Front vs Rear Ports

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 11526 times.

SteveRB

Front vs Rear Ports
« on: 9 Jul 2015, 11:57 pm »
Hello,

I've read a lot about bass reflex ports on the front vs the rear of an enclosure -- there seems to be a lot of conflicting info out there. Can any one give a decent summary of pros and cons.

Also how would one calculate the minimum acceptable distance between rear ports and the front wall?

Thanks

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 10741
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #1 on: 10 Jul 2015, 12:47 am »
Primary concern folks raise is, as you mentioned, getting the port too close to the barrier (wall).  IMO that concern involves the overall bass response of any speaker that will go up when placed near a barrier.  Note that typical ported speakers tend to have  a bulge in the bass frequency response to compensate for fast drop off at lower frequencies and close placement to barriers exaggerate that bulge even more.  Note that most either have not considered this effect or disagree with my opinion.

I've calculated the minimum acceptable distance (gap) between rear ported speakers and the barrier (wall) based simply on comparative cross-sectional areas of the port versus the area defined by the perimeter of the speaker multiplied by the gap.  If you use a cross-sectional area of the overall gap as 10 times that of the port (which should minimize the affect of the barrier), you'll answer will be under 1 inch for whatever speaker you pick (big speakers would have bigger perimeter and tend to have larger ports).  So unless you're putting speakers inside a bookcase or such, I can't imagine the dreaded nearby wall affecting the port.

Regardless, good imaging (system/speaker dependent) requires space behind the speakers to develop depth of soundstage, so speakers should be well away from barriers anyway.  This also plays well into trying to minimize the listening room adding to the recording.  Most experts recommend pulling speakers away from all barriers (walls/ceiling) so that first reflections are delayed by at least 0.11 milliseconds so the mind can separate/ignore those reflections which requires an additional 13 feet more reflected versus direct travel distance (about 6 feet from walls).  So either way optimal setup would negate worries about gaps between rear port and walls.


The secondary concern of front versus rear ports is the phase response of the sound coming out of the port versus that of the woofer (it will always be 180 degrees out of phase minus a small delay for the sound to travel from back of driver to the port).  The question is, do you want that sound to be more (front port) or less (rear port) prominent?


Ported design is valid, but care must be taken in floor-standers to not locate the port at near the opposite end from the woofer (as is often seen).  The result is to create a giant flute that simple port design doesn't account for.

SteveRB

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #2 on: 10 Jul 2015, 01:03 am »
Thanks for the summary.

I am currently looking at adding a bass reflex riser to a Klipsch Belle design. The folks at the Klipsch site usually speak highly of this mod to add a little low end to the horn. The theory being, the horn is loaded to about 100hz and then acts as a sealed box below that. The bass drops like a rock below about 40hz. The general 'rule' is tuning the ports to about 35hz for a boosting the last octave 3-5hz depending on eq. The overall volume of the enclosure is about 4.4 cu ft.

The bass reflex mod is considered 'the closest thing to a free lunch in audio' meaning you get added bass with very little trade off. ...when done properly.

I am always concerned with how these big speakers look in my small space. The giant ports on the front are a concern. I would love to get the added benefits with the ports facing rear. You mentioned the prominence of the sound being greater on the front. Considering the directionality and dynamics of the horn design to begin with, front ports may be the best solution.

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 10741
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #3 on: 10 Jul 2015, 12:39 pm »
Traditionally the ideal tweeter height matches your ear height, especially in small rooms, so that the soundstage is on level with the listener(s).  I've had large speakers in small rooms and it was a poor match, too much of a good thing, especially in terms of bass overloading the room.

Hope it goes well for you.

SteveRB

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #4 on: 14 Jul 2015, 09:40 pm »
Hello,

Same project:

just wondering the general sound differences from using one port compared to multiple ports -- assuming both scenarios are tuned to the same frequency and the port area is appropriate for the driver.

Thanks for any info.

SteveRB

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #5 on: 14 Jul 2015, 09:51 pm »
Just for details:

My project calls for two 4" ports at about 8" long. Using WinISD I can have the same tuning using one 4" port at roughly 4" long.

The driver is 15". The volume is roughly 4.4 cu ft.

Are there major issues using only one, shorter 4" port?

Thanks again for humouring my inexperience.

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 20874
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #6 on: 14 Jul 2015, 10:11 pm »
The front acoustic wave from the cone speaker is acoustically positive.
The back acoustic wave from the cone or inside the box is acoustically negative.
So when the + sound waves from cone and the - sound waves from the BR duct met there are some cancellation, similar to that in an OB panel.
For this I prefer rear ducts.

SteveRB

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #7 on: 14 Jul 2015, 10:22 pm »
The front acoustic wave from the cone speaker is acoustically positive.
The back acoustic wave from the cone or inside the box is acoustically negative.
So when the + sound waves from cone and the - sound waves from the BR duct met there are some cancellation, similar to that in an OB panel.
For this I prefer rear ducts.

wow, that's an interesting way of putting it. I have a lot of experience with OB panels.

Any insight on duct sizes?

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 20874
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #8 on: 14 Jul 2015, 10:32 pm »
Wider and longer duct works lower in freq than the small ones.
There is need some calc according TS and the box inside volume.

mcgsxr

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #9 on: 14 Jul 2015, 11:38 pm »
What is the port velocity of the single vs the dual ports?

Sometimes the additional ports help lower the velocity and thus port noise.

I have built a lot of ported subs over the years and prefer rectangular ports to round ports for subs. 

SteveRB

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #10 on: 14 Jul 2015, 11:48 pm »
What is the port velocity of the single vs the dual ports?

Sometimes the additional ports help lower the velocity and thus port noise.

I have built a lot of ported subs over the years and prefer rectangular ports to round ports for subs.

Not sure of port velocity... Tuning will be in the 38Hz neighbourhood with limited stuffing.

mcgsxr

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #11 on: 14 Jul 2015, 11:55 pm »
Win ISD will calc the port velocity.  It is on one of the results pages of the design.  Worth a peek to see it matters.  If not, I'd say use the 1 port!

SteveRB

Re: Front vs Rear Ports
« Reply #12 on: 15 Jul 2015, 12:33 am »
Win ISD will calc the port velocity.  It is on one of the results pages of the design.  Worth a peek to see it matters.  If not, I'd say use the 1 port!

I can't seem to get a stable version of WinISD Pro (alpha). I don't think that 0.44 version does not have port velocity...