going to continue to consider this pure bullsh*t. When I make my side of an arguement, I use real arguements that can be backed up with known math and physics, as well as real-world knowledge. I don't just spout off and make a bunch of claims that I can't back up, then call everybody narrowminded because they don't believe me.

 

Oh come on though, i have proof that a 305 TBI can run 9's with just bolt ons, i just cant remember exactly how....

Its not my fault if everyone else is too closeminded to try it

 

its that crossin the plug wires trick :-D

 

geez - you guys are really sad. For the time it took you all to stroke each other agreeing with each other, you could have tried it. Reminds me of football jocks in high-school bragging about how big their pecks are.

You guys need to listen.
Radioshack SPL meter *AND* Professional SPL meter at a sound competition BOTH measure the same increases.

I will do my thing, and you will do yours. the spark plug-thing doesn't hold water..no damage is being done per Mr. Clark, so give me one reason not to try it?

At this point - even if i posted proof from the person who really knows the theory - you still wouldn't wire it that way, so whats the point.?

Im done here. Be apes and do whatever the TV tells you to, press your yellow button, and get your banana treats.
seeyas

 

Try whatever you like, i couldnt care less.

If there was sustainable proof BEYOND two SPL readings (if you take fifty, twenty five with each setup, in a CONTROLLED environment, and got 25 better results), then i MIGHT be interested to try it, even without the Physics proof.

And if you OR Jim dropped bolts in a Carb, and your car DID run 9's for fifteen straight passes, id give that a shot too.

And i couldnt care any less what youre opinion is of me and my so called "closemindedness" either. Im not saying itll do any damage, i know it wont. But all ive heard is it can MATCH the output of a so called "normal" setup. Yours two SPL tests dont satisfy my burden of proof that it definetely improves SPL. All that tells me is you havnt figured out how to tune your **** yet, lol. Why would i pull my **** apart just to MATCH my current set up? Thats retarded.

And for the record, i hate bananas. Have a nice day

 

"If there was sustainable proof BEYOND two SPL readings (if you take fifty, twenty five with each setup, in a CONTROLLED environment, and got 25 better results), then i MIGHT be interested to try it, even without the Physics proof."


Thats what I have been trying to say. It's not just 2 tests..its consistent. At least 30+ readings have been verified with the RadioShack meter just doing normal tuning, and i've been to 8 sound offs - 4 of which were after the change, so 4 verified tests there. Box probably has tested more than 1 time as well, but I dont know him so I cant say yes or no on that one.

You are right about tearing the stuff apart..if you're already setup and its looking nice - there's no reason to go through and mess-up a neat install just to switch some wires around. I wouldnt do it either since wiring neatly is an art in itself, and it takes a long time to get it up to competition-quality for the judging process.

The purpose was to show another option <which myself and Box have proven to ourselves at least> that the original person who asked the question in this forum could use to wire up a fresh system.

So - if you run across a system, or end up making another DVC box down the road, keep it in mind and give it a shot before the box is all covered neat or whatever. You can sit the box on the floor even - doesn't matter. Just put a meter 3 feet away and switch back and forth in wiring. Doesn't need to be in-car to measure - which eliminates the entire car as a possible source of inconsistencies.

 

As said before, the Radio Shack meter is innacurate junk. Not only that, but my system FAR exceeds the maximum capabilities, and doing it at something below max SPL is like bench racing cars at 1/2 throttle.

If somebody posts REAL information that proves this, I'll shut up immediately. I'll even congratulate the person on knowing his ****, and thank him for teaching me something new.

i'm waiting...

 

I agree Jim, I'm waiting aswell.

 

same here, lets see some proof.

 

hehehe...3 guy's wanting proof.

...wire it up, and there's your proof. You dont need to know why it works. It wont blow your subs per Mr. Clark - so use whatever SPL meter you want, and there's your proof.
Once all 3 of your minds change after that - maybe we can all hunt-down the theory behind why it works, learn all the details, and discuss that!
Maybe boxeat's guy who he learned it from can get us some info on it? If he knows the theory, or just knows the trick? The guy i learned it from years back no longer lives in this area, so I can't ask him unfortunately. The info has gotta be out there somewhere.

 

I'm not wiring it up because that won't prove anything unless I've got a REAL SPL meter, which I don't have the multiple thousands of dollars to purchase. Like I said a dozen times... the radio shack meters are crap. I don't need to wire it up... if it's true, there's plenty of proof to support it. It's not like any of this stuff is new technology. It's technology that's been around for decades. If somebody knew this "secret", do you really think it would have been a secret for long? With the millions of dollars and thousands of hours of research that goes into amplifier design, you can rest assured that there are no secrets.

 

I hate to say it, but the secret is out, and it's been out for a long time.

Box uses it, I've used it for years...maybe look at who's preventing it from becoming more widespread?

It's not me.

I chimed in because i was surprised to see it posted already, so I supported Box since I've been using it flawlessly for longer than most new "correct" wiring schemes in current cars will last. It's not common that an "incorrect wiring scheme" in a car that is still crankin 133db from only 2 subs 4 years after switching over...8 years total. Most subs would be hard pressed to last that long in a climate such as the midwest under constant abuse. Still crankin though with no probs after all this time. There's a lot to be said for that track record, and you can bet if they were distorting badly at that level, ANY sub would be lucky to last a year.

Ultimately you'll do what you're happy with, and so will I. The fact that you do it differently than I doesn't make either of us wrong either. Your way is proven, documented, and solid. Mine is alien apparently - but thats not to say it still isn't accurate.