Any cabinet with panels less than 3 inches thick will 'sound' due to panel vibration.markp said:
Go take a close look at some very well regarded speakers and you will likely be shocked by the lightness of the box and consequent cabinet flexure.
The 'economical' trick is to end up with a cabinet that sounds good if it cannot be completely inert.
Adding bracing can actually add (cause) unmusical resonance modes that make things sound worse, so bracing must be applied with a degree of caution, or trial and error - acoustic guitars use carefully placed bracing.
The bee hive boxes noted above sound perfectly fine, look good are cheap, and are indestructable.
MDF sounds like crap.
Eric.
MDF vs Plywood vs Hardwood
Hi guys!
I think we can agree that this is not really a difficult subject, is it?
markp has been on right on the money throughout in this thread in that you want a good, rigid material - and MDF is certainly up near the best available for this. MDF is made from a mix of glue and wood pulp, and is pretty uniform throughout which serves to damp the cabinet, absorb energy, and keep it stiff. It's a rigid material, and as panel rigidity rises so does panel resonance. We only want the cabinet to by working at the bass frequencies (if a subwoofer) - so anything above that is unwanted. Panel resonance using MDF starts from a higher frequency than solid woods, it's moved well into the midrange region where there cabinet's damping material helps to suppress this, and the crossover also removes acoustical energy from this region so that panel resonances are less able to be excited.
Hardwoods on the other hand get knots in them - and in these knots is where bits of wood/debris can buzz when excited. These sorts of wood also are not as stiff, they lack dimensional stability - I remember one person who built a cabinet using the Adire Tempest in a hardwood cabinet and it split down the side... so thats not a good thing. The acoustical properties of hardwood's are inferior compared to MDF. Plywood will come in second here... but I'd reccommend only types such as Baltic Birch intended for marine use. "Builder grade" plywood is definitly not an option. Although you can purchase void-free plywood, I still suggest that it be checked for voids first in case there is one there where stuff can 'buzz around in it. An advantage to plywood is that it weighs less, typcially it requires more damping material in order to suppress colorations though.
But to conclude; MDF is the easiest, cheapest, and most effective material to use for loudspeaker enclosures. Plywood when implemented properly can also be pretty good acoustically and also in strength, it's also lighter so for larger cabinets this can be an attractive option. The point remains however that hardwoods are not suitable for loudspeaker enclosures.
Adrian
Hi guys!
I think we can agree that this is not really a difficult subject, is it?
markp has been on right on the money throughout in this thread in that you want a good, rigid material - and MDF is certainly up near the best available for this. MDF is made from a mix of glue and wood pulp, and is pretty uniform throughout which serves to damp the cabinet, absorb energy, and keep it stiff. It's a rigid material, and as panel rigidity rises so does panel resonance. We only want the cabinet to by working at the bass frequencies (if a subwoofer) - so anything above that is unwanted. Panel resonance using MDF starts from a higher frequency than solid woods, it's moved well into the midrange region where there cabinet's damping material helps to suppress this, and the crossover also removes acoustical energy from this region so that panel resonances are less able to be excited.
Hardwoods on the other hand get knots in them - and in these knots is where bits of wood/debris can buzz when excited. These sorts of wood also are not as stiff, they lack dimensional stability - I remember one person who built a cabinet using the Adire Tempest in a hardwood cabinet and it split down the side... so thats not a good thing. The acoustical properties of hardwood's are inferior compared to MDF. Plywood will come in second here... but I'd reccommend only types such as Baltic Birch intended for marine use. "Builder grade" plywood is definitly not an option. Although you can purchase void-free plywood, I still suggest that it be checked for voids first in case there is one there where stuff can 'buzz around in it. An advantage to plywood is that it weighs less, typcially it requires more damping material in order to suppress colorations though.
But to conclude; MDF is the easiest, cheapest, and most effective material to use for loudspeaker enclosures. Plywood when implemented properly can also be pretty good acoustically and also in strength, it's also lighter so for larger cabinets this can be an attractive option. The point remains however that hardwoods are not suitable for loudspeaker enclosures.
Adrian
Has anyone tried gluing other sheet materials to the inside of cabinets?
I've read about using bituminous roofing materials, but it would seem a layer of sheetrock (gyp-board, drywall, or whatever it might be called in your area) would be inexpensive, and even an additional layer of low density fiberboard might render hardwood panels pretty inert acoustically. Layering dissimilar materials seems to have a synergistic dampening effect.
To suggest hardwood cannot be a good cabinet material for the DIY'er is to neglect many possibilities the individual designer can address that a mass produced product simply cannot. I'm really surprised to read such definitive and shortsighted remarks in here, where the encouragement for experimentation is usually the norm. (No offense intended)
Sure, there are compromises to be made, and different design considerations when size is the variable factor, but it's plain silly to suggest hardwood has inherent resonance problems that can't be overcome.
Production designs limit costs everywhere, and labor intensive selection, careful fit and finish, and even weight are not compromises we necessarily have to make. "Ease" is a relative term everywhere in this hobby isn't it?
The tools and techniques we use to cut and shape plywood and MDF are a good start on "fine woodworking" and to limit our projects to cabinetry resembling that which is mass producible is "double-plus ungood"
Veneering can't be the end-all to SAF.
I've read about using bituminous roofing materials, but it would seem a layer of sheetrock (gyp-board, drywall, or whatever it might be called in your area) would be inexpensive, and even an additional layer of low density fiberboard might render hardwood panels pretty inert acoustically. Layering dissimilar materials seems to have a synergistic dampening effect.
To suggest hardwood cannot be a good cabinet material for the DIY'er is to neglect many possibilities the individual designer can address that a mass produced product simply cannot. I'm really surprised to read such definitive and shortsighted remarks in here, where the encouragement for experimentation is usually the norm. (No offense intended)
Sure, there are compromises to be made, and different design considerations when size is the variable factor, but it's plain silly to suggest hardwood has inherent resonance problems that can't be overcome.
Production designs limit costs everywhere, and labor intensive selection, careful fit and finish, and even weight are not compromises we necessarily have to make. "Ease" is a relative term everywhere in this hobby isn't it?
The tools and techniques we use to cut and shape plywood and MDF are a good start on "fine woodworking" and to limit our projects to cabinetry resembling that which is mass producible is "double-plus ungood"
Veneering can't be the end-all to SAF.
I have been building speakers for over 30 yrs.Even before there was such a standard as the T/S parameters.
After switching to ply and solid wood i will never go back to MDF.It appears to introduce a smearing of sound that is quite audible. I believe the energy adsorbed in MDF is released slowly over time and this alters the following wave fronts by introducing either out of phase vibrations or just plain injection of the cabs own vibrations.
Tell yall what, build 2 identical cabs, one with MDF, and the other with a baltic fir ply and do an A/B.The results will be obvious.
ron
After switching to ply and solid wood i will never go back to MDF.It appears to introduce a smearing of sound that is quite audible. I believe the energy adsorbed in MDF is released slowly over time and this alters the following wave fronts by introducing either out of phase vibrations or just plain injection of the cabs own vibrations.
Tell yall what, build 2 identical cabs, one with MDF, and the other with a baltic fir ply and do an A/B.The results will be obvious.
ron
What about this?
I'm in the process of designing a Midrange TL.
Since the cabinet is going to be round, I'm going to be bending the wood. (strips)
So if I lay the strips, lets use oak, vertically, and then the next layer horizontally.. ie. crisscrossing wood grain pattern
Each layer will be glued in place and clamped.
So in a way I get the best of both worlds. Real wood, glue, plywood like crisscrossing of grains. Probably be about 1.5'' thick on top and > 6'' on the bottom.
A tapered TL. Not sure if it's going to be vased shaped or completly cylinder-shaped, depends on more many layers I have to make up at the bottom. Can't have it toom heavy.
Does this satisfy all your cabinet requirements?
David
I'm in the process of designing a Midrange TL.
Since the cabinet is going to be round, I'm going to be bending the wood. (strips)
So if I lay the strips, lets use oak, vertically, and then the next layer horizontally.. ie. crisscrossing wood grain pattern
Each layer will be glued in place and clamped.
So in a way I get the best of both worlds. Real wood, glue, plywood like crisscrossing of grains. Probably be about 1.5'' thick on top and > 6'' on the bottom.
A tapered TL. Not sure if it's going to be vased shaped or completly cylinder-shaped, depends on more many layers I have to make up at the bottom. Can't have it toom heavy.
Does this satisfy all your cabinet requirements?
David
Hello Ron,ron clarke said:
I agree that MDF just adds a bad sound, and that thick ply is pretty ideal.
The bee-hive boxes that I suggest are cheap, easy and sound good.
Part of the trick is the way that the rabetted or dovetailed joints lock the panels together, and thereby effect their mutual coupling.
Eric.
Well all i build at the moment for myself and my friends are single full range fostex horns,my own designs.Having gone from sealed cabs to BR to MLTL to TQWT then to horns i find any other type enclosure to be inadequate.Although i did develope a design in cad to make a puter desk with built in MLTLs as the far corners i may build as i find the commercial puter add on speakers to be lacking somewhat.
ron
ron
reply
The most nicest HiFi speaker cabinets i've seen are made of solid Granite or solid Marble,but both these materials are very expensive and very heavy and hard to cut.
You could use concrete which would be much cheaper,but it would have to be covered because it looks ugly and cuting circles in it would be a problem,you could use it for anything but the baffle board.And cut it with an angle grinder [wear safety goggles of course]
.
Well also solid Oak would make a good loudspeaker enclousure- but it's very expensive.
So maybe some Marine Grade Birch plywood 18mm with solid Oak or any hardwood Bracing.And add some mineral wool inside the cabinet 1 inch thick and then the cabinet wouldn't really resonate at all.
Or 18mm thick MDF cemented to 12mm plywood,with 1 inch thick mineral wool wadding inside would make a cheaper cabinet and still sound and look good.
One thing i'm still confused about whats the difference between MDF and chipboard/particle board [which uses wood chips and sawdust, and cheap glue]?
The most nicest HiFi speaker cabinets i've seen are made of solid Granite or solid Marble,but both these materials are very expensive and very heavy and hard to cut.
You could use concrete which would be much cheaper,but it would have to be covered because it looks ugly and cuting circles in it would be a problem,you could use it for anything but the baffle board.And cut it with an angle grinder [wear safety goggles of course]
.Well also solid Oak would make a good loudspeaker enclousure- but it's very expensive.
So maybe some Marine Grade Birch plywood 18mm with solid Oak or any hardwood Bracing.And add some mineral wool inside the cabinet 1 inch thick and then the cabinet wouldn't really resonate at all.
Or 18mm thick MDF cemented to 12mm plywood,with 1 inch thick mineral wool wadding inside would make a cheaper cabinet and still sound and look good.
One thing i'm still confused about whats the difference between MDF and chipboard/particle board [which uses wood chips and sawdust, and cheap glue]?
i think if you used concrete, you would not "cut" it, but would simply make a mold that you would pour it into... the holes would be round styrafoam, and everything would be already open once it dries, you would just get the styrafoam out.
i have often contemplated doing this for a small pair of monitor speakers. they would be VERY heavy. you could finish them with a wrap of fiberglass or something that would allow them to be either veneered, or painted.
i have often contemplated doing this for a small pair of monitor speakers. they would be VERY heavy. you could finish them with a wrap of fiberglass or something that would allow them to be either veneered, or painted.
Re: reply
MDF = sawdust + glue
Chipboard/OSB = wood scraps + glue
OSB (oriented strand board) is not good for speakers; not homogenous, not dense, just crappy. Good for sheathing house though.
-Jason
Bull said:
MDF = sawdust + glue
Chipboard/OSB = wood scraps + glue
OSB (oriented strand board) is not good for speakers; not homogenous, not dense, just crappy. Good for sheathing house though.
-Jason
[regarding x. onasis comments]
> I've read about using bituminous roofing materials, but it would
> seem a layer of sheetrock (gyp-board, drywall, or whatever it
> might be called in your area) would be inexpensive, and even
> an additional layer of low density fiberboard might render
> hardwood panels pretty inert acoustically. Layering dissimilar
> materials seems to have a synergistic dampening effect.
In and of itself, the majority of hardwoods lack stability, and is more prone to panel resonance than MDF because of different particle orientation. That also explains why hardwoods can "split" under high pressure loads, it was only at the start of this year I was talking to somebody who did this with his Adire Tempest. Fibreboard on the other hand has its particles orientated in different directions so its more rigid under high loads and its less prone to panel resonance. Once we start adding other materials 'to the mix, then thats what is called fixing the problem. Acoustically MDF is better than hardwoods with no other treatments.
