Stop it!

[Alec]

Oh dear, we haven't stoped it yet. Thmpson will be dissappointed.

Just goes to show, well, something, possibly...

 

[JMacMan]

...The problem with cuboid boxes is that they tend to sound like cuboid boxes...

Two of the best speakers I've ever heard are made by Genelec and Quested. The Genelec's are famous for their curvy enclosures both internally for standing waves and externally for diffraction purposes. The Quested's are unashamedly square.

They're both equally exellent speakers which have a slightly different presentation but I couldn't honestly say that the Quested sounded any more or less 'boxey' than the Genelecs. I'm not even sure what 'boxey' sounds like.

...When speakers approach the £3k level, I'd expect a little more than cuboid boxes, though many well below this price do at least avoid parallel panels...

I've read about and understand why curved enclosures are better than boxes but in practice I think the differences are minimal at best. Especially with small speakers. I've heard too many times speakers with square enclosures that sound just as good or better as curved ones. Still, for anything over the £3-4K mark I'd want curved enclosures too even if the difference is only minimal.

http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/category/bang-olufsen/

In the latest article by Dr. Geoff Martin of B&O on B&O tech, and why curves are better than corners, measurements show that the external sharp edge of a speaker box baffle, where it meets the corner on an atypical Box loudspeaker, results in a boost or loss of audio output of around 2.0db - so clearly audiible in terms of colouring the sound, and certainly not 'minimal'.

As the article describes, where-ever you have sharp edges, you have a change in acoustic impedance, and diffraction effects are generated, with the results demonstrated as per measurement by the article.

And of course parallel internal walls bring their own issues in terms of standing waves, reflections back out through the back of the cone, and greater cabinet wall vibration/colouration and cabinet readout.

All of this is proven science whcih can be measured and taken into consideration in the design phase, and not audiophile pseudo science BTW..

It's also why most top of the range loudspeakers don't use rectangular or cuboid boxes - the greater unit cost involved allows these sorts of sonic issues with cabinet design/materials/shape to be addressed.

Cheers

Jmac

 

[EvPa]

It's also why most top of the range loudspeakers don't use rectangular or cuboid boxes - the greater unit cost involved allows these sorts of sonic issues with cabinet design/materials/shape to be addressed.

What's interesting is that when looking at professional monitors, it's usually the low-to-mid range that features non-cuboid enclosures , the high-end stuff is very boxy (obviously this is also related to placement issues).

 

[Alec]

Still not stopped. Oh dear. I think hell will have to be paid. The horror...

 

[steve_1979]

http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/category/bang-olufsen/

In the latest article by Dr. Geoff Martin of B&O on B&O tech, and why curves are better than corners, measurements show that the external sharp edge of a speaker box baffle, where it meets the corner on an atypical Box loudspeaker, results in a boost or loss of audio output of around 2.0db - so clearly audiible in terms of colouring the sound, and certainly not 'minimal'.

As the article describes, where-ever you have sharp edges, you have a change in acoustic impedance, and diffraction effects are generated, with the results demonstrated as per measurement by the article.

And of course parallel internal walls bring their own issues in terms of standing waves, reflections back out through the back of the cone, and greater cabinet wall vibration/colouration and cabinet readout.

All of this is proven science whcih can be measured and taken into consideration in the design phase, and not audiophile pseudo science BTW..

It's also why most top of the range loudspeakers don't use rectangular or cuboid boxes - the greater unit cost involved allows these sorts of sonic issues with cabinet design/materials/shape to be addressed.

Cheers

Jmac

Some very good points.

I've read quite a bit about how the enclosure shape effects the sound but in practice I've heard many square enclosure speakers which sound just as good as curved ones. It's my guess that unless you have thousands of pounds to spend the budget is better spent on using better quality components elsewhere rather than on a curved enclosure.

I'm sure you've seen this picture before but for the benefit of anyone who hasn't here it is again.

 

[Native_bon]

WOW what a bunch of geeks :rofl: . Oh well what am doin here may be am one too :?

 

[JMacMan]

WOW what a bunch of geeks :rofl: . Oh well what am doin here may be am one too :?

[/quote

Heheh, it's quite easy to get obsessional and anal about the specifications of kit - especially if you get bitten by audiophillia disease.

To my mind, and from my own experience, in the digital as against analogue age, speakers are the area in need of the biggest improvment/development as regards Hifi technology, re design and materials.

If one is spending a lot of money on speakers, it's comforting to know that the design team are very highly qualified as regards tetiary training and experience, have access to state of the art R&D facilities, and that the product reflects this in design/engineering/performance terms.

Beautifully finished/veneered boxes can be nice to look at, but I personally expect a lot more than a nicely finished, reflex ported box, with good quality drivers in it, be it active or passive, when I am being asked to shell out a lot of money for said speakers.

I'm not sure if I qualify as a geek, LOL.. but I like to know the ins and outs of things, how things 'work', and what I'm essentially buying when I write out the cheque.

Cheers

JMac

 

[steve_1979]

WOW what a bunch of geeks :rofl:

Square and proud of it (me I mean not the speakers).

 

[Thompsonuxb]

lol..... some of you guys, I swear.

 

[JamesMellor]

It's hip to be square , or at least it once was <S>