Are advances in technology making speakers better?

@phusis , knock yourself out phusis.

@holmz , It is a nice problem to have. There is no amount of coloration that is acceptable. The problem for most audiophiles is that they can't avoid it. Some of them like phusis even glorify it, make it not only pleasurable, but necessary. 

... I've been listening to a few cost-no-object, last generation loudspeakers and while impressive on many levels, they are sometimes too perfect for their own good... a "recording" being a very imperfect thing to start with, and a pale copy of the real event, sometimes it's better to add a tiny bit of color and distortion to make it palatable.

Being “too perfect” sounds like a nice problem to have.

I have not listened to a lot of systems that were “too perfect”, but I am willing to learn.

There have been tremendous advances regarding materials (with Ceramic, diamond, etc) and we now have tiny woofers that manage to produce some bass (at the expense of sensitivity of course, but still) at reasonable level.

Wether those advances make a loudspeaker more MUSICAL is debatable. I've been listening to a few cost-no-object, last generation loudspeakers and while impressive on many levels, they are sometimes too perfect for their own good... a "recording" being a very imperfect thing to start with, and a pale copy of the real event, sometimes it's better to add a tiny bit of color and distortion to make it palatable.

@mijostyn wrote:

@Phusis, if you think those speakers image you have never heard the image of a current state of the art system. Experience is the best teacher. Next, what do you know about CAD when it comes to speakers? Do you actually design speakers?

No, I don’t design speakers nor know of the specifics of CAD in their more modern development, but I don’t believe I have to either; my primary concern is to assess the final product, and it also leaves me unaffected of what theory might dictate apart from acknowledging the importance physics, so yes: experience as it relates to perceived sonics, and what’s deduced from this, is the best teacher.

I was going to include (but didn’t get to within the 30 min. deadline for edits) that what I regard as fine imaging mayn’t be up to your standards, but that’s not in my mind to say the EV’s can’t image. If on the other hand yours is a more binary approach where anything other than state of the art imaging equates into no imaging, then I guess the EV’s (and most other speakers, incl. the more modern ones) can’t image.

Back in the 60’s speaker designers and builders could never afford the computers used in Apollo mission. They cost in the millions. There were no PCs and no CAD programs for speaker design. All they did back them was shove any efficient drivers they could come up in and a box they would fit in with a simple crossover and paint them black.

Relative to the expense of speaker development back from the late 20’s on up, less could do. My point is that brilliant people willed the development of excellent designs from a century ago that didn’t see restrictions imposed with regard to size, but rather what was needed of them to fulfill their intended (cinema) use with limited amp power. Replicas of the WE12a’s for example, build with care in hardwoods and with modern Lamar drivers, are regarded as being among the very best sounding speakers around, aided of course by complementary driver/horn sections around their frequency span.

The most thoughtful designer back then was Paul Klipsch and he even made several mistakes in design that would not be made today by state of the art builders. I remember hearing a home JBL system with that slotted horn they used and it was pretty impressive. I was 16 years old. Whatever, not one of those old speakers could remotely compete with modern speakers.

PWK’s self-imposed limitation was that of working with both a size and budget restriction to accommodate domestic consumers, and initially at least working only with all-horn designs this didn’t come unpunished. Even the K-horns are size limited to a fault, whereas the Jubilee’s come closer to being a more true expression of what an all-horn design is capable of. Indeed, even the latest iteration of the K-horns sound "restricted" and more like speakers next to my actively configured and TH subs-augmented EV’s with large format MF/HF horns on top. That’s why I’d always choose a large format pro cinema system, despite being of much older date and situated in a home setting, where the horn sections are more properly sized (the designers themselves would state "just barely"), because to my ears they just sound more uninhibited and real - age of design be damned. Experience, experience - and priorities..

[...]

I always try to find live recordings from a concert series I attended and have my favorites to use making that analysis for myself. An example would be Cecile McLorin Salvant’s Dreams and Daggers. The sonics are very close to What I heard at the Blue Note in NYC as far as my hearing memory can determine. Great live recording. An accurate system has to be able to match the energy and size of a live performance. It is the rare system that can do that.

Regarding accuracy of reproduction I can relate in particular to "energy and size" as vital parameters here, which is also what I strive to achieve in my setup. It might seem paradoxical, but bigger speakers can sound much less like speakers being that the music emanates into the listening space more uninhibitedly and properly sized; the mind is more effectively tricked into believing what’s presented to it is "real" and/or less a reproduction.

