MDF vs. particleboard

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
Glowbug

Glowbug

Member
Joined 2006
#1
I'm engaged in a "discussion" with a rather hardheaded individual about particleboard vs. MDF for subwoofer enclosures. He stresses there are no fundamental drawbacks to using particleboard, other than the fact that it looks like *** and is difficult to finish.

I disagree, but I need some concrete numbers or facts to back the claim up...or just any applicable evidence.

Thank you in advance!
 
#4
Particle or K3 board is cheapest but weakest. Doesn't hold a screw forever and doesn't like moisture. Used it for years before MDF came along.

MDF is good sonically but doesn't like moisture and is only medium tough. Used it some.

Plywood is toughest but not as dense as MDF. Use nothing else now. IMHO easiest to work with.

I'm not sure you're going to find a concensus on this . Like Gregg says, it's up to the DIY budget.
 
#5
if correctly damped and braced, i don't think that particleboard is so much worse than MDF, only screw are never sufficient with particle

also i prefer to work with particle board, i really hate this MDF dust, it don't even smell wood

so for me : if you are poor : particle board
if you are rich : Plywood

i built a sealed sub out of particleboard with a SLS 12, and it is totally inert
 
#6
Engineering specs. for appleply and plywood:http://www.statesind.com/pdf/ApplePly.pdf Engineering specs . for chipboard: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2000/salik00a.pdf (page 5) What should be of primary concern would be the Modulus Of Elasticity. This will reflect how the materials bend and would effect cabinet construction. There is little question as to density. Lift a panel😉 . If this is about the thread on SIN, yeah , the builder of those cheap boxes is way out of line.
 
#11
Rademakers:

Any idea what the document writer means by "strengthening". For example graph 9 "18 mm MDF with strengthening".

It might be somewhere in the document, sorry if I missed it. The babelfish translation wasn't that great.

Thanks.
 
#13
Concrete numbers or facts? not so sure. I think bare plywood 'sings' more than bare MDF but the plywood is easier to live with. The numbers would betray my feelings on the issue.

If you are going to carefully brace and damp the panels then the issue moves toward becoming moot.
 
#14
Bending of the cabinet may be an issue but weight is an other one, probably as important, especially for the rear panel. To avoid the box to be moved by action and reaction, the better would be to have two units mounted on two opposed panels.
 
#15
MDF vs. particleboard

You can analyze the materials and form conclusions. For
speaker box building you can use many materials as long
as you design accordingly to offset any weakness and you have
to determine if the design can be executed with said materials.
 
#16
MDF, particle board and ply all come in a wide range of qualities. Take the best variety of any one, and it will outperform poor examples of the others. For example, I like using high density 'flooring grade' particle board (and yes, it does machine well with a router), but wouldn't consider the 'crumbly' stuff for serious construction of anything.
 
#17
In order for numbers to work, we would need to make some assumptions. Like for example, that the only issue is how much noise the panels produce.

Decades ago, cabinets were expected to make noise, and manufacturers would put efforts towards how they would sound.

If I didn't misread, Nelson Pass suggested a preference for a 'live' cabinet. I can't find the posts in the search system just now to be sure. I think it suggests there is more than just quantity of resonance to consider. (BTW IIRC, these posts were not about subwoofers, but FWIW).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom