Are advances in technology making speakers better?

you mean you want big and expensive speakers? Those are the best! Everybody knows it!

One thing no one ever mentions when talking about speakers....Speakers have voice coils and they take up to 30 minutes to heat up and expand. THAT’S when you’ll hear the optimal sound from that speaker...not until. People will run their electronics to warm them up but always when doing so......run the signal at low volume thru your speakers....after 20 - 30 minutes , then do your serious listening. This is according to Steve Deckert. And he’s Right. The sound clanges pretty dramatically after about 20 min. Try It.

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.

You not only MUST upgrade often, you have to come here and tell everyone ad nauseam what you bought and how great it is so others can see how smart and sensitive you are. I do this, and everyone thinks I'm great. See? It works!

@ghdprentice I am pretty sure he is just trolling 

@op - you would be far better off spending the price difference on upgrading the rest of your signal chain than going from D3 to D4 B&Ws.

If you are thinking about Magico, you should also listen to Wilson and Borresen for further points of comparison.

The rest of my signal chain is in great shape.  I invested quite well in all the stuff supporting the speakers and i can now accommodate superior Magico speakers. 
 

My philosophy is to avoid the upgrade cycle by buying top of the line products.  My speakers were not top of the line and I need to change this.

Most important component in a system is the speakers which are supported by a cast of characters that live in a rabbit hole.

 

If a manufacturer tries to masterbate the economy with upgrades every few years or even months, should we trust them to make their designs a labor of love? I don't trust manipulative people or corporations. There is too much fraud and snake oil in the audio business: claims that millimeter differences in signal path distances in speaker cables "smear" the signal traveling at the speed of light, skin effect which attenuates speaker signal current only a few hundredths of a decibel at frequencies slightly above human hearing vs DC current, "golden ratio" litz construction of power cables, and battery biased interconnects. 

Compare your system's sound to what you hear in a live concert hall and follow the advice everyone else gave on this question.

There are no advances in speakers. But companies have to sell in order to make a profit so they have to keep on producing so called better speakers. The reality is most speakers are just wooden boxes with drivers in them. It has been that way for decades but the public have been duped. 

@mbmi wrote:

One thing no one ever mentions when talking about speakers....Speakers have voice coils and they take up to 30 minutes to heat up and expand. THAT’S when you’ll hear the optimal sound from that speaker...not until. People will run their electronics to warm them up but always when doing so......run the signal at low volume thru your speakers....after 20 - 30 minutes , then do your serious listening. This is according to Steve Deckert. And he’s Right. The sound clanges pretty dramatically after about 20 min. Try It.

I've gone over this phenomenon at quite a few junctures here, so glad to see you bringing this up. Personally I find it takes elevated volume levels for about an hour or more to bring about the proper heat-up effect of the voice coils to have the speakers open up and loosen more fully, but being my main speakers + subs are high efficiency with bigger voice coils it might explain why this process takes a bit longer and requires more volume. In any case it's an important aspect of system warm-up to be aware of apart from thinking of electronics alone. 

"Most important component in a system is the speakers"

The most important component in your system is your worst component :)

@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.

Technology HAS made speakers better. Today's modest bookshelf speakers are light years ahead of most bookies say of 40 years ago.  But the basic technology used most often (a flapping piece of paper driven by a magnetic motor) hasn't changed. However, as others note, the materials technology has changed a bunch. Neodymium magnets, stiffer but lighter materials, the knowledge of how to properly brace a speaker cabinet to eliminate coloring resonances using computer simulations, and yes, computer simulations that can drastically cut down on the number of prototypes needed to be built so that the designers can get it "right"
the first time.  

For instance, compare any speaker from 1982 that cost about $1200/pair with Andrew Jones' Sourcepoint 10 here in 2022 at $3600.  The relative value, allowing for inflation, is the same. 

But that doesn't mean you have to upgrade every 5 or 10 years. Buy what you can feel comfortable with, but then just enjoy it for at least 15 or even 20 years. 

The increments in sound quality increases are small but over 20 years they can add up. Or at the very least, make quality sound available at prices no one would have dreamed of back in 1982. 

The only reason to change is if you desire something else - a sonic signature change as it were.  If that is the real impetus behind your wanting to "change" then go for it and make yourself happy. Life is short. Listen all you can. 

