1. All materials will ring, any company advertising totally inert material are selling lies. Pushing the ringing out of the audible spectrum is what they should be saying, but it sounds fancier to say otherwise. Plastic is completely capable of performing resonance free in the audible spectrum.
2. The costs associated with starting up 3D printing is in point of fact lower than traditional woodworking tool setup. It also offers considerable off-loading of labor - while it is running, I can do other things. Traditional building techniques requires the laborer to be at the work the entire time. I have limited time to play with sawdust these days.
3. I'm not sure there are magic things going on in a loudspeaker that we can't measure. I have heard this claim from a few people now, and no offense it is a claim generally made by those selling or advocating audio components priced very high. With the tools I possess I can measure many, many, many aspects of loudspeaker performance including small changes in temperature, panel resonance, and the more traditional on and off axis behavior and the impedance. I am going to pretty much call bullshit on the "can't be measured" aspects, and agree to disagree on this topic - I will not be engaging in conversations that rely on magic.
4. i am not going to rule out internal diffusion, but my tendency is to believe internal absorption is worthy of a more serious look. I mean, we rely on the backwave for some of the good things that happen, and the frequencies that we can generally diffuse or absorb due to wavelength inside a cabinet are already generally outside of the passband - or should be, anyways. I have to give this one considerable thought.
5. Over-engineering has brought us to this point, and sorry Mike - 3D printing is absolutely viable and capable of a fuck of a lot more than your "at least they can look cool" snipe. Your entire post reads to be very condescending to DIY in general, and it is a tone I run into time and time again at Axpona. "Awww you DIY, how cute".
3D printing allows for matrix type hollow cabinet walls that where individual chambers can be filled with whatever the fuck starting with cement or lead and finishing with glass filled epoxy. So it's definitely a very potent technology. BTW parametric programmers like grasshopper are phenomenal for creating fluid shapes. https://www.google.com/search?q=grasshopper+for+rhino&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9tomlrJHXAhXF4IMKHUSoAq4Q_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=918 As far as magic goes, me thinks it's more about results rather than design process. Well designed speaker sounds magical.
Johnny, This may get me banned since you are supreme ruler and overloard, but I would recommend you read some real loudspeaker engineering work, there are several books and all go into cabinet design.
You say you will not rely on magic, yet you think the toolkit you have is all you need and there is NOTHING outside the realm of your capability. We all can do what you do. There is A LOT more than can be done. Sorry, friend, the thought that you have 'enough' is little more than ego, and ignorance. A very dangerous combination.
You obviously missed the point of what I posted. There was no snipe and if someone thinks a few 3DP parts looks and sound cool, it does not matter to me.
I was being as object as I could, warning not to go running down rabbit holes and to be mythodical and make meaningful steps forward, to be rigorus and make sure any improvement is understood, not falsly attributed, and not to be swept away by benevolant dolphins. You hide behind scientific rigor, yet the second it is used to ask meaningful questions you don't agree with launch a personal attack, with no data to back your own beliefs.
I think there are few more capable people than the ones deep in this hobby. I learn EVERYDAY from all of them. Sorry my reaction is to re-focus, be skeptical, and want to see data and people leverage new technologies for good, not to regress, or spend countless hours and resources to just spin wheels (WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN). Its being cautiosly optimistic.
But I guess you can do what you want when its your house, after all, there was no douchbaggery there, right. Just that silly old MZ who has been nothing but a troll all these years.....And can't spell. Sorry to distract from the thread. Thanks for everyone's patience.
The cardboard idea is to have the cut end open to the inside of the speaker chamber to create small tubes.
In theory you can design the tube diameter and length to adsorb specific frequencies.
As a practical matter, skip the optimization of the tube design for adsorption and focus on the light weight ridged structure gained by laminating row after row of cardboard.
I think most people have seen this
There will still be some adsorption but creating the structure is where the action is at.
All you CNC guys, can you imagine flat packing a cardboard speaker kit? Shipping is way cheaper than MDF.
Thanks John, but still a bit confused, since the mdf structure is hollow. Where or what is the skin to make it air tight? For example, the guitar is hollow and can be seen through. so, if the tubes are perpendicular to the speaker wall, what is the wall - mdf or are you suggesting something else for the wall?
Lets not become "close minded" with technology. We can't write off what we do not see. This thread is for discussing possibilities. So don't throw F@CKING water on the fire.....OK?
You keep using the word "science", I don't think it means what you think it means.
I am fairly well read, thank you, and banning people isn't my idea of a good time. Simply put, making claims absent evidence is not science.
Back to something that matters - the matrix wall approach is where I plan to start. I have some thoughts on that based on a conversation I had with a guy who designs bridges. I assure you, dealing with resonances is a field they are very capable in.
I have also spoken with a few other engineer types - actual research outside of the handful of books directed towards loudspeakers.
