Buying used vs new speakers from a technology perspective


Do you believe a speaker's components like drivers and crossovers can become "outdated" for lack of a better word? For instance say someone is selling a pair of speakers that cost $10k in 2008 for $5k now. Comparing that speaker to a modern day $5k new speaker only looking at driver design/drivers, cabinet construction, crossover components/layout and other materials what kind of technology gap are we looking at? 

Have there been technologies or designs that have come out in the past few years that you couldn't live without after hearing? 

 

 

128x128blue_collar_audio_guy

Showing 2 responses by arvincastro

@ronboco 

Thanks for the kind comment!  Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to audition any Rockport speakers.  I did something unusual for me in terms of the way I usually shop for my hifi gear in that I decided to buy my latest speakers new from a dealer.  My main motivation was to support my local hifi specialty shops, so I was limited to the brands and models listed in my previous post.  Rest assured if I had Rockport models local, I definitely would’ve given them a long listen!

Arvin

I’d like to share my viewpoint on this as I recently made a speaker switch, moving from vintage Thiel 3.5 CS speakers to a new set of KEF Blade Two’s. My impetus for moving on from the Thiels didn’t have anything to do with feeling that their performance wasn’t “up to snuff”; they still sounded very, very good in my system. Rather, my main motivation for replacing them was the fact that, while they were still in very good condition (I even had their Electronic Bass Module re-built to better than factory condition), there were no new OEM drivers available for replacements/repairs should I need them.

During my audition process, I listened to a fair number of speakers from Bowers Wilkins, Sonus Faber, GoldenEar, Klipsch, KEF and Totem. What struck me most between the Thiels and several of the speakers I auditioned, especially the Blades that I eventually bought, were the advancements in structural design and the cabinet materials used in modern speakers. I was completely floored at how much of a difference enclosure design made when I was comparing the KEF Reference 3 to the Blade Two…the performance was so noticeable and flat out better that I completely blew past my intended budget and ended up with the more expensive Blades.

As others have said, for most of today’s speakers, cone materials and driver design are quite similar to speakers from 20, even 30 years ago. Sure, there are exotic materials being used in drivers today that weren’t being used back then, but the majority of speakers continue to use the traditional materials of paper/pulp, silk, aluminum, etc. that speakers back then used. Driver designs are also quite similar, just more refined and measured today…my KEF’s Uni-Q driver array is a perfect example, it being a highly evolved version of a concentric driver array that’s been around for decades.

But modern day cabinet design and materials are leaps ahead…the composite materials in my Blades, as well as those used by Wilson, Magico, etc. are so inert when compared to the Thiel’s traditional wood and concrete “box”. Additionally, the composite and metal cabinets of today’s speakers allow designers and manufacturers to shape the speaker into a form that exceeds the performance of yesterday’s typical box designs. Finally, the computer-aided design and testing insure these designs measure every bit as good as how they sound.

For me, modern speaker cabinet design and construction are what really sets today’s speakers apart from “vintage” ones. A really good silk dome tweeter, aluminum woofer and paper cone midrange will perform well no matter what. But, take those same drivers and move them from that traditional, vintage wood box to a sculpted, inert, mass-focused enclosure that you can find in today’s top models…that’s where those drivers go from good sounding to great sounding.

My $0.02 worth…Good Listening to you!

Arvin