Speaker baffle attachment methods

[Apexelectric]

Was looking for some opinions on attachment methods of speaker baffles and their effect on overall tone.

The current considerations are a 2 x 12 cherry cabinet and a 4 x 10 pine cabinet. The 4 x 10will most likely be paired with a tweed bassman head and loaded with Celestion golds and greenbacks (2 ea) The 2 x 12 is still evolving as far as pairing it with an amp and speaker type. I’m thinking about a more closed back, Baltic birch baffle paired with a little more gain than the bassman.

My primary question is whether it is a good idea to pinch the grill cloth between the speaker baffle and mounting cleats or if it is always best to make sure there is wood to wood contact in this situation.

Feel free to expound on this as I am looking or as much info/opinion as I can get on this subject.

I am experimenting with different cabinet construction methods and materials as well as the baffle mounting options, materials, thicknesses etc.

Thanks as usual for the advice.

[jjasilli]

A true closed back cab needs to be airtight.  That requires a full frame to mount the baffle board with wood to wood contact. 

[Toxophilite]

From  my understanding  the baffle should be firm and not resonant
You don't really want your cabinet to resonate, nor your baffle, It should all be as firm as possible to let the speaker do it's work efficiently. Thus I don't think it matters if the grill cloth is pinched in between when it's mounted.


With closed back the cabinet helps to shape the sound, with open back the cabinet and baffle are just stopping most of the out of phase sound coming from the back of the speaker from mixing with the sound coming off the front.

[jjasilli]

That's true for hi-fi, but not for guitar speaker cabs.  The whole speaker-cab thing is quite interesting.  The science of speaker-cab effect was not understood until the mid-60's with the development of Thiele-Small Parameters.  Meanwhile, guitar amp, speaker, and combo cabs had been around a long time, if for no other reason than to safely house speakers & amps -- tonal effect may not have been a consideration.

Hi-fi is for sound REproduction, ideally without coloring the musical signal.  Hence, hi-fi speaker enclosures should not vibrate, and thereby put their own waveforms in the air.

But, guitar speaker cabs are a part of the sound PROduction process.  Traditionally made of 3/4" solid pine walls and thin plywood baffles, their coloration of tone is a desirabale part of the process.  Thinner baffle boards yield more bass response (I'm dyslexic & could remember his backwards). 

Some builders prefer not to cover their guitar speaker cabs in tolex, specifically to preserve the liveliness of the solid wood walls.  Some use uncovered hardwoods like oak or walnut instead of pine, not just for good looks, but also for tonal coloration.

"With closed back the cabinet helps to shape the sound, with open back the cabinet and baffle are just stopping most of the out of phase sound coming from the back of the speaker from mixing with the sound coming off the front."

The open-back guitar speaker enclosure does not have a large enough baffle board & side walls to keep bass waves form wrapping around to the front to cause phase cancellation.  But this effect is at about 100Hz or lower, which does not much effect guitar.  Though it's a problem for bass guitar.  This argues for closed-back cabs for bass guitar. 

Also, open-back cabs are more sensitive to placement near the room's rear and side walls, because those room walls will reflect rear projected sound back into the front projected sound, with delay & varying cancellation effects. 

[Toxophilite]

With all due respect
Guitar speaker cabs were not designed and or made to be resonant, especially early fenders.
They were designed to be cheap to make, and light to carry. Leo fender wasn't testing out tweed cabinets in controlled chambers with audio gear. He was banging out amps!
That's why he used those pressed basket Jensen speakers. because they could supply the number he needed at a low price. He was a business man. Not a guitar player ,or a boutique amp builder.


Resonating baffle boards will make your amp quieter!, they DON'T act as speakers.Your speaker acts as a speaker!
 If the cabinet your speaker is in is vibrating it is robbing your speaker of power and resonance.


All these 'traditional' pine cabs were covered in GLUE and thick Tweed fabric. This was for looks and did not add any desirable sonic attributes, other than the positive effect of making the cab heavier and damping the potential resonance of the cheap (at that time) pine board cabinets.


Oak and walnut are pretty dense. They would be better exactly because they DON'T resonateespecially when they get to be 3/4-1" thick! Unless you are making marimbas!
I come from a guitar building background. I know about resonance and I have spent a lot of time researching speaker cabinets

Hifi and guitar speaker cabinets do the same thing. Guitar amps are just not as sensitive or demanding in their build, especially open back cabs. You can use anything really as long as it holds your head and speaker firmly.


There is ALOT of misinformation out there. much of it sadly being disseminated by guitar cab builders, simply to sell things at higher prices, because they know people will cough up the $$$


Do your own research.

[Willabe]

Guitar speaker cabs were not designed and or made to be resonant, especially early fenders.
They were designed to be cheap to make, and light to carry. Leo fender wasn't testing out tweed cabinets in controlled chambers with audio gear. He was banging out amps!

That's why he used those pressed basket Jensen speakers. because they could supply the number he needed at a low price. He was a business man. Not a guitar player, or a boutique amp builder.

Resonating baffle boards will make your amp quieter!, they DON'T act as speakers.Your speaker acts as a speaker!
If the cabinet your speaker is in is vibrating it is robbing your speaker of power and resonance.

All these 'traditional' pine cabs were covered in GLUE and thick Tweed fabric. This was for looks and did not add any desirable sonic attributes, other than the positive effect of making the cab heavier and damping the potential resonance of the cheap (at that time) pine board cabinets.

Yes, Leo was just trying to get his amps built (he also wanted them to hold up/together on the road) and get them out the door.

But you put the same amp chassis in 2 open back cabs of the same exact size made of the same wood but 1 having a tweed cab with their thinner baffle board fastened on only 2 sides covered in lacquered tweed using hot hide glue and 2 in a black face cab with heaver baffle that is connected to the cab on all 4 sides covered with tolex and they do sound different.

Some/many might like the sound of 1 better than the other but they sound different.

[Ritchie200]

With all due respect
Guitar speaker cabs were not designed and or made to be resonant, especially early fenders.
They were designed to be cheap to make, and light to carry. Leo fender wasn't testing out tweed cabinets in controlled chambers with audio gear. He was banging out amps!

Do your own research.

Yes...  and No...  This accidental invention (much like the hugely inefficient 4x12 or the 8x10) created a certain sonic response that, in part, became the stamp of a brand or model.  Wanting to recreate this or testing out other wood types and thicknesses is no bigger crime than us tweaking a circuit in a build.  I'm sorry but here are HUGE differences in HiFi, Sound Reinforcement, and Musical Instrument cabinets in both design and construction.  Apples and oranges because the applications are completely different.  There are a lot of people who would like to blur the lines and unfortunately it does not work (or fortunately in our case).  Yes there is a lot of misinformation out there.  For example, we had a guy come on here a few years ago telling us we didn't know jack #$%^ about building speaker cabinets because the dimensions didn't work out to what is considered gospel for the thumper cabinets he builds for cars.  Just like how the greenback is considered the holy grail, it is like a Pinto next to a Cadillac side by side to a JBL. Yet the greenback has THAT sound we all know and love and it is associated with a brand.  JBL was probably scratching their heads going, "Why is that POS selling so well compared to our K120 - and at the same friggen price!"  Same with musical instrument cabinets.  Happy accidents, nothing more.  What you consider as bad attributes (by whatever reference you are using) contributed to the final product - and it is a desired product.  There is nothing wrong with trying to recapture that mojo.


Jim

[Toxophilite]

I'm not saying that different materials don't produce different results
I totally agree
in fact that's what I was saying.

I'm saying that the use of pine cabinets in the way leo fender did isn't a benchmark of quality guitar cab building or positive acoustic attributes
Nor is his use of lightly attached thing cheap baffles.
that's just opinion
it's not actual science. Which is more factual


It was something Leo fender did because it was cheap
I think tweed amps circuit has a lot more to do with their sound than the pine wood tweed covered hide glued cabinets
What is the sound of hide glue saturated tweed anyway??
And if it all so great why did he stop doing it that way after 10 years or so?


He changed the circuit too!
And each evolution has it's champions
Each feels their way is best.
I like to hear the speaker because that is the factor I can most easily control
I'm mostly referring to open back cabs where dimensions and in some way materials aren't as important
Basically you're housing the amp and the speaker, holding them both immobile and stopping some of that out of phase stuff from killing the sound of the speaker.
In my opinion a firm rigid baffle is best because then i hear the speaker and the amp faithfully reproducing the sound of me playing my instrument. Also it's most efficient. I like cleans sounds, using those old circuits how the engineer designers intended them to be used. So I like the inefficient open back cab to be as efficient as it can be


Regardless if you use a thin resonant baffle you are robbing your speaker of sound
If that's what you're looking for then by all means
If you're looking for mojo then well first you have to define what mojo is to you, because it is a completely subjective term that means something totally different to everybody.
I understand why people recreate the gear of their heros
(especially as it's so freakin expensive now!) It's alway interesting because the heros used it because that's what there was. Now we have so many choices we want the simple things that were the only choice in the days of our heros.


I realize hifi cabinets would be far more demanding sonically to build. They have to deal with a lot more and reproduce it neutrally.
If Leo fender had built his cabs out some other material that could hold an amp and speaker, and he covered it horsehair and used sap and he was the main game in town and that was the easiest amp to get. We would probably be having a talk about those materials


It's only a 'lucky' accident because we are looking back on it now and saying it was a lucky accident...mostly because it was the most prevalent lucky accident and he was the biggest game in town so everybody had his amps....business again!


I'm not a big tweed amp fan nor do I feel a need for exact replicas of anything
i'm not going to stop anyones fun
But it's just one way of doing things

[Apexelectric]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate the different viewpoints. It seems that just like most of what is discussed here is going to be subjective to the listeners taste and preconceived opinions.

I guess I’ll have to build a few different types of cabinets with different attributes and test them with a specific head and speaker to see how much coloration I get and if it’s desirable for the sound I’m looking to achieve.

It seems that from what I’m hearing, that a rigid, firmly attached baffle will definitely be louder if anything and that the grill cloth pinched between the baffle and cleats should only affect the coloration of the sound too much.

For a more clean amp it seems that a very rigid construction might be the better way to go as to not introduce any more distortion or coloration than the speaker was designed to do? Whereas an amp that was designed with distortion in mind might benefit from a cabinet with a little more resonance to it? The happy accident as you would say.

Thanks again for the input

[Willabe]

For a more clean amp it seems that a very rigid construction might be the better way to go as to not introduce any more distortion or coloration than the speaker was designed to do? Whereas an amp that was designed with distortion in mind might benefit from a cabinet with a little more resonance to it? 

I would not say that it has to do with clean or dirty as far as the cab, some loss of power and some frequency cancellation, which is coloration, yes. But, were used to hearing a colored sound with many to most guitar amps from the cab and the speakers baffle board.

Distortion, depending on how you define it, has much more to do with the amp and speaker(s), as far as how we perceive the sound we hear. If you define distortion as anything that goes in and comes out different, than it has been distorted. But it can still come out very clean sounding and not be an 'exact' copy of what went in and is now just louder. So it is colored but not distorted sounding to the ear.

There's a # of things/reasons for why/how fast the amp starts to distort. And the speaker, how quick/easy it is to drive the speaker to breakup. They have very little to nothing to do with the speaker cab and it's baffle board.

Closed back cabs like Marshall, Hi-Watt, were/are less resonant then, say, a Fender open back cab. Not because 1 is closed back and the other is an open back. It's because Marshal, Hi-Watt, etc., used plywood that was/is stronger than pine for their cabs sides/back and baffle board. So it's a much more ridged cab. But do Marshall's sound clean when pushed/turned up? No.      Hi-Watt's will distort to, you just have to push them harder.

And these heavy closed back cabs were not designed for true hi-fi sound and efficiency. So they too will color the sound, just less than the Fender open back types. (Fender's closed back cabs used the same materials as their open back cabs made in the same years.)       

[Ritchie200]

I'm saying that the use of pine cabinets in the way leo fender did isn't a benchmark of quality guitar cab building or positive acoustic attributes
Nor is his use of lightly attached thing cheap baffles.
that's just opinion
it's not actual science. Which is more factual

I'm not a big tweed amp fan nor do I feel a need for exact replicas of anything
i'm not going to stop anyones fun
But it's just one way of doing things

???  I think there was science involved on Leo's part.  If the final product sounded like dung, he wouldn't have been able to sell it.  I'd be willing to bet several designs came across his desk and the cheapest best sounding solution was signed off.  Plus, we are now examining these past practices, replicating and experimenting with those designs.  We are also experimenting with different construction techniques and materials to recreate what is sonically pleasing.  I think you would agree?

Science:  the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I think you are confusing application performance with your personal views on build quality.  Your personal preference is based on your vast guitar building experience and knowledge - qualities that are so important in the final product.  Leo's build quality may not meet your benchmark of build quality, but it meets many player's and builder's benchmarks of sonic qualities - a perfect application of build quality.  As has been stated, there are acoustic differences. 

Again, I will use an amp building analogy - carbon comps are noisy and they drift.  Yet we use them in our builds.  Why?  That could be considered less than the benchmark of build quality!  No, it is an attempt to replicate a past design that is sonically pleasing.

Leo changed construction practices based on company performance, updated manufacturing methods, and available supplies - of course this was driven by the bean counters and good business practices.  Had he known this was the desired design 60 years down the road after looking into his crystal ball and consulting his tarot cards, I'm sure he would have continued with horse glue and tweed.

Let me ask you this.  As a traditional builder, you probably feel that different woods, bracing, sound hole design, etc - play a huge and important part in the final sonic qualities of the guitar.  Yet the builder using carbon graphite and composite materials is wondering why you are bothering to try and replicate some old wood design!  Because compared to his high tech computer generated and manufactured guitar, your creation is no longer the benchmark of build quality.  It's a natural evolution of manufacturing methods and technology and the bean counters love it!  Maybe 60 years from now someone will be questioning his move to carbon graphite and composite!  To your comment - if wood was so good, why did he change!  Oh the irony of it all!

Personally, I don't understand the attraction with any Fender product!  At least the ones with toobs!

Jim

[Willabe]

Personally, I don't understand the attraction with any Fender product!  At least the ones with toobs!

Jim

Waa, Waa, WHAT??????????             

Jim doesn't like these either.     

[Apexelectric]

I would not say that it has to do with clean or dirty as far as the cab, some loss of power and some frequency cancellation, which is coloration, yes. But, were used to hearing a colored sound with many to most guitar amps from the cab and the speakers baffle board.

Distortion, depending on how you define it, has much more to do with the amp and speaker(s), as far as how we perceive the sound we hear. If you define distortion as anything that goes in and comes out different, than it has been distorted. But it can still come out very clean sounding and not be an 'exact' copy of what went in and is now just louder. So it is colored but not distorted sounding to the ear.

Gotcha!

I was speaking regarding what is PERCIEVED to be a clean amp vs. a MORE distorted amp. I understand the concept of the guitar amp being not only an amplifier but a distortion generation no matter which one were talking about.

I continue to see how this is going to be an ongoing process of trial and error no matter what project I choose to take on at the moment, whether it be a New amp/cab build or a restore/retro mod.  Some days I’m just looking for a direction even if I don’t know where it’s going to take me. Your input on this forum helps me to pick that direction and the result is usually not exactly what I thought it would be but it’s always a learning experience.

At this point, I’m building as a learning experience as I don’t really have many options to learn about this any other way. The rural area I live in has very few resources for this type of hobby/work for me to gain any type of learning experience from. I wish I could work beside someone with some experience.

I’m starting to cultivate a little interest in repair work and new builds on my own with the hope to turn this into a part time source of income for the future, if to just feed the habit, but even if that doesn’t work out I really do enjoy doing this stuff and will continue to explore its many facets.

Thanks all, for your valued input.

[Ed_Chambley]

Speaker and related cabinets are by far the most important to me than tweaking a circuit. I think a lot of tweaking is done because amps driving speakers which sound different.


The tweed style baffle does flex and if you have ever played tweed twin this one does it a good bit. You also can play a certain way and you notice a different tone from later cabs. To test simply plug a 5e3 into a 4 x 10 cab open like a super reverb or try it with a 4 12.  Completely differen't.


Leo Fender did not purchase exclusively on price. He did exactly what manufacturers do. Focus on reducing labor costs. The machine that cut the finger joints for cabs was replaced in 57 for a new machine that would cut all the joints in a stack of 12 boards. Prior each was cut one at a time. Of course, the machine cost a lot more.


One thing Leo Fender did was put any new design in the hands of players and listened to their feedback.  This gave the the Tele a truss rod and ash and swamp ash bodies. Sure it cost more, But players had a reason so he listened.


Move to brown era and you begin to see some closed fenders. Still pine. I have built now 7 clones of the 63 vibroverb. 5 were combos and or the 5, one was made with birch, not pine. The cabs hold 2 10. The baffle moves more up until the CBS cabinet design change. The birch cab with Weber speakers is clearly not as warm, but does punch more.


As Jim noted, the happy accident of the 4 12 and anyone who has played an old Marshall 8, 10 cab knows too. No magnet is exactly as strong as another especially if you have an old set. In a closed  cab and it is this that adds to the complexity of tone. Sometimes you get a bad match and blame a speaker when it is you selection of speaker that caused problems.


The amp fender made with JBL speakers, the 15 d130 and the 120 upgrade for twins and later ceramic EV appeared during the volume wars. These more powerful amps, like a 100 watt twin needed a speaker with a milled basket so guitar players began stealing JBL from Hifi and pro sound. Hifi guys, especially older ones complain about all us guitar players robbing JBL speakers.


So yes, the cabinet will change the tone the most. The cab is made of a sum of parts. For instance the old bassman pine cab, some have a center board separating the speakers and some do not. I much prefer the center board, but I do not like the fiberglass, I prefer robotex. 


Hifi is another thing and I can assure you a great speaker in a poor cab design can easily get muddy  bass, especially with vintage speakers that have a very high efficiency. Give you an idea. I purchased a pair of heath kit as101 speakers. Exactly the same drivers you find in the Altec Lancing voice of theater speakers. These were  never designed to have tight bass because they didn't need to. When they were made most pop music had higher bass tones.


Doesn't mean the speakers will not produce the tone cleanly, but the horn which is the fine detail will get interfered with  from the 15 JBL speakers.  The cab is not ported.  If you build a ported cab for the 15 driver and affix the horn open on top of the cab, not only does the deeper bass cleanup, but a pronounced clarity appears and imaging is increased so much it is completely different.


The difference is the baffle because as was said, there is a big difference in production and reproduction.

[jjasilli]

Toxo: you have completely misread my post.  I agree with the points made by Ritchie200 & Ed.

[Toxophilite]

I don't think I did
I believe you can apply some of the same principles to guitar cabinet construction as you do to hifi construction
If anything a  guitar cab is less demanding as it has a narrower frequency range to reproduce.

i think people over think these things with the magnifying lens of hindsight

I think your analogy between speaker cabinets and acoustic instruments to be a little far fetched, borderline ridiculous.
Kind of like comparing furniture building to violin/instrument construction which are very different applications of some of the same abilities and materials.

I also don't believe in speaker magnet sound, or capacitor sound or the sounds of different tube manufacturers, or using cloth covered wire or carbon comp resistors etc etc so I know I'm generally in the minority.  I like the old circuits. many of which originated in the RCA receiving tube manual

However I do love a beautiful clean tone which I believe to be the most demanding sound to achieve. I like the clean sound of SS amps too. I build tube amps because they interest me and the layout is so comparatively big/simple and I can find parts cheap by recycling.


Aren't the original Marshall's just Fender bassman copies. Same amp.

[Ed_Chambley]

I don't think I did
I believe you can apply some of the same principles to guitar cabinet construction as you do to hifi construction
If anything a  guitar cab is less demanding as it has a narrower frequency range to reproduce.

i think people over think these things with the magnifying lens of hindsight

I think your analogy between speaker cabinets and acoustic instruments to be a little far fetched, borderline ridiculous.
Kind of like comparing furniture building to violin/instrument construction which are very different applications of some of the same abilities and materials.

I also don't believe in speaker magnet sound, or capacitor sound or the sounds of different tube manufacturers, or using cloth covered wire or carbon comp resistors etc etc so I know I'm generally in the minority.  I like the old circuits. many of which originated in the RCA receiving tube manual

However I do love a beautiful clean tone which I believe to be the most demanding sound to achieve. I like the clean sound of SS amps too. I build tube amps because they interest me and the layout is so comparatively big/simple and I can find parts cheap by recycling.


Aren't the original Marshall's just Fender bassman copies. Same amp.

The original JTM 45 does show a Bassman 5F6a for a schematic, but there are differences.  Filtration being one.  Some say a JTM45 and a 1987 Plexi are the same except for a split cathode and I will agree they LOOK the same, but a 33K slope from a 56K and reducing the coupling cap values change this amp.


Some of the old JTM45 had an additional bypass cap which added some gain.  Also, all the old pots I ever measured out of a old Marshall are over the spec.  Fenders generally are a smudge under.


Certainly Hifi cabinet making can be applied to Guitar cabinets.  Every time you mic up an amp you are doing this, but the mic is capturing a production and making a reproduction.  In this case no coloration is wanted.  Now all the greatest sound engineers comment about tubes and coloration. 


Check out the old white lettered Black Plate 12AX7 RCA.  This tube will pass more second (actually the first order since the fundamental is first) order harmonics than a newer gray plate.  And as was discussed, Supro used cheaper ceramic caps which helps to give that raspy tone they have.


Germainum clips softer than silicone.  CC resistors make noise, but some like them.  I use Metal Film.  Others use silver mica on tonestacks and say they are smoother.  A lot of experienced builders agree.  I do understand a desire for a clean tone and most amps do sound very similar, but no 2 tubes distort the same way or are they as easy to do so.


Hendrix played a JTM 100 water and Eddie VH played a 100 Watt super lead.  They sound quite different, even with both played clean.

[jjasilli]

Let's review:

I believe you can apply some of the same principles to guitar cabinet construction as you do to hifi construction. Of course you can, but I suggested the opposite:  that hi-fi cab construction & Thiele-Small parameters NOT be applied to guitar cabs.  I suggested plagiarizing the venerable guitar cabs of the past, because they sound good for the intended purpose of sound PROduction.


If anything a  guitar cab is less demanding as it has a narrower frequency range to reproduce.  Demands of frequency range are irrelevant to tone within the relevant band of frequency range. 


i think people over think these things with the magnifying lens of hindsight.  No thought is required if you copy the tried & true designs of the past.  This is a good thing, and avoids re-invention of the wheel.  To quote PRR: plagiarize!  OTOH, this Forum tends to delve into the science behind the designs.  Sometimes, as with speaker cabs, that science wasn't known at the time the designs were developed. 


I think your analogy between speaker cabinets and acoustic instruments to be a little far fetched, borderline ridiculous.  I did't make this analogy.  I did point out that some guitar cab builders use hardwoods for tonal purposes.  It is a fact that they do so; not my endorsement.


Also: 3/4" solid pine & thin ply baffles.  Statistically, hi-fi speakers don't use solid wood.  It's too lively or reverberant.  Instead they tend to use flakeboard or MDF, because it's more acoustically dead than solid wood.  By physical necessity, vibrating cab walls & baffles transmit their vibrating frequencies into the surrounding air.  They vibrate at their resonant frequencies which may not relate to the frequencies of the musical program.  Such deviation is by definition not high fidelity.  Also, the cab wall vibration may produce such soundwaves at a higher SPL than that of the music program. 


So, further corrective action is taken for hi-fi.  Cab walls and baffles are thicker, 1-1/2" or more in higher quality cabs.  Internal bracing is used.  Bracing raises the fundamental resonant frequencies of cab walls, to the point where the higher remaining resonant frequencies can be killed with internal damping material (stuffing).  These things are not my opinions.  They are scientific fact.

For the most part, none of this is done for guitar cabs, nor does it need to be.  (Some Fender closed cabs use some sound absorbent material internally.)

Kind of like comparing furniture building to violin/instrument construction which are very different applications of some of the same abilities and materials.  That's a strained analogy, based on the false premise that the vibration of cab walls is irrelevant.


I also don't believe in speaker magnet sound, or capacitor sound or the sounds of different tube manufacturers, or using cloth covered wire or carbon comp resistors etc etc so I know I'm generally in the minority.  I like the old circuits. many of which originated in the RCA receiving tube manual.  These points do not apply to cab design.