Anywhoo, no magic - just applied research. I am certain between my measurement rigs, my accelerometer, and a couple other instruments that I will be able to see everything going on.
Ani yes. Take 1/4 inch MDF and glue perpendicular sections of cardboard to it. I imagine using sheets of cardboard and gluing them together then running them through the table saw to make 2 inch thick tube sections. Then gluing those together on a piece of 1/4 inch mdf. I'd take that sheet and CNC a fold up box. I might have to compromise and use surface mount drivers or make the front baffle thicker.
Comments
1. All materials will ring, any company advertising totally inert material are selling lies. Pushing the ringing out of the audible spectrum is what they should be saying, but it sounds fancier to say otherwise. Plastic is completely capable of performing resonance free in the audible spectrum.
2. The costs associated with starting up 3D printing is in point of fact lower than traditional woodworking tool setup. It also offers considerable off-loading of labor - while it is running, I can do other things. Traditional building techniques requires the laborer to be at the work the entire time. I have limited time to play with sawdust these days.
3. I'm not sure there are magic things going on in a loudspeaker that we can't measure. I have heard this claim from a few people now, and no offense it is a claim generally made by those selling or advocating audio components priced very high. With the tools I possess I can measure many, many, many aspects of loudspeaker performance including small changes in temperature, panel resonance, and the more traditional on and off axis behavior and the impedance. I am going to pretty much call bullshit on the "can't be measured" aspects, and agree to disagree on this topic - I will not be engaging in conversations that rely on magic.
4. i am not going to rule out internal diffusion, but my tendency is to believe internal absorption is worthy of a more serious look. I mean, we rely on the backwave for some of the good things that happen, and the frequencies that we can generally diffuse or absorb due to wavelength inside a cabinet are already generally outside of the passband - or should be, anyways. I have to give this one considerable thought.
5. Over-engineering has brought us to this point, and sorry Mike - 3D printing is absolutely viable and capable of a fuck of a lot more than your "at least they can look cool" snipe. Your entire post reads to be very condescending to DIY in general, and it is a tone I run into time and time again at Axpona. "Awww you DIY, how cute".
https://www.google.com/search?q=grasshopper+for+rhino&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9tomlrJHXAhXF4IMKHUSoAq4Q_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=918
As far as magic goes, me thinks it's more about results rather than design process. Well designed speaker sounds magical.
This may get me banned since you are supreme ruler and overloard, but I would recommend you read some real loudspeaker engineering work, there are several books and all go into cabinet design.
You say you will not rely on magic, yet you think the toolkit you have is all you need and there is NOTHING outside the realm of your capability. We all can do what you do. There is A LOT more than can be done. Sorry, friend, the thought that you have 'enough' is little more than ego, and ignorance. A very dangerous combination.
You obviously missed the point of what I posted. There was no snipe and if someone thinks a few 3DP parts looks and sound cool, it does not matter to me.
I was being as object as I could, warning not to go running down rabbit holes and to be mythodical and make meaningful steps forward, to be rigorus and make sure any improvement is understood, not falsly attributed, and not to be swept away by benevolant dolphins. You hide behind scientific rigor, yet the second it is used to ask meaningful questions you don't agree with launch a personal attack, with no data to back your own beliefs.
I think there are few more capable people than the ones deep in this hobby. I learn EVERYDAY from all of them. Sorry my reaction is to re-focus, be skeptical, and want to see data and people leverage new technologies for good, not to regress, or spend countless hours and resources to just spin wheels (WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN). Its being cautiosly optimistic.
But I guess you can do what you want when its your house, after all, there was no douchbaggery there, right. Just that silly old MZ who has been nothing but a troll all these years.....And can't spell. Sorry to distract from the thread. Thanks for everyone's patience.
The cardboard idea is to have the cut end open to the inside of the speaker chamber to create small tubes.
In theory you can design the tube diameter and length to adsorb specific frequencies.
As a practical matter, skip the optimization of the tube design for adsorption and focus on the light weight ridged structure gained by laminating row after row of cardboard.
I think most people have seen this
There will still be some adsorption but creating the structure is where the action is at.
All you CNC guys, can you imagine flat packing a cardboard speaker kit? Shipping is way cheaper than MDF.
Is this a patentable disclosure?
I am fairly well read, thank you, and banning people isn't my idea of a good time. Simply put, making claims absent evidence is not science.
Back to something that matters - the matrix wall approach is where I plan to start. I have some thoughts on that based on a conversation I had with a guy who designs bridges. I assure you, dealing with resonances is a field they are very capable in.
I have also spoken with a few other engineer types - actual research outside of the handful of books directed towards loudspeakers.
Anywhoo, no magic - just applied research. I am certain between my measurement rigs, my accelerometer, and a couple other instruments that I will be able to see everything going on.
I might have to compromise and use surface mount drivers or make the front baffle thicker.