Are exotic speaker cabinet materials overrated?

@mustagefan Do Note: Companies who use a readily available product and want to keep the Product unknown. Have a new name for the Material, when they refer to it used in their products.

Ultralam could be such a name change for another material.

How is it described as a unique product? As the Ultralam Brand does nit seem too much of a unique product for Speaker Cabinets.  

A Further search has shown on another forum Ultralam is a version oof a Glulam Beam produced by a German Company.

There must be equivalent property Glulam / Ultralam structures found to be produced in other Countries.

Shipping such materials is cost prohibitive, hence local production is more market competitive?

@pindac Thank you so much for your research I realiy appreciate it.

All things being equal a more inert cabinet will more closely reproduce the original signal.  Period.

“Exotic” has nothing to do with any of it, it just means that it interacts less with the launched wave of the driver therefore more of the intended signal is transmitted into the air that interacts with the enclosure.

I believe those of you who are preaching MDF if best, haven’t heard a better material or are unwilling to admit what they heard.

I have very recently been in contact with the main designer for my most recently purchased Speakers.

This person is a Drive Unit Designer for a very exposed Speaker Drive Unit Company and has been instrumental in producing designs for Speakers for Companies, that can retail in the Highest Retail Price sector.

This same person knows a thing or two about Cabinet Structure.

I made my own inquiry about substituting the Design for the Cabinet used with my Speakers for a Cabinet produced using my preferred RIDWB Material.

The response was interesting, as their was always from the outset for these Speakers the design to use a extremely rigid material, which was to contain certain intrinsic properties to work favourably for the Multi Driver Array.

The suggestion has been that if the Front Baffle was to be a particular material up to the quality of the RIDWB Material.

The cost to produce the modification and add the new machined Baffle and Fascia Finishing to create an improved mechanical interface may prove totally wasteful when assessing the End Sound, as the effects even though measurable as beneficial, might not be discernibly audible as an improvement and easily forgotten when heard, as the End Sound Improvement is not remarkable. 

It is suggested that such a practice used from Scratch will show through measurements taken that, at an additional materials cost, there is a improved mechanical interface in comparison to another cabinet material that is less in cost and not with the same intrinsic properties. 

In the case of my Speaker and the Design all ready selected for the Structure, it seems I can go out of my way to produce a mechanical interface that will be measurable as an improvement, but not necessarily a design to clearly show a End Sound has stepped forwards.

I am assured using REW Software and Multi Mic's in different positions will reveal the info that allows the Xover to be worked on to substantially improve the Speakers End Sound produced within the room. It is also stated I might already be very lucky and have Speakers not requiring the support of REW.   

As always nothing ventured - Nothing Gained.

My take on this, after such discussion had. Is for my case and this may spill over to other cases. Is that a Speaker used in a Particular environment, if fully investigated for its function in that environment. Can for the small outlay for a selection of Xover Components, 'possibly' be much better to overcome issues with Room Correction. Other methodologies can be adopted to overcome issues with Room Modes.