Jump to content

BS Button List of worthy Myths


ClaudeJ1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

^ I agree with everything you said Edgar.

From a purely objective standpoint, I agree with most of what you say, too. In this context, it's just not necessary to be purely objective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Edgar said:

From a purely objective standpoint, I agree with most of what you say, too. In this context, it's just not necessary to be purely objective.

Here's more from Bill Fitzmaurice: "Break-in never ceases, it goes on indefinitely at a very slow rate. I had an EVM-12L that I used in a number of boxes over some 20 years. Fs out of the box was 65Hz. After break in it came down to the spec'd 55Hz. Every time I put it in a new cab Fs was down a bit more. The last time I measured it Fs had come down to 48Hz."

 

What he's talking about is the original K-42 woofer by EV! Use in my original Super Heresy 1.0 owned by Jim Jimbo..........still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dave A said:

Same tired line every time this comes up. However I have practical experience through actual builds and experimentation and handling both MDF and Baltic cabinets. As far as I can tell your experience is limited to only pre-built things which you can buy and then since you bought them they then become the world standard by which all other things are found lacking.

 

You said baltic sounds better.  Please explain.

 

Roy, if you're still reading this thread, what are your thoughts?  Would the new CW4 sound better if it was made from BB?

 

I'll acknowledge that it makes a cabinet more resistant to water damage but it's hard to worry about that risk when none of my other gear is water-resistant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Here's more from Bill Fitzmaurice: "... Fs out of the box was 65Hz. After break in it came down to the spec'd 55Hz. Every time I put it in a new cab Fs was down a bit more. The last time I measured it Fs had come down to 48Hz."

Something doesn't look right. For Fs to decrease by that much, the suspension compliance would have to increase by 83% [Fs is proportional to 1/sqrt(compliance)]. That's a really big change.

 

I have a NOS quad of EVM-12L. Maybe someday I will conduct an experiment, if I can find the time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

 

You said baltic sounds better.  Please explain.

 

Roy, if you're still reading this thread, what are your thoughts?  Would the new CW4 sound better if it was made from BB?

 

I'll acknowledge that it makes a cabinet more resistant to water damage but it's hard to worry about that risk when none of my other gear is water-resistant.

I have noticed that wood selection makes a difference in many areas. After making some things out of Curly Maple it dawned on me that wood with a curly wood grain pattern was used in the sides of things like Violins. Rather then being just for looks the curly wood had a specific purpose. So does the selection of other specific woods used in acoustic instrument bodies. I have not seen any high quality acoustic stringed instruments made of man made material in any professional venue in videos where you can see what the musicians are playing.

 

  Some time ago I read a comment on how some of the speaker builders in Nashville preferred Poplar Plywood for motorboards and used 1.25" and 1" because of the tone it produced. One day I am taking apart a Chorus 1 because there was so much cat piss on it that the cabinet was not usable. 1" Poplar plywood and I thought hmmm.

 

  One day I decided to try something in my shop. I had some MDF, Chinese Baltic Birch(real trash by the way), Baltic Birch, Fir plywood and regular plywood. So I cut same size squares out and tapped them with a hammer to see what they might sound like. Not quite the same thing as drivers mounted on a board would do but I figured that the hammer tap method would be a decent indicator and easily audible by ear. The two most unappealing were MDF and that odious China BB and the most pleasing was Baltic Birch.

 

  As an observation here with speaker builders in Nashville and in talking to vendors like Nashville Plywood I asked what was the wood the high end custom speaker builders around here use. Baltic Birch was the answer for durability and sound quality as both need to be there with pro venues like touring groups. Now yes there are many bands and music centers that use JBL or other pro speakers but I found it interesting that those who really wanted a specific quality of sound and sought out custom speaker builders selected BB most often.

