I WANT TO SHARE MY PROJECT WITH YOU, Feedback Appreciated! ^_^

[creatip123]

So many people on this thread mentioning that issue. I was fully aware of it but that render was done to show my tutor the scale of my design. I should have probably mentioned it in the description.

 

You could retain the design without covering the speaker. Just 'pull' the encasing white capsule further apart to the side. That way the design is still pretty much the same, but the drivers won't be covered. 

 

It is supposed to be a single unit, but I have allowed it to be hooked up to a separate amp if needed, although you'd need to buy two then $$$$

 

I am using Wharfedale Diamond 10.1, I personally think these drivers looks really nice and didn't want some paper cone crap.

 

I think what he meant was, is it intended as 1 speaker for all needs, like the surround sound bar, or stereo set, which is you'd need 2 to function properly. 

[AudioJunki3]

You could retain the design without covering the speaker. Just 'pull' the encasing white capsule further apart to the side. That way the design is still pretty much the same, but the drivers won't be covered. 

 

 

I think what he meant was, is it intended as 1 speaker for all needs, like the surround sound bar, or stereo set, which is you'd need 2 to function properly. 

Yeah, I'll just cut the outer casing back, to be flush with the driver surround.

 

It could be used as a stereo set, but that would really be down to who purchased it.

[creatip123]

Yeah, I'll just cut the outer casing back, to be flush with the driver surround.

 

It could be used as a stereo set, but that would really be down to who purchased it.

 

No no, nowadays nobody would even remotely consider monoraul audio for home audio application. Something like sound bar is physically 1 piece of speaker, but consists of multiple channels and drivers integrated inside. So that 1 block could output something like virtual surround. This can't be done with just any speaker, it gotta be designed and produced that way from the get go.

 

So what are you designing? If it's something like a sound bar, then you gotta have multiple channels drivers, and a DSP built-in. If it's supposed to be just 1 channel speaker, then you gotta design (and maybe sell, if it goes into production) as a pair, minimal. An added sub would be nice. 

[Bittenfleax]

 

Hello lovely people of the interwebs!

 

My name is Jonny, I am a final year product design student from the UK, but foremost an audio enthusiast, just like the majority of you here.

I want to share my project with you, come see!!

 

For my final project I wanted to design and create a household speaker. The project was primarily a styling job, but I have done my research on speaker design, so I have some idea what I'm doing. I wanted to merge the Hi-Fi & Wireless technologies together in a beautiful elegant form which in turn would produce beautiful sound.

 

So far the project is going great, I am hoping to get making this prototype model sometime next week. But I wanted to get your opinions on the design, also if I have made some horrendous mistake that my untrained eyes have missed.

 

Features:

 - Wireless DLNA connectivity for high quality streaming from mobiles, tablets and laptops.

 - Wired input - For you lossless fanatics ( probably use Phono connection.

 - Wireless charging

 - Two 5.5" woofers 50-100W

 - One 1" tweeter

 - Home built two way crossover

 - Ambient Lighting - For those chill times, parties.

 - Built in Amp

 

 

I have taken extreme measures in the design to reduce resonance within the design.

 

 - Minimal floor contact - Will probably be using spikes on the prototype.

 - Three sections of solid void free bracing

 - Double thickness walls, inner lined with Silicone.

 - Heavily damped driver mounting, Rubber rings, well nuts etc.

 - Solid construction using minimal components, so less joints in the enclosure.

 

I have included some of my sketch work and renderings. There are two versions below, tell me which one you prefer.

 

Please give me your feedback on this, it would mean the world to me, ( and it might make my tutor happy!)

 

Thanks

Jonny 

 

Could be something in Portal 

[Lutkeveld]

Might have some real baffle step interference 

 

What's that?

[Oktyabr]

What's that?

Technically it is usually considered as a ratio expressed by comparing the frequency wavelength to the distance from the center of the transducer to the edge of the baffle.  Specifically this is known as "baffle step diffraction".  Higher frequencies resolve a full wavelength, perhaps several times, before reaching the edge of the baffle and sound radiates from the surface (and the baffle edge, in box type cabinets) with a slight delay behind the original signal produced by the actual driver.  These delayed sound waves can cause wave interference with the source frequencies, in effect changing the overall measured frequency response.  

