Speaker aesthetics - forget the sound!

[Audio Advent]

I'm looking to build by own speakers at some point in the future and part of the motivation of embarking on a build is going to be creating something that is aesthetically inspiring.

What speaker designs do people here find visually appealing (and why, if you feel like it)?

Here are a couple to start off the thread:

Always found the Kef 107 to be beautiful in some way - the monolith idea, standing there in the room, immovable and not giving much of an idea to what it's about to do (drivers hidden by the design and the top cover).

http://d1xw7fnq30zy05.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/image/592505/scaled_003.JPG

On a more modern trip, the curve and stance of these speakers from Verity Audio do something for me. Funny when they only release computer reditions, as if they don't want to make them until a few orders actually come in! :

http://www.audiophilia.com.vs5.korax.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/vamon3.jpg

[Puffin]

Kleinhorn.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i239/saxonsex/kleinhorn2_2_zpswdlnlpzg.png

[john blackburn]

Have a look at the Metronome http://www.frugal-horn.com/metronome.html

John

[danilo]

Look around ... a Lot.. before drawing your Speaker shapes.
It no trivial task inventing a pleasing design.. to stand the test of time
(long enough to make their construction worth the labour)
Space age shapes go out of fashion in days, by my observations
Nelson's Klienhorns have been supplanted by HPD's in Jensen Imperial cabinets.
Not as imposing/spectacular but they sound better.. apparently
Metronomes are striking shapes (an unfolded 1/4 wave) But it's a 3 or 4'' driver :)
G'luck

[rigger67]

For me it's more about the wood chosen and the finish they're given.
Something "whirly" looks stunning and can elevate a straightforward box into something breathtaking.

[Macca]

For me form should follow function.

I can appreciate good looking car, even if function has followed form, but I struggle to get excited over the appearance of a loudspeaker.

Trying to think of speakers I really like the look of for no tangible reason, I'd say the Yamaha 1000M

[walpurgis]

For me form should follow function.

Totally agree.

Function, purpose and design come before form. Form is a product of a sensible design. Styling is a dirty word! A product should never have unnecessary 'fripperies'. Look at Harbeth speakers for example, simple boxes, but so exquisitely finished as to be beautiful.

Modern car styling for instance, is quite revolting. All unnecessary and contrived angles and fussy chrome bits.

[Audio Advent]

For me form should follow function.



On that theme, I do have an idea of making the tweeter and midranges on an adjustable kind of frame to change their relative positions for timing tweaking - I guess a speaker equivalent of the Atom car thing. The tweeter and midranges I have ready for the design are Dynaudio domes, sealed units so don't really need a cabinet.

[Audio Advent]

Modern car styling for instance, is quite revolting. All unnecessary and contrived angles and fussy chrome bits.

Me too - too many creases and folds interupting flowing lines. And side bumper rubbers also ruining lines. I like a car form where the sides curve under and the bumpers are removed e.g.

http://bestcarmag.com/sites/default/files/4934856alfa-junior-9.jpg

[Audio Advent]

For me it's more about the wood chosen and the finish they're given.
Something "whirly" looks stunning and can elevate a straightforward box into something breathtaking.

There is also the contrast between materials - a rosewood against a slate grey or something similar can be great.

I remember some art exhibition where one person's work involved setting some 40's danish wooden furniture in concrete. The fine concrete finish against the deep coloured wood was really nice.

[Audio Advent]

Look around ... a Lot.. before drawing your Speaker shapes.
It no trivial task inventing a pleasing design.. to stand the test of time
(long enough to make their construction worth the labour)
Space age shapes go out of fashion in days, by my observations
Nelson's Klienhorns have been supplanted by HPD's in Jensen Imperial cabinets.
Not as imposing/spectacular but they sound better.. apparently
Metronomes are striking shapes (an unfolded 1/4 wave) But it's a 3 or 4'' driver :)
G'luck

I do find it a bit daunting - just too much choice. The sonic atributes will dictate a little bit although my research isn't quite finished on that - whether you have narrow baffles with extended shape behind (to prevent phase cancellations around the back) or whether a wider baffle is actually good for soundstage (as per Grimm Audio's LS1 speaker) .

[ScottL]

Metronomes are striking shapes (an unfolded 1/4 wave) But it's a 3 or 4'' driver :)


Really? I could have sworn I'd designed a bunch using 6 1/2in & 8in units. ;) IIRC I did one for a 10in widebander a few years back. It's been a while, and I'm not feeling great at present so the mind may be playing tricks. What isn't a trick is that Steve, who did the original, is using an FF225wk supported by a planar tweeter in the version I did for the FE207E, with a few tweaks to the damping & tuning.

[danilo]

A typical Metronome Is with a ~4" driver.
IF you choose to build 10" tall ones for 10' drivers..Good for you :eyebrows:
These are unfolded 1/4 waves is ALL that's relevant.
For larger divers and those with Wives and 8" ceilings the Length/height can be erm..problematic.
So most designers simply Fold the thing (with No performance loss) into a
medium height slenderish Box that's easier to build and Sell.

[r100]

I find these look different and maybe they sound good too :)

http://www.curvi-hifi.com/CURVI/about.htm


http://www.curvi-hifi.com/CURVI/images/gallery_2_2.jpg

and if I had the space and money, maybe these

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51dd8a95e4b0ff2f7c9874ae/51e5b959e4b043ade7b52f5b/51fb14d8e4b0dfbd7918989d/1375409369369/grid-druid-01.jpg?format=750w

[ScottL]

A typical Metronome Is with a ~4" driver.

Many of those built are. It is not a requirement. Since I designed quite a lot of them for the FH site & often get requests for new ones, I tend to have a reasonable idea about which have been built.


IF you choose to build 10" tall ones for 10' drivers..Good for you :eyebrows:

You mean 10ft tall for 10in I assume. ;) Where does that 10ft axial dimension come from?


These are unfolded 1/4 waves is ALL that's relevant.

Since the Metronome expands toward the terminus, it's technically a tapped mass-loaded quadratic horn, i.e. a 1/2 wave resonator with a 1/4 wave fundamental, the driver being tapped into the expansion path at x point from the throat determined by length and expansion. As you are aware, like any horn or other QW variation it is acoustical length that determines Fp [Fb], not the physical axial length alone -the effects and degree of mass-loading etc. applied needs to be acounted for.


For larger divers and those with Wives and 8" ceilings the Length/height can be erm..problematic.

See above. There is no requirement for a metronome to be excessively tall. 5ft - 6ft for larger units is typical. Here is a dimension table for various then-common wideband drivers I did some years ago. http://www.frugal-horn.com/metronome-table.html You will observe that the tallest enclosure is 72in (internal). While hardly a mini-monitor, this is not going through the average UK ceiling. As far as appearance goes, Steve, who originally came up with them, deliberately chose the shape of a metronome because he found it attractive. Many others do too. I can't honestly say I'm fussed about the looks one way or another, but that is a question purely of aesthetic taste. Personally I prefer untapered MLTLs, but that's just me, YMMV as always.


So most designers simply Fold the thing (with No performance loss) into a medium height slenderish Box that's easier to build and Sell.

Not so. There can be a performance loss with folding, contrary to common myth. There can also be a performance advantage. This is application specific, but simply folding an expanding QW variation in half and assuming it will work in exactly the same way is overly simplistic I'm afraid. In many cases the differences can be subtle; in others it can cause greater variability depending on the target expansion and aspect [WxD] ratio of the enclosure. As for easier to sell -again, depends on your target market / audience. There are plenty of people who like tall cabinets. Smaller segment, obviously, but it exists and is sometimes exploited by specialist / semi-bespoke manufacturers. Now, the truth is that an untapered MLTL will often outperform a tapped ML-horn (expanding ML-QW); the latter, mass-loaded or otherwise can be useful if you need support from the cabinet over a slightly (slightly) broader BW, which can be the case when working with drivers with a higher mass-corner frequency (i.e. a lower Q for a given F0) although as ever you ideally design for the OA system Q, not that of the driver alone -this gets somewhat more complex with passive multiways, obviously.