‘modern’, ‘mainstream’ speakers—too many models converging towards too similar a sound
Over the last year I’ve auditioned a good number of speaker
makes and models. Through this process,
I developed a kind of shorthand for myself to describe a particular kind of
sound profile that I kept encountering, one that I came to call
modern/mainstream.
Here’s the kind of speaker I’m talking about: typically a
floorstander, fairly tall, narrowish baffle, deeper than it’s wide, tweeter on
top, midrange, two or three 7” woofers.
It’s a design you’re going to encounter again, and again, and
again. Dynaudio, Quad, Paradigm, Monitor
Audio, Sonus Faber, and many, many others.
(Not picking on those five—just for illustrative purposes). It’s also a design that tends to come from
large companies, some of them conglomerates, and one which consequently finds
its way into more stores and more people’s consciousness because of the larger distribution
and publicity networks involved.
And the sound. Highly
competent across the board, tending to the more detailed rather than the more
forgiving, treble range quite prominent, decent but not incredible bass
extension, more than acceptable imaging and soundstaging, perhaps the vaguest
hint of a mechanical or electronic veil.
And above all, kind of unexceptional and unexciting. They can range all over in price, and they
don’t really sound that dissimilar one from another. They are converging towards that single
‘modern’, ‘mainstream’ sound profile that’s becoming a norm. It’s a safe design, with an acoustic
presentation that many people these days seem to prefer or at least accept (or
have been conditioned to believe is ‘correct’).
Being fairly narrow, it integrates well into many domestic environments,
and the styling usually ensures a decent measure of SAF.
While there are still many individualists out there in the
audio world, and the speaker design world in particular, this is a general trend
that I lament, because I see it expanding and being more entrenched.
Interesting observation. There's lots of tower speakers around. I wonder if they are trying to follow consumer trends by having a small footprint? Even OHM is making omni directional speakers with an even a smaller footprint than they were 6 years ago. Its all about filling the demands of tve consumer. However I would like to hear from someone knowledgeable about speaker designs. Maybe its a sound way to build a speaker. No pun intended.
It's not dissimilar to the trend with people, especially younger people. Even if not exactly clones often not too far from them. Disturbing and somewhat puzzling. I hope mother of all gods won't let it slip beyond the point of no return.
@blueranger said: "There’s lots of tower speakers around. I wonder if they are trying to follow consumer trends by having a small footprint?"
I’m pretty sure that’s it.
I think it’s a symptom of a world in which listening to recorded music is a much lower priority than it used to be.
Imo that narrow footprint imposes constraints on what a speaker can do. There is an argument in favor of narrow speakers from an imaging standpoint, but ime a good wide speaker can image as well if not better.
Twoleftears notes that there is also a particular "sound profile" that these narrow-footprint towers are converging towards. That may be because the way they all interact with the room is inherently fairly similar, and room interaction plays a major role in what we hear. Imo the narrow tower format is not a particularly good one from a room-interaction standpoint.
But "it integrates well into many domestic environments, and the styling usually ensures a decent measure of SAF". In other words, it sells well.
Snell Type A's with wide baffles and against-the-wall placement belie the belief that today's narrow and out-into-the-room speakers are the best at imaging! I have the AIII's and because of smart design handily still outperform most of today's conventional boxes!
Peter Snell's goal was to design a speaker with a flat power response into ANY room (So room-placement effects upon sound quality were eliminated). This remains a fundamental problem that practically all of today's speaker designers either ignore or are unaware of! With his Type A he succeeded brilliantly!
Kosst_amojan wrote: "I’ve never heard or read where anybody of authority suggested wide baffle speakers image as well or better than narrow to no baffle speakers. The unavoidably suffer from artifacts relating to edge diffusion and the more pronounced way in which the surface projects sound. It’s just the physics of the thing."
Roberjerman’s example of the Snell Type A is an excellent one. Imo Peter Snell’s approach made far more acoustic sense than any of these narrow-baffle tower speakers.
