RV is a measurement and science based engineer, I can assure you that the 7 cabinet is superior to the 5a in every way. impossible to overdamp a passive component like a cabinet - you want to hear the Stradivarius or the cabinet ? the 7 cabinet is a mdf cabinet within a mdf cabinet with constrained layer damping ( he collaborate s with Michael at HRS, so my guess is that is is HRS supplied ( and you just know they are serious engineers ) and CF wrap cooked in an Autoclave. in a previous working life I dabbled in advanced composite structures... running arguably some of the most advanced high technology composite shops on the planet- simple stuff like the Hubble optical bench, F-22 wings, 787 fuselage..... easy stuff... i can assure you it is more than veneer now from a musical perspective, while I loved my 5a for many many musical years, the 7 mk 2 are lightyears on....
enjoy....
cueing up some late nite Sunday massed chorale..... perfect for a prayer of discernment....
"Wasn't there a company making cabinets out of cast concrete?"
Maybe you are thinking of different brand, but early Hales speakers had concrete baffles. Paul Hales switched to MDF because of economy in creation and exporting the heavy speakers. I came across an Asian manufacturer making cabinets out of vases. They were trying to find US distribution. Nice people; I hope they didn't struggle too much before quitting the impossible mission of marketing it to US audiophiles.
MDF, if anything is ultimately practical and established. I have not heard a wood box speaker using Scanspeak drivers as good as what YG has achieved, and I welcome the variety and pioneering as MDF is not some panacea.
@ctsooner Magico’s as he’s lifted the treble to make them sound more open on top
Listen, you can like what you like, I am not about to get into a Magico dirt fight again, but some basic diligent of facts, not opinions, are needed. It is actually the Vandersteen highs that are pronounced, not Magico (Plenty of measurements all over the place of current production models – you can start with Stereophile S5/Model 7). Vandersteen enclosures use of CF is minimal; they use a layer or 2 to basically veneered MDF. Vandersteen “CF” enclosures ring plenty; it is his pure MDF enclosures that are inert but, as the case with many “inert” cabinets, they are over-damped, again just look at measurements. Magico S5 THD measurements are the lowest ever measured at the NRC; rest assured, it will not be the case if they “ring”. Try listening with your ears, not your eyes, just because something is made out of metal, does not mean anything; does your car rings?
I laugh when reading threads like this. It's as though there is an absolute or holy grail. All materials have different properties. All speakers have compromises.
Designers figure out what they want for their sound and build/design accordingly. They do a ton of R&D if they are large enough and will use all different materials. They can do modeling and figure out most of it on a computer. I think this is one reason the DIY groups started to grow again after they were kind of losing steam a bit in the early 2000's based only on what I've been told (I may be wrong).
Folks will find fault with all speakers. We all hear differently. I'm glad that folks who have Magico's love them, but to many they do ring and are fatiguing. I feel that Wilson's and their polymers and choice of drivers lose much of the micro and macro details, but boy are they dynamic. I love listening to Harbeths, but again, they too lack much detail, but man are they enjoyable. All use different cabinet materials.
I own Vandersteen's and I choice them over nearly everything I could possibly audition that was under 35k or so. He went the carbon fiber way years ago from house made cones to the cabinet. I also know that he 'auditioned' all the different weaves of carbon fiber that he could get and choice a specific on based on it's sound quality. It's a very expensive cloth as it's teh same one used in my ultra high end walking poles (I have MS and have poles to get around inside buildings when I can't use my rollator).
the bottom line is that some will find fault wiht the sound of the Vandersteen 7's as they will focus on his compromises, just like I get fatigued listening to Magico's as he's lifted the treble to make them sound more open on top etc... (if you measure speakers, many of them are lifted up to 3db in the high end to give them a more 'detailed and or larger soundstage".)
Again, it's all implementation and compromises. There is personal preference, which makes this hobby a blast, but no 1 correct answer.
