Enclosure Design Review And Feedback Request

[DLHgn]

Yeah, each split should be 5" wide. As for the labyrinth, i'm honestly not sure. I don't see why it would make a significant difference but then again i'm always learning something new so I could be wrong. So is your port 10 x 20"?

[DLHgn]

After your port splits each side should be half as big and the common section, so if the vertical section is 10" wide where it splits it should be 5".

With that said, I'd suggest moving the port to one side or the other and not have to worry about having the port split. This will also put the interior end of the port far away from the side panel.

And on this note, doing the port to one side will save volume from extra wood if you can make the whole port 3 common wall.

[Jacob Boyd Bauer]

This is turning out to be quite an enjoyable thread full of learning for me.

After your port splits each side should be half as big and the common section, so if the vertical section is 10" wide where it splits it should be 5".

With that said, I'd suggest moving the port to one side or the other and not have to worry about having the port split. This will also put the interior end of the port far away from the side panel.

And on this note, doing the port to one side will save volume from extra wood if you can make the whole port 3 common wall.

So does the port not being equidistant from the drivers make any difference?

Yeah, each split should be 5" wide. As for the labyrinth, i'm honestly not sure. I don't see why it would make a significant difference but then again i'm always learning something new so I could be wrong. So is your port 10 x 20"?

My port is 10x20". I was just thinking that the labyrinth design would have simpler construction then what I have here, I have no idea how it would affect performance or quality, or if it would even do so.

[Triticum Agricolam]

This is turning out to be quite an enjoyable thread full of learning for me.

So does the port not being equidistant from the drivers make any difference?

No having the port equidistant shouldn't be an issue for your application.

Like others have said, bracing will be important. You have some pretty large panels so you are going to want to brace them well. I shoot for no greater than a 12" unbraced span, if possible.

[Joe X]

Is this a good enclosure? If not, why not, and what would you change?

The T shaped port is done like this:

Anyways how do you calculate your volumes? what's your port area? port volume isn't important when it comes to box specs.

[Jacob Boyd Bauer]

No having the port equidistant shouldn't be an issue for your application.

Like others have said, bracing will be important. You have some pretty large panels so you are going to want to brace them well. I shoot for no greater than a 12" unbraced span, if possible.

Well, given what I learned from this thread, I realized that I was way overthinking it. Here's the new design, which is largely based on the ideas that have been presented here:

• Net Volume - 16.83 ft³
• Port ratio is slightly less than 1:2 at 15:40
• Port dimensions - 7.5" wide, 20 tall", 67 long"
• Tuning ~18 Hz

Is this any better than the previous one?

[DLHgn]

1.) I know this is probably just a sim error but the 45's should be bigger. The point of them is to create an even path all the way through the port. So if your port is 7.5" wide then it should also be that wide between the apex and the 45.

2.) I also calculated your tuning to be 17.6Hz so pretty much what you said.

3.) I am not too confident about those braces. They may be fine but they seem off to me. I like the one from the subs to the bottom and the one from front to back but the one from the side that ends at the cross point kinda seems like it might not work as planned. Also, what do you plan on using for the braces? Strips of plywood, dowels, metal rods etc.

[Wasteland_Audio]

Why tune so low? 18hz is more like home theater tuning than car audio.

[Jacob Boyd Bauer]

1.) I know this is probably just a sim error but the 45's should be bigger. The point of them is to create an even path all the way through the port. So if your port is 7.5" wide then it should also be that wide between the apex and the 45.

2.) I also calculated your tuning to be 17.6Hz so pretty much what you said.

3.) I am not too confident about those braces. They may be fine but they seem off to me. I like the one from the subs to the bottom and the one from front to back but the one from the side that ends at the cross point kinda seems like it might not work as planned. Also, what do you plan on using for the braces? Strips of plywood, dowels, metal rods etc.

The port is not finished in that photo. I find it difficult to do things like that in sketchup, so I'm saving that for last, or rather, when I move the design over to Creo Parametric. I'm a little worried about the one from the side to the cross as well, but would it be any better if I kept it going to the port wall? The corner braces (non-port) are just 1.5" wide strips of 3/4 inch plywood that are ripped in half at a 45^o angle to give two 3/4x3/4" wedges. The cross is 3/4x3/4" squares ripped out of the excess plywood. Is that a good idea? And would extending the side part of the cross to the port wall help anything?

Why tune so low? 18hz is more like home theater tuning than car audio.

Well, I was shooting for 20 hz. However, I felt like it was just easier to have two equal length port walls that would result in having the port width at all openings. However, this lengthened the port enough that it fell down about 2.4 Hz (The actual tuning is 17.6). After some more messing around at your prompt though, I can get it to hit ~26 Hz just by removing the inner most port wall.

[frogcase2002]

Even 20 I think would be to low . How you had one tuned that low. Most music wont sound that good