The reason i selected this volume size and tuning Frequency is due to this is my desired target design. I don't have much space in my bedroom. Dimension of the box i will settle on is W=10in, H=20in, D=16in.
Actually i do have a box with the same volume and tuning frequency with an unknown brand woofer. It sounded quite ok (extended to about 34Hz) but tend to bottom up when driven hard. I am planning to rebuild a box with a same internal volume but with different dimension but to try out different brand woofers. The vent length is not critical as i can shorten or make it longer. I would like to target 38L as my maximum internal volume to keep my project cost low down and also to save space
So if i want to get away with a small box such as this size(besides recommend woofers), what alternative can you guy recommend? Thanks alot...
Actually i do have a box with the same volume and tuning frequency with an unknown brand woofer. It sounded quite ok (extended to about 34Hz) but tend to bottom up when driven hard. I am planning to rebuild a box with a same internal volume but with different dimension but to try out different brand woofers. The vent length is not critical as i can shorten or make it longer. I would like to target 38L as my maximum internal volume to keep my project cost low down and also to save space
So if i want to get away with a small box such as this size(besides recommend woofers), what alternative can you guy recommend? Thanks alot...
JL Audio - Car Audio Systems
As you can see, it eats up a lot of space, making a small cab not so small.
GM
As you can see, it eats up a lot of space, making a small cab not so small.
GM
They're not the best in the world, but they're cheap and sim well in ~34L tuned to 33Hz.
MCM Audio Select 8'' Dual Voice Coil Woofer | 55-1455 (551455) | MCM Audio Select
Edit - Xmax is a little slim, but they overload reasonably nicely. ~16mm p/p before hitting the stops.
MCM Audio Select 8'' Dual Voice Coil Woofer | 55-1455 (551455) | MCM Audio Select
Edit - Xmax is a little slim, but they overload reasonably nicely. ~16mm p/p before hitting the stops.
With an 8" driver going ported offers negligible benefit IMO....with a larger driver sure. If it were myself in the same predicament I'd seal up the port and drop one of these in
Tang Band W8-1363SB 8" Subwoofer | Parts-Express.com
or
Tang Band W8-740P 8" Subwoofer | Parts-Express.com
Both should work well sealed in that volume.
You could even cut another hole and play with tuning via one or two passive radiators.
Passive Radiators Allow You to Easily Tune Your Subwoofer Enclosure When a Port Tube Won't Work. Variable Mass Passive Radiators from TC Sounds and Dayton Audio!
The triska sub Parts Express DIY Project uses the same approach.
Hope this helped.
Edit: You haven't mentioned amplification, but a plate or stand alone amp with a built in or adjustable boost curve will help if following this approach.
Tang Band W8-1363SB 8" Subwoofer | Parts-Express.com
or
Tang Band W8-740P 8" Subwoofer | Parts-Express.com
Both should work well sealed in that volume.
You could even cut another hole and play with tuning via one or two passive radiators.
Passive Radiators Allow You to Easily Tune Your Subwoofer Enclosure When a Port Tube Won't Work. Variable Mass Passive Radiators from TC Sounds and Dayton Audio!
The triska sub Parts Express DIY Project uses the same approach.
Hope this helped.
Edit: You haven't mentioned amplification, but a plate or stand alone amp with a built in or adjustable boost curve will help if following this approach.
Last edited:
I'm curious about your reasoning behind this. Surely, a (relatively) small driver will need all the bass re-enforcement it can get. Wouldn't this imply a reflex enclosure would be better than sealed?
Given the space constraints and the box dimensions the OP mentioned I think my suggestion offers the simplest way to implement an 8" driver. The 38L volume w/ a couple of PR's wouldn't disappoint IMO. In an ideal space and enclosure ported obviously would be superior, but this is not the case here. Playing around endlessly with the port length vs. using a $25 PR or two is money well spent IMO.
Last edited:
Either way will probably sound good. With that said, trying to fit a driver to an already built/tuned ported box is going to be quite a headache. Not to mention the port diameter/length has high probability of chuffing......sealing the box up and adding PR(s) OR NOT solves both problems. I don't understand why folks around here are so overly sensitive to alternate opinions/suggestions. This seems to be the stigma around here lately. Reminds me of middle school richie.
Last edited:
]UPDATE
I've simulated the frequency response by raising the resonance frequency of the box to 43, show is the Graph below. I also did this with my test box and my current driver. Efficiency increased a little. But as an experiment i've tried also to tune the box to 25hz in order to see if i can extend the low frequency response. But turned out increased excursion and distortion from the driver. And also port noise is audible.
This system has low end boost using SUBWOOFER EQ from ESP project (sound.westhost.com) P48 and with 30Hz high pass filter protection.
I wonder if i can increase box size a bit more(maybe 45 L max) in order to extend low frequency response and at the same time increase efficiency by using some equalization at the passband. thanks
I've simulated the frequency response by raising the resonance frequency of the box to 43, show is the Graph below. I also did this with my test box and my current driver. Efficiency increased a little. But as an experiment i've tried also to tune the box to 25hz in order to see if i can extend the low frequency response. But turned out increased excursion and distortion from the driver. And also port noise is audible.
This system has low end boost using SUBWOOFER EQ from ESP project (sound.westhost.com) P48 and with 30Hz high pass filter protection.
I wonder if i can increase box size a bit more(maybe 45 L max) in order to extend low frequency response and at the same time increase efficiency by using some equalization at the passband. thanks
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.