Multiple ports Tempest - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th July 2004, 03:00 PM   #1
Stew320 is offline Stew320  Shetland Islands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Shetland Isles UK
Send a message via MSN to Stew320 Send a message via Yahoo to Stew320
Default Multiple ports Tempest

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 04:35 PM   #2
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 08:23 PM   #3
Stew320 is offline Stew320  Shetland Islands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Shetland Isles UK
Send a message via MSN to Stew320 Send a message via Yahoo to Stew320
Cheers!

Just what I wanted to hear.

Stew
__________________
Diy Speakers
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 09:04 PM   #4
Grahamt is offline Grahamt  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Grahamt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U of Waterloo
Instead of PVC you can use 6" sonotube which is readily available at hardware stores.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 11:11 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Costa Rica
Send a message via AIM to johninCR Send a message via MSN to johninCR Send a message via Yahoo to johninCR
Quote:
Originally posted by Svante
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.
Multiple ports with the same total cross sectional area does not exactly equal a single port of the same length. This is due to there being more friction for the air to overcome with multiple ports.

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2004, 11:59 PM   #6
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
Quote:
Originally posted by johninCR



Check out http://www.jlaudio.com/tutorials/por...ex.html#basics for the correct method for computing multiple port lengths.

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.
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 12:18 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Costa Rica
Send a message via AIM to johninCR Send a message via MSN to johninCR Send a message via Yahoo to johninCR
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 08:26 AM   #8
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 03:43 PM   #9
Stew320 is offline Stew320  Shetland Islands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Shetland Isles UK
Send a message via MSN to Stew320 Send a message via Yahoo to Stew320
I think a 6" pipe will be the better soloution.
__________________
Diy Speakers
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2004, 04:10 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Costa Rica
Send a message via AIM to johninCR Send a message via MSN to johninCR Send a message via Yahoo to johninCR
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.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2