I see no problem here - eventually the tuning might get very slightly lower (virtual extension of port).
In any case, it is advisable to use a prototype to test whether the desired tuning frequency is "hit" by measuring it and adjusting the port length if necessary. It should be borne in mind that damping material can also change the tuning (virtual increase in volume increases fb while the port length remains the same).
Last edited:
Your last drawing shows a to me overl big port. And yes, it should not be too close to an internal boundary. Internal resonances may leak.
You could also use two brace panels above and under the mid. With only one additional piece of wood you can create a triangular mid enclosure.
Exact tuning isn’t that important as the in room response will be anything but flat. I see hardly any need for prototyping.
You could also use two brace panels above and under the mid. With only one additional piece of wood you can create a triangular mid enclosure.
Exact tuning isn’t that important as the in room response will be anything but flat. I see hardly any need for prototyping.
This is true, but the resonance (450 Hz) will be above Xover frequency, as far as I see in the simulation. Port size is a tradeoff between eventual resonance and non compressed max SPL (=very high) port output here.
I second that!
Exactly. The width is 38 cm according to ggerla and it's the width resonance that has a pressure maximum near the side wall.
(34000 cm/s) / (2*38cm) = 447 Hz
See post #28 for max SPL simulation.