Nifty looking new BT Speaker

[Flint]

http://comingsoon-tech.com/princeton-au ... le-speaker

This looks very interesting for many reasons:

1) proper design principles for good sound
2) very attractive industrial design
3) good size balancing moderate portability while large enough for reasonable bass performance
4) decent sized battery

I am eager to see the price and hear one.

 

[-B-]

what about it = proper design principles? Is it the shape of the cabinet and materials? Are there any benefits to the grille design or do you feel that it is that purely cosmetic? I'll admit I like the looks of it. And if the cabinet design is a plus, why don't we see it implemented more often?

 

[Flint]

Several good practices are being applied to this speaker:

1) Large enough cabinet to have decent acoustically driven bass performance (reducing the need to use EQ to boost the bass to acceptable levels and thus increasing the SPL potential of the small speaker).
2) One decent sized speaker rather than two small speakers and one or two bass frequency speakers (which is a waste of engineering effort).
3) Wood cabinet which serves to reduce that honky-plastic tone
4) Triangular enclosure to reduce internal acoustic resonances and cut down on the need for internal dampening.

I don't have more information to comment on, such as the size of the amp or any application of EQ, but from merely looking at it and my assumptions on its overall size, those things I listed should be true.

 

[Towen7]

Your idea of "nifty looking" and mine are very different.

 

[TKoP]

Several good practices are being applied to this speaker:

1) Large enough cabinet to have decent acoustically driven bass performance (reducing the need to use EQ to boost the bass to acceptable levels and thus increasing the SPL potential of the small speaker).
2) One decent sized speaker rather than two small speakers and one or two bass frequency speakers (which is a waste of engineering effort).
3) Wood cabinet which serves to reduce that honky-plastic tone
4) Triangular enclosure to reduce internal acoustic resonances and cut down on the need for internal dampening.

I don't have more information to comment on, such as the size of the amp or any application of EQ, but from merely looking at it and my assumptions on its overall size, those things I listed should be true.

So speaker-building-nerd questions/comments:

1. Metal speaker cover -- looks good, but why not go for straight cloth? or something less "confining"?
   a) Does the hole pattern make a difference?
   b) I saw the amp was supposed to be a Class D 20watt amp
   c) Individually tuned -- how would they automate that? I'm assuming they get all the Thiele-Small parameters and then adjust the internal volume accordingly
   d) I can't tell, but is it ported? It doesn't mention it that I saw, so I'm assuming no. But why not in something this size? I know you get a gradual roll off on the bass, but wouldn't it be better to have a flatter response at the bottom end that drops off quicker rather than slow rolloff?
   e) I do like the size -- it's about as big as I think you can get and still have it be portable.

 

[Flint]

So speaker-building-nerd questions/comments:
Metal speaker cover -- looks good, but why not go for straight cloth? or something less "confining"? Straight cloth is not at all weather proof, it will fade and age, it will grow weak and tear. Metal isn't "confining" at all, but the raw materials cost more.

a) Does the hole pattern make a difference?
No. What matters is the open hole area exceeding the piston area of the speaker and the distance between the holes being smaller than the highest frequency being passed through.

b) I saw the amp was supposed to be a Class D 20watt amp
Groovy - that quite powerful for a battery powered speaker.

c) Individually tuned -- how would they automate that? I'm assuming they get all the Thiele-Small parameters and then adjust the internal volume accordingly
Based on the technologies I see advertised in Voice Coil (trade magazine) and other places, I imagine the individual tuning is for the digital EQ in the amp. Measure the speaker, create a compensation curve to result in a target response, program the D-EQ, measure again to confirm alignment to target.

d) I can't tell, but is it ported? It doesn't mention it that I saw, so I'm assuming no. But why not in something this size? I know you get a gradual roll off on the bass, but wouldn't it be better to have a flatter response at the bottom end that drops off quicker rather than slow rolloff?
For a speaker this small, I would think a sealed enclosure would be better. Tuned ports make more sense when the low frequency F3 is below 100Hz. I would think the speaker loading F3 for this system is higher than 100Hz, but with EQ it could be lower if the acoustics allow for it. A ported enclosure with an F3 of 100Hz would be pretty useless below about 70Hz whereas a sealed enclosure with an F3 of 120Hz could be coaxed into performing as low as 60Hz pretty well.

e) I do like the size -- it's about as big as I think you can get and still have it be portable.
I agree.

 

[jomari]

i wonder how much it cost tho... i recently saw the roar 2 come out from creative...

 

[Flint]

The Creative Roar 2 is exactly what I am talking about when I am comparing the use of good acoustical design practices in the Site:1 speaker (and why I thought it worthy of starting a thread over).

The Roar 2 relies on brute force to make up for the use of cosmetic design over good acoustical design. Instead of a single, good quality speaker in an appropriate sized speaker enclosure, the Roar 2 crams 5 drivers into a box too small to manage the back pressure. The designers then rely on complex EQ, crossover, and power amp tricks to make up for the physical limitations of the attractive, small design. I am sure the Roar 2 sounds okay, but I image in critical testing the Site:1 is more natural and revealing to the listener (having not heard either I am merely speculating based on design principles).