• I don't have time for this :^ ) - Peter Gunn 08:38:22 11/10/09 (4)
  In Reply to: RE: I'm a little confused posted by Dawnrazor on November 09, 2009 at 22:22:14

  I'll try to answer short and concise, but that may be tough given the length of this already.
  
  Please show me all those posts where I chide you
  
  I'm not like some others here who save URL's to one day whip them out and scream AH-HA!". By "chide" I mean the good natured ribbing we have given each other about the way we each do things, which are quite different.
  
  "Wadded Panties"
  
  I'm not wadded because someone found a "better" way, I'm just struck by the irony that you came round to my way, thru an odd back door. Makes me feel like I've been talking to a wall for 5 years.
  
  I also recognize that eventually someone may tweak the thing even further than me. If someone made frames out of glass, and showed that maggies sound better in a glass frame than anything else, I'd be out taking a course in glass blowing....
  
  BTW, I'd happily take your 2 days a week too right now. For me it's been 3 months without....
  
  If it absorbs more than the mdf as you say it does, then it would definitely yield improvements.
  
  
  mdf doesn't absorb anything. It was designed to be inert. That's why even steel absorbs more than it will.
  
  By your own theory, more than one material is needed as each absorb different frequencies or ranges of frequencies.
  
  I don't know what theory that is, and I disagree completely. Energy is energy, and a woods cell structure doesn't care if it's 20khz or 2khz going thru it. It's going to shift in response to it and dissipate it.
  
  Woods cells act like the shocks on a car. That's what they are designed to do. Does your car have different shocks for various size potholes?
  
  If wood does so ENTIRELY, then how could there be any kind of over damping?
  
  Easy. We don't want to kill vibration, we want to remove it once it's done. It's when this energy hits the mdf and then comes back and mucks up the next energy that we get our problem.
  
  If we have the drivers in wood, it does this, so...
  
  Adding goop to the wood would be pointless and
  
  Adding it to the metal edges of a driver already in wood may actually prematurely kill the original vibration. We want the tone to resonate when it gets produced, we just don't want it to interfere with the next one. How sucky would a violin sound if you wrapped it in dynamat?
  
  The wood draws these vibrations out and lets them die off without going back on the driver, your way kills them immediately. That has to sound different, and IMHO can't be better. Notes are meant to decay.
  
  Anyhow I am sure that you need to have a certain amount of wood to get good results otherwise one little strip should work like a whole frame right?
  
  You need a frames worth, no more, no less.
  
  I cant help but notice that phrase you use "the right way
  
  I'm not trying to sell you anything. I also truly believe it is the right way. I am not PC, I believe truths exist, and better should be lauded for being better. That's how we all improve. So as far as results, looks and everything else, making frames from wood cannot be excelled, IMHO. That makes it the right way, until a better way comes along which so far has not.
  
  Well I suppose I am crazy for agreeing with you about the vibrations. You were right as far as I am concerned.
  
  Thanks, but I already knew that it was right. It is good to hear you agree though. I just wish your visit to me years ago wasn't so early on in my process. I also recall things weren't ideal at that visit but I don't recall why. (the XO breaking in and sounding crap?) If you heard the "state of the art" now you'd realize why I feel the way I do about it.
  
  Well then, I say take that A in shop and go do it already. In fact, if you just make frames (no bases, boxes or struts) in oak it will cost you less than the dynamat will. Then email me for my XO schematic and do the whole thing right.
  
  Yes, I said right :^ )
  
  

  
  
  It's all about the music...
  
  

  ---

  • RE: I don't have time for this :^ ) - Dawnrazor 10:02:18 11/12/09 (0)
    In Reply to: RE: I don't have time for this :^ ) posted by Peter Gunn on November 10, 2009 at 08:38:22

    Hey PG,
    
    
    I'm not like some others here who save URL's to one day whip them out and scream AH-HA!". By "chide" I mean the good natured ribbing we have given each other about the way we each do things, which are quite different.
    
    Thanks for clearing that up. I misunderstood what you meant by chide.
    
    
    I'm not wadded because someone found a "better" way, I'm just struck by the irony that you came round to my way, thru an odd back door. Makes me feel like I've been talking to a wall for 5 years.
    
    Well, I HAVE been listening and that is why I even tried this. If you recall, I never said the wood wasnt a great idea. Just because I didnt rush out and make some frames certainly doesnt mean that I was not convinced.
    
    You mention not having a day off for 3 months. In the past I had a job that I was good at but it was killing me. 75% travel. Sure I had 2 days off a week and one week I would work from home. Some people might really enjoy that kind of life, but not me, not at that point in my life. I would spend my days off just sitting around not wanting to do ANYTHING. My wife said I was always in a funk, either exhausted after a trip, or dreading another one. Getting laid off was one of the best things to happen and now I enjoy my time off and have done so much more audiowise in the last few months than I did in the 5 years before.
    
    mdf doesn't absorb anything. It was designed to be inert. That's why even steel absorbs more than it will.
    
    I agree and this has shown that those vibes are reflected back and muck things up.
    
    I don't know what theory that is, and I disagree completely. Energy is energy, and a woods cell structure doesn't care if it's 20khz or 2khz going thru it. It's going to shift in response to it and dissipate it.
    
    Woods cells act like the shocks on a car. That's what they are designed to do. Does your car have different shocks for various size potholes?
    
    PG every material has its own resonance frequency AFAIK and probably handles different frequencies differently. And if you take two materials and add them it can be magical for the right combo. That is what I am talking about. If you have to soak up vibration before ti is returned to the mylar, then you want to get it all. IMHO you need different materials. If what you say about energy is true, then the material wouldnt matter. I could say that the dynamat shifts the energy and dissipates it...it does. But that over simplifies things.
    
    Easy. We don't want to kill vibration, we want to remove it once it's done. It's when this energy hits the mdf and then comes back and mucks up the next energy that we get our problem.
    
    If we have the drivers in wood, it does this, so...
    
    Adding goop to the wood would be pointless and
    
    I tend to agree with this as the stated goal...to absorb the energy so it doesnt get back to the driver.
    
    Not sure it would be pointless though. Less effective perhaps to add it to the wood, but to the driver frame I think that would help.
    
    Adding it to the metal edges of a driver already in wood may actually prematurely kill the original vibration. We want the tone to resonate when it gets produced, we just don't want it to interfere with the next one. How sucky would a violin sound if you wrapped it in dynamat?
    
    This is really the crux of the matter IMHO. What produces the tone that we want? The MYLAR. We dont want anything else to resonate but the mylar. The frame shouldnt resonate nor should the pole pieces or anything else but the mylar. You have repeatedly argued that the wood frames DONT resonate and that different wood doesnt sound differently and that this application is not like a violin....but now you ARE talking about the frames resonating!!! Which personally I think is what happens. The wood imparts a nice tone. Nothing wrong with that.
    
    The wood draws these vibrations out and lets them die off without going back on the driver, your way kills them immediately. That has to sound different, and IMHO can't be better. Notes are meant to decay.
    
    Yes they are, but that decay should come from the mylar not anything else. If you suck up those vibrations from the non-mylar parts than they dont have any time to muck things up. Removing the vibration from the pole pieces for instance is a significant improvement as it allows the mylar to produce the decay.
    
    I'm not trying to sell you anything. I also truly believe it is the right way. I am not PC, I believe truths exist, and better should be lauded for being better. That's how we all improve. So as far as results, looks and everything else, making frames from wood cannot be excelled, IMHO. That makes it the right way, until a better way comes along which so far has not.
    
    Sure, everyone has an opinion. I for one would have a problem making a blanket statement like that last sentence without trying some different ways first. But looking back I am sure I told my parents that I hated broccoli without trying it :)
    
    
    Thanks, but I already knew that it was right. It is good to hear you agree though. I just wish your visit to me years ago wasn't so early on in my process. I also recall things weren't ideal at that visit but I don't recall why. (the XO breaking in and sounding crap?) If you heard the "state of the art" now you'd realize why I feel the way I do about it.
    
    Actually I think things were good. I dont remember any changes to the recipe since my visit. You had the SMG (the first one you did I think) and a pair of 1.6s you were thinking of buying. AFAICT that was the state of the art, and I dont know what was less then ideal. I don't recall you mentioning anything like that.
    
    
    Well then, I say take that A in shop and go do it already. In fact, if you just make frames (no bases, boxes or struts) in oak it will cost you less than the dynamat will. Then email me for my XO schematic and do the whole thing right.
    
    I guess you missed that the A was not deserved at all. I was given an A because I was a great student and the instructor didnt want to mess up my gpa....and I am going to biamp.
    
    
    
    

    ---
  • just one little comment (okay, two) - wazoo 04:57:25 11/11/09 (2)
    In Reply to: RE: I don't have time for this :^ ) posted by Peter Gunn on November 10, 2009 at 08:38:22

    When speaking of the cellular behavior of wood, one should distinguish between living trees and the harvested (read: no longer living) material we refer to as wood. Comparing the behavior of the latter to the former is erroneous. All materials resonate (MDF is not exactly inert).
    

    
    "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
    
    

    ---

    Edits: 11/11/09   11/11/09

    • RE: just one little comment (okay, two) - Peter Gunn 07:47:56 11/11/09 (1)
      In Reply to: RE: just one little comment (okay, two) posted by wazoo on November 11, 2009 at 04:57:25

      I deleted my first reply because I did say resonate but you took it entirely out of context. I was referring to the resonance of the decaying musical notes made by the driver, not any resonance coming from the frame.
      
      First, living and dead trees? Waz, 3/4 (or more) of every living tree is a dead tree. As it grows a new ring each year, an old one dies. (sapwood and heartwood) It does this because the heartwood is essentially it's skeletal structure, and if anything it retains the ability to dissipate vibrations more because that is now it's main job. It is no longer transferring nutrients to the leaves.
      
      It doesn't know it got cut and is sitting on a lumber pile, or is now speaker frames, so it keeps doing what nature designed it to do - dissipate vibrational energy so the tree doesn't break. I don't know why you think some magical transformation happens, but it doesn't. Nothing changes, except the moisture content. Heartwood is only wet because it's trapped inside a wet tree, and it has no interaction with the "living" parts of the tree anymore once it is heartwood. It is the same in or out of that tree. (and you can make it just like it's old self by steaming it) I don't know where you got the idea from that it's different, but you are very incorrect.
      
      Wood only changes when it begins to decay, as then the cell structure breaks down. That is why I don't use spalted wood for frames. It gets used for furniture, but it clearly feels "wrong" when you hold it. It has lost much of it's mass, and it clearly no longer has any elastic, vibrational properties. Spalted wood snaps very easily and it "feels" dead.
      
      Dynamats are an engineered, un-natural material. As a result it behaves in, let us say, an un-analog, un-natural way. It simply stops vibration cold. Wood does not remove vibration that way, so they cannot sound alike.
      
      To close, I really think arguing is your new hobby (or should I say arguing with me) and this wasn't even a line of questioning worth wasting time on. It was pointless gossamer. You're lucky enough to actually have a working stereo, unlike me. I suggest you go use and enjoy it.
      
      

      
      
      It's all about the music...
      
      

      ---

      • “Nothing changes, except the moisture content.” - wazoo 05:57:28 11/12/09 (0)
        In Reply to: RE: just one little comment (okay, two) posted by Peter Gunn on November 11, 2009 at 07:47:56

        You said you don’t like my ‘mile long lectures’, so I tried the terse approach. Apparently that doesn’t work either, but you touched on one of the issues I would have raised had I been characteristically verbose – except that you glossed right over it as though it were completely inconsequential.
        
        After harvesting, the wood is dried and milled. If drying the wood doesn’t change it, then why isn’t it milled before it’s dried? A tree typically holds a fairly significant amount of moisture in the fibers of its wood – the water in those fibers can outweigh the actual wood. Drying shrinks the thickness of those fibers, thus changing the dimension of the wood – both mass and density have changed. Isn't that, and the fact that wood is hygroscopic, why wood isn't dimensionally stable as relative humidity levels vary?
        
        My problem isn’t with you; it is with some of your fanciful explanations. You espouse a strange science. A board does not behave precisely like a living tree. That’s the statement I made (more or less) and I stand by it. Your correctives actually support my position better than your own. On the other hand, perhaps wood is a magical substance. Just because the mechanical behavior of any other material is altered when its mass and density are changed, I shouldn’t infer that wood follows the same dictates. I stand corrected.
        
        ---
        
        I am not arguing that these speakers don’t benefit from being mounted in hardwood frames. That much is clearly obvious to me – the change even solved an irritating problem (the slap) I was having with my MMGs. I even agree with your reasoning to a point – the wood does bleed off vibrational energy, but do you really believe it happens like this: “Energy is energy, and a woods cell structure doesn't care if it's 20khz or 2khz going thru it. It's going to shift in response to it and dissipate it.” So, the cellular structure of wood (even more amazing – dead wood) remodels itself on the fly in response to varying stresses so that it may dissipate them – strange science indeed .
        
        Furthermore, who started this argument? Dawnrazor mentioned an alternative solution and you are telling him why it's completely wrong. I don't believe it to be the best solution, but it does appear to be addressing the same problem, albeit differently. You seem to be suggesting that hardwood frames are contributing to the sound we are hearing by way of their sympathetic vibration. If all we should be hearing is the sound generated by the vibrating Mylar, then how could the framing possibly be overdamped?
        
        I am a proponent of hardwood frames. I just don't agree with all of your reasoning, nor do I think there is only one way to accomplish a desired end. You think my new hobby is arguing with you; I think your new hobby is arguing with anyone who hasn't adopted your approach.
        
        Let's live and let live. I'll crawl back under my rock now.
        
        

        
        "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
        
        

        ---
• "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... - andyr 03:00:51 11/10/09 (5)
  In Reply to: RE: I'm a little confused posted by Dawnrazor on November 09, 2009 at 22:22:14

  Well, let me try, DR!! :-))
  
  After all, not being a Yanqui, I can proudly proclaim I speak the Queen's Engerlish and (as a denizen of a very minor world power) I don't hold the opinion that my way is the only way! :-)) (It's just that I know all you nay-sayers are severely misguided/retarded! :-)) )
  
  IMO, the mulleted midget has the right idea when he says that MDF does not take away the vibrations which the flapping mylar engenders in the pole piece. And if the pole piece - which incorporates the driver frame (not the overall speaker frame!) - is vibrating, it must be passing vibrations back to the mylar and screwing up the "pure" vibration of the mylar (the Doppler effect!). And the mylar is what is producing the sound!
  
  Now, from my own experience (from making up a hardwood frame for my "full-size" Maggies, after reading all the the raves by punters who'd had Mr Gunn transform their mini-me Maggies) I have to agree with him. A "real wood" frame definitely makes Maggie sound much better! :-))
  
  PG's theory that the wood sucks away the vibrations in the pole piece/driver frame appears correct to me. However, from feeling my pole pieces during music with exceptional bass transients - like "Yello" - there is still some vibration happening (after the hardwood frames). And yes, I know - I don't have "Gunned" Maggies ... I have "Andyr'd Maggies"! So PG will undoubtedly say - that's the problem! :-))
  
  But if the pole piece is vibrating - and IMO this is a bad thing - then sticking Dynamat strips down the length of the pole piece between the pin-holes (which DR has done) can only be a good thing. And it will still be a good thing with an MDF frame - except the maximum benefit won't be achieved with an MDF frame. :-((
  
  But, yes, it's possible that there's an optimum damping ... and not every strip on the pole piece should be Dynaf'ingmatted!! :-)) That needs experimentation, DR! :-))
  
  But, no, I don't think Dynamat will do much good on the actual hardwood frame! :-))
  
  Regards,
  
  Andy
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ---

  • RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... - Dawnrazor 11:08:23 11/12/09 (0)
    In Reply to: RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... posted by andyr on November 10, 2009 at 03:00:51

    Hey Andy,
    
    After all, not being a Yanqui, I can proudly proclaim I speak the Queen's Engerlish and (as a denizen of a very minor world power) I don't hold the opinion that my way is the only way! :-)) (It's just that I know all you nay-sayers are severely misguided/retarded! :-)) )
    
    You are funny sir. Can any world power actually be MINOR???
    
    IMO, the mulleted midget has the right idea when he says that MDF does not take away the vibrations which the flapping mylar engenders in the pole piece. And if the pole piece - which incorporates the driver frame (not the overall speaker frame!) - is vibrating, it must be passing vibrations back to the mylar and screwing up the "pure" vibration of the mylar (the Doppler effect!). And the mylar is what is producing the sound!
    
    Now, from my own experience (from making up a hardwood frame for my "full-size" Maggies, after reading all the the raves by punters who'd had Mr Gunn transform their mini-me Maggies) I have to agree with him. A "real wood" frame definitely makes Maggie sound much better! :-))
    
    
    Makes sense and I think that is what is going on too.
    