^Solid wood and plywood are even more susceptible. Solid wood, depending on treatment, will swell, or in the case of low humidity - crack. Plywood will begin to bend in as little as 60% RH. It takes very high humidity (>80%) to warp MDF - the level that would make for an unhealthy household.
MDF can be affected by relative humidity, which in turn affects any attached veneer. One must totally seal all exposed MDF surfaces to render it immune to the affects of humidity. Kind of a pain.
It helps to hear, literally, what is going on, by listening to the cabinet’s walls through a stethoscope, playing music and test tones. You find two things:
Flexing of the cabinet walls allows low bass to come through. Out in your room, this adds in phase to the direct sounds coming from your woofer, making the overall presentation warmer, and adding bass ’ambience’ below 80 Hz. The bass is less tight, less defined, of course. Probably makes the hifi sound ’better’ at soft volumes.
For low-bass flexing, braces help, granite helps, thick materials help, thin plywoods do not. Thin carbon fiber does not. Solid hardwood will split given time. Think here about maximizing panel ’stiffness’ or rigidity, not its ’strength’. Cement, concrete? Sure! FYI, paint the inside of wood cabinets with thinned-out wood glue-- as the surfaces of MDF and plywoods are porous, absorbing bass pressure whenever the woofer fires off.
The other stethoscope discovery is that a cabinet lets voice range sounds, in the 200 to 300 Hz range, come right through. This makes for ’scratchy’ sounds in wood boxes and for ringing sounds in granite and metal. These vibrations do not come from the SPL inside the cabinet (unless there is a large, undamped (loud) standing wave inside). Those 200-300Hz vibrations come from the direct excitation of the cabinet material via the screws mounting ’that’ driver. When you loosen all its screws, all of a sudden, the walls go silent!
One fix is to use rubber-mounted screws, but this makes bass impacts ’rubbery’. KEF and others tried this in the 80’s, giving it up after sales tanked from all that loose bass. The driver could be mounted to a regular inner cabinet with a vibration-isolated cabinet wrapped around it. Unfortunately, this leaves those inner-cabinet vibrations undamped, which get back to the driver, making its cone vibrate (= noise).
When these tones get into the cabinet material via those screws, there is no way to damp them, and no way to brace against them, because they travel inside the cabinet material, not on the surface. If those screws cannot be rubber-isolated, the cabinet material needs to have ’high internal damping’, which is not a property of metal, cement, nor most woods. Cabinet thickness does not matter here, at least for making something to fit in a home.
For a home constructor, I recommend 3/4" Baltic birch plywood cabinets, or at least for its front panel, with braces inlaid 6-8 inches apart, center-to-center. But BB plywood is such a tough wood to work with and to make pretty! Two 1/2" BB layers glued up with Elmer’s Carpenter’s Glue made a front panel that was a bit more dead to those midrange tones getting into it from the screws, but not enough to justify the extra work. It made far more difference to put 1/4" wool felt on the front baffle to suck up the tweeter’s reflections before getting on with designing the tweeter’s crossover.
“Why Magico is made out of aluminum? Probably because it is cheap.”
Whether aluminum is cheap or not is besides the point. If you look at all the complexities in the internal bracings that are used and machining of all those pieces and the time and cost to assemble everything you’ll get a picture why they cost so much. It’s certainly hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) to run MDF boards through CNC machines and glue them up together, even when every other component, e.g., drivers, crossover parts, etc., are the same.
Solid jarrah sounds excellent.It is a really dead sounding timber .I have used it laminated over MDF in larger speakers and as 100% solid in smaller speakers.It sounds much better than MDF or plywood to me.It is also great for turntable plinths and racks.Grado were also using it for some of their most expensive phono cartridges.It seems to have just the right density [medium-to high] and grain structure[short].It also looks beautiful.