A rounded cabinet like those in the designs can prevent some of this as the diffraction radiates in a less than parallel fashion, at least as measured on-axis, but off-axis may be quite a different matter.  Having a secondary "shell", such as shown in the above design, could contain some of the off-axis effects but would also set up some interesting reflections (and likely resonances, depending on material choices) that could also be considered in designing for optimum sound quality.

Note:  For all I know, our designer friend here is a time traveler from the future, bringing us a revolutionary (and fully compensated) design.  I'm curious about the actual sound characteristics of such a design and would love to know the thinking behind them and if they have been thoroughly thought through and tested, which is why I included such a question in my last post 

[Lutkeveld]

Technically it is usually considered as a ratio expressed by comparing the frequency wavelength to the distance from the center of the transducer to the edge of the baffle.  Specifically this is known as "baffle step diffraction".  Higher frequencies resolve a full wavelength, perhaps several times, before reaching the edge of the baffle and sound radiates from the surface (and the baffle edge, in box type cabinets) with a slight delay behind the original signal produced by the actual driver.  These delayed sound waves can cause wave interference with the source frequencies, in effect changing the overall measured frequency response.  

A rounded cabinet like those in the designs can prevent some of this as the diffraction radiates in a less than parallel fashion, at least as measured on-axis, but off-axis may be quite a different matter.  Having a secondary "shell", such as shown in the above design, could contain some of the off-axis effects but would also set up some interesting reflections (and likely resonances, depending on material choices) that could also be considered in designing for optimum sound quality.

Note:  For all I know, our designer friend here is a time traveler from the future, bringing us a revolutionary (and fully compensated) design.  I'm curious about the actual sound characteristics of such a design and would love to know the thinking behind them and if they have been thoroughly thought through and tested, which is why I included such a question in my last post 

 

What you're describing is diffraction. Baffle step is a type of diffraction; the transition of radiation in 2pi to 4pi as the wavelenghts get longer than the baffle's minimum width. It doesn't get reflected anymore by the baffle, but instead 'wraps around' the enclosure and radiates in full space.

 

I didn't understand what you meant with the 'interference', but I get it now. If OP dives some more in audio design he could use the shell to create some kind of loading (karlson like).

[xtroria]

It is supposed to be a single unit, but I have allowed it to be hooked up to a separate amp if needed, although you'd need to buy two then $$$$

 

I am using Wharfedale Diamond 10.1, I personally think these drivers looks really nice and didn't want some paper cone crap.

 

Nice choice for drivers, I like the way they sound. Although ofc higher end KEFs are better

[AudioJunki3]

No no, nowadays nobody would even remotely consider monoraul audio for home audio application. Something like sound bar is physically 1 piece of speaker, but consists of multiple channels and drivers integrated inside. So that 1 block could output something like virtual surround. This can't be done with just any speaker, it gotta be designed and produced that way from the get go.

 

So what are you designing? If it's something like a sound bar, then you gotta have multiple channels drivers, and a DSP built-in. If it's supposed to be just 1 channel speaker, then you gotta design (and maybe sell, if it goes into production) as a pair, minimal. An added sub would be nice. 

 

This is a single unit, that is to be used for parties, chilling, general music for the household, while also looking pretty. I completely understand where you're coming from. Which is why they would be available as a pair or singular  and have those L-common & R-common connectors on the back. Inside each unit is its own amplifier running 2 channels which can be bypassed if the user has their own amplifier.. There is a crossover network, bass going to the bottom and treble to the top, the middle will likely stay untouched, unless I decide to build a three-way crossover, but my time is limited. 

 

In a nutshell this is supposed to be a multi market attraction. A lot of people I know have these single unit Bluetooth speakers. And a lot of people have 2 channel box type speakers in their room. I'm trying to combine the two without being stingy on the quality. 

[AudioJunki3]

Nice choice for drivers, I like the way they sound. Although ofc higher end KEFs are better

I love the drivers, yes KEF are better but I'm a student. I picked up these drivers in their respective enclosures fully working and in mint condition for £60, which is an absolute steal IMO.

[Lutkeveld]

Sound is 20% driver, 80% box and crossover design. Having nice driver but a shitty box is often way worse than cheapo drivers in a proper box. 

