In the late 1970's we made some stands (solid red oak) for the Mark Levinson HQD system in our factory. He then asked us to make a couple of woofer cabs for the Hartely 24" woofers he recommended for this system. They were made from 1" particle board rather than MDF, glued and splined, I believe. It was so long ago I kind of forget, but I believe I remember the looser composition of the particle board when viewed on end. All internal corners were braced with 4x4 fence posts using glue. They were then covered with a light wood-grain Formica for looks--remember, it was the 1970's (!).
The cabs (@ 5'H x 3'W x 3'D I think) weighed enough that a fork lift was needed to lift them once the woofer and hook-ups were installed. I remember we went to 4" casters so we could move them around the shop. I would guess the casters came off once they were in place in the listening room. In this instance, the spec was for particle board as I remember. Anyone remember these?
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.
Twisted login helomech....where do you get this Schiit.
Another illogical argument based on lack of knowelege of material resonance. Thick and highly braced MDF cabinets have a higher resonance point than thin walled designs like a Harbeth - usually in the >400Hz range.
Harbeth seeks to control resonance by lowering its frequency to levels below the midband where our hearing is less sensitive. The difference is they’re not trying to reduce the amplitude as many manufacturers attempt (yet fail to do). Your argument was that plywood is a superior material to MDF, well won’t you be surprised to learn that Harbeth uses thin MDF panels combined with bitumen sheets.
You assumed that heavier MDF cabinets will have a lower resonance frequency. The reality is that it’s stiffer and will have a higher resonant frequency - toward the midband and often above 400Hz - not the best approach IMO as this is closer to a "ringing" as you might find in metal cabinets.
I happen to prefer the BBC/Harbeth/Spendor/Stirling Broadcast/Graham approach - whether it’s MDF or birch plywood, they all make excellent speakers. However, all alse being equal, for a given mass, MDF is less prone to resonance than solid wood and plywood.
Slightly off topic - but Martin Logan CLX have no cabinets and they certainly sound fine - i think HDF makes the most sense if you are looking for consistency - eapecially when cut and prepared with CNC machinery - i dont see how they can match the left and right cabinet properties if you are using plywood or natural wood regardless of the wood type or mumber of layers - it is impossible to build two cabinets with identical sound absorbtion / reflection properties with anything other than MDF or HDF. PMC speakers - widely used in most recording studios use nothing but HDF or MDF - although they baffle the cabinets with a proprietary insulation material - but i would think natural wood would be the worste choice for cabinets because of the tendency to change properties with the climate and humidity - as well as the impossible task of trying to have two cabinets with exactly the same charactiristics
I would say that because MDF is heavier then Plywood it is going to have a lower resonance point, meaning the MDF will store vibrations longer, much like a heat sink, and release it slowly causing a smearing of the imaging. Then by bracing in an effort to eliminate resonance mass is added, which again lowered the resonance point. Imaging ringing the bell in the tower of London as compared to the bell on a bicycle. Lots of energy off the back of the driver is headed to the cabinet.
Another illogical argument based on lack of knowelege of material resonance. Thick and highly braced MDF cabinets have a higher resonance point than thin walled designs like a Harbeth - usually in the >400Hz range. This is what happens with very stiff enclosures. The bell analogy falls apart because each would have to be struck with the same size clapper. You'd be striking the London bell with a bicycle clapper. You're basically referring to the Gandy argument of how materials store energy, problem is, he too has a misunderstanding of materials science. Put a stethoscope on any of his plinths and you'll hear rumble galore compared to a high mass design.
I would say that because MDF is heavier then Plywood it is going to have a lower resonance point, meaning the MDF will store vibrations longer, much like a heat sink, and release it slowly causing a smearing of the imaging. Then by bracing in an effort to eliminate resonance mass is added, which again lowered the resonance point. Imaging ringing the bell in the tower of London as compared to the bell on a bicycle. Lots of energy off the back of the driver is headed to the cabinet.
