The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

1 - 20 of 127 Posts
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I recently acquired a Celestion G12-80 Classic Lead to upgrade from my Weber Alnico 10.
At first, I was thinking of just cutting a bigger hole in the Baltic Birch baffle of the current
cab that I have (nothing special). I plan on selling the Weber. Then the thought of selling
the Weber in it's existing cab and either buying or building a 112 is making more sense.




P1070695.JPG

P1070697.JPG


Wha 'cha all think?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
The Celestion's an upgrade over the Weber? :p

Tough call. There's both adv and disadv to selling the speaker with or without the cab. I'd offer it optionally with the cab to split the difference here/on kijiji and see what bait the fish prefer. That said, a no-name cab (DIY?) will never be worth much , so what's your time to build a replacement vs enlarging the hole cost you?
 
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The Celestion's an upgrade over the Weber? :p
I needed (ok, wanted) an increase in handling power (80 vs 30 watts) and the price fit my budget.

That said, a no-name cab (DIY?) will never be worth much , so what's your time to build a replacement vs enlarging the hole cost you?
No rush, I'm in no hurry.

Enlarging the hole would be the most time efficient way of going.
Looking at some of the beautiful work done by forum members over the years has me wanting to build one too.
A little googlin' brought up this;
FORTE 3D 112 GUITAR SPEAKER CAB

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
I needed (ok, wanted) an increase in handling power (80 vs 30 watts) and the price fit my budget.



No rush, I'm in no hurry.

Enlarging the hole would be the most time efficient way of going.
Looking at some of the beautiful work done by forum members over the years has me wanting to build one too.
A little googlin' brought up this;
FORTE 3D 112 GUITAR SPEAKER CAB

Thanks laristotle for posting this, I'd never seen this cabinet before and to me it looks really interesting..

I'm interested enough that I'm going to make one for myself sometime soon.

This picture leaves few questions.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
The following is just a guess on my part.

 
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
From the link that I provided previously

Weighing in at a modest 30 pounds, the cab is built with side ports and has an internal design that reflects the
sound that comes from the back of the speaker out through the sides. The result is some of the characteristics of
a closed back cabinet, nice low end punch and tightness, but the breathiness and volume projection of an open back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,533 Posts
I suspect the routes are intended to leave the structural rigidity intact, but drastically reduce weight. Given their location, I doubt they are intended to either reflect OR dampen (though they may have the latter effect more than the former).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
Yah, the reflection thing is a no-go.
That ain't gonna happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,237 Posts
Those are awfully big ports.
The surface area with both of them adds up such that it might as well be an open back.
Prolly be better if it was an open back.
At least an open back makes frequency cancelling less likely than side ports.
Unless there's some kind of oval tubing attached to increase air-flow path length.
Then again maybe they want frequency cancelling to occur in order to scoop a certain range to achieve a particular tone.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,026 Posts
I would say most likely refraction (scattering). But the uniformity of the width, depth and spacing would be a very narrow bandwidth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
dig ding, what he ^ said (plus also weight reduction). Personally I am skeptical of the whole design for a number of reasons, but maybe it works. There's no way in hell that the routes dampen anything any more so than the unaltered panel would. Also this:

Those are awfully big ports.
Prolly be better if it was an open back.
At least an open back makes frequency cancelling less likely than side ports.
An open back also eliminates a lot of resonances and backwave distortion because the backwave goes straight out the rear vs bouncing around inside a bit first.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
I don't know if its in your budget, but Mark Stephenson's FV cabinet is the best that I have ever used. Open-backed dynamics with closed back low-end. None of the placement issues inherent to open back. I have mine right beside a closed back cabinet and an open back amp hooked up to a route box, so I can A/B them on the fly with the same guitar. You truly get the best of both cab styles. Expensive, but well-designed and build quality second to none. Check his website.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,445 Posts
I don't know if its in your budget, but Mark Stephenson's FV cabinet is the best that I have ever used. Open-backed dynamics with closed back low-end. None of the placement issues inherent to open back. I have mine right beside a closed back cabinet and an open back amp hooked up to a route box, so I can A/B them on the fly with the same guitar. You truly get the best of both cab styles. Expensive, but well-designed and build quality second to none. Check his website.
1 x 12 Speaker Cabinet by Stephenson Amplification

Interesting. Any chance of a pic of the interior of one of these cabs? Thanks
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,618 Posts
What amp?

I have that speaker, an old British one, in a closed back 1x12 and it is fabulous for my needs. Good enough clean, very awesome with mid-high gain.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
I don't know if its in your budget, but Mark Stephenson's FV cabinet is the best that I have ever used. Open-backed dynamics with closed back low-end. None of the placement issues inherent to open back.
That's exactly what I say about my Transmission Line cabs (or more accurately horn low end with open back dynamics, but close enuf). I wonder if that's the enclosure type he uses too. Didn't think anyone ( aside from EA) did.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Just so I understand what has been noted above, can someone please confirm i'm reading it right.

We're saying the uneven surfaces formed by the weight saving dado's (that if required could all be at different depths and have different widths), will neither dampen nor diffuse the sound waves coming at them, correct? Because if cut correctly they could display qualities of a wall meant to do just that.

We're also saying the reflecto panels (yes my term), if placed properly, will not deflect the sound out those side ports, correct? Because as above, if built and placed properly they would seem to display the qualities of panels in plenty of speaker cabinets that are meant to do just that, sometimes with a delay or other attributes.

Personally I think both those features would work as noted to some degree, I think the reason those cabinets are no longer for sale by that company is a result of doing far too much work by hand and having no sense for what the price point should be, not because the design has no merit.

So here's a proposal and I'll make it first to first Larry (because he posted the cab) and to Granny Gremlin (because he's a skeptic)

I will supply free of charge (you just pick up in Concord Ontario); all the components pictured above, in the same European 13 ply plywood the original maker used, plus whatever hardwood strips you need for cleats. They'll be completely cnc machined and 100% ready to assemble. We'll make the reflecto-baffles adjustable for angle so we can have some fun.

You guys; start a thread, assemble the boxes and put a speakers in them, play it and post your impressions.

If it works, cover the mother in tolex and have fun... if it doesn't, curse me and sell the speaker, and keep telling yourself - nothing ventured, nothing gained.

If you two guys are interested let me know, Jim.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
They won't dampen (unless u calculate properly and they become slot resonators... which only work at a given frequency), but could diffuse ( in a broadband sense even if you increased the size variation as you suggested).

That said, this would likely not be desirable as I touched on above.

It might sound awesome, but not for those reasons.

I would accept the proposal, but I'm gonna have to figure out if I can test it properly, and as to be objective.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,026 Posts
We're saying the uneven surfaces formed by the weight saving dado's (that if required could all be at different depths and have different widths), will neither dampen nor diffuse the sound waves coming at them, correct? Because if cut correctly they could display qualities of a wall meant to do just that.
Will not dampen. Will not reflect (angle of incidence = angle of reflection). Will refract/diffuse. But not wide b/w diffusion because they gaps aren't varied in dimensions (so low Q or narrow range of frequencies being diffused).

Also, don't worry about delay. Sound travels at ~ 1000'/sec. So a 1 foot box would have a possible internal reflection delay of 2ms (there and back), well inside the Hass zone (where you start to hear sounds as separate events).

That's a great offer and I hope it happens. I'd be interested in the outcome. Those cabs are highly regarded in some circles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davetcan
1 - 20 of 127 Posts
Top