I dunno if this has been mentioned before, but the Evil Orange and other big box retailers sell "cement board" siding that is heavy and nasty and eats saw blades, but is not eaten by termites, rats, etc. I chose this stuff to fix the back walls of my detached garage, as it's tough as nails, environmentally speaking. Has anyone looked at this stuff as an enclosure material? It would obviously need some serious veneer, or some other covering to dress it up, as it's uglier than a boar's back side. Liquid nails would hold it together. Here's a link - HardiePanel HZ10 96 in. Fiber Cement Siding-217863 at The Home Depot . Obviously, you'd have the back side facing out, unless you like the "fake wood" look (I thought not).
I started an open baffle project with the hardie board in mind. cutting with Jigsaw was slow even with diamond encrusted blade. Lots of dust too. Gave up as time was at a premium with a baby to raise and limited funds so I switched back to plywood. The hardie board backer has fiberglass mesh cast into it which seems to have a good dampening effect. A better choice in terms of acoustic "deadness" however would be plaster. easier to mold and patch and can be mixed with cement to add durability. Casting would be the ideal since once the form is made, two cabinets could theoretically be made. (or more) plaster cabs would not likely survive a drop of significant distance.
Fiberglass mesh or other fiber would help for tensile strength here too.
Fiberglass mesh or other fiber would help for tensile strength here too.
Got to love French engineering. Their basic requirement is to do something simple completely different from anyone else, and still make it work.
Ah-hah! Your lovely router is not well suited for concrete boxes.
No, but my 7 inch Dewalt diamond cup in my big grinder does just fine. I have been "fixing" the fine work of our local flatwork professionals for several weeks. Used up two of them. It is surprising how easy it is to sculpt concrete.
My used Profire 610 came so I can get back into measurements. Stuff the e-mu 1616m garbage. With all the work to get their bad software off my machine, I did eliminate 10 processes and over 100 threads, found how to make it shutdown in 15 seconds, and updated a few drivers. My Madisound order is in the local UPS depot, so Monday maybe!
Did I mention I was unhappy with e-mu/Creative not being willing to fix their drivers even after pretty much admitting they were bad? (memory leak) $600 for a sound card and lip service for support. The mark of a company is how they act when things don't go well.
Back in school, I did a bit of sculpture. Several were plaster. I could make it "sing" with just a rasp. Soapstone is a lot more dead.
So how horrible are all those sculptured sub cabinets they make for cars out of MDF and fleece for a form on TV?
I always felt that given the organic/fluid quality of sound that the best speakers would have no right angles. Building such things is complicated however. Briggs reproduced an image of a French speaker that was a fairly faithful reproduction of an ear. Those French, what will think of next.....
Just because some "artist" made a curiosity speaker does not mean it has anything to do with good engineering. Neither does having feelings that sound is organic. Sorry, but welcome to the 21th century. It's only physics.
Eventually the sound leaves the speaker, hits our ears, and hopefully turns back into feelings. Neither black and white physics or wishy-washy 'feelings' tell the whole story by themselves.
KM
Last edited:
It's strange to reflect that some years ago, concrete speakers were relatively common, especially from a French company called Elipson (Passion) and another one with a simpler build called Faraday Sound in England - round shapes, square shapes, different concrete mix/composites, etc
What happened to why the idea of using a different build for bass driver and mid/top drivers and also different shapes, etc, etc
What I do find a bit surprising is that even today with the new U-beaut speaker design programs, they still have some difficulty with producing results that use a combination of impulse and sine wave analysis test signals which, IMO anyway, are more representative of "real " music.
Interesting that the different fields that deal with "acoustics" have such different attitudes and terminology to the relatively simple device called 'speakers'! It's a wonder that there is ever any sort of common ground between them considering the totally different outcomes each are working towards and for the hifi person, the result is usually total confusion, and easy access to information doesn't make it any better, unfortunately.
What happened to why the idea of using a different build for bass driver and mid/top drivers and also different shapes, etc, etc
What I do find a bit surprising is that even today with the new U-beaut speaker design programs, they still have some difficulty with producing results that use a combination of impulse and sine wave analysis test signals which, IMO anyway, are more representative of "real " music.
Interesting that the different fields that deal with "acoustics" have such different attitudes and terminology to the relatively simple device called 'speakers'! It's a wonder that there is ever any sort of common ground between them considering the totally different outcomes each are working towards and for the hifi person, the result is usually total confusion, and easy access to information doesn't make it any better, unfortunately.
Preference is a sloppy business and the proliferation of analytical software programs for speaker builders has offered a degree of comfort since they provide a shared reference point that seems predictable and perhaps objective.
The problem is, of course that the way the brain processes sensory stimulus, which sound and by extension music is, is a very personal and subjective event.
This technical information is part of the discussion but should not be the only discussion. This exposes the fundamental flaw in online communities. Sometimes you have to be "There" Lastly Sonic preferences are effected by musical taste and other personal factors. It is as quantifiable as any other appetite. Try getting ten people to agree on what makes a good slice of pizza.
And Warfdale is the heavy hitter across Europe making several lines of very high quality for the cost speakers. All quite conventional in design. Always wondered why they don't sell more here. They could give Paradigm a run for their money.
Often forgot side of engineering is something known as industrial design. That is the merge of performance with aesthetics. Very few do it well. Lowe is one of the more famous. Eams are others. The very best can make great ascetics without increasing the price. A speaker does not have to be a box to work. But just because it is not a box, does not bring some extra advantage. My point is that speaker designs are about engineering. There is nothing mystical or magical about it.
There is a topic of "organic" that could lead a productive path. I recommend you look into fractals. As we learn more, it seems like that is how the world is made. I offer up the challenge if there is a something to make good use of in a speaker. As a teaser, they are as critical to cell phones just as they are to plants. Could one control diffraction? What is their relation to meta-materials and can the demonstrations of invisibility cloaking at audio frequencies produce a better speaker?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.