@djones51 --
With active speakers and DSP box size and bass extension are being challenged in interesting ways. Look at the Develiat Phantoms down in subwoofer range with appossing drivers and a lot of watts. The Phantom's to me are more an interesting development in what can be achieved from a very small sized speaker package than what's entirely successful in itself against speakers of larger volume; they may impress (some people) in the context of being very compact, but against larger sized main speakers and subs come off like they're working hard to sound bigger than they are. Going further into the high eff. realm with a comparison here only exacerbates this impression, which is to say: challenging physics in regards to size only gets you so far. Quite a few other interesting active designs (like the Genelec "One's") have immerged challenging their passive iterations (if they exist as such as well) to come out victorious and at a favorable price, and that's something to cherish. These however are usually compact designs for smaller to moderate spaces, and don't escape the limitations of physics imposed on them. Fortunately active configuration can had with large, eff. speakers as a solution of separate components, but this does require some tech understanding (that can be learned) with DSP's and setting up cross-overs, if they aren't pre-configured. @audiokinesis -- Now imo there are definitely some qualitative advantages to that higher efficiency, but in my experience the market for eight cubic foot speakers is rather limited.
Anyway my guess is that the higher costs and the box size penalties attached to high efficiency are the primary reason why low efficiency speakers dominate the marketplace.
What's particularly interesting with high eff. larger speakers, to me, is that simplicity can be maintained when incorporating horns or waveguides fitted to compression drivers, and thus avoid some of the complexity issues that face low(er) eff. larger speaker designs. A 2-way high eff. design can be had with fairly large woofer/mids crossed to a horn/waveguide with very nice power response in the XO-region, though needing subs augmentation. I use such a configuration myself, now awaiting new horns from ~700Hz on up with a mouth area of some 2 x 3 feet for controlled directivity, if needed, down to 500Hz for a smoother transition to the dual 15" drivers below; coherency is paramount, and in conjunction with high eff. and sheer size is an intoxicating trait. Fortunately it's up to each individual to pursue the advantages afforded through high eff. and size, even if it isn't popular, and it mayn't be expensive. |
@mijostyn -- Good post, but I'd have to disagree with below quote:
A low sensitivity speaker can be very bit as dynamic as a high sensitivity speaker. It is just a matter of power.
Sorry, but no. Anything approaching live dynamics calls for both high efficiency and power (with very high eff. all-horn designs less power is needed). It's not only a question of achieving fairly uninhibited SPL's and dynamic envelope, which in itself is no easy task, but doing so with headroom to spare - on the speaker as well as amp side. Indeed, headroom is your friend and aids ease of presentation. Of course, less than live dynamic levels would do for many, but even then (with low eff. speakers) headroom is likely sparse. Power is power, and where less efficiently turned into acoustic output is stored as heat and eventually power compression. |
@audiokinesis --
This is almost exactly what I’m working on, and had hoped to introduce in 2020 but... stuff happened that year...
Anyway I designed a large-format Oblate Spheroid waveguide using Earl Geddes’ equations, like you targeting a 700 Hz crossover to twin 15" midwoofers. That 700 Hz figure is consistent with the findings of David Griesinger which Geddes subscribes to, and is very close to the 800 Hz crossover that Greg Timbers uses in the JBL M2. Imo the ability to cover the spectrum from there on up with a single driver is a major advantage over more "conventional" approaches, in addition to the other advantages of large drivers and high efficiency.
And of course the way around the bass extension/box size/efficiency tradeoff relationship is to hand off the bottom couple of octaves or so to subwoofers.
