At 5:38 PM +0000 3/12/10, oryoki2000 wrote:
>
>
>The designs of Curt Olsen and David Michael both employ
>relatively thick pieces of wood, to the point that they might
>better be described as lumber! Is it necessary to employ
>such thick materials to achieve the best result? Does wood
>have characteristics (other than price) that make it more
>desirable than alternative materials?
>
>--oryoki
>
Hi Oryoki and Paul--
The surface hardness and its shape make a difference and probably the
mass of the boundary as well. Note that Curt straps his 3203 mics
directly to the 3/4" stock pine without a shock mount. I've found
that very light-weight boundaries can resonate, especially with
light-weight capsules mounted in them. The 3/4" wood stock may be
larger than necessary; I don't know of any one that has studied this
question. Tom Robinson's parallel boundary rigs use a light-weight
plastic corrugated material (Corrux? in EU) and I didn't hear
resonance in his samples (see archive) but looking at and handling
some 5mm-10mm thick samples I recently received,
http://corrugatedplastics.net/ there could be some resonance
generated. Simple side by side testing might provide a definitive
answer.
As far as boundary shape and material on sound qualities, here's a
test I did that convinced me I needed to explore curved boundaries
more:
http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/effects-of-boundary-mater=
ial-and-shape.html
Rob D.
--
|