Here is why a wide baffle speaker can image as well or better than a narrow or "no baffle" speaker:
First, it’s not sound "projecting" off of a wide baffle that degrades imaging; it is the time delay between the direct sound and the arrival of the edge diffraction. Edge diffraction adds false early timing cues that can degrade the image. In general the longer the time delay (up to a point) before those false timing cues arrive, or in other words the wider the baffle, the worse the imaging degradation. BUT if we could significantly reduce edge diffraction, that would reduce these false timing cues to the point of being inconsequential, and imaging would correspondingly benefit. This can be done, but it requires either a very large-radius round-over (the technique Peter Snell used on the Type A), or aggressive absorption, or some other technique or combination of techniques.
None of these diffraction elimination techniques can be accomplished on a narrow baffle because the round-over or absorption or whatever has to be a sufficiently large fraction of a wavelength in order to be effective. Therefore if we are serious about eliminating diffraction, the cabinet width is going to be fairly substantial.
In practice the lowest diffraction enclosure would be precisely flush-mounted into the wall, which is the technique high-end recording studios use, resulting in a baffle the width of the room, along with superb imaging. There will still be a reflection when the sound reaches the sidewalls, but by then enough time has passed that the imaging will not be degraded significantly (I can go into more detail about the timing of reflections and/or diffraction if anyone is interested).
What I didn't put in the original post is that through this same experience I was also very impressed by three different speakers all of which could be considered to have wide baffles (certainly by modern standards). Perhaps they weren't the ultimate imaging champs, but they were all more than sufficient in this regard, and other aspects of their acoustic profile were very compelling.
None of these diffraction elimination techniques can be accomplished on a narrow baffle because the round-over or absorption or whatever has to be a sufficiently large fraction of a wavelength in order to be effective. Therefore if we are serious about eliminating diffraction, the cabinet width is going to be fairly substantial.
And....digital room and digital speaker correction does not fix this.
Does not fix this.
Does not fix this.
It merely makes a smeary fuzzy mess that seems right or better.
For a while.
Then you finally hear it..... and toss the thing down the road to the next person who thinks it will be their savior.
IMO and IME, digital crossovers, room correction and speaker correction, are only charming to those who somehow can’t hear these pervasive and all encompassing distortions that are added into the mix.
There is a reason that the biggest names in loudspeaker design don’t do digital. I’m not comfortable saying these things but they are indeed true. Citing examples won’t work, as those are exceptions, not the rule, and I’m not sure about the aural capacities and directions of their proponents. First time I heard a digital speaker, I walked way unimpressed. The last time I head a digital speaker, I walked away unimpressed. Ground level faults that brick wall the designs. Ground level faults being inescapable - as they are as - the inclusion of digital.
All things being equal, which they never are..all things being equal...the analog crossover (active or passive) will exceed the sonic quality aspects of a digital crossover.
"And....digital room and digital speaker correction does not fix this. "Does not fix this. "Does not fix this."
Agreed!!
Nor can DEQ fix radiation pattern anomalies. How many audio shows have you done where you spend three expensive days with the speakers fighting the room, and that battle overshadows pretty much everything else you had hoped to showcase?
Imo acoustic problems can only be fixed in the acoustic domain, because otherwise they will inevitably be super-imposed atop any signal, whether that signal is EQ’d or not.
I think mainstream speaker design today is largely driven by marketing research, wherein the question "what do the people want in a speaker?" leads to acoustically-compromised narrow-footprint towers. Imo this is in part because "the people" usually don’t know any better, but SOME people (those blessed with two left ears come to mind) learn as they listen and put two-and-two together.
That’s actually okay with me - I’d much rather all those big companies with their big R&D departments and big budgets keep trying to make a flawed idea work well, and leave wide-body speakers to us little guys and the people out there who listen with their ears instead of their eyes.