However I do love a beautiful clean tone which I believe to be the most demanding sound to achieve. I like the clean sound of SS amps too. I build tube amps because they interest me and the layout is so comparatively big/simple and I can find parts cheap by recycling. . .  Aren't the original Marshall's just Fender bassman copies. Same amp.  Very similar but not the identical circuit, resulting noticeably in a different quality of clean tone! More on point is the tonal difference between closed (Marshal) vs. open back (Fender) cabs.

[jojokeo]

I also don't believe in speaker magnet sound, or capacitor sound or the sounds of different tube manufacturers,... or carbon comp resistors etc etc so I know I'm generally in the minority.  I like the old circuits. many of which originated in the RCA receiving tube manual.

Aren't the original Marshall's just Fender bassman copies. Same amp.

Oh boy, no help for you based on those statements, I'll just leave it at that...sorry Toxo.

[jjasilli]

Apexelectric:  Here's a good hit for Speaker baffle attachment methods: http://bobbyowsinski.blogspot.com/2011/11/importance-of-speaker-baffle.html#axzz51eGLOK1L

[Apexelectric]

Here's a good hit for Speaker baffle attachment methods

Yeah, I came across that one.

Looks like I started a cat fight 

[jjasilli]

It's like baseball.  Anything can happen.  Lots of good points were made.

[Willabe]

Looks like I started a cat fight 

Naw, there alright. Just a little       they haven't           

[Ed_Chambley]

With all due respect
Guitar speaker cabs were not designed and or made to be resonant, especially early fenders.
They were designed to be cheap to make, and light to carry. Leo fender wasn't testing out tweed cabinets in controlled chambers with audio gear. He was banging out amps!
That's why he used those pressed basket Jensen speakers. because they could supply the number he needed at a low price. He was a business man. Not a guitar player ,or a boutique amp builder.


Resonating baffle boards will make your amp quieter!, they DON'T act as speakers.Your speaker acts as a speaker!
 If the cabinet your speaker is in is vibrating it is robbing your speaker of power and resonance.


All these 'traditional' pine cabs were covered in GLUE and thick Tweed fabric. This was for looks and did not add any desirable sonic attributes, other than the positive effect of making the cab heavier and damping the potential resonance of the cheap (at that time) pine board cabinets.


Oak and walnut are pretty dense. They would be better exactly because they DON'T resonateespecially when they get to be 3/4-1" thick! Unless you are making marimbas!
I come from a guitar building background. I know about resonance and I have spent a lot of time researching speaker cabinets

Hifi and guitar speaker cabinets do the same thing. Guitar amps are just not as sensitive or demanding in their build, especially open back cabs. You can use anything really as long as it holds your head and speaker firmly.


There is ALOT of misinformation out there. much of it sadly being disseminated by guitar cab builders, simply to sell things at higher prices, because they know people will cough up the $$$


Do your own research.

Funny how some things like making filtertron pups using a drill held to a table by masking tape certainly made vast changes and not tone. Aren't pickups just wire and magnets? So these pups sound the way they do and if having a the same specifications they will never sound like a old strat single coil. Your manufacturing technique was very crude compared the Leo Fenders methods, and you seem to understand pickups being a excitable electric coil.


Seems easy for you to understand the method of making the pickup can change tone, like weaker magnets or more winds. Make them different and they sound different. Here is a place you can do your own research. Being convinced 43 wind will give more turns and produce a higher output than 42, and even more if you use alnico 5 magnets.


You wind a special pup to have the MOJO you want using coils and magnets, and after suggest speaker coil and magnets have nothing to do with tone. Even though you know a good Hifi speaker construction method will work with guitar, everyone I know who has.any idea what about guitar tones are created using Hifi speakers quickly finds it sterile sounding and lacking in tonal complexity. it should because Hifi speakers are designed for this.


Now you prefer a UL 70 watt Super Reverb. I would say this and Standal amps are very Hifi sounding, but presenting an opinion to Apex electric about how much better it is to have a rigid cabinet with better projection. Blindly disregarding your shortcomings, but willing to talk those irresponsible comments about how Leo Fender used the cheapest stuff, but he did not. What he did do was change music and if dare to research for yourself, you will find quality dropped when CBS took the company.

[Ed_Chambley]

Apex, if you want a closed back 4, 12, they generally sound great. There are simple guidelines to cabs and speakers and yes the cabinet is a huge part of the tone and should be.  What I consider since I traditionaly use heads, not combos is what do I want this cab for.


If you want Don Fenders tone on Hotel California, you need a Les Paul and a tweed deluxe and a Celestion greenback. I build cabs like the Era of music I want use them.


You can always make the cab with a removable back. I cut 3 on a 2 12. Remove a third which is a.lot like a Vox or 2 thirds like open back like fender. To port a closed back. Drill a 3 inch hole in the baffle of a.closed back.  Fill it full of drinking straws. Test and remove a couple of straws And keep removing them while closing the port. Once you have the exact size just use the hole you cut out to fill the empty space.


If you build in versatility you get more use from each cab. And keep in mind the warmth of pine or similar woods. These poorly designed cabs created all hit songs before hip hop came along and we started digital recording where tone is lost and melody is forgotten.


Just plan your cabs with flexibility and get proven speakers.

[Apexelectric]

You can always make the cab with a removable back. I cut 3 on a 2 12. Remove a third which is a.lot like a Vox or 2 thirds like open back like fender. To port a closed back. Drill a 3 inch hole in the baffle of a.closed back.  Fill it full of drinking straws. Test and remove a couple of straws And keep removing them while closing the port. Once you have the exact size just use the hole you cut out to fill the empty space.


If you build in versatility you get more use from each cab. And keep in mind the warmth of pine or similar woods. These poorly designed cabs created all hit songs before hip hop came along and we started digital recording where tone is lost and melody is forgotten.


Just plan your cabs with flexibility and get proven speakers.

That’s kind of the direction I was thinking, versatility and tuneability to the listeners taste. As far as the porting goes, would you have the hole size adjustable or tune it to a fixed aperture? Would an adjustable shutter from behind be the way to go to cut off the port?

I’ve seen closed back designs that purposely leave out an entire speaker location to use that hole as a port. Quite a bit larger than 3”.

[Ed_Chambley]

You can always make the cab with a removable back. I cut 3 on a 2 12. Remove a third which is a.lot like a Vox or 2 thirds like open back like fender. To port a closed back. Drill a 3 inch hole in the baffle of a.closed back.  Fill it full of drinking straws. Test and remove a couple of straws And keep removing them while closing the port. Once you have the exact size just use the hole you cut out to fill the empty space.


If you build in versatility you get more use from each cab. And keep in mind the warmth of pine or similar woods. These poorly designed cabs created all hit songs before hip hop came along and we started digital recording where tone is lost and melody is forgotten.


Just plan your cabs with flexibility and get proven speakers.

That’s kind of the direction I was thinking, versatility and tuneability to the listeners taste. As far as the porting goes, would you have the hole size adjustable or tune it to a fixed aperture? Would an adjustable shutter from behind be the way to go to cut off the port?

I’ve seen closed back designs that purposely leave out an entire speaker location to use that hole as a port. Quite a bit larger than 3”.

I cut a 3" hole on each side, but I also install tubing.  For instance, if my cab is 12" deep, the baffle tube is 75% of this length.  Yes I have made a aperture before, but no longer do.  I never close the ports, I just open the back.


Last 2, 12 I made had a center board, so basically separate speakers.  Each individual speaker was 8 ohms, so I wired 2 separate 8 ohms, 1 4 series both and 16 parallel.  The cabinet has ports made on the bottom which are rectangular and follow Altec's recommendation for usage and porting.


Tolex in red.  Painted the inside of the ports black so they disappear and used 1" sound pad on the inside, but not on the removable pieces on the back.  I did make covers for the ports in red Tolex.  Tried them once, but it sounds better open.  I have had Vintage 30's, Veterans WHS, Celestion Blues and Golds, Greenbacks and Weber Alnico Blue Dog and Silver Bells together and separate.  They all sounded great, just different.


And that is what I am trying to say.  The rule of speaker is good speakers cost more than average speaker.  I have a Marshall 1960 cab with 4 Celestion Blues right now, 60 total watts.  They sound great and I wanted to mention the closer to max wattage the more breakup.


Some suggest double wattage.  If you have a 50 watt amp have 100 watt speaker.  I do not do this, I often exceed max wattage and I sometime have to recone a speaker.


And finally, most speakers say they can be used in either closed or open back, but this is not the case.  Vintage 30 does not sound good open to me nor does a Blue.  The vintage 30 seems too loose and the Blue is too bright.

[jjasilli]

That’s kind of the direction I was thinking, versatility and tuneability to the listeners taste. As far as the porting goes, would you have the hole size adjustable or tune it to a fixed aperture?

One solution is to have a removable slat in the rear panel.  E.g., Avatar Speakers.  If literally ported, then you don't want a lossy baffle; though a lossy baffle can "serve" as a "port".  Widely variable port size tuning might seem like a marketing plus.  Moving parts might be prone to rattling.  Different size ports will sound different, but not necessarily "better".

Personally, I would not try to design a cab, or a golf club, that promises to be all things to all users.  YMMV.

[jjasilli]

OTOH It occurs to me that multiple ports could be used, and stuffed with anything such as T shirts.   The stuffing could be removed to "turn on" 1 or more ports.

[madnis]

I have a "B" stock Marshall MG 4 X 12 slant cab,
(~$200.00.) I removed stock spkrs. I installed removable
heavy duty casters
 
I then removed the MDF spker baffle(s) and back. I then
purchased 13 ply 1/2" baltic birch for baffle(s) and back, cut it to fit
with new(Marshall)grill cloth and piping,(Grill cloth and piping install
instruction tips on request) cut same spkr holes, new 4/40 T-nut for
rear loading spkrs using spkr foam ring to seal against wood. Sealed
seam between baffles withthe original piece of wood and applied RTV
along seam to air tight seal it.
 
I attached the baffle(s) at each side with 2 wood screws and at
top with 3 of the same (repeat for both.) I have a piece of solid
pine 2 x 2 that is glued and screwed into exact middle of both
baffle(s) with the original pieces of "V" mounting block. This is 
centered and is just touching the back ply. With the back in place
and secured (4 wood screws per side, 16 total) I added a screw that goes
right into the 2 X 2 solid pine inside. Now both front and back are
physically coupled and resonate together. I T-nuted all other exsisting
hardware for rigidity and security, road worthiness.
 
The piece de resistance is 2 x12 Celestion Gold on bottom and 2 x12 Vintage 30 on top. 
Heavenly!

~$100.00 worth of upgrades to ~$200.00 spkr cab.
 
$800.00 worth of spkrs, very very worth the time and effort.

[Ritchie200]

Looks like I started a cat fight 

Naw, there alright. Just a little       they haven't           

Hey! You be quiet!

[Ritchie200]

Madnis,

Back in the early 70's I bought four of the Marshall "100" 4x12's.  They were terrific sounding cabs and you pretty much replicated them from what I remember of the wood when I pulled the backs off.  Although using cabinets later with 75's, I thought they sounded pretty darn good too.  Very different.  The 25's had a soft breakup and the 75's were more sharp and had more attack - for lack of a better description.  Very similar to a Tube-Works 4x12 cab I have now with "proprietary" TW Eminence speakers.  It is also a 300 watt cabinet so I don't have to worry.  With the old "100"s, I always had to have two cabs plugged in to make sure I didn't burn anything up.  The 4x12 cabs with the 75's were much lighter than the old 100's but I have no idea how they were made.  Like has been discussed, I'm sure some cost cutting measures were utilized.  None of those old cabs were sealed like what you have done.  Yes they were closed back with no ports and everything fit pretty tight, but there were still small gaps.  Removable casters?  Also a hole(s).  Severely restricted might be a better word!  Casters, your best friend on a 4x12!  Those carpeted moving dollies work well for cabinets that are caster challenged!

Jim

[madnis]

I have a "B" stock Marshall MG 4 X 12 slant cab,
(~$200.00.) I removed stock spkrs. I installed removable
heavy duty casters
 
I then removed the MDF spker baffle(s) and back. I then
purchased 13 ply 1/2" baltic birch for baffle(s) and back, cut it to fit
with new(Marshall)grill cloth and piping,(Grill cloth and piping install
instruction tips on request) cut same spkr holes, new 4/40 T-nut for
rear loading spkrs using spkr foam ring to seal against wood. Sealed
seam between baffles withthe original piece of wood and applied RTV
along seam to air tight seal it.
 
I attached the baffle(s) at each side with 2 wood screws and at
top with 3 of the same (repeat for both.) I have a piece of solid
pine 2 x 2 that is glued and screwed into exact middle of both
baffle(s) with the original pieces of "V" mounting block. This is 
centered and is just touching the back ply. With the back in place
and secured (4 wood screws per side, 16 total) I added a screw that goes
right into the 2 X 2 solid pine inside. Now both front and back are
physically coupled and resonate together. I T-nuted all other exsisting
hardware for rigidity and security, road worthiness.
 
The piece de resistance is 2 x12 Celestion Gold on bottom and 2 x12 Vintage 30 on top. 
Heavenly!

~$100.00 worth of upgrades to ~$200.00 spkr cab.
 
$800.00 worth of spkrs, very very worth the time and effort.

"We had the idea of putting four 12" speakers into the smallest enclosure we could. There was nothing brilliant about designing the first 4 x 12, it was purely the most convenient size to get into the transport that groups had in those days," he admitted. "I thought that it didn't look very nice with just the amp sitting on top, so I did the angle to match the dimensions of the amplifier and make it look a neater package."
Jim Marshall: Guitar amp pioneer who earned the epithet 'Father of Loud'


(I put these on all that allow me
caster pic below)


Speaker Baffle Attachment Methods
To The point:

I REALLY love 1/2", (tried 3/4 just to stiff)
void-less birch ply attached as 'floating'.
Closed or open back, no matter what speaker.
(I always try to front load when ever possible).
I do this to combos and spkr cabs
that need this kind of up grade,
never been dissappointed.

Cheap MDF cabs
with MDF baffle and back are cheap to buy
and IMHO beneffit greatly from this upgrade.

[Toxophilite]

Funny how some things like making filtertron pups using a drill held to a table by masking tape certainly made vast changes and not tone. Aren't pickups just wire and magnets? So these pups sound the way they do and if having a the same specifications they will never sound like a old strat single coil. Your manufacturing technique was very crude compared the Leo Fenders methods, and you seem to understand pickups being a excitable electric coil.


Seems easy for you to understand the method of making the pickup can change tone, like weaker magnets or more winds. Make them different and they sound different. Here is a place you can do your own research. Being convinced 43 wind will give more turns and produce a higher output than 42, and even more if you use alnico 5 magnets.


You wind a special pup to have the MOJO you want using coils and magnets, and after suggest speaker coil and magnets have nothing to do with tone. Even though you know a good Hifi speaker construction method will work with guitar, everyone I know who has.any idea what about guitar tones are created using Hifi speakers quickly finds it sterile sounding and lacking in tonal complexity. it should because Hifi speakers are designed for this.


Now you prefer a UL 70 watt Super Reverb. I would say this and Standal amps are very Hifi sounding, but presenting an opinion to Apex electric about how much better it is to have a rigid cabinet with better projection. Blindly disregarding your shortcomings, but willing to talk those irresponsible comments about how Leo Fender used the cheapest stuff, but he did not. What he did do was change music and if dare to research for yourself, you will find quality dropped when CBS took the company.

Well i certainly inadvertently poked your hornets nest.
For that I'm sorry
I'm just having an opinion.
Leo fender isn't a God, he was a businessman. I don't know if he even played guitar??
I like his amps and use his designs. Thanks Leo. I don't worship his cabinet design.
All that aside check this out. i like this site it debunks alot of the voodoo around guitars, amps etc etc. and I think there's a lot of it out there!
http://tone-lizard.com/speakers/
I like what it says about baffles "The baffle board is primarily used to prevent a loss of a speaker’s bass frequency response through phase cancellation."

The one fellow said speakers baffles should be done in a certain way because that's what LEO did (all praise LEO!!)
I meant to point out that that's not the science of it really. The fellow posting  can do it however he wants. He asked for advice and opinions

I'm not sure why you're dragging my filtertron build into this. I wasn't doing it in a special way to get 'mojo' or 'tone'.
I was doing to try it out for fun! Wheee build something new! Nor was I using any special materials. I was just seeing if I could build one.
Old ones were too expensive.
As for my primitive methiods goes,I'm not a factory but even so, do you think gretsch used hi tech precision methods? If so, you likely have not taken apart and rebuilt many gretsch guitars. I love them but I don't delude myself , they are pretty wonkily made instruments, but lovely.
I never drew any conclusions about pickups other than I don't really like filtertrons..and still don't really. (yes I know MORE blasphemy)
Also building them was entirely possible.

Actually my filtertron sounded remarkably like most filtertrons I have encountered since, some 58 first year ones, some 65 ones, some 73 ones(which hadn't yet changed to the different mags and hotter wind, if they ever really did) and they all pretty well sounded the same.I have had some new ones (Gretschj And TV Jones)
I didn't say ANYTHING about speaker coils..Not sure where that came from
Harvey Gearst who designed alot of the famous JBL speakers finds the hifi D123 to be his favourite guitar speaker. That's his opinion but I have a couple and they do make a very nice guitar speaker. 

Leo fender was a business man. yes his amps were popular, he cornered the market pretty well. Yes most people used them
Does that mean they were the best or just the most common and readily available? I'm saying both could easily be factors
and I love fender amps

My apologies if i have blasphemed your personal heros. Did I mention I love fender amps? My UL super has been a  lovely clean hassle free amp that has been dragged on more tours than I can remember and with nary a problem. Scotty Moore liked Standels..he made some nice and new sounds with them..as did some other guy..Chet somebody I think??

Anyway this is way off base

To the original poster. Try a bunch of stuff. There is no ONE way to do things. Following the science of it is usually a good start as there is a lot of opinion out there (like mine) then have fun!

[sluckey]

You just lumped everything you had to say into the quote from someone. No way to tell what he said or what you said. Maybe you could untangle that reply so we can all understand.

[Toxophilite]

one of the end quotes got lost in editing. i fixed it

[sluckey]

Makes sense now.

[Ed_Chambley]

Yes, I neve seen a older Gretsch that the binding is not breaking and chalking, but they do have their own sound.


Valco made cheap amps, not Fender.  They made them for Montgomery Ward and others.  Silvertone was not very nice either.  Most of these amp were not road worthy.  Of course you like Fender amps.  Leo Fender is not a personal hero, but he certainly does not deserve to be referred to a some cheap manufacturer.  Please, if it were not for Leo Fender's friendship with Bob Wills and therefore the Texas Playboys member Eldon Shamblin input on guitars the Jazzmaster would not be.  Eldon really likes the Telecaster, but preferred the Strat, but a Strat was not comfortable for him to play seated as he did.  Leo made him one and gave it to him.


You see it is comments like this that are completely not factual.  You stated, or a boutique amp builder.


As Leo Fender was not a Boutique amp builder.  Boutique-a business that serves a sophisticated or specialized clientele.  When Leo started building amps, he certainly did build them.  As he started as a Radio shop repairing those.  When he built and repaired things, he presented them to s specailzed clientele. Like when he made the Blackface Twin and gave one to Don Rich and Buck Owens prior to releasing them to market.  This is because he was not a guitar player, but Don Rich certainly was.

Arguably, Fender set the standard that all other amps were measured against and if England did not have a large import tax on goods coming from America, Jim Marshal would have never been the Father of Loud except that he played drums, which can be loud.  He was not a guitar player either.  Dick Denney did not play guitar, but also listened to players.  The Vox had no negative feedback because of this.

My points to you comments are simply that you references are opinion and I will tell you why.  Like I said, if you want to get the tone Don Felder did playing the Hotel California solo, one of the few solo's most people over 45 can hum along with, you will have to have a loose baffle that loses lows, a Les Paul and a well broken in Greenback.  Try it with a Gretch and you Super.  Will not even be close and it shouldn't

Just like if you want a Grestch to have filtertrons.  You know filtertrons are not as efficient and newer machine wound pups, but you still like them.  If you do, that is cool, but if I inferred that you were not really in the know because of this it would be insulting.  But you completely overlooked my point of them being wire and magnets, like speakers.  Your opinion, and it is certainly that, is the wire and magnet makes no difference in a speaker, how can it in a pickup? 

Even stated there is no difference in tubes.

And if you ever hear Chet talk about Fred Gretsch  you will understand why Fender was able to purchase Gretsch. 

Furthermore, you did not only state you opinion, but you decided to start a retort to someone by stating "With all due respect" and then hammered Willibe's glue comment which is his opinion and then stating jjasilli comments about the cabinet resonating was simply an inefficiency of poor manufacturing.  So I guess you have never really owned or played a real Fender Tweed.

I guess that is my beef.  The OP was asking for opinions for baffles based on experinece and different methods and the outcome.  Various types, not just the ones you approve of.  Go back and re-read what he posted.  And just as your Filtertrons are not perfect, you still have experience with them and this is valuable.  How much experience do you have with different baffle designs since you believe there is really only a proper method and this is rigid, like a Hifi Speaker.  Seriously!


How is it inadvertently poking a hornets nest when you intentionally form a argument with others?

[Ed_Chambley]

Madnis,

Back in the early 70's I bought four of the Marshall "100" 4x12's.  They were terrific sounding cabs and you pretty much replicated them from what I remember of the wood when I pulled the backs off.  Although using cabinets later with 75's, I thought they sounded pretty darn good too.  Very different.  The 25's had a soft breakup and the 75's were more sharp and had more attack - for lack of a better description.  Very similar to a Tube-Works 4x12 cab I have now with "proprietary" TW Eminence speakers.  It is also a 300 watt cabinet so I don't have to worry.  With the old "100"s, I always had to have two cabs plugged in to make sure I didn't burn anything up.  The 4x12 cabs with the 75's were much lighter than the old 100's but I have no idea how they were made.  Like has been discussed, I'm sure some cost cutting measures were utilized.  None of those old cabs were sealed like what you have done.  Yes they were closed back with no ports and everything fit pretty tight, but there were still small gaps.  Removable casters?  Also a hole(s).  Severely restricted might be a better word!  Casters, your best friend on a 4x12!  Those carpeted moving dollies work well for cabinets that are caster challenged!

Jim

What are you talking about?  Back in the early 70's.  You mean back when we did not know any better and could have simply used a washtub for a speaker cabinet?  Maybe not, a washtub would probably be too efficient.


Better to use what Pete Townsend and Jim Marshall came up with and the the Who's road crew fixed.  The friggin 8, 12"s cab.  The beasts were heavy, so they cut them in half.  A new era was born.  The Marshall Stack and Pete stacked them high.  What a glorious time.   Hit an A chord and it scare the sh*t out of ya.


All this from a guy who played and sold drums.  I may be off base here, but don't ya think musical gear needs to fit the needs of their musician market, especially guitar players and you know we are an ignorant bunch.  I hear some of us think the tone of a cabinet is desirable.


I do not know why so much research is put into cabinet simulation for tonal response when really all you got to do is build a solid box. 


And I am NOT playing with you Jimbob!

[Ritchie200]

Toxo,

I think the problem people are having with your posts is that you have turned the OP's original question into your personal vendetta against how Leo did it.  The OP has a tweed bassman and is talking about building cabinets specific to this amp, so of course responses are going to reference that era.  You talk about the resonance of specific woods and then you state: " not a benchmark of...positive acoustic attributes."  Ummm, it is if you are trying to replicate that particular attribute!  No science associated with this?  Even YOUR hero the Lizard talks about the "science" behind the thinner baffle.  Speaking of the Lizard...  He likes to poke fun of the "Fender Boys" and the "Marshall Deputys" and how they foolishly like a specific type of speaker and then pretty much states OMG there is a difference!  Then he takes paragraph after paragraph bashing some silly magazine article about speaker reviews?  I guess they forgot to ask his opinion before they published?  He then talks about the "tail wagging the dog" of us mere mortals that do not possess his infinite knowledge of cabinet construction with this little gem about a resonating baffle board: "The baffle could be made from plywood, MDF, or cryogenically frozen camel turds; just make it thin, OK?"  Really? Really?? Wood type, thickness, number of plys, attachment points - makes no difference?  Me thinks some scar tissue is wagging his dog...  Then there is one last dig that sounds strangely familiar... "However, some folks like the inefficiencies of a poorly built cabinet that resonates. C'est la vie."  Tone Lizard has some great information, some not so great, and some with a hard skew of personal opinion.  And hey, that's fine.  It's a great reference, but should be considered as one man's opinion.  You know what else we all have. 


He, like you, fails to realize that this "poorly built cabinet" contributes greatly to the end product - AND IT IS A DESIRED end product.  No matter how it came about or the reasons why, it does not matter!  Using other speaker cabinet construction and build practices as a critique of performance, is absurd and has absolutely no bearing.  If you believe a cabinet built of something other than pine, with a thick baffle and 64 screws holding it down, works for you - fantastic!  You gave great reasons why you feel this way.  However, to discount another design just because you and the Lizard find it poorly built?  I'm sorry, that's where you lose me.  This isn't a discussion on build quality and even if it was, I could counter with: who's making the rules and who says the old "rules" should apply when it comes to guitar cabinets?


As I have stated, I am not necessarily a Leo fan, but I do respect what he has done.  Fender amps have their place in history, but it is not a sound I would pursue.  Having said that, I do know what I like.  I know what speakers I like.  I know what cabinets I like.  I know what amps I like.  If any of these attributes were part of a 1960 design, I want to know how they did it.  For someone to arbitrarily state that I should not like one of those attributes, or that I am such a silly uninformed lemming - all because THEY feel the "build quality" responsible for that attribute is not acceptable?   

Peace!
Jim

[jjasilli]

"Arguably, Fender set the standard that all other amps were measured against"
Yes, Ed is right, except it isn't arguable.  It cannot be seriously disputed that with the Blackface Amps, Leo Fender set the benchmark standard by which all guitar tone is measured or used for comparison, including other Fender amps!  I.e, Tweed, SF, and any and all other amps by any maker are compared to BF.  Leo was interested in the bottom line, but did produce high quality products.  As Ed points out Fender did not produce bargain basement products.  A drop in quality came with the CBS era; that was true for American manufacturing generally at the time.  Meanwhile, Leo had rightfully earned his place in the Pantheon. 

Ed, I don't understand your last response to Ritchie200.  FWIW I agree with all of Ritchie200's points, which always seem to be on the mark (and often colorfully stated).

The Tone Lizzard Lounge is a great site.  The passage on baffles is incomplete.  The first speakers, going back to the '30's or '40's were often housed in rings sitting on a base or a pole -- kind of resembled an electric fan of the day.  The exposed cones and leads were subject to damage.  Next, for their protection and for ease of transport, they were mounted to baffle boards and/or housed in boxes.  Frequency response was poor back then -- maybe 100Hz - 8000Hz at best.  Eventually it was noticed that baffle & box attributes greatly affected bass response.  Amazing progress was made in the speaker world through trial and error and educated guessing, until the development in Thiele-Small parameters in the mid-60's.  At that point the science of drivers, boxes and their inter-relations was nailed down, at least for conventional box types.  (Exotic boxes -- e.g., transmission line -- still evade scientific prediction as to actual outcome of design.) As Ritchie200 points out, all the stuff that can be known already is known, and can be referenced to produce your desired outcome. 

By the '70's Thiele-Small parameters were known, but not well-known to the general public.  Owlsely knew and for Grateful Dead concerts designed 30' tall speaker stacks to match the half-wave of bass notes and project them for a mile.

The Tone Lizzard states that guitar speaker baffles in open back cabs serve to prevent phase cancellation.  This is inaccurate.  For an open baffle (open backed cab), the baffle needs to be at least 3' in circumference with the speaker in the middle, to prevent phase cancellation.  No guitar cab is built this way.  More importantly, inability of a small baffle board to prevent phase cancellation is not an issue for guitar for the reasons stated in my earlier post.

(Additionally, the phase cancellation effect of a large enough open baffle will be true only in freespace or in an anechoic chamber.  In a room, the walls, floor & ceiling will reflect forward the rear waveforms in complex ways.)

[Ritchie200]

"Ed, I don't understand your last response to Ritchie200."
JJ, that's just two old guys rambling on aimlessly back and forth.....  Wait...what were we talking about?
Oh yeah, Ed, you and I are just old school....

Jim
PS click on pic for a better explanation. "Back in my day... we didn't need no silly fans on stage to stay cool!", the old guy Jim cackled, poking at us with his cane and gesturing wildly.

[Ed_Chambley]

"Arguably, Fender set the standard that all other amps were measured against"
Yes, Ed is right, except it isn't arguable.  It cannot be seriously disputed that with the Blackface Amps, Leo Fender set the benchmark standard by which all guitar tone is measured or used for comparison, including other Fender amps!  I.e, Tweed, SF, and any and all other amps by any maker are compared to BF.  Leo was interested in the bottom line, but did produce high quality products.  As Ed points out Fender did not produce bargain basement products.  A drop in quality came with the CBS era; that was true for American manufacturing generally at the time.  Meanwhile, Leo had rightfully earned his place in the Pantheon. 

Ed, I don't understand your last response to Ritchie200.  FWIW I agree with all of Ritchie200's points, which always seem to be on the mark (and often colorfully stated).

The Tone Lizzard Lounge is a great site.  The passage on baffles is incomplete.  The first speakers, going back to the '30's or '40's were often housed in rings sitting on a base or a pole -- kind of resembled an electric fan of the day.  The exposed cones and leads were subject to damage.  Next, for their protection and for ease of transport, they were mounted to baffle boards and/or housed in boxes.  Frequency response was poor back then -- maybe 100Hz - 8000Hz at best.  Eventually it was noticed that baffle & box attributes greatly affected bass response.  Amazing progress was made in the speaker world through trial and error and educated guessing, until the development in Thiele-Small parameters in the mid-60's.  At that point the science of drivers, boxes and their inter-relations was nailed down, at least for conventional box types.  (Exotic boxes -- e.g., transmission line -- still evade scientific prediction as to actual outcome of design.) As Ritchie200 points out, all the stuff that can be known already is known, and can be referenced to produce your desired outcome. 

By the '70's Thiele-Small parameters were known, but not well-known to the general public.  Owlsely knew and for Grateful Dead concerts designed 30' tall speaker stacks to match the half-wave of bass notes and project them for a mile.

The Tone Lizzard states that guitar speaker baffles in open back cabs serve to prevent phase cancellation.  This is inaccurate.  For an open baffle (open backed cab), the baffle needs to be at least 3' in circumference with the speaker in the middle, to prevent phase cancellation.  No guitar cab is built this way.  More importantly, inability of a small baffle board to prevent phase cancellation is not an issue for guitar for the reasons stated in my earlier post.

(Additionally, the phase cancellation effect of a large enough open baffle will be true only in freespace or in an anechoic chamber.  In a room, the walls, floor & ceiling will reflect forward the rear waveforms in complex ways.)

Sorry, I was just messing with Blackmore oops I mean Jimbob Tele.


Doesn't have anything to do with this. I have an appreciation for your positions and I can see a lot of HIFI interest in your writing. That is all I have been building recently.

[jjasilli]

I was just messing with Blackmore oops I mean Jimbob Tele.
That's what I thought, but wasn't sure.  Nice to see JimBob get a run for his money - Rock On!


Have fun with the hi-fi stuff. 

[madnis]

Was looking for some opinions on attachment methods of speaker baffles and their effect on overall tone.

The current considerations are a 2 x 12 cherry cabinet and a 4 x 10 pine cabinet. The 4 x 10will most likely be paired with a tweed bassman head and loaded with Celestion golds and greenbacks (2 ea) The 2 x 12 is still evolving as far as pairing it with an amp and speaker type. I’m thinking about a more closed back, Baltic birch baffle paired with a little more gain than the bassman.

My primary question is whether it is a good idea to pinch the grill cloth between the speaker baffle and mounting cleats or if it is always best to make sure there is wood to wood contact in this situation.

Feel free to expound on this as I am looking or as much info/opinion as I can get on this subject.

I am experimenting with different cabinet construction methods and materials as well as the baffle mounting options, materials, thicknesses etc.

Thanks as usual for the advice.

