Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?

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

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! 🙏

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

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. 

@deadhead1000  wheres the round speakers from PS Audio?

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

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

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!

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?

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. 

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.

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

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

@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?

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?

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.

Mapman Amen🙏

Kenjit , I bet Erik Alexander can answer your thread. 

@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?

 

@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.

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.

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

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. 

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? 

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. 

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

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.

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?

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. 

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...

@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? 

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?

"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?

To be less flippant, your assertion that a sphere is somehow "perfect" is fundamentally in error. ALL designs, including spheres, are engineering tradeoffs. 

Look at it this way, even if the U.S. military wanted to spend a BILLION dollars developing a "good" speaker, they could most certainly do that. But in no way would it be "perfect".  Such an animal will never exist.   

Cost of machinery and material.

That is an excuse. If a speaker costs 100k how can you claim that cost of material or machinery is an issue? How dare you suggest that spending $100k is not enough to enable speakers to be spherical. How much would it cost then?  

WAF is probably another one as the market also dictates what will sell regardless of price or performance.

Well thats another outrageous thing. If audiophiles do not care about sound quality then who is meeting the needs of genuine audiophiles like myself? 

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.

Nonsense. If you can spend 50k on magicos and another 100k on amps and dacs then you better make sure you have a good room otherwise it makes no sense. 

Simple answer, speaker manufacturers know most people want a speaker that looks like a nice piece of furniture and not a sculpture.

Thats perfect. So you have finally admitted that we are being DUPED. Thankyou.

@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.

To be less flippant, your assertion that a sphere is somehow "perfect" is fundamentally in error. ALL designs, including spheres, are engineering tradeoffs.

Its not my assertion olson did the damn research back in the 1950. All shapes were compared and the sphere had the smoothest response. Nothing has changed since then so the result is still true.

Look at it this way, even if the U.S. military wanted to spend a BILLION dollars developing a "good" speaker, they could most certainly do that. But in no way would it be "perfect". Such an animal will never exist.

We are not talking about perfection. We are simply saying why are all speakers wooden boxes when the research has shown that they should be spherical?

"We are simply saying why are all speakers wooden boxes when the reserach has shown that they should be spherical? "

Now, what research are you referring to? Can you provide a link? 

@dill 

yes heres a link

@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:
Who was this speaker designer? Can you show us how and why he/she reached these conclusions?

Wood is used cause it's an insulator, by insulating the current you increase efficiency.  If you have no wood you have no joy.

Spheres? Thought monolith concrete speakers were the way to go professor?

Kenjit

I have to ask. What do you own for speakers? I’m guessing nothing made of wood or with any flat surfaces. Just curious. Thanks 

What are you talking about? Who cares?

@ebm , please elaborate!

@kenjit I thought you previously said that speakers made of concrete must be the best? You are just trying to be provocative as usual saying sphere enclosures are superior yet you provide no specific references whatsoever on how you came to this conclusion. I have yet to see you post what you actual own and why. Instead you just blow up this forum whenever you log on. PS Audio btw only has one model of speakers so far - the FR30. Plenty of illustrations for your expert eyes to scrutinize. That aside, what matters is how a pair of speakers sound in your system in your space to your ears. For this reason, there are no perfect speakers. This is why there is a myriad of choices to satisfy peoples budgets and personal preferences.

Kenjit

I have to ask. What do you own for speakers? I’m guessing nothing made of wood or with any flat surfaces. Just curious. Thanks 

I own custom modified hand tuned speakers. Some are wood some are not. What I own does not represent what i would consider perfection. There is no harm in using wood for testing purposes.

This hobby is ridiculous sometimes, but these threads are entertaining.  Not all speakers are boxes, we have electrostatics and open baffles.  I have rear ported boxes, they sound fine to me.  I’ve had to move them once, the shape was convenient.

Tonight we listened to the Thanksgiving Dinner playlist on Spotify, it was great, something for everyone.

Perhaps I was too wishy washy with my Owl response, so I will default to my standard response to a Kenjit thread.

DeKay 

I thought you previously said that speakers made of concrete must be the best?

MDF is the most common material. Some use concrete some use thin plywood. The goal is to make sure the speaker does not sing. You use whatever is most neutral. 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?

You are just trying to be provocative as usual saying sphere enclosures are superior yet you provide no specific references whatsoever on how you came to this conclusion.

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.

I have yet to see you post what you actual own and why.

Hogwash. What would it prove to post pretty pictures of your listening room with a bunch of shiny gear and speakers? Unless you listen to it yourself, you'd never know how it sounds. 

Instead you just blow up this forum whenever you log on. PS Audio btw only has one model of speakers so far - the FR30. Plenty of illustrations for your expert eyes to scrutinize.

Theyre nothing close to round or spherical.

That aside, what matters is how a pair of speakers sound in your system in your space to your ears. For this reason, there are no perfect speakers. This is why there is a myriad of choices to satisfy peoples budgets and personal preferences.

Thats a misundertanding of what hifi is all about. Speakers should reproduce what you feed them. Nothing more or less. If you are listening to bookshelf speakers you are missing a few octaves of bass. So you are not getting out what you put in are you? it doesnt matter if you think it sounds ok, its WRONG. 

We dont need a myriad of choices we need less.  We need to get rid of half of the speakers out there on the marketplace that arent good enough. Then it becomes easier for audiophiles to choose.