Port Area Thoughts

[cougarballa2k5 0]

I am designing a new box for my pair of rl-p 15s, looking at this so far

6 Cubes NET

110in^2 Port Area

33hz tuning

Currently my box is tuned around 36 I beleive, 5.5 cubes NET and 70in^2 port area.

I am looking for overall more output 30 - 50hz.

Is this too much port area? I don't think so...

Should I go down to 5.5 again, but get tuning to 32hz and ~90in^2 port area??

5.5 NET 70in^2 @ 36hz currently. Wanting more from 30 - 50hz WHAT TO DO...blah

??

[mrray13 30]

dropping the tuning and enlarging the enclosure will definitely help bring out some more bottom end.

enlarging the port should help with some output. but u can go too large. and 100+ in^2, IMO, is overkill. will it hurt? probably not, but it's going to make for one long ass port. personally, between 75-90in^2 would be more then enough in the 5.5-6ft^3 enclosure.

in ur situation, i'd go for the 6ft box, 90in^2 of port, tuned about 30hz. that should give u the lowend u are craving. i hope u have a strong midbass setup, because i think u are going to need it.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[noah katz 0]

You can get equivalent performance to a large unflared port from a smaller generously flared one.

I am designing a new box for my pair of rl-p 15s, looking at this so far

6 Cubes NET

110in^2 Port Area

33hz tuning

Currently my box is tuned around 36 I beleive, 5.5 cubes NET and 70in^2 port area.

I am looking for overall more output 30 - 50hz.

Is this too much port area?  I don't think so...

Should I go down to 5.5 again, but get tuning to 32hz and ~90in^2 port area??

5.5 NET 70in^2 @ 36hz currently.  Wanting more from 30 - 50hz  WHAT TO DO...blah

??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[cougarballa2k5 0]

Current

5.5 @ 35.25 w/ 70

Concept

5.5 @ 33 w/ 90

I just want to smooth out the response a bit and overall get louder. I have a visible bit of flex on the baffle. The new box will use a 1.5" thick baffle. The old box has a couple small leaks. The new box will be AIR TIGHT.

I am thinking this will yeild me a dB or two. Something noticeable (I have enough ear time to notice something that small). Also some more SQ with the lower tuning and without the flex and leak.

I am weary of raising volume. For the fear of losing 50 - 65hz. Which is generally where I cross my woofers at (65hz).

Wood, Screws, and Liquid Nails is going to cost me 50 bucks so...this needs to give me my desired result. Anyone doubt it will? I am open for suggestions -- nothing risky though.

Edited October 30, 2005 by cougarballa2k5

[jellyfish420 0]

Current

5.5 @ 35.25 w/ 70

Concept

5.5 @ 33 w/ 90

i doubt you'll even notice that big of a difference between those 2 boxes. i'd do the 6ft @ 30 w/ 90 like kent suggested...

[cougarballa2k5 0]

Yall all agree the added volume would be a good thing not a bad thing?

I was scared they'd go boomy!!

[Supa_c 1]

Dual Brahma 15's

8ft^3 NET

Didnt sound boomy to me

[cougarballa2k5 0]

I don't have Brahma's :-D. Whole different beast.

[Supa_c 1]

Not really....

The RL-p is just as beefy and can take just as much watts.

Mrray13 did a test against a XXX 12 with his RL-p 12. He liked the RL-p better.

[cougarballa2k5 0]

That test was on low power IIRC. The RL-p is a small box woofer. My point was, 4 cubes per RL-p WOULD get boomy. Brahmas are made for that size enclosure, RL-p are not.

[mrray13 30]

that test went all the way up to 2500wrms.....that test is the reason i got my orion 2500d.

from what i gather about the brahma, the rl-p is very compareable. but i've got to agree, i think 4 cubes per would be just too much. 2.5 cubes max IMO. tuned low, like 30hz....

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee