Visual aesthetics and the appeal of that aside, there are a couple of kinds of effects cabinets can have on the sound that I can think of:
1) ported cabinet resonances usually at bass frequencies these are usually designed (as is the case with most but not all OHM Walsh) to extend flat response lower but if not done right can result in low frequency bumps in response that would normally be considered undesirable. From what I read, J. Strohbeen goes to great lengths to get this and the porting aspect of the cabinets right and I’ve never seen any data to the contrary. There is a relationship between cabinet design, port and resulting frequency response but in this case sound would not emanate from the cabinet itself. The biggest OHM 5015 models, that JS touts as the best OHMs ever in all regards, with powered subs built in are actually sealed because powered subs eliminate need for the port. I do not doubt his claims on those.
2) If cabinet construction is not up to snuff or defective, then I would think resonances would cause clear noise to be emanating from the cabs due to resonances. Vibrations might normally be felt when touching the cabinets even when things are working exactly as designed/planned. Some speakers are designed to have totally inert cabinets, others not. Not sure what OHMs design take on this is exactly, but I know the "sound" of the cabinet is taken into account to deliver the desired sound.
Regarding quality of port materials and other aspects of components that go into the final product, I know JS leans towards delivering a particular high quality sound for more affordable cost. He will clearly choose to use less expensive materials whenever possible if they can do the job well as intended. he may even know of some advantage to using material like cardboard. Cardboard is a relatively inert material sonically for example. When it comes to sound inert is good usually. So it may look cheap but do its job in fact quite well.
Other speaker makers, particularly those targeting the high end mainly (not OHM) may choose to only use certain materials that will be regarded consistent and appealing to the target market.
OHMs approach is clearly very "blue collar" . That’s one of the things I like about the company in particular. They target the best sound possible for the least cost.
it will always be different strokes for different folks as evidenced by the variety of solutions people choose to fulfill their music and related needs.
With my OHMs, I find room acoustics particularly potential bad interaction between OHM Walsh bottom port and floor to be the most problematic thing to address effectively somehow for true high end sound. In general I think the OHMs sound best when effectively isolated from floor interactions, as is the case with all speakers I own but bottom ported OHMs perhaps an even greater issue to address than with others.
I can find no clear faults in regards to the overall sound once the potential floor interactions are under control in my system. I hate to use the word but to my ears its dern near perfect with absolutely nothing offensive ever coming out except perhaps in the case of some of the very loudest and dynamically clipped newer digital mp3 recordings out there and those usually exhibit themselves in the higher frequencies that have really little or no cabinet dependencies with the OHM Walsh design, certainly less than most conventional box designs. That alone may be why perhaps JS is able to not have cabinets built like a tank like some other high performing box designs like Dynaudio and Sonus Faber typically must rely on.
I have never encountered it at all as an OHM Walsh owner since 1982 (quite an achievement only a good quality product could accomplish) but if I hear noises or sound coming from the can that are clearly not part of the music, I would suspect some issue inside the can that needs attention and perhaps send them in for a look. That would be the exception due to some issue though, not the norm, at least in my experience.
1) ported cabinet resonances usually at bass frequencies these are usually designed (as is the case with most but not all OHM Walsh) to extend flat response lower but if not done right can result in low frequency bumps in response that would normally be considered undesirable. From what I read, J. Strohbeen goes to great lengths to get this and the porting aspect of the cabinets right and I’ve never seen any data to the contrary. There is a relationship between cabinet design, port and resulting frequency response but in this case sound would not emanate from the cabinet itself. The biggest OHM 5015 models, that JS touts as the best OHMs ever in all regards, with powered subs built in are actually sealed because powered subs eliminate need for the port. I do not doubt his claims on those.
2) If cabinet construction is not up to snuff or defective, then I would think resonances would cause clear noise to be emanating from the cabs due to resonances. Vibrations might normally be felt when touching the cabinets even when things are working exactly as designed/planned. Some speakers are designed to have totally inert cabinets, others not. Not sure what OHMs design take on this is exactly, but I know the "sound" of the cabinet is taken into account to deliver the desired sound.
Regarding quality of port materials and other aspects of components that go into the final product, I know JS leans towards delivering a particular high quality sound for more affordable cost. He will clearly choose to use less expensive materials whenever possible if they can do the job well as intended. he may even know of some advantage to using material like cardboard. Cardboard is a relatively inert material sonically for example. When it comes to sound inert is good usually. So it may look cheap but do its job in fact quite well.
Other speaker makers, particularly those targeting the high end mainly (not OHM) may choose to only use certain materials that will be regarded consistent and appealing to the target market.
OHMs approach is clearly very "blue collar" . That’s one of the things I like about the company in particular. They target the best sound possible for the least cost.
it will always be different strokes for different folks as evidenced by the variety of solutions people choose to fulfill their music and related needs.
With my OHMs, I find room acoustics particularly potential bad interaction between OHM Walsh bottom port and floor to be the most problematic thing to address effectively somehow for true high end sound. In general I think the OHMs sound best when effectively isolated from floor interactions, as is the case with all speakers I own but bottom ported OHMs perhaps an even greater issue to address than with others.
I can find no clear faults in regards to the overall sound once the potential floor interactions are under control in my system. I hate to use the word but to my ears its dern near perfect with absolutely nothing offensive ever coming out except perhaps in the case of some of the very loudest and dynamically clipped newer digital mp3 recordings out there and those usually exhibit themselves in the higher frequencies that have really little or no cabinet dependencies with the OHM Walsh design, certainly less than most conventional box designs. That alone may be why perhaps JS is able to not have cabinets built like a tank like some other high performing box designs like Dynaudio and Sonus Faber typically must rely on.
I have never encountered it at all as an OHM Walsh owner since 1982 (quite an achievement only a good quality product could accomplish) but if I hear noises or sound coming from the can that are clearly not part of the music, I would suspect some issue inside the can that needs attention and perhaps send them in for a look. That would be the exception due to some issue though, not the norm, at least in my experience.