There will be lots of simulating, measuring and adjusting if you want good SQ, especially with such a 'weird' shape.

[AudioJunki3]

Technically it is usually considered as a ratio expressed by comparing the frequency wavelength to the distance from the center of the transducer to the edge of the baffle.  Specifically this is known as "baffle step diffraction".  Higher frequencies resolve a full wavelength, perhaps several times, before reaching the edge of the baffle and sound radiates from the surface (and the baffle edge, in box type cabinets) with a slight delay behind the original signal produced by the actual driver.  These delayed sound waves can cause wave interference with the source frequencies, in effect changing the overall measured frequency response.  

A rounded cabinet like those in the designs can prevent some of this as the diffraction radiates in a less than parallel fashion, at least as measured on-axis, but off-axis may be quite a different matter.  Having a secondary "shell", such as shown in the above design, could contain some of the off-axis effects but would also set up some interesting reflections (and likely resonances, depending on material choices) that could also be considered in designing for optimum sound quality.

Note:  For all I know, our designer friend here is a time traveler from the future, bringing us a revolutionary (and fully compensated) design.  I'm curious about the actual sound characteristics of such a design and would love to know the thinking behind them and if they have been thoroughly thought through and tested, which is why I included such a question in my last post 

I guess we shall see. Due to the limitations of my university and the material cost and requirements of such a large product. I wasn't able to test its shape. The thinking behind this design was purely aesthetics with a LOT of research into generalized speaker design. By which I mean, resonance reduction, enclosure shapes, crossovers, amping. The stuff most 'students' wouldn't have a clue about. 

 

I am doing my best to achieve a good sound, hopefully I'll be able to upload some content soon once I have it working. And thanks for your input by the way, it all helps to finalize the design.

[AudioJunki3]

Sound is 20% driver, 80% box and crossover design. Having nice driver but a shitty box is often way worse than cheapo drivers in a proper box. 

There will be lots of simulating, measuring and adjusting if you want good SQ, especially with such a 'weird' shape.

The actual shape of the driver enclosure follows quite closely to the drivers original enclosure shape. You just cant see it from the exterior.

[Lutkeveld]

The actual shape of the driver enclosure follows quite closely to the drivers original enclosure shape. You just cant see it from the exterior.

 

Outside will matter too, mainly because diffraction. But if you keep the original crossover (XO) and keep the enclosure volume the same, you'll probably be fine. 

[AudioJunki3]

Outside will matter too, mainly because diffraction. But if you keep the original crossover (XO) and keep the enclosure volume the same, you'll probably be fine. 

Yes, I understand. For a novice like me, I was astounded at the difference in sound that such small changes can make. I'm just hoping that the project ends well. It seems the design itself is well received, just the sound quality may differ, we shall see.

[Lutkeveld]

Do you have any idea about which electronics you're going to use? And how you're going to make the speaker enclosure? Does the project have a deadline?

[AudioJunki3]

Do you have any idea about which electronics you're going to use? And how you're going to make the speaker enclosure? Does the project have a deadline?

Everything has been sorted, I'm going with an SMSL amp, not the best solution but its small and it will do the job for a prototype. Wireless, I'm just using a DLNA box that has great reviews on amazon. As for the speaker enclosure, I am having the files sent to our CNC machine, which will then be coated on resin and vacuum formed, so there will be two halves like an Easter egg. No undercuts either so it shouldn't be too stressful.

 

I'm actually quite far ahead at the moment which is good, deadline is about 2 months away! Then its going down to a design show in London.

[xtroria]

Everything has been sorted, I'm going with an SMSL amp, not the best solution but its small and it will do the job for a prototype. Wireless, I'm just using a DLNA box that has great reviews on amazon. As for the speaker enclosure, I am having the files sent to our CNC machine, which will then be coated on resin and vacuum formed, so there will be two halves like an Easter egg. No undercuts either so it shouldn't be too stressful.

 

I'm actually quite far ahead at the moment which is good, deadline is about 2 months away! Then its going down to a design show in London.

 

Consider adding bluetooth with DLNA, who enough luck bang & olufsen might hook you up

[AudioJunki3]

Consider adding bluetooth with DLNA, who enough luck bang & olufsen might hook you up

My original choice was Bluetooth as it is widely supported compared to DLNA, but the poor quality put me off.

