Sealed Statement or Modified Statement Questions

[snmhanson]

As many of you may know, I have just finished building some Statement Monitors and a 2RCC. I love the speakers and certainly have no complaints. However, after seeing the aesthetics of the 2RCC I am finding myself wanting to build something with more drivers for my mains. I would build the regular Statements but I just don't have a place to locate them. I do have a couple placement options for the sealed Statements though. I saw the cabinet drawings on Curts website and saw one build thread on them and I like the driver combination and layout. My biggest concern though is whether they would be a big enough step up from my ported Monitors or not to make it worth it. In particular, how would the low end compare to the Monitors? The sealed Statements use two woofers that are larger than the single woofer in the Monitor, but they are sealed versus ported, so how does that all hash out? I also wonder how the sealed Statement would sound relative to the full sized Statement, which obviously has plenty of positive feedback. Anyone have any hands on experience or general input comparing the sealed Statements to either of those? Also, do the sealed statements use the same crossover as the regular full size Statements?

I would love it if there was a ported Statement with the same approximate dimensions and driver combo as the sealed Statement. Any chance the dimensions of the regular Statements could be changed to make it the same height as the sealed Statement but a bit deeper to increase volume needed for the port (I know the width would have to remain constant)? I am guessing that the biggest issue in this regard would be the tunnels. I read that 22" seems to be the max length for the tunnels, is that right? If I could design a cabinet with volume equal to that of the Statements in a shorter, stouter package that did not exceed 22" deep would that still work?

I've still got a few minor things to finish up and tweak on my Monitors and the 2RCC but I think I have been bitten by the bug and can't wait to get started on a new build. I learned so much on the last build that I can see my next project being just that much better.

Thanks,

Matt

[HeatMiser]

Sealed full Statements are good down to the 40s IIRC and move substantially more air/get louder than the Monitors, so given that you appear to have a capable sub already for HT use I'd think sealed Statements would be a great choice. Some folks might even like sealed Statements+sub better than full ported Statements; sealed ~.7 Q bass that digs down into the kick drum range can have a certain special "impactfulness" when done right.

There's a thread somewhere where Jim commented a bit on this, I'll see if I can dig it up.

edit: linky http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=33963

[snmhanson]

Thanks for the response and the link - it was a great thread for me to read. I think I'll get started on my plans and gathering parts for a pair of sealed statements. Just don't tell my wife - she's relieved that I have finally "finished" building my speakers.

Matt

[fordmaker]

I would build the regular Statements but I just don't have a place to locate them. I do have a couple placement options for the sealed Statements though.

Don't forget the sealed statement still has an open back mid and needs appropriate spacing from the rear wall. Also, the sealed statement is designed to be stacked on a stand or on top of a bass bin to get the tweeter up to ear height.

Edit: Oops, you already discussed the tunnel depth. Sorry!

I would love it if there was a ported Statement with the same approximate dimensions and driver combo as the sealed Statement.

Have you ruled out the mini statement with its 44" height and pair of RS-180's?

I am always watching for anyone to post first hand impressions of the statements - both sealed and ported, as I am slowly amassing a huge pile of parts in the closet and plan to start a build sometime in the next year. I'm afraid of the size of the ported units but I'm also afraid of giving up the bass potential! (I would like to run them full range in a rather large, open room.)

This is a quote from Jim - post #566 of the main build thread, referring to the sealed Statements.

If you cut them 40" high with the same baffle width and cabinet depth you'll end up with a box alignment of around .65 which is excellent for sealed bass. The bass quantity and quality would be very similar to Ryan's RS 3-ways.

The problem is, you still have to get the ribbon at seated ear height so they'll have to sit them on something to raise them up high enough.

Crossover will not be affected. Check out That Dave's posts on 9/29 and 10/1 for sealed sound quality impressions. Really the only difference you'll notice is the bass doesn't go as deep in a sealed configuration. Mids and highs will be the same.

Good Luck!
Matt

[snmhanson]

Thanks for all of the comments. It brings up several important considerations. One of the main issues is that my subs that the speakers would sit on top of are 24" tall. For the regular sealed Statements, the tweeter would be at 44". I think around 42" would be the ideal tweeter height based on the current height of my Monitor tweeters. To further complicate things, all of my speakers have a curved side design motif and I would like to stay consistent with it. Leaving the baffle width the same, this decreases the volume and requires a compensating increase in height or depth.

