Only 100 hours? (and click-bait — $650k loudspeaker)

View attachment 1393898

https://www.stereophile.com/content/inside-oneiros-audio-speaker-launch-living-colour

They boast that there is 100 hours of CAD work to do this design. I do lots of CAD work drawing loudspeakers. 100 hours is a joke … some drawing sets i do take a fifth that much, that is with flat sheets. As Chrisb says, curves cost money. 1000 hrs is more realistic.

dave
A guy buys them, brings them home.
Wife says those things are UGLY, get those things out of here.
Guy sheepishly goes back to the shop asking for a refund.

-As if that's never happened.

They remind me of-


12 images of Easter Island we can't stop looking at
 
Last edited:
This is what you get if you equate speaker design with Formula 1:
Um... So "80 hours of intensive CAD work" and "over 100 hours of FEA analysis" (so finite element analysis analysis?) Really? So they had two guys working for a bit over two weeks to create this design. Wow! OMG!! Take my money!! Just shows how far disconnected from the real world the marketing department is.

Anybody who thinks they can design from scratch, manufacture, and bring to market a product in two-ish weeks is absolutely delusional.

Besides, they look like they were left out in the sun a bit too long. But that's my opinion. 🙂

Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jcris
Eh, take note. Multi object item with very many planes/axis all coming together very nicely inside out. Hugely more complex than a standard box. The credibility comes from being one who can also model and craft in this manner. The bits we can't see can take many forms, but still need to come together and these have and very nicely
 
Yuk, different tastes! I have far more appreciation for the designs and hours involved in the weaving of Persian and Turkish carpets.

"Female model" There are 2 high rise buildings in Mississauga called "Marilyn Monroe Towers" - Bad taste in my opinion
 
Humour aside, I think the points Dave was making was:
  • 100hrs (or is it 80 -bit hazy on that 😉 ) isn't actually much of a boast when for e.g. he & to a point 'we' regularly put a substantial amount of that into CAD work for a 'basic' rectilinear box. It was probably, if you tot it up, a whole lot more than that in practice, once you start factoring everything else in
  • The purple propse on the above basis simply isn't very well thought out -especially for the asking price, claimed materials & background. The marketing men could have done a [much] better job as far as that goes
The actual speaker features are neither here nor there, as far as those are concerned. Not that it matters, I can appreciate the effort that goes into composite construction, industrial design etc., even if the end result isn't to my taste, and given the low-volume production & target market / audience it obviously needs to have a high margin to be viable. Fair enough on that front, especially with all the other overheads that are presumably involved. I've got severe reservations (!) about the performance / value, but then -it ain't aimed at the likes of me, or most of us, & the handful of people who can afford it will probably have different priorities in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stephan-schulz
Eh, take note. Multi object item with very many planes/axis all coming together very nicely inside out. Hugely more complex than a standard box. The credibility comes from being one who can also model and craft in this manner. The bits we can't see can take many forms, but still need to come together and these have and very nicely

That is complete nonsense. You can't see whether the fit and finish is of a high level. That's all. You can't declare that it must be because you can 'model and craft in this manner'. No one is impressed by you trying to sound technical.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't know what this means, but I'm quite confident it's presented so that an audiophile wannabe, Stereophile follower, get be aroused: 'twin 10" Oneiros woofers designed in-house using multilayer, inverted parabolic Twaron Graphene nano-composite bass cones'.
 
100 hours for surfacing seems like a lot if they were delivered good 3d drawings. One of my college mates worked for Nokia, he could do a phone fascia in an afternoon. Lots more intersecting surface projections on one of those than in this.
 
After all that time its still a junk MTM with bad center to center spacing.

Magic baffle shape, to have rear mounted drivers with a diffraction step instantly at the driver.
Genius !!
Its comical how lost the HiFi market with usual high prices to make people assume high quality
I was kind of thinking the spacing between drivers was a bit wide. I recall 60's speakers having a lot of separation between the woofer and tweeter, but I've seen more recent designs with part of the flange cut out of the midrange or tweeter in order to mount them closer together. This design has missed the boat on several fundamental aspects of speaker design I see regularly discussed here in the multiway forum.
in this price range the owner may have the prestige in mind.

Its bought to impress. Fidelity in sound then plays a minor role.
I'd have to feel sorry for any recording engineer/producer friends to whom the owner shows these off. What can they say other than "oh, yes, very, very impressive" or whatever it takes to keep a friendship and not bruise an ego.