Get outta here with that shlt... It's not to big. Just because you read in a book somewhere doesn't make it true...
im tired of your ****. I always provide scientific information on why I suggest what I suggest and you and others here ignore it.
I've done what you are doing. I've built several speakers and tested many different suspension stiffness's along with the materials and corrugation shapes and heights. you have no idea how the QE/inductance/spiders and port Q and box Q effect damping and the transient response of the woofer. Its clear you don't understand how resonance impedance and phase shifts affect driver THD and transient response.
I've put subs in different boxes with different amounts of port area and then changed the spiders stiffness to develop a basis from how the drivers unload, peak and its affect of phase shifts and a lot of other variables IM not going to touch on. I'll give you one example of what I mean.
Normally the industry measures motor strength and B/L curves in this typical fashion that are totally not accurate.
bl^/re as for motor strength. That's cool but all that tells me about the driver with raw motor strength with no power compression or real world power.
When I seen this come around and some companies start to brag about motor strength. I got reamed at first for suggesting a much more accurate way of measure real world motor strength and how the entire systems of a driver where affected and how if affected the need box size and port area for a given response and phase/impedance curves.
The above formula is really only good for one thing, I suggested that is only acceptable for actually testing a specific design to meet the required motor strength for the mass mechanical and acoustical damping for a given target. It doesn't tell how the driver will responded to these other parameters only the raw motor strength (QTS)
so what I did was further this by accounting not only the raw motor strength but the stiffness of the suspension and the mass of the driver.
For example the raw motor strength to mass ration giving you a real prospective on tm/NM Per gram to refine limits on mass for say a pre-existing design.
(bl^2/re)/mms(NOTE that for doing this BL should be measure in N/mm) and further more only you know the ratio of mass to force ratio you can go another step and add into the account of the stiffness of the suspension say .08mm/m
Knowing this you can then calculate the electrical input needed to move the mass.
Ill admit ill **** with you all but when I post something like that I'm not trying to be an ***. I'm telling you I've tested this stuff a lot. I've come the the conclusion that typically the box programs leave a lot to be desired but they are a great starting point.
I don't usually get into to much detail be I fell a lot of stuff on the market is clones copies and have no real engineering behind them a lot of it is just slapping **** together finding a combination of parts that work good and whoring it out to the idiotic masses.
Oh and a word about typical small signal analysis on how b/l curves are derived. They aren't accurate. They a basis to work off of and should not be plotted among other drivers because they have several other factors that play a huge role on the motors linearly when driven by and amp in a box in a cabin. I'm not going get into any more detail because IM not going to argue with anyone. If they want to see how I TEST linearly(that will one day hopefully be a standard) Ill be glad to hold a course in accurately finding TRUE Xmax ratings as well as BL curves, of course for a small fee.
