Which Is Better for Sound?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ย. 2020
- How does a 3D print compare to a wooden loudspeaker enclosure? The differences between several of the test enclosures were noticeable in person, and some of those differences were apparent in the recording, but will any of them be discernible on TH-cam?
Check out Coppice Audio: www.coppiceaudio.co.uk
Demo Track on SoundCloud: / oho
Homepage: hexibase.com/
Facebook: / hexibase
Instagram: / hexibase
Printables: www.printables.com/social/264...
Thingiverse: thingiverse.com/hexibase
SoundCloud: / hexibase
Patreon: / hexibase
Amazon Storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/hexibase - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Your comparison tests and montage of the dampening properties of each enclosure was at once brilliant and beautiful.
I haven’t even gotten past the ad at the beginning and I’m liking this because I’m 100% certain it will be true
Hence the sound dampening effect is apparently linked to the mass of the printed object, I would be interested to see how a 100% infill 3D-print would stack up against the wooden enclosures. Furthermore, if that improves anything it could be intersting to try metal infused filaments, because of the higher densitiy.
Im not an audiophile or into 3d printers but man your videos are so high quality I can’t stop watching them
I would like to see 3D printed dampening structures!!!
Seeing the two halves glued together felt like they where missing out on all sorts of different tests to try out later, including dampening structures that could be drop-in solutions. Maybe they'll contemplate a 2.0 print?
Wonder if some light infill of the entire cabinet would add strength.
Damn!..this guy goes way more technical than I have ever had in my lifetime. Lol
Thumbs up!
Yes. I think alot of speaker makers who are making these miraculous cabinet claims of being superior, just went "oh sh!t".
Bill fitzmaurice, danley sound lab, system one, klipsh, Rat Sound, the list goes on and on man this guy is good but he is not at the point of the knife edge when it comes to state is the art.
+Bassotronics Nothing replaces birch plywood when it comes to sound! Not even 3d printers. Prove me wrong. Bass I love you.
@@josealfredfernandes Stand to close to the edge and into the rabbit hole I fall. First, we can't prove in a comment section anything related to physics and sound. Second, sound is subjective and our perception of it is effected my a million things, psychophysiological and other. Third, birch plywood makes no sounds, but a 3d printer makes all kinds of noises when it is running, so, I guess if you like the sound of silence better, than sure nothing can replace it.
For the sake of having fallen into this silly rabbit hole though, if you build a cabinet out of 1/8in or 1/4in birch plywood and the enclosure is under braced or poorly designed, I am certain that we can agree that the "sound" would not be better than an enclosure that is sufficiently structural and properly designed regardless of the material used in its construction. A claim is not valid simply by saying it is unless we prove otherwise. You have equal need to prove to us that it is better. The obvious issue here is that your statement is overly simplified. Not all birch plywood enclosures are better than everything else no matter how they are constructed that is absurd and you know it.
can someone toss me a rope, I jumped in and fear I can't get out!!!
@@josealfredfernandes you are making a claim that birch plywood cant be replaced by anything. Prove it or sod off.
Pete i missed you and missed seeing your TH-cam videos on TH-cam. Awesome video topic of choice for discussion very educational and knowledgeable
I love how precise you are about everything. You don't seem to skip any steps like a lot of other people do. You take your time.
Love your videos and humor. Thx Pete.
Answered every question I had about your designs so far. Thanks.
I wish I had all that knowledge in my head. Everything he knows. My brain would probably go blue screen trying to handle it.
This makes some projects I had in mind much easier and possibly cheaper.
Thanks for informative video.
Keep the videos coming I always learn something
Once again, the info and details we really want to know without wasting our time and efforts. Thank you so much for fine tuning my dreams, giving them reality and texture is what makes them worth having. Just like the music does.
excellent vid pete! love the test track at the end xx
I like that you are doing all the tests proper . I noticed some minor difference but only in the bass , on some materiales it has higher resonance .
Nice animations and editing at its best
Great video Pete, nice to see that there are still passionate and competent guys like you sharing their competence and experience. Next level would be sand filled 3d printed speakers ;) Differences are slightly noticeable in blind listening, I managed to catch some of them. Hope so see other videos from you, thanks for your precious contribution to the audio community!
me: Struggling to notice any difference and perceive absolutely nothing
reality tells me: "your headphones costs about 20$. What you've expected?"
TH-cam compresses the audio so much that you can't tell even if you have $400 headphones and a custom DIY amp.
I don't have a expensive setup but I can hear a slight difference on my modified AKG K701 and Fiio K3.
