Posted October 30, 200519 yr I am designing a new box for my pair of rl-p 15s, looking at this so far6 Cubes NET110in^2 Port Area33hz tuningCurrently 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??
October 30, 200519 yr 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
October 30, 200519 yr 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 far6 Cubes NET110in^2 Port Area33hz tuningCurrently 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}>
October 30, 200519 yr Author Current5.5 @ 35.25 w/ 70Concept5.5 @ 33 w/ 90I 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, 200519 yr by cougarballa2k5
November 2, 200519 yr Current5.5 @ 35.25 w/ 70Concept5.5 @ 33 w/ 90i 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...
November 2, 200519 yr Author Yall all agree the added volume would be a good thing not a bad thing?I was scared they'd go boomy!!
November 3, 200519 yr 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.
November 3, 200519 yr Author 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.
November 3, 200519 yr 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
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.