Many are speaking of changes as if they are advances.  Many changes are not advances or are seen later as not advances.  Changes can be a form of confirmation bias especially for those who devise them but also for unwary punters.  It can take time to verify if a change is an advance.

I think that @moonwatcher has just about said it all, and I agree.

Most of the advances in the last 60 years have been to make speakers more compact rather than to improve sound.  Earlier speakers that were all out assaults on sound quality were gigantic in size.  The advent of stereo made them even more impractical.  Shrinking the size became even more sensible when the transistor made higher powered amps needed for smaller speakers (lower in efficiency) cheaper to produce.  But, you can take the drivers in some of these very old systems and build extremely good systems that can easily rival the best modern systems if you have the money and the space.  I’ve heard a few, but I don’t have that kind of space or money.  One of the was almost five feet wide, 4 feet seep and nine feet tall; one only saves on amp space because one can drive this thing to ear-splitting levels with a couple of watts.

As to The new Mo-fi speaker, which I’ve heard and found very impressive, it is very much old-school in many respects: paper cone,  pleated surround, silk fabric dome for the co-axial tweeter.  The only thing “new” is the 30-year or so practice of using neodymium magnets.  Also, it is very large for a stand-mounted speaker, and this is very much and old school approach to sound quality.

 

@moonwatcher I agree you summed it up well. While the original problem by the OP didn't inspire me to get serious, the comments made it one of the most educational thread for me.

I think it's easier than ever to put together a horrible sounding system from a lot of money. It's also easy to buy a pair of cheap, active, wireless speakers and play music from your phone and get incredible sound. Technology can improve a lot, it's up to us how we adapt. Advances can make products cheaper, more accessible, easier to use, more accurate, longer-lasting, "faster", easier to integrate, etc. - if we are looking for sound quality improvement, it's on the list but just one of the many areas.

And I think there is truth companies trying to sell new releases for the sake of making money. Not in the audio business specifically but in the tech space in general. Saying that they are all honest is unfortunately way too optimistic. I have upgraded my phone 3 times in the last 10 years and I see so little improvement, I would be just as happy with my 2012 version as with the latest. But of course I don't spend 6 hours with my phone a day (only 4, haha!)

@larryi 

Most of the advances in the last 60 years have been to make speakers more compact rather than to improve sound.

 

Like everything else these days design has to be market led. I recall a well known designer explaining how a new design begins with whatever the market seems to demand. In his case it was a slim compact floorstander. So right from the bat there were serious sonic compromises involved (thankfully his company do produce a larger more substantial model as well).

Therefore it's good to see that Andrew Jones is able to finally cut loose a little on a design such as the MoFi SourcePoint 10. I guess their feeling is that there is room in the market for a direct challenge to the likes of Tannoy etc.

It's certainly going to be interesting to see what Jones/MoFi offer next.

 

Earlier speakers that were all out assaults on sound quality were gigantic in size.

The advent of stereo made them even more impractical.  

Shrinking the size became even more sensible when the transistor made higher powered amps needed for smaller speakers (lower in efficiency) cheaper to produce.

 

Good points, especially the first one.

Whatever people think of speakers like the Klipsch La Scala, there's no denying the fact that they make most other loudspeakers sound positively anemic and puny.

@larryi --

+1

Advance in tech only gets you so far when the overall package of a speaker is diminished in size; it’s the one thing we can’t miniaturize without severe sonic implications. Like on the driver side: a several thousand $$ 1" dome tweeter is still a 1" dome tweeter, the same with an expensive 6 1/2" woofer, etc. I’ve read Mr. Atkinson’s and others from Stereophile’s praise of Edgar Villchur’s AR-1 speakers and what it initiated, and while we see the ramifications of the acoustic suspension design of his flourishing in its basics to this day - the success of which they’re so eager to bow to - one shouldn’t equate smaller speakers with their being the better sounding alternative, as much at least as their widespread domestic success while fitting the narrative of an "audiophile" magazine’s paradigm or dogma even that has more or less banished large, high efficiency speakers decades ago.

The quality of materials has improved markedly, but the philosophy of physics determining good speaker design remains conflicting among manufacturers.  Therefore what to believe is lost to the consumer. 