@@stiles3711 It's the same thing I tell folks when trying to evaluate photographic images on FaceBook. You can upload a 36-megapixel image but FB is going to compress any image above 2048 pixel on the long edge.
No difference only size matter.
I can hear some differences. But, I listen to music normally on my pc. I'm running JBL bookshelf speakers and a Visonik 15" sub in a custom enclosure.
Just watched the Fifine T review and I hope your channel is still going. I really loved the quality of that video and everything you added into it. Keep it going, you're really close to becoming a mainstay of the tech scene.
So much good data in this vid.
I couldn't tell the difference but it may come down to my Logitech G432 headphones along with an un-trained ear. Thanks for putting all of the time into printing the enclosures and creating this video. They are always appreciated.
i love the quality of these videos! its so impressive
If only he did not forget so many factors in this test.
The enclosures need to have the exact same thickness and design for this test to even be valid.
And listening on a compressed recording on YT does not help either.. And the speaker you are listening on also has a huge impact. A small phone speaker will never be able to reproduce the full freq.
In general everything we hear in the recording would sound WAAAYYYY different in real life in a test like this.
This is an absolutely fantastic channel.
Awesome video as usual. Useful info, and interesting.
Perhaps I'm a little crazy, but I could tell slight differences! I'm wearing Bluetooth cochlear headphones (Trekz Titanium) and I could tell that the oak had a bit more of a natural sound, the birch and the MDF sounded tight, the 20% PLA actually sounded a bit dirty, and the 50% PLA sounded more like the MDF but with a small resonance.
Interesting topic, great video!
This is freakin' amazing!!! I'm getting super inspired!
Interesting. Considering the odd response from the 20, could different infill patterns can get cleaner responses? Time for some smaller scale experiments perhaps?
I would have thought it was more down to density
@@rompdude What's coming through in the Treble is *probably* resonance. Yes, it's affected by density, but it's also affected by the shape of the infill. A different infill could possibly get a cleaner sound without the expensive additional filament and time cost of printing at 50%.
Iirc higher frequencies do not penetrate the walls due to the wavelength. So if you have a specific frequency you could in theory tune it with wall infill design.
the study of this is called " meta materials" you can probably find something online about this exact use case.
Acoustic metamaterials are currently under alot of research, 3D printers unfortunately sent really considered for this as the main aim is to create materials that can be scaled down for ultrasonics, EMF radiation etc... So they all follow structural effects. My university that I'm currently studying at are one of the epicentres of this research and headed the development of activated charcoal absorption.
Great video. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the work that you do. 😎👍👍
I am currently working on a 3-Way 3D Printed Loudspeaker. Just finished printing version 2 over the weekend, took a week. I think I am going to try and fill the final design with resin, instead of going all-in on in-fill. That would be an interesting experiment with different resigns fill materials for 3D printed enclosures. I may do some minor experimentation once I get to that point in the design.
Love your videos, I am quite surprised at the little measurable difference in the wood enclosures, just goes to show you that what we hear is surprisingly colored by what we expect to hear.
With 3D printing you can get diffusion shapes inside the box. Does these help from standing waves or affect sound? I mean a flat inner panel vs dimpled/diffused shapes
thats a good question ^^^^^^^^^^
One can also do that with wooden cabinets. That wasn't the point of the video.
in a sealed enclosure it does not make a differrent
@@NaturalBBler you can get standing waves in a sealed box so you are wrong. You won't hear the standing waves inside but it will affect the cone
Use acoustic wool, way more affektive
Very interesting! Maybe it is interesting to test a 100% infill and not only with PLA bat PETG as well. But that means so much work to do. And such a long printing time. Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge! You teach me a lot!
Much appreciated, thanks. Cavities in louspeker stands sometimes are filled with sand to make them less resonant: maybe this "trick" can be applied to the PLA enclosures.
Best video on cabinet material ?
Yep !
What about casting an enclosure from cement? It has a super high loss modulus. Would absolutely love to see some testing and comparisons!
I fancy epoxy granite myself .... it's what diy cnc machines use.
@@mrb.5610 yeah, epoxy granite would also be super interesting!
@@Loopyengineeringco It would seem to have all the right properties .... strong, highly damped....all the reasons it's used for CNC machines.