There is nothing special about 6060 aluminum alloy. It is the most common material for all kind of aluminum parts. It is not expensive and very easy to machine. Modern CNC machines with carbide cutting tools cut this material like butter. 6060 has many heat treat variations. You can heat treat aluminum alloy to achieve certain mechanical properties and strength. Again T6 heat treat is very common and no brainer. Magico is made out of 6060-T6 aluminum alloy. Years ago when mechanical engineers design machines they will use cast iron for machine bases. Cast iron with graphite was resistant to vibrations. Another vibrations resistant materials are lead and asphalt and many more. Why Magico is made out of aluminum? Probably because it is cheap, easy to precisely machine, and process for example hard anodize.
Use 5/8 inch mdf, layer of non hardening glue, 3/8 hdf, layer of non hardening glue, and 5/8 plywood to support them. Near perfect without the cost. Perhaps put the hdf 1st. Toss up. Enjoy. You have 98-99% at reasonable cost. If you’re obsessive switch the 5/8 mdf for 5/8 + of granite for your baffle. Your there with the big boys at minimal cost.
Aluminum is good material but a) need to be calculated to be low resonant and suitable for loudspeaker b) need dedicated tools, not suitable for DIY c) expEnsive. Natural Wood is good but only with heavy thk. Also need good practice and suitable tools. It is better to use playwood and MDF for DIY being easy to work, less expensive, good acoustic characteristics. It is perfect for final painting or to be dressed by low thk natural wood. In terms of constructability, it is preferable to use playwood for the bottom, front and top side and MDF for remaining panels. Reinforcements by playwood. No problem to glue MDF and playwood togheter as well final layer of natural wood if any. Please to consider that the real sonici part of loudspeaker are drives, crossover, wiring cable (internal and external should be adequate quality and dimensions) as well the cabinet should be heavy, strong, its very low resonance. Have a good DIY
@greg22lz you made a profound statement. "The difference between theory and reality"
So many theoretical designs and mathematical equations hypothesis and super expensive space age designs but does it sound great after 15minutes half hour and even after 15 hours of straight listening?
Nice observation and thanks for reading them. Wilson Beseech has done more R & D into speaker and driver construction then any company I know of, perhaps all of them put together. On their website they have so much information. wilsonbenesch.com
After reading all these technical comments just realized how deep and elaborate speaker cabinet construction can be. Its a science unto itself. I remember they have thick books on enclosure and cabinet building.
Might need to take a couple year college course to understand the concept down to the finer details.
The brits seem to understand the science of speakers very well.
@geoffkait Well actually you are correct, I really should have thought through my words better... it is low density, because it is lightweight, but I guess we could compare carbon steel or you could call coal a carbon as well as diamond a carbon, but no, I meant carbon fiber, more like an epoxy. I thought you were part of the forum, its called chiming in, not butting in. So, I stand corrected, but still contend that this could be a very nice material combined with another. Tim
I know this was targeted at someone else but if you don’t have anything productive to add to the conversation you should just skip this thread and move on. If you feel real strongly about your speaker design knowledge/skills, write a paper and send us the link. Personal insults are not welcomed here.
That poster is spreading misinformation. He clearly confuses amplitude with frequency - rather basic principles in audio. Even though I pointed this out to him, he continued to spout nonsense as though it is fact. I make no apologies for the ignorance of others. There's far too much of that going on in our culture these days. Peace.
Sorry to butt in but carbon fiber actually has a low density. High strength, light weight, low density. But, interestingly enough, high electrical conductivity.
Magic M3 weighs a healthy 320 lbs. each! Looks like the CF “panels” are more like an esthetic touch than structural. And the (internal ) aluminum bracing is quite extensive and incredibly impressive.
“Give it up dude, you obviously have not the slightest understanding of speaker physics. I'll await your reply with a claim of BS credentials”
I know this was targeted at someone else but if you don’t have anything productive to add to the conversation you should just skip this thread and move on. If you feel real strongly about your speaker design knowledge/skills, write a paper and send us the link. Personal insults are not welcomed here.