The problem doesn't end here though - we still need to use bracing in the enclosures to make them more rigid and shift its resonance frequency up higher so that it doesn't interfere with the operation of the subwoofer. And we still need fibreglass insulation inside to provide damping/absorb standing waves.
[regarding ron's comments]
> After switching to ply and solid wood i will never go back to
> MDF.It appears to introduce a smearing of sound that is quite
> audible. I believe the energy adsorbed in MDF is released
> slowly over time and this alters the following wave fronts by
> introducing either out of phase vibrations or just plain injection
> of the cabs own vibrations.
Actually, what gets absorbed remains absorbed. Some of the waves will be absorbed, but the majority is still reflected even off MDF. The problem here is really the standing waves inside the enclosure that are effective at the higher frequencies (subbass standing waves though do not effect as they are of great lengths that do not fit within the cabinet). That's why fibreglass insulation is used on the inside to suppress these unwanted colorations. And actually, hardwoods will reflect more than absorbing the sound compared to MDF which has better absorbtion characteristics.
If the cabinet is transmitting vibrations, then that suggests either it wasn't built properly, or insufficient bracing was used. Especially for larger panels then multiple braces should be used on each wall regardless of the material used.
[about concrete enclosures]
I'd suggest that this is probably one of the best ways to get an enclosure which is stiff. It's going to need quite a lot of fibreglass insulation with it though because of the poor damping characteristics of untreated concrete. Probably though concrete is going to be the least viable solution for most.
But thats getting away from the original discussion. Acoustically, an untreated hardwood panel is worse than MDF for the reasons I've already discussed - it has poorer damping characteristics because it is less absorbtive, it can split under higher pressure loads whilst MDF will resist it due to a wider orientation of particles, and it's more prone to panel resonances too because of that very same reason. As a sidenote that may deter from using hardwoods, is that its very expensive. And its also very heavy. Larger enclosures are already heavy enough as they are - I've built a 300L vented enclosure for an 18" subwoofer with extreme bracing, it is very solid, but also very heavy. I couldn't imagine the weight if it was made out of hardwood, like jarrah.
Hardwood's tend to cost a lot more than plywood and MDF too, which makes it an even more unattractive option.
Don't forget, the idea is to reproduce sound. Some instruments produce sound and are made of wood. They use certain materials to manufacture it and the resonances of the wood materials play a part in how it sounds, and also the shape's of the acoustic chambers and devices which form them. So we want an uncolored and pure sound. If there is a million dollar wood resonance sound in the recording we want to reproduce it without modifying or ruining it with a hundred bucks worth of hardwoods in our speakers when there are better options available for less money.
Adrian
> I've read about using bituminous roofing materials, but it would
> seem a layer of sheetrock (gyp-board, drywall, or whatever it
> might be called in your area) would be inexpensive, and even
> an additional layer of low density fiberboard might render
> hardwood panels pretty inert acoustically. Layering dissimilar
> materials seems to have a synergistic dampening effect.
In and of itself, the majority of hardwoods lack stability, and is more prone to panel resonance than MDF because of different particle orientation. That also explains why hardwoods can "split" under high pressure loads, it was only at the start of this year I was talking to somebody who did this with his Adire Tempest. Fibreboard on the other hand has its particles orientated in different directions so its more rigid under high loads and its less prone to panel resonance. Once we start adding other materials 'to the mix, then thats what is called fixing the problem. Acoustically MDF is better than hardwoods with no other treatments.
The problem doesn't end here though - we still need to use bracing in the enclosures to make them more rigid and shift its resonance frequency up higher so that it doesn't interfere with the operation of the subwoofer. And we still need fibreglass insulation inside to provide damping/absorb standing waves.
[regarding ron's comments]
> After switching to ply and solid wood i will never go back to
> MDF.It appears to introduce a smearing of sound that is quite
> audible. I believe the energy adsorbed in MDF is released
> slowly over time and this alters the following wave fronts by
> introducing either out of phase vibrations or just plain injection
> of the cabs own vibrations.
