My main beef was with the fact that Fischer claims trupan is "“acoustically dead” as regular MDF."
Neither material is acoustically dead. They both resonate, trupan at a higher frequency being less dense. I would argue, depending ont he dimensions of the box, that switching to the less dense material, although saving weight, would raise the resonant frequency of the box into the subwoofer's bandwidth. In other words, MDF works for subs because it is heavy. Trupan is less dense, and therefore (if sound quality and accurate reproduction of recorded material are important to you) will not work as well for subs.
Secondly, what you have on the product, except for the user review a few posts up, is all from people attempting to sell you the product. It costs more, therefore they can charge slightly more, and in the end make more money by telling you a more expensive product is superior. This is the same reason JL, Rockford, Alpine, Infinity, etc are claimed to be the best products out there in car audio, because dealers can make more off the purchase of a more expensive subwoofer or amplifier. We all know (hopefully we all know) that although these brands aren't bad, they are not the best, not in quality, price, performance, or sound, they are simply the best at hype.
I can believe that trupan wears less on blades or creates less dust (barely believe the later) but are either of these factors really that important to us, the common subwoofer bumper? Do I honestly care if I pay 20$ more a sheet that my blades will cut 12000 times versus 1150? Or if my vacuum has to be one for several more minutes? Not if the cost is a higher resonant frequency material and a larger hole in my wallet.