So, what I came up with is a 38" tall speaker that has 8' radius curved sides and is 19 3/4" deep including the baffle. The driver configuration and distances from each other would remain the same, only there would be one inch less from the outer edges of the woofers to the top and bottom of the speaker. The tunnels would be 18 1/2" long compared to 14 1/2" in the regular version. Also, the tweeter level would be at 43", although I could probably take the feet off my subs to lower everything by an inch.

Any comments on that plan? My biggest concern is the increased depth of the tunnels and how that may effect the voicing and placement requirements. My only other question right now has to do with the placement requirements for the sealed Statements. I built the near wall version of the Monitors and forgot to consider that the other Statement speakers are designed to be farther out from the wall. I will be lucky to have 12" from the rear of the speaker to the wall. Will that be adequate?

Thanks,

Matt

[fordmaker]

Adjusting the tweeter height a couple of inches (without shortening the box) should be possible. Take a look at FroDaddy's build thread, post 114.

http://htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=453467&postcount=114

He shifted the speakers in the baffle four inches. The sealed statements have two less inches from center of tweeter to either top or bottom - so I suppose you could still shift two inches down without altering the box volume. (I should hope two or three inches of tweeter height difference from a listening distance of eight or more feet away would be imperceptable.)

Keeping the box height might let you do the curved sides and maintain volume without being as deep. If you are concerned about not having enough space behind the speakers to the wall, would designing an extra deep speaker seem counter productive? I don't remember where I saw it, but I believe 12 inches was the absolute minimum distance to the rear wall.

Matt

[fordmaker]

I was just looking at your entertainment center in another thread. Very nice looking setup. It would be great if someone with first-hand experience with the statements could comment on how they might sound stacked on your sub(s). It looks like they would be quite close to the side walls, putting them in "corners".

Matt

[snmhanson]

Thanks for the feedback. Thinking about your comments, I am having some doubts about my plan. I could move the tweeters up and down a bit, but I don't know if I have enough wiggle room to get it to the sweet spot. The extra depth was pushing me closer to the wall and I agree that it could be a problem. After keeping the width the same and adjusting the height to get a reasonable tweeter height, the only adjustment I had left was to make the speaker deeper. I'll have to do some more monkeying with the design to see what I can come up with. I'll try shifting the drivers a bit as you suggested, although I am not sure that I will like how that looks.

I wasn't sure about the near corner placement either. I was going to add that concern to my post above but I figured I would try the Monitors there and see how they work before taking on the sealed statements anyway. Maybe I'll end up just keeping the Monitors - they're no slouch. I actually still have to build a second sub so I've got some time. Just trying to come up with my master plan.

Thanks,

Matt

[snmhanson]

So, I'm still kicking around the sealed Statement and just trying to figure out how I can achieve my design objective while maintaining adequate spacing between the speaker and the rear wall. Like I said above, I can probably get the rear of the speaker about 12" away from the wall but I realize that, with the exception of the near wall Monitor, all of the Statement designs should ideally sit 18" out. Would it be difficult to design a near-wall version of the sealed Statement? I believe there are only three alterations between the near and far wall Monitor. Would the changes to the sealed Statement be similar? I am in the frame of mind that I am going to eventually build the sealed Statement regardless, so I am hoping there is a workable solution. And I am hoping someone can give me a little guidance since crossover design is way over my head .

Thanks for any input,

Matt

[Jim Holtz]

So, I'm still kicking around the sealed Statement and just trying to figure out how I can achieve my design objective while maintaining adequate spacing between the speaker and the rear wall. Like I said above, I can probably get the rear of the speaker about 12" away from the wall but I realize that, with the exception of the near wall Monitor, all of the Statement designs should ideally sit 18" out. Would it be difficult to design a near-wall version of the sealed Statement? I believe there are only three alterations between the near and far wall Monitor. Would the changes to the sealed Statement be similar? I am in the frame of mind that I am going to eventually build the sealed Statement regardless, so I am hoping there is a workable solution. And I am hoping someone can give me a little guidance since crossover design is way over my head .

Thanks for any input,

Matt

Hi Matt,

Sorry, there won't be any more Statements versions. It is a mature and completed design.

They'll still work at 12" but will not have as full of soundstage as when they're pulled out a bit more. However, all speakers unless specifically designed for close wall placement benefit from being away from the wall behind and to their sides. It's normal rather than abnormal. Even when they're specifically designed for close wall placement will have compromises in soundstage when positioned close to a rear wall.

