Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?

"Answers about what exactly?"

Perfect, another question. You just don’t get it do you?

For example you said: " I am not here to prove to you that spheres are better. That has already been done by other engineers many years ago."

Now, provide proof of that or is it just your flapping gums?

No, spheres are not "perfect" and neither are boxes.  Open baffle speakers (no box at all) rule for audio quality other than perhaps needing a larger woofer and more power. See previous discussion...

This is not a discussion about open baffles but I am willing to entertain your response just on this occasion. Why do you believe open baffles are superior?

@dill 

Now, you claim to be an expert on speakers right, if so, why so many questions and so few factual answers, just opinions?

Answers about what exactly? 

LOL. We just had a rather long thread on this previously. No, spheres are not "perfect" and neither are boxes.  Open baffle speakers (no box at all) rule for audio quality other than perhaps needing a larger woofer and more power. See previous discussion...

Why are guitars wood?   Why are pianos wood?  Why are drums wood?....

They're instruments. They're allowed to be wooden. They are required to resonate. 

Kenjit,

You have, so far in this thread asked 28 questions. Now, you claim to be an expert on speakers right, if so, why so many questions and so few factual answers, just opinions? Where is the proof to your statements?

Cost of machinery and material. WAF is probably another one as the market also dictates what will sell regardless of price or performance. Likely most people do not have a great room where the difference can be heard or know how to or can properly set a system up correctly again because of the WAF. Simple answer, speaker manufacturers know most people want a speaker that looks like a nice piece of furniture and not a sculpture.

Why are guitars wood?   Why are pianos wood?  Why are drums wood?....

Yeah - I suppose with the penalty of death?

That would be too extreme. The penalty would simply be a ban from the marketplace. So you'd end up with square boxes being sold on the blackmarket and nice and round speakers being sold to the rest of us who want perfect sound. 

Table saws and panel saws cut do a good job of cutting flat wood panel straight.

Yes but thats what you do for the customers that want cheap speakers. You cant offer the same old boxes to customers that are paying ten times the price can you? Would you expect better service if you stayed at a 5 star hotel rather than a 2 star hotel? Of course you would. Why should speaker design be any different? I dare you to answer that. 

I am disinclined to take your word for it over hundreds of manufacturers without some evidence that you could be correct.
Your word on it is not proof that your assertion/premise is correct… it’s just, “like your opinion dude.”

The evidence is incontrovertible. And I'm not the one that produced the evidence so if you have an issue with the evidence you would need to confront them. 

Have you heard of B&W? It is a state of the art speaker company. Their best model is the NAUTILUS. So if the evidence was wrong, that means so is the nautilus and so is B&W. Do you now realize what a tangle you've got yourself into?

And if the stuffing doesnt absorb much, then what do you suggest we use? 

If a sphere isnt the right shape, do you have any evidence of that since youre so adamant?

Whats the perfect radiation pattern? You do realize all the hundreds of manufacturers which you referred to earlier in support of your argument that they are right and I am wrong, produce speakers that each have different radiation patterns dont you? Which would then debunk your argument. They can't all be right can they? You cant just lump them all together when it suits you in order to try to discredit my theory that spheres are perfect. You do realize how many people believe in religion dont you? And that the number of believers has nothing to do with whether their belief is correct? 

I submitted a bill to make wooden boxes illegal. Of course it will end caskets, picture frames, and cabins. A small price to pay, I say.

From what I understand, the legislation is behind a bill that promotes windshields for dogs butts.
 

There’s a group workin’ round the clock on it. 

Great question. I have owned plenty of both and find Open baffle far superior. Why? Well when done correctly the money goes o the speakers and XOS instead of mostly inferior cabinets and OXs

Should wooden boxes be made illegal

Yeah - I suppose with the penalty of death?

But only if we then bury the offender in a wooden coffin to drive the point home with some irony.

 

@holmz

I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I am not here to prove to you that spheres are better. That has already been done by other engineers many years ago.

I am skeptical… are they better… how would i know?
I am disinclined to take your word for it over hundreds of manufacturers without some evidence that you could be correct.
Your word on it is not proof that your assertion/premise is correct… it’s just, “like your opinion dude.”

The question is, why are there so many boxes out there if they are wrong?

Table saws and panel saws cut do a good job of cutting flat wood panel straight.
Or
they are right and not wrong.

Tell me,what speakers do you have?

You first… where are your links.

Are they perfect? if not why not?

Probably not, but how does one define perfect?
In addition to FR, impluse response and step function response is radiation pattern , compression… and the list goes on…
With… style, looks and size.

One usually has a compromise for all those things, as well as cost.

they are obviously perfect enough as I have had them for a while.

Have you built any speakers?

Yes I have.

@holmz 

I think you've misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I am not here to prove to you that spheres are better. That has already been done by other engineers many years ago. The question is, why are there so many boxes out there if they are wrong?  

Tell me,what speakers do you have? 

Are they perfect? if not why not?

Have you built any speakers?

Kenjit , I bet Erik Alexander can answer your thread. 

Mapman Amen🙏

 

@holmz

The internal reflection would be absorbed by the stuffing. Cabasse has done sphere speakers. Rectangles are done because they are cheaper and easier. Would you like me to custom tune your speakers for you as you seem to be unhappy with your speakers. Are they square? Are they tuned to your ears? Are they in TIME?

What did I say to lead you to believe that I am not happy with my speakers?

And yes; my current speaker are in time (as well as phase).

Thirdly; the stuffing will not absorb much in terms of low frequency, how thick is this stuffing.

I was only guessing at the internal reflections as being “the thing.”
or another guess would be resonance.
What is the theory behind a perfect shape?
Why is a square box bad?

Back to the question… who did the research that you alluded to?
Can you provide a link?

@dekay nice parliament.

I prefer this approach...

DeKay

@holmz 

The internal reflection would be absorbed by the stuffing. Cabasse has done sphere speakers. Rectangles are done because they are cheaper and easier. Would you like me to custom tune your speakers for you as you seem to be unhappy with your speakers. Are they square? Are they tuned to your ears? Are they in TIME?

wrong again. 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.

Can you please point us to this research?

Back in the 70’s a speaker engineer found that a sphere was best for a speaker. A square box was the worst and a rectangular box was marginally better.

I would think that a square box is closer to sphere than a rectangular box is??

Is having all the internal reflections arriving back at the same time a good thing? Or would an amoeba shaped be better than a sphere to spread the reflected sound out temporally?

The freedom of choice has caused box speakers to be prevalent. Did you not see what someone wrote? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU&themeRefresh=1

The freedom of choice has caused box speakers to be prevalent. Did you not see what someone wrote? 

They make 'em, we buy 'em. Ergo they keep makin' em.

Either we stop making em or we stop buying em. Otherwise, we are stuck with wooden junk

kenjit

... If I was in charge of the speaker industry half of the speakers we see wouldnt be allowed ...

But you’re not. As a consequence, we have something known as "freedom of choice." You might want to consider why that bothers you so much.

I’ve heard speakers in a box that sound quite fine.

Success breeds repitiion and imitation.

But what does that show? That audiophiles dont care about sound but care more about how a speaker looks?

"Back in the 70s an engineer figured out..." sounds like 1000 other BS stories.

And yes, anything that Kenjit doesn't approve of should be illegal (In Kenjitville).

If I was in charge of the speaker industry half of the speakers we see wouldnt be allowed due to inadequate sound quality. 

How many times can the same provocative troll question be asked? I would say keep wooden boxes legal, and put kenjit in jail!

How can it be a troll question if Cabasse does it? Should cabasse be illegal? is that what you are implying? At least state some valid arguments for why you disagree rather than just calling people a troll. I'm guessing your speakers are wooden boxes then?

Cabasse also makes square/rectangular speakers. They may also have some patents on them so other companies cannot make similar ones.

nonsense. You cant patent a shape. Why hasnt anybody patented the rectangular box?

And of course the way they sound might not be to every one's liking, regardless of research, science or technology.

wrong again. 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 may be wrong, but I don't think anyone makes a round Sub Woofer (KEF did made one that looked like a car tire).

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

How many times can the same provocative troll question be asked? I would say keep wooden boxes legal, and put kenjit in jail!

Success breeds repitiion and imitation.

"Back in the 70s an engineer figured out..." sounds like 1000 other BS stories.

And yes, anything that Kenjit doesn't approve of should be illegal (In Kenjitville).

Jerry

@deadhead1000  wheres the round speakers from PS Audio?

Cabasse also makes square/rectangular speakers. They may also have some patents on them so other companies cannot make similar ones. And of course the way they sound might not be to every one's liking, regardless of research, science or technology. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone makes a round Sub Woofer (KEF did made one that looked like a car tire).

Wilson has sent tens of millions designing their speakers and they are not at all rounded. PS Audio just spent millions designing a slightly round box speaker. If round was the perfect solution, both those companies would have not used boxes of any kind. Besides, the 1970's were a loooong time ago. I am sure the research has advanced since then.

I myself own Harbeth 30.2's which get trashed all the time for being thin-walled and using basically paper cone speakers in them (talk about old technology!), but I've compared them with speakers up to $12,000 (bookshelf size only, not floor standing) and found none as 'natural' sounding to my ears. It's not just the materials and design, it's the ear of the designer. 

Cheap and easy to work with. I’ve built several over the years.

Because they are obviously one of the best things ever and people cannot get enough of a good thing. Praise the Lord for wooden speakers! So appropriate to bring up on Thanksgiving. Thank you for wood, boxes, and speakers ! Amen and hallelujah! 🙏

They make 'em, we buy 'em. Ergo they keep makin' em.