Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 6338119" data-attributes="member: 549629">You keep comparing apples to oranges. Generally speaking, a ported box will be twice the size of the equivalent sealed box for a given speaker. Intensity increase is freq dependent, but on average you gain approx 3db going ported over sealed. But with a sealed setup including half the enclosure size, you can fit twice as many subs. Guess how many db&#039;s (on average) you gain by doubling cone area (subs)...? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif 3db. People think ported systems have so much more &#039;potential&#039; because they see SPL competitors run ported so efficiently and successfully. The problem with using that as a measuring stick is, SPL competitors burp a very specific frequency very near enclosure tuning which maximizes enclosure efficiency, giving it more than the average 3db increase over its sealed counterpart. But in a music situation where frequency fluctuates, the &#039;3db rule&#039; is much more applicable, and the advantages are pretty much nil (port increase vs double cone area sealed).Ported setups gain most of their output increase over sealed setups in the lowest octaves, exactly where its (usually) not needed due to cabin gain. So this huge output advantage you keep referring to usually works out to an artificially fat bottom-end, which anyone interested in a smooth frequency response will tame down via EQ&#039;ing anyway.You say that the six 12&#039;s not fitting in a trunk proves your point, yet it doesn&#039;t. If its truly double the cone area over the 18 ported, enclosure size will be pretty close. Ported will be slightly smaller due to less speaker displacement not overcoming the port area.Ported setups have more &#039;hassle&#039; in enclosure tuning and construction. Ive already covered your misunderstanding of &#039;less airspace&#039;. Again, the advantages and drawbacks of each setup are pretty much a wash when talking generalities.Sorry my first reply to you was not as respectful as it should have been. Just because you misunderstand the situation does not give me the right to call your opinion &#039;nonsense&#039;. I apologize.Cheers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 6338119, member: 549629"] You keep comparing apples to oranges. Generally speaking, a ported box will be twice the size of the equivalent sealed box for a given speaker. Intensity increase is freq dependent, but on average you gain approx 3db going ported over sealed. But with a sealed setup including half the enclosure size, you can fit twice as many subs. Guess how many db's (on average) you gain by doubling cone area (subs)...? [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif[/IMG] 3db. People think ported systems have so much more 'potential' because they see SPL competitors run ported so efficiently and successfully. The problem with using that as a measuring stick is, SPL competitors burp a very specific frequency very near enclosure tuning which maximizes enclosure efficiency, giving it more than the average 3db increase over its sealed counterpart. But in a music situation where frequency fluctuates, the '3db rule' is much more applicable, and the advantages are pretty much nil (port increase vs double cone area sealed). Ported setups gain most of their output increase over sealed setups in the lowest octaves, exactly where its (usually) not needed due to cabin gain. So this huge output advantage you keep referring to usually works out to an artificially fat bottom-end, which anyone interested in a smooth frequency response will tame down via EQ'ing anyway. You say that the six 12's not fitting in a trunk proves your point, yet it doesn't. If its truly double the cone area over the 18 ported, enclosure size will be pretty close. Ported will be slightly smaller due to less speaker displacement not overcoming the port area. Ported setups have more 'hassle' in enclosure tuning and construction. Ive already covered your misunderstanding of 'less airspace'. Again, the advantages and drawbacks of each setup are pretty much a wash when talking generalities. Sorry my first reply to you was not as respectful as it should have been. Just because you misunderstand the situation does not give me the right to call your opinion 'nonsense'. I apologize. Cheers. [/QUOTE]

Verification