Jump to content
Second Skin Audio

Triticum's Improved Port Area Calculator


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, CrackFactory said:

Is it just a visual update or have any formulas changed?

Just visual.  All the formulas should be the same. 

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Im sorry to revive this old thread but i must ask: ive been using your calculator and built several enclosures with it. I dont have tools or expertise to build the actual boxes myself, so i source out builders and they often question me why im using such a big port. I tell em to do it anyways. Now then, i did notice a couple times my bandwidth seemed small. So my question is: How does using these bigger than manu recommended ports/port area figures alter or affect the bandwidth? It seems to me the larger ports cause a narrower bandwidth in exchange of .5dbs output gain over a narrower bandwidth. Is this whats going on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/20/2020 at 8:56 AM, akuma4u said:

Im sorry to revive this old thread but i must ask: ive been using your calculator and built several enclosures with it. I dont have tools or expertise to build the actual boxes myself, so i source out builders and they often question me why im using such a big port. I tell em to do it anyways. Now then, i did notice a couple times my bandwidth seemed small. So my question is: How does using these bigger than manu recommended ports/port area figures alter or affect the bandwidth? It seems to me the larger ports cause a narrower bandwidth in exchange of .5dbs output gain over a narrower bandwidth. Is this whats going on? 

ive experienced this too. im curious to see what the answer to this is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 1/20/2020 at 8:56 AM, akuma4u said:

Im sorry to revive this old thread but i must ask: ive been using your calculator and built several enclosures with it. I dont have tools or expertise to build the actual boxes myself, so i source out builders and they often question me why im using such a big port. I tell em to do it anyways. Now then, i did notice a couple times my bandwidth seemed small. So my question is: How does using these bigger than manu recommended ports/port area figures alter or affect the bandwidth? It seems to me the larger ports cause a narrower bandwidth in exchange of .5dbs output gain over a narrower bandwidth. Is this whats going on? 

Larger ports don't make for a smaller bandwidth.  This is an car audio urban legend that has been around forever but just refuses to die.  

If a port is too small, you will lose output around the tuning frequency, when playing at high volumes.  This will make it SEEM like you are getting wider bandwidth, but it comes at a horrible cost.  For one thing, it will only work when playing at high volume when there is a lot of port velocity.  At lower volume levels your bandwidth will be exactly the same regardless of port size.  The other problem is, making your port smaller to try an tame an output peak is like making the exhaust on your car purposefully small to keep from breaking the tires loose in 1st gear.  Its just a stupid way to solve the problem and it impedes performance the whole rest of the time.  

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omg... if you're trying to size a port with higher power... modeling can give you useful info, 

A calc is a shot in the dark imo... extreme power with a set excursion usually

A calc is only useful with lower power situations... add 30mm of xmax and 2K clamped /w/ filters and that calc gets beat pretty fast.

This thread should encourage noobs to learn modeling.. NOT rely on a calc.. power is cheap and most are looking for hi-power solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, shredder2 said:

Omg... if you're trying to size a port with higher power... modeling can give you useful info, 

A calc is a shot in the dark imo... extreme power with a set excursion usually

A calc is only useful with lower power situations... add 30mm of xmax and 2K clamped /w/ filters and that calc gets beat pretty fast.

This thread should encourage noobs to learn modeling.. NOT rely on a calc.. power is cheap and most are looking for hi-power solutions.

I agree.  I made the calc to help people who don't have access to better tools, like real modeling software.  The calc also isn't meant to be a completely replacement for knowledge and experience. 

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/7/2020 at 9:11 AM, Dexterity said:

I’m a little late to the party but the calculator is broken again. When I try to enter the tuning frequency it wont allow me to because it’s been set to view only.

Should be fixed, shoot me a PM if it isn't.  

"Nothing prevents people from knowing the truth more than the belief they already know it."
"Making bass is easy, making music is the hard part."

Builds:

U7qkMTL.jpg  LgPgE9w.jpg  Od2G3u1.jpg  xMyLoO1.jpg  9pAlXUK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 212 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online



×
×
  • Create New...