HTH

Jim

[Curt C]

Matt,
A little Christmas cheer for you:
The new RS225 drivers recently released by PE, while they will work in the existing enclosure volume, will have and almost identical low end response in cab volumes of 80 liters with the same port length. This is about a 20% reduction in enclosure volume. 80 liters is only 10 liters larger than the sealed design drawing on my site, and the drawings could be easily modified to include the addtional 10 liters. Actually, the sealed volume can be pressed to work as an acceptable vented volume. The f3 will be raised by about 3 Hz, and the vent length increases to 8.5”.

Speaking of ports: With an enclosure this small, finding a suitable place for the port will be problematic, but not insurmountable. I would suggest slot ports as being the most likely candidate. For the 70 liter enclosure, 4.5” x 0.75” x 7” long slot ports could be added to the top and bottom of the enclosure.

In my opinion, subs aren’t the best speaker stands, as their optimal room position is rarely under the mains. The Statements are better off on their own stands, which also serves to mechanically isolate them from the sub vibrations.

I'd suggest going with Jim's reccommendations on the speaker position.

C

[Delta Dog]

Curt,

Would you also reduce the volume for the sealed statements? Smaller would be lighter and work better on stands.

Delta Dog

[snmhanson]

Thanks for the response Curt - and for the Christmas cheer. Just to make sure I'm on the same page, are you saying that I could start with the sealed design, adjust the volume +10 liters, install a port and the result would basically be a Statement equivalent, only smaller? That sounds interesting. I guess in essence I could design the enclosure however I wanted as long as the baffle width remains the same, the length of the tunnels stays within reason and the volume comes in at 80 liters, right? Do you have any official recommendations for minimum and maximum tunnel length?

Also, I will echo Delta Dog's question concerning the sealed Statements. Could we reduce the volume by 20% in the sealed design for the new drivers as well?

Thanks again for your help here and for sharing your great speaker designs,

Matt

P.S. I will definitely take your and Jim's advice concerning speaker placement into consideration. I am fairly constrained by the layout of the room, which I designed before being bitten by the AV bug. The alcove may not have been the greatest idea and most of the wall space around the room is either taken of there is no power for a sub. The room is ~24'x28' and in addition to the HT area we also have a pool table and a poker table crammed in there. There is also a 12' wide sliding door and two 4' wide closet doors so space in general is at a premium.

[Jim Holtz]

Matt,
A little Christmas cheer for you:
The new RS225 drivers recently released by PE, while they will work in the existing enclosure volume, will have and almost identical low end response in cab volumes of 80 liters with the same port length. This is about a 20% reduction in enclosure volume. 80 liters is only 10 liters larger than the sealed design drawing on my site, and the drawings could be easily modified to include the additional 10 liters. Actually, the sealed volume can be pressed to work as an acceptable vented volume. The f3 will be raised by about 3 Hz, and the vent length increases to 8.5”.

Speaking of ports: With an enclosure this small, finding a suitable place for the port will be problematic, but not insurmountable. I would suggest slot ports as being the most likely candidate. For the 70 liter enclosure, 4.5” x 0.75” x 7” long slot ports could be added to the top and bottom of the enclosure.

In my opinion, subs aren’t the best speaker stands, as their optimal room position is rarely under the mains. The Statements are better off on their own stands, which also serves to mechanically isolate them from the sub vibrations.

I'd suggest going with Jim's recommendations on the speaker position.

C

Hi Curt,

I hadn't taken the time to model the new unshielded RS228-8. I was waiting for independent testing to verify T/S parameters but this discussion caught my interest so I plugged PE's T/S parameters into Unibox and BoxyCAD for a quick peek. This is an interesting driver.

In Unibox, it indicates a net cabinet volume per RS225-8 of 19 liters sealed (F/3 56 Hz.) with a box Q=.7 and about 40 liters per driver ported(F/3 31 Hz.). So, extrapolating that to a Statements sized speaker with two mid tunnels and bracing, you'd probably want to add about 15 liters to the net volumes to have a well designed cabinet. In other words, the ported version would be about 95 liters total Vs. the 116 liters of the existing ported Statements design. The sealed cabinet design could be about 55 liters total rather than the 83 1/2 liters the current sealed Statements are.

Interesting!

