Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?

@kenjit

yes here’s a link

Interesting how close the two 'truncated pyramid and parallelepiped’ examples were to the sphere. And better than the hemisphere. Andrew Jones should be stoked.

But note the somewhat limited scope of measurement: 100-4000 Hz and single point microphone. A good start but you’d probably take the investigation further. Interesting also that the discussion focusses on diffraction rather than internal dynamics.

We also have to consider the compromises involved in full-range or co-axial driver implementations. The former especially with respect to suitable SPL and dynamics, the latter with complex diffraction from the drivers.

Look at KEF Blade for example: co-axial treble/mid but separate bass drivers to achieve sufficient dynamics in the lower octaves (Devialet adhere more closely to the sphere but take a similar approach).

@kenjit

nonsense. You cant patent a shape. Why hasn’t anybody patented the rectangular box?

You may be able to patent an implementation of a shape. Apple irritated the always irritable interwebs by protecting their rectangle with rounded corners, I can’t recall how/if that ended.

The research shows it is the perfect shape. Speakers are there to reproduce what you play through them. They are not instruments. High end speaker companies know this.

I think Cabasse speakers are fabulous btw. I wouldn’t be surprised if certain elements of their implementation were patented, but haven’t checked. I agree spherical or semi-spherical shapes are wonderful and I’d like to see more of them.

Gallo made both entirely spherical speakers and used spherical housings in complex speakers, like their discontinued Reference models. I think he sold the company (not sure) but you could buy their Strada models recently (they being two midrange spheres and a curved tweeter).

There have been others that I can’t recall immediately.

We also have the egg-like Devialet.

And there are complex curvilinear shapes, B&W’s shell-inspired Nautilus, and Laurence Dickie’s later work as Vivid Audio.

And we have numerous simple or complex curved planes on numerous models. Previous generation Audio Physic had curved sides or backs (the current reference models are tilted rectangular prisms but don’t sound worse). Magico still do (and those giant Magicos are complex curves). Focal Utopia series generally don’t have any flat elements. Nor do certain Genelec series. KEF Muon. And so on.

B&W had one but we are not talking about subwoofers we are talking about regular speakers

Why not? Boxes may be the common/utilitarian/cheap box of choice, but variations exist as attempts to improve sonics and aesthetics. B&O make a complex polygon that approximates a sphere. High-end REL models are curved like grand pianos. Gallo made a cylindrical tube. Tune Audio make a lavish vertical horn. Genelecs SAM series are spiral sections. Avantgarde Audio make those fabulous-looking stacking spiral horns. And so on.

@kenjit

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that the materials and methods used to make high end speakers also happen to be the cheapest? Are we being duped?

High-end Magico use complex construction of machined aluminium with carbon-fibre composite. Wilson use their own proprietary high-mass composites. Audio Physic use MDF, low-mass honeycomb composite, rigid ceramic foam, elastomer and glass. And so on.

The goal is to make sure the speaker does not sing. You use whatever is most neutral.

The Olson paper measures and describes the effects of speaker and baffle shape with respect to diffraction and resulting frequency response measured in a free field room at a distance (per fig.3 in the paper) and the frequency response range is also (figs.6-17) clearly indicated. That research doesn’t deal with resonances or internal wave/reflection behaviour per se (although those effects may influence the measured results).

I provided the link to the work by Olson which someobody tried to dismiss by saying it was limited range of measurement and single point microphone which is hogwash. He then contradicted himself by citing examples of speakers that have a shape thats nearly spherical. So he cant make up his mind whether spheres are right or wrong.

That poster described those aspects of the paper accurately, agreed with you that the research was informative and she suggested more research in that area would be interesting. That isn’t in any way contradicted by citing examples of near- or semi-sphrerical speakers.

If you are determined to make everyone who responds to you wrong, there wouldn’t be any point in continuing to reply. Maybe confirm whether you want discussion or are just irrationally venting ...

@cherbib 

Andrew Jones is out with a new concentric two-way….it’s a box.

I've mentioned upthread that the two pyramid parallelepiped shapes tested per the Olson paper @kenjit cites performed approximately as well as the ideal sphere. Guess which shape Jones actually used? Hint: it wasn't a rectangular prism.