Hello!
For the record: I am planing to build my own TQWT speakers - the folded pipe ones. I'm planing to use RRR's 4a28 driver units.
My main question is - which material should I choose for the speaker cabinets? I have been reading about various "Pipe" projects all over the web and the results really differ - some people make them from real wood, while the others use MDF.
What would you suggest? Should I build my speakers using wood and listen also to the "singing" of the cabinets, or should I just leave out only the driver units to do the job? What would be advantages and disatvantages of both choices?
Thank you in advance!
For the record: I am planing to build my own TQWT speakers - the folded pipe ones. I'm planing to use RRR's 4a28 driver units.
My main question is - which material should I choose for the speaker cabinets? I have been reading about various "Pipe" projects all over the web and the results really differ - some people make them from real wood, while the others use MDF.
What would you suggest? Should I build my speakers using wood and listen also to the "singing" of the cabinets, or should I just leave out only the driver units to do the job? What would be advantages and disatvantages of both choices?
Thank you in advance!
Baltic birch
I have buily several, and am sold on plywood. The 5'x5' sheets of baltic birch.
Mine are 5' tall, with 1"rollover on the verticals, 1/4" luan on the front to flush mount drivers, and the front and both sides covered in a single sheet of cherry veneer.
Cabinets always sing, the area involved increases the effect.
George
I have buily several, and am sold on plywood. The 5'x5' sheets of baltic birch.
Mine are 5' tall, with 1"rollover on the verticals, 1/4" luan on the front to flush mount drivers, and the front and both sides covered in a single sheet of cherry veneer.
Cabinets always sing, the area involved increases the effect.
George
Interesting. The fundamental point behind your question is whether it is 'better' to have a live, or dead cabinet.
Neither, is, as usual, the correct answer. Which you'd prefer is down to a matter of taste, of the rest of your system, and to a great extent, of program material. If you like the low-colouration, 'monitor' sound, which attempts to be hyper-accurate to the recording, then clearly a dead cabinet is the way forward. If your musical tastes veer toward the electronic, or electric side, then this is generally going to be the better option, as they produce sound via this method in the first place.
If you favour accoustic music, then a resonant enclosure can be a good way forward. Look at it this way: a piano produces its sound via a large panel resonating. A small driver cannot realistically reproduce this -its interaction with the air is different. It might be accurate to the recording, but that's not the same thing. However, resonant enclosures are harder to design and control than non resonant. because you can go too far. Your choice.
Regarding materials, MDF is not a non-starter, but you have to remember it's no panacea either. It has a resonance problem at 1.1Khz if memory serves, so is best used in conjunction with other materials, as Bob Brines does by lining his enclosures with thin concrete board, to get a constrained layer damping effect. It then makes for one of the best 'dead' enclosures, and is pretty cheap too. Remember, the dust is a known carcinogen though, so always wear a filter mask when cutting. Make sure the tools are sharp too -you're mostly cutting through glue / resin, and it blunts them like little else.
A good grade of Birch plywood is stronger in tension and compression than MDF. Naturally, it resonantes too, but its characteristics are more benign than MDF, and in some respects it's easier (& healthier) to work with. Better still, ply can look very attractive unadorned, with just a few coats of laquer, oil or whatever takes your fancy, unlike MDF, which really does need painting or veneering in the long term to make a genuinely attractive piece of furniture.
Solid woods are more problematic. I'm no expert here, but I know Terry Cain favours Far Eastern Maple and Alder, and I recall him advising against such materials as oak etc, due to the grain pattern I believe, making them too resonant. A much maligned material is ordinary solid pine (or spruce). For horns, they are very good indeed, and the material is cheap and a dream to work with. Looks good too with a little oil. Dismiss at your peril!
Hope some of this helps
Scott
Neither, is, as usual, the correct answer. Which you'd prefer is down to a matter of taste, of the rest of your system, and to a great extent, of program material. If you like the low-colouration, 'monitor' sound, which attempts to be hyper-accurate to the recording, then clearly a dead cabinet is the way forward. If your musical tastes veer toward the electronic, or electric side, then this is generally going to be the better option, as they produce sound via this method in the first place.
If you favour accoustic music, then a resonant enclosure can be a good way forward. Look at it this way: a piano produces its sound via a large panel resonating. A small driver cannot realistically reproduce this -its interaction with the air is different. It might be accurate to the recording, but that's not the same thing. However, resonant enclosures are harder to design and control than non resonant. because you can go too far. Your choice.
Regarding materials, MDF is not a non-starter, but you have to remember it's no panacea either. It has a resonance problem at 1.1Khz if memory serves, so is best used in conjunction with other materials, as Bob Brines does by lining his enclosures with thin concrete board, to get a constrained layer damping effect. It then makes for one of the best 'dead' enclosures, and is pretty cheap too. Remember, the dust is a known carcinogen though, so always wear a filter mask when cutting. Make sure the tools are sharp too -you're mostly cutting through glue / resin, and it blunts them like little else.
A good grade of Birch plywood is stronger in tension and compression than MDF. Naturally, it resonantes too, but its characteristics are more benign than MDF, and in some respects it's easier (& healthier) to work with. Better still, ply can look very attractive unadorned, with just a few coats of laquer, oil or whatever takes your fancy, unlike MDF, which really does need painting or veneering in the long term to make a genuinely attractive piece of furniture.
Solid woods are more problematic. I'm no expert here, but I know Terry Cain favours Far Eastern Maple and Alder, and I recall him advising against such materials as oak etc, due to the grain pattern I believe, making them too resonant. A much maligned material is ordinary solid pine (or spruce). For horns, they are very good indeed, and the material is cheap and a dream to work with. Looks good too with a little oil. Dismiss at your peril!
Hope some of this helps
Scott
http://www.zillaspeak.com/pioneerb20-piezo.asp
>>> A much maligned material is ordinary solid pine ...
I like pine.
Photographs poorly but looks really great in person sanded, stained and poly'd...
>>> A much maligned material is ordinary solid pine ...
I like pine.
Photographs poorly but looks really great in person sanded, stained and poly'd...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.