But just from user experience: I've had tons of speakers of all sorts of designs, from the "we let the specially selected wood resonate with the music" (Shun Mook speakers), to Harbeth (Super HL5Plus), to many MDF boxes (Hales, Audio Physic, Meadowlark, others), to Quad 63, MBL radialstrahler with their carbon fibre petals, to Waveform (currently Mach MCs -which are almost a solid giant egg of layered MDF), to my current Thiel 3.7 and 2.7 speakers which use curved plywood cabinets.
They all sounded great! I'm a "tone first" guy, and the MBLs have gorgeous realistic tone and presence, so do the Waveform speakers, so do my Thiels. And I've been listening to Devore speakers quite a bit recently the O series made of plywood.
I'd say that a common thread among the "let the box resonate" speakers is a rich, full warm tone. Though it can be hard to untangle that somewhat from the fact most of them have wide baffles, so presumably they are sending more direct sound towards you which may account for that added size and presence as much as any box resonances.
But one common characteristic among the singing box designs is that I seem to hear the box a bit more, sometimes overt, sometimes really subtle. They rarely totally disappear as much as the more inert speakers.
I found a comparison between my Harbeth SuperHL5plus speakers and my Thiels quite interesting. Both have beautiful organic tone. The Harbeths being known for this. And the Harbeths sounded rich and full - yet really open and seemed to "disappear" quite well, much better than one would expect looking at them.
But compared to the Thiels, the Harbeths had a sort of texture that ran through and behind everything, even in the space between instruments. It didn't stick out as obvious box ringing, but when I played the same material on the Thiels, for instance an acoustic guitar quartet, the sound seemed to clean up of any blur on the Thiels. Instrument tone was essentially as rich, but became even more distinct because of the higher precision in the sound. All the instruments and their character that much easier to hear.
My feeling after that (and selling the Harbeths) was that the singing box method certainly can work, but it seems to me that the most likely path to advancement in realism lies in reducing the influence from the speaker cabinet, as most designers are trying to do.
That's not to say that I automatically prefer the super dead cabinet sound. I've fallen for the Devore O series somewhat for their richness and dynamics and they are not of the dead-box variety. But I am also a bit more aware of the speaker than I am with speakers like my Thiels which can really be "invisible" as sound sources.
There are a ton of excellent speakers made of many types of materials. In the end, as long as a cabinet is well designed with the cabinet included in the design, the drivers and crossovers are still more important to the overall design than the cabinet material itself. Again, well thought out, well designed speakers that include the cabinet material in the design.
Laminated bamboo is the best sounding loudspeaker cabinet material I've heard. My Bache Audio speakers have 3/4" bamboo cabinets. Devore Fidelity also uses bamboo.
@helomech Thanks for the informative reply. Clearly you have found the items that work best for you in your room and for your musical taste. As a former dealer, THAT WAS JOB 1 for us! I suggest the boxless speakers only because we had much success with them and when A-B comparisons were made in our shop, they came out best. Remember, this was in the '70s-'80's, so life and speaker technology has improved dramatically since then. I have seen $200,000 speakers for sale for homes...no comment. Interestingly, I have noticed that many manufacturers are either raising their speakers on stands or designing them to be 6' tall. I wonder where they got that idea???
Finally, a listener is NEVER WRONG!!! You like a, I like b. If we all liked a, life would be boring and only one company would make speakers, not over 300 at any given time. I love the hobby for many reasons...some because I am retired from the business!...and respect everyone who is involved from any perspective. It is a great hobby with music at its core.
All I can suggest is that you find a super-high-end dealer in your area who has the latest 30.7's running in a proper set-up and give them a listen. Of course they are ridiculously (to me) expensive, but seeking the best and then buying what you can afford that gets you as close as possible is what the hobby is all about, IMO. I hear you loud and clear that you found better than the 1.7 units. Possibly the company has heard you as well and has figured out how to fix that--at an outrageous price. Then again, that is the way of the world. Race cars pretending to be daily drivers cost a bundle but don't do any better getting you from a to b than cheap cars. But a prancing horse on your car costs a ton more than a bow tie! Enjoy the music...
Big speakers big problems. Cabinet materials that have a low resonance are slow to eliminate them. So they store them and release them slowly thereby smearing the image. This is a fact and widely recognized.
