Hmm, just noticed how much of a block of text that is, sorry lol
Thats kewl, I do it all the time, lol.
Ok, so basically I am going to keep it simple. I know I usually do not do this, but I think everybody now has an understanding of how much I can get detailed.
Basically, a larger port does not necessarily make it peaker, unless that is what the driver box combo creates, and that usually is the case when all other factors are constant, such as port length, volume, etc. BECAUSE the peak will occur at a higher frequency due to natural rolloff and low end cutoff.
So, that said, the peak is natural unless you WANT to control it, with either changing other factors to fix it, or using a different design.
Now, the benefits of this can include two of the greatest pros in audio......added efficiency and coupling.
The efficiency is because the larger the port area, the more it will accommodate the lower end response because the area of the port also has a cutoff point just like tuning.
The coupling is improved because the ratio of the port opening to the area of the room is closer to a 1:1 ratio. When this occurs, the sound becomes more intense for the frequency response it plays in.
The other great pro is the ability to avoid port noise. This should be easily understood at this point. The larger the port opening the less port noise.
But keep in mind that there can be a such thing as too large not because a port CAN be too large, but because it has to match the rest of the designs limitations for it to be able to control everything.
A good example of this is trying to create a full wave cutoff port area of about 48Hz. This would be a port area of 19600in^2. Which equals a 140x140 in port! We just have to shrink this down to a usable port area without going over our max dimensions. That is what essentially creates a portion of the cutoff in a ported design. Ever wonder why responses dip in the middle? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif (hint hint)
So, to keep usable efficiency for even a 48Hz signal above average, the recommended minimum port size would even still be large, a 35x35 port is the smallest before you loose enough efficiency to have to compensate for power and such. But you can get away with a 16x20 with exceptional efficiency still if the compression chamber is changes to help it.
So, to answer some questions,
1. Effecting response: Changing the port dimensions all together will change everything. Phase, output, efficiency, etc.the works. You ahve to recalculate for it everytime to make sure it is what you want.
2. Losing output: Yes, this can happen just above tuning about 10-15 Hz higher than tuning, and obviously below as well. Some of this is natural though. This is where you can use cabin gain to smooth it out some.
3. unloading: Always occurs regardless of what you do if any limitations are exceeded. But in relation to port, this is effected by increasing the tuning, again, if all other factors are constant. Everything else has to accommodate the area of the port for more control at the low end. And it is possible with any driver to do.
4. Limit on port area: explained above........if you go below cross-sectional area cutoff, you will lose efficiency and output. If you go above without compensating with more volume and port length, you will get a higher response range and lose low output. So, a general limitation is not available. It depends on the design.
5. Increased efficiency: explained above.
Hope that helps and that I was simple enough to understand. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif