box tuning

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

yeah i knbow i just wanted to know both ways is all. the whole thing got blown way out of proportion. 3.75 minus all displacement ( including port!! ) came to 3.16 12.5x3" x 16.25 is 37.5 hz thats what my math said and 3.16 is a ton better vb for a 12" rd alpha than a meesly 2.6 was gonna be so...................i get flamed for that lolz

But the point is that you are doing it wrong, yet still insist that it's "ok," and in fact "better" in this instance. Whether or not 3.16 tuned to 37.5hz would be better or not is irrelevant, I don't know why you even cared to mention it. The fact is that you're doing it wrong, and blowing it off like it doesn't matter and trying to play the victim just makes you look immature. Don't forget that you were the one who started the thread in an attempted to get others to come in and bash someone from roe for not knowing what they were talking about, when in reality you were the one who was wrong.

Also, as your port displacement gets bigger for a given gross volume, the design that you come up with gets more and more out of whack. Good luck with that...

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

i went of a set gross volume of 3.75 minus all displacement leaving 3.16 which is 12.5x3x16.25 for 37.5 hz how is that wrong?

and i wasnt trying to bash anyone pretty funny i tell wenn i posted his ? here as well and all his friends come out of the wood work to flame me lol several people on the roe forum hashed it out with me and i understand how u do it i do it a bit dif and still come out to the same tune as they did so where is the issue? i go from max gross and deduct from that u go from minimum vb and add to that its the same thing just 2 dif approaches, maybe like schmitty told me it is a miscommunication of terminolgy is all.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

i went of a set gross volume of 3.75 minus all displacement leaving 3.16 which is 12.5x3x16.25 for 37.5 hz how is that wrong?and i wasnt trying to bash anyone pretty funny i tell wenn i posted his ? here as well and all his friends come out of the wood work to flame me lol several people on the roe forum hashed it out with me and i understand how u do it i do it a bit dif and still come out to the same tune as they did so where is the issue? i go from max gross and deduct from that u go from minimum vb and add to that its the same thing just 2 dif approaches, maybe like schmitty told me it is a miscommunication of terminolgy is all.

Here is the OP from roe:

"need a favor

whats this tuned to

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8986/ported12v2.png

port is 27" long

total volume is 3.75

volume after port is 2.6"

He's telling you that the net volume is 2.6ft^3, and that the port is 27" long. I don't know why you're arguing the point of 3.16ft^3 tuned to 37.5hz. It's not the question he was asking. What he wanted to know what it was tuned to. You responded at roe with 28.XXhz, which is incorrect. Port length was already given to you(so I don't know why you're bringing up the 16.5" or whatever port length), but you plugged in 3.75ft^3 into the port calcs instead of 2.6ft^3. You are doing it wrong, plain and simple. You are not doing it the same way as me, just in a different order. You are not putting the net volume into the port calculators, which is why you came up with 28hz when you used 3.75ft^3 instead of 35hz when using 2.6ft^3 for the net volume. Stop defending your method, it is simply wrong and not all that accurate(as you can see in this case it is nearly 7hz off when using gross volume instead of net volume).

You can not start off with gross volume, plain and simple. Gross volume is NEVER used in the port length calculations. I don't know how else to put it.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

i went of a set gross volume of 3.75 minus all displacement leaving 3.16 which is 12.5x3x16.25 for 37.5 hz how is that wrong?and i wasnt trying to bash anyone pretty funny i tell wenn i posted his ? here as well and all his friends come out of the wood work to flame me lol several people on the roe forum hashed it out with me and i understand how u do it i do it a bit dif and still come out to the same tune as they did so where is the issue? i go from max gross and deduct from that u go from minimum vb and add to that its the same thing just 2 dif approaches, maybe like schmitty told me it is a miscommunication of terminolgy is all.

the only person I know in this entire thread was worst enemy and just from caco and I thougth you told me to get over it? so maybe try it your self

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

the only person I know in this entire thread was worst enemy and just from caco and I thougth you told me to get over it? so maybe try it your self

He also does not have one single person backing him and his method up in either thread. No one uses gross volume in the calcs, and if they do, they're doing it wrong.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

and that was the entire argument

I designed that box for a guy on roe using Rd's specs,

yesterday sic tells me I had it tuned to 28hz so I looked it over 3 times still get around 35

then he said to use gross well I guess (gross minus sub displacement) and I said no you have to use the chamber that the sub is in. went back and forth for a while until I made a thread on caco,smd,and roe most said right around 33hz until he started pming people to "expain" things, then he made this thread

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

and that was the entire argumentI designed that box for a guy on roe using Rd's specs,

yesterday sic tells me I had it tuned to 28hz so I looked it over 3 times still get around 35

then he said to use gross well I guess (gross minus sub displacement) and I said no you have to use the chamber that the sub is in. went back and forth for a while until I made a thread on caco,smd,and roe most said right around 33hz until he started pming people to "expain" things, then he made this thread

Well he's doing it wrong, plain and simple. I honestly think his ego is too big to admit he had been doing it wrong for who knows how long, and built who knows how many boxes to different tunings than intended.

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

yeah i have. after I talked to shmitty we went over it and my tunings are off by around 1-3 hz higher but either way i appreciate the lesson.

from the votes i am not the only 1 eiother so its a good lesson either way.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

yeah but your poll ***** ass

and who says they actually read anything?

 

[Johnny Law.Lulz 5,000+ posts]

He also does not have one single person backing him and his method up in either thread. No one uses gross volume in the calcs, and if they do, they're doing it wrong.

Are you talking about me ?

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

Are you talking about me ?

???

I was just saying that Sic had no one defending his method in the two threads...nothing else.

 

[Pioneer~Saturn 5,000+ posts]

Ok, this is a mess...what are the dimensions of the enclosure, the port dimensions, and the port length? I'll tell you what youve got..

With something so straight-forward I dont see how there's so much confusion..

 

[Johnny Law.Lulz 5,000+ posts]

Pioneer knows his ****. I wish he was loud though.

 

[Pioneer~Saturn 5,000+ posts]

Pioneer knows his ****. I wish he was loud though.

Thanks //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif Tuning to 30hz doesnt translate to loud on the meter though //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif lol...but shoving people's hair down their throats is better than meter scores imo //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif low ftw

 

[Johnny Law.Lulz 5,000+ posts]

Ill sit in your quiet car for 1 hour just to piss you off. = P