|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Planet Earth
|
Lousy re-phrasing, but I need attention and help on port math.
Here's the deal. I've played with WinISD, using a Peerless SLS-8 in a ported box. Due to port length at a decent diamater (7 cm), I thought os using 2 smaller ports (i.e., 2 ports half the diameter). Now, WinISD makes the port length much shorter when using 2 ports than when using just one (same size). I thought it was a matter of port length/diameter that determined the resonance, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Can anyone please enlighten me? Jennice
__________________
I get paid to break stuff. My g/f gets paid to play with children. Life is good. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Herne
|
maybe you confused port diameter and area? half the diameter isnt half the area.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Anonymityville
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you don't like funerals don't kick sand in Ninja's face." - Ninja |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Planet Earth
|
I didn't confuse the two things. I'm just not aware of the factors at play (no pun intended)
Ok... If I understand you guys correctly, the resonancde is determined by port area and -length (and a handful of math Now, then... Is it the total port area, or each single port area (when using two ports) that determines the port length? Jennice
__________________
I get paid to break stuff. My g/f gets paid to play with children. Life is good. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
|
yes,
the total port area is used to determine the box resonant frequency (Fb).
__________________
regards Andrew T. |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
also note that when using multiple ports, the length WinISD tells you is for EACH port, not the total of all ports....
__________________
Ports rule! |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Planet Earth
|
Thanks for the responses, folks!
I was looking into the option of more smaller ports (rather than one big port), as I was thinking it would reduce port length. Seemingly, not everything has an easy solution... Jennice
__________________
I get paid to break stuff. My g/f gets paid to play with children. Life is good. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Anonymityville
|
To reduce the port length you either have to increase the box volume or decrease the port area.
There is one last option; a passive radiator. That's a pretty big can-o-worms though if you don't yet completely comprehend how a standard port works.
__________________
"If you don't like funerals don't kick sand in Ninja's face." - Ninja |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Planet Earth
|
Right... I think I know the port basics, but another issue comes up:
Where should the port be? It seems that the vast majority of speakers have the ports at the rear, but why? It's not handy if the speaker is near a wall, and the low frequency radiation is not really directive. I have heard some claim that a port near the woofer would (partially) cancel the effect, but considering the wavelength of low frequencies, would location really matter? Others claim it's rear mounted to make port noise (whisteling) less obvious, but isn't that a matter of doing the math? Does anyone know if WinISD's port limit suggestion is any good? (it turns red at small port sizes) Please comment, folks.
__________________
I get paid to break stuff. My g/f gets paid to play with children. Life is good. |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA, MN
|
Port location doesn't matter much for performance, but closer to the driver is theoretically better- if within 1/10 wavelength, it probably doesn't matter.
Front or back placement only affects out of band noise. Regardless of whether the port is designed correctly (flared, large enough) the port will have a train of organ pipe resonances. I don't use WinISD, so I can't comment - other than that "WinISD pro alpha" is in general a better program than "WinISD beta". If you have Excel 2000+, try Unibox, a much more reliable program.
__________________
Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. --Carl Sagan Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. --Carl Sagan |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rear port and front port | barry.childs | Multi-Way | 10 | 27th February 2009 09:46 AM |
| Slot port vs circular port equivalence | Brisso57 | Multi-Way | 12 | 21st February 2009 02:38 PM |
| Single Port Vent Better than Dual Port? | Daveis | Multi-Way | 18 | 15th July 2007 05:12 AM |
| To port or not to port? Newbie with newly built mains | starquake | Multi-Way | 1 | 18th December 2004 12:51 PM |
| rear port vs front port | Jimmy154 | Multi-Way | 22 | 6th March 2004 08:38 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.18953 seconds (50.37% PHP - 49.63% MySQL) with 10 queries |