[SIGSEGV]

10/10 would buy if I had the money

[xtroria]

My original choice was Bluetooth as it is widely supported compared to DLNA, but the poor quality put me off.

 

Convenient > quality. In marketing logic, people who are buying something like this are the ones with thick wallet that put convenient over quality first. Any serious audio enthusiast would've gone with stereo setup. NFC to connect then DLNA or bluetooth connection is always the best option to do ofc

 

This is just my suggestion, the more feature rich it is, the better :lol:

[creatip123]

This is a single unit, that is to be used for parties, chilling, general music for the household, while also looking pretty. I completely understand where you're coming from. Which is why they would be available as a pair or singular  and have those L-common & R-common connectors on the back. Inside each unit is its own amplifier running 2 channels which can be bypassed if the user has their own amplifier.. There is a crossover network, bass going to the bottom and treble to the top, the middle will likely stay untouched, unless I decide to build a three-way crossover, but my time is limited. 

 

In a nutshell this is supposed to be a multi market attraction. A lot of people I know have these single unit Bluetooth speakers. And a lot of people have 2 channel box type speakers in their room. I'm trying to combine the two without being stingy on the quality. 

 

I always see those single channel bluetooth speakers as novelty toys, nothing more. It's just a plaything for teenagers, or something of 'better than nothing at all'. 

 

The only time I could see a single channel speaker could be really applicable is in live monitoring, such as in a DJ booth or a live band's stage. 

 

None of the above really fits your design, tbh. Yours is far better to be applied as one of the above. 

 

Because it's a fashionable product, just take a look at other renown brands, like B&O, Bose, etc. They would never produce a floor standing 1 channel speakers. Yeah you might be able to buy their line of product one by one, but they would never encourage it to be used as 1 channel speaker. Even the best sounding speaker will sound crappy when it's used as a monoraul device. Soundstage gone, panning gone, frequency separation would become all muddied when stereo (L-R) channels mixed into 1. 

 

Of course don't take my words for it. When the prototypes are finished and operational, try it for yourself, stereo channels mixed into one channel speaker vs stereo channels played with a pair of correctly positioned speakers. 

 

Consider adding bluetooth with DLNA, who enough luck bang & olufsen might hook you up

 

Or the chinese factories found the design and produce them first. Next thing you know, it appears for sale in alibaba.com....

 

My original choice was Bluetooth as it is widely supported compared to DLNA, but the poor quality put me off.

 

By concept/technicalities considered, Bluetooth devices should be able to sound good. Bluetooth is just a method of carrying digital signal wirelessly. I'd think the reason why Bluetooth sound devices usually sound bad is because of the use of bad dac/amp chips and circuitry design implemented in the receiving end.

 

Bluetooth 3.0 and 4.0 got a transfer speed of up to 25Mbps which I'd imagine is enough for transferring high quality stereo channel signals (but may not be enough for multiple channels). For number comparison, stereo external dacs that extract data from PC usually use USB 1.0 which only got max 12Mbps bandwidth. 

 

 

I don't know if a2dp profile will be able to take full use of the 25Mbps of bt 3.0 and 4.0 or not, but if not, it should be a matter of time until they do that, or design a whole new protocol altogether.  

 

What I've tried though, was using a regular bluetooth 2 dongle (the one that plugs to PC's USB ports), sent a2dp audio from ipad, and played the sound through an external dac. Sounds good and enjoyable enough. 

[ShearMe]

Another member on another forum gave me the idea of a cone that the speaker would sit into, thoughts? It would surely be more stable.

 

You'd lose the portal turret look, and may run into vibration issues. Also, it'd have to be a fairly deep cone to support the tall tower. Probably wouldn't look too sleek in practice, despite sounding cool in theory.

 

Maybe a ring that the speaker falls into, with the legs sprouting off?

[AudioJunki3]

You'd lose the portal turret look, and may run into vibration issues. Also, it'd have to be a fairly deep cone to support the tall tower. Probably wouldn't look too sleek in practice, despite sounding cool in theory.

 

Maybe a ring that the speaker falls into, with the legs sprouting off?

Yeah I replied to that member saying I think that minimal contact approach would be better. The ring with the legs coming off is the current setup I have now, thought about inlaying the ring with rubber, for grip and vibration dispersion.