I was wondering why no one (from what i can see) has tried using a 6" speaker or possibly 8" speaker in the 13.5" high box and ported the sealed chamber to the same face as the speaker???  With the port terminating on the same face as the speaker i mean.  Would this work with a smaller driver if you could get the sealed chambers volume correct for port and tuned it to around 30-35hz???  Thnx.

[quote author=J_Rock  link=1159652975/0#1 date=1159652920] Add to it that the out of phase waves will be forced to sum in the compression chamber. [/quote]

Just for the sake of argument  :P (In case noone knew, I like to stir the pot sometimes lol)

Could it be possible to make the port long enough that the wave from the port would actually be in phase with the driver? Could that part of the enclosure be modelled?

I never actually tried that direction simply bacause we assumed the wave from the port would be out of phase and would not sum in front of the driver, but cause cancellation.

If you build it, tell us how it works out.

Robert

OK so I made a scale plan on paper of the 36"x36" box.  Then after looking at how db don or w/e that guys name was box was ported into the mouth of the horn i decided maybe he had the right idea.  Using a 1 1/8th inch wide port 13.5 inches tall 21 1/8th inches long that terminates in the same place as db don's (still dont know if thats the right name), I think this will render a pretty low tuning.  O yea, this is a labrinth style port.  Anyways, thats my idea for the day.



[edit] That was a horrible idea.  I dont know why i decided it was worth designing anything with a 1 1/8th inch port.  Anyways, i think i might just go with 2x2" ports or 2x3" ports.

Guys,
Yes it was DBDon,
We have become pretty good friends over the years and he tested a million configurations on the WO as did I.
There is nothing wrong with the 1.125" port. It is a matter of port area. Remember 1.125 x 11 = 12.375 sq inches and a 4" port is only 12.56 sq inches.
If you are doing a labrynth styled port, I find that it works best somewhere close to .5Sd or more. I like to make them 1Sd and a lot longer.
The drawback is a tighter tuning frequency to the output. It makes the thing louder, but it does not have the same smooth frequency response as the origiinal sealed.
This is totally dependant on what you want from the box. SPL is easier to get from the enclosure than SQ by modding. If you are after SQ, stay with sealed. The ports will only decrease the range.
I will get back here soon with a report. I have to get some drawings from Don and I will post some of the tested results too. That should help clear up a lot of the questions concerning what happens with this box. I have some results of my own, but they were never transferred to a computer.
This design is old enough that those graphs were rare when we were testing it.
Mr Ezstreet, for your 6.5s, I will get back to you on those real soon. I apologize for the delay, but I am closing on a house and have been really busy. If you have time, build the WO by the plans first and see what you think. I bet you are pretty happy with it.

Catch you guys later!

Robert

LOL
I thought I was bad!
If I work 16-18 hours, I don't think the WO would keep me awake if it was under my bed!

Robert

I think the port would be best suited as you said, at least 1xSd of the speaker.  with a 1.125" port, thats just not gunna cut it for a 10" or 12" driver, possibly a 6" or less but not very large.  My other idea was wrapping the port around the outside and terminating it on the same face as the mouth of the horn.  That i think would leave enough internal volume for a larger speaker and still be able to yield a relatively low tuning.  Also thinking of using a round port or 2 on the same face.  I like musicality but spl is a larger concern to me.  For the spl end of things though i think hitting higher numbers in the lower ranges (35hz and under) is more impressive than higher notes.

I had an idea very similar to the OP's, It's somewhere down there in this forum.