    PG's theory that the wood sucks away the vibrations in the pole piece/driver frame appears correct to me. However, from feeling my pole pieces during music with exceptional bass transients - like "Yello" - there is still some vibration happening (after the hardwood frames). And yes, I know - I don't have "Gunned" Maggies ... I have "Andyr'd Maggies"! So PG will undoubtedly say - that's the problem! :-))
    
    But if the pole piece is vibrating - and IMO this is a bad thing - then sticking Dynamat strips down the length of the pole piece between the pin-holes (which DR has done) can only be a good thing. And it will still be a good thing with an MDF frame - except the maximum benefit won't be achieved with an MDF frame. :-((
    
    I agree with most of this. Though if the vibrations are mostly absorbed before they get the to mdf well why wouldnt that be a maximum benefit? It is a good thing by the way as you say to damp the pole pieces.
    
    But, yes, it's possible that there's an optimum damping ... and not every strip on the pole piece should be Dynaf'ingmatted!! :-)) That needs experimentation, DR! :-))
    
    Why? If the pole piece is resonating as you mention then stopping as much of it would be good right. Perhaps no material can TAKE all the vibration and using just one will leave some vibes at a certain frequency? But I WILL be experimenting.
    
    But, no, I don't think Dynamat will do much good on the actual hardwood frame! :-))
    
    Perhaps. I didnt originally mean to put the dynamat on the wood. just the driver frame and pole pieces in a wood frame...not on the wood itself. Though if the wood does ring even euphonically then it might be a good thing though subtle.
    
    
    
    

    ---
  • RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... - DrChaos 18:14:53 11/10/09 (2)
    In Reply to: RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... posted by andyr on November 10, 2009 at 03:00:51

    
    [i]PG's theory that the wood sucks away the vibrations in the pole piece/driver frame appears correct to me. [/i]
    
    I have a radical suggestion. Why doesn't somebody In A Position To Do So *measure* this?
    
    Lightweight accelerometers are pretty standard these days.
    
    Late Judah Folkman, M.D.: : "In God I trust. All others, bring data."
    

    ---

    • RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... - Dawnrazor 21:13:46 11/10/09 (1)
      In Reply to: RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... posted by DrChaos on November 10, 2009 at 18:14:53

      I am betting that Davey has. At least I thought he said he did, but IIRC I asked him to post the measurements but he didnt.
      
      Hopefully if he has them he will post. IIRC he did say that the wood does help.
      
      
      
      

      ---

      • RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... - Davey 08:35:58 11/11/09 (0)
        In Reply to: RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... posted by Dawnrazor on November 10, 2009 at 21:13:46

        I did. However, it's difficult to interpret the results and I think posting would add more confusion to an already confusing subject. Also, my experiment wasn't a total apples/apples comparison since the hardwood frames had a larger cross-section than stock MDF frames. Anyways, just a simple, finger-touching observation confirms the basic concept that a hardwood frame is "off-loading" some of the vibrational energy relative to the MDF frames. Whether or not that "off loading" is beneficial and how much of it should be attempted is the question.
        
        I believe the construction method espoused by PG is a good, first step, but the problem is it creates (or can create) small contact "points" vice an even contact "patch" over the whole transducer surface. If a very thin feeler gauge could be slipped in between the frame/transducer between screw locations then the scheme is not working optimally. Even if there is no gap the contact pressure is still uneven along the surface. Screw torque, screw type, etc, etc, are all variables that can be removed with a sandwich construction method.
        In my opinion, it follows that an even contact area must be superior to contact "points," but I suppose there might be an argument there also. :)
        
        My objective is (as always) to attempt very cheap value modifications that an average DIY'er could implement themselves. Also, (as always) aesthetics are secondary to performance.
        
        Hope that helps.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        

        ---
  • RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... - Peter Gunn 08:04:52 11/10/09 (0)
    In Reply to: RE: "Explain how the Dynamat can cause such a great improvement" :-)) ... posted by andyr on November 10, 2009 at 03:00:51

    Well, the 3 is a big driver after all, and some vibration has to happen to reproduce music, so I think it's just common sense that the largest maggies will still show a little vibration.
    
    And I also don't think mine work better than others, wood is wood, unless some aspect was changed or done very differently.
    
    But I agree, there has to be a point where you begin to take away too much. We want a vibration, once it did it's thing, to go away. Too much damping could kill it prematurely.
    
    

    
    It's all about the music...
    
    

    ---

Post a Followup:

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---