|3rd June 2012, 08:30 PM||#12|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Your damping criteria is very obscure and hard to relate to practice.
Whatever number your playing with there seems no related practise.
I can't see the system the two cases are applicable to.
Lining a 70mm port with 6mm foam will reduce nominal diameter
to about 60mm and damp port modes. I can't see how you can
model this, I do it and it works well quite often. 1 cm foam in a
70mm port ~ detunes by half an octave, but can't be modeled
well as far as I know, its generally suck it and see, or measure.
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
Last edited by sreten; 3rd June 2012 at 08:49 PM.
|3rd June 2012, 08:58 PM||#13|
what is your reason for saying that ?
I have often found a shorter port to sound better
cant say the same about making it longer
but Im only talking about very smaller changes
putting foam in a port is way too unpredictatble
unless its hard foam
but sometimes light stuffing with acoustic material works well
but then its really not ported any longer
but actually I have had positive result with placing smaller pieces in some areas of the port
I have no idea what happens, but it works well, sometimes
|4th June 2012, 12:10 AM||#14|
methods. The math can for example to be found here:
* Rather the opposite, I submitted all the numbers needed for an successful damped box/damped port design, here is more:
Select (dedicated for speaker use) a lump of modern ordinary fibrous damping material with the given weight of~ 1gram for a 7 cm long port.
Compress or tear the fibers apart in order to fill the entire volume of the port.
By doing so: This would correspond to a ~ density of ~0.2 kg/m^3.
Secure both sides by using an insect screen or similar.
The fiber tangle will stay and act as a flow resistance much like the 'Scan-Speak Flow Resistance Vent'.
The wider the Port diameter is compared to the port length, the better the linearity is expected to be for this arrangement.14 cm===> 7 cm is a good way to start with.
The airflow in the port is IMO/IME very small and already as a precondition, (pre-)filtered through the entire enclosure= a fill of denser stuffing in the box, thus only a near laminar flow is expected in the port.
Look at the magnitude of the port air velocity.
Considering this case(design): Your suggestion using port wall drag coefficients is IMO only a first step to consider if much higher port velocity exists and if the box were only lined at the walls for defeating internal reflexes.
Last edited by bjorno; 4th June 2012 at 12:20 AM.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|serial filter baffle step compensation||Marcelinho||Multi-Way||2||17th May 2011 12:42 PM|
|Question about Zobel/Series notch filter||silentwf||Parts||5||28th November 2007 04:04 PM|
|Disadvantages of using Zobel and Series notch filter ?||percy||Tubes / Valves||3||24th June 2007 11:53 AM|
|zobel network and series notch filter||djmann02||Multi-Way||1||9th January 2006 12:06 PM|
|xovers, impedence compensation, notch filters, baffle step, confusion?||speekergeek||Multi-Way||6||8th December 2003 03:46 AM|
|New To Site?||Need Help?|