Passives actually dig deeper, they're less peaky (what most people call punchy) and more linear. You should upgrade your system to account for the deeper lows the passive loaded sub has.
@@TheUniversalid care to explain, because I don't think it holds any merit. It all depends on how you design the subwoofer. Huge woofers coupled with a big port tuned to the right frequencies and coupled with a heavy amp should be able to dig deeper and move a lot of air but can also sound slow and boomy. In theory a sub with passives should sound more precise and fast even more so with servo woofers.
@@TheUniversalid if you model passive versus ported, passive always rolls off faster than the ported equivalent even when set to the same tuning frequency. There is a scientific reason for it, but I can't remember it at the moment. What you often see in ported designs is very compromised ports that don't allow the driver to get near the tuning frequency and achieve x-max which may give the impression that a well set out PR can out perform it. Even in this video you can hear that the ported is playing slightly lower than the passive, but you have to be careful not to be tricked by your ears. The ported woofer in this demonstration has a much longer decay time than the passive radiator and this can fool your ears into thinking there is more bass there than there actually is. You need to look the frequency it is reaching not the duration of the note.
@@SoundBlab the passive radiator has two additional spiders to help return the driver to its neutral position and the volume of air is captive (has some stored energy). While the port has to move its column of air mass backwards and forwards within the port / port openings. Any movement of air through a port is subject to friction and therefore drag (why a single big port is preferable). This directly affect the drivers ability to return the cone back to its starting position. This condition is often referred to as sounding muddy, because it is often trying to play the next note while it is still trying to play the current one due to the slow returning driver cone. Resulting in a smeared sound. This is not punch, as that is the domain of Force Factor, the Bl (motor strength) of the driver which determines the drivers ability to punch the cone forward. Definition is the ability to hear the subtle nuances of instruments, not the clarity in which it is played. Even though they are often linked. What is extremely noticeable even through your UA-cam video is that the passive radiator has far more control over the driver than the ported one. This is what gives the woofer a much crisper sound to the notes, it is not being smeared like the ported woofer. For the ported woofer I would redesign that with a larger diameter single port and much longer. Don't be afraid to take the port out of the box and bring it back in to get the length you need.
The whole Concept of using a passive radiator (to me) is Genius! I have noticed that most of the time, Passive Radiators are used in small to very small enclosures. Being able to tune (somewhat) with the weight added or deducted to the Passive Radiator is very cool! I thought up a way to do this with a water bladder years ago but never did it. Life gets busy, so someone play with that and don’t forget me when you get wealthy! 😉
Great video! Both should indeed perform about the same, as they're based on the same principle (the helmholz resonator). In a 2-way, a passive radiator has a big advantage. In such speakers, a bass reflex port will most likely generate significant amounts of port resonance in the passband of the midbass driver. This can be avoided by using a passive radiator.
Nice comparison. The PR sub sounded cleaner and punchier. I use to only have ported subs but the last one I built, I used PRs. Much cleaner sounding. One thing to note is, even though they are the same concept, the PRs usually roll off faster than a ported box.
@@ashyouknow7420 welcome to the audio world where everything is a compromise. I gave up about a decade ago trying to make the perfect speaker because it is impossible. The laws of physics are working against us every chance they get. The best you can hope for is to determine what sounds good to you, and optimise best you can to achieve that result, but perfection is an unobtainable dream. Guess that is why we spend so much money trying to get close to it.
The purpose of the passive radiator is to save space. However, these enclosures are nearly the same size. In my opinion, not the best way to demonstrate the full potential of radiators, but entertaining and educational nonetheless. Thumbs up.
Despite what most people think, bass is the hardest part of the frequency to get right. The modeling software can tell you that they look the same on the screen, but your ears will know the difference. Ported by it very nature will have more SPL than PRs, some of what you heard may be attributed to that, but in general a badly designed ported will sound boomy.
The problem with ports is in small boxes they have to be long and/or skinny to play low because air is so light. If you listened in an Argon atmosphere perhaps you could have sensible port dimensions, but seeing as you want to breathe, passive radiators are good being heavy enough to resonate down low.
You should turn mids and highs off so we can hear better the bass. Also u should use songs with more low notes, i feel like i cant decide which one is better because there is no graphics too
Good build but very hard to hear the sub properly over the other speakers. You need to disconnect the other speakers to get a real sense of clarity of the sub.
In a remote listening it seems to me that the PR has a better decay on transients and a higher damping than the Reflex. It must be said that for a good reflex tuning you should NOT use a tube longer than three times its diameter to avoid the “organ pipe” effect that is clearly heard in the reflex design. In the project with PR it seems to me that there is some imbalance between the dimensions and parameters of the woofer and the passive radiators. Normally the passive radiator is a "size" higher than the diameter of the woofer and must have a useful excursion about double compared to the woofer that drives it. Increasing the mass and diameter of passive radiators a lot is not always an advantage, I would have tried with the woofer and only one passive radiator on the opposite side. Not knowing the parameters of the components you used I could also be wrong. Congratulations on a very well done job.
Thanks. The PRs were modelled in WinsISD, so they check out in theory. One was not able to cope with the excursion of the subwoofer on its own unfortunately.
Luca that was my observation also. The PR had much better decay rates to the point it was very noticeable. I have not heard the theory that the port length shouldn't be any longer than 3 times the diameter before. That sounds like a very generic rule of thumb. To achieve a short port length you must reduce the port diameter which in most cases means that you are never going to achieve x-max, and when driven at high power you are going to exceed desired port air speed which is going to cause chuffing. Since the column of air mainly moves backwards and forwards in a Helmholtz resonator the length of the port is unimportant to some degree. I would be much more concerned with friction / turbulence in a smaller diameter pipe than I would with excessive length. The larger the diameter the less pressure / air speed the pipe is going to experience, and less time in changing the direction of the air. Not sure why you would have tried a single PR over two PRs when all sizing formulas suggest at least double the air volume of the driven driver. To my way of thinking the PR is not electrically controlled like the driver, and it only has the spider and compressible air to control it's movement, so I would be looking for the least amount of cone excursion I could get. Ideally I think I would go with more PRs to reduce the cone movement further still if it was both practically and economically affordable. The TC Sounds 18" VMPs I bought for my sub cost me like $1,000 each delivered, so I have bough only two, otherwise I would have bought more.
I honestly couldn't tell the difference with my earbuds. However, I'm sure they both sound great in person. I have only owned ported subs for my setup. Nice to see something different.
That's because ear buds can't play anywhere near low enough to hear sub notes. Forget what the marketing speel tells you, you need diameter to reach low notes.
@@DodgyBrothersEngineering a lot of IEMs can produce bass frequencies loud enough to hear. A 9mm driver won't be as loud as a 12in driver, but the 9mm of the in ear monitor actually goes inside of the ear, unlike a 12in loaded sub box, you'll have problems if you try to put that inside your ear hole, don't recommend..
I would of liked to have seen you do a calibrated microphone test on both of these so we can compare the graph. It may of helped show where the distortion was coming from.
There are more mechanical losses with PRs, especially multiple PRs but they sometimes make up for it by taking up less air volume inside the box compared to port tubes. They also allow for smaller enclosures to be tuned lower since PRs can be tuned lower by increasing the moving mass instead of making ridiculously long ports that don't fit inside the box. PRs also don't suffer from port turbulence and chuffing. I do agree that there are more advantages to PRs than ports, even if slightly less efficient, however, cost is definitely a big disadvantage since PRs can cost as much as active drivers.
Is there a video where you go in mroe detail about the circle cutting jig? Do you use one bit to route the lip, and then adjust the jig and change bits to cut through all the way?
I do not have a video like that, but perhaps something I should do for the future. I use the same straight cut bit for both actions. I just adjust the cutting circle for each cut. To cur the lip, I will make one cut to establish the outer diameter, then adjust inwards incrementally until the width of the lip is cut, then I cut all the way through.
