Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?

@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 ...

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.

@axo1989

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.

The Olson paper measures and describes the effects of speaker and baffle shape with respect to diffraction, that research doesn’t deal with resonances or internal wave/reflection behaviour per se (although those effects may influence the measured results)..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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?