Kosst_amojan wrote: "There’s all kinds of ways of managing edge diffraction! On narrow speakers the time delay is virtually insignificant and it’s really only a problem in the treble region... It’s just technically convenient to drive the diffraction problem up the spectrum because higher frequencies are easier to manage. "
I think you have a misconception. It sounds like you think diffraction can be limited to high frequencies by using a narrow baffle. This is not the case. What a narrow baffle does is, it reduces the time delay between the arrival of the non-diffracted direct sound and the arrival of the diffracted sound.
(One thing a narrow baffle does do is, it raises the "baffle step" frequency, which is the frequency at which the baffle’s face no longer acts like a 180-degree horn. Perhaps this is what you were thinking of?)
I think a brief explanation of how the time delay of a diffracted signal impacts imaging is called for. Apologies in advance for getting technical here; to anyone who dislikes technical discussion, please avoid the next paragraph:
The ear derives directional cues primarily from the first .68 milliseconds of a signal. This is the time it takes for sound to travel about nine inches, and correlates to the distance around the head from one ear to the other. Diffraction or reflections arriving within that first .68 milliseconds tend to degrade the imaging because the ear gets a false secondary early-arrival cue that normally would correlate with sound that had reached one ear first and then travelled around the head to the other ear, diffraction’s time delay mimicking the arrival at the second ear. A small time delay (narrow baffle) would correspond to a smaller false angle for this false cue, while a larger time delay (wide baffle) would correspond to a larger false angle. So with a narrow baffle, the false cues are not as drastic. This is why, all else being equal, a narrow baffle generally has better imaging than a wider baffle. If the baffle is wide enough that NO reflections occur within that first .68 milliseconds, then the imaging should be excellent (which is what happens with precisely flush-mounted studio main monitors).
Diffraction has other negative effects which are beyond the scope of this post.
Kosst also said: "There are simple solutions to that problem too. Lenses, damping, horns of some sort."
I don’t know what you mean by "lenses" in this context.
Damping material has virtually no ability to absorb a sound wave travelling parallel to its surface; the sound wave has to strike the damping material at an angle in order to be absorbed by it. And the damping material has to be thick enough relative to those frequencies to absorb them effectively. If we want effective absorption the sound must strike the damping material at an angle, and if we want absorption down low enough in frequency then the damping material must be fairly thick in both width and depth. A thick felt donut can help in the highs, but isn't going to do much in the mids.
Assuming the horn itself is not a source of diffraction (most are), in order for a horn to have good radiation pattern control down low enough to usefully minimize cabinet edge diffraction, it must be fairly large... and now we’re back to having a wide baffle again, especially once we factor in the fairly large-radius lips the horn will need to avoid diffraction at its mouth. This is actually the technique that I use, but the result is not a narrow baffle.
Of the techniques you mention, aggressive use of damping material (combined with a small enough midrange driver to get enough damping material between edge of driver and edge of enclosure) sounds to me like the most promising for effectively minimizing diffraction in a relatively narrow-baffle speaker. I do not recall ever seeing this approach on any narrow tower speaker, probably because it would run counter to the primary purpose for using the narrow tower format in the first place: Aesthetic appeal.
@twoleftears; Great post and excellent thread! Coming a little late to the thread, but not at all to your observation. I should’ve posted this myself, it has been bugging me too. Yup, lifestyle engineering at its finest alright. Lately I was in Charlottesville and popped into Crutchfield to see what they had and to give a listen. My first time there. Lots of pairs in the audition room in the $300 to $10k range. My notes literally tally with yours, right down the line. Yes, they’re not set up correctly, but somehow, it was still clear to me that there might be a lot that would not come through with any of them...I could tell, if you know what I mean. I didn’t post about it, because I knew everyone would say I wasn’t hearing them at their best, but still, if you’ve been at this hobby awhile, a turd (with some study) can end up being pretty hard to camouflage, no matter how polished it is. Hate to say it that way, makes me sound like a complete cynic, but, it’s even sadder to me that this is now becoming, as you and Duke are saying here, standard fare. Uber-over-engineered 7" woofers designed to fit as many of them as possible into the smallest possible footprint cabinet...and I saw and heard evidence of small frequency range manipulations (audiophile trickery) in order to create a "house sound"...one example (can’t remember which now) had a deliberately rolled off top end in oder to sculpt cymbals into sounding as if they had more body. Later, I came to find out that the maker doesn’t even post a number for the top end response at all! Nice enough tweeter to go plenty high enough - just rolled off on purpose...!