CURT: I know you use different software to come up with cabinet requirements. How do my calculations compare to yours?

Jim

[Curt C]

Jim, Dog, et.all...
Here’s what I came up with for a sealed design using the published parameters:

A sealed Statement with the new RS225's will benefit with an enclosure about 25% smaller then the one shown on my website, or about 52 liters. Modeled F3 is about 5 Hz higher, at around 55 Hz. A simple way to facilitate this volume reduction in the existing sealed design is to make two separate woofer enclosures. Simply increase the width of the upper tunnel upper panel, and the lower tunnel lower panel from 6.5” to 10”, sealing the center mid/tweeter section from the two woofer sections.

Jim, I assume a Qa of 15 for a sealed design, and add 0.7 ohms to the series resistance to compensate for inductor DCR, voice coil heating, cable resistance, etc. My numbers are for the woofer volume only, and assume the port tunnels and bracing displace 20 liters. It looks to me like we come pretty close…

C

[DeathMonk]

Should update the design threads with some of these findings.

[Jim Holtz]

Should update the design threads with some of these findings.

Once we get actual measurements that confirm our modeling, I'll update the initial build thread and BOM. I'm sure it will be after the 1st of the year at the earliest. I'm swamped at work and with family holiday activities for at least a month or two.

Jim

[cbark]

I'm swamped at work and with family holiday activities for at least a month or two.
Jim

The holidays are only for another couple weeks? Should have time then?

Just kidding, both my kids birthdays are in December, makes for a very busy time of year.

[Sylvan]

Thanks for the response Curt - and for the Christmas cheer. Just to make sure I'm on the same page, are you saying that I could start with the sealed design, adjust the volume +10 liters, install a port and the result would basically be a Statement equivalent, only smaller? That sounds interesting. I guess in essence I could design the enclosure however I wanted as long as the baffle width remains the same, the length of the tunnels stays within reason and the volume comes in at 80 liters, right? Do you have any official recommendations for minimum and maximum tunnel length?

This is exactly what I am wondering. It sounds to me like I could go ahead and build an 80 liter cabinet with a port to sound like a regular Statement, and then I could just plug the port anytime I wanted to cross over to a sub and it would then sound just like a sealed Statement?

[snmhanson]

Jim, Dog, et.all...

Jim, I assume a Qa of 15 for a sealed design, and add 0.7 ohms to the series resistance to compensate for inductor DCR, voice coil heating, cable resistance, etc. My numbers are for the woofer volume only, and assume the port tunnels and bracing displace 20 liters. It looks to me like we come pretty close…

C

I am clearly showing my lack of technical understanding here, but can someone decipher this into layman talk for me. First, what does the Qa number represent and do I need to concern myself with it? Also, when Curt mentions adding 0.7 ohms to the series resistance, is he just making changes to an assumption used to model the speaker or is he referring to an actual change in the crossover? I can make required adjustments to and design the cabinet just fine but crossovers are way over my head.

Thanks,

Matt

[Jim Holtz]

I am clearly showing my lack of technical understanding here, but can someone decipher this into layman talk for me. First, what does the Qa number represent and do I need to concern myself with it? Also, when Curt mentions adding 0.7 ohms to the series resistance, is he just making changes to an assumption used to model the speaker or is he referring to an actual change in the crossover? I can make required adjustments to and design the cabinet just fine but crossovers are way over my head.

Thanks,

Matt

Those are assumptions used when modeling to get as close as possible to real results. However, they are still assumptions which is why I posted earlier that I was waiting until real measurements were taken before updating anything. The RS180 unshielded have been measured and have followed the models closely so I suspect the RS225's will too.

I'm so busy right now I don't have time to update anything anyway so I might as well wait for measurements. 8O

Jim

[Curt C]

I am clearly showing my lack of technical understanding here, but can someone decipher this into layman talk for me. First, what does the Qa number represent and do I need to concern myself with it? Also, when Curt mentions adding 0.7 ohms to the series resistance, is he just making changes to an assumption used to model the speaker or is he referring to an actual change in the crossover? I can make required adjustments to and design the cabinet just fine but crossovers are way over my head.

Thanks,

Matt

No crossover changes, just aspects of the box modeling process.

