Wanna make sure this RE XXX box design is good before I make it

[IKnowImLost224]

So I made this box before I knew about port area per cube

Now knowing that the box sounds like ass because the port is wayyy to small I redisigned a box at about max specs for my trunk and I wanna see what you guys think.

I don't know why its showing up so small. Also why is it not giving me a complete cutsheet? I don't have cuts for the port

Edited March 7, 2012 by IKnowImLost224

[IKnowImLost224]

[Joe X]

Whatever you do go front firing or backfiring ports/subs

From the screenshot I would suggest to make a double baffle with this subwoofer, place a "1" on the "# of extra baffles" box, also your net volume is below 4 cubic feet that RE Audio suggests.

To get the port parts you need to look at the physical port length box on the Torres and do some calculations or measure the length of the port along its centerline which in your case is 2" .

[IKnowImLost224]

Whatever you do go front firing or backfiring ports/subs

From the screenshot I would suggest to make a double baffle with this subwoofer, place a "1" on the "# of extra baffles" box, also your net volume is below 4 cubic feet that RE Audio suggests.

To get the port parts you need to look at the physical port length box on the Torres and do some calculations or measure the length of the port along its centerline which in your case is 2" .

I did end up changing the baffle. I won't have the room to make the RE "Optimum" box. So I am trying to stay between the Optimum and Compact.

[IKnowImLost224]

Also, I am going sub/port towards trunk rear

[Lbox88]

Looks good to me.

[Joe X]

I understand, port/sub backfirig is fine, I can rework my previous suggestion for you or you can go ahead and make your own spec.

If you are unsure of the port parts length post them and I can check them.

[Decaf]

Its not about Port Area/Cubic foot... its about volume displacement/power/desired f3

Vd=xmax*sd... so the more the subs move the more port you need. Sd should be used when comparing woofer size setups, not area of a circle

The more power you apply the more notes the sub will be closer to xmax thus needing a bigger port. This is also why on low power you can get away with smaller ports.

So long as volume/tuning remain the same a smaller port will have a lower f3(becuase the smaller port is able to maintain backpressure/cone control) compared to a larger port. A larger port will have more of a peak in response

[IKnowImLost224]

Decaf, I kind of understand what your saying but not sure I have a complete grasp of it. Can you give me an example? I'm using the RE XXX 15" powered by a sundown SAZ-2500D at just over half gain

[Lbox88]

Its not about Port Area/Cubic foot... its about volume displacement/power/desired f3

Vd=xmax*sd... so the more the subs move the more port you need. Sd should be used when comparing woofer size setups, not area of a circle

The more power you apply the more notes the sub will be closer to xmax thus needing a bigger port. This is also why on low power you can get away with smaller ports.

So long as volume/tuning remain the same a smaller port will have a lower f3(becuase the smaller port is able to maintain backpressure/cone control) compared to a larger port. A larger port will have more of a peak in response

It's late where I'm at and this gave me a little bit of a headache when i read it