Hi,
You can't assume anything. Did you use one driver ? two ?
did you swap them ? Nevertheless there is no chance of
the "hypercube", lets just call it a polyhedron somewhere
between a cube and a sphere producing 3dB more output.
Because a sphere doesn't and your being blown smoke.
rgds, sreten.
a hypercube is simply a object of of the number of dimensions
multiplied together, its a cube for 3 dimensions, a square for
two, and mind bending constructs for 4 or more dimensions.
There is nothing hypercube about a 3D polyhedron.
Hello,
For anyone whom this is worth anything to, I will share a little of info about myself and my experience with this speaker design. I am a musician (bass, voice), music teacher and "audiophile". I play my electric bass through 12" transmission line enclosures (made by Euphonic Audio) because I typically find ported and sealed speaker designs too muddy sounding. My favorite gig locations are outdoors because I feel the "dryness" of the sound let's me connect more with my fellow musicians. Up to this point, the transmission line enclosures have provided me with the closest tone to what I hear with good open-back headphones. I was shocked when I heard the level of tonal accuracy of the hypercube design. One of my favorite bass players is Jimmy Johnson (james taylor, Flim and the BB's) and I knew withing 2 seconds of transferring the driver to the (empty) hypercube enclosure (I was playing Flim and the BB's at the time) that there was indeed something special about this shape. I used a small driver because this was just an experiment. After listening to a pair of these little speakers for an evening, I concluded that they were good enough to be my main listening speakers for at least the foreseeable future. I did not expect that. With a minimal amount of digital room correction (DRC3.2.1 by Dennis Sbraigon) these speakers now provide me with a completely satisfactory musical experience.
That being said, I do not expect anyone to take my subjective claims seriously. That is why I waited until I had data to back up my claims. I suppose I could have rigged the whole thing but what would my motivation be for doing that? I simply want to share what I have discovered. The reason I built the equivalent volume sealed boxes was so that I could make comparison measurements and share the results in case something actually came of this. I tried to give the advantage to the sealed box. The hypercube design turned out to be vastly superior. I was prepared to take a lot of criticizm when I decided to share my findings. It will be worth it when someone decides "what the hell" and tries it for themselves. --Greg
For anyone whom this is worth anything to, I will share a little of info about myself and my experience with this speaker design. I am a musician (bass, voice), music teacher and "audiophile". I play my electric bass through 12" transmission line enclosures (made by Euphonic Audio) because I typically find ported and sealed speaker designs too muddy sounding. My favorite gig locations are outdoors because I feel the "dryness" of the sound let's me connect more with my fellow musicians. Up to this point, the transmission line enclosures have provided me with the closest tone to what I hear with good open-back headphones. I was shocked when I heard the level of tonal accuracy of the hypercube design. One of my favorite bass players is Jimmy Johnson (james taylor, Flim and the BB's) and I knew withing 2 seconds of transferring the driver to the (empty) hypercube enclosure (I was playing Flim and the BB's at the time) that there was indeed something special about this shape. I used a small driver because this was just an experiment. After listening to a pair of these little speakers for an evening, I concluded that they were good enough to be my main listening speakers for at least the foreseeable future. I did not expect that. With a minimal amount of digital room correction (DRC3.2.1 by Dennis Sbraigon) these speakers now provide me with a completely satisfactory musical experience.
That being said, I do not expect anyone to take my subjective claims seriously. That is why I waited until I had data to back up my claims. I suppose I could have rigged the whole thing but what would my motivation be for doing that? I simply want to share what I have discovered. The reason I built the equivalent volume sealed boxes was so that I could make comparison measurements and share the results in case something actually came of this. I tried to give the advantage to the sealed box. The hypercube design turned out to be vastly superior. I was prepared to take a lot of criticizm when I decided to share my findings. It will be worth it when someone decides "what the hell" and tries it for themselves. --Greg
Hello again Sreten:
I think to call this shape "a polyhedron somewhere between a cube and a sphere" may be overly simplistic. After all, if there weren't something special about dividing an entity into 12 equal parts (an octave musically speaking), then we wouldn't have any music to listen to on our precious loudspeakers. --Greg
I think to call this shape "a polyhedron somewhere between a cube and a sphere" may be overly simplistic. After all, if there weren't something special about dividing an entity into 12 equal parts (an octave musically speaking), then we wouldn't have any music to listen to on our precious loudspeakers. --Greg
Hi,
I've no problem with your attitude*, its fine by me.
A thoroughly inquistive nature will reveal the truth.
Excuse me for not understanding the nonsense context
"hypercube" is used, as its all nonsense, in terms of the
wave functions in a 3d space, utter pseudotechobabble.
However i don't find your attitude inquistive, just
extreme opinion based on very flimsy prejudice.
rgds, sreten.
* As an ex bass player (not done it for years) I find
nearly all of your observations about bass playing
wrong, just very biased clueless self opinion.
I've no problem with your attitude*, its fine by me.
A thoroughly inquistive nature will reveal the truth.
Excuse me for not understanding the nonsense context
"hypercube" is used, as its all nonsense, in terms of the
wave functions in a 3d space, utter pseudotechobabble.
However i don't find your attitude inquistive, just
extreme opinion based on very flimsy prejudice.
rgds, sreten.
* As an ex bass player (not done it for years) I find
nearly all of your observations about bass playing
wrong, just very biased clueless self opinion.
Last edited:
Yeah, the only time I can recall being that jubilant/'gushing' WRT sound systems was the first time I experienced a large cinema system at the Fabulous Fox Theater in Atlanta for the 3D premier of Hondo Vs pre-1952 TVs and tabletop AM radios, but then I was only 6 yrs old, so 'gushed' over just about everything new and different.
GM
Hi,
No i'm completely right in no simplistic sense.
There is nothing special about a 12 faced polyhedron
and it has nothing to do with a 12 tempered scale.
It simply doesn't do the nonsense that is claimed.
I'd say given nearly all your ideas about bass equipment
are simply (very wrong) very personal bias your a highly
unreliable reporter of anything to be considered reliable.
rgds, sreten.
Hi Sreten,
When discussing something as subjective as musical experience I'm surprised to hear you say my observation is wrong because it doesn't match yours. Anyway, I welcome your challenges but lets keep it about the physics of loudspeaker design. Again, I have provided measurement data because I don't expect anyone to care about my subjective observations. I'm glad you feel that a thoroughly inquistive nature will reveal the truth. I could not agree more. I invested a lot of time, money and energy in this experiment to ensure that it is reasonably fair and accurate. Some will say that is precisely the reason why I "hear" a difference. For those people I have provided measurement data as have the inventors. Let's argue the data. --Greg
When discussing something as subjective as musical experience I'm surprised to hear you say my observation is wrong because it doesn't match yours. Anyway, I welcome your challenges but lets keep it about the physics of loudspeaker design. Again, I have provided measurement data because I don't expect anyone to care about my subjective observations. I'm glad you feel that a thoroughly inquistive nature will reveal the truth. I could not agree more. I invested a lot of time, money and energy in this experiment to ensure that it is reasonably fair and accurate. Some will say that is precisely the reason why I "hear" a difference. For those people I have provided measurement data as have the inventors. Let's argue the data. --Greg
Hi,
No problem with any objective data. Certainly those two enclosures
wil be very different, with a structure tending to a spheroid tending
to one humungous resonance unless you do something about it.
I've no problem with polyhedral stuctures being better than cubes.
rgds, sreten.
Regarding musical experience saying TL is better than sealed
or vented is just being opiniated, as is outdoors being better
than indoors, it all depends on what you want to do and the
equipment you have, and what it can do indoors or outdoors.
Though I agree ourdoors bass is fabulously flat, but not that loud.
No problem with any objective data. Certainly those two enclosures
wil be very different, with a structure tending to a spheroid tending
to one humungous resonance unless you do something about it.
I've no problem with polyhedral stuctures being better than cubes.
rgds, sreten.
Regarding musical experience saying TL is better than sealed
or vented is just being opiniated, as is outdoors being better
than indoors, it all depends on what you want to do and the
equipment you have, and what it can do indoors or outdoors.
Though I agree ourdoors bass is fabulously flat, but not that loud.
Last edited:
The thing is, it is probably not a bad way to build a closed speaker cab at all. As already mentioned it is reasonably close to a sphere, with the advantages that brings and the vertices will make it multi resonant and attenuate some HF.
But the same goes for any polyhedron to varying degrees.
If it was only left at that, but all the thinly (and not so thinly) veiled mysticism and frivolous speculation is an instant turnoff or at best amusing to most people here.
But the same goes for any polyhedron to varying degrees.
If it was only left at that, but all the thinly (and not so thinly) veiled mysticism and frivolous speculation is an instant turnoff or at best amusing to most people here.
