Breaking News!
New method completely eliminates the need for speaker enclosures!
We call it "The Speaker".
Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?
I understand that wood is cheap and a box is easier to make than a sphere but when the speaker companies charge tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for their speakers, shouldnt consumers expect more than just a typical box? Are consumers being duped?
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.
The speaker engineers have surely known about this research so why has it been ignored?
Cabasse is the only company doing spheres. Should wooden boxes be made illegal
183 responses Add your response
Kenjit, I appreciate your question, but could you keep it to that - a question? And not make it into a battle where you know "the truth"? Is spherical always best? If that was the case, why are high level speakers showing an amazing variety of shapes and forms? Imagine if our forks and knives were subject to the same variation, we would hardly know how to eat! B&W Nautilus, for example, is partly snail shell shaped, partly spherical, partly other complex forms. A violin is partly straight, partly curved, part thin part thick. A stradivarius is not a globe! Nor is it made with cement! And why is that? Because sound doesn't behave to simplistic rules like 'spherical always best'. There are lots of people out there trying out new forms and shapes, and broad statements like 'wood is bad' or 'box is bad' won't help them. You think a speaker should not sing? It should have no sound of its own, and be absolutely inert? I remember that philosophy in the 80s, but it didn't conquer the market, for good reasons. You cannot avoid the sound from the drivers interacting with their surroundings. So another way to go about it, is to design cabinets that sound musical, and / or speakers designed to play "with" the room instead of trying to attain no interaction (impossible). On another level, the main speaker marketplace, I think you have a point, but you could make it without being fundamentalist about it. Yes, cost considerations may drive parts of the industry into 'sleepwalker' mode, repeating the old box designs, only in slimmer 'modern' versions (usually sounding worse). Yet the consumer market has rounded or spherical designs in active satellite systems too, I think, at least a midlevel company like Gallo. Very "lifestyle" and if you can get a good deal with a metal maker you can make it. They seem to work well for treble and some midtone (snailhouse construction = trying to extend the mid downwards). But these globe-like speakers have not replaced the box type standmounts (or floorstanders). Why not? Imagine if your rule was true, Kenjit, and we all changed to speakers looking like spheres. Putting our old square boxes, panel speakers etc into the garage. I think we would all go to the garage, after awhile - something has gone missing. I don't know. And this is just to illustrate my point. Your question is good but don't make it into a sermon. |
Have read the referenced study and have a few comments. The study references both diffraction and sound impedance of the enclosure for the speaker, but then creates enclosures where the volume of the enclosure and the distance of the speaker/piston to the furthest rear surface varies quite a bit, from 2 foot to 6 inches. Without going through the full math of the impedance and reflection pressure on the speaker/piston for each shape used, the study is only partially conclusive. Since the study does not include reference to any sound dampening material used within any of the enclosures, we have to assume that there is none. This should be required information for complete and accurate understanding of the results. The material used for the various shapes, and the construction methods used are not detailed, so the shape information is only partially informative. The absorption and reflection properties of the material used and joining methods will affect the diffraction and impedance of each enclosure. There is no charting/graph of the sample speaker free standing (no enclosure) for reference, so the charts graphs can only the used as comparison to each other. We do not know what the free air response of the sample speaker is for comparison to the enclosures. The shapes/volume of enclosures for the size of speaker used would mostly argue for freestanding speakers. A speaker of 7/8 inch diameter (a tweeter) requiring a sphere of 2 foot diameter for a relatively flat response or a cubic volume of over 2 feet for a similar response would appear to require a massively sized enclosure for a full range speaker that would include at the minimum a second driver of at least 5 1/4 inch diameter. Thus one would conclude that freestanding speakers with a bare minimum of mounting surface would be best. What the study does show is that enclosure volume will affect response curve. Distance from speaker to rear surface will affect response curve. Internal shape of enclosure will affect response curve. And the study hints that minimal front mounting surface may be beneficial to the response curve, but is confused by the various internal shapes and volumes to provide a clear conclusion. Most all of this is known, and most all high end speakers use cabinet shaping, material, volume, and dampening for each individual driver to optimize the response curve of each driver, and the response curve of the speaker as a whole as a single point sound source. For those whose room volume, configuration and dampening are optimal then full planar or freestanding speakers can be the best, otherwise it is all compromise. |
KEF Blade B&W (multiple) Sonus Faber Venere Wilson (multiple) Devialet Bang and Olufsen Gallo Estelon Forza Magnepan And so on. Many play with shape but sometimes it's inside a box as well. When the original tests on box speakers were done, much of the issue was that it was just an open box inside, then stuffing was added (acoustical treatment). Then internal baffling,, and so on. Rear loaded horns don't sit well so often boxes are added. But in general a box is easier to work with, and for many straight Clean lines are preferred. So the "box works ". And if the ears are happy the soul is happy. |