Qa represents the frictional losses from adding stuffing in the box. This is a bit of a guess, as the actual stuffing used, and amount of stuffing used, and where it is placed in the box, is unknown. but a factor of 15 would represent somewhere between light and medium stuffing. The biggest difference is the compliance change from an unlined box, which for practical purposes, increases the apparent volume of the enclosure, and lowers the system Qtc, which will suggest using a smaller enclosure to obtain a specific system Qtc.

Adding series resistance, on the other hand, increases the value of Qes, and consequently Qts. An increase in Qts tends to suggest a larger enclosure.

While the approximations I use are just that; approximations, they do tend to make the model more accurate. After all, we will put some sort of stuffing in a sealed box, and we will have some additional series resistance between the driver and the source signal. Since the two have divergent affects, I suppose one could just ignore them both, and in many cases the result will likely be close enough... -or not... :B

C

[snmhanson]

Thanks for the replies Jim and Curt - they are much appreciated. Speaker design/building is a classic example of "the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know".

In any case, I have a design (based on the sealed Statement) that has curved sides and is 36 1/2" tall giving me a gross internal volume of 2.64 SF or about 75 liters. However, that is just the gross box volume and doesn't take out the volume being displaced by the bracing, tunnels or drivers. I did a very quick calc and I think the tunnels and bracing come out to around 10 liters so I am netting ~65 liters. The comparative volume of the original sealed statement is around 93.75 liters gross, 83.5 liters net, so I am coming in about 20% less. Looks like I would need to shave another 10 liters or so to get down to the volume recommended earlier. I can play around with the height to adjust volume to the upside, but I don't think I could make it any shorter without running out of room for the drivers. As Curt suggested, maybe I can use the tunnels to section off two separate chamber for the woofers and eliminate the extra 10 liters.

Thanks again for all of the help and input. When I get going on this build I will be sure to start a new thread - it may be a while though as the weather isn't very conducive to doing anything outside right now, not to mention I've got about 50 other things to get done as well.

Matt

[Curt C]

If you made the tunnels out of 3/4" mdf, and the tunnels internal length is the suggested 14.25", then they displace a calculated 1204"^3, or about 20 liters.
I think you are already there...

C

[snmhanson]

If you made the tunnels out of 3/4" mdf, and the tunnels internal length is the suggested 14.25", then they displace a calculated 1204"^3, or about 20 liters.
I think you are already there...

C

Thanks! I don't have my calculations anymore but I am guessing I did the math for one tunnel and then forgot to multiply it by two. And to think that I'm in a profession that involves a fair bit of math...

Matt

[Curt C]

Speaker design/building is a classic example of "the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know".

Matt

Ah! But take solace that in order to recognize the unknown exists, a great body of knowledge must have already been amassed.

C

[Delta Dog]

If you make the box as short as possible while maintaining the the same spacing from the woofer to the mid tunnel and the top/bottom of the box, you get a 36.5" tall box (instead of 40", while maintaining width & depth). If you extend the inner side of the tunnels to seal the woofer section, you get 26.6L per woofer section. That would isolate the tweeter section from both woofers. All bracing and tunnels have been accounted for in this calculation. That would not be a big reduction, but every bit helps. I would need to see a drawing of it to see if it looks proportioned.

[Delta Dog]

I was going to order the parts for my statements center while some of the parts were on sale (got some Christmas cash). If there are modifications needed to the crossovers, would you expect that the changes to be minor? I guess I can just wait to order the crossover, but I would like to get it all once.

Also, how would you recommend reducing the volume 20-25%? If you isolate the tweeter area above the mid tunnel from the woofer sections, you would need two ports. If you reduce the depth, you would change the tunnel length.

[Curt C]

There is no easy way to reduce the volume of the Statement Center, as the depth of the port precludes any realistic reduction in enclosure depth, due to the close proximity of the ribbon. One possibility would be to put in a sealed bulkhead 2" in from the inside rear wall. A simple and easy method would be to line the internal rear panel with 2" of inexpensive white styrofoam rigid insulation. Pink or Blue foam can be used, but it won't be any more effective.

Building it as is with the new drivers (presuming the published plots are typical) does little to change the low end extension. Unlike the Statements or Minis, taking advantage of the smaller required enclosure volume to reduce the ultimate size of the Statement Center enclosure will be problematic at best...

C

[Delta Dog]

Curt,

I sketched up a design that would remove the same volume as the 2" of styrofoam in the woofer sections. I moved the rear corners forward 4" while maintaining the mid channel and tweeter area depth. It would be a more complicated build, but a possible option.

