ESS-Focal 2 Way (The Enclosure)

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Are we there yet? :)

So I've attached a zip file with my WinISD results.
It includes the WinISD file and a text file with the results and design.
I think it looks pretty good. (but I'm a Rookie).

My enclosure design currently has an internal volume of 1417.5 Cubic Inches.
This was actually derived from the Fat Box formula referenced from my textbooks and targeting 1400 Cubic inches. (See attached text file).
So Imperialistic calculations. I did this as a base line volume.

WinISD calculates the "Optimum" volume to be 2100 Cu.In.
A 50% addition to imperialistic volume.

Another reference suggested adding 25% to imperialistic volume.
Which would be 1750 Cu.In.

So my first question?
Does WinISD calculate optimum volume by oversizing the enclosure to account for "Normal" Batting?
Do I need to add volume to the base line, for example the recommended 25% increase.


  • 23l box.jpg
    23l box.jpg
    116.4 KB · Views: 289
    1.4 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:


Joined 2003
Well I just remembered that WinISD calculates "Outer" Dimensions based on thickness.
All the same, what is recommended regarding adding volume to account for batting?

Huh?! Don't currently have any version loaded, but the two versions I've used [pro, 0.7] calculates net Vb like every other program, so doesn't include the driver, vent, bracing, etc., and any fibrous damping is presumed to be too little to be considered.

There is an old rule-of-thumb to add 10% to cover all this though.

FWIW, at a glance and based on published specs I would put the 1411 in a ~1775"^3 net cab.



Joined 2003
You're welcome!

FYI, I used a proprietary speaker design routine that predates T/S by several decades, but if you sim it in T/S you'll find that it provides an optimum compliance referenced to driver Vas, so not a fixed percentage and of course only as accurate as the Vas spec.

No, just a bit of history relative to this 25% suggestion I don't recall ever knowing about. I come from a time when speaker efficiency was a prime design goal, so I normally design cabs quite a bit larger than what T/S recommends and if it 'booms', 'rings', then 'critically' damp it to ~ 'have my cake and eat it too' same as the pioneers did.

Anyway, in your case I recommend using WinISD to calculate approximately how much volume the driver takes up + calculate any loss from bracing, etc., and add it since the cab is physically small, so adding 10% might not be enough.

Then again, many folks don't notice any obvious difference in sealed bass performance until the system Q [sysQ] is very low [rolled off bass] or very high [mid-bass 'boom'], so we're talking 'nit-picking' theory on a subject where there's so much latitude in cab size that it's mostly moot.

My next question would be regarding Port Tubes.

1) should I flush mount my port(s) to the baffle?
2) should ports be free and clear from any damping material or should they be lightly damped?

Mind you, I am aware the port tube entries should be free and clear of any damping material.

Thanks for any input.
Hmm, thought this was a sealed alignment.

?? Folks normally do for looks, though it's a good plan since it otherwise disrupts the baffle's eigenmodes.

For empirically fine tuning them though, best to leave them out far enough to be able to easily remove them, just make sure it's well sealed at the baffle since even pin holes have been known to 'destroy' the ability to tune the cab. There have been plenty of times when air seeping around T-nut screw threads has been the culprit. Ditto accordion surrounds with pinholes in the doping or over-tightening hardware destroyed the gasket seal.

Ideally, there shouldn't be any damping near, or in, the vent to maximize its efficiency, but the reality is that its damping usually makes or breaks the speaker's low end performance, especially WRT perceived sound quality [SQ], i.e. 'fast', 'tight', etc..

As small as this cab is, it doesn't take much to make it rigid enough, plus it ideally needs a bit of weight, so you could use 1.25" thick MDF [laminated 3/4", 1/2"] and skip bracing. This makes it as rigid as using 19 mm BB ply or similar at a fraction of the cost plus it's easier overall to finish.

For round overs, the radius needs to be large enough for the eigenmodes to be long enough to slide over the edge for lack of a better description, so in general, the corner radius would be quite large, ergo most all rounded over cabs are strictly cosmetic, which of course makes it worthwhile for many folks. I just use open cell foam 'walls' or cover the whole driver area for when I want it for acoustical reasons.

Thanks GM, all good stuff.
I would have never thought to round the edges of my brace.
This forum is certainly paying off.

I'll probably just stick with my simple brace and round the edges.
Now I just need to get down to the hardware store and order my 1" MDF.

Lucky for me I know an excellent cabinet maker who has an amazing shop.
And he's excited to help me build my cab, since he is a musician.

Well off to the races then.
OK, look forward to understanding.
Just to clarify, the bottom brace is the only real "brace".
What looks like the middle brace is really the enclosure top. (Solid).
The top of the Cabinet will look similar to the bottom brace, with cutouts to access the crossovers. It's also hosting the AMT.
The top will also be covered with 1/4" Smoked Glass to hide the crossovers.
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.