@AS Motion Lab how did you arrive @ “super high loss modulus” for cement ? you mean “concrete” ? It’s actually the opposite
@@BogdanWeiss just from research I did for a milling machine I'm building, there are some good papers on the subject. The aggregate inside concrete (rocks) reduces the vibration absorbing properties of the material. Cement on it's own seems to be the best when not using admixtures. Polymer concrete/epoxy granite materials are even better (but much more expensive)
Great video
Love your videos man, I feel like 3d printing could be explored more on small loaded horn speakers, small efficient drivers could make great portable speakers for open spaces, going down to 50 or even 40hz
Great Test Thank you !!! Next test with ABS or other material please.
Listening using my Rotel RB-1050 amp on Fluance SX6w speakers Through Audio Card: ESS Sabre HiFi 9118 I can hear:
Birch Ply: Deeper bass notes. Muffled upper section.
Black Walnut: Mid-range is more pronounced.
European Oak: Definitely stronger up top in the highs. Solid midbass
Mahogany: drums are more pronounced compared the other materials.
MDF: A lot boomier than the previous three choices.
Mixed Material: Flatter response. mids slightly less pronounced than Black walnut.
PLA20: Sounds a bit more hollowon the midbass notes.
PLA50:More solid midbass notes extending down a bit.
On my Sennheisser Momentum gen1 Marly editions Mic (used for headphones: SAnson G-Track Pro USB audio interface. Analog out):
Birch Ply:
the symbols are slightly muffled to me
Black Walnut:
Sounded a bit more solid onthe lower bass, but not as robust up top.
European Oak: Much higher upper frequencies by far cleaerer and less muddyo nthe midbass.
Mahogany: a bit more solid on the lower extension
MDF: A lot boomier than the previos three choices.
the middle frequencies seem more pronounced.
Mixed Material:
Solid midbass, but lacks the treble snap i like.
PLA20: Sounds a bit more hollow on the midbass notes.
PLA50: More solid midbass notes extending down into the bass section.
Great comparison on how materials for the enclosure can affect the output. My setup has 0 modifications th the EQ on the audio card and the headphone mixer.
I'm still waiting for you Pete to try a thin-walled enclosure with sparse infill inside for reinforcement and sound absorption. This is where 3d-printing shines imo, and may outperform all classic enclosure-making technologies.
Nice video. I think you need to fill the emty space in the box with the 3d printer. The best part about 3d printing is being able to add how many details you want. A triangle pyramid pattern inside the enclosure would stiffen it significanlty but I don't know if you would get drawbacks to. I am building a 196 L closed MDF speaker with Corfal flat 8 full range speakers.
It's nice to see so little difference. The only thing I noticed was the bass impacts seems slightly softer. The impact edge is softened. That's basically it. This might be more apparent if we compare mechanical flex. You'd need to look say something like bending stress and deflection. However, it's also easy to build in a lot of additional stiffness by even slightly increasing spacing between the outer and inner wall, adding in bracing, or binding the woofer with the back wall.
Wow..... great video
This is a great way to show that a box is, in fact, a box! Isn't the whole point of using 3D printing in this case to make complex shapes that are not usually possible?
You could save a LOT of time on those prints by moving to a 0.6 or 0.8 mm nozzle on your printers. The stock 0.4mm nozzle is better at very small details, but you don't need that for large prints like this.
Also as someone who has been printing with PETG a lot lately, I would be interested to see how it would perform as en enclosure! It is very strong, but less rigid than PLA, so I would guess it's damping properties are quite a bit better. I may just have to try this myself to see what I can do, I have a few leftover 6 inch subs laying around 🤔
Have you done the PETG tests yet? very curious on the results
@@A.X.N I have not had time to do any speaker builds unfortunately. As a relatively new home owner most of my DIY energy is going into home improvement projects.
@@lukesmith9059 oh well, that's how it's supposed to go XD.
Maybe try wood filament PLA or other particle added PLA just for the fun of it. Although 100hrs - 4 days printing sours that a little. Seems a lot of manufacturers use composite materials like different types of wood with aluminium or other metals in their builds. Top end B&W speakers do for sure. Great video as always and thanks for taking the time out to do this project. Can only listen via an ipad so can't contribute really on SQ.
I have an EVGA Nu Audio card pushing a set of Ultimate Ears Live in ear monitors. There was very little difference between them. It could have boiled down to offsetting the speaker to the mic a few millimeters as the photos show they move ever so slightly when watching. Maybe in person it could be different but based on this video I do not think anyone could accurately blind test saying what is better or different consistently across them.
DiamondBoxx M3, it was hard to tell a difference. But the hard woods (oak, walnut, mahogany) seemed to have a more full sound. MDF and 20% PLA seemed to lose some of the low end.