As a rule this can not be done without subwoofers. Subwoofer drivers did not exist in the 60s. They came along in the late 70’s and the drivers did not really reach maturity until the 2000’s. Unfortunately, in many systems subwoofers do more damage than good. I wrestled with them for two decades before getting them to perform at the level were they caused no interference with the midrange and handled the bass up to 100 Hz. This is why the manufacturers of many subs tell you to set the sub to 40 Hz. Down there all they are usually pumping out are record warps. With just a low pass filter they are doing nothing to help clean up the main speakers.

High-passing the mains not too low, and high enough for it to have proper impact/effect, is paramount when trying to integrate subs properly. I fully agree and certainly wouldn’t be without this way of configuring the overall speaker system.

@cd318 --

Great post.

@phusis 

Coloration, it could be argued, is many things also by "virtue" of absence: lack of image size and dynamics, scale, ease, physicality, presence, etc. - traits where most modern speakers fall short. You don’t hear it as coloration per se, but when you know the difference it makes you also realize how much less alive, visceral, real and emotional the experience gets.

 

This is the great danger facing those modern designers who tend to rely too heavily upon measurements.

Modern testing equipment will usually tell you what's wrong with your design but it won't tell you what might be missing.

Sometimes it feels as if too much has been sacrificed on the altar of a good measured response.

Sins of omission and not commission might be easier to live with but too much piety seldom resulted in a good time.

This was a criticism of many British designs of the 1990s and early 2000s. Some may have measured well but they still sounded flat in comparison to their predecessors.

The most important job of the modern designer must surely be this task of reducing coloration without losing the sheer musical joie de vivre that was conveyed by some of the best designs of yesteryear.

This job is certainly not made any easier given the size constraints that are imposed upon virtually every modern design.

How could it be?

Perhaps in order to wholly improve upon a good 1950/60s loudspeaker you have to make a similar sized 2020s loudspeaker.

 

Ye cannae change the laws of physics Jim.

Not even in the sometimes strange world of audio playback.

I wonder if people really understand what good imaging is and what good soundstage means. These terms are really thrown around quite liberally.

And balance this against a well recorded piece of music versus mediocre. I think a nicely recorded piece of music achieves more then spending thousands and thousands on amplification and speakers.

It’s a mess and spending tons of money to address poorly recorded music doesn’t solve engineering shortfalls.

@Phusis, if you think those speakers image you have never heard the image of a current state of the art system. Experience is the best teacher. Next, what do you know about CAD when it comes to speakers? Do you actually design speakers? Back in the 60's speaker designers and builders could never afford the computers used in Apollo mission. They cost in the millions. There were no PCs and no CAD programs for speaker design. All they did back them was shove any efficient drivers they could come up in and a box they would fit in with a simple crossover and paint them black.  The most thoughtful designer back then was Paul Klipsch and he even made several mistakes in design that would not be made today by state of the art builders. I remember hearing a home JBL system with that slotted horn they used and it was pretty impressive. I was 16 years old. Whatever, not one of those old speakers could remotely compete with modern speakers. 

There are speakers that are more accurate than others. "Sounding better" is a subjective opinion by an individual who may or may not have any idea what they are listening to. Accurate is not subjective, it is just hard to define in the case of loudspeakers. There are characteristics accurate loudspeakers always have that can be measured, but unfortunately, they do not guarantee accuracy. Accuracy also depends on the recording. Studio recordings are never accurate. They are sonic images painted by recording engineers and as such qualify as art. Live recordings, on the other hand, can be very accurate but it also depends on the recording engineer's skill at maintaining that accuracy. I always try to find live recordings from a concert series I attended and have my favorites to use making that analysis for myself. An example would be Cecile McLorin Salvant's Dreams and Daggers. The sonics are very close to What I heard at the Blue Note in NYC as far as my hearing memory can determine. Great live recording. An accurate system has to be able to match the energy and size of a live performance. It is the rare system that can do that. As a rule this can not be done without subwoofers. Subwoofer drivers did not exist in the 60s. They came along in the late 70's and the drivers did not really reach maturity until the 2000's. Unfortunately, in many systems subwoofers do more damage than good. I wrestled with them for two decades before getting them to perform at the level were they caused no interference with the midrange and handled the bass up to 100 Hz. This is why the manufacturers of many subs tell you to set the sub to 40 Hz. Down there all they are usually pumping out are record warps. With just a low pass filter they are doing nothing to help clean up the main speakers. 

In terms of active speakers, yes. In terms of passives? No. 

@mijostyn wrote:

the technology was the same a century ago but speakers had different requirements. Given the state of amplifier development, efficiency was a very important issue if you wanted to fill a whole theater with sound. Now we have CAD tech to help us design loudspeakers. Back then it was slide rules.

