Have speakers really improved within the last 20 years??

Gosta that right, many of us can relate to those great designs even forty years ago bringing back fond memories!

why are you fellow goner’s (or me) even responding to this clown anymore. He’s a broken record.

The thing to do is to report this thread as trolling. If everyone does that the thread goes away. This has happened to several other threads by the same poster. The 'report' button is located at the lower right of each post including the original post.

@kenjit  “I have set you a challenge. You cannot turn the tables on me. You either give up or you give me proof. This is non negotiable”

do you think we owe you anything?  You can .... off with your non negotiable demands.

piss off dude, find another set of hobbyist to troll.

why are you fellow goner’s (or me) even responding to this clown anymore. He’s a broken record.

“They don't make them like they used to.”. Nope!  They make them quicker, lighter, faster,  and for less money.  And they aren’t lime green with gold speckles.

“This seems more like someone who dislikes the audiophile hobby in general”... precisely.  
His hobby is trolling, not audio.  He’s quite good at his hobby

They don't make them like they used to.

Twenty years is too short time period. Question should be thirty or forty years. My most memorable sound experience comes from stacked Quads 63’s with Kef black boxes passive subs in the late 70’s. Playing Little Feat Columbus live. And miss my Beveridge towers...

The answer unfortunately is no. 

By the late1950s the main loudspeaker technologies had all been invented.

Sealed box, open baffles, horns and even transmission lines were all in existence by then.

Dynamic drivers, dual concentrics, paper/ polypropylene/metal cones have long been in use. Electrostatics, ribbon tweeters etc have also been in use for decades.

So what about the improvements? 

I think, if there are any, they've mainly been centred around tiny incremental engineering improvements and the use of software to juggle and hopefully hide the various performance compromises that all loudspeakers by necessity are subjected to.

You'd like to think all modern speakers must measure better but there's little evidence to support that.

The new KEF LS50 Metas are still a dynamic driver in a box, but a highly refined one that offers a performance never previously available at that price point.

Are they a huge step forward or a small incremental one? I don't know, but the speaker I'd want to compare them to would be the LS 3/5a, a renowned long time standard.

However I am willing to bet that the KEF is the far cheaper to buy if you were to adjust the BBC design for inflation.

Use your ears. If you don't hear a difference between speakers manufactured decades ago and some of what's available now, count your blessings. You'll save money.

My understanding is that desktop engineering programs have improved significantly. Engineers can work through design iterations much faster. Reflections, resonances, stress, etc can be analyzed quickly and accurately. This has led to better designs across the board. 

There is no one single measure that I know of and I both like and hate the, 'how does it sound to you' answers.  The huge difference over the last 20 years is found in 'material science'.  The raw materials have developed in all aspects of audio into new 'materials' and this is true from the material for cones of drivers to the construction of electronic components and the qualtiy of everything from contemporary Cardas copper wire to silver lined capacitors, etc.  The new materials allow for higher SPL/sensitivity without loss, and in fact performs much better than weak/low spl speakers.  If you take apart a common 1970s speaker you will find lots of really crappy junk stuffed into them:  Sony, Bose, Sansui, Henry Kloss's ARs and Advents, and even Magnavox et al.  
If you start with speakers from the 60s and 70s you are able to track the change in design and materials better and able to see the trends that began in the 60s and are still 'trending' today.  And it also depends on which speakers you are talking about.  Kenjit describes a cheap commercial speaker and is accurate.  If he took a close look at a pair of $140,000 Focal speakers it does not look at all like his description.  There is alot of room inbetween!!! 

In spite of the fact that this seems to be a recurring trolling thread, I’ll offer my experience. I have 2 systems. One has brand new Goldenear Triton One.r speakers. The other has a 20 year old Audio Physic Scorpio - about equivalent in price. They are comparable in sound quality. The AP has better imaging. The GE has better bass and slam. If I didn’t know, I wouldn’t be able to tell which is newer.
I’m sure that speaker design has improved over the last 20 years, but some older stuff is really good!

