|
|||||||
| 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
|
Hi there,
I'm new to vented enclosures. I'm building a sub using a Tempest in a net 197 litre box tuned to around 20hz for home theatre application. I am having difficulty finding 6" PVC pipe for the port. I have 3" PVC pipe in stock. Would the efficiency of the box be any less using 3x 75mm x 440mm ports instead of 1x 150mm x 600mm ? Also is it wise to bunch multiple ports together?
__________________
Diy Speakers |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
The efficiency will be the same, but the maximum level at the lowest frequencies might drop a little, depending on the margins of the original design. I have not checked your dimensions, but they seem reasonable and assume you have done some calculations to keep fh constant.
If you want the same max output level, use 4 tubes, this would give the same area and you should use the same effective length. |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Cheers!
Just what I wanted to hear. Stew
__________________
Diy Speakers |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U of Waterloo
|
Instead of PVC you can use 6" sonotube which is readily available at hardware stores.
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
Check out http://www.jlaudio.com/tutorials/por...ex.html#basics for the correct method for computing multiple port lengths.
__________________
Everyone has a photographic memory. It's just that most are out of film. |
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, the second method on that page does not give the "correct" result either. It would if the ports were spaced infinitely far apart. And the reason is not the frictional losses as stated, but the end correction. The end correction is a way of including the mass of the co-oscillating air outside the tube in the total length of the tube. Assuming that the opening behaves like a baffled piston this mass can be modelled as a plug of air with the same area as the tube and a length of 0.85 times the tube radius. The equation on the page has some similarities with this. Now, if the tube diameter is smaller, this correction gets smaller, and so a longer tube is needed. That is, provided that there is no interaction between the tubes. However, if the tubes are mounted close to each other, there will be coupling between them, and the end correction will grow. This is why "method 2" is not correct either. So the truth is somewhere between the two solutions given on the web page. There are further complications, for example if the port is not baffled (like on the inside of the box) the end correction becomes smaller. So, be sceptic towards web sources that state that they give "correct" solutions. And the required port length change has nothing to do with frictional loss, it can be explained by a change in the co-oscillating air mass. However, frictional loss has some impact on the design. Primarily the Q of the helmholtz resonator will be smaller, and this will lead to a slightly lower level at fh. Also the risk of turbulent sound is higher. So there are no advantages with splitting a tube, apart from practical ones. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Svante,
Realistically how far apart should the ports be to effectively have infinite spacing. I'd think that once you get more than 1.5 or 2 port diameters of spacing between ports that the interference between ports would be negligble. Is that not correct?
__________________
Everyone has a photographic memory. It's just that most are out of film. |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Hehe, this is tricky stuff, and just to show you that it is, have alook at:
http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/asf/bnam...papers/w01.pdf The answer is there, I bet. The answer is that I have no rules of thumb for the port spacing, you might be right in the 1.5 to 2 port diameters and I would guess that it is reasonable, without knowing. |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
I think a 6" pipe will be the better soloution.
__________________
Diy Speakers |
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Ouch, that stuff is to involved for my taste. I was just guessing at 1.5 or 2 by trying to visualize the interaction of air outside of 2 ports. Maybe it should be higher with low tuning and moving more air. I'll just remember to space multiple ports at practical distances. Thanks for pointing out the finer details though.
__________________
Everyone has a photographic memory. It's just that most are out of film. |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Multiple ports with different tunings. | chris661 | Subwoofers | 28 | 8th March 2012 02:00 PM |
| Port length - multiple ports | mashaffer | Multi-Way | 9 | 14th July 2006 09:15 AM |
| Are multiple ports better ? | goldyrathore | Subwoofers | 38 | 7th July 2005 10:21 AM |
| curved ports vs. multiple ports | Craig | Multi-Way | 1 | 22nd September 2002 07:30 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |