K2 M9500 ports

[jim henderson]

The M9500 uses 1400ND in a "Staggered Tuned" alignment. Enclosure Volumes:
78 liters (2.8 cu ft) 35 Hz tuning (upper LF)
115 liters (4.1 cu ft) 28 Hz tuning (lower LF)


My calculations show that a 4.1 cf enclosure tunes to 28 Hz with a 4 D x 7-1/2 L port, and a 2.8 cf enclosure tunes to 35 Hz with a 4 D x 7 L port.

Looking at the M9500 cutaway, the (folded) ports look quite long. Are the ports not 4 in diameter? Are my calculations wrong? Maybe I have the wrong T/S parameters.

[speakerdave]

Hi Jim,
Dennis Leisz measured his at 2.75" diameter by 8.375" long, all four the same. See the M9500 Purchase thread.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=3817&highlight=m9500&page=4

David

[jim henderson]

Ah, that works. I guess my T/S parameters are correct :)

[speakerdave]

Looking at the M9500 cutaway, the (folded) ports look quite long . . . .


?????

Are you looking at the manual for the S9500? Different speaker.

David

[jim henderson]

Oops, you are right :blink: Thanks for seeing that. Any way to change the name of the thread? ;)

I'm looking at the owners manuals for the S9500 and the M9500, along with a picture of the M9500s. Is the only difference that the S9500 ports are on the back and the M9500 ports are on the front?

[speakerdave]

The enclosures for the S9500 are smaller. I've read that they are 2.0 cu. ft., but I don't know how exact that is. I've also read that the top and bottom are the same size, but they don't look like it to me (in the pictures).

David

[Mr. Widget]

I'm looking at the owners manuals for the S9500 and the M9500, along with a picture of the M9500s. Is the only difference that the S9500 ports are on the back and the M9500 ports are on the front?From past conversations with Giskard, the one true source for everything JBL, the M9500 is a significant sonic improvement over the S9500.

I've never actually seen or heard either so I couldn't tell you firsthand.


Widget