Ah, the age old question, Ginger or Maryann? Like hearing, this changes with age :)

Say's the guy who does not own a speaker nor have a system posted. On the other hand we now have another chapter of Audiogone's (I mean really gone) version of The Onion to entertain us for a bit. I love the "take this seriously" responses the most.

Kenjiit, I suspect you wouldn't know a good speaker from a bad one. You are vague and not a little irritating to be honest. Try tiddlywinks (no measurement issues and cheap, just like you) and leave us in peace.

I will buy a 16 year old design next. My other option was a cutting edge new design,  Thiel CS3.7 vs Yamaha NS5000. I think the CS3.7will be a good choice. I shall see.

I think its a valid question. A well designed set of older speakers should be viable for years to come. Since good sounding speakers can be a major purchase and are usually the most expensive investment in ones system, routinely swapping them out to try other speakers don't happen that often and a lot of audiophiles rely on reviews to get needed information.
I was fortunate enough to have a dealer that allowed me to take home different speakers to try with no obligation, he knew I would buy something eventually. My speakers sound very good with all amps and preamps I have tried in the past but some components sounded better than others. My speakers were manufactured in the early nineties.

For the high end we have had sandwich cones, carbon fiber cones, ceramic drivers, low distortion motors, and FEA analysis for 30 years now. We do have much better capacitors which can make all the difference no though.

Where the advances are is in what Asian manufacturing brings to the mid market in affordable implementations. The high end top flight gear has not advanced much in comparison. 

Some of the best sound I ever heard is from designs made 25 years ago. Sound Labs A1, Big Apogees, CS5i's, Maggies, Vandersteen 5's, Symphonic Line, MBL 101's and Zellatons are all top tier performers that are at least 20 years old designs and aging.

The mid market is where the advancements are at!!

I really tire of certain overly frequent posters (you know who you are) who seem to specialize in sandbagging us with presumptive (not actual) knowledge; gaslighting us with false knowledge; and bait & switching us with presumed facts that promote only their P.O.V.s (not helping anyone who might need help).

It really doesn't have to be like this. We've all been in group discussions where we came away having learned or realized something. This kind of post is the opposite. More than anything else, it's tiresome to get lured down the same old rabbit holes* by the same people.

*apologies to the rabbits, who do no audio harm that I'm aware of

Measurements are relatively meaningless compared to the sound.
IME, there are only a handful of speakers that sound “real”.
I believe the biggest factor is the matching of drivers and crossovers. The designer’s knowledge of what music sounds like is key. And their ability to transfer that to their design.

No. They've gotten worse.

Short answer:Yes.
Long Answer:Yes.

Sigh--on and on we go--yes, Kenjit, you have the right to believe that measurements are the only way to know if a speaker is good or has improved over the years.  But your obsession with measurements is misplaced--why?  Because your ears don't process sound the same way a microphone does.  What a microphone hears, and measures, is nothing like what your ears process and filter.  Therefore, relying on measurements is pointless--it's only a first step filter to weed out really bad speakers with poor FR--which your ears could do anyway--after that it's up to your golden ears entirely--and merely your opinion...

It depends on what type of speaker.

Quality stand-mounts -yes, for a price. The good ones are north of 5k. Cone-material and cavity-noise were improved.

Big-box cones -slow improvements, I’ve noticed better driver-integration -3 -ways were a tough-nut to crack. If you can afford the pricey Magicos, then progress was more than "slow".

Panels -less panel-resonance and better bass-integration,

Horns -the biggest improvement. Esp. for those who were not tweaking before (to remove mouth reflections). If Emerald Physics and Spatial count as horns, this category did very good.

Poko and reven, you’ve got it right. The early posts might have had some zing with all the pomp of being the self designated and worlds only true expert and judge of everything audiophile. Now it’s just boring repetition of the same ideas and subjects that by their nature cannot be determined, or as the self proclaimed judge, he disputes any facts as non factual. That’s why I have now proclaimed myself as the one true expert and judge, he let his credentials lapse. Lol. Though out of kindness I have deemed that he may still have complete control and and final say in his own home. ( which of course is exactly the same level of power we each have, just don’t tell him, I like him believing I’ve made a special consideration for him) 

The OP seems rather ludicrous.

What’s the definition of “most speakers”? Many/most audiophiles distinguish differences between high-end audio gear vs box store main stream products which garner the vast majority of speaker sales. So are we comparing current vs 20yrs past consumer box store speakers? What’s the point? Why bring up on this high-end forum?

Consumer box store speakers have to keep costs low in order to compete in a very crowded market. If costs go up, then either profit margins suffer or have to pass on the cost by raising the price which may price them out of the market. Therefore, R&D including material science expenditures are kept low. With limited R&D you’d expect limited results, not sure what the OP was trying to say/prove.

What “measured performance“ data for 20yr old speakers is available for comparison to current speakers? For “most speakers” ~ box store speakers, you’re lucky to find any specifications and if you find any, the specifications are simplistic/rudimentarily unlike high-end components. What’s the point of comparing simplistic/rudimentarily specifications?

Why bring up the subject of “most speakers” on this forum? I surmise that most/all on this forum are audiophiles interested in better content and/or better audio chain performance. We could care less for average box store components comparisons, rather, we’re after a deeper connection to the music often through better components.

nicer finishes

@ptss  This is my challenge to you. You dont get to change the rules of the challenge. It is non negotiable. So you either admit defeat or you post evidence. What you are doing is trying to turn the tables on me because you are unable to solve my challenge. Your evasiveness does not impress me you are hereby dismissed from this discussion. 

I'm with speed-up.... Prove it isn't so - and to make it easy for you - use the measurement of speakers 20 years ago, including distortion components, versus , say a rather basic Revel M126be of today. He he... as your post, all in fun :)

@kenjit Yes, speakers have evolved.  Quite a bit.
But, have new speaker systems been developed?
Not so much, we still have

• dynamic
• electrostatic
• magnetostatic
• piezoelectric

speakers; but nothing revolutionary different from those have been developed.

But each category listed here has evolved.

@kenjit 

• If there is one measurement that would prove that speakers have indeed got better over the last 20 years, what would it be?

weight

I have wondered about those people who seem to prefer vintage equipment over more recent offerings.  Receivers from 40 years ago, like Pioneer SX1280 and Marantz 2500, fetch prices of $2500, while I have seen JBL 100 speakers listed for $2,000 for the pair.  I assume that people pay those prices not just for investment value or sentimentality, but because they appreciate the build quality and the sound.  I wonder why they wouldn’t apply that money to more modern equipment if sound reproduction has improved over the decades.  

dekay: Remember kenjit lives across the pond and might night be familiar with your survey choices. For me, however Mary Ann of course.

Well, let's see.  Many manufacturers have copied Magnepan and now make speakers that are very tall.  I guess that would change the metrics you derive from measuring them.

Also, I would assume Mr. Winey's son is working to continually improve the Magnepan line over time.

So yes, there are speakers that have improved and probably "measure" better in anechoic chambers.  Since we don't have these in our listening rooms (most of us, anyway) possibly improving your room will suffice?

Cheers!

I know my hearing's got worse over the last 20 years! (still don't like 'bright' speakers though to offset this). Am still happy with ESL57s and a sub. Have replaced older drivers in my Castles which has made a big difference.

A perfectly fine speaker twenty years ago is still a perfectly fine speaker.

I can’t quantify perception. I can only tell you that I take more enjoyment in listening to system A compared to system B. 
A Benchmark DAC measures perfectly. And yet many people dislike (or take little pleasure) in listening to that sterile, hyper-detailed studio sound and prefer NOS, valves or any number of technologies that might not measure as well but are perceived by their owners, in their systems, as more satisfying. 
Which brings me to point three. System. You can’t  judge speakers in isolation. The speakers are placed in a unique room.  They are connected through long wires to an amplifier. The amplifier to a source. Everything is connected to the mains. The mains matter. The electronics and wires matter. The room is almost as important as the speakers themselves and there is no telling how speakers are going to perform in a given acoustic space. 
If you would even begin to grasp the complexity of the answer to your question, involving architecture, physics and psychology, you would know better. 
Last but not least. People on this forum don’t obsess about absolute quantities or qualities. They take pleasure in this hobby and follow their own tastes and preferences. I buy a new set of speakers not because they measure better, but because I LIKE what I hear, in my room, with my electronics. 
Tastes also change in time, possibly in line with the physiology of perception. We have a much better hearing in our twenties than in our sixties. Much of the high frequency range is lost as our ear ages. I have seen, time and time again, people starting their journey with detailed, transparent solid state systems and ending up favouring a seductive, warm, valve glow. 
Very little in this hobby is quantifiable. In fact I would go further and say, this hobby is not an exact science at all and numbers are the least important measure of it. You can obsess about demonstrating X W or Z until your hearing is reduced to tinnitus. Or you can just find a good enough system to enjoy the music. 
I enjoy my system now than the one I had 20 years ago. And that is all that matters to me. 

