Question on Speaker Enclosures

[Yesfan70]

I thought this would generate some good discussion.


If you have a set of speakers but either the cabs are damaged or not pleasing to the eye, could you just build another set and expect the same performance? What if you wanted to totally change how the speaker looked? Could you still expect the same performance, if you kept the new enclosures close in dimensions (HxWxD, cuft), etc.)?


BTW...this isn't a sign that my new speakers are damaged. The 1.5s came in a couple of days ago, They are like new. The center speaker, a KG2.5, came in yesterday. Different story with it, but if it plays that's all I care about. Still waiting on my front pair (fingers crossed).


The above questions are just fodder for discussion.

 

[Rope]

If the internal dimensions, materials, bracing, and driver array were kept sacred, I don't see an issue. External dimensions could vary if edge diffraction and porting were considered.

Rope

 

[Yesfan70]

Ok, as far as driver array goes....

If you had a MTM bookshelf, would it be bad or good if you made a tower but made the driver array TMM? Of course, keeping the internal dimensions equal might mean a slim tower, but that would still be feasible right?

 

[Rope]

Ok, as far as driver array goes....

If you had a MTM bookshelf, would it be bad or good if you made a tower but made the driver array TMM? Of course, keeping the internal dimensions equal might mean a slim tower, but that would still be feasible right?

In your example, you've changed the speaker array, and also the internal volume, which in turn, affects driver loading. The integrity of the original speaker must be maintained in order for the drivers to perform at their optimum and sound good.

Rope

 

[Randy]

Ok, as far as driver array goes....

If you had a MTM bookshelf, would it be bad or good if you made a tower but made the driver array TMM? Of course, keeping the internal dimensions equal might mean a slim tower, but that would still be feasible right?

Keeping the internal volume the same would be ideal, but as rope said if you change it from an MTM design then the crossover voicing would probably be wonky.

 

[TKoP]

You would need to keep the following the same:
- Internal Dimensions
- Bracing
- Driver layout and location on the front baffle
- Size and shape of the front baffle
- Actual material used for the cabinet -- you want something at least as rigid as the original cabinet
- edge of the front baffle -- how rounded was the original?

 

[Alien]

The same material and thickness, and assembly method too.

 

[Flint]

You guys are going too far. You do not need to make a perfect clone of the original to get the same sound. You do need to abide by these aspects:

In order of importance...
1) Internal Volume
2) Baffle Size and Shape
3) Placement of drivers on Baffle
4) General internal dimensions
5) Stuffing material
6) Port values (you could go from a 1" dia port to a 3" dia port, but then you have to adjust for tuning and increase the internal volume of the enclosure to accomodate).

You don't need to exactly match the material, bracing, etc.

However, if you don't want to have to take any risks at all and just whip something up, the fastest and easiest is the clone the original as it requires no creative thinking whatsoever.

 

[Yesfan70]

Can you guys go more into baffle size and shape? I see two posts mentioning that. Is that the same as the HxW of the front of the original cabinet (or at least one of those two dimensions). Would that have to be the same for the new enclosure?

A few years back, I made a bookshelf version of one of my Klipsch towers I had. The tower had a single horn and woofer. I kept the width of the cabinet the same, but the height and depth obviously had to change in order to keep the original internal dimensions the same.