D-train-13k Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 thats weird i never noticed that. i need to double check my port now. i had to download the new version recently. has anyone mentioned that to torres? The IrishmanCheck out my build hereXL 4th order wall build logIn Progress:alpine cda HU4th order Bandpass2xl 15's1- ab 400.1 (gonna be two hopefully)4- Crescendo 8's2- xts crecendo supertweeters 2 sq super tweetsMb quart 4.125Mechman 270a alt1- xs D27003- xs XP3000 4- odessey pc1700seller feed back threadhttp://www.stevemeadedesigns.com/board/topic/136418-d-train-13k/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkraft97 Posted February 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 hey joe, would there be any way you could send me that version of torres. could you maybe attach it to a PM. when i do this, i want to do it right the first time. 37 is a little higher that where i would like to be. i would rather be 35 or lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe X Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 It will neither be accurate..lol, this flaws become significant in small boxes, here are some calculations for your box: Base area for the port: Base area for the compression chamber: The yellow area is the port displacement, airspace + wood. So the base area is multiplied by the internal height and then divided by 1728 to get the volume (displacement) in cubic feet. The 0.26 cubic feet old Torres shows is still low, the correct port displacement is in excess of 0.32 cubic feet as stated above. So how to determine tuning? we get the compression chamber volume (117.46 x 8.5)/1728 = 0.577 cubic feet and subtract driver displacement from that so the net volume, so 0.477 cubic feet is the net volume. Lastly Torres can be used circumventing all it's port displacement calculations by entering directly the net volume obtained above: No need to bother with setting the common walls since they are not accounted for anyways. There's the real tuning.. WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxsonnyxz Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Wouldn't the effective port length be longer than what you have drawn there? Being as the port ends so close to the baffle, it would cause an extension of the port. The difference in tuning might not be noticeable, but I'm just wondering. STD Passat Build 151db+STD Omega BuildMitsubishi Colt Build - Alpine|Focal|PeerlessHome Stereo BuildSmall Tang Band build - 4" fullrangeBox for 4 8"My Saab 9000 Build- I'd be very happy if you cared to check out the logs and give feedback! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe X Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Wouldn't the effective port length be longer than what you have drawn there? Being as the port ends so close to the baffle, it would cause an extension of the port. The difference in tuning might not be noticeable, but I'm just wondering. If the little triangle you see at the inner end of the port do not touch the baffle the effective length should not (theoretically at least) be extended by the near corner, anyways, not stating what the tuning would be, this is just about the port displacement with the dimensions the OP is using not matching what Torres estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.