serenechaos said:
Nothing I see in this thread leads me to think was can go so far as to infer that . . . remember too that it is hardly a direct comparison since the drivers, venues and electronics are all different . . .
-- Chris
serenechaos said:
No, absolutely not! There's no comparison. Mr. Tanaka's urushi enclosures are much, much better in many ways! (They also cost a lot more than mine, too.)
But I still my little pine Freddies (which were made and kindly given to me by Rich--thanks Rich!).
Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Freddy vs Maiko
Yes, and I don't know what I was thinking when I said that I might be able to use the same BB boards I had already cut for the original Maiko design. After all we've talked about, I think I'll forget the BB and go for pine, spruce, or maybe even bubinga.
Mike
Scottmoose said:
Yes, and I don't know what I was thinking when I said that I might be able to use the same BB boards I had already cut for the original Maiko design. After all we've talked about, I think I'll forget the BB and go for pine, spruce, or maybe even bubinga.
Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freddy vs Maiko
Mike,
I looked at Bubinga (aka Africa Rosewood) last year. It's quite expensive, especially in wide widths. It is gorgeous to look at and very dense which is great for an enclosure. It's noted to be difficult to glue as well and working with it can irritate skin due to the oils. I also looked at Cocobolo which is a Rosewood from Central America. It might be a bit denser than Bubinga.
I opted for Red Oak as it was much easier to source and much less costly... and the fact that I wasn't 100% certain I would stick with the Freddie Chang design. Red Oak is also difficult to glue... and yes, it was a royal pain to get the enclosures glued solid, due to some twisting of the boards between cutting and assembly due to some time sitting. Bubinga looks to be a bigger challenge.
I'm still planning to build new enclosures with all mitered corners in 2009 and will probably use Cocobolo. I'm just not completely settled on the enclosure design yet as I want the driver higher off the floor. I have decided that all of my new equipment will be trimmed in Cocobolo, so I better start saving now.
Regards, KM
mluckow said:
Mike,
I looked at Bubinga (aka Africa Rosewood) last year. It's quite expensive, especially in wide widths. It is gorgeous to look at and very dense which is great for an enclosure. It's noted to be difficult to glue as well and working with it can irritate skin due to the oils. I also looked at Cocobolo which is a Rosewood from Central America. It might be a bit denser than Bubinga.
I opted for Red Oak as it was much easier to source and much less costly... and the fact that I wasn't 100% certain I would stick with the Freddie Chang design. Red Oak is also difficult to glue... and yes, it was a royal pain to get the enclosures glued solid, due to some twisting of the boards between cutting and assembly due to some time sitting. Bubinga looks to be a bigger challenge.
I'm still planning to build new enclosures with all mitered corners in 2009 and will probably use Cocobolo. I'm just not completely settled on the enclosure design yet as I want the driver higher off the floor. I have decided that all of my new equipment will be trimmed in Cocobolo, so I better start saving now.
Regards, KM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freddy vs Maiko
Three very different woods (to state the obvious) . . . if one is going for a "concrete bunker" enclosure where the enclosure itself is supposedly inert and making no noticeable contribution to the total sound of the loudspeaker, there is a real sense in which the loudspeaker creation process is simplified. But when you go in the opposite direction and start to embrace the fact that the enclosure itself is joining with the driver in actively making music, things get much more complicated. The choice of wood(s), the direction of the grain in the plank, the thicknesses used, bracing, joinery techniques, even the choice of finish -- all of these will become more important because every choice will have some influence on the overall final sound. So have fun sorting it all out!
It occurs to me, however, that if -- if -- the glues and fabrication techniques used in the making of plywood are only harmful to the sound of an enclosure where the enclosure itself actively contributes something to the overall sound picture, or if Baltic Birch is simply not an especially good wood for use as a tone wood, then perhaps the use of any one of a rather wide variety of solid woods will result in an improvement, at least when used within reason.
