Cabinet & speaker differences

Discussion in 'Shock Brother's DIY Amps' started by jsnwhite619, Sep 2, 2019.

  1. jsnwhite619

    jsnwhite619 Friend of Leo's

    Age:
    35
    Posts:
    2,790
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    Location:
    Georgia
    This is in response to a recent thread where @Wally mentioned comparing a cabinet before & after I tweeded it. Well, this wasn't that, but as close as I could do and still stay recent/relevant to that thread and conversation.

    I've played the last Harvard I built through the same 16x18 tweed cabinet & 1258 speaker since I got it finished. #2 pine, baltic birch baffle & panel, tweed & shellac. I used a Deluxe Reverb 6.6k OT on it and it's about as clean as you can get I think for an amp like this, but it still would break up after 8-9 on the dial. Biased right at 60% with JJ's.

    I had a little while to play today and ran the Harvard through a Jensen C10Q RI that is in the poplar cabinet I just built with the rear-mount baffle cleats. I think it's 15x19", poplar finished with boiled linseed oil and polyurethane clear coats. Same baffle ply. I wouldn't think of the C10Q being an inherently cleaner speaker than a Legend 1258, but it was today. I finally turned the volume & tone up to 12 on the Harvard, and it wasn't low-level Blackface clean, but for a tweed amp on 12, it was clean! Tiniest bit of breakup with a hard attack or a string bend, but I couldn't believe it. The volume difference was apparent, but I had to work to get any real dirt out of it.

    Obviously, nothing changed in the circuit. So, that leaves the cabinet & speaker. My theory is along the lines as what you read about floating baffles, but again, ventures out a little. Most common explanations say that the baffle starts vibrating and has its own resonance and adds to the sound. But, I wonder if the end result is that the speaker is attached to the baffle - with the grill & tweed between the baffle and cabinet - and the vibrations from the loose baffle to speaker frame compound with that emanating from the cone to make for a dirtier sound. I don't know - standing waves, phase issues, simply more vibrations "trick" the cone to resemble a higher output, whatever. On the other hand, wood screws through the rear cleats that join wood-to-wood for a tight mechanical fit might keep things more "balanced". The baffle doesn't have the loose play and room to create its own waves between it and the cleats, and the sound waves are more single-sourced from the speaker.

    A machine screw & nut through an oversized hole with tweed between the screw head & cabinet, and tweed & grill cloth between the cabinet and baffle is never going to pull up as tight as a rear mount with wood screws. Or machine screws & tnuts, but either way, the wood-to-wood match up will always be a tighter fit than a Tweed cab.

    Now, I have no way to back up any of this, just thoughts and reasoning. Any input & conversation is welcomed.
     
    Tele Slacker and theprofessor like this.
  2. Wally

    Wally Telefied Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    34,710
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Location:
    Lubbock, TX
    Interesting comparison and thoughts, but there are too many variables too have a good basis for firm conclusions, perhaps. Imho, one would want to be comparing just methods of construction or methods of finishing or speakers....but not all at once. Changing the speakers from one cab to the other would be a fair comparison of the speakers.
     
  3. jsnwhite619

    jsnwhite619 Friend of Leo's

    Age:
    35
    Posts:
    2,790
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    Location:
    Georgia
    Wanted to, but it's a 10" vs 12" that I have on hand right now. At least, that are close to comparable on size.

    The biggest surprise to me was how clean it was though. I'll try to get a sound clip this week, but I swear, that Jensen was holding on all the way up the dial. It's a 35 watt speaker in a 12-14 watt amp right now, so I don't expect to be stressing it, but with both knobs on 8 or so, it was clean as a whistle with my Tele. Sounded "different" at first, but it was honestly nice to have the lower output just here in my office -- wood floors that are loud as can be. I know Jensen RI's get knocked around a lot, and I still don't like the C12Q or the C12K that I tried (the Q sounded like all the bass was shelved, and the K sounded like a blanket over it), but the C10Q is a pretty darn good speaker for a lower powered option. The 1258 sounds great, but the C10Q would 100% be my choice if it was only going to be a home/living room amp.
     
    Wally likes this.
  4. Zepfan

    Zepfan Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,436
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Horn Lake, MS
    Cabinet wood type, cabinet dimensions, Baffle material, Closed back vs. open back and speaker all make their own contributions. Cab setting on the floor or whatever, what direction the cab was facing and room size oh my.
     
  5. Wally

    Wally Telefied Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    34,710
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Location:
    Lubbock, TX
    On this subject, I have read that Mark Bartel went through a large number of trials before he found what he wanted to do with his Tone King cabs and baffles. Smashed some trials to splinters.
     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.