2. speakers
  3. 125362-293

Loudspeakers have we really made that much progress since the 1930s?

Since I have a slight grasp on the history or loudspeaker design. And what is possible with modern. I do wonder if we have really made that much progress. I have access to some of the most modern transducers and design equipment. I also have  large collection of vintage.  I tend to spend the most time listening to my 1930 Shearer horns. For they do most things a good bit better than even the most advanced loudspeakers available. And I am not the only one to think so I have had a good num of designers retailers etc give them a listen. Sure weak points of the past are audible. These designs were meant to cover frequency ranges at the time. So adding a tweeter moves them up to modern performance. To me the tweeter has shown the most advancement in transducers but not so much the rest. Sure things are smaller but they really do not sound close to the Shearer.  http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/shearer.htm
johnk

Showing 10 responses by mikewerner

mikewerner
119 posts
 
Great topic. I have been thinking about (and listening to) speakers recently. The diversity of opinions is colorful!
My observations are:
- Expectations play a large role in preferences.
- There are more ways to get it wrong than right. (Same applies to brewing beer). If someone says they like something, listen. If someone says they don't, it doesn't mean much.
- Compression sucks!
- Garbage in, even more garbage out. (It's very unlikely a non-linearity or distortion will be canceled by another non-linearity or distortion.)
- Technology marches forward (usually).
- Marketing, marketing, marketing (see first point).

mikewerner
119 posts
 
The physics has not changed. Speakers can now be optimized in ways that no one even dreamed about 70 years ago. Active designs have the ability to control variables way beyond what passive speakers and an amplifier (or two) can do. Amplifiers, active crossovers, the cabinet, and the drivers designed together solve a myriad of complicated interactions usually beyond our control. A speaker can now be designed with, say, a perfect step response as the goal, or to balance other parameters.
I have been listening to a passive 70 year old compression design and an active speaker just recently developed and it is like night and day. No more than a blink is necessary to hear the difference. These active speakers will play a piano D1 at realistic level and timbre. Virtually no distortion.
They will take your breath away.
mikewerner
119 posts
 
High power is pretty fun!
mikewerner
119 posts
 
OK. Thanks for your clarification of the point. 
What if you could have a dead neutral (not bright or strong, Merriam-Webster's definition) speaker with great equalization.
Then add lots of power - modern technology, you see.
Distortion from lots of assorted nasties engineered out - it's an ideal speaker, remember.
What then? Is it possible?
Are modern techniques ineffective at doing this. Pick something to measure about a speaker and then do it. 
MEASURE the response to the step function and improve it.
The voicing is a deviation from this.
Just think of it - the process of engineering! 

A violin is way different.

mikewerner
119 posts
 
Wrong! Clearly you don't know anything about Violins and there is no comparison that makes any sense between an old Violin and an old speaker.  An ideal speaker should have no voice of its own. If it does, some things will sound better than they should and some things a lot worse.
mikewerner
119 posts
 
OK again.
Measurement, analysis, and opinion are not the same thing. I understand that. 
Listen to an uncolored system. Either it is to your liking or not. 
When you have something you like, then there are no arguments.

Mike
mikewerner
119 posts
 
Thank you Tim. At least someone gets the point.
Speaker design has come a long way and active speaker design is pushing the envelope considerably.
I don't keep repeating "optimize the step response" for no reason (another way of saying get the phase and time alignment correct). Physics dictates this. Improved resolution and timbre result. It's not subtle. 
Generalities are not very helpful.
Mike
mikewerner
119 posts
 
So, what characteristics does an ideal speaker have?
Who is going to discuss this? Generalities don't help. 

I think this is where the comparison with violins falls apart. In theory there is no ideal violin - they are all different, but in theory there is an ideal speaker. My contention is that with modern methods we can get closer to that ideal.

Your point about the measurement microphone is interesting. I'll think some more on that one.

Comments from someone with experience with measurement microphones or designing speakers would be helpful.
mikewerner
119 posts
 
Has an understanding of the physics involved in making a loudspeaker gone anywhere in the past 80 years? Of course it has. Ideal is a goal.

Colorations, resonances, compression, high harmonic and IM distortion, … BAD- not ideal. 

Consideration of driver integration, radiation pattern, power scaling, low distortion, preservation of dynamics, … GOOD- closer to ideal.  

"Computers; have we made any progress since the 1930's?" Duh.
It's a New World.

One size won't fit all, I know.  
But if you are going to build an airplane you should know that you want to fly. 



mikewerner
119 posts
 
But not all...
More to discover