Shortening this complex topic to cardinal violations interfering with waveform reproduction:  1. cone drivers containing coils for midranges and higher, 2. sharp edges producing diffraction.  3. symmetry of driver placement, 4. passive crossovers with large value components, most containing coils, 5. improper impedance mismatched lead-in connections, 6. use of cheap copper alloys in the connections, etc, etc

If you think this excludes almost all speakers, then it should come as no surprise why few have heard the remarkable phenomena of when the artist appears in the listening room.  It is a jaw dropping, if not a life changing, experience.  That good. 

Your answer to this simply boils down to: 1. Alot of study and hard work building your own, or 2. spending an extreme fortune, which is still not guaranteed to solve your problem. 

I went with #1, followed the rules of physics, avoided the violations, a few of which were stated above, and achieved the performer-in-your-listening-room result.  So it works.  It was also a 30 year project. 

There are alot of good responses in thie thread.  Take every one of them.

 

 

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.

My Triangle 3 way CELIUS SE speakers are Stereophile Class A at $3000.....They are 15 years old... bright, VERY detailed and have a heavy bass. My Heresy IV’s are horn speakers and 15 years newer technology. They have a nice tight snappy bass....A beautiful silky smooth but detailed midrange.and crystal clear highs that are easy on the ears but are true to the music recording....You just want to listen to music.....I feel like I’m part of the show..NO Klipsch honkiness on the new cross-overs and Tracktrix horns ..that’s all gone now.The newer Klipsch models are Much improved over the older Klipsch models....Technology marches on !

@grislybutter ah yes. I keep my phones for at least 5 years before moving on, even though others may chuckle at me. The only reason to upgrade is when it can't run the apps you want or because the new versions of software simply aren't written well enough (too much bloat) to not require a new, screaming processor. 

As others note, when Andrew Jones or any other engineer sit down to design a speaker, the targeted size of that speaker, and the market they are shooting for of course limits what can be done. 

But I don't think MoFi would have been happy if Andrew had come up with a 24" concentric driver in a 250 lb. cabinet, even if he could have grabbed that lower octave.  At the end of the day they aren't a "boutique" manufacturer, but one that wants to sell a "reasonable" quantity of speakers to recoup their investment in Jones' salary, the tooling costs, setting up a factory, and make a little $$ in the process. 

I am concerned a bit about Steve Guttenberg's observation that maybe the new SP10 were on the "bright" side.  Did any of you hearing them think that? Of course set up might be the key. 

I don't know how much stock to put it in Steve Guttenberg's reviews, I rarely come away feeling more informed at the end. To me if's a mystery why he is multiple times more watched than e.g. NRD  

I am sure he has a lot of experience and knowledge but his eccentricity (which is cool and has entertainment value) shows in his reviews - again where NRD is always down to the numbers, measurements and facts, despite the jokes 

@grislybutter

To me it’s a mystery why he is multiple times more watched than e.g. NRD

... which is cool and has entertainment value

Most of not all of the popular YouTube channels put entertainment value first.

That’s the key point - entertainment.

Now if someone wanted to post videos of brain surgery online and they wanted high viewing figures then entertainment would no doubt be deemed far more important than pure surgical skill.

There seems to be something endemically difficult about the human condition that we need to put so much value on entertainment.

Maybe not just ’entertainment’, maybe it’s the personality that attracts us the most?

The feeling of not being isolated.

 

@moonwatcher

I am concerned a bit about Steve Guttenberg’s observation that maybe the new SP10 were on the "bright" side.

 

I noticed that. It’s often the case with reviewers that one subtle criticism tells you more than all of the flattery.

Of course, there’s no doubt that many will prefer a bright balance to a more neutral one.

I know I would have done some 30 years ago.

You’d think as people age that they’d prefer brighter speakers to compensate for the loss of higher frequencies, say above 12kHz, but then again a bright loudspeaker might have a boost between 7-10 kHz where they might be no hearing loss.

Such speakers tend to sound good in the showroom but maybe not so good long term.

 

@ghdprentice

but have you guys listened to speakers over the five decades? The difference in sound quality is just jaw dropping.

 

I’ve been into high performance audio playback for almost 4 decades and I can’t say I’ve noticed any jaw dropping sound quality difference.

For whatever reason I felt that there seemed to be an actual dip in loudspeaker performance during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

Some folks still hold the original Quad ESL and the BBC LS3/5 in the highest regard. If there was any jaw dropping improvements in sound quality I’m sure they’d be very interested.

I’ve yet to hear the highly regarded Revel Salon 2s which always seem to be up there with the very best when it comes to comparisons.

