Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 7332 times.

dpatters

Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #40 on: 16 Aug 2022, 02:33 pm »
Complex interiors are usually heavier.  And more complicated to build.  And more expensive from a materials standpoint.  So it’s possible but expensive.  You tend to see it used in ultra high end speakers where the extra cost can be recouped.

Definitely heavier. My Vapor Joules tip the scales at 250 pounds each.

Don P

TomekZur

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 4
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #41 on: 17 Aug 2022, 03:46 am »
Seems to me that a spherical or ball like baffle might have the least negative propagating diffractions & an egg shaped inside of a box the least internal "boxy" reflections. There have been a few curved speaker cabinets and a few spherical. I once had Tannoy's with the side walls not parallel, and still heard a presence of the internal walls, also some early KEF pre LS50 that were curved on all sides except the front baffle and here again heard something of the speaker box shape. I've tried open baffles and then hear the back wall shape and nearness. Even with lots of stuffing inside a box, I've always heard the shape of the box.

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 10660
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #42 on: 17 Aug 2022, 12:05 pm »
Complex interiors are usually heavier.  And more complicated to build.  And more expensive from a materials standpoint.  So it’s possible but expensive.  You tend to see it used in ultra high end speakers where the extra cost can be recouped.

Most of that is just rationalizations.  The only loudspeaker cabinets I ever built were 6 cu. ft. tri-fold transmission lines in 1980, after one year of wood working shop class and using my Dad's table saw, not that hard or expensive.  Big and heavy, yes but within the realm of doable.  Their "problem" was that they were performance brutes, capable of 114 dB at 17 Hz using a single 8 inch woofer, too much for any room I'd ever afford but sounded great in a 20,000 cu. ft. chapel driven by a 20 wpc receiver. 

Seems to me that loudspeaker manufacturers just want to redo the same old sealed or ported designs in hollow rectangular boxes. 

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11102
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #43 on: 17 Aug 2022, 01:43 pm »
Most of that is just rationalizations.  The only loudspeaker cabinets I ever built were 6 cu. ft. tri-fold transmission lines in 1980, after one year of wood working shop class and using my Dad's table saw, not that hard or expensive.  Big and heavy, yes but within the realm of doable.  Their "problem" was that they were performance brutes, capable of 114 dB at 17 Hz using a single 8 inch woofer, too much for any room I'd ever afford but sounded great in a 20,000 cu. ft. chapel driven by a 20 wpc receiver. 

Seems to me that loudspeaker manufacturers just want to redo the same old sealed or ported designs in hollow rectangular boxes. 

It’s not rationalization, it’s profit.  Which is the reason companies are in business - to make profit.

Also, it sounds like you're bored with the standard speaker models that are offered.  I feel you on that one.  I got bored of 6" midrange and 1 inch dome tweeter in a box a long time ago.  Most of my speaker choices nowadays involve some type of alternate design elements that break that mold.  Everything from horns (Klipsch Heresy and Forte's), AMT Tweeters (Spatial Audio X3's), Planar Magnetic midrange and tweeters (GR Research Super 7's).  And of course, moving away from boxes completely and going full OB because I can't get a box to integrate into my rooms as well as OB speakers. 
« Last Edit: 17 Aug 2022, 02:51 pm by Tyson »

Rusty Jefferson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 873
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #44 on: 17 Aug 2022, 03:04 pm »
The B&W Nautilus (the one with the curly bass section) is one of better practical designs I've seen (but not heard).
Check out the Waveform Mach 17 speakers. An early adopter of both low diffraction, low resonance cabinets, and active crossovers (I'm sure ultimately the downfall).  Introduced now with people more accepting of active systems they'd probably be a hit. I have a friend who built a clone pair with modern high quality drivers and a DEQX crossover. Absolutely transparent sound.

S Clark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7357
  • a riot is the language of the unheard- Dr. King
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #45 on: 17 Aug 2022, 04:11 pm »
One of the best bass reflex speakers of the 70's was the Design Acoustics D-12... but it was a short lived design due to manufacturing cost.  If you are designing for something other than a small niche market, a rectangular box is actually a good choice-- hence why it's so common. 



Early B.

Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #46 on: 17 Aug 2022, 04:55 pm »
Three pages and no one has clearly articulated why interior rectangles are a problem, especially if well braced and damped.  Of course, we know that every box or not-box design has its pros and cons, but what is it about rectangles that cause bigger problems than other designs?

   

js1955

Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #47 on: 17 Aug 2022, 07:07 pm »
Ice cream anyone?     :lol:


richidoo

Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #48 on: 17 Aug 2022, 07:25 pm »
Three pages and no one has clearly articulated why interior rectangles are a problem, especially if well braced and damped.  Of course, we know that every box or not-box design has its pros and cons, but what is it about rectangles that cause bigger problems than other designs?

