Mads Buchardt said on another post that Buchardt has competencies and equipment in sophisticated scanning-based analysis. I wonder if these were deployed in trying to rationalise the enclosure design, and get it to be as cost-effective as possible below hearing thresholds, especially since much has been said about the cost of designing the waveguide.
I believe in that post Mads was referring to the fact that the waveguide was designed using the same Klippel NFS scanner(which Amir didn't have at the time). So not sure how much that speaks to designing the cabinet itself, but I do find it a bit hard to believe the cabinet bracing would've been omitted without some careful consideration.
It's a possibility but hard to imagine a 2-degree tilt could cause such a contrast in the crossover region though! Though I suppose that compounded with using a different reference axis it might be something, but it certainly wouldn't explain the resonance (which I still consider to be a minor issue).Which is possibly why yours look closer to Buchardt's own measurements than Amir's ?