I’m rather surprised by how similar our approaches are. I knew we were barking up trees in the same forest, but didn’t realize it was the same tree! That is certainly interesting re: the similarity of approach, and thanks for your added/confirmative info here! Indeed, covering the whole frequency span from ~700Hz on up from a single driver/waveguide/horn element appears to be paramount. The current driver/horn constellation (and soon to be fitted with a bigger horn) of my main speakers sport a 2" exit with a 3" titanium diaphragm, and thus lends great energy and "breathing room" to its lower to central region. This does affect the upper octave however compared to smaller exits of 1 and 1.4" which don't roll off quite as early, though conversely at the expense of lower band energy and higher distortion here. Choices, choices; it's a matter of balance (and preference) with the implementation at hand, but I find it's worth the effort compared to adding another driver element, cross-over and point source. If I may inquire: what's the intended waveguide exit size of your upcoming design, and would the twin 15" bass/mids be configured D'Appolito style or with both of them below the OS waveguide? Btw, I'm thinking whether Timbers would've preferred a slightly lower cut-off than 800Hz with the M2's, but that the size of its waveguide simply won't allow it? Scaling up the size here likely would've made for a bulkier, and less commercial appearance. To the OP: sorry for veering off-topic. If nothing else what's elaborated above is an indication of a preference and a desired high eff. design path that seems less popular or visible not for reasons of lack of sonic prowess, but rather size requirements and design principle in particular. Few audiophiles appear interested in compression drivers and horns/waveguides, not to mention larger pro woofer/mids that extends into the central midrange; I'd wager it's largely conjecture aimed at a speaker segment that doesn't speak the conventional hi-fi narrative, and where auditioned their typically denser and more direct/present sounding nature mayn't appeal to those who're usually exposed to a leaner, more laid-back and softer/reverberative presentation. And may I just add: high efficiency doesn't automatically equate into easy or easier amp load. Less power is stored into heat for a given SPL, but a complex passive x-over here can still drain amps with less prodigious power supplies. For easier an more optimal amp load active configuration is required. |
Greg Timbers:
Q: How has the sound of speakers changed over the years? Many yearn for the speakers of the past over those of today… what has changed? Distortion, materials, focus on sound characteristics? A (by Mr. Timbers): Speakers have generally become smoother, more 3-dimensional and much smaller. This means that they are less dynamic on the whole and rather toy like compared to good stuff from the 60s and 70s. Unlike electronics, miniaturization is not a good thing with loudspeakers. There is no substitute for size and horsepower. Nothing much has changed with the laws of physics in the last 100 years so what it takes to make dynamic life-like sound is unchanged. There have been some advances in magnet materials and a bunch of progress in adhesives but not much else. The cost of a 70s system in today's economy would be considered unaffordable and the system would be deemed unnecessarily huge. The large highly efficient systems of old came at a time when 15 – 30 watts of power was the norm. Today's stuff would choke on those amplifiers. Now that power is cheap, size and efficiency has been thrown out the window because you can always apply more power. Unfortunately, more power does not make up for lack of efficiency. Today's speakers range between 0.1% to maybe 0.5% in efficiency. (On a good day) 60s and 70s stuff was more like 1% to 10%. With most of the losses gong to heat, turning up the power on a small system with small voice coils and poor heat management is definitely not equivalent to a large high efficient speaker. It is true that the response of many of the old systems was a bit ragged and generally less attention was put in the crossover networks because simplicity generally means higher through-put. However, the big Altec's, JBL's, Klipsch's and Tannoys of the day would still fair well today with a little modernization of the enclosures and crossovers. Today's multi-channel home theater setups let a bunch of small toy loudspeakers and a sub or two sound pretty big and impressive to the average Joe. I think speakers have mostly become a commodity and small size and price are what counts the most now. The few high-end brands left are struggling for market share in this age of ear buds.
https://positive-feedback.com/interviews/greg-timbers-jbl/ |
@clearthinker --
I'd agree with poster @ctsooner here. Pro manufacturers, the more or less sole supplier for this segment, have developed and build their high efficiency drivers for decades now, and relative to their size, material use and R&D are actually very fairly priced compared to "hi-fi" drivers in general. Boutique high eff. drivers with AlNiCo magnets or field coils housed in luxuriously finished cabinets and all will always be (much) more steeply priced, though are hardly representative in this context. Fortunately they needn't be that pricy to show the merits of high efficiency designs.
Largely it comes down to size, sound type and association, I believe; high efficiency speakers are closely related to if not directly derived from the pro sector (certainly driver-wise), a sector audiophilia isn't too comfortable with, and coupled with their sonic imprinting as typically more direct, dense, dynamic and present (also due to their dispersive nature) may not appeal to audiophiles and their more widespread exposure to a "softer," thinner, more laid-back and "reverberative" sound (some even feel the dynamics capabilities of high eff. speakers to be "exaggerated"). I'm sure many regard high eff. designs as more "brute" and lacking subtlety, not least when linked to the pro/studio environment, but it's often very far from the truth (did I mention conjecture?). As if sheer volume wasn't an issue already high eff. into the lower octaves takes some very serious size - there's no noodling around that requirement either - and when most have jumped ship with the high eff. main speakers long ago it's even more rare seeing subs in this category of speakers.