There's no problem. Stuffing easily damps midrange box reflections w wavelengths less than a foot. Low freq box dimensions are much smaller than the wavelengths their drivers emit, so there is no resonant modes, just pressure pulses which are handled well by a strong cabinet construction and quality voltage source amplifier.

Beware the hifi intelligencia who believe specs and measurements, construction technique and the consensus design formula of the moment are more important than the sound and feeling the speakers make. Im not sure they actually believe in it themselves either, but they sure do want us to believe them.

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19899
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #49 on: 17 Aug 2022, 10:13 pm »
Seems to me that a spherical or ball like baffle might have the least negative propagating diffractions & an egg shaped inside of a box the least internal "boxy" reflections. There have been a few curved speaker cabinets and a few spherical.
Correct, the sphere is the best enclosure shape, second is the cylinder or tube.

Early B.

Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #50 on: 17 Aug 2022, 10:59 pm »
Correct, the sphere is the best enclosure shape, second is the cylinder or tube.

"Best" perhaps in one way (i.e., fewer box reflections), but they're butt ugly and impractical. 

I recall when SVS sold subs in tubes. They worked well in a dedicated home theater room or if you were single and wished to remain so. Otherwise, they looked ridiculous. Today, SVS only builds subs with rectangular boxes. 

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 19899
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #51 on: 17 Aug 2022, 11:49 pm »
Man I feel these speakers very beautiful,
imagine it in black piano:

opnly bafld

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2413
  • 83 Klipsch LSIs
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #52 on: 18 Aug 2022, 12:10 am »
"Best" perhaps in one way (i.e., fewer box reflections), but they're butt ugly and impractical. 

I recall when SVS sold subs in tubes. They worked well in a dedicated home theater room or if you were single and wished to remain so. Otherwise, they looked ridiculous. Today, SVS only builds subs with rectangular boxes.

I agree with a lot of your post, but.....

https://www.svsound.com/products/pc-2000-pro

opnly bafld

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2413
  • 83 Klipsch LSIs
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #53 on: 18 Aug 2022, 12:25 am »
There's no problem. Stuffing easily damps midrange box reflections w wavelengths less than a foot. Low freq box dimensions are much smaller than the wavelengths their drivers emit, so there is no resonant modes, just pressure pulses which are handled well by a strong cabinet construction and quality voltage source amplifier.

Beware the hifi intelligencia who believe specs and measurements, construction technique and the consensus design formula of the moment are more important than the sound and feeling the speakers make. Im not sure they actually believe in it themselves either, but they sure do want us to believe them.

I wish you would just stop it with such nonsense.  :wink:  :green:

Early B.

Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #54 on: 18 Aug 2022, 02:10 am »
I agree with a lot of your post, but.....

https://www.svsound.com/products/pc-2000-pro

Does this sub come bundled with a divorce attorney?

Letitroll98

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 5612
  • Too loud is just right
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #55 on: 18 Aug 2022, 10:25 am »
I agree with a lot of your post, but.....

https://www.svsound.com/products/pc-2000-pro

Thanks a lot.  After looking at the SVS sub from this link now I'm getting ads for it on my Facebook feed, literally 30 seconds later.  I'm never clicking on a link to anything ever again, it's too spooky.

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 10660
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #56 on: 18 Aug 2022, 12:42 pm »
Here's a couple of active 2-way designs that clicks many of my boxes from a few years back (please read the reviews): 

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/se-electronics-munro-egg-150

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/munro-sonic-egg-150

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/munro-sonic-egg-100

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11102
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #57 on: 18 Aug 2022, 03:00 pm »
Those look cool.  Fully active plus an egg shaped cabinet should make those a cut above a lot of other speakers. 

I ran active for a while, back when I was doing some speaker design for my home setup.  The only problem I found was that it's hard to upgrade the amps if they are part of a fully integrated system like this one.  Not sure how important future upgradeability is to you, though.

Rusty Jefferson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 873
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #58 on: 18 Aug 2022, 06:08 pm »
Here's a couple of active 2-way designs that clicks many of my boxes from a few years back....
I have a pair of the Munro Sonic 150s.  Danny Ritchie built me a set of passive networks for them so I can also experiment with other amplification.  Great little speakers. Again, these cabinets with little or no cabinet diffraction just vanish.

Peter J

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • Hmmmm
Re: Why are loudspeaker enclosure shapes so dumb?
« Reply #59 on: 18 Aug 2022, 10:01 pm »
Those are interesting. Any idea what's become of the designs? From the reviews I gather they were molded which would have taken considerable time and $$ just for molds to be made. If I had to guess I'd say it wasn't viable financially, which is kinda sad but that's what drives a commercial venture after all. If it can't earn its keep, it will eventually fade into oblivion.

I could get close in looks with stacked lamination, but would be a boat load of work to finish like photos. Easier if a stepped exterior/interior was employed but even that would be huge gob of hand work.

 I wonder if the molds could be purchased?