It’s interesting to note that they are now a 14 year old design.

There are a lot of fads I have seen come and go.  Titanium, Beryllium, ceramic,  milled aluminum, diamond, coaxial, perfectimpulse response, etc. and individually none of these IMHO have been so good as to dominate the market.

However, I do think we have better speakers in large part thanks to better tools.  Affordable to free lab quality microphones, measurement software, speaker cabinet and crossover simulators have, with some exceptions, ensured a marketplace of excellent choices.

For the most part the days of speaker crossovers optimized only on the frequency domain are gone.  We now expect excellent designs with good frequency AND impedance AND OFF axis responses.

@cd318 

well, it's all subjective. I really meant "entertaining" as opposed to useful. But I am twisting my own words now. I don't have 20 or 10 minutes watching a stranger for pure entertainment value. I better learn something if I spend the time that I could use for other things.

@kingbr  I hear you and can relate!

I have switched in numerous speakers over the years to try to find something I like better than my trusty Epi speakers... to little avail.  

I only got my Klipsch Heresy IV for something different... are they "better" in some ways?  Yes, especially in a larger room.  But they do not kick my old Epi to the curb by any means, and in many ways the Epi are far more practical, too, smaller and less picky placement, in addition to continue tickling the old eardrums in mysterious ways.  

Maybe when I move out of L.A. and to Arizona to enjoy full on energy independence (thank the solar for that) and open skies and easy living, I'll try out the Q Acoustics Concept 50 vs. the Heresy, but even then, I'm keeping the classic Epi 100 for my second system. 

There's something to be said for keeping what you have once you have them and like them.

@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. 

I suspect that the taste of the buying public has more to do with the sound of modern gear than the state of the technology.  The public favors “detail” which means lean upper bass because warm upper bass obscures higher frequencies that provide the kind of detail people seek.  

@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”.

All NEW JERN 35 Monitors ! 

Major-Breakthrough for speakers ! 

Real Game-Changer ! 

https://www.lbtechreviews.com/news/hi-fi/high-end-2022-new-iron-speaker-with-exciting-technology

 

I’ve been into high performance audio playback for almost 4 decades and I can’t say I’ve noticed any jaw dropping sound quality difference.

For whatever reason I felt that there seemed to be an actual dip in loudspeaker performance during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

Some folks still hold the original Quad ESL and the BBC LS3/5 in the highest regard. If there was any jaw dropping improvements in sound quality I’m sure they’d be very interested.

I’ve yet to hear the highly regarded Revel Salon 2s which always seem to be up there with the very best when it comes to comparisons.

It’s interesting to note that they are now a 14 year old design.

+1

 

The OP mentioned…

 

B&w every few years upgrades there speaker line and other manufacturers do this to. But because I have the earlier version does this mean it’s inferior? Cable manufactures do the same thing.

Well did any new technology go into those speakers?
Or what changes were made?

 

How much more effort is required too perfect a speaker? my speaker is several years old and all the gear and the speaker are all broken in. And now I’m being told to upgrade.

I guess it would be components and integration.
It may be easier to make a decent speaker now using mediocre components like drivers are crossovers.
But to make a more perfect speaker one would assumed that they need more perfect drivers… and also have them integrated.

I can count the drivers on one or two hands that are obviously a step up in some fashion.

The active speakers are a bit easier to make good at a cheaper price point.

 

I am so confused what should I do?

Personally I would not do a damned thing. Just play them until you find something that is obviously wrong with them, or something is obviously better in new speakers than in your the existing ones.

Maybe buy a new CD or LP every month or two...

Ghdprentice,

I think technological advance makes it easier to achieve any kind of sound from speakers, I just think that the kind of sound the builder is aiming for is a much more important factor than the technology employed to get there.  The Sonus Faber Amati speakers you have in your main system primarily sound the way they sound because the designer voiced them that way.  They don’t employ any radically new technology to get that sound.

@grislybutter Excite - meaning appealing to a potential new market.

 

Evoke - going back to the loyal base for the classic Dynaudio sound the loyalists have always loved. "Evoke-ing" the great memories of past Dynaudio lines...

 

@curtdr thanks for sharing. Ya newer and more "exciting" and different does not always translate into long term happiness. Everything new always fades...I'll repeat another old saying..."If it ain't broke..." right?!

@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.

