Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mr Cabinetry" data-source="post: 4511396" data-attributes="member: 571490">The enclosure Gross Volume is .44 cu.ft. ( subtract sub and port displacement ) an it will be slightly over .35 cu.ft. Net Volume.As stated previously, it&#039;s possible and I mean possible to put a 2&quot; dia port to the spec&#039;s also previously stated, but it would be a royal b!tch to put them in there and to be honest, I&#039;m not overly thrilled that the OP is limiting his option to this port.It would be far easier and less time consuming just to do a slot port as it would be far better suited to perform the task at hand.&nbsp; Also, I did advise the OP via PM that in using a slot port would required the enclosure design to be modified to account for the additional displacement of the slot port walls.I can easily overcome the issue by substituting 5/8&quot; mdf for 1/4&quot; &amp;amp; 1/2&quot; mdf to gain back the volume required and in doing so provide more port surface area in the process so the enclosure design will allow for the subwoofer to achieve better performance bass response and output wise.Now, I know that just about anyone here is going to say using any less ( material thickness waste ) will make for an inferior enclosure as to the performance of the subwoofer.To be blunt and painful honest, BULLSH!T!!!I&#039;ve built my fair share of enclosure using all thickness of materials when the design warrants there usage in order to gain what is required and none, I repeat, NONE of those enclosure&#039;s in terms of the customer voicing their concerns or doubts after the fact upon taking delivery of the enclosure and firing it up informed me to the latter the enclosure did perform as expected.If I had any doubts that using other thickness of mdf to fabricate an enclosure would hinder the enclosure structural integrity or performance, I would not do so, but, I know what the limits are as to what is and what not is possible.PhilWoodlawn Cabinetry</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mr Cabinetry, post: 4511396, member: 571490"] The enclosure Gross Volume is .44 cu.ft. ( subtract sub and port displacement ) an it will be slightly over .35 cu.ft. Net Volume. As stated previously, it's possible and I mean possible to put a 2" dia port to the spec's also previously stated, but it would be a royal b!tch to put them in there and to be honest, I'm not overly thrilled that the OP is limiting his option to this port. It would be far easier and less time consuming just to do a slot port as it would be far better suited to perform the task at hand. Also, I did advise the OP via PM that in using a slot port would required the enclosure design to be modified to account for the additional displacement of the slot port walls. I can easily overcome the issue by substituting 5/8" mdf for 1/4" & 1/2" mdf to gain back the volume required and in doing so provide more port surface area in the process so the enclosure design will allow for the subwoofer to achieve better performance bass response and output wise. Now, I know that just about anyone here is going to say using any less ( material thickness waste ) will make for an inferior enclosure as to the performance of the subwoofer. To be blunt and painful honest, BULLSH!T!!! I've built my fair share of enclosure using all thickness of materials when the design warrants there usage in order to gain what is required and none, I repeat, NONE of those enclosure's in terms of the customer voicing their concerns or doubts after the fact upon taking delivery of the enclosure and firing it up informed me to the latter the enclosure did perform as expected. If I had any doubts that using other thickness of mdf to fabricate an enclosure would hinder the enclosure structural integrity or performance, I would not do so, but, I know what the limits are as to what is and what not is possible. Phil Woodlawn Cabinetry [/QUOTE]

Verification