Why are there so many wooden speakers?


I have noticed a problem within the speaker industry. 99% of speakers that come onto the marketplace are wooden, i.e MDF.
 
This is true of old speakers and new speakers. This is true of Dynaudio, B&W, Elac, Kef, revel, PMC, Focal, ATC the list goes on and on. This is a longstanding problem that has been deceiving audiophiles for decades and it requires a solution. 

The problem with a wooden box is that no matter what crossover or drivers you use, it will still sound like a wooden box. 
There is a limit to the sound you can get out of a wooden box so it is not possible to improve the sound just by using different drivers. Despite this, every year or two, the aforementioned companies put new speakers on the market claiming that they sound even better than what came before. In conclusion, we are being misled. 

I have no problem with MDF boxes per se. MDF is a good material to use. But if you want to make an even better speaker then you obviously need to use a better material. You cant use the same material and say you have made a better speaker. Thats false. 

Let's take the B&W 600 series for example. This is a series that has been going on for decades. 

Here is the latest speaker from their current series

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/home-audio/607

There is no mention of what wood is used but I'm pretty sure its MDF. All they talk about is their continuum woofer and dome tweeter that goes up to 38khz. No mention of even improvements to the crossover let alone the cabinet.

I believe that this has gone on for long enough and audiophiles deserve better treatment. I don't know if a class action lawsuit is the answer but something needs to change.
kenjit

Showing 3 responses by cd318

MDF replaced chipboard because although it tends to sound worse in the mids it was cheaper and easier to cut.

Chipboard replaced Baltic birch plywood because although it sounded worse in the mids it was cheaper.

However some speakers (LS3/5s etc) still use it but they come at a cost.

Nowadays many companies are starting to use composites or layers of both MDF and particleboard sandwich. Bowers and Wilkins use Baltic birch plywood themselves in their higher range models.

At the end of the day it’s up to you the consumer to decide if it’s good enough for your particular needs.
@danvignau,

’The current 804’s are un-listenable with the Rotel electronics used for demos. I gave them several auditions to understand what was wrong.’



Given the history of Bowers & Wilkins that statement is very difficult to make any sense of.

I’m curious as to what you think the problem was?

I mean were those Rotel amplifiers simply unable to drive the 804’s adequately, or has there been some monumental misjudgement by the company?
@sounds_real_audio,

"No surprise that monitor speakers with their small cabinets sound clean."


Absolutely. Cabinet problems can only get worse with size.

It’s no surprise that the largest manufacturing cost is usually the cabinet itself.

According to KEF.

"LS50 Meta’s baffle is engineered from an injection-moulded Dough Moulding Compound (DMC), while inside the cabinet cross bracing and Constrained Layer Damping (CLD) combine to deaden internal vibrations."


What exactly is DMC?

Come to think of it:

What exactly is the mysterious material X that Wilson uses for its cabinets?

What about Harbeth flying in the face of fashion with their thin walled lossy cabinets? They seem to be taking a 180 degree opposite approach to those who favour the heavier, thicker and more solid approach.


Current cabinet trends seem to be heading towards a layered approach (MDF or the better HDF).

Sometimes the layers might even be individually laminated - greater stiffness but with an increase of both mass and cost.

It all depends upon exactly where you want to put those pesky resonances.

As the OP pointed out, as long as you insist upon using a box, it will sound like a box.

Some more than others.