Most beautiful speakers in the world ?

[Pearljam5000]

 

[Pearljam5000]

 

[Gorgonzola]

These speakers are currently for sale on the Audiogon site; I like 'em to look at but wouldn't actually want them ...

Interested? See HERE, (US$50K) (... no affiliation).

 

[Keith_W]

^^^ Those speakers remind me of this:

 

[Kal Rubinson]

These speakers are currently for sale on the Audiogon site; I like 'em to look at but wouldn't actually want them ...

Interested? See HERE, (US$50K) (... no affiliation).

Skee-Ball anyone?

 

[ryanosaur]

Skee-Ball anyone?

Lmao!

 

[Salt]

Air conditioner

 

[DVinylfan]

These are the Jean-Marie Reynaud XO Modèle I
It's a 2-way unported design from the 1970's/1980's.
They are beautiful, if you like black boxes.
The grille fabric wraps the whole enclosure, armed robber style.
I'm not familiar with the history but there is a connection with Focal JM labs.

 

[MattHooper]

They are beautiful, if you like black boxes.

That’s certainly a necessary caveat.

I admit, I’m mystified by how anybody can derive beauty from speakers that look to me like all the phalanxes of cheap black box speakers filling the bargain basement electronic stores that used to line the downtown strip of my city.

But… as this thread has proven…. eye of the beholder and all that.

 

[Audionaut]

 

[Pearljam5000]

 

[Pearljam5000]

 

[xanalog]

View attachment 541215View attachment 541216

@Pearljam5000,
The smaller, egg-shaped one looks cute, cuddly and pettable!
I mean, if people can have pet-rocks and emotional-support animals; couldn't such a speaker provide both roles, without the poop-pickin'?

 

[Keith_W]

@Pearljam5000,
The smaller, egg-shaped one looks cute, cuddly and pettable!

Supposedly, the ideal baffle shape is a perfect sphere. Why? No baffle diffraction. However, a sphere-shaped speaker has maximum internal standing waves. So the best compromise is an egg-shaped speaker - an oblate spheroid.

Question for those who know more than me: why can't you break up the internal standing waves in a sphere-shaped speaker with bracing?

 

[xanalog]

Question for those who know more than me: why can't you break up the internal standing waves in a sphere-shaped speaker with bracing?

Eeeegadz,
The next question for those who know more (than @Keith_W, who knows more than @xanalog): What would be the 'room modes' inside of a sphere-shaped listening area?

 

[MarkS]

What would be the 'room modes' inside of a sphere-shaped listening area?

Spherical Bessel functions of the first kind:

Spherical Bessel Function of the First Kind -- from Wolfram MathWorld

The spherical Bessel function of the first kind, denoted j_nu(z), is defined by j_nu(z)=sqrt(pi/(2z))J_(nu+1/2)(z), (1) where J_nu(z) is a Bessel function of the first kind and, in general, z and nu are complex numbers. The function is most commonly encountered in the case nu=n an integer...

mathworld.wolfram.com

 

[Audionaut]

However, a sphere-shaped speaker has maximum internal standing waves

Not quite. A spherical enclosure does not have distinct standing waves in the classical sense, since these arise mainly between opposing, parallel surfaces—and a sphere lacks precisely those.
A spherical cavity does not have classical axial, tangential, or oblique modes like a rectangular prism, since there are no parallel boundary surfaces. Instead, spherical natural modes occur, which are mathematically described by spherical Bessel functions and spherical surface functions. These, too, represent standing waves, but not between two opposing walls; rather, they are natural modes of the entire volume of air.
Overall, however, a sphere is still considered acoustically much more favorable than a rectangular enclosure because the problematic axial standing waves are largely eliminated.

 

[Axo1989]

Not quite. A spherical enclosure does not have distinct standing waves in the classical sense, since these arise mainly between opposing, parallel surfaces—and a sphere lacks precisely those.
A spherical cavity does not have classical axial, tangential, or oblique modes like a rectangular prism, since there are no parallel boundary surfaces. Instead, spherical natural modes occur, which are mathematically described by spherical Bessel functions and spherical surface functions. These, too, represent standing waves, but not between two opposing walls; rather, they are natural modes of the entire volume of air.
Overall, however, a sphere is still considered acoustically much more favorable than a rectangular enclosure because the problematic axial standing waves are largely eliminated.

Axial standing waves versus circular or spherical standing waves in commensurately shaped rooms? A difference in geometry but otherwise the same phenomena.

 

[Axo1989]

Supposedly, the ideal baffle shape is a perfect sphere. Why? No baffle diffraction. However, a sphere-shaped speaker has maximum internal standing waves. So the best compromise is an egg-shaped speaker - an oblate spheroid.

Question for those who know more than me: why can't you break up the internal standing waves in a sphere-shaped speaker with bracing?

A tricky question. A well constructed/specified spheroid should obviate bracing. Planar bracing defeats the internal spheroid void and creates segments, depending also on orientation and any hole placement/pattern. A diffuser patten as part of the spheroid’s internal surface could have structural properties and modify internal reflections. I’d play with that if I was a maths and materials wizard.

 

[xanalog]

...What would be the 'room modes' inside of a sphere-shaped listening area?

Sorry for asking, it is stealing the post focus.
That topic belongs on its own separate (very deep) post.
The "golden ratio" (h/w/l) gave way to other (not so golden) ratios, which gave way to "Bolt Area", which gave way to "Bonello Criterion", which brought us to variety of acoustic modeling software (including REW' room sim). Which brought us the LasVegas Sphere's 'Holoplot Arrays', that supposed to perform some clever 'Active Wavefield Synthesis' to compensate for what its oblate geometry cannot.