Hexagon Enclosure?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
H

heemid

Member
Joined 2008
#1
I love the simple/clean look of these:Unmonday Model 4.3 Wireless Speaker | Unmonday

I am planning on building something similar around the HIVI B3S. I'm choosing the B3S because I've enjoyed years of listening to Zaph's enclosure. I've never really simulated an enclosure and just followed other peoples designs. The spec sheets suggest a 2L enclosure while I calculate Zaph's at 3.34L.

Under the design I can adjust the size of the baffle, depth, and back to get a desired volume. For example with a front hex edge of 4" and a rear hex edge of 2" and a depth of 7" I get a volume of roughly 3.34L (depicted in sketchup). I can also get roughly the same volume using 3.5", 2" and 9". Is there a suggested/golden ratio of front baffle to total volume for an enclosure?

Does anyone have experience building a similar shaped enclosure?

I appreciate any other suggestions/insights/considerations.
 

Attachments

  • HexSpeaker2.png
    HexSpeaker2.png
    27.1 KB · Views: 371
#3
Maybe a pentagon enclosure would be better? No parallel walls.
I must admit I have a hard time seeing the particular appeal this cabinet.
The HIVI B3S is hopeless if you're trying to do a battery powered speaker. It's SPL level is way too low and it won't get you anywhere near real bass without a sub.
It's definitely nowhere near a match for the A10 in the inspiration.
 
#6
Are octagons close enough? 😀 I built a pair of these octagonal pipes a long time ago. They are quite similar to Metronomes functionally.

If feasible, I suggest you put the driver on one of the long facets rather than the bottom. It really makes for outstanding imaging, as the diffraction is minimized.

DSCN0192.JPG


If you prefer to make something more similar to that "Unmonday", why not just buy a hexagonal flower pot and start with that? It sure looks to me like that's what they did.
 
#7
FWIW, note that the very clever unmunday ( read the whole product description, including motion sensor for channel selection) uses Alpair 10.3. As distribution of this product is AFAIK still only Europe and the UK, there are likely few forum members who'll have heard them, but I'd imagine much of their performance could be attributed to the driver selection.

Xrk: did you cut the edges of the gourd shaped enclosures with any degree of bevel, or just butt joint, and glue from outside?
 
#8
The FC is so thin that a bevel would not be needed and also the bevel would make it hard to apply a bead of hot melt glue to hold it all together. Interestingly this design looks small and compact compared to a box but has a lot of surface area and ended using I would say, 2x the number of foam core sheets a design of this size and volume has a right to. 🙂
Kerfed bendy plywood can work too and I would bevel that.
 
#9
#11
xrk971 said:
Mikej,
Are you looking at a sealed or vented alignment? Sealed, I would go with 3 to 5 liters. If mounting on sidewall make sure you go with odd number of panels to prevent flat-flat wall resonance. 5 or 7 sides works then. Good luck.
X
Click to expand...

X,
Is this driver better in a sealed arrangement? If I do this, I'll probably pair it with a sub if need be.
Thanks,
Mike
 
#12
I suppose the higher the n-gon, the less the parallel sidewall thing matters, especially considering a fully-stuffed sealed enclosure. If would be interesting to compare a perfect cube versus a more ideal on paper shape with no parallel walls and golden ratio sides or something, both sealed and stuffed to the same Vb/Fc/Qtc.
 
#14
IG81 said:
I suppose the higher the n-gon, the less the parallel sidewall thing matters, especially considering a fully-stuffed sealed enclosure. If would be interesting to compare a perfect cube versus a more ideal on paper shape with no parallel walls and golden ratio sides or something, both sealed and stuffed to the same Vb/Fc/Qtc.
Click to expand...

It would seem there is a tendency for people new to DIY speakers to obsess on the parallel sidewall issue, and to go to great lengths making elaborate enclosures that avoid this 'issue'. I know I did. 😉 In practice, IME the parallel wall reflections aren't a very big deal. The interior of an enclosure is typically damped with damping materials to neutralize them. Frankly, a basic golden ratio rectangular box with 3 sides damped works as well as anything. That said, I recall building a spherical speaker once, and it was a total disaster. The coloration made it un-listenable. I'd guess a cube would not be quite as bad, but I'd still avoid it.

One thing I did learn: going to an "n-gon" makes for an extremely strong and rigid enclosure, even if quite thin material is used. I'd venture the improvements from reducing panel 'sing' are far more significant than a small reduction in residual standing waves bouncing around inside.
 
#16
Greg B said:
It would seem there is a tendency for people new to DIY speakers to obsess on the parallel sidewall issue, and to go to great lengths making elaborate enclosures that avoid this 'issue'. I know I did. 😉 In practice, IME the parallel wall reflections aren't a very big deal. The interior of an enclosure is typically damped with damping materials to neutralize them. Frankly, a basic golden ratio rectangular box with 3 sides damped works as well as anything. That said, I recall building a spherical speaker once, and it was a total disaster. The coloration made it un-listenable. I'd guess a cube would not be quite as bad, but I'd still avoid it.

One thing I did learn: going to an "n-gon" makes for an extremely strong and rigid enclosure, even if quite thin material is used. I'd venture the improvements from reducing panel 'sing' are far more significant than a small reduction in residual standing waves bouncing around inside.
Click to expand...

The sympathetic ringing of the cabinet panels is perhaps more important than the parallel walls issue. Cabinets with an uneven number of panels will have much less of this. The pentagon being a nice compromise between the inefficient triangle and the needlessly complex heptagon.
If nonparallel walls can make you use less stuffing though and get better efficiency that way, isn't that a good thing?
Echinoderm creatures like the starfish is using pentagon symmetry for some of the same reasons. Uneven polygons has no clear fault or break lines running through them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom