You forgot your lungs when you are machining it on a CNC, but a mask can fix that.
MDF is not the lone 'super-dangerous dust' material that it is so often made out to be. The industrial safety limits for non-processed hardwood and MDF dusts are almost identical. Machining MDF is in reality little more dangerous than hardwood ply as both predominantly use urea-formaldehyde adhesives in their manufacture, and hardwood dust is more hazardous than softwood which has an exposure limit five times that of any of these. Settled airborne dust in general is the most hazardous since it tends to have the smallest particle size so be careful when sweeping up and dusting down machines and benches too.
We can live without a severed digit or two but we only get one pair of lungs/eyes/ears so protect them all whatever is being cut!
Sounds like a PV1D from B&W but I understand it's nog longer being made. Apparantly not that appealing altough it looked very promising to me. It it is a sphere type enclosure with two opposed 8" woofers, everything is in aluminium as I understand it. A 500W amp + DSP is onboard.
'Best' subwoofer enclosures I've heard are front loaded horns and servo feedback subs. Servo feedback is not an enclosure, its a technology. Both servo subs I've heard (both in sealed enclosures) were better than any standard driver sealed or vented enclosure I have heard. I have not heard any dipole / ripole subs but would like to try some at some point.
I've seen a lot of talk about servo feedback subwoofers on DiyAudio, but not much in the way of completed diy projects. I'm assuming it's too difficult or expensive to achieve via diy. Maybe people would disagree with me as to how much difference servo feedback makes, I'm sure somebody told me that modern drivers are 'good enough at sub frequencies' without it.
Rob.
I've seen a lot of talk about servo feedback subwoofers on DiyAudio, but not much in the way of completed diy projects. I'm assuming it's too difficult or expensive to achieve via diy. Maybe people would disagree with me as to how much difference servo feedback makes, I'm sure somebody told me that modern drivers are 'good enough at sub frequencies' without it.
Rob.
I used marble for the enclosure with very good result
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/show-your-stone-marble-concrete-loudspeaker-box.406856/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/show-your-stone-marble-concrete-loudspeaker-box.406856/
Agreed. When so many things audiophile seem to be about reducing mechanical resonances (damping/bracing/heavy platters/magic equipment stands) what do people do? Turn their loudspeakers into damn great poorly damped Helmholtz resonators by cutting a hole in the box...
On a less jocular note, there are several different designs noted in this thread - all with compromises - as being 'the best', which only goes to prove that they're not. 'Best' is different things to different ears and always will be, and few people have ever invested money, blood, sweat, and tears into building any speaker only to say it sounded dreadful. Mostly it will sound subjectively superb, perhaps even 'the best ever', such is the power of expectation bias.
We often place great import in waterfall plots of HF drivers, but tolerate the 'blurring' of low frequencies by LF system decay times in the tens of milliseconds or more in resonant enclosures with poor step response, which is in effect a degradation of the signal to noise ratio. Where else in the signal chain would we tolerate such temporal anomalies? (In the PA world there exist some giant sub enclosures which are still ringing 250ms after the signal has ceased!). To my ear at least, a sub with minimal stored energy sounds subjectively better than one that has to dissipate increased resonant energy over a longer period.
It's the best for me. And it's small and simple to build!
To the OP, pick a design you think is 'best', build it, and it probably will be!
We often place great import in waterfall plots of HF drivers, but tolerate the 'blurring' of low frequencies by LF system decay times in the tens of milliseconds or more in resonant enclosures with poor step response, which is in effect a degradation of the signal to noise ratio. Where else in the signal chain would we tolerate such temporal anomalies? (In the PA world there exist some giant sub enclosures which are still ringing 250ms after the signal has ceased!). To my ear at least, a sub with minimal stored energy sounds subjectively better than one that has to dissipate increased resonant energy over a longer period.
It's the best for me. And it's small and simple to build!
To the OP, pick a design you think is 'best', build it, and it probably will be!