Rep Power: 0

Just wanted to drop a word of warning for any who owns or is considering buying Power Acoustik hardware. I got a call yesterday from a Power Acoustik rep in California. He was responding to an email I had sent Power Acoustik regarding frequent failures I've had with their FUBR-10 subwoofers.

The rep and I discussed my system setup (amp and enclosure), and we both agreed it was adequate for driving this particular sub, except for one issue. He told me the FUBR-10 really requires a 0.7 cu. ft. enclosure instead of the 0.65 cu. ft. that I am using.

This sub is rated down to a 0.5 cu. ft. sealed enclosure. When I pointed out that Power Acoustik should publish proper specs for their products, he acted as though I was being unreasonable and tried to blow me off.

I'd advise anyone buying Power Acoustik hardware to reconsider, or at the very least run their fundamental subwoofer specs through some formulas to make sure you have the correct enclosure volume.

I am left with a bit of curiousity. There is a difference of 0.05 cu. ft. between their "spec" and my box. The FUBR-10's I've had fail died due to fried voice coils. How is this related to enclosure volume?

 
Rep Power: 336

my little brother had 2 Fubr-12 subs and he never had a problem with them. He sold them and now owns infinity subs.

His friend also bought 2 fubr-12 and he isn't having any problems with his either.

Both pair of 12s were placed in custom enclosures and run off of RF amps btw.

 
Rep Power: 346

Most Sub companies recommend box enclosure sizes that are smaller then optimal ...it seem like they all want to make it seem like their subs can perform well in really small boxes.

 
Rep Power: 0

I really think the problem is my amp, but as long as Power Acoustik keeps replacing my subs I guess it doesn't matter. Good luck me convincing them that their amp is faulty.

I also found out that PA is reconfiguring the voice coils for the FUBR-10 on their next revision. Coincidence?

 
Rep Power: 323

I still have (uninstalled) a 4 channel amp with what looks to be one or two blown channels. Purchased in 1996 and survived 3 installations before malfunctioning late last summer. Not a bad amp, as it was fairly cheap but there were noise issues (most cheaper amps seem to have them).

Replaced it with an Alpine, however if I knew how to repair amps or could find someone to repair it at reasonable cost I'd put it in our '98 Vic.

 
Rep Power: 0

i love power acoustik amps... i now have one... lt series 980/2 channel powering an he 15. very nice amp and no distortion from my lightning audio amp!

 
Rep Power: 0

i have two of there headrest tv's and i love it.

 
Rep Power: 0

power acoustik is crap, buy some good stuff.. Thats BS about a .65 cu ft box not being optimal. You have +/- 20% with no adverse effects. .70 is more than adequate.