Which takes me to the next point. Psychoacoustics. Music. Sound reproduction. The objective sound wave and the PERCEPTION, the emotion derived. I am not a microphone, an oscilloscope, an instrument. I react emotionally to the music played through my system. Please quantify emotion, quantity and quality. 

First of all let’s start with a definition. 
Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental illness characterized by paranoid delusions, and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. People with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily insulted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. They are eager observers. 

They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced capacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience. People with PPD may have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others' actions as hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right. Patients with this disorder can also have significant comorbidity with other personality disorders (such as schizotypal, schizoid, narcissistic, avoidant and borderline).

Please prove to me irrefutably that you don’t suffer from the above. Every single one of your thread starters demonstrates suspiciousness and generalised mistrust in the industry. A tenacious sense of personal right. And zero emotional involvement. 

Better is in the eyes/ears of the beholder.

That is not true. A speaker has a job to do. Its job is to reproduce the signal going into it as perfectly as possible. If you put a 50hz sine wave into a speaker and it produces a 60hz and 70hz sine wave then the speaker is BAD and this has nothing to do with what your opinion of it might be.

Question:

• If there is one post that would prove that Kenjit has indeed got better over the last 1000 posts, what would it be?

I dont just want one example of a post from today that has a better content than another post from years ago because that could just be a coincidence. I want to see IRREFUTABLE PROOF that most posts today have an idea in at least one area that is better than most posts 2 years ago.

When I look at a typical post from 2 years ago versus one from today i see little difference. All i see is repetition, typically daft with self aggrandizing in ’em. There would be a small idea inside and a bit of rhetoric inside the post and that would be the end of the story. I would like to believe that posts have gotten better but I see no reason to believe it. All I see is that posts may have gotten simpler and simpler with time to dupe us into thinking we are reading something different.

This challenge is open to any audiophile or speaker designer reading this.

 Since you’re the one in disbelief, show us that it’s not true.

I have the right to believe that speakers have not improved unless proven otherwise. Speakers do not improve by themselves without human intervention. There is no proof required to understand that. Its obviously true.

Speaker designers aspire to improve the sound quality over time. Most audiophiles like you believe this is happening. Proof that this is really happening is required. That is the difference you dont seem to understand.

I have set you a challenge. You cannot turn the tables on me. You either give up or you give me proof. This is non negotiable.

There are two parts to the challenge. You would need to show that

1.there is a measurement that has improved over the years

2. that this measurement proves that sound quality has improved.

Kenjit:

And then, and then, and then...

Your survey pick was???

DeKay

Kenjit, we already know that they’ve improved. My verdict on the subject has been given. Since you’re the one in disbelief, show us that it’s not true. I know I have much more valuable things I can do with my time than to prove something to someone who wouldn’t believe it even if I did. The facts would become disputed as facts. That has been made very clear based on the large amount of data we have from previous threads and posts. Most audiophiles like spending time discussing what’s to like or dislike about products that hold interest to them, not try to dispel the validity of all products in general. This seems more like someone who dislikes the audiophile hobby in general. 

@nonoise 
it absolutely reads that way, as do most from this conspiracy theorist.  It is laughable.

I don't know about that. I could do without the millionaire and his wife.

Thankfully, I never squandered my money on Green Mountain speakers to end up like you.

Whats wrong with them? They are highly regarded here on Audiogon