After the thrill is gone


I think we all understand there is no “perfect” speaker. Strengths, weaknesses, compromises all driven by the designer’s objectives and decisions. 
 

Whenever we make a new (to us) speaker purchase there is a honeymoon period with the perfect-to-us speaker. But as time wears on, we either become accustomed to the faults and don’t really hear or hear past them, or become amplified and perhaps more annoying or create minor buyers remorse or wanderlust.

I am guessing the latter would be more prevalent when transitioning to a very different design topology, eg cones vs horns vs planars etc.

While I’ve experimented with horns, single drivers, subwoofer augmentation …  I’ve always returned to full range dynamic multi-driver designs. About to do so with planars but on a scale I’ve not done before, and heading toward end game system in retirement.
So I just wonder what your experiences have been once the initial thrill is gone? (Especially if you moved from boxes to planars)

inscrutable

Showing 1 response by mikelavigne

agree on the room being the hard part with dynamic cones and boxes.

cones and boxes can have all their advantages as far as authentic full range, complete top to bottom seamlessness and cohesion, and without non musical characteristics. horns and planers have attributes and flaws too.....but are less room sensitive with their dispersion patterns.

i’m all in with my room, so my dynamic cones and boxe speakers are able to come close to matching horns at dynamics, and planers at being coherent and transparent, but also retain the advantages of dynamic cones. but it’s a huge commitment for my room.

where do you want to compromise? what are your priorities?

are you looking for the quick hit thrill of change for changes sake? do you just want a different set of challenges?

if you want it all, then it’s dynamic cones and all in on the room.

and i can tell you that the thrill is not in any way gone......in the least.