[Curt C]

A quite acceptable modification, Delta Dog. Thank you for sharing!

I hope to get my hands on a pair of the new drivers soon after they are back in stock, so I can verify their T/S parameters and other measurements.

C

[Delta Dog]

I received an email today that the RS180s that I ordered in December for my center has shipped. Hopefully everyone that has placed an order will get their drivers soon.

[FroDaddy]

snmhanson it seems like you're already planning a sealed Statement build for your L/R mains. I highly recommend pairing them with the 2rCC. I have four Mini surrounds, and in my opinion the difference between the Mini's and the Statements are substantial in every evaluation criteria.

[snmhanson]

snmhanson it seems like you're already planning a sealed Statement build for your L/R mains. I highly recommend pairing them with the 2rCC. I have four Mini surrounds, and in my opinion the difference between the Mini's and the Statements are substantial in every evaluation criteria.

I am still considering them eventually - maybe this summer if time and budget permit. I go back and forth between getting rid of my sub (or moving it to another location) and building the regular Statements, building the sealed Statements and a second sub or possibly building something else altogether. When you refer to the difference between the Minis and the Statements I assume you are referring to the regular Statements (not sealed). I would be curious to listen to the sealed Statements versus the ported Statements versus my Monitors. I have listened to my 2RCC on end for the left channel, opposing one of my Monitors on the right. It was tough to tell which I preferred. The low end actually seemed pretty comparable between the two with the Monitor sounding maybe a little more natural down low. However, the 2RCC had a bit more of a detailed sound to my ears. Granted, the driver layout for the 2RCC isn't optimized for that use and I didn't turn it up too loud (where I think the twin RS-225s versus the single RS-180 and extra W4-1337 would be quite a benefit). Also, my ears are not exactly golden so I am not all that good at identifying specific details in speakers.

In any case, right now I have shifted gears a bit and am looking at building the Tarkus by Paul Carmody just for something fun and different. I also want to get set up with some active crossovers and start experimenting with my own designs eventually. I also want to build some furniture grade subwoofers to integrate better into my room (something like a 6'x2'x30" tall side table with two ported 12" drivers and storage for blankets built into the middle to make it functional for the wife). There are a bunch more speaker projects I would like to take on, but I digress. There are just too many options in this hobby and on top of work and family duties I'll probably never be able to get around to all of them.

Matt

[Delta Dog]

Curt,

Have you received the updated woofers? Any guess on when you will have them tested? Thanks for your dedication to the designs!

DD

[Curt C]

PE's site indicates the drivers won't be in stock for another month...

C

[Supe]

Matt,
A little Christmas cheer for you:
The new RS225 drivers recently released by PE, while they will work in the existing enclosure volume, will have and almost identical low end response in cab volumes of 80 liters with the same port length. This is about a 20% reduction in enclosure volume. 80 liters is only 10 liters larger than the sealed design drawing on my site, and the drawings could be easily modified to include the addtional 10 liters. Actually, the sealed volume can be pressed to work as an acceptable vented volume. The f3 will be raised by about 3 Hz, and the vent length increases to 8.5”.

Speaking of ports: With an enclosure this small, finding a suitable place for the port will be problematic, but not insurmountable. I would suggest slot ports as being the most likely candidate. For the 70 liter enclosure, 4.5” x 0.75” x 7” long slot ports could be added to the top and bottom of the enclosure.

C

I know I'm a bit late to the game here, so bear with me if I've had a brain fart. The 80 liters mentioned above would be the actual internal volume excluding drivers/bracing, so the target volume with the mid ports, bracing, etc would be roughly 100 liters for the ported version, correct?

I'm trying to model an enclosure with curved sides for both aesthetics and reduction in volume, and assuming a rear cabinet plank 7 inches in width to account for the mid ports, I need roughly 14 liters more than presently modeled to obtain the correct volume, assuming that my statement above is accurate (I have based the width and depth of my model so far off the original sealed Statement dimensions).

If packaging become an issue in terms of port length, am I also correct in assuming that there would be very little audible difference in increasing the internal volume slightly above 80 liters to obtain necessary clearance using the "new" unshielded drivers?

Granted, I'm not yet decided as to whether I'd prefer the ported or sealed versions yet (intent is to supplement bass with 2 15" subs anyways, and size isn't an issue), but thanks to all for the input thus far. This thread has certainly given me something to think about!