Last edited:
Hi Sreten,
Where do you suppose is the humongous resonance in the hypercube enclosure (I ask this sincerely and not just to be argumentative)? The hypercube enclosure has a resonance at 1.55k that I could have easily hid from my measurements by stuffing it (which I did at one point out of curiosity). I chose to keep the hypercube enclosure empty for the published measurements since that is the way I enjoy listening to it. Also, the sealed box used for the comparison measurement is not a cube but has dimensions that progress 1:1.272:1.618 --Greg
Where do you suppose is the humongous resonance in the hypercube enclosure (I ask this sincerely and not just to be argumentative)? The hypercube enclosure has a resonance at 1.55k that I could have easily hid from my measurements by stuffing it (which I did at one point out of curiosity). I chose to keep the hypercube enclosure empty for the published measurements since that is the way I enjoy listening to it. Also, the sealed box used for the comparison measurement is not a cube but has dimensions that progress 1:1.272:1.618 --Greg
Hi xrk971:
I hear the resonance when I knock on the enclosure so I suspected it had to do with panel stiffness more so than internal geometry. However your question got me thinking. There are four panels that are parallel to each other and they are just shy of 6" apart and there is no corresponding resonance there. The baffle however ( 1 of 13 pieces of this enclosure) is about 4.25" squared. One way to envision a rhombic dodecahedron is as an imaginary cube with a pyramid on each face whose points would all touch in the middle of the cube if they were inverted (it's hard to see this at first because adjacent pyramid sides are co-planer and form a rhombus). This enclosure being a square-truncation rhombic dodecahedron chops off one of these pyramids and places the speaker baffle on one of the surfaces of this imaginary cube. The speaker cone therefore is both parallel to and 4.25" from one of imaginary surfaces of this inner cube. BTW, The inventors believe that the 6 imaginary surfaces of this inner cube (one of which being the baffle) are displacement antinodes (which may help to explain the relatively low distortion observed with this design). --Greg
I hear the resonance when I knock on the enclosure so I suspected it had to do with panel stiffness more so than internal geometry. However your question got me thinking. There are four panels that are parallel to each other and they are just shy of 6" apart and there is no corresponding resonance there. The baffle however ( 1 of 13 pieces of this enclosure) is about 4.25" squared. One way to envision a rhombic dodecahedron is as an imaginary cube with a pyramid on each face whose points would all touch in the middle of the cube if they were inverted (it's hard to see this at first because adjacent pyramid sides are co-planer and form a rhombus). This enclosure being a square-truncation rhombic dodecahedron chops off one of these pyramids and places the speaker baffle on one of the surfaces of this imaginary cube. The speaker cone therefore is both parallel to and 4.25" from one of imaginary surfaces of this inner cube. BTW, The inventors believe that the 6 imaginary surfaces of this inner cube (one of which being the baffle) are displacement antinodes (which may help to explain the relatively low distortion observed with this design). --Greg
One could use the score and fold technique and some hot glue to make the base shape with foam core, then truncate the apex to fit the square baffle.
It is simple enough to describe as qnty 12 x rhomboids formed by two isosoleces triangles back-to-back with the vertex truncated to a square. But the links by the inventor gives instead pages and pages of angular descriptions that make no sense - all angles involved are a multiple of 60 degrees, where does 54.735 deg come from or 70.53 deg???:
Random Distributionz: Making Hypercubes
What???
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It is simple enough to describe as qnty 12 x rhomboids formed by two isosoleces triangles back-to-back with the vertex truncated to a square. But the links by the inventor gives instead pages and pages of angular descriptions that make no sense - all angles involved are a multiple of 60 degrees, where does 54.735 deg come from or 70.53 deg???:
Random Distributionz: Making Hypercubes
What???
Last edited:
Maybe this could help:
Rhombic dodecahedron explained in details
"The rhombic dodecahedron (hereinafter, referred to as r.d.) is a semi-regular polyhedron, in that all of its edges are the same length, yet the angles of its faces differ. Because each face is a parallelogram, there are 2 distinct angles for each face, one which is bisected by the long axis, with an angle less than 90 degrees, the other bisected by the short axis, with an angle greater than 90 degrees."
"There are 3 central angles of the rhombic dodecahedron.
In Figure 3, they would be, for example, FOG, FON, JON.
Because the triangle FOG is isosceles,
OFG =OGF = FON = (180° - 70.52877936° ) / 2, using the property that the sum of angles of a triangle = 180° .
Therefore FON = 54.7356103° (and so does FNO). "
The only issue I had with the design was properly envisioning the way the baffle would fit into the square hole formed by the triangles (half-rhombi). The easiest thing to do is bevel the edges of the baffle at 45 deg and leave the edges of the triangles that form the square hole at 90 degrees. This of course leads to different edge (sidewall) lengths but it should be not be an issue. Since mine were going to be transparent, I decided to split the difference equally between these edges (67.5 deg) since the joint would be visible from the outside. This caused the obtuse corners of the four rhombi that join with triangular pieces to protrude slightly into the baffle hole corners. I simply used a japanese style flush-cutting knife to notch out the corners. --Greg
Are we talking about bevel angle of the edges so they fit flush? It would be useful to see a drawing showing where these angles apply. What is 109.47 deg and 75.53 deg in relation to a rhombus?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.