Menu
Forum
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Car Audio Discussion
General Car Audio
Car Audio Build Logs
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Help
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Wanted
Classifieds Member Feedback
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Join
Test
Forum
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Help
Enclosure Design & Construction
Thinking inside the box
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ahardy17" data-source="post: 8158823" data-attributes="member: 614748"><p>seems like each port on those inner chambers would have to get progressively smaller with respect to the chamber size too, to provide a higher tuning frequency for each of them. I can't see it working the other way around. I'm interested in the idea but calculating the reactions between all the ports is extraordinarily involved; you would probably have the best luck starting with just one additional chamber to see how it behaves so you can figure how to effectively tune it in the hopes of stretching a more even response, then add the third chamber in later. You could do an MIT thesis on such on a project. I'm sure there is a way to determine the behavior of 2 ports in such a setup, it's just a matter of whether or not the second (and third) port and chamber combination would behave predictably with the only resistance being the sealed volume of the smallest chamber. I say you must become the pioneer of this concept and enlighten the rest of us!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ahardy17, post: 8158823, member: 614748"] seems like each port on those inner chambers would have to get progressively smaller with respect to the chamber size too, to provide a higher tuning frequency for each of them. I can't see it working the other way around. I'm interested in the idea but calculating the reactions between all the ports is extraordinarily involved; you would probably have the best luck starting with just one additional chamber to see how it behaves so you can figure how to effectively tune it in the hopes of stretching a more even response, then add the third chamber in later. You could do an MIT thesis on such on a project. I'm sure there is a way to determine the behavior of 2 ports in such a setup, it's just a matter of whether or not the second (and third) port and chamber combination would behave predictably with the only resistance being the sealed volume of the smallest chamber. I say you must become the pioneer of this concept and enlighten the rest of us! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Help
Enclosure Design & Construction
Thinking inside the box
Top
Menu
Home
Refresh