CAD tech only gets you so far. What’s its use when applying it to a frame generally too puny and inefficient, other than potentially making smaller speakers better? You would have to appreciate the difference large size and high efficiency offers, other than from a panel speaker (sans high efficiency), but leaving the importance of it to a bygone ear and different segment of use only falls back on you wanting to make general what you fail to savor nor understand. And btw the best designers back then knew how to make more use with a "slide rule" than most do with CAD design today. Combine the two, another matter.

I appreciate old loudspeakers for what they are, speakers designed with different priorities. As a group they tend to be very efficient and very colored which phusis obviously likes.

Coloration, it could be argued, is many things also by "virtue" of absence: lack of image size and dynamics, scale, ease, physicality, presence, etc. - traits where most modern speakers fall short. You don’t hear it as coloration per se, but when you know the difference it makes you also realize how much less alive, visceral, real and emotional the experience gets. I’d be glad trade in a bit of coloration in what’s typically expected of it to be (and that’s assuming it’s even there) with mentioned traits, but obviously you don’t know and don’t care to know what I may or may not be missing out on, nor what I gain with your staunch generalizations and assumptions.

Coloration in the older speakers interferes with the generation of a decent image. phusis will now tell you that his speakers image fine. They do not because they can’t. It is like asking a bus to fly. Buses and airplanes are transportation but have vastly different capabilities.

Oh, but they do, and again: you wouldn’t know. And your analogy is about as meaningless as can be. An actually relevant one would be that of referring to the Apollo space program. Back then in the 60’s (and early 70’s) they went to the moon with the computational power available to them at the time. Could they have revisited the moon in the meantime with more modern tech? Sure, if they wanted to, but they didn’t - and that’s the point. Oh well, what’s the use of speaking to a door, a closed one no less.

Yes, I have listened to a bunch of ancient loudspeakers from Altec, EV and JBL. I like the old Bozaks the best:-)

Says one individual.

I am so confused what should I do?

Listen to your speakers (or, better, to the music coming out of them) and not to the salespeople.

@holmz , the technology was the same a century ago but speakers had different requirements. Given the state of amplifier development, efficiency was a very important issue if you wanted to fill a whole theater with sound. Now we have CAD tech to help us design loudspeakers. Back then it was slide rules. I appreciate old loudspeakers for what they are, speakers designed with different priorities. As a group they tend to be very efficient and very colored which phusis obviously likes. Coloration in the older speakers interferes with the generation of a decent image. phusis will now tell you that his speakers image fine. They do not because they can't. It is like asking a bus to fly. Buses and airplanes are transportation but have vastly different capabilities. Yes, I have listened to a bunch of ancient loudspeakers from Altec, EV and JBL. I like the old Bozaks the best:-) 

@holmz wrote:

@mijostyn I am assuming that you do not abide legacy speakers from a 1/2 century back as being within the spirit of the thread with “Advances in technology” in the title?

To some the question mark in the thread title is less of a factor..

phusis , by all means enjoy your EVs.

@mijostyn I am assuming that you do not abide legacy speakers from a 1/2 century back as being within the spirit of the thread with “Advances in technology” in the title?
 

@phusis , by all means enjoy your EVs. 

@mijostyn wrote:

The big theater systems were never intended for home use and in home environments they SHOUTED at you.

Be specific, which of them in particular are you referring to? My own EV pro cinema speakers are placed ~11ft. from the listening position, and they don’t in the least shout at me. If anything going with the bigger, large format MF/HF horn from a smaller ditto made them even more relaxed sounding, and yet fuller and more visceral. Additionally I’ve heard big JBL and Vitavox theater systems, among others, in domestic settings that weren’t at all shouty, as you put it, but I guess to some presence of presentation (as opposed to placid ’laid-back’) equates into "shouty." No, big theater systems weren’t intended for home use, but that’s not necessarily to say they can’t be successfully integrated in a home environment.

Certainly, they grabbed your attention. It is the speaker that does not grab your attention that requires more listening.

I’ve heard enough speakers through the years to know exactly when they have my attention for the very right reasons. Implying that people who like big theater segment speakers are just in for a fun, empty calorie, adolescent thrill ride is, how should one put it, a less informed stance.

Interestingly, with modern digital signal processing it might be possible to make some of those old EVs and Altecs sound passible. Did he mention digital? Shoot the bastard!

No extra processing needed for my actively configured EV’s via the DSP, other than basic filter values, gain structure, a few HF-notches and a peak suppression. Delay settings are vital, obviously.