I’m going off topic here, but rounded shapes are preferable for living room decor. You’ll get very subtle anxiety in a room with only square shapes. It’s soothing to the mind and spirit to have more rounded shapes that you’ll likely encounter in nature. It’s fine to have a few hard edges here and there, but you can break up the pattern with decor: pillows, candles, vessels, mirrors, plants, tables, plates, lamps, chairs etc... I doubt that the square shape of a speaker is inherently desirable, it’s just practical. |
I'm the first person to agree that savvy marketing and the canny wooing of the right review journals can have an enormous and sometimes deleterious effect on consumer choice; that people more often than not want what they're told to want whether it's good for them or not. But in this case I think you have to be a bit realistic. We--by which I mean people on this forum--are a minority who will sometimes go to absurd lengths, both financial and aesthetic, in pursuit of audio perfection. Most people want something that sounds nice and looks good, and the simple fact is that wood looks nice and rectangular shapes tend to fit better into people's living rooms. Here, I think, is a case of manufacturer's giving people what they want, not, as the OP suggests, duping them. I should, however, declare an interest. My Sonus Faber speakers look fabulous and have just reached the point after about eight months of hitting a perfect and exquisite synergy with the rest of my system; plus my wife thinks they're really pretty--a not inconsequential consideration for those of us who do not possess dedicated listening rooms to which we can retreat!
|
Hello Kenjit. Wooden box speakers are traditional, easy to pack and ship, easy to place in a home (flat bottoms), easy to put things on (flat tops), easy to mount speakers (the actual drivers + crossover parts) in (flat fronts and backs), easy to "tune," easy to build. If you build it with stone slabs (counter tops broken during fabrication are available cheap. The shop can cut the pieces and holes for you.) you will have and acoustically inert box that will not sound "boxy," and can look quite impressive. Glue it together with silicone rubber. Open baffel speakers are lighter and cheaper (especially DIY) to build, but harder to place in a room. Happy Listening! |
@dynamiclinearity You can build the most complex shapes out of plywood and a CNC machine. Glue many layers of precision-cut plywood together and build a wavy 1/4 wave transmission line. Build a box around that transmission line. That’s how my speakers are made.
|
Those reasons are all WRONG and do not justify non spherical cabinets. There are different prices for speakers yes? So if you go up in price you rightly expect an improvement in terms of the materials and shapes used no? A box may have been acceptable for a cheap speaker but it is no longer acceptable when the speaker costs tens of thousands of bucks. Why is that so hard to admit? Just face it, we are being duped. How dare you claim that complex shapes are more costly to make as if consumers arent already being charged extortionate prices for those monkey coffins? |
By far the most natural sounding speakers I’ve ever heard are recent Wilson Audios. They have paid attention to time alignment for decades, and refined the cabinet materials to dramatically reduce cabinet vibration, minimizing distortion. I don’t know where you got the sphere info, but go listen to a live symphony, and then a pair of Alex Vs. I think everyone can hear what is more or less realistic. |
I can see there are speaker companies out there that dont use wood. But the issue here is not just about the material its the shape. Magicos are RECTANGULAR BOXES. Even worse they deceptively try to make their speakers look round by adding curves but its not even close to a sphere. Its as if they know their speakers should be spheres but because they cant be bothered they just stick to boxes and hope audiophiles can be persuaded theyre just as good.
Nobody said it was dealing with internal resonances. Resonances will always be there regardless of shape and will need to be dealt with in some other way. The olson paper is correct and the speakers companies are wrong.
Well in which case just admit that 99% of speakers out there are wrong because they arent spheres. You cant make a rectangular box behave like a sphere. Its one or the other. Make up your mind which is better and stop being ambivalent. |
Wood boxes are easy to make. Complex shapes are way more costly and the question is if the complex shape is worth the cost compared to the cost of better drivers and crossovers. Also we are used to boxes and visually accept them. Other shapes wouldn't sell as well since they would be odd so many would not accept them. P.S there may be better shapes than the wood box but I doubt there is a 'perfect' one. |
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 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).
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 ... |
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?
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.
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.
Theyre nothing close to round or spherical.
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. |
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. |
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. |
@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. |
What are you talking about? Who cares? @ebm , please elaborate! |
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). |
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.
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? |
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.
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.
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. |
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?
Well thats another outrageous thing. If audiophiles do not care about sound quality then who is meeting the needs of genuine audiophiles like myself?
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.
Thats perfect. So you have finally admitted that we are being DUPED. Thankyou. |
To be less flippant, your assertion that a sphere is somehow "perfect" is fundamentally in error. ALL designs, including spheres, are engineering tradeoffs. |