What's most popular in hi-fi is also a popular narrative, and that's an inertia not easily brought to hold. |
@audio2design -- You don’t have to have a highly efficient speaker to overcome dynamic compression in normal usage.
Now, before you tell me what I don’t know and need to know, consider the following: What system constellation as it pertains to minimum cone diameter, sensitivity rating and wattage would, according to you, be able to deliver sufficient SPL coverage for "normal usage" with a room size of, say, up 30 square meters (or, no more than ~3,000 cf. total volume) - as an active design with the whole none off-the-shelf trimmings, that is, so to stay on your home field? Room acoustics per your preference here. Enough for a while with any further elaborations of all the exclusivities in regards to tailored driver design, impedance matched amps, measurement methods, analysis and DSP tools and other sheer engineering prowess. Let’s get some blunt, physical requirements in place as per the above. As the article points out, there are methods of voice coil design, speaker design, material choices, etc. that can all mitigate these problems, hence probably why there are 100’s if not 1000+ speaker designers, but very few professional driver manufacturers, and why top speaker companies design their own drivers.
Would said mitigations make up for what bigger and more efficient drivers incorporating horn- or waveguide loading with compression drivers could do in regards to fairly uninhibited dynamics? What’s sufficient SPL-wise, even? How about headroom - lots of it; does that make of sonic difference to you, the ease that comes from using lots of radiation area and high efficiency? One thing would be an acknowledgement of the above as a stand-alone factor; another whether it’s compatible with a commercial design meant for sale with all that entails and the size restrictions and other that typically follows here. It’s a convenient stance implicitly claiming what’s "sufficient" for normal usage, likely catering to a product development of one’s own within said limitations, when setting the bar higher in that regard could make a worthwhile difference to some - non-commercial it may be as a product range. It is also a reason why active speakers will be necessary for the absolute in sound recreation.
Fundamentally, we agree on this. |
@clearthinker -- If I understand you correctly, you make a new point after 119 posts to this thread:
A large majority of audiophile speaker designs are low efficiency because a large majority of audiophiles don’t like some of the sound characteristics of high efficiency speaker designs. Or, as you say, they think they don’t. It’s certainly a type of sound quite a few audiophiles don’t warm to particularly, likely because of another type of sound they’re typically exposed to or, yes, they dismiss this segment of speakers out of hand/sans 1st hand experience. Or, they may simply not like the ones they heard, for whatever reason, which is perfectly fair. Habitual use is important to stress here, I find. It’s a bit akin to the sonic difference between passive and active speakers perhaps; using the same speakers in one and the other configuration I find the former is generally the more euphonic sounding, softer, less clear, less resolved and less transiently "snappy"/more smeared. To some passive here is the more "musical" and warm variant and thus more pleasing, whereas to others active is the musically more honest, resolved, transparent and less bottlenecked presentation and therefore what they prefer. Below is an excerpts from a JBL K2 S9800 review that highlights a universal characteristic of horn-loaded, large-woofer speakers and their type of presentation: Horn speakers are not to everyone’s taste, and while a number of visitors agreed that this speaker seems remarkably free from the vices normally attributed to the breed, some listeners might find it a little too ruthlessly revealing, preferring something rather more laid-back and restrained. While the K2 does have some aggressive tendencies when worked hard, taking no prisoners among poor-quality software, sources, or amps, its ability to "suck in" the listener and create involvement in even unfamiliar material is unparalleled in my experience.
