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="bbeljefe" data-source="post: 8162407" data-attributes="member: 655960"><p>The ports and additional chambers are going to behave like braces in any other cabinet. They'll have little to no measurable affect and will have even less audible affect.</p><p></p><p>In a sealed box all you have is the front of the cone to make noise. In a ported enclosure, most people can't hear an audible tonal difference between, say, 35 Hz tuning and 38 Hz tuning.</p><p></p><p>I predict that adding chambers and ports to a sealed box will yield less than .5 Hz difference in the Fb of the box, relative to the change that simply making the box larger would cause.</p><p></p><p>In simple terms, you're trying to see if three interconnected 2' boxes will hold more than one 6' box. And the answer is, it won't.</p><p></p><p>What you will accomplish though is only two of three things a DCBR accomplishes and that's lower driver excursion as a result of the added port resistance and consequently, slightly higher power handling capability. But, less excursion is only desirable if you have a driver with low xmax and with the technologies we have today in the audio world, a driver with low xmax that needs help with power handling isn't worth the time and trouble of making a complicated enclosure for. Especially when you know for a fact that that complicated enclosure won't provide any acoustical gain. Not to mention, the increase in power handling would be negligible because you're not really moving much more air at all across the coil, since no fresh air can enter a closed system.</p><p></p><p>And please don't get me wrong... I applaud your thinking into it. I just don't see any appreciable benefit from what you're proposing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bbeljefe, post: 8162407, member: 655960"] The ports and additional chambers are going to behave like braces in any other cabinet. They'll have little to no measurable affect and will have even less audible affect. In a sealed box all you have is the front of the cone to make noise. In a ported enclosure, most people can't hear an audible tonal difference between, say, 35 Hz tuning and 38 Hz tuning. I predict that adding chambers and ports to a sealed box will yield less than .5 Hz difference in the Fb of the box, relative to the change that simply making the box larger would cause. In simple terms, you're trying to see if three interconnected 2' boxes will hold more than one 6' box. And the answer is, it won't. What you will accomplish though is only two of three things a DCBR accomplishes and that's lower driver excursion as a result of the added port resistance and consequently, slightly higher power handling capability. But, less excursion is only desirable if you have a driver with low xmax and with the technologies we have today in the audio world, a driver with low xmax that needs help with power handling isn't worth the time and trouble of making a complicated enclosure for. Especially when you know for a fact that that complicated enclosure won't provide any acoustical gain. Not to mention, the increase in power handling would be negligible because you're not really moving much more air at all across the coil, since no fresh air can enter a closed system. And please don't get me wrong... I applaud your thinking into it. I just don't see any appreciable benefit from what you're proposing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Help
Enclosure Design & Construction
Thinking inside the box
Top
Menu
Home
Refresh