Most beautiful speakers in the world ?

[Ra1zel]

No need for physic-defying carpets. Ordinary carpets are good abosrbing materials for all frequencies above 1kHz

Read: they are bad at absorbing where it most matters

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Does this speaker come with a free copy of:
Also spoke Zarathustra ?
It should . . . .

 

[Snafu]

All look ready to fall over.

don't know about current trends, those are +15 years old speakers.

 

[MaxBuck]

Does this speaker come with a free copy of:
Also spoke Zarathustra ?
It should . . . .

No, but my Node streamer does. Several copies, in fact.

 

[LearningToSmile]

Most of the speakers shown in this thread look hideous to me. I have the good fortune to find my KEF R11s to both sound wonderful and look ... well ... unobtrusive.

I never actually looked close enough at R11 pictures with the grille on to notice that it's not just a plain fabric cover but actually has separate patterns for each driver. Neat look.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Read: they are bad at absorbing where it most matters

Read: I was answering to this:

Bouncing those 3 tweeters off the floor is going to be fun times.

Tweeter operating range is above 1kHz, so carpets are very good at absorbing where the most of the tweeter output is.

 

[AdamG]

Read: I was answering to this:

Tweeter operating range is above 1kHz, so carpets are very good at absorbing where the most of the tweeter output is.

OK, great you made your point over and over here. You win and we are done with this discussion. Let’s get back on track with the intention of this conversation please.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

OK, last post from me in this thread.
Form follows function - Dynaudio Confidence 5:

More manageable dimensions than monstrous Dynaudio Consequence (pictured before), but with the same time-align concept.

1. There is no evidence to support time alignment. We do it, but afaik it's unproven, as long as phase sums to achieve the response. The time alignment difference is inaudible.

2. A tweeter run off axis from the floor in a five way, is not the same as a tweeter just below the mid woofer, and only slightly off axis from the LP. I guess you can test it by putting the inverted bookshelf on the floor.

1. There is a plenty of evidence for time alignment (and it is proven!) - carefully read the AES paper "A time-Align Technique for Loudspeaker System Design" by Edward M. Long:
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2283

Good crossover designs lead to inaudible difference with different time offsets between drivers - that is true. But if someone insist on first-order crossover (Dynaudio comes to my mind) and the perfect step response, than the only way to achieve that with tweeter on the top (TMW) is to use time alignment by physically offsetting the drivers (stepped baffle), or by inverting the whole driver arrangement (WMT).

2. Here is the real-life test:
Frequency response of conventional 3-way speaker (midrange below tweeter - TMW) with flat front plate (non-stepped baffle) with first order crossover (0.58mH on midrange and 1.8uF on tweeter), without the woofer:

And the step response:

The same drivers and the same first order crossover (2.7uF cap on tweeter instead of 1.8uF), but inverted (midrange above tweeter - WMT), speaker box laying on the floor, without the woofer:

And the (almost) perfect step-response:

I am done with this discussion.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Piega is kind of cool and minimalist

 

[cavedriver]

View attachment 251178View attachment 251179View attachment 251180View attachment 251181
Piega is kind of cool and minimalist

more stunningly ugly speakers (to me).

 

[dualazmak]

But if someone insist on first-order crossover (Dynaudio comes to my mind) and the perfect step response, than the only way to achieve that with tweeter on the top (TMW) is to use time alignment by physically offsetting the drivers (stepped baffle), or by inverting the whole driver arrangement (WMT).

My very unique physical layout of horn super-tweeters would be somewhat relating to the above comment, I assume.

In any way, in my DSP multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier fully active setup, I could establish perfect (0.1 msec precision) time alignment throughout all the SP drivers (sub-woofers, woofers, midrange drivers, tweeters, super-tweeters) and L to R, as summarized in my post here.

 

[mtmpenn]

OK, last post from me in this thread.
Form follows function - Dynaudio Confidence 5:



More manageable dimensions than monstrous Dynaudio Consequence (pictured before), but with the same time-align concept.



1. There is a plenty of evidence for time alignment (and it is proven!) - carefully read the AES paper "A time-Align Technique for Loudspeaker System Design" by Edward M. Long:
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2283

Good crossover designs lead to inaudible difference with different time offsets between drivers - that is true. But if someone insist on first-order crossover (Dynaudio comes to my mind) and the perfect step response, than the only way to achieve that with tweeter on the top (TMW) is to use time alignment by physically offsetting the drivers (stepped baffle), or by inverting the whole driver arrangement (WMT).

2. Here is the real-life test:
Frequency response of conventional 3-way speaker (midrange below tweeter - TMW) with flat front plate (non-stepped baffle) with first order crossover (0.58mH on midrange and 1.8uF on tweeter), without the woofer:
View attachment 251175

And the step response:

View attachment 251166


The same drivers and the same first order crossover (2.7uF cap on tweeter instead of 1.8uF), but inverted (midrange above tweeter - WMT), speaker box laying on the floor, without the woofer:

View attachment 251174

And the (almost) perfect step-response:
View attachment 251176
I am done with this discussion.

The real question is why can’t Dynaudio adequately flush mount their drivers?

This seems to be a pervasive problem with the brand.

Technical prowess aside, they look like slightly off diy speakers!

 

[MaxBuck]

View attachment 251181
Piega is kind of cool and minimalist

They look like space heaters.

 

[flowolf]

I really like the looks of Trenner & Friedl Speakers.

 

[tinnitus]

They have the beauty of a perfect brick.

 

[cavedriver]

They have the beauty of a perfect brick.

I think there's some 4/3's gold ratio stuff going on there, those circles seem to be just the right size in proportion to the faces. Plus the wood finish and you have a winner in my book. Of course something more complicated could be made beautiful as well, it just gets progressively harder, as most designers will tell you.

 

[Digby]

Most of the speakers shown in this thread look hideous to me. I have the good fortune to find my KEF R11s to both sound wonderful and look ... well ... unobtrusive.

KEF, providing chimps of all stripes with audio nirvana:

 

[MaxBuck]

KEF, providing chimps of all stripes with audio nirvana:

Apparently I'm a chimp.



I've been called worse.

 

[Pearljam5000]

KEF, providing chimps of all stripes with audio nirvana:

Why do they insist on making all of their speakers so thin?

 

[wilbur-x]

My contribution (rear baffle contains rear tweeter, subs and Hypex 503):