Most who’re into high efficiency speakers, not least of the vintage kind, seem to dig passively configured setups with low wattage tube amps, oftentimes with an analogue source. Myself I use a digital source exclusively (HDD-based, no less), active config. via DSP and a differentiated SS amp approach with lower wattage class A (30W), class A/B (>1kW) and class TD (>1kW). Not least I use high eff. subs, which seem to be a rarity here.

Of course people can disagree on what is good sound.  But, I don't think one can categorically dismiss older systems, or modern systems built on such older components without offering some specifics of what one has heard.  From what you have listed so far, I would agree.  That stuff is highly colored and not my cup of tea.  But, a well implement system using WE 555 compression midrange, and a horn like a 15A, a WE 597 tweeter and M18 woofers would be a completely different thing.  I've primarily listened to modern systems using such drivers or modern clones and drivers inspired by the old WE drivers and these are NOT like common Altec or Klipsch horn systems.  Their are RCA drivers, International Projector Company, and other vintage manufacturers that are also quite rare (and expensive) that sound great.  Some modern stuff by G.I.P. laboratories, Cogent, ALE, and Goto sound quite good too. 

In the wide range cone driver camp there are surprisingly good drivers by the likes of Voxativ, Lowther, AER, Cube Audio, and a number of other drivers I've heard whose manufacturer I could not identify.  But, if I were building around a wide range driver, my choice would be an old Jensen/ERPI M10 fieldcoil driver (13" paper cone) and a WE 597 tweeter.  Such a system might not have deep bass, but, it would be so musical and enjoyable that I don't care (I've heard systems with the M10, but with lesser tweeters and those sounded terrific).

@cd318 , speakers that leave a colorful first impression are exactly that, colored. I fondly remember my father's Bozak B307As. Driven by a Dynakit Stereo 70 they were glorious, gloriously bass heavy. But, they beat the tar out of my Zenith portable. He didn't know it but I spent a lot more time listening to his system then mine. They were colored and did not image probably because they were too far apart. I did not know much about imaging back then. I was just impressed as all get out when Hendix's guitar went back and forth. Back then it was more important that speakers be efficient as 60 watts/ch was the best you could hope for until Crown and Bob Carver came along with some of the worst sounding amps ever although the Fuzz Linear was much better than the Crown. Back then we all wanted K Horns. The big theater systems were never intended for home use and in home environments they SHOUTED at you. Certainly, they grabbed your attention. It is the speaker that does not grab your attention that requires more listening. Interestingly, with modern digital signal processing it might be possible to make some of those old EVs and Altecs sound passible. Did he mention digital? Shoot the bastard!

 

If anything modern speakers by comparison sound overly processed/filtered, dull, malnourished and quenched of life 

I am picturing “Young Frankenstein” say ion good, “It’s Alive”… at some point the resonance and distortions could be too much of a life of their own.

I like playing the “GoGo’s” “WEe got the beat” as much as the next guy or girl, but We can apply Anthropomorphism to actually believe that the speakers are alive.

A “Live Recording” is an “Alive Recording”

@phusis

Yes, that was a great explanation between some of the differences between then and now.

 

If anything modern speakers by comparison sound overly processed/filtered, dull, malnourished and quenched of life

 

I had the fortune (or is it misfortune?) to hear the Lowther Hegeman speaker recently, and despite it looking like a large
cocktail cabinet, and not having the most precise imaging, the bass was as effortless as you could imagine.

This early 1950s design left a greater impression on my memory than anything else in years.

Can there be any other speaker that is easier to listen to than this?

So why can’t all loudspeakers have this kind of ’organic’ natural sounding bass?

This spatial bass issue (as opposed to coming from a rectangular box) is where I think much of the difference between the very best and the rest lies when it comes to loudspeaker performance.

 

As you explained earlier, my experience here (and with Avantgarde Trio’s years before) does seem to confirm that horn designs do need to be bigger.

Much bigger.

http://www.lowthervoigtmuseum.org.uk/lowtherHegeman.html

Thank you, @larryi.

@mijostyn wrote:

magnificent? Hardly. They were awful and they still are awful.

I guess the following says it all:

If you want to wax poetic over an antique speaker try the KLH Model 3. Not great either, but a lot more listenable. 

I rest my case. 

@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. 

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/

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)

 

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.

@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 :)

@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.

 

 

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

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)

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).

 

 

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. 

@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/

 

@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... :-)

@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.

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.

@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.

@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?!

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.

 

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...

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

@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”.

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.  

@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. 

@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 

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.

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.

@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.

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 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. 

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 !

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.