Harbeth still takes the light approach with success. Not sure about their 40 series however, that may be to big a woofer.
My DIY JBL-4350 has two 15" woofers, each in a 5 cu. ft. enclosure, for their enclosure I used two layers, 3/4" birch plywood on the outside glued to 3/4" particle board on the inside, that is 1 1/2" total thickness, it is heavy but as solid and resonant free that is practically possible, this enclosure does not require any internal bracing.
^By that argument, speaker cones should be made of doped skin, like an Ed Gein lampshade.
Speakers are not musical instruments. Their purpose is to create a perfect replication of the recording through air movement, with minimal influence on the signal from the cabinet or diaphragm materials. Anything that resonates during this process is a coloration, an alteration of the original sound. If you use a spruce horn to project the sound of a recorded violin, essentially what you’ll get is the sound of a violin that’s been altered by further wood resonance. One might as well encapsule the violin within another violin. It will no longer sound like a Stradivari, but will sound like a violin made of that cheap, new-growth spruce that the builder got from their local lumber yard. This still might be pleasing to the ear, but if it resonates more (or at a higher frequency where our ears are more sensitive) vs the plastic horn, it is a greater alteration of the recording.
This is why speaker manufacturers tend to use self-damping materials: plastic/ paper/ceramic cones, fabric tweeters and MDF cabinets. Their resonance tends to be of lower amplitude for a given SPL and therefore, they have less of an impact on the original signal. The perfect speaker would be one that produces sound waves while imparting absolutely zero resonance of its own. A solid wood enclosure won’t get anywhere close to that ideal, because it’s highly resonant by nature - great for instruments, not for speakers.
WATT uses inert cabinets. Yet,*internal bracing* with all the wood combinations mentioned, will drastically cut down on resonance and vibration.
Keep in mind, drum sets consist of wood plies or solid wood, and they get their unique tone from the choice of the various wood used. Different wood types resonate at different points. MDF would make for a very dead sounding drum because it resists resonating. Who knows? I would think the drivers and the quality of the crossover would make the big difference.
Which ever material is lower mass would be better. High mass materials have a low resonance point. Very difficult to deal with low frequencies.
Aluminum has never seemed viable as a musical speaker cabinet material. I don't think it will stand the test of time.
Plywood is by its nature a composite material that has self dampening properties. When used properly this can sound excellent. I think some old violins are made with plywood. Not sure.
I agree with Baltic Birch , Lois speaker designer from omega speakers , sold me the rs8 supercone made with Baltic Birch it so beautiful and sound really good, then I have this Norh speaker made with synthetic marble , made in Thailand design by Michael Barnes, The Andra they do have granite in it...
"It depends on the wires which should be copper and the electronics, it took me years to get them to sound my best."
You're a lot more patient than most folks here and probably a perfectionist. I would give it a month and then move on to something else. For me, any component I buy must sound better than what it replaced, right out of the box.
Listen to my Q3s for hours and never get fatigued.It depends on the wires which should be copper and the electronics it took me years to get them to sound my best.Oh well everyone has a Magico negitive rap.Enjoy the hobby!!
Please note, Magio STARTED their speaker manufacturing business using plywood for the cabinet . MDF is as dense as plywood and inert enough to adhere veneer without future movement. It’s inherent stability combined with bracing creates all the stiffness necessary for any speaker enclosure. Drivers are tuned to the box, therefore if aluminum were used, as it is stiffer, and more dense, the driver types, as well as other design components, will be necessary for tuning the sound. Finally, few can afford a 200,000.00 pair of aluminum billet machined speaker so it hardly matters if aluminum is a better material. I listened to a magico system, m project speakers, and my guess is that system was in the neighborhood of 350,000.00. Frankly obscene, however, after 20 minutes of listening, although the aluminum speakers had a provocative sound, they were very fatiguing to the ear. All sweetness was gone. The difference between theory and reality!!
