Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tywin" data-source="post: 6687497" data-attributes="member: 598467">Didn&#039;t find triangular box design sotware.&nbsp; But I do have a few questions about the information that BassBox Pro 6 doesn&#039;t provide.What should the relative positions of the speaker and the port be on the front baffle?&nbsp; Speaker in the middle and port halfway between the speaker and the bottom of the baffle?&nbsp; Would there be any harm in putting the port at the very bottom of the front baffle?I&#039;m designing a rectangular port.There&#039;s an option for a flared port, but there&#039;s no specification on what the slope of the flare should be.&nbsp; Is there some industry standard definition of a flared port?If I choose flush port the length of the port comes out very nearly the thickness of the baffle.&nbsp; If I choose a baffle that&#039;s a little bit thinner than the recommended port length and just cut a hole in the baffle for the port, do I make the length and width of the port larger to keep the surface area of the port constant - is that an acceptable design compromise?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tywin, post: 6687497, member: 598467"] Didn't find triangular box design sotware. But I do have a few questions about the information that BassBox Pro 6 doesn't provide. What should the relative positions of the speaker and the port be on the front baffle? Speaker in the middle and port halfway between the speaker and the bottom of the baffle? Would there be any harm in putting the port at the very bottom of the front baffle? I'm designing a rectangular port. There's an option for a flared port, but there's no specification on what the slope of the flare should be. Is there some industry standard definition of a flared port? If I choose flush port the length of the port comes out very nearly the thickness of the baffle. If I choose a baffle that's a little bit thinner than the recommended port length and just cut a hole in the baffle for the port, do I make the length and width of the port larger to keep the surface area of the port constant - is that an acceptable design compromise? [/QUOTE]

Verification