Kinda felt the same, listening on Fiio Q1 Mk2 and KZ ZS10 Pro's
mahogany and the walnut were noticeable more expansive and rich (I liked the walnut just slightly better) ... mdf was tighter but not disappointing ... birch and the pla slight to distinct distracting ring above 4K or so. Shure SRH1540 / AE-5 Plus SABRE32
Black walnut seem to have the warmest. I am listening with my mid end car audio with subs in my setting you really can hear the differences between them
Thanks for the feedback!
Great video, great experiment. The thing is, using a 3D printer to print rectangular boxes isn't playing to the strengths of a 3D printer. It would be good to compare the ~2kg wooden enclosures to a ~2kg spheroidal printed enclosure. (Perhaps you are already planning something along these lines?)
excellent video. My conclusion from your results is that I will have no qualm with doing 3d printed enclosures vs MDF. Furthermore the geometry improvements you get compared to home-made speakers probably makes them a winner. So long as your printer is large enough that you aren't making sacrifices there for your application.
Thanks for the great video! A few standout materials. Maybe it's because most speaker cabs are built with MDF and that's what I'm used to hearing, but it sounds perfectly balanced to me. No high mid hype or low mid bump. Not too sweet, not to pingy. Goldilocks.
Awesome experiment! I just started watching too, this is very interesting !
Hexi - I'm listening with Corsair HS45 surround headphones switched to stereo only with no graphic equalizer alterations, ie just raw headphone output. While these would not be regarded as studio quality, their output does reproduce music brilliantly. I've noticed with the Mahagony box output, with your audio, offers a slightly, and I mean slightly brighter sound characteristic than the rest. Hope this helps with any other data not disclosed on your video.
I was listening on my home build, smacked together system which consists of Two Jamo Compact 90s with some newly installed tweeters (JBL) and bass drivers (Cervinwega) and extended bass ports made out of plumbing tubes. MTX Black Gold 12 subwoofer the one with plexiglas. The speakers runs on a Pioneer SX-337 with no subwoofer output so i drive the subwoofer using a zone mixer and a car amp (600wrms). Could hear a slight difference in bass between some of them. My next speaker build is going to be out of brazilian rosewood. Great video!
I would love to see a test on different filament mateials infilled stuff, abs etc.
using a modi 2 dac feeding a Magni 2 headphone amp, into ATH-M50x's. it was hard to tell between walnut and birch but after MDF the rest sounded like they were missing low end.
If you actually think you can listen to compressed audio on youtube and legit tell big differences in sound then you need to back to school...
You can hear some differences but for a real comparison you have one option: Listen to it live.. Microphone colors the sound, compression colors the sound and what speaker you play back the audio on also has a huge impact.
And I can assure you that MDF does not loose any low end compared to the other materials.. This is not a valid test in my book. Too many factors are ignored.
@@Oystein87 clearly you need to reread my post, no school needed for that. After means just that, AFTER MDF the rest sound like they were missing low end. Im not arguing, even a compressed music file can still have the lowend removed. Are you now accusing hexibass of removing bass in the low-end of his recording, that is what it sounds like. Not only that if you actually watched the entire video he asked if we can hear a difference and I did on the low-end. I never said anything else about what I'm hearing. Every one on the internet is a expert apparently, if you are then go work for hexibass. Good day sir!
@@Evilsizer82 Hah! Read a little too fast :P
Indeed I can hear a difference. Especially between first three materials in the beginning of the track.
European Oak is really crisp sounding, Mahogany too.
Starting from MDF and down, they sound pretty much identical lol.
Oh, sound gear is Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro and the sound is sent through Galaxy Z Fold 3 with SSC codec enabled.
akg q701 : Couldn't really hear a difference between enclosure maybe Black walnut and Mahogany sound a bit different or it came from the music evolution
listening to it via my digital amp and my altec lansing 16 inch drivers made it clear . mahagony sounded most natural no coloration other woods had their signiture to the sound thanks man ......
didnt like the sound on pla 20 . less problem on the other
Thanks for the feedback 👍
Fiio Q1 mk2 ~ Sony MDR-1AM2 balanced.
i feel like some enclosures pack a bit more punch when that bass/kick hits but its kinda hard to compare as the test song has diffrent stages.
the black walnut for example plays way louder then the birch ply, and some do seem sound a bit fuller with that synth sound.
(i asume you keep distance and volumes the same)
Black walnut seemed to have the warmest sound with fuller bass.
black walnut and mahogany both did sound ever so slightly warmer, but I had to struggle to hear a difference with HE4XX's on a discreet dac/amp
I noticed the mahogany, but i'll have to give it another listen for that black walnut.
You might do the same test with a wood PLA 3d print.
PLA is getting better, but so far, cant beat good wood (if well made).
Pretty darn cool test/video btw.
Do Keep the good work Sir. :)
Can't tell a difference between any of them, even the 20% PLA. Driver, box design, room acoustics, recording set-up, wireless earbuds seem to dominate. This video is great content.
Would really like to see you design an under the seat box for a truck. Preferably a 07-13 silverado lol, but atleast some form of multi door truck that requires a box under the seat. Theres alot of us out here with the dillema of needing the cab room for hauling around offspring, but like to crank it once we get some down time.
I love your videos
Great video. Thanks for producing. How do you think a CNC’d aluminum enclosure would do?
Could you do a video on passive radiators and how to apply them correctly
In a noisy blast hole drill using galaxy buds+ and I could clearly hear the difference in the transition from the mixed material box to the 20%pla
Good content as always
I love how you make your videos👌👌
Very interesting work! It would be awesome if you can design and 3D print something much smaller like an enclosure for micro speaker(s) - and make it sound good.
Sounds like you're new to the channel! th-cam.com/video/lU4_E83RwUw/w-d-xo.html
You make great videos about fun things! Curious as you are, what would it be like if you took apart a pair of in-ear headphones and put them in your new micro TL? A fantastic micro project with tweezers and a magnifying glass. 😀
Now wonder if people would prefer heavily resonant enclosure (more than ones there) provided it would give them like a sound people tend to prefer. Like some random second harmonics that weren't in music and similar.
Imo: Black walnut is what I prefer to use for my own custom subs and woofs. White birch for woofs to mids. Mdf for everything else.
@@HexiBase It would be interesting to see cherry's midrange qualities.
@@HexiBase or in the future, maybe a few african or amazon exotics too. 😉
I would like to see a large bluetooth enclosure. Incorporating your hexi box v3, your tweeter acoustic amplifiers, and maybe a couple of midrange speakers. A battery box to power it up. It could be large, small guitar amp size. Being 3d printed it would be light.
I would really like to see the spectrum analysis of the "tapping test"..!
Cheers 🙂👍
Oh, Side note: I still find it funny that Birch ply is a prime material for enclosures now. I think I was one of the first people to use this back in '91 - '92. Everyone called me crazy and it would sound like absolute crap. I made my home speaker cabs in shop class out of 3/4" Birch and the crap I caught in class was nuts, even the shop teacher shook his head and just said "go ahead". They all changed their minds when I finaly got them built and fitted with speakers and played a few songs. Funny thing, I ended up building a sub box for my classmates car. I still wonder to this day if I was really one of the first people to use Birch Ply.
Very interesting, thanks for this! Did som simple knock testing on petg Vs MDF and didn't find much difference either, pretty sure I would fail a double blind if tested on these samples. Given the density of pla, it should be quite suitable enclosure, even if there is some resistance against using plastic in the dyi audio community.
However when building enclosures in petg I find the price of printing fairly large enclosures is quite high compared to wood/MDF.. so guess the only way it can be justified is a complex design that would be otherwise difficult in wood... And the ringing/ridigty is fixable by design so I think we might see some really cool 3d speakers eventually.. like the stratsys prototype ;)
Very minimal difference between materials in the listening test. The MDF has a very characteristic sound to the bass frequencies; not quite "boomy," but slightly undefined, muddy and "raspy." It's something I've noticed when building MDF enclosures myself, and I usually treat the inside with rubberized coating and a bit of Acousta-Stuff. The 20% PLA had a distinct clarity issue with lower frequencies, very much in the realm of the "ringing" characteristic you'd noted in your other testing. The rest of the materials may have had slight variations, but without the side-by-side comparison, you'd be hard-pressed to notice.
Awesome video, and great test! Thank you! :)
Thanks for the feedback👍
I'd be interested in analysis of guitar cabinets and digital amp modellers that use cabinet impulse response, along with FRFR amplification.
I 3d printed my desktop speakers. I used wood embedded filament. Also, was capable of doing an extremely detailed ported spherical design.
nice man!
A cool alternative option would be to fill the 3D printed speaker case with a different medium, like sand. This would help add density to the print relatively.
This is interesting to the limit. l am into speaker buidling (at the momemt proud owner of VISATON Solo 50s) and 3D building. How much better can it get?