@audiokinesis; Thank you Duke, for your very clear explanations - they’re very illuminating for me! I’m indebted to you for that.
Many manufacturers are using same design tools a good num are having speakers manufactered in the same country at the same facilitys or are sourcing from same. Manufactures must consider shipping costs thus its a top priority in design same with packaging how many per pallet and weight really maters. Also buyers expect a certain look sound and size in speaker systems this they have been preconditioned to accept what they now want is what is profitable to make. And so many today are just offering safe easy to sell and ship designs that tend to be more alike then differant.
Best way to eliminate diffraction is to use an infinite baffle. Or a finite baffle design, which extends 17 m in all directions (this eliminates diffraction up to 20 Hz). Highly impractical.
Choosing a different shape for the cabinet (sphere is the best one).
Rounding the edges of the cabinet.
Offsetting the speaker.
Baffle step is addressed in the crossover design. It is called baffle step compensation (BSC) and lowers the output of the frequencies above the baffle step.
Countersinking the speakers.
Lining the speaker cabinet with felt (while not the most appealing looking, it has considerable effect on reducing diffraction).
Photo of speaker with dimensions indicated: 7" wide, 36 3/4" tall.
Advertising copy: "Sometimes, being narrow-minded is a wonderful thing. Especially when the result of a groundbreaking floor-stander that's at home in almost any living space... such a space-saving enclosure... a slim, trim loudspeaker".
I think this speaks for itself, and I rest my case.
Yes lots of tall skinny floor standers. Not a fan in general but there are some very good ones and can be fine if desired. Good thing there is still OHM Walsh speakers of all sizes. I also prefer even more compact stand mounts. Toss in a seperate powered sub or two and active crossover if needed. Way more flexible and bang for buck than really good full range floor standers! Few people want gigantic, bulky, hard to handle speakers in their homes these days. Modern technology does make smaller more effective in general these days when you get down to the meat of the issue.
Photo of speaker with dimensions indicated: 7" wide, 36 3/4" tall.
Advertising copy: "Sometimes, being narrow-minded is a wonderful thing. Especially when the result of a groundbreaking floor-stander that’s at home in almost any living space... such a space-saving enclosure... a slim, trim loudspeaker".
I think this speaks for itself, and I rest my case.
Moreover, if the ad isn’t telling enough, Stereophile is totally into it (i.e.: the slim, trim loudspeaker), so as the biggest hifi magazine they’re not helping getting a bit of perspective here. The few exceptions there are of reviewed speakers from their hands deviating from the slender-shape, low to moderate efficiency iterations are.. well, exceptions. Nonetheless I guess this way they feel they’re in the safety zone for not being labeled of favoritism, or whatever term fits here.
Had to check in my pocket to see if I had two cents. I didn't but fortunately I found two in my change cup.
As fun as it might be to talk speakers, talking speakers without including the room or interface with the floor has become obsolete for today's serious listeners.
Wow, what a thread. I really am enjoying this. I agree with much of what is said and disagree with some. I've become a Vandersteen fan for the sound. I didn't even like them until I auditioned them about 6 years ago now. I felt the same way about most speakers that are out there. To me, they were either bright and forward as that's what stands out in the showroom, or they were just dull and rolled off. That was only on a couple of companies.
I completely agree on using digital anything to correct the sound. Many disagree with me, but I've yet to hear anything digital that doesn't ruin the sound in so many ways. JMHO and my ears.
When I fell for the Vandersteen's I didn't know must about their construction and didn't care. I was very surprised when I found out they are making cabinet in a cabinet. Other's do a great job using molded cabinets or slabs of various materials. Some are machining out of aluminum as we've all seen. I personally love carbon fiber and what's it's doing for audio. Again, JMHO
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