Hoffman Amplifiers Tube Amplifier Forum »

• Other Stuff »
• Cabinets-Speakers »
• Speaker baffle attachment methods
• 
  Not sure how this went from above topic to what it turned into but  I at least tried to answer to the specific subject

[Toxophilite]

Toxo,

I think the problem people are having with your posts is that you have turned the OP's original question into your personal vendetta against how Leo did it.  The OP has a tweed bassman and is talking about building cabinets specific to this amp, so of course responses are going to reference that era.  You talk about the resonance of specific woods and then you state: " not a benchmark of...positive acoustic attributes."  Ummm, it is if you are trying to replicate that particular attribute!  No science associated with this?  Even YOUR hero the Lizard talks about the "science" behind the thinner baffle.  Speaking of the Lizard...  He likes to poke fun of the "Fender Boys" and the "Marshall Deputys" and how they foolishly like a specific type of speaker and then pretty much states OMG there is a difference!  Then he takes paragraph after paragraph bashing some silly magazine article about speaker reviews?  I guess they forgot to ask his opinion before they published?  He then talks about the "tail wagging the dog" of us mere mortals that do not possess his infinite knowledge of cabinet construction with this little gem about a resonating baffle board: "The baffle could be made from plywood, MDF, or cryogenically frozen camel turds; just make it thin, OK?"  Really? Really?? Wood type, thickness, number of plys, attachment points - makes no difference?  Me thinks some scar tissue is wagging his dog...  Then there is one last dig that sounds strangely familiar... "However, some folks like the inefficiencies of a poorly built cabinet that resonates. C'est la vie."  Tone Lizard has some great information, some not so great, and some with a hard skew of personal opinion.  And hey, that's fine.  It's a great reference, but should be considered as one man's opinion.  You know what else we all have. 


He, like you, fails to realize that this "poorly built cabinet" contributes greatly to the end product - AND IT IS A DESIRED end product.  No matter how it came about or the reasons why, it does not matter!  Using other speaker cabinet construction and build practices as a critique of performance, is absurd and has absolutely no bearing.  If you believe a cabinet built of something other than pine, with a thick baffle and 64 screws holding it down, works for you - fantastic!  You gave great reasons why you feel this way.  However, to discount another design just because you and the Lizard find it poorly built?  I'm sorry, that's where you lose me.  This isn't a discussion on build quality and even if it was, I could counter with: who's making the rules and who says the old "rules" should apply when it comes to guitar cabinets?


As I have stated, I am not necessarily a Leo fan, but I do respect what he has done.  Fender amps have their place in history, but it is not a sound I would pursue.  Having said that, I do know what I like.  I know what speakers I like.  I know what cabinets I like.  I know what amps I like.  If any of these attributes were part of a 1960 design, I want to know how they did it.  For someone to arbitrarily state that I should not like one of those attributes, or that I am such a silly uninformed lemming - all because THEY feel the "build quality" responsible for that attribute is not acceptable?   

Peace!
Jim

What a bunch of horse hockey
Everything you just said about me is untrue, assumptive and a gross distortion of what I said to feed your ire


Personal vendetta against Leo Fenders designs????
weird!
What are you smoking?


I said several times i play fender amps and love them
I'm not into the tweeds but it's the circuit not the cabinets


yeesh!

[Toxophilite]

That's true for hi-fi, but not for guitar speaker cabs.  The whole speaker-cab thing is quite interesting.  The science of speaker-cab effect was not understood until the mid-60's with the development of Thiele-Small Parameters.  Meanwhile, guitar amp, speaker, and combo cabs had been around a long time, if for no other reason than to safely house speakers & amps -- tonal effect may not have been a consideration.

Hi-fi is for sound REproduction, ideally without coloring the musical signal.  Hence, hi-fi speaker enclosures should not vibrate, and thereby put their own waveforms in the air.

But, guitar speaker cabs are a part of the sound PROduction process.  Traditionally made of 3/4" solid pine walls and thin plywood baffles, their coloration of tone is a desirabale part of the process.  Thinner baffle boards yield more bass response (I'm dyslexic & could remember his backwards). 

Some builders prefer not to cover their guitar speaker cabs in tolex, specifically to preserve the liveliness of the solid wood walls.  Some use uncovered hardwoods like oak or walnut instead of pine, not just for good looks, but also for tonal coloration.

"With closed back the cabinet helps to shape the sound, with open back the cabinet and baffle are just stopping most of the out of phase sound coming from the back of the speaker from mixing with the sound coming off the front."

The open-back guitar speaker enclosure does not have a large enough baffle board & side walls to keep bass waves form wrapping around to the front to cause phase cancellation.  But this effect is at about 100Hz or lower, which does not much effect guitar.  Though it's a problem for bass guitar.  This argues for closed-back cabs for bass guitar. 

Also, open-back cabs are more sensitive to placement near the room's rear and side walls, because those room walls will reflect rear projected sound back into the front projected sound, with delay & varying cancellation effects.

[Apexelectric]

Was looking for some opinions on attachment methods of speaker baffles and their effect on overall tone.

The current considerations are a 2 x 12 cherry cabinet and a 4 x 10 pine cabinet. The 4 x 10will most likely be paired with a tweed bassman head and loaded with Celestion golds and greenbacks (2 ea) The 2 x 12 is still evolving as far as pairing it with an amp and speaker type. I’m thinking about a more closed back, Baltic birch baffle paired with a little more gain than the bassman.

My primary question is whether it is a good idea to pinch the grill cloth between the speaker baffle and mounting cleats or if it is always best to make sure there is wood to wood contact in this situation.

Feel free to expound on this as I am looking or as much info/opinion as I can get on this subject.

I am experimenting with different cabinet construction methods and materials as well as the baffle mounting options, materials, thicknesses etc.

Thanks as usual for the advice.

Hoffman Amplifiers Tube Amplifier Forum »

• Other Stuff »
• Cabinets-Speakers »
• Speaker baffle attachment methods
• 
  Not sure how this went from above topic to what it turned into but  I at least tried to answer to the specific subject

Even though this has got a bit off topic, there is still a lot of good information to be drawn from it. These debates tend to produce off shoots of information so the bleeding into areas not originally intended is not surprising.

I do appreciate the input and respect that everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it.

[Ritchie200]

Apex,

I would like to see what you settle on and how it sounds (Pics and Soundclip!). 

In regards to your cherry cabinet:  In Jr. High School shop years and years and years ago... I built a gorgeous maple speaker cabinet that eventually became a single 12 with a horn that I used for a little 6v6 amp I had (It is big enough to be a 2x12).  After weeks of gluing and sanding this beautiful maple.         I stained it with cherry stain.      Yup, I did...   It turned out ok but my teacher should have slapped me!  I believe I have a 1/2" baffle (sealed back) in it and have used it for everything from a monitor to recording with it.  Horn burned up years ago and I have removed the driver, so it is actually ported!  Sounds really nice, another great sounding accident!

Jim

[Apexelectric]

Apex,

I would like to see what you settle on and how it sounds (Pics and Soundclip!). 

In regards to your cherry cabinet:  In Jr. High School shop years and years and years ago... I built a gorgeous maple speaker cabinet that eventually became a single 12 with a horn that I used for a little 6v6 amp I had (It is big enough to be a 2x12).  After weeks of gluing and sanding this beautiful maple.         I stained it with cherry stain.      Yup, I did...   It turned out ok but my teacher should have slapped me!  I believe I have a 1/2" baffle (sealed back) in it and have used it for everything from a monitor to recording with it.  Horn burned up years ago and I have removed the driver, so it is actually ported!  Sounds really nice, another great sounding accident!

Jim

Will do Jim,

I’m going to do both. I’ve got both cabinets built and am working on the open back pine cabinet first and am just covering it in tweed, old school. I have a pair of 10” golds and a pair of 10” greenbacks slated. I’ll keep this cabinet build a little more traditionally but use a 1/2” birch ply floating baffle The closed back cherry cabinet is next after I finish the other cab and the matching head. I’ve got the stain and urethane ready to go when the time comes around. I’ll build this cabinet with a closed back and port it. Most likely with a 3/4” ply baffle firmly attached and I’ll experiment with a half dozen different 12” speakers that I have on hand till I find the combo that works best. But I’ll try the green/gold combo first to see how differently the perform in a closed back 2x12 vs the open back 4x10.