Actually, what gets absorbed remains absorbed. Some of the waves will be absorbed, but the majority is still reflected even off MDF. The problem here is really the standing waves inside the enclosure that are effective at the higher frequencies (subbass standing waves though do not effect as they are of great lengths that do not fit within the cabinet). That's why fibreglass insulation is used on the inside to suppress these unwanted colorations. And actually, hardwoods will reflect more than absorbing the sound compared to MDF which has better absorbtion characteristics.
If the cabinet is transmitting vibrations, then that suggests either it wasn't built properly, or insufficient bracing was used. Especially for larger panels then multiple braces should be used on each wall regardless of the material used.
[about concrete enclosures]
I'd suggest that this is probably one of the best ways to get an enclosure which is stiff. It's going to need quite a lot of fibreglass insulation with it though because of the poor damping characteristics of untreated concrete. Probably though concrete is going to be the least viable solution for most.
But thats getting away from the original discussion. Acoustically, an untreated hardwood panel is worse than MDF for the reasons I've already discussed - it has poorer damping characteristics because it is less absorbtive, it can split under higher pressure loads whilst MDF will resist it due to a wider orientation of particles, and it's more prone to panel resonances too because of that very same reason. As a sidenote that may deter from using hardwoods, is that its very expensive. And its also very heavy. Larger enclosures are already heavy enough as they are - I've built a 300L vented enclosure for an 18" subwoofer with extreme bracing, it is very solid, but also very heavy. I couldn't imagine the weight if it was made out of hardwood, like jarrah.
Hardwood's tend to cost a lot more than plywood and MDF too, which makes it an even more unattractive option.
Don't forget, the idea is to reproduce sound. Some instruments produce sound and are made of wood. They use certain materials to manufacture it and the resonances of the wood materials play a part in how it sounds, and also the shape's of the acoustic chambers and devices which form them. So we want an uncolored and pure sound. If there is a million dollar wood resonance sound in the recording we want to reproduce it without modifying or ruining it with a hundred bucks worth of hardwoods in our speakers when there are better options available for less money.
Adrian
macky888 said:
Don't forget the wonderful carcinogenic propertys of MDF!
Thats what does it for me, not only is it cheap and easy to work with but you get a free cancer sometime down the line 😱
For me started with MDF, moved to Birch Ply and next will be some kind of hard wood (some kind of Black Wood, if I can find any).
If working with wood is difficult, requires real hand tools (ie tools without motors in them) and is costly then so be it.
Quality is a combination of workmanship, design and materials...I'm working on the workmanship side of things becase I have found that MDF makes the materials side too easy and a computer can do the design well enough (Madisound LEAP analysis).
Working with real wood on the other had represents a challange and skill that can only be mastered over many years.
Tim.
Here is a hint for anyone looking for real hardwoods. Most shipping skids coming out automobile related industires from Asia are made of a very high grade hardwood of some sort.
The skids need to be very strong and these woods are bountiful in that part of the world. My friends and I often raid the back lots of these places and pick up skids that have been put out as garbage. You should ask before taking.
We deconstruct the skids, remaove the nails and plane them with a surface planer. I have a nice collection of rare Chinese oaks and some woods I have never seen before. Usually the usable pecies are 3 or 4 feet long and are 1 x 4.
Anthony
The skids need to be very strong and these woods are bountiful in that part of the world. My friends and I often raid the back lots of these places and pick up skids that have been put out as garbage. You should ask before taking.
We deconstruct the skids, remaove the nails and plane them with a surface planer. I have a nice collection of rare Chinese oaks and some woods I have never seen before. Usually the usable pecies are 3 or 4 feet long and are 1 x 4.
Anthony
I can't resist adding my two cents.
MDF is for the same lazy guys who think that speaker cones
are pistons, and enclosures should be dead.
OK for those who like dead music, but I often listen to old
speakers, and I can say that dead enclosures and inefficient
speakers look (and are) easy to design, but they have yet to
match really well designed live enclosures and sensitive drivers.
Hard work and good taste still win the day.
Just because you can understand the numbers and plug them
into currently available equations doesn't mean they're better -
the sound is what counts, and the most critical listeners are
the biggest iconoclasts of the "modern approach"; that "left turn"
that consumer audio made in the 60's.
Give me an old pre-Dolby Ampex tape on a tube amp on a nice
set of Tannoys in a live enclosure. You can have the THX in
particle board.