The guys from parts express told me to never add more than 160% of weight of the normal Mms of the speaker itself Data sheet says it has about 40g x 1,6 -> 64g, you´ve added 125g ?! that´s like about the double amount of that. Can you explain why you´ve added that much ? Did you do measurements, what the tuning frequency finally was ?
I just found out that I could build something called Isobaric Subwoofer @@SoundBlab I think my question was if I can use 2 Subs that have a magnet in the same enclosure with just the one amplifier. Similar to adding the passive Radiator
Personally I prefer the Passive Radiator version because I think it allows more flexibility in room placement. The ported version is probably less expensive to make if you can find the 40mm PVC pipe with a 36mm internal diameter.
love it. from the way im hearing it (ive been making music for a long time, and have a good set up)... i prefer the ported by far. impossible to tell give the sircumstances. have you done one of these vids of a larger driver?
It really is a close call between the two. I went back and forth in my mind when listening to these as to which one I thought is tops. Have not done a larger sub comparison this way, but hopefully in the future!
Tough to tell with this setup (via recording on UA-cam), but I think he's right on the clarity. In the first clip especially the ported enclosure seems to have a peak that makes the bass somewhat more prominent. Ultimately it's subjective.
Ported enclosures have both port chuffing as well as box noise funnelling out of said port. Passive is far tighter and cleaner, but benefits from the same energy as a port and is far easier to tune.
How do you properly calculate the passive radiator displacement volume (V_d) which is the surface area (S_d) times maximum excursion (X_max)? Obviously it would be based on the specs of the speaker driver you are complementing but I feel things get messy when you add in weights a such. How is that you can define these parameters and then find the right passive radiator online (not many options for smaller setups). Also, when calculating net volume of enclosure with the passive radiator, does the volume depend on the size of radiator you choose or vice versa?
@@SoundBlab Thank you for the heads up. I'm curious though, I just downloaded the program and have been playing around with it. As for the passive radiators I'd be using for my enclosure size (very small bluetooth speaker setup), none have any parameters listed by the manufacturers (ebay) that I can input except "Sd." How can I get around this; is it ideal to match the free resonant frequency of the driver to the passive radiator or the passive radiator to the box?
It is a Triton, an Australian make. Try toolcraft.co.za or topdogtools.co.za . These come in 3 different size models. I have the smaller and medium sized ones.
and that is the point you should stop spending money Fernando. I can hear a massive difference, but if they sound the same to you buy the cheaper one, no point in spending money on what you can't hear.
@@Fernando.Canal2 I have been in this hobby for 40 years, so I have done a lot of critical listening in that time. Sometimes all you need is a lot of exposure to it to be able to start hearing it, but until you can hear the difference you may as well spend that money on beer or wine to drink while you enjoy what you have. Have a good one...
We use the weight to tune the resonance frequency of the PR, in turn this determines the bass output of the speaker system. By making the weight more or less, we can make how low the subwoofer goes more or less, within the limits of the PR of course. A very basic explanation, but I hope it helps to understand how it works.
Olá amigo,você pode ajudar com um projeto,tenho um woffer de 6.5 polegadas de 180w com o fs de 44 hetz,um par de Tweeter domo de seda e um radiador passivo de 6.5 polegadas também, qual litragem você me indica pra esse projeto?
@@SoundBlab as strange as this may sound, female vocalist can have some of the strongest bass tracks. For example Celine Dion - The Power Of Love. The good thing about female voices is they are not competing in the lower frequencies you are trying to listen to, so there is a clear line between the bass track and the vocals.
@@SoundBlab of course if you are looking for something a little more mainstream bass then it is pretty hard to go past something like ChoirBoys. Boys Will Be Boys is a decent bass track. The whole Big Bad Noise album is pretty decent.
why use two ports .you will need to extent the tube length on both port making it able to flex ..you are better off using a slotted port .A single port would do the same job with shorter tube ..i can't stand passive radiators especially if they are mounted on the same baffle ..as a studio sound engineer i can clearly hear phasing on certain frequency .Ported sub are far superior and practical
There was no optimal space for the slotted port without obstructing the back panel where the amp goes. A single port would've been too big and potential port noise. Designs are a combination of compromises, and there is often no perfect solution.