 

  I have found in welding and machining that there is a set of proven methods that have yielded best results. Deviation from those may yield good results but not best results. To me the selection of wood used in stringed instruments and speaker cabinets is no different and I selected artisans who use wood over CPA and MBA penny pinchers who dictate OK + economical over best and not cheap. I seek a specific end result and I rely on people who have done good things to save my time and money in not reinventing things. Good recipes if you follow them yield good results.

 

  So for better or worse this is the selection process I have made and my reasons for doing so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave A said:

I have noticed that wood selection makes a difference in many areas. After making some things out of Curly Maple it dawned on me that wood with a curly wood grain pattern was used in the sides of things like Violins. Rather then being just for looks the curly wood had a specific purpose. So does the selection of other specific woods used in acoustic instrument bodies. I have not seen any high quality acoustic stringed instruments made of man made material in any professional venue in videos where you can see what the musicians are playing.

 

Ovation uses a composite material for the back and sides of their acoustic guitars. You would probably get a kick out of reading their marketing materials touting the clear superiority of their "space-age" product.

 

Many solid body guitars use plywood or various sorts of particle board for the bodies. MDF has been used, but it is generally considered too heavy. Discussions of tone woods for guitars is ever bit as contentious as anything in the audio world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that woods used for stringed instruments are selected for their contribution to the tone, while loudspeaker enclosure materials are selected for their lack of contribution to the tone.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWelsh said:

Ovation uses a composite material for the back and sides of their acoustic guitars. You would probably get a kick out of reading their marketing materials touting the clear superiority of their "space-age" product.

 

Many solid body guitars use plywood or various sorts of particle board for the bodies. MDF has been used, but it is generally considered too heavy. Discussions of tone woods for guitars is ever bit as contentious as anything in the audio world.

I am aware of the Ovations and for my discussion I deliberately did not include solid body guitars. I should have been a bit more specific I suppose in regard to pro venues and state that the ones referenced are things like classical stringed chamber groups, symphonies and orchestral venues.

 

1 hour ago, Edgar said:

It is my understanding that woods used for stringed instruments are selected for their contribution to the tone, while loudspeaker enclosure materials are selected for their lack of contribution to the tone.

I think everything has a tone and believe it can enhance or degrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dave A said:

I am aware of the Ovations and for my discussion I deliberately did not include solid body guitars. I should have been a bit more specific I suppose in regard to pro venues and state that the ones referenced are things like classical stringed chamber groups, symphonies and orchestral venues.

 

I think everything has a tone and believe it can enhance or degrade.

I should have been more clear in my comments, as well. My point was more about the arguments over the importance of tone woods vs. anything not considered a tone wood. And, I included solid bodies because the arguments extend there as well. I build guitars as a hobby, so I see the parallels between the two groups.

 

Like Edgar, I've been under the impression that MDF was being used not to save cost, but to dampen vibration, but that may be a misunderstanding. I would be very interested in CBH's thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave A said:

I am aware of the Ovations and for my discussion I deliberately did not include solid body guitars.

The Ovations aren't solid body guitars. They are acoustic guitars with the 'body' made of a synthetic material (originally helicopter blades). The tops are still spruce, maybe cedar on some. Rainsong guitars are carbon fiber, and pretty much no affected by fluctuations in humidity. They actually sound good. Never been a fan of the Ovations. THey project great, but hard to hear them as a player, as the body doesn't give any/much sound to the performer/player.

 

https://www.rainsong.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CWelsh said:

I should have been more clear in my comments, as well. My point was more about the arguments over the importance of tone woods vs. anything not considered a tone wood. And, I included solid bodies because the arguments extend there as well. I build guitars as a hobby, so I see the parallels between the two groups.

 

Like Edgar, I've been under the impression that MDF was being used not to save cost, but to dampen vibration, but that may be a misunderstanding. I would be very interested in CBH's thoughts on this.