I don't think we disagree.  The technology is important.  I just think the particular sound the designer is shooting for is much more important to the sound.  One can get very close to any particular sound chosen with technology from the past.  With the hyper-detailed sound of some speakers, the past, might mean only a decade or two back, with the kind of sound of the Amati, slightly older technology will do.  As to speed and resolution, there are plenty of older drivers that can achieve this while still sounding warm and relaxed like your Sonus Faber Amati drivers, but the ones I can think of are pretty expensive and much more impractical and certainly cannot be packaged as beautifully as your speaker (e.g.,Jensen field coil M-10 drivers).

That is not to say that the design of such speakers is easy--it takes a lot of knowledge, experience and experimentation to achieve the kind of sound that Sonus Faber achieves.  That design, and correctly employing whatever technology is available, is the main reason these speakers deliver the kind of sound that you and I like.

@moonwatcher you need to listen to a large Advent.

@ghdprentice , I know you are right about high tech workers in general. Loudspeakers are not high tech. Anybody with a table saw can make one. Not necessarily a good one, true.

@mijostyn I did get to hear the large Advent at a small mom and pop stereo store near NC State in the late 1970s or early 1980s. All us poor students lusted after those and the ones from maybe Polk that looked like large coffins. We half expected the grills to open and Count Dracula to come out.

I have a old pair of vintage ADS L520 in my bedroom. When I turn out the lights, I can pretend they are the large Advent... :-)

@grislybutter

I don't have 20 or 10 minutes watching a stranger for pure entertainment value.

 

I beginning to realise that I don't either.

My watch later list on YouTube is now over 100 videos now!

Couldn't I just have one month to myself?

Oh well, I guess when you sign up for marriage and kids you need to read the small print about the risks of giving up most of your spare time for at least 20 years or so.

 

I better learn something if I spend the time that I could use for other things.

Great attitude. How I wish they'd have given us something like Robert Lacey's Great Tales from English History books to read when I was at school.

I despise the public education system in the UK because it feels as if only those who can afford private schooling should have the privilege of being taught the history of their own country.

The rest of us got next to nothing.

Despite being a graduate most of my learning has been on an ad hoc basis, in my own time. The same applies to my knowledge about loudspeakers. What I have learnt is that it seems to be one of those subjects where the designer very quickly runs into one compromise or another.

In fact there are probably only a handful of no-holds-barred attempts at designing the perfect loudspeaker.

As @larryi said, "Earlier speakers that were all out assaults on sound quality were gigantic in size."

Well that automatically rules out 99.9% of the loudspeakers built today.

Andrew Jones himself seems to be suggesting as much here in this episode from the Occasional Podcast. It's certainly worth a listen and there's a lot worse you can listen to during the daily commute to work.

https://audio-head.com/mofi-electronics-and-andrew-jones-introduce-the-sourcepoint-10-loudspeaker/amp/

 

The very high efficiency, and thereby all-horn systems of yore weren't really intended for a domestic environment - the likes of cinema speakers from RCA, Altec, Western Electric, Klangfilm and Vitavox - but they arguably were and still are among, if not the very best expressions of true (i.e.: all-)horn speakers around, while sounding great in a home environment if one wills their inclusion here. They were also very big (apart from being brilliant, sturdy designs), which is a vital aspect and accommodation for horns to be their best. Once domesticated into smaller and less dedicated iterations from Klipsch and others, horn-hybrids among them, problems arose. Since then technology has certainly assisted in making what are essentially horn designs too small into sounding somewhat better, which seems to be a particular trademark in the use of technology today: making something smaller sound better - as such. Still, take a much older horn design properly sized, even with (or likely because of) the drivers of the day, and it'll run circles around their smaller, modern brethren. A tweeter assisted (like with a JBL 2405) Vitavox Thunderbolt system (and they aren't the biggest horn speaker systems around), not least actively configured, simply mauls any modern direct radiating and popular, even expensive typically horn-hybrid speakers from JBL and others into the ground with its fleshed-out presence, tonality, dynamics, resolution, scale, etc. Truly, it's no comparison. Maybe one doesn't fancy such "a sound" because they've never heard live-like dynamics and insight this fully formed (and compared to the habitual exposition of the "molasses" imprinting of typical low eff. speakers, one understands the shock that may follow here), fair enough, but don't tell me it's a dated, shrill sound that comes from a place of nostalgia. If anything modern speakers by comparison sound overly processed/filtered, dull, malnourished and quenched of life, and they're the ones out of place in a time when we should at least have recognized the importance of adhering to size and high efficiency with a design that brings music to the fore relatively uninhibited. 

