Baffle board thickness/mounting questions
Dean Hazelwanter
the chassis from a Traynor YBA-1 (2xEL34) head, and I'm looking for
tips on the baffle board design.
What is the ideal thickness of the baffle board? I thought something
on the order of 3/4" plywood would be best, but a colleague mentioned
reading the ideal thickness was something like 3/8". This seems too
thin to me. Input?
What is the best way to mount the baffle board to the rest of the
cabinet? I'll probably use the Marshall trick of putting a 3/4" rail
inside the sides and bottom (flush to the front face) to double their
thickness, and then screw the baffle board into the back of this rail,
from inside the cabinet. My colleague also mentioned reading that the
baffle board should only be attached to the cabinet on the 2 sides -
not on the top (not possible in this case) or bottom. I was planning
to mount it on the 2 sides and on the bottom. Input?
RonSonic
<Dean.Haz...@TriNexus.com> wrote:
>I am building an open-backed combo cabinet to house a single 12" and
>the chassis from a Traynor YBA-1 (2xEL34) head, and I'm looking for
>tips on the baffle board design.
>
>What is the ideal thickness of the baffle board? I thought something
>on the order of 3/4" plywood would be best, but a colleague mentioned
>reading the ideal thickness was something like 3/8". This seems too
>thin to me. Input?
Your pal is reading from the book of Ancient Fender Lore. The tweed
Fenders used that approach and it's surely a part of their sound.
Doesn't mean you want to go down that path. Every amp is a
combination unto itself and I really don't know if that's an element
that belongs in your amp. I'm inclined to go more solid. That little
Traynor will have plenty of its own bass and bloom and a tight less-
resonant cab wouldn't hurt it a bit. For a 1x12 in a cab that won't
be much wider than the speaker 1/2" good quality ply is plenty.
Ron
John
cabinets. The methods your friend is describing are are akin to those
used by early Fender amps. These are by no means *the right way* to
mount, rather, these are the *vintage Fender way* to mount. In the
old days, the mounting methodology Fender used was dictated by
economy, not sound. Yet, over the years, however, we have identified
the sound that resulted from that applied economy as "the Fender
sound" - so there you have the reasoning. If you want a Marshall
sound, don't use the Fender methodology, use the Marshall construction
methodology. Same for myriad other brands of guitar amplifiers. Good
luck!
jz
On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:39:58 GMT, Dean Hazelwanter
<Dean.Haz...@TriNexus.com> wrote:
>I am building an open-backed combo cabinet to house a single 12" and
>the chassis from a Traynor YBA-1 (2xEL34) head, and I'm looking for
>tips on the baffle board design.
>
>What is the ideal thickness of the baffle board? I thought something
>on the order of 3/4" plywood would be best, but a colleague mentioned
>reading the ideal thickness was something like 3/8". This seems too
>thin to me. Input?
>
>What is the best way to mount the baffle board to the rest of the
>cabinet? I'll probably use the Marshall trick of putting a 3/4" rail
>inside the sides and bottom (flush to the front face) to double their
>thickness, and then screw the baffle board into the back of this rail,
>from inside the cabinet. My colleague also mentioned reading that the
>baffle board should only be attached to the cabinet on the 2 sides -
>not on the top (not possible in this case) or bottom. I was planning
>to mount it on the 2 sides and on the bottom. Input?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dean Hazelwanter
the circuitry, it makes sense to go the same way in terms of cabinet/baffle
design.
Thanks again!
daveski
apparantly. 3/4" minimum thickness solid core plywood, sturdily
fastened/mounted on all 4 sides!! Ask him where he got his bogus design
criteria - unless of course the object of that design is to purposely be
inefficient, weak and rattle alot?
Dean Hazelwanter <Dean.Haz...@TriNexus.com> wrote in article
<39207F14...@TriNexus.com>...
Gil Ayan
Tweed Fenders used to use. A blanket statement is not always the best
answer... If the baffleboard is to house one speaker VS four, it's easy to
see that sturdiness requirements would be different in one case as opposed
to the other.
Once the mechanical properties have been established, namely, you don't want
the baffleboard to break in two/three/four, then one needs to consider the
sound one is after as well. If you use a 3/4" baffleboard in an open back
1x12 cabinet, and use an EVM 12L, for example, you may end up with a stiff
sounding cabinet. If you back off the baffleboard to 1/2" thickness, you
may find the low end is improved.
If you will be building a 4x12 and plan to put EVs in it, I would most
certainly agree with you and use a 3/4" bafllebaord...
Gil
"daveski" <pank...@uti.com> wrote in message
news:01bfbf78$919f9a40$8795cfd8@pankoski...
Rick Sisney
>combination unto itself and I really don't know if that's an element
>that belongs in your amp. I'm inclined to go more solid.
First, I want the original poster to know that I am familiar with Ron Bales.
He knows his chops and is a no BS contributor to the group. I think his opinion
should be considered expert as well as some others responding to this thread,
although some of my opinion may differ.
The subject of resonance, when related to guitar amps, is one of the subtle
areas of amp voodoo that can have varied opinions among experts.
I build cabinets at the professional level and I have formed my own opinions
reguarding this, but I would not discount the opinions of educated others
considering the nature of the subject matter.
Ok, now that I've made my lengthly disclaimer, the subject is a Traynor chassis
going into a combo cab. I personally never go for a dead cab in a combo, or any
other open back cab for that matter. I use solid pine for the carcass
exclusively and Baltic Birch plywood for the baffle, thickness determined by
the speaker configuration. For this particular 1x12" I could probably use 11mm
with 1/4" face frame.
The more lively resonant cabs will have a slight (very slight) increase in low
end. The major effect that a lively cabinet has is that the lower frequencys
are less directional. A straight unidirectional shot to the ears is always
detected as being harsher than a more omnidirectional source once it hits the
brain. It's kind of related to the effect of stereo vs. mono. Your ear will
always like a broader source.
This is why I use a resonant cab even if we are dealing with a bottom heavy
amp, because the low end seems sweeter. An example could be a Fender AB763 in a
early solid pine combo cab vs. a newer particle board cab. There is no question
which is more pleasing to me.
What is best is entirely dependent on the application. If the amp is going to
be used with a mike on it's speaker, the mic doesn't give a rats ass what the
cabinet is made of, although the difference in efficiency using a closed cab
can produce a different tone at the mic.
The environment that the resonant cab thrives in is the practice to small venue
scenario where the combo amp is being listened to directly and is more
pronounced the cleaner the amp is played. I usually steer the high gain guys
toward a closed cab.
Again, this is my opinion and mojo. Nothing is cast in stone on this subject.
OKR...@AOL.com
andrewunix
:Your colleague doesn't know alot about building speaker cabinets
:apparantly. 3/4" minimum thickness solid core plywood, sturdily
:fastened/mounted on all 4 sides!! Ask him where he got his bogus design
:criteria - unless of course the object of that design is to purposely be
:inefficient, weak and rattle alot?
Maybe he got his "bogus design criteria" from that loser Leo Fender.
--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
http://www.nyx.net/~agreenbu/
remove NOSPAM from address to reply.