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/soundblab09211
Cool
They both sound great. The ported sub is surprisingly punchy. The passive radiator one is a bit clearer but doesn't seem to dig as deep
Yeah, its a bit like definition vs punch. Its slight though but there.
Passives actually dig deeper, they're less peaky (what most people call punchy) and more linear. You should upgrade your system to account for the deeper lows the passive loaded sub has.
@@TheUniversalid care to explain, because I don't think it holds any merit. It all depends on how you design the subwoofer. Huge woofers coupled with a big port tuned to the right frequencies and coupled with a heavy amp should be able to dig deeper and move a lot of air but can also sound slow and boomy. In theory a sub with passives should sound more precise and fast even more so with servo woofers.
@@TheUniversalid if you model passive versus ported, passive always rolls off faster than the ported equivalent even when set to the same tuning frequency. There is a scientific reason for it, but I can't remember it at the moment. What you often see in ported designs is very compromised ports that don't allow the driver to get near the tuning frequency and achieve x-max which may give the impression that a well set out PR can out perform it. Even in this video you can hear that the ported is playing slightly lower than the passive, but you have to be careful not to be tricked by your ears. The ported woofer in this demonstration has a much longer decay time than the passive radiator and this can fool your ears into thinking there is more bass there than there actually is. You need to look the frequency it is reaching not the duration of the note.
@@SoundBlab the passive radiator has two additional spiders to help return the driver to its neutral position and the volume of air is captive (has some stored energy). While the port has to move its column of air mass backwards and forwards within the port / port openings. Any movement of air through a port is subject to friction and therefore drag (why a single big port is preferable). This directly affect the drivers ability to return the cone back to its starting position.
This condition is often referred to as sounding muddy, because it is often trying to play the next note while it is still trying to play the current one due to the slow returning driver cone. Resulting in a smeared sound. This is not punch, as that is the domain of Force Factor, the Bl (motor strength) of the driver which determines the drivers ability to punch the cone forward. Definition is the ability to hear the subtle nuances of instruments, not the clarity in which it is played. Even though they are often linked.
What is extremely noticeable even through your UA-cam video is that the passive radiator has far more control over the driver than the ported one. This is what gives the woofer a much crisper sound to the notes, it is not being smeared like the ported woofer. For the ported woofer I would redesign that with a larger diameter single port and much longer. Don't be afraid to take the port out of the box and bring it back in to get the length you need.
The whole Concept of using a passive radiator (to me) is Genius! I have noticed that most of the time, Passive Radiators are used in small to very small enclosures. Being able to tune (somewhat) with the weight added or deducted to the Passive Radiator is very cool! I thought up a way to do this with a water bladder years ago but never did it. Life gets busy, so someone play with that and don’t forget me when you get wealthy! 😉
I've also wondered about expandible enclosures, unconventional builds. Using a bladder with cement as a mold?....
Passive radiator is slightly clearer and punchier, but ported are slightly deeper.
For the bass strength, they are perform about the same
Those little bookshelf speakers just LOOK AMAZING !! rounded over corners their size !! Love them !
Thanks!
Great video! Both should indeed perform about the same, as they're based on the same principle (the helmholz resonator).
In a 2-way, a passive radiator has a big advantage. In such speakers, a bass reflex port will most likely generate significant amounts of port resonance in the passband of the midbass driver. This can be avoided by using a passive radiator.
Thanks
Jan what’s the midbass frequency according to you. I feel it’s 40-70
To my ears the ported sub sounded far superior. great job!
Thanks 👍
Very nice video bro. Love your work. Respect from u.s!
Thanks man!
