Hi,
So I've been able to make two loudspeakers so far and in both I have noticed the port length is considerably shorter than the equation I have spots out. Can anyone explain why the actual length of a port to achieve the correct box tuning is shorter than the maths suggests?
Thank you
P.S. sorry if this is in the wrong section, I wasn't sure where to ask the question.
So I've been able to make two loudspeakers so far and in both I have noticed the port length is considerably shorter than the equation I have spots out. Can anyone explain why the actual length of a port to achieve the correct box tuning is shorter than the maths suggests?
Thank you
P.S. sorry if this is in the wrong section, I wasn't sure where to ask the question.
What equation were you using?
There are many sources of error, but a notable one is end-corrections for the port, which will depend on the flare, if any, the distance from any obstructions that affect the airflow.
It may also be that the equation used overestimates the length to be on the safe side (shortening a port is easier than lengthening it).
There are many sources of error, but a notable one is end-corrections for the port, which will depend on the flare, if any, the distance from any obstructions that affect the airflow.
It may also be that the equation used overestimates the length to be on the safe side (shortening a port is easier than lengthening it).
The effective port length is longer than its physical length because the vibrating mass of air within the port actually extends beyond the physical length of the port.Can anyone explain why the actual length of a port to achieve the correct box tuning is shorter than the maths suggests?
To which maths are you referring? Some equations calculate the effective length and an 'end correction' is necessary to arrive at the physical length.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.