Neutral sound is of course subjective, however, the majority of loudspeaker designers seek to reduce resonance as much as possible or lower it to frequencies where our hearing is less sensitive. Solid woods don’t suppress resonance nearly as well as composites. An open-baffle design is far more logical than a tonewood box if one wants uncolored, true-to-the-source sound, with little to impede the behavior of the drivers. It’s also worth noting that cabinet resonance is usually heard as distortion - typically a grainy midrange, not something pleasant and complimentary to the sound of the drivers.
If someone wants a speaker that excells at reproducing the sounds of a violin, then certainly, it might make sense to use solid Spruce. Speakers from the likes of Viking certainly don’t sound neutral to my ears, but I’m sure they’re a perfect fit for some listeners.
I suspect some here are simply operating on the logic that MDF and plywoods are inexpensive, therefore, they must be an inferior choice. This might be true if discussing dressers or coffee tables.
There's an aspect of poster @bukirob's post above that may not have received proper diligence, which is that of acknowledging how different cabinet materials invariably have actual and different sonic characteristics. The analogy to musical instruments in this regard isn't necessarily a way of saying that speakers should be build the same way, i.e. as obvious resonators that highly contribute to the overall sound, but rather that care in choosing the right cabinet material should be applied to speakers as well, considering the above mentioned. The argument that enclosures need to be as inert as possible doesn't equate into their total inertness by any practical measure, and so their inevitable contribution is still to be dealt with - while often failing to properly do so, not least by ear. Quite a few I've spoken to on this subject feel particle boards like MDF or HDF have a tendency to unnaturally deaden the sound acting as enclosures, certainly compared to ply- or hardwood, not unlike the way I feel drivers with a range of "exotic" cone materials seem to lack a sense of aliveness, organic quality and energy compared to paper cones. How many actually speak of the rationale for choosing particle boards with reference to their sounding good - be it either in virtue of sonic absence or presence? Most simply and blindly refer to them as being relatively "inert."
For the majority of loudspeakers, the goal is to have cabinets that produce as little resonance as possible (or in the case of BBC designs - move the resonance away from the midband), that is the opposite of string instruments. Loudspeaker designers want their drivers to do as much of the work as possible, not the cabinet. An acoustic instrument uses the wood body to amplify the vibration of the strings. By your logic, loudspeakers should all be made of thin sheets of tonewoods, in which case the cabinets would produce as much sound as the drivers. One could definitely achieve some interesting colorations with such an approach, and they’d likely sound good with certain types of music, but it definitely wouldn’t result in a flat frequency response, nor would the music sound as intended by the studio engineer.
Your logic is completely flawed. Not only are hardwoods often weaker than wood composites for a given thickness, they resonate more, and behave differently depending on their orientation in the structure. They are quite simply a poor choice for speaker cabinets with the few exceptions of those that are purposely designed to color the sound.
@bukirob I clearly know all about the musical instruments. However, I have a hard time comprehending your backwards logic. It’s clear you don’t have the slightest idea on how good speakers are and should be built.
You clearly do not know much about the live concert instruments. I can not think of a string instrument that isn't made out of wood which is UNIVERSALLY individually selected.
For example, PRS guitars have 2 distinct level (this is very common among concert level instruments) General line, of which some are made in Korea and the remainder are made in the USA. Then there is their private stock line where the woods are individually selected for their tonality SPECIFICALLY.
That last word explains my VERY sound logic Invictus. Woods have tonality properties that NOTHING else will reproduce. SOME have exceptional resonance qualities and these are selected by luthiers. You know its why a Martin D45 that was made in 1941 is for sale for $350,000.00.
Its also why a 1957-1965 Les Paul sell routinely for $100,000-325,000. New these guitars would have sold for $300-500. I purchased my 1974 Les Paul for $350.00 Today, its worth 10 times that much. As it ages it will continue to rise in value.
Anything that is resonating sound, AKA music, the type of wood matters. The idea that wood vs MDF/Plywood doesnt matter is utterly absurd. Sure you are going to pay through the nose for wood but it is a FAR superior choice.
