Are advances in technology making speakers better?

@larryi

I think we are just emphasizing different perspectives. Mine mostly comes from observation of the sound achieved across the spectrum of speakers that have been on the market over that time. Granted I did build some enormous speakers in the 1970’s based on ideal infinite baffle design, I was young and stupid… so it really doesn’t count.

I agree, of all the different components in audio, they are the easiest for someone with a saw and a concept to manufacture, with far less education. They evaluate and buy parts, crossovers, do some woodworking, and put them on the market. No question… the proof is in the market place… more speakers than any other component. But the available components have improved enormously… and a number of companies make they own drivers.

Maybe it comes down to price category as well… in the < $5K range it would have been easy to make the same sound decades ago… in a larger box size.

On the other hand, the electronic designers are crafting their sound as well… so to in MBL, Audio Research, B&W, and Boulder… with their choice of caps and resisters as well as design determine the sound. If I was to pull a speaker to be an example it would be Magico. They have pushed the envelop in enclosures… probably other aspects as well.

I did not bring up Amati as an example of a speaker that leads using cutting edge technology, although compared with 30 or 40 years ago, sure it is. I only brought it up for the “paper cone” point.

I get your point. But, what I hear is so much better… decade by decade. I just can’t attribute it to fashion.

@larryi

Maybe we are disagree on the word technology. I consider material science and changes in design (dimensions and configurations technology). Not just say changing from a cone based to a “cube” based for instance. Yes, cones with magnets, ribbon, electrostatic… there and not completely new concepts.

The Amati use “paper” cones… but they are in no way the paper cones of the 1950’s, just like the magnets. Sure they choose voicing, but the speed and resolution is technology dependent.

@larryi

I’m sorry, and respectfully disagree. While there are brands… Magico come to mind that overwhelmingly capture detail and must be paired very carefully with components to avoid loosing upper bass and a sweet natural midrange. OMG, what is possible today that is incredibly natural, fleshed out, and articulate mid-range and bass is simply stunning.

Honestly, I take for example my system. See my ID. While there are folks of the “detail” orientation that would criticize it as being too rich and without the etched detail they want… I think this is an attribute of youth more than the technology. It is easy to get focused on detail and slam and miss the gustalt. It has always been a pursuit of matching appropriate components to get the output you want. The capability today is sooo much greater than the 50’s, 60’s… etc.  But this has always been true. The capability today is so much greater than those “good old days”.

@cd318 

You have to look across the spectrum of speakers. And really Quad? The first thing absolutely every Qual lover will say is, “well they are rolled off at the top and are really restricted in the bass… but within the midrange they are spectacular.”  That doesn’t constitute evidence of lack of progress. 

Ok guys. I get all the thinking going on here… but have you guys listened to speakers over the five decades? The difference in sound quality is just jaw dropping. The detail, articulation of bass, sound stage. Sure the woofer size has decreased phenomenally as the magnet size increases allowing sooo much more detail. Treble has gone from shrill trebly distortion to natural realistic brass sounding (cymbals and bells).

There is simply no comparison to what my 18” Altec Voice of the Theater speakers could do in the 1970’s and, for instance, my current Sonus Faber Amati Traditional of today. Unless, you are into only nostalgia the sound quality is astronomically better.

@drbarney1

@kenjit

It saddens me to hear how cynical you have become. Certainly there are some companies that operate this way. But a much larger proportion are driven by true desire to create better products… or in some cases driven by other companies besting them.

I have worked in the high tech industry for nearly forty years at companies supplying cutting edge components for high end audio and electronic devices… Burr-Brown (leader in DACs and Other high end audio components), Texas Instruments, and Sharp Corporation. I know hundreds of engineers, marketing managers, and executives. There is tremendous pressure to advance… but the prerequisite is performance, period. You just cannot pretty stuff up, false market it and stay in business in the high end.

Most of the electronic devices you own… including the GPS system in your car I have had a hand in bringing to you. The hundreds of thousands of people that have done this are by the greatest margin hard working honest people doing the best for themselves and their companies to bring the very best possible. As you move down into very budget oriented stuff… things change… still a lot of work, but more marketing, less innovation. I have encountered that environment as well.

No question about the amazing performance of Magico…. very fast  and detailed. But watch out what you pair them with… they also reveal upstream flaws, hardness, and hash really well.

Maybe I look at this differently. I never upgrade unless I can jump up another level. So if I found the very best for my budget… say fifteen years ago… I look for the very best I can buy at a minimum of 2x cost. This way what ever advances (yes, largely material science in speakers as @millercarbon says) occur are included with my purchase of a higher level product. I want my decision to result in a much better sound. It always does. 
 

I wouldn’t for instance buy brand x for $10k and ten years later buy the same brand x for whatever. Would it sound better? Yes… but the increment might not be worth it to my ears/brain… and that is what I am trying to satisfy.