One aspect of performance that’s somewhat different from the norm lies in the way this speaker interacts -- or rather doesn’t interact -- with the listening room. Most speakers have relatively wide dispersion in every direction, so that although the sound you hear is dominated by the direct sound from speaker to listener, it is richly augmented by room-reflected sound. However, both the K2’s large bass/mid driver and its mid/treble horns seem to have comparatively narrow dispersion through the midrange and treble, so there’s less room sound than is usually the case. In that respect the K2 shows certain similarities to dipole panel loudspeakers such as the Quad ESL-988, which have a figure-eight-shaped distribution. This means that you hear more of the direct sound coming straight to you from the loudspeakers, and proportionally less sound reflected from the walls, floor, and ceiling than you would using a speaker with a much wider dispersion characteristic, such as the B&W Nautilus models. Whereas the Nautilus 800 will tend to fill the room more, creating a strong impression that the musicians are actually sitting right there, the K2 and Quad provide more of an "open window" onto the recording sessions, revealing more of what the recording engineer intended, but less of the illusion that musicians are actually playing in front of you. This is neither praise nor criticism, as there’s neither right nor wrong here, but it is a relevant observation that has a significant impact upon the character of the listening experience. This quality undoubtedly contributes to the very precise imaging, alongside this bulky speaker’s surprisingly good transparency. It’s not quite a match for the best dipole panels here, but is rather better than most box loudspeakers in this regard. https://www.soundstageultra.com/equipment/jbl_k2_s9800.htmIf that’s correct, I wonder how much the sound characteristics of the puny 10 watt often SET amps that are commonly used to drive high efficiency designs have got to do with it. Like some of the posters here, I certainly don’t like them. Would they sound different (better?) driven with a high current amp with a big power supply, even if the wick has to be turned a long way down? They would be under better control, particularly in the bass where most of the problem lies.
No, through high quality high efficiency speakers, not least very high eff. (i.e.: from ~100dB’s on up) all-horn speakers I find great quality SET’s to bring out the best in them. There’s a combination here of aliveness, vibrancy, uninhibited yet naturally warm presence and a lit-from-within sense of presentation that’s quite unique and utterly beguiling. To take full advantage of SET’s you need very high eff. speakers so only to use as little as possible of the few watts available, and stay in the very low range of distortion. By comparison some Solid State amps (less so SIT’s) with the same very high eff. speakers sounded somewhat grey-ish, a bit mechanical, less folded-out and just downright flat. Myself I previously used a pair of very high eff. all-horn speakers, but for some reason I ended up not giving them the SET they deserved and instead veered more towards active with SS amps (30 watts pure Class A to the horns and Class D variants in the half kW range further low) and horn hybrid speakers that I use now. Again the passive vs. active sonic marker applies, though literally here; active with the horn hybrids I’m using now (~100 to 110dB’s sensitivity) infuses a vitality and ignited-ness, even with SS amps, that to me is akin to the sonic imprinting of SET’s + all-horns, the difference though being an added sense with the active config. of evermore ease, resolution and (a sense of) unlimited power delivery. |
@atmasphere -- ...
A higher efficiency driver that can make 98dB with 1 watt and is 8 ohms is a different beast altogether. This describes the 15" drivers in my speakers at home and they cost $2000.00 each.
These are field coil-fitted drivers, right? In that presumable case their price, though way above what needs to serve a fitting purpose here, makes a little more sense. You can find 15" drivers that cost $200.00. I'd be very interested to learn of a 15" with the same 22Hz free air resonance and 150 watt power handling that cost $200, or even $600.00. Have at it! But I think you'll find that such simply does not exist.
The Electro-Voice DL15W woofer/mids of my pro cinema speakers are 97dB sensitive/8 ohms, have a 21Hz free air resonance, and take 400 watts long term. And there are two of them in each speaker (+ subs). Being they're high-passed below ~85Hz further adds to their power handling. I'm unaware of their price being they're discontinued, but my guess is around $300 retail per driver at the time. |
@atmasphere --
They are TAD 1602s. Pricey, and a bit different from the EV. I forgot to mention they have Alnico magnets.FWIW the midrange driver employs a field coil and a beryllium diaphragm with a Kapton surround. They are Classic Audio Loudspeakers model T-3. I had the cabinets custom-built by CAL to be a bit taller than stock so they are flat to 20Hz.
Never heard Classic Audio Loudspeakers, for that I imagine I'd have to go abroad to the US. From what I can tell they must be excellent speakers. How would you compare them to the likes of JBL Everest's (DD67000, or one of the other two variants), if you heard them? |
@atmasphere -- I have. The Classic Audio Loudspeakers are **easily** in the same league. If I had to compare, the CAL is a bit smoother, owing to a better interface between the throat and horn, resulting in far less artifact. The field coil compression driver is also a higher performance bit of kit.