😎 😎 😎
MDF is for the same lazy guys who think that speaker cones
are pistons, and enclosures should be dead.
OK for those who like dead music, but I often listen to old
speakers, and I can say that dead enclosures and inefficient
speakers look (and are) easy to design, but they have yet to
match really well designed live enclosures and sensitive drivers.
Hard work and good taste still win the day.
Just because you can understand the numbers and plug them
into currently available equations doesn't mean they're better -
the sound is what counts, and the most critical listeners are
the biggest iconoclasts of the "modern approach"; that "left turn"
that consumer audio made in the 60's.
Give me an old pre-Dolby Ampex tape on a tube amp on a nice
set of Tannoys in a live enclosure. You can have the THX in
particle board.
😎 😎 😎This thread is quickly drifting into subjective opinion on what is the ideal material to use in enclosures.
I'm on the side that amplifiers should be "wire with gain" and speakers should faithfully reproduce the signal their given, anything else is unwanted distortion, regardless of what the enclosure is made of.
I'm on the side that amplifiers should be "wire with gain" and speakers should faithfully reproduce the signal their given, anything else is unwanted distortion, regardless of what the enclosure is made of.
To get away from wire and back to wood, for a second, what about the same wood that's used to make wind instruments?
To get back to wire... has anybody every tried something like copper plumbing pipe?
🙂ensen.
To get back to wire... has anybody every tried something like copper plumbing pipe?
🙂ensen.
The Sound Of MDF Goop Flapping...... 
Yup I agree entirely.
I recall some old AWA 3in1 cabinets from the past - these had a light paper 8', paper tweeter and chipboard cabinet panels about 3/8" thick.
Sure the cabinet put out as much sound as the driver itself, but the combination was very efficient, and the 'bop/dance' factor was there in spades.
Ditto some well regarded old English cabinets in very light plywood, and some modern ones too.
Conversely I have heard plenty of 'dead' cabinet loudspeakers that either put me to sleep, or drive me out the room.
The trick in all of this is to make the resonances additive and musical, and the increase in efficiency is a nice bonus too.
When done 'just right' **, the dynamic behaviour of these reactive cabinet loudspeakers can help to restore the transient dynamics so easily lost upstream all the way back to the recording process.
Getting such a system 'just right' ** can require close attention to details like mounting, placement, room treatment, amplifiers, cables etc, and when really singing responds like the sweetspot on a bat or racquet.
With the tried and true fingernail tap test, I have yet to hear a piece of MDF in any size, shape or thickness sound musical - it must be to do with all that toxic goop bound up inside.
Eric.
** -- Public Service Announcement -- Shamelessly Subjective Term, Conditions Unspecified, Listen To Opinions Of With Extreme Caution.
Nelson Pass said:I can't resist adding my two cents.
MDF is for the same lazy guys who think that speaker cones
are pistons, and enclosures should be dead.
OK for those who like dead music, but I often listen to old
speakers, and I can say that dead enclosures and inefficient
speakers look (and are) easy to design, but they have yet to
match really well designed live enclosures and sensitive drivers.
Hard work and good taste still win the day.
Just because you can understand the numbers and plug them
into currently available equations doesn't mean they're better -
the sound is what counts, and the most critical listeners are
the biggest iconoclasts of the "modern approach"; that "left turn"
that consumer audio made in the 60's.
Give me an old pre-Dolby Ampex tape on a tube amp on a nice
set of Tannoys in a live enclosure. You can have the THX in
particle board.
Yup I agree entirely.
I recall some old AWA 3in1 cabinets from the past - these had a light paper 8', paper tweeter and chipboard cabinet panels about 3/8" thick.
Sure the cabinet put out as much sound as the driver itself, but the combination was very efficient, and the 'bop/dance' factor was there in spades.
Ditto some well regarded old English cabinets in very light plywood, and some modern ones too.
Conversely I have heard plenty of 'dead' cabinet loudspeakers that either put me to sleep, or drive me out the room.
The trick in all of this is to make the resonances additive and musical, and the increase in efficiency is a nice bonus too.
When done 'just right' **, the dynamic behaviour of these reactive cabinet loudspeakers can help to restore the transient dynamics so easily lost upstream all the way back to the recording process.
Getting such a system 'just right' ** can require close attention to details like mounting, placement, room treatment, amplifiers, cables etc, and when really singing responds like the sweetspot on a bat or racquet.
With the tried and true fingernail tap test, I have yet to hear a piece of MDF in any size, shape or thickness sound musical - it must be to do with all that toxic goop bound up inside.
Eric.
** -- Public Service Announcement -- Shamelessly Subjective Term, Conditions Unspecified, Listen To Opinions Of With Extreme Caution.
Guys.... I truely cannot believe what I am hearing here. You cannot possibly tell me that a dead cabinet is bad, and that panel resonances make the music qualities "dynamic". Nonsense! That is complete, and utter nonsense. And it doesn't magically "restore" anything lost in the signal either - nonsense too. I'm sorry to sound a bit paranoid, but really we're talking about something here that is pretty simple really and all this "other stuff" thats been said does not prove accurate.
Having a non-braced cabinet that flexes and such does not add any "dynamic behaviour" or add any other "transient dynamics" to the music. I'd suggest that if an MDF cabinet you've built does not sound "right", providing it was built properly with fibreglass insulation and bracing then it is a problem with the design itself and not with the materials used at all. Many manufactures and DIY builders use MDF with great success, including myself in many designs.
A loudspeaker that sounds good requires carefull design work and good driver selection. And it requires a good, non-resonant cabinet. Unless you don't mind distortion - then thats what you need to aim for. Any loudspeaker building book will tell you this.
Eric, when you say the dead cabinet sounded bad - you didn't actually specify what material it was with. So what was it? MDF or hardwood? What was the exact design specifications of both systems? Were both loudspeakers exactly the same in design but just having the cabinets built of different material? How were they constructed? Did you compare an MDF and hardwood cabinet side by side and were they using the same drivers and crossovers and other systematic components in the same box design? BTW: Chipboard is not a hardwood, it's particleboard, and I do reccomend some types of this board too as it consists of larger wood particles of various sizes that are bonded together with a synthetic resin or binder under heat and pressure. It's pretty similar to MDF, except for the size of the particulate used. They are still two different products though, but both can be used (providing they are of the correct density and build) with good success. Still, I employ MDF or HDF in the majority of my loudspeakers.
BTW2: A fingernail tap test won't tell you anything except for maybe how well you've braced the enclosure and such. If its braced well, then the sound you hear after knocking it will be higher in freqeuncy than an unbraced enclosure.
As a sidenote - I've yet to hear any real explanation on a technical basis about why you guy's believe hardwoods are better, or any dead cabinets are bad. I suspect I won't either as there isn't any.
Adrian
Having a non-braced cabinet that flexes and such does not add any "dynamic behaviour" or add any other "transient dynamics" to the music. I'd suggest that if an MDF cabinet you've built does not sound "right", providing it was built properly with fibreglass insulation and bracing then it is a problem with the design itself and not with the materials used at all. Many manufactures and DIY builders use MDF with great success, including myself in many designs.
A loudspeaker that sounds good requires carefull design work and good driver selection. And it requires a good, non-resonant cabinet. Unless you don't mind distortion - then thats what you need to aim for. Any loudspeaker building book will tell you this.
Eric, when you say the dead cabinet sounded bad - you didn't actually specify what material it was with. So what was it? MDF or hardwood? What was the exact design specifications of both systems? Were both loudspeakers exactly the same in design but just having the cabinets built of different material? How were they constructed? Did you compare an MDF and hardwood cabinet side by side and were they using the same drivers and crossovers and other systematic components in the same box design? BTW: Chipboard is not a hardwood, it's particleboard, and I do reccomend some types of this board too as it consists of larger wood particles of various sizes that are bonded together with a synthetic resin or binder under heat and pressure. It's pretty similar to MDF, except for the size of the particulate used. They are still two different products though, but both can be used (providing they are of the correct density and build) with good success. Still, I employ MDF or HDF in the majority of my loudspeakers.
BTW2: A fingernail tap test won't tell you anything except for maybe how well you've braced the enclosure and such. If its braced well, then the sound you hear after knocking it will be higher in freqeuncy than an unbraced enclosure.
As a sidenote - I've yet to hear any real explanation on a technical basis about why you guy's believe hardwoods are better, or any dead cabinets are bad. I suspect I won't either as there isn't any.
Adrian
- Status
- Not open for further replies.