Horn subwoofer vs ported

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I am thinking of building a "small" (8") subwoofer mainly for music. The horn designs are somehow appealing (mainly thanks to their efficiency), but I am wondering, how does it compare to a normal ported enclosure, bandpass or even a sealed, both in terms of sound quality and efficiency?
Which will give the deepest response with a given element?
Does the horn enclosure put higher requirements on the element compared to a ported? (Of course, the sealed is the most forgiving).
Yes, horn designs can be finicky of driver/enclosure parameters. Horn Response is a good aid for designing them. Post up the T/S of the driver and I'm sure someone here will help you along.

It is fun to impress friends by connecting a 1 watt amplifier powered by a 9v transistor radio battery to my tapped horn to show off how much bass it can make, but I use sealed subs in my "serious" music listening systems.
I have built a ported, a tapped horn and a front loaded pipe (horn with too small throat area) using the same driver.

The ported is about 200 liter, the tapped horn is 400 liter, the "horn" is 600 liter. The ported sounds well for being a ported box, probably because of the driver. The tapped horn sounds ok, louder than the ported but with the same character. The "horn" is a completely different story, it is loud, clear and with a very nice kick.

They all go down to about 30 Hz. A true horn going down to 30 Hz would be about 1500 liters. The ported is useable to 170 Hz, the tapped and the horn to about 80. A true horn would be useable to about 250 Hz.
I can see there is a dropbox address in the code, but my security prevents me from downloading anything from there due to security risk.
Any chance you could attach your pics in future?

I believe all my pictures are png or jpg. There should be no security risks in allowing png and jpg. Maybe you should adjust your security a little?
Joined 2007
Paid Member
No complaints from IE9 or 10


  • Capture3.JPG
    52.2 KB · Views: 241
  • Capture4.JPG
    194.6 KB · Views: 262
@ AndrewT

www security checkers are ok as such, but they often class ALL IP's on the same www as dodgy, even if for eg Only 1 really is, or has been ! They All get tarred with the same brush, that's why i don't use them. Good in theory, but prone to FP's.

Anyway, if you have several layers of defence in place, apart from a good AV, even they don't/won't catch Everything, or even near, you will be safe. I can visit the most infected www's & nothing bad happens ;)
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.