Originally Posted by MTBDOC
Although it isn't a huge change, I had played around on WinISD @ 1200w looking at ported & sealed configurations. The longer port would allow a bit more juice, would it not?
I really can't make too much sense out of all this, however, as I have yet to grasp how to actually model these slotted ports in WinISD (yes, I have tried to digest the threads such as this: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...so-simple.html
). The correction factor doesn't agree with what the Marty subs utilize.
Anyway, for the umpteenth time, Chris thank you for your STELLAR efforts in this project! When the final details are published (cut & build sheets) that an inexperienced builder like me can follow, I am going to build at least one of these. The performance is simply astonishing!
The modeling programs don’t take port velocity and port compression into account, so the models should look very similar. The longer port will have less rear-chamber volume, which may SLIGHTLY increase power handling and SLIGHTLY reduce low end output, but not by enough to matter.
Real world, the smaller port will experience more port compression and be at a higher risk of port noise. Under 25m/s, I wouldn’t be concerned about either.
Running the shorter port also gives you both tune options.
I really don’t use winisd much any more. I have found hornresp to be closer on port tune. Winisd is still within a few hz at worst though.
I’m pretty sure the end correction is nonfunctional in winisd, don’t bother with that one.
I believe this one is finalized on my end, at least for build purposes. I’ll continue to work with Josh to finish up the measurements.
I’m waiting for him to review the latest ground-plane before I update the main posts.
Getting all the details and cutlists posted on the Index is in John’s court now.
Only special instructions on this one will be wiring and pillows.