View Single Post
Old 24th March 2019
  #79
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yeky83 View Post
These are over-generalizations and actually don't even make sense.

There's no "smaller box with a smaller hole will ring more" generalization to be made, it depends entirely on the implementation. And all else being the same, dropping the box resonant frequency would decrease the Q-factor in a speaker cab, not increase it.

Over-generalization again. If anything, the larger box and bigger port can be more efficient, thus better fortifying the bottom end. Your experience is anecdotal and not the rule.
(Please don’t misread my tone, I am looking at this as an oppurtunity to learn something)

Is there something in speaker design that is opposite of helmholtz design? When building helmholtz resonators it is very obvious that decreasing the hole size for a given box size (and thus dropping the resonant frequency) increases the specificity of the resonance or the acoustic equivalent of ‘q’.

And obviously a bigger box will have a lower natural resonant frequency, I was talking about the port size and how much it rings in relation to the box size?


And I agree that a larger box with a larger port would be better at fortifying the bottom end but, firstly, because a bigger box has a naturally lower resonance and secondly because you wouldn’t need as much of a ‘ring’ from the ports in order to achieve an extended ‘flat frequency response’ (with a correspondingly better time domain response than a smaller box with an even proportionally smaller hole.) Hence, one could use bigger ports which ring less in a bigger cabinet?

There is also more space for bigger drivers in a big box and so you are hopefully dealing with even more low end output and even less need to fortify that bottom end?

Am I missing anything here?

Last edited by africantigercow; 24th March 2019 at 04:08 PM..