Nice comparison. The PR sub sounded cleaner and punchier. I use to only have ported subs but the last one I built, I used PRs. Much cleaner sounding. One thing to note is, even though they are the same concept, the PRs usually roll off faster than a ported box.
Yes, I guess that's the trade-off for getting clearer sound
That's mostly due to model of PR. A well tuned passive can have a very wide response.
The reason for that is when you go below the tuning frequency of the passive, they go out of phase with the main driver, causing cancellation
@@Luke-qs2cg so does a port.
@@ashyouknow7420 welcome to the audio world where everything is a compromise. I gave up about a decade ago trying to make the perfect speaker because it is impossible. The laws of physics are working against us every chance they get. The best you can hope for is to determine what sounds good to you, and optimise best you can to achieve that result, but perfection is an unobtainable dream. Guess that is why we spend so much money trying to get close to it.
The purpose of the passive radiator is to save space. However, these enclosures are nearly the same size. In my opinion, not the best way to demonstrate the full potential of radiators, but entertaining and educational nonetheless. Thumbs up.
Passive rad got a tighter bass response while the ported has a more boomy sound for me.
Despite what most people think, bass is the hardest part of the frequency to get right. The modeling software can tell you that they look the same on the screen, but your ears will know the difference. Ported by it very nature will have more SPL than PRs, some of what you heard may be attributed to that, but in general a badly designed ported will sound boomy.
The subwoofer is awesome! And your videos are amazing
Thanks man!
I have been waiting for this for so long!
Would be interesting if the passive radiator box was noticeably smaller.
Soundlab always makes great , iam your big fan .
Thanks a lot 😊
@@SoundBlab ❤❤♥️
The passive radiator model provides significantly more impact and clearer bass notes.
The problem with ports is in small boxes they have to be long and/or skinny to play low because air is so light. If you listened in an Argon atmosphere perhaps you could have sensible port dimensions, but seeing as you want to breathe, passive radiators are good being heavy enough to resonate down low.
I think the passive is lower bass and punchier cleaner crisper 🤷♀️
You should turn mids and highs off so we can hear better the bass.
Also u should use songs with more low notes, i feel like i cant decide which one is better because there is no graphics too
Use your 👂
Good build but very hard to hear the sub properly over the other speakers. You need to disconnect the other speakers to get a real sense of clarity of the sub.
To me the greatest challenge has always been finding the right and Cost effective low pass filter board for the subwoofer
Low pass? For this, you want to pass at around 100hz. There are tons of choices for that
Turned out beautifully ❤️
Thanks
The PR sub sounds more impactful, but i do like both subs.
Thankjs
Which is the software do you use to calculate the radiator, weight and speaker box?
To my ears the passive speaker sub had no sudden resonance peaks and the ported one did howl a bit
Now you have a deep bass
Very good
👊
In a remote listening it seems to me that the PR has a better decay on transients and a higher damping than the Reflex. It must be said that for a good reflex tuning you should NOT use a tube longer than three times its diameter to avoid the “organ pipe” effect that is clearly heard in the reflex design. In the project with PR it seems to me that there is some imbalance between the dimensions and parameters of the woofer and the passive radiators. Normally the passive radiator is a "size" higher than the diameter of the woofer and must have a useful excursion about double compared to the woofer that drives it. Increasing the mass and diameter of passive radiators a lot is not always an advantage, I would have tried with the woofer and only one passive radiator on the opposite side. Not knowing the parameters of the components you used I could also be wrong. Congratulations on a very well done job.
Thanks. The PRs were modelled in WinsISD, so they check out in theory. One was not able to cope with the excursion of the subwoofer on its own unfortunately.
Luca that was my observation also. The PR had much better decay rates to the point it was very noticeable. I have not heard the theory that the port length shouldn't be any longer than 3 times the diameter before. That sounds like a very generic rule of thumb. To achieve a short port length you must reduce the port diameter which in most cases means that you are never going to achieve x-max, and when driven at high power you are going to exceed desired port air speed which is going to cause chuffing. Since the column of air mainly moves backwards and forwards in a Helmholtz resonator the length of the port is unimportant to some degree. I would be much more concerned with friction / turbulence in a smaller diameter pipe than I would with excessive length. The larger the diameter the less pressure / air speed the pipe is going to experience, and less time in changing the direction of the air.
