american bass xfl 18???

[Hertz Mafia]

My wall has 10" port per ft

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

Anywhere where people recorded this, like taken pictures and notes? The only time I've gained from going with less port is when the larger port was too crowded and the smaller allowed better air flow at the end.


Looks to me like 7.5 cubes tuned 35hz ish will work nicely. Tuning lower will gain you very little low extension and you probably shouldn't tune above 40hz unless you have a plan.

I personally like big port area, but surely you can get away with 10" round, or possibly as low as 8" flared.

I've gained, massive spl gained, buck gained from shrinking. There's just no pressure built up after a certain amount of port area. Air velocity is non existent if you are well below 22 m/s. I used to believe in big port area too until i started experimenting and shrinking (while keeping the same tuning) and noticed sizeable gains. I notice cone control and musical accuracy is better with less port area as well from my personal tests. As long as its not small enough where you run into compression you are good.

 

[Hertz Mafia]

I've gained, massive spl gained, buck gained from shrinking. There's just no pressure built up after a certain amount of port area. Air velocity is non existent. I used to believe in big port area too until i started experimenting and shrinking (while keeping the same tuning) and noticed sizeable gains.

Bigger port works for burp or higher tuned setups but when you wanna smash them lows and build pressure alittle bit small port works good

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

Bigger port works for burp or higher tuned setups but when you wanna smash them lows and build pressure alittle bit small port works good

yeah I hair trick a lot better with smaller ports. Lows are more pressurized and i didnt really lose upper bass freqs. Overall gain on my end since i dont actually have the amount of power to warrant the amount of port area I was using at that time.

 

[kr15 5,000+ posts]

Low tuning, you can get away with much less port area. Tons of port area is basically only desirable for avoiding compression in high power applications, or high frequency burp applications. Tuning low 30s and below, 12-13 has always worked for me

 

[shredder1 10+ year member]

Thanks everyone for weighing in and dispelling THAT 12-16 rule/myth... I spent 2 hours trying to get that square peg into the round hole yesterday... LOL!...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/graduate.gif.d982460be9f153bb54e5d4cb744f6ae8.gif... That is a CLEAR explanation by everyone and it makes real sense... thanks... everytime I got the velocities where I wanted them port area fell to about 9-10 ft2 per... I've got it now!.. that is... until the next time... Thank You...

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

I've gained, massive spl gained, buck gained from shrinking. There's just no pressure built up after a certain amount of port area. Air velocity is non existent if you are well below 22 m/s. I used to believe in big port area too until i started experimenting and shrinking (while keeping the same tuning) and noticed sizeable gains. I notice cone control and musical accuracy is better with less port area as well from my personal tests. As long as its not small enough where you run into compression you are good.

I started with 15 in^2 per cube and gained 2dB opening it up more without moving tuning significantly. I doubt I could have shrunk it and gained, and I certainly couldn't have shrunk it without tuning lower.

Do you meter door/window open? I've heard that outlaw numbers often benefit from smaller ports.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

did somebody call?