Just a guess, but Im betting these arent made of MDF or Plywood.
Here is what I would say about that. How many CONCERT level instruments are made out of plywood or MDF?
Answer = 0
While a speaker is not an instrument in the sense that you can play it, it shares ALL of the concepts of a device, usually some type of chamber in which sound is projected for the audience to hear and enjoy.
It would seem to me that Wood would be the obvious choice.
If the goal is to hear the resonating wood (as is the case with string instruments), then yes, solid woods are certainly the best choice. If it were the most inert and neutral material choice, we wouldn't have such large variations in the design of string instruments. Any experienced guitarist can tell you that sitka spruce and maple sounds brighter than mahogany. Hmmm...ever wonder why the call them "tonewoods?"
Further, as mentioned in the white paper linked above, solid woods are not isotropic. They also have too many inconsistencies in terms of density and grain patterns - even with cuts sourced from the same tree. This is why no two string instruments - even from the same luthier - will sound exactly the same. These issues could create problems for pair matching of speakers.
Here is what I would say about that. How many CONCERT level instruments are made out of plywood or MDF?
Since I listen to mainly jazz vocalists my speakers are made mainly of deceased jazz vocalists. You would not believe how long I waited for this pair. Touch and go for a while, I was worried the singer might recover.
Here is what I would say about that. How many CONCERT level instruments are made out of plywood or MDF?
Answer = 0
While a speaker is not an instrument in the sense that you can play it, it shares ALL of the concepts of a device, usually some type of chamber in which sound is projected for the audience to hear and enjoy.
It would seem to me that Wood would be the obvious choice.
ebm@ you right, The Magico , YG is not stupid, The harder material get less vibration , The harder wood, bamboo also better them MDF. In reality good braced MDF is also good enough, The conclusion if you gonna spend more money--- best choice -aluminum , next solid wood and last -MDF
@ebm You better believe it they ring like a bell! No matter the bracing. You can't just knock on them as a test. You need a tone generator and vibration measuring tools.
Take a look at Stereophile, every review of Magico omits this test, but all other speakers have it. There's a reason for it.
What great speakers do you have?Good luck in this great hobby.
I design my own. Here is what I’m listening to now. The tweeter is the same as used in some Gryphon designs, the mid-woofer I’ve seen in Wilson and other speakers:
Caps are top of the line from Clarity, resistors from Mills and copper foil inductor in the woofer. Not sure if it’s Mundorf or Jantzen. Cabinetry is from Lee Taylor
Of the same thickness, MDF is the least resonant and most neutral. Like bamboo and solid woods, birch ply boxes tend to impart a sound signature - typically a leaner, brighter sound than MDF (to my ears).
Weird that aluminum is brought up in a thread about wood derivatives. Aluminum (even "aircraft grade" alloys) will ring unless very thick and carefully braced.
My Italian walnut diapasons sound pretty good. I’m voting for solid wood. It’s just too expensive. Walnut, maple and cherry is very dense but to build a speaker cabinet it’s just too expensive.
3 things make a great speaker the cabinet,the crossover and the drivers of which Magico makes the cabinet and most of the drivers not the tweeter however.Oh well thats my opinion.Good luck.
I agree the A1 is much better than the S1 mk2 having heard both at Axpona this year.I love the Magico aura been in the hobby 50 years i have had many speakers including the Magico mini 2s made out of layers of Baltic Birch one of the best made wooden speaker cabinets.With the Magico aluminum cabinet you must get the best amp and preamp also you must use the best copper speaker wire.I have had Maggies 1Ds mg 3s and Avalon to name a few.I don't clam to know everything but i have learned a few things over the years.It however takes a lot of effort to make Magico sound its best.I totally agree there are many great speakers out there of which Magico is just one.Overpriced is not a problem for me however i never paid list price on any speakers.What great speakers do you have?Good luck in this great hobby.
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.