Give it up dude, you obviously have not the slightest understanding of speaker physics. I'll await your reply with a claim of BS credentials.
Back to the car at the stoplight with the music blaring. What I hear is this horrible distorted bass, a result from the back of the drivers getting the whole car excited and actually increasing the volume because the car now becomes a huge driver. This happens in speakers as well, get the cabinets excited and the room goes crazy and out come the bass busters.
With monitor speakers due to the smaller cabinet size there is far less resonance of the box.
Big speakers big problems. Cabinet materials that have a low resonance are slow to eliminate them. So they store them and release them slowly thereby smearing the image. This is a fact and widely recognized.
@helomech Thanks for the comment. I am sorry the 1.7s did not meet your requirements. I might suggest some agonizing reappraisal, to quote a ’70s 7-UP commercial.
As you clearly understand, your ROOM is the most important element in any sound reproduction evaluation. Possibly your room was not set-up correctly for the 1.7 experiment? I will admit that this is a real chore and may not ever be right depending upon the room. I have years of experience doing this and can state that there are some rooms that simply do not sound right with dipole speakers. So be it!
HOWEVER, you seem to be an open-minded individual, so might I suggest that you give it another go at a dealer who knows what they are doing in their shop and listen again to a comparable model of non-box and box speakers in the shop where they are all set-up correctly? You might be surprised at the quality of the sound, or not. The objective, of course, is to make sure YOUR chosen system sounds the way YOU want it to in YOUR ROOM!
I owned a pair of Maggie 1.7is for about 4 months - after a year long stint with Monitor Audio Silver 8s. I had the Maggies in a dedicated and treated 16x26x8’ room, so they had plenty of breathing space. Power was from a Parasound Halo Integrated. When I first auditioned them, they were being driven by $30K Devialet Monoblocks. I subsequently auditioned them with my own amp and while they were better than the MAs, they didn’t exactly bowl me over. However, I liked them over other speakers I heard that day (in their price range) and took a pair home. Unfortunately, I began experiencing fatigue from their treble. I did an absurd amount of experimenting with placement to alleviate it, but the only thing that worked was resistors in the jumper terminals. That limited their transparency to below that of the MA Silver 8s.
A couple months later I heard a pair of Spendor SP100s at Acoustic Sounds. It was a revelation. This was before I began going to audio shows, but even so, I still consider them some of the best speakers I’ve heard anywhere. I subsequently auditioned Harbeths, Spendors and the Stirling Broadcast LS3/6s in my home. Each was better than the Magnepans and by a significant margin, even their imaging. What really struck me was how they produced greater detail, despite being less fatiguing. I settled on the Spendors because they were the most "musical" of the bunch to my ears, however, the LS3/6s were the most impressive regarding typical audiophile terms. To say they were merely better than the 1.7s is an understatement. Knowing what these monkey coffins can do, I simply don’t understand the hype surrounding panel speakers.
As for value, I found both the KEF LS50s and Vandersteen 1Cis offered more bang for the buck, even in my large room.
I think I gave the Maggies a fair shake. I respect that others like them (they’re not terrible speakers by any means) but I also suspect that some of their devoted fans haven’t heard some of the best that box speakers have to offer. If I’m wrong, then I suppose it’s simply a matter of personal perception - a matter of Laurel vs Yannie.
Anyone building DIY cabinets can use Corian at the very least: Best materials are composite polymers. And this is not debatable.
Even though Corian would work, I want anyone to be careful that might plan a diy project, you can't grab any material because it looks dense. Corian is an acrylic mineral. As long as the cabinet is thick enough, it will do a very good job And I'm sorry to say that composite polymers are debatable, They can be excellent, but It very much depends on which polymer and hardening agents are used and again, how thick the material is to absorb or repel bass frequencies from within the box. Phenolic resins or some epoxy's could work also. Some of these materials sandwiched with a softer material could be excellent. Its not that this is wrong info, but in itself if not used properly can end in some pretty poor results. I hope this helps.