Not sure why you would have tried a single PR over two PRs when all sizing formulas suggest at least double the air volume of the driven driver. To my way of thinking the PR is not electrically controlled like the driver, and it only has the spider and compressible air to control it's movement, so I would be looking for the least amount of cone excursion I could get. Ideally I think I would go with more PRs to reduce the cone movement further still if it was both practically and economically affordable.
The TC Sounds 18" VMPs I bought for my sub cost me like $1,000 each delivered, so I have bough only two, otherwise I would have bought more.
The best most authentic subs 9/10 times is sealed with and without PRs
I honestly couldn't tell the difference with my earbuds. However, I'm sure they both sound great in person. I have only owned ported subs for my setup. Nice to see something different.
That's because ear buds can't play anywhere near low enough to hear sub notes. Forget what the marketing speel tells you, you need diameter to reach low notes.
@@DodgyBrothersEngineering a lot of IEMs can produce bass frequencies loud enough to hear. A 9mm driver won't be as loud as a 12in driver, but the 9mm of the in ear monitor actually goes inside of the ear, unlike a 12in loaded sub box, you'll have problems if you try to put that inside your ear hole, don't recommend..
I would of liked to have seen you do a calibrated microphone test on both of these so we can compare the graph. It may of helped show where the distortion was coming from.
Passive radiator make deep bass
10-20% better than ported
There are more mechanical losses with PRs, especially multiple PRs but they sometimes make up for it by taking up less air volume inside the box compared to port tubes. They also allow for smaller enclosures to be tuned lower since PRs can be tuned lower by increasing the moving mass instead of making ridiculously long ports that don't fit inside the box. PRs also don't suffer from port turbulence and chuffing. I do agree that there are more advantages to PRs than ports, even if slightly less efficient, however, cost is definitely a big disadvantage since PRs can cost as much as active drivers.
How to calculate the weight of the washer, that are connected to the radiator...
I used software called WinISD
Is there a video where you go in mroe detail about the circle cutting jig? Do you use one bit to route the lip, and then adjust the jig and change bits to cut through all the way?
I do not have a video like that, but perhaps something I should do for the future. I use the same straight cut bit for both actions. I just adjust the cutting circle for each cut. To cur the lip, I will make one cut to establish the outer diameter, then adjust inwards incrementally until the width of the lip is cut, then I cut all the way through.
How do you match the passive radiator to the subwoofer?
I Use free software called WinISD
Love the build! What software did you use to calculate what you needed regarding the passive radiators?
WinISD
The PR build has more kick and attack than ported am I right? you can tell a little bit if you use good iems or headphones I used 7hz Timeless iems.
beautiful
Thank you! 😊
Why do you pre-cut the driver hole but not the passive radiator hole? Seems like cutting both holes after would be easier?
I think I did reference to that initial mistake in the video, but yes I did do both after the veneer in the second enclosure.
both good sound but passive is good with rain and wet pool proof from water
The guys from parts express told me to never add more than 160% of weight of the normal Mms of the speaker itself
Data sheet says it has about 40g x 1,6 -> 64g, you´ve added 125g ?! that´s like about the double amount of that.
Can you explain why you´ve added that much ? Did you do measurements, what the tuning frequency finally was ?
The ported one seems like it hits harder on my computer speakers. Just a little more punchy
👍
Why two passive radiators and why are they bigger in diameter than the driver ?
i can hear that ported has brr sound to it while Radiator one has cleaner that eliminates the brrr brr sound i mean Distorted
Ik maak een stoel voorvde subwoofer 12 inch draiver 15 inch passief met adjustable mass ...unbeatebel experiance ..i´m in love of my subwoofer
I love your builds how do I get the electronics board and the speakers I want to copy you from Uganda
The links to the parts are in the description. You can also purchase the build plans from my website here: soundblab.net/build-plans/
Amazing video! Can you tell how to measure the weight to use on the radiator? I have a 250w 10" subwoofer and a 10" radiator
Thanks. Will need the TS parameters of the passive and driver to work that out. You can use a free app called WinISD to do it.
looks awesome
Thanks
Does it make sense to add 2 aktive subwoofers into the same closure?
I would suggest two subwoofer drivers driven by the same amplifier, not each with its own. The size of the enclosure will have to double though.
I just found out that I could build something called Isobaric Subwoofer @@SoundBlab
I think my question was if I can use 2 Subs that have a magnet in the same enclosure with just the one amplifier. Similar to adding the passive Radiator
What is the name of the sticky foam you put around the speaker hole?
It is a self-adhesive weather strip. amzn.to/3sre0tL
BOX PASSIVE RADIATOR GOOD BRO 😍🇮🇩
Thanks
Whitch komponents are installed
But which is better for smaller setups i cant build anything larger than a 6 inch sub cause of space constraint.
Personally I prefer the Passive Radiator version because I think it allows more flexibility in room placement. The ported version is probably less expensive to make if you can find the 40mm PVC pipe with a 36mm internal diameter.
Long bass for passive,,, right?
Please, show us how to make Reference Studio Monitors for mixing! Thx :D
Wow ur really wonderful in making powerful subwoofers sir... My self venu from india.
Thanks 😊
I like the passive sub more wen I listen
🤙🏻
What is the cft for both enclosures?
Does the ported have the same (cubic feet) internal volume as the passive design? What is the cft for the passive design?
In this case more or less yes. All the details for the designs are in my build plans on my website soundblab.net
I prefer on Passive Radiator
Am Having Sony IV300 home theater, am not happy with subwoofer. please Suggest replacement for that.
Sorry, but I don't have experience with the Sony system, so can't really comment on a suitable replacement.
love it.
from the way im hearing it (ive been making music for a long time, and have a good set up)... i prefer the ported by far.
impossible to tell give the sircumstances.
have you done one of these vids of a larger driver?
It really is a close call between the two. I went back and forth in my mind when listening to these as to which one I thought is tops.
Have not done a larger sub comparison this way, but hopefully in the future!
Tough to tell with this setup (via recording on UA-cam), but I think he's right on the clarity. In the first clip especially the ported enclosure seems to have a peak that makes the bass somewhat more prominent.
Ultimately it's subjective.
Ported enclosures have both port chuffing as well as box noise funnelling out of said port. Passive is far tighter and cleaner, but benefits from the same energy as a port and is far easier to tune.
@@SoundBlab can u consider a larger sub project all your projects are revolving on 6.5” sub we can’t get pressure with that driver min a 10”
Ported seems to have slightly deep base
👍🏻
How do you properly calculate the passive radiator displacement volume (V_d) which is the surface area (S_d) times maximum excursion (X_max)? Obviously it would be based on the specs of the speaker driver you are complementing but I feel things get messy when you add in weights a such. How is that you can define these parameters and then find the right passive radiator online (not many options for smaller setups). Also, when calculating net volume of enclosure with the passive radiator, does the volume depend on the size of radiator you choose or vice versa?
I use software called WinISD to design the enclosures and use the manufacturer spec for the passive radiators to make the final design.
@@SoundBlab Thank you for the heads up. I'm curious though, I just downloaded the program and have been playing around with it. As for the passive radiators I'd be using for my enclosure size (very small bluetooth speaker setup), none have any parameters listed by the manufacturers (ebay) that I can input except "Sd." How can I get around this; is it ideal to match the free resonant frequency of the driver to the passive radiator or the passive radiator to the box?
I like the music
👍🏻
Nice build.. what is name song track?
What router do you have ? And where can you get it in South Africa. ?
It is a Triton, an Australian make. Try toolcraft.co.za or topdogtools.co.za . These come in 3 different size models. I have the smaller and medium sized ones.
i finally switched to sealed subs. there is no going back (to ported)
I hear woofer responses in your audio clip, not SUB Woofer response.
:05, the Minion sub
I didn't hear a difference that encourages to spend a lot more money and time working with passive radiators. Thanks for sharing this video
Thank you!
and that is the point you should stop spending money Fernando. I can hear a massive difference, but if they sound the same to you buy the cheaper one, no point in spending money on what you can't hear.
@@DodgyBrothersEngineering absolutely agree. Maybe it makes difference right in place. I meant I can't hear difference here. Have a great week
@@Fernando.Canal2 I have been in this hobby for 40 years, so I have done a lot of critical listening in that time. Sometimes all you need is a lot of exposure to it to be able to start hearing it, but until you can hear the difference you may as well spend that money on beer or wine to drink while you enjoy what you have. Have a good one...
@@DodgyBrothersEngineering this is so great hobby. I am at beginning with this and have a lot to learn with guys like you.
Mantap
What is the -3db for the sub?
Approximately 33Hz if I remember correctly.
@@SoundBlab thank you sir
I can easily hear the difference. The passive radiator sub sounded cleaner and snappier.
The ported subwoofer sounded kind of muddy and slow.
Awesome 👍 what software you use for box design render
Thanks. SketchUp.
@@SoundBlab thanks
@@saad878 your welcome
Simulated response? And what software did you use?
I used WinISD for box/response simulation.
@@SoundBlab Thank you :)
Through my generic ears, the ported sounded loose and long and the passive radiator sounded tight and short.
Passive radiatör
Deep Bass 🤌👌👍
Why 125 grams? Im newbie here.
We use the weight to tune the resonance frequency of the PR, in turn this determines the bass output of the speaker system. By making the weight more or less, we can make how low the subwoofer goes more or less, within the limits of the PR of course. A very basic explanation, but I hope it helps to understand how it works.
@@SoundBlab what is max size of the PR? e.g : 2x woofer size. Is there rule of thumb?
prefer ported. just need a hole and some pipe no need extra money for passive radiator 🤣
It is the more cost effective option yes.
Olá amigo,você pode ajudar com um projeto,tenho um woffer de 6.5 polegadas de 180w com o fs de 44 hetz,um par de Tweeter domo de seda e um radiador passivo de 6.5 polegadas também, qual litragem você me indica pra esse projeto?
Do I spy a fellow SaFa??
they have the same sound.
Passive more punching
Like for Lported
Dislike for Passive
that is waaaaaay too much mass on the pr's
What makes you say that? Not disagreeing, just curious as to why you think it.
No it isn't. If it was too much, the PR's would go into oscillating runaway at low frequencies.
I heard better in the second! Lol. Thanks!
😲😲😲👍👍
👊
I choose the port cos bass more kick & deep
Nice build but stupid music :)
Agree was not good sub testing music.
What do you suggest?
@@SoundBlab as strange as this may sound, female vocalist can have some of the strongest bass tracks. For example Celine Dion - The Power Of Love. The good thing about female voices is they are not competing in the lower frequencies you are trying to listen to, so there is a clear line between the bass track and the vocals.
@@SoundBlab of course if you are looking for something a little more mainstream bass then it is pretty hard to go past something like ChoirBoys. Boys Will Be Boys is a decent bass track. The whole Big Bad Noise album is pretty decent.
@@SoundBlab search it extreme deep bass test ncs for this kind of test
why use two ports .you will need to extent the tube length on both port making it able to flex ..you are better off using a slotted port .A single port would do the same job with shorter tube ..i can't stand passive radiators especially if they are mounted on the same baffle ..as a studio sound engineer i can clearly hear phasing on certain frequency .Ported sub are far superior and practical
There was no optimal space for the slotted port without obstructing the back panel where the amp goes. A single port would've been too big and potential port noise. Designs are a combination of compromises, and there is often no perfect solution.
😎👏👏🔉🎶🎶