phusis,

This is a terrific summary of the kind of systems that cannot be matched by modern systems.  They cannot be placed in anything but the largest rooms and are quite impractical, but, they are magnificent.  I've heard a few modern versions that utilize very rare drivers and other parts, as well as systems using ultra expensive reproduction drivers from G.I.P. Laboratories in Japan.  There have been other companies that made drivers and horns intended to copy old Western Electric designs, and some of these copies are very good.  The still existing companies, like ALE, Cogent and Goto make drivers that cost more than most people's homes (Magico used such drivers in their horn system which was their ultimate system).

I have a small slice of that kind of setup.  I have twin 12" alnico drivers with pleated fabric surrounds in a Jensen Onken cabinet, a modern bullet tweeter (Fostex) and a Western Electric 12025 horn with Western Electric 713b drivers.  I think the 713b is one of the finest compression drivers ever made.  This system is tiny by horn system standards, but, it is very good nonetheless.  I drive them with what is essentially a stereo rebuild of Western Electric 133 amps (uses vintage parts, including the authentic Western Electric input and output transformers).

 

 

And now I'm being told to upgrade

Who's telling you to upgrade?  Is there a deficiency  that needs to be addressed?  Is an upgraded speaker the only way to overcome that deficiency?  If that's the case then you'll need to upgrade.  If it's not the case newer isn't always better. (it sometimes even true if that is the case)

hmmm ... history AR-2 Rectilinear III ADS 730 Joseph RM25XL Joseph Perspective2 at every step, noticeable difference (I think I'm done and quite happy with the latest) and then there are Magnepan LRS in the basement and waiting for LRS+ but that's a whole other way of approaching one's music

@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.

 

 

@cd318

You are too kind!

I wish I knew as much about speaker design as most of you here do, but I am a pretty "thick" when it comes to hardware. It interests me but it is also too elusive, these are just pretty boxes to me.

I am so hands-on, I can’t learn from books. It only sticks with me if I get to peak inside and hear the difference. Your perspective on education is very true and also depressing.

Half or us are below average :)

I personally tend to focus on development of high efficiency designs because I prefer the sound of low-powered amps, particularly certain tube amps.  In that realm, there have certainly been some recent developments/refinement of drivers that I would consider major improvements.  I like what is being done with full/wide range drivers, like the 8” AER BD series, Voxativ drivers, etc.  Although the basic technology is not new, I am sure that modern technology played a big role in refining the design.  In recent years I have heard several very good systems employing such drivers (e.g. Charney single driver systems, Voxativ single and multiway systems, Songer single and multiway systems).

At the Capital Audiofest, I heard Andrew Jones talking about his design of the Mo-Fi speaker that is getting very favorable notice (I think it is very good for the money).  While the basic design of the co-axial drivers is old school—paper cones, pleated surround, silk dome tweeter—the way it was designed employed modern technology, such as using 3D printing of prototype parts.  It would have been pretty hard to get to the low price point of these speakers without modern design tools.

Hi jumia 

Thanks for the question.  In a word, yes.  Through my personal journey, maybe the greatest advance to loudspeaker technology is general knowledge of room/speaker interaction, placement and room tuning.  Later, came the pro-world of electronics, lossless sources and modern design and technology DIY loudspeakers.  Add to that, highly skilled DSP to 1/100th of a decibel, tailored to the room.  

Today's computer aided designed materials...drivers, crossovers, open & box designs, interior dampening, suspension and isolation solutions forge modern speakers unmistakably towards a progressive, ever analog future.  

More Peace          Pin               (the bold print is for old eyes)

 

The Ferguson Hill FH001 and FH002 and FH003 Horn speaker System with Horn Acrylic Baffles and Acrylic bass subs !

Based on the Lowther Hegeman but much improved !

Maybe the World’s Best Sounding Speakers Ever Made !

They have Dealers here in the USA now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvYEiSE8g8w 

https://www.fergusonhill.co.uk/fh001/

@phusis ​​@larryi , magnificent? Hardly. They were awful and they still are awful. If you want to wax poetic over an antique speaker try the KLH Model 3. Not great either, but a lot more listenable.