@helomech Thanks for the comment. I am sorry the 1.7s did not meet your requirements. I might suggest some agonizing reappraisal, to quote a '70s 7-UP commercial.
As you clearly understand, your ROOM is the most important element in any sound reproduction evaluation. Possibly your room was not set-up correctly for the 1.7 experiment? I will admit that this is a real chore and may not ever be right depending upon the room. I have years of experience doing this and can state that there are some rooms that simply do not sound right with dipole speakers. So be it!
HOWEVER, you seem to be an open-minded individual, so might I suggest that you give it another go at a dealer who knows what they are doing in their shop and listen again to a comparable model of non-box and box speakers in the shop where they are all set-up correctly? You might be surprised at the quality of the sound, or not. The objective, of course, is to make sure YOUR chosen system sounds the way YOU want it to in YOUR ROOM!
Well the Harbeth " model " is the exception. The resonance of MDF is low but their cabinets are thin and " loose " which raises the resonance, so they have chosen to lower it. In most speakers low resonance excite the cabinet creating a very large driver. We can all relate to the example of a car with the stereo turned up load. The bass gets amplified buy the body of the car, the doors which essential are the back of the cabinet become a huge " driver ". The area of the door, perhaps 20 times larger then the driver in the door when excited will sound 20 times louder the the driver itself.
All speaker manufactures attempt to raise the resonance of their cabinets since low frequencies are extremely difficult to dissipate.
False. The thin wall, BBC-derived approach is to lower the resonance frequencies to the bass region. Since you like to reference Harbeth, read up on their philosophy.
Energy can not be destroyed. There is the challenge
All speaker manufactures attempt to raise the resonance of their cabinets since low frequencies are extremely difficult to dissipate. Those bass busters deal more with the cabinet resonance from poorly designed speakers then from the waves off the front of the driver.
Energy can not be destroyed. There is the challenge.
I’ve oft wondered why no one has come out with speaked cabinets made of Smart Metal. Head tennis racquets used “smart” materials in their tennis racquets many years ago, that change stiffness characteristics in proportion to how hard the tennis ball is hit. Seems like it might be appropriate for cabinets.
As for speakers, sorry to be grinch, but there is no way a cone speaker (except possibly these woofers) in any cabinet made from any material sounds as accurate as speakers that don’t use cabinets regardless of the materials or design parameters. Do not take my word for it. Put speakers in cabs side-by-side with non-cab speakers and see for yourself, please.
Been there, done that. For example, the Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 sounds far more accurate and neutral than Magnepan 1.7is, and with more transparency. It’s no contest, those wide baffle monkey coffins are simply better speakers, but don’t take my word for it.
I was under the impression that the purpose of the cabinet was to add to the richness of the sound, versus just the speaker itself. Just as the body of violin or bass fiddle adds to the richness of the sound it produces. Is this not true?
Not true. The box is meant to load the woofer and prevent the speaker from acting as a dipole, which creates diffuse sound and excessive woofer excursion. Dipoles are typically less efficient than box speakers for a given diaphragm size. If what you guessed was true, speaker boxes would most often be made of thin tonewoods, which is obviously not the case. And no, it’s not due to expense. A thin mahogany box is fairly cheap to manufacture. One can get a brand new mahogany guitar for $200.
Most modern speaker manufacturers have a pretty good understanding of speaker physics, believe it or not. That so many here are questioning their use of boxes and MDF is baffling to me (no pun intended).
As for speakers, sorry to be grinch, but there is no way a cone speaker (except possibly these woofers) in any cabinet made from any material sounds as accurate as speakers that don’t use cabinets regardless of the materials or design parameters. Do not take my word for it. Put speakers in cabs side-by-side with non-cab speakers and see for yourself, please.
I was under the impression that the purpose of the cabinet was to add to the richness of the sound, versus just the speaker itself. Just as the body of violin or bass fiddle adds to the richness of the sound it produces. Is this not true?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