I agree with all the collective comments about this. So I guess the "myth" part is calling one superior over the other, depending on application and cost factors (which are always present in decision making). My fist pair of Khorns were made entirely of Baltic Birch from Russia in 1977, and sounded great for 20 years until I "upgraded" to Walnut ones I sold in 2007 to go with the Klipsch MWM stack instead. I went from "pretty Walnut" to ugly black used stuff after hearing a single MWM with a K-402 on top, which was a big Reveal to my ears, almost 15 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marvel said:

The Ovations aren't solid body guitars. They are acoustic guitars with the 'body' made of a synthetic material (originally helicopter blades). The tops are still spruce, maybe cedar on some. Rainsong guitars are carbon fiber, and pretty much no affected by fluctuations in humidity. They actually sound good. Never been a fan of the Ovations. THey project great, but hard to hear them as a player, as the body doesn't give any/much sound to the performer/player.

 

https://www.rainsong.com/

Yes I know that so perhaps you misunderstood I was talking about two things here. Ovations and solid body guitars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dave A said:

So for better or worse this is the selection process I have made and my reasons for doing so.

 

Sorry but still unconvinced.  So are you saying Roy chose an inferior material for the Cornwall IV's?  ..That the speakers would sound better if made from BB?? 

 

Also, while MDF may be less expensive, it's harder on tooling and it's heavier so more costly to ship a finished speaker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ODS123 said:

 

Sorry but still unconvinced.  So are you saying Roy chose an inferior material for the Cornwall IV's?  ..That the speakers would sound better if made from BB?? 

 

Also, while MDF may be less expensive, it's harder on tooling and it's heavier so more costly to ship a finished speaker. 

I gave up trying to convince you of anything some time ago. However you asked a civil question so I gave you the courtesy of a real answer. I wonder, can you see others from the mountain top?

  For what it is worth BB is tougher on tooling then MDF. Ask me how I know :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CWelsh said:

Many solid body guitars use plywood or various sorts of particle board for the bodies. MDF has been used, but it is generally considered too heavy. Discussions of tone woods for guitars is ever bit as contentious as anything in the audio world.

@CWelsh I can believe that and add to it the density of the wood. Northern hardwood is denser and mills better when I am cutting Black Walnut and Red Oak for instance. When you get right down to it the variables are considerable.  Scientists are trying to uncover what makes Stradivarius violins special – but are they wasting their time?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dave A said:

I gave up trying to convince you of anything some time ago. However you asked a civil question so I gave you the courtesy of a real answer. I wonder, can you see others from the mountain top?

  For what it is worth BB is tougher on tooling then MDF. Ask me how I know :D

 

I'm not trying to be difficult.  Remember, this thread is about "myths" so you'll have to forgive people for expressing stubborn skepticism.  ..References others have made to stradivarius violins, etc.. don't apply.  Speakers (as Edgar pointed out) are not suppose to color the sound.

 

Moreover most of the major speaker companies, that uses wood,  seem to prefer MDF - even in their cost-no-object designs. 

 

So, I'll ask again, do you think Roy chose a sub-optimum material for the CW4's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

So, I'll ask again, do you think Roy chose a sub-optimum material for the CW4's?

 

Don't forget that the definition of "optimum" depends entirely upon what one is trying to optimize. Roy, like all engineers, has to balance a number of performance criteria, including price, measured audio performance, manufacturability, shipping costs, availability of raw materials, and so on. Even "cost is no object" designs are subject to this same balancing act.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

So, I'll ask again, do you think Roy chose a sub-optimum material for the CW4's?

I have answered this specific question for you more than once and I do not intend to do so again because you did not hear me the first time and you will not hear me this time. You are quite tedious and I think I am going to forgo discussions with you. They always end up in the same place with near photocopied responses by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ODS123 said:

So, I'll ask again, do you think Roy chose a sub-optimum material for the CW4's?

klipsch use MDF because it's straight as an arrow , it's shipped pre-veneered , and book matched  ,   it sure cuts and fits perfectly , you wanna do the same thing with BB , you'd have to charge from 250$  to 1k$ more per speaker  for very little difference , if any in sound performance  -

Edited by 001
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...