I would expect no less of the T3’s, or CAL speakers overall. The DD67000’s are great speakers, and somewhat better than their smaller K2 S9900 sibling than I initially thought, but there’s a shred of "splashy-ness" to their midrange than when not there lends a smoother imprinting, as you point to with the CAL’s. What are the T3’s sold for - close to $100k? Re: mentioned "better interface" it reminds of what Simon Mears told me of the importance of the coupling between the compression driver exit and the throat of the horn it’s mounted to; transition, transition, transition - as he put it. @mijostyn -- Phusis, I would bet there are a host of SS amps that would handily out perform any SET amp. Any small class A Pass amp for sure. JC1’s definitely and most probably all of Atma-Sphere’s amps. Like trying to race a 911 in a VW Bug. "Outperform;" per your ears or more from a theoretical perspective? And in what context of speakers? SET’s, great ones at that, are dependent on very high efficiency speakers (and not too heavy an overall load) to perform their best, at least from my chair. Paired properly as such I find the combo is magical, or just rather natural and uninhibited sounding. I suspect most haven’t really auditioned them in the context I refer to, and if they have the speakers here (typically all-horns) may been so far from their usual sonic menu that an assessment would veer closer to their imprinting, and not the amp(s). Myself I certainly can’t complain using a variety of SS-based amps in my set-up, but I wager a substantial aspect of this rests in it being a fully active configuration. |
@atmasphere -- The T-1 has a 250Hz horn, using a 4" compression driver that is field coil powered. The diaphragm is made of beryllium and employs a Kapton surround, which is how it goes so low without breakups. I don’t know the spec on the T-1 but I do know that the 3" diaphragm in the T-3 has its first breakup at 35KHz. The breakups are a pretty big deal; I got to hear what the regular TAD diaphragm did compared to the CAL unit and it was not subtle- much smoother!
The combination of larger VC diameters, beryllium diaphragms and being field coil powered sounds like a recipe for sonic excellence. That’s next level rocket stage for sure.. |
@mijostyn -- .. my set up is fully active but you could never use SET amps in my system. I really require big amps. I was talking in the context of very efficient speakers. SET amps are very romantic and if that is what you like then by all means but a class A SS amp particularly a Pass or Curl design is going to be more accurate, have more control over the woofer and still have a little of the romance. I would also rather buy records than $1000 tubes.
SET’s isn’t the way I’m heading either, but some of the best of them I’ve heard (300b-based by David Wright of UK) didn’t sound "romantic" per se; just natural, as I described earlier. The Ongaku (211 tubes) is warmer sounding to my ears (as is most Kondo), but I’m thinking whether this character has to do with the silver transformers mainly (instead of cobber). @johnk -- Costs for high-eff drivers are greater, Size high- eff designs are larger can cost more to build ship take up more room at dealers and distributors.
Relative to driver diameter and weight I don’t see high eff. pro units being notably more expensive vs. hi-fi dittos, although of course they’re usually larger and take more power which then reflects their price. My main issue is taking this out of proportion with high eff. boutique drivers from the likes of TAD ($2,000 per 15" unit as mentioned by Ralph), older WE’s and Vitavox (both crazily priced), as well as (to a lesser degree) Great Plains Audio/older Altec’s or other. Brands like B&C, EV (older units in particular), RCF, 18sound, BMS and others are more fairly priced, and still great high eff. pro drivers. Some if not most of you guys commenting on this make your own speakers or are affiliated with people who are, and the drivers being used as examples here mayn’t be more widely representative. And I will also add that buyers don’t want changes. And they have been told for decades that all horns are problematic and they bought the line that small is better. Face it would you buy a toaster that was better than others but was larger and looked not like a toaster? We are simple tools and want to blend in and conform with others not to stand out.
Well put - completely agree. I’m sure most audiophiles would find my using pro cinema speakers and 20 cf. horn variant subs to be if not laughable, then oddly.. different. Your horn set-ups are much larger still. Be that as it may I’m not going back to smaller, low eff. all-direct radiating boxes. @atmasphere -- Thanks for your very interesting elaborations on SET’s and distortions types. As I understand it, my speakers are currently about $33,000/pair. Mr. Mears is correct. The coupling was optimized on a computer and the result is very smooth