A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -- Douglas AdamsI find the IP rating sysem a touch confusing, especially as this device says it is “IPX 67” rated, The X suggests there’s a rating missing, and I guess the 6 means “dust tight” and the 7 means “submersible up to 1m” which clearly this unit was not. Not sure where the shock rating is.
I’m impressed by how the presenter took it in stride and moved on. This is the exact moment that home shopping hawkers would freak out.
It can be a bit confusing.
Of course several sources take different approaches.
Looks like IPX is a specific rating for water, which does not mention dust. A boating website describes it here:
The ratings can be cumulative; IPX5 and IPX6 determine resistance against water jets, IPX7 against immersion. A thing that can be immersed may not withstand a water jet and vice versa. So while it should be said as IPX6/IPX7, my guess is that IPX67 tries to say it is both the class 6 and 7.
“just don’t get it wet”
And of course, don’t feed it after midnight.
I see now - so the X is the missing particulate rating, and the 67 is the combined water jet/submersion level. Starts to make more sense now.
And you most certainly can have enough blue tooth speakers. I find the ideal level to be one. One is plenty.
Their water resistance rating is just not sensible. IP67 is a thing that’s really submersible to one meter. IPX67 is meaningless. Perhaps they meant to get it wrong, so that people won’t be able to hold them to the IP67 rating.
Or perhaps it’s really an IP67 device when the seals are properly inserted in the jacks, and the bozos on TV didn’t install the seals properly.
Shhhh! You’ll ruin capitalism.
The ideal number is none, in my view.
I would have said the same thing until I borrowed a friends speaker. But now that you mention it, zero with access to a borrowed one for free is even better than owning one.
Amen. Fucking hate the things. It’s like the high water mark of hi-fi was about 1979, and it’s been a slow descent into a shimmering mess with a dull thud under it ever since.
I’m with you. I am far from an audiophile but do appreciate decent reproduction. I am either listening to music at home where I have decent hard-wired speakers, or travelling where I use decent heaphones and an iPod. The idea of a having some portable lo-fi loudspeaker that I can use to impose my music on others to be a strange and obnoxious concept.
I want to see the gremlin speakers! 
I love having a bluetooth speaker on my bike rack for commuting. I get music, while hearing traffic - and other bikes/pedestrians hear me coming without the “on your left”, which inevitably ends in someone looking over their left shoulder and stepping in my way.
The dull thud reminds listeners of bass, which is incompatible with today’s decor.
[[quote=“jonathanpeterso, post:17, topic:59621, full:true”]
I love having a bluetooth speaker on my bike rack for commuting. I get music, while hearing traffic - and other bikes/pedestrians hear me coming without the “on your left”, which inevitably ends in someone looking over their left shoulder and stepping in my way.
[/quote]
I use this:
Still haven’t added a bluetooth option, though. And it’s not submersible.
I have made a few things that can handle a few meters of water without dying, but not with audio:
Did you think about filling the enclosure with oil? (Would require redoing the optics to adjust for the different refraction index, and eliminating or grossly reinforcing parts with significant hollow spaces inside - e.g. crystals (go MEMS oscillators?). But you’d get depth range in hundreds of meters, possibly way more.)
Also, pressurized water cleaning systems can provide a lot of pressure. Some guy on youtube successfully used that rig for hydroforming metal. I can see it used for hydrostatic pressure testing; a cheapo one should be able to provide pressure equal to a kilometer depth of seawater.