Sort of like taking pity on the guy tapping on the empty Quaker Oats box and giving him a real drum -- any drum -- to tap on instead. Because as soon as he switches over, the sounds emerging from his tapping will immediately start to take on a more "musical" character . . .
Anyway, I'm starting to babble in this post, but suffice it to say that while it is conceivable that any one of those three woods you mentioned might be an improvement, they will all sound different from each other and it will be a real challenge for anyone to figure out how to set it up so it sounds best.
The challenge is actually much greater than in the case of a music instrument maker because when someone builds a music instrument, any idiosyncracies (within reason) become part of the instrument's character and its charm, but in the case of a loudspeaker the same level of tonal idiosyncrasies might quickly become a deal-breaker. Ideally you would end up with a loudspeaker that is overall balanced and neutral in its presentation (although perhaps a slight emphasis in certain areas might be desirable in some cases).
Finally, if you do go to spruce, remember that in music instruments at least, spruce is famous for improving in sound quality over time. It can take decades before a spruce string instrument starts to fully bloom. I would expect that this aspect of spruce will come into play when it is used in a loudspeaker enclosure as well.
Well, enough of my blabbering in this post. I guess the only way to find out is to try it!
-- Chris
mluckow said:
Three very different woods (to state the obvious) . . . if one is going for a "concrete bunker" enclosure where the enclosure itself is supposedly inert and making no noticeable contribution to the total sound of the loudspeaker, there is a real sense in which the loudspeaker creation process is simplified. But when you go in the opposite direction and start to embrace the fact that the enclosure itself is joining with the driver in actively making music, things get much more complicated. The choice of wood(s), the direction of the grain in the plank, the thicknesses used, bracing, joinery techniques, even the choice of finish -- all of these will become more important because every choice will have some influence on the overall final sound. So have fun sorting it all out!
It occurs to me, however, that if -- if -- the glues and fabrication techniques used in the making of plywood are only harmful to the sound of an enclosure where the enclosure itself actively contributes something to the overall sound picture, or if Baltic Birch is simply not an especially good wood for use as a tone wood, then perhaps the use of any one of a rather wide variety of solid woods will result in an improvement, at least when used within reason.
Sort of like taking pity on the guy tapping on the empty Quaker Oats box and giving him a real drum -- any drum -- to tap on instead. Because as soon as he switches over, the sounds emerging from his tapping will immediately start to take on a more "musical" character . . .
Anyway, I'm starting to babble in this post, but suffice it to say that while it is conceivable that any one of those three woods you mentioned might be an improvement, they will all sound different from each other and it will be a real challenge for anyone to figure out how to set it up so it sounds best.
The challenge is actually much greater than in the case of a music instrument maker because when someone builds a music instrument, any idiosyncracies (within reason) become part of the instrument's character and its charm, but in the case of a loudspeaker the same level of tonal idiosyncrasies might quickly become a deal-breaker. Ideally you would end up with a loudspeaker that is overall balanced and neutral in its presentation (although perhaps a slight emphasis in certain areas might be desirable in some cases).
Finally, if you do go to spruce, remember that in music instruments at least, spruce is famous for improving in sound quality over time. It can take decades before a spruce string instrument starts to fully bloom. I would expect that this aspect of spruce will come into play when it is used in a loudspeaker enclosure as well.
Well, enough of my blabbering in this post. I guess the only way to find out is to try it!
-- Chris
mluckow said:
Then why aren't more people building Nessies?
They look a lot simpler?
Mr. Tanaka said they were just Douglas Fir plywood...
serenechaos said:
The only people who know precisely what's going on in Mr. Tanaka's enclosures are the people who built them, and the finish is a large part of the sound. Working with urushi lacquer is not for the faint of heart.
-- Chris
Thanks Mike, for the heads-up that Maiko development has legs once again. Glad to see it!
Is Maiko2 still designed for stock D5nf, using parameters I measured and published during Maiko design process?
I got the idea to build the Freddies in pine from Charles Altmann. I greatly prefer it to baltic birch plywood. I use White Pine imported from Finland by Home Depot. Nothing special.... or is it? 😉
Is Maiko2 still designed for stock D5nf, using parameters I measured and published during Maiko design process?
I got the idea to build the Freddies in pine from Charles Altmann. I greatly prefer it to baltic birch plywood. I use White Pine imported from Finland by Home Depot. Nothing special.... or is it? 😉
I didn't read that. Although I suspect that the Freddies are the more accurate in their FR, as this is not something Nessie type cabinets are exactly known for, or even prioritize.
Indeed, and they're all very nice materials too, providing you use them properly to achieve your goals (whatever those happen to be). The sticky thread here on materials has some in-depth discussions that have been done thus far if you're interested.
Yes, albeit with a little leeway that I design into all my cabinets to allow for sample variation, and the changes in behaviour that occur both over time, and also, in operation, as, for e.g., the VC heats.
Pine's a nice (& under-rated) material to work with. I like it.
I often wondered if you could use every day framing lumber for a nice solid cab. Here on the west coast we have tons of framing lumber in spruce,fir,birch,pine etc.. Dave🙂
DaveCan said:
You can, but it needs to dry and age for many years... the fir Scott uses was taken from a railroad bridge laid down just afer 1900 and has been sitting in his house for years (and he still has to take care. A butcher block approach is probably the most reliable (and i just saw some of the wood a friend is turning out with his planar/moulder... wouldn't be hard to get a couple inch think tongue & groove Spruce to try some boxes out of.
dave
Dave, I've meant to tell you and Chris about the Bamboo flooring at Rona I've seen, and if it may be a cheaper way to use bamboo? Every now and then as I've gone into the store, they've had some beautiful solid tung and grove 3/4'' I think bamboo flooring in three different shades.. It's the kind of solid flooring that you would nail down to a subfloor like with solid oak.. Anyhow I had wondered if a person could use it in cab construction by gluing the pieces together up to the widths needed etc... I think it was between 3 and 4 dollars a square foot..
Dave🙂
Dave🙂
They got to have that stuff in Japan somewhere, Chris, It's all over the U S. Home Depot has it, Lowe's has it, all the carpet and flooring places have it. It undoubtedly comes from China. It's T&G planks about 75-125mm wide, about 19mm thick. Hard, dense, lively, strong. A real bummer to work, you got to have extremely sharp blades. Your guys might love it.
Aloha,
Poinz
AudioTropic
Aloha,
Poinz
AudioTropic
Yes Maiko part 2
What to Build Maiko part 2...
I put my Maiko 1 in a small room...
144" wide by 160" long... yea, almost a square room.
BUT with the Maikos pulled way out into the room and way off the walls, It works very well.
Kinda nearfield like. I do have to sit on the floor, but I like that anyway. Its like being in Japan without leaving Santa Fe.
My trusty 45 amp has PLENTY of guts for this small room and the near field listening.
Just got Larry Moore's Ultra Fi USB/DAC from the RMAF 08...
I'll plug it in on Tuesday AM and let it burn a bit.
This small room needs wall treatment, corner plugs and slap protection.
What to Build Maiko part 2...
I put my Maiko 1 in a small room...
144" wide by 160" long... yea, almost a square room.
BUT with the Maikos pulled way out into the room and way off the walls, It works very well.
Kinda nearfield like. I do have to sit on the floor, but I like that anyway. Its like being in Japan without leaving Santa Fe.
My trusty 45 amp has PLENTY of guts for this small room and the near field listening.
Just got Larry Moore's Ultra Fi USB/DAC from the RMAF 08...
I'll plug it in on Tuesday AM and let it burn a bit.
This small room needs wall treatment, corner plugs and slap protection.
Phil,
Which driver does your Maiko 1 use?
What size?
How deep does it go?
Does it need a sub?
Thanks, Robert
Which driver does your Maiko 1 use?
What size?
How deep does it go?
Does it need a sub?
Thanks, Robert
- Status
- Not open for further replies.