Allright, in that case.
I am rethinking.
I am going to put it on hold because of all the differant thoughts.
I may even get a speaker tester if I can earn some extra coin.
I think DD was going to put 12" in his and keep the throat exit the same size. I don't recall if he did do it that way.
The most common way to put 12" in the WO is add two inches.
So do you think that keeping the throat size the same will be better or you know.
I understand your logic because " I think it will provide better control and volocity" however the WO being long but small horn to begin with I see the height as an advantage. If I add to much size to the sealed area I may get the typical boom, even
though I am providing the control in the "horn".
Has anyone tried this and it worked better?......
The horn will produce what it is tuned to. the more punch you can kick out of the sealed/ported area will create more SPL in the horn, but being somewhat of a true horn the Freq is not as flexible. That may be an assumption on my part
The woofer should be tuned to the horn in an ideal world or vise versa. The woofer can be a little higher in Fs but not to far because the horn will kill it to a degree.
when people put smaller drivers in the WO and downsize it they are in effect tuning the horn closer to the smaller woofer. creating a healthy little punch at a higher freq.
Where the space is not as critical and you can fit more than a DB but a IMP can't fit the WO does provide more contol and SQ than the HWK. so its a good idea.
I watched alot of talk about the enlarged sealed chamber but have not received any feeback or missed it.
anyway its all just thought and talk until someone builds it and proves it.
your truly, The Gex