That was far more interesting than expected. Listened with a pair of NAD HP50s, going through a Fiio A1 MkII out of the laptop. Have you ever done a measurement like this using MDF?
Boxes make a huge difference at higher SPL, and would strongly suggest that cast concrete would be a good material to test alongside the wood & plastic enclosures tested.
i'd be curious to see what the 20% PLA would do if you applied some sound deadening material to the outside or inside of it :)
I tried it with Noico sound dampening. didn't tame the resonance at all that much.
@@poman911 noico is dogshit. Gotta use something like second skins, on both sides.
@@bleachstain9785 I used both and was more impressed with the value of the noico. The much more expensive second skin was barely more resonant resistant. I would rather go 2 layers of noico and it's still cheaper.
Im just wondering if you add some damping material inside the PLA box, will it make any difference and make it comparable to the best wood box ?
Have we tried using poly fill for better damping? If we introduce that variable, how much difference would each of them have?
Just great
I'm waiting for him hitting 100k
the waiting is over
@@JeepVsix lol finally
Awesome 👍 I was thinking of getting expensive plywood for my speaker build instead of MDF. But I am convinced that inorder to hear any difference, you need a great ear as well as dead silence which ofcourse doesn't exist in my case. Please correct me if I am wrong, also curious to know. Which is the best position for a port?
@@HexiBase Thank you 🙏
test with mass loaded vynil inside the printed enclosure
Maybe I can hear more bass output from the walnut and oak? I’m using Sennheiser Momentum (over ear version) being driven directly from an iPad Pro
The European Oak seemed to have the brightest sound. The 20% pla seemed boxy/cheap sounding. The mixed material had what seemed like slightly better defined low-midrange output, but I'm not sure I actually heard that. Most everything seemed to sound similar.
I would prefer to listen to music that incorporated actual acoustic instruments, instead of the SimCity soundtrack. Letting the boxes resonate with more legato and dynamic notes instead of the tight staccato of whatever that song was, I'm sure we would hear more difference.
Most importantly here, I can't really trust TH-cam's audio to recreate what you've recorded. There is for sure compression happening, the dynamics are too flat.
Regardless, absolutely top notch video as usual. I love what you do and how you do it. I really appreciate the time you're putting into these.
Thanks for the feedback👍
Tech ingredients has some videos with a lot of really highly detailed scientific analysis on different materials acoustic properties. If I remember correctly, it is the higher the stiffness (not necessarily strength or other properties) of the material which causes less resonance will occur. Of course, there are many other things to consider such as side and rear reflections of the cabinet as well. But this is probably the main reason why the lesser 20% infill did worse than the 50%. I predicted this at the start of the video too.
Its worth mentioning that of all the thermal plastics, PLA has one of the highest stiffness properties out there, besides some other more exotic filaments like HIPS or carbon filled. Price per performance, PLA is probably the best way to go considering higher infill will give better results.
Hey nice video. With 3D printer, you can add some "texture/3d shape" to increase inside surface. Or, is there some reason why inner walls are flat ?
I'm thinking the reason the print is so simple is that he was comparing materials not designs. But I do think that's the real advantage of 3d printing more complicated designs like wave guides, textures, etc don't really add more time like they would with traditional methods.
Texturizing a surface modifies it's surface area, and in turn modifies internal volume, though both are minimal if you're talking about texture and not large internal features. 3D printing will never be as flat as MDF, ply, or a planed piece of wood, but it's close enough. Introducing deviations makes an apples to apples comparison an apples to oranges comparison. You'd also need a CNC mill to replicate the texture pattern in wood, and for much more complex surfaces, a 5 axis CNC mill. But again, a surface texture won't do much in a box, though it may have interesting results within a waveguide/port. Plus, textures and complex surface areas are a better topic for a different video, or series, this video was only for material comparison. What you're probably interested in with 'texture' is a layered box with alternating geometry. Such as in this video th-cam.com/video/PJaXhvHaIwM/w-d-xo.html or alternately in this video th-cam.com/video/pTSeqs0Kk9o/w-d-xo.html starting at the 4:27 timestamp, both are different approaches to the same solution. I assume this is what you mean by texture, because, again, a typical surface texture, like a texturized paint or typical textures on things like ABS sheets, really won't do much to change performance of the box; with the only potential being within a waveguide/port due to aerodynamic properties of a surface texture. Not to mention a surface texture on a 3D printer really isn't the best idea, the most you'd get is random globs on the top surface, not a typical surface texture like ABS sheets have, which need to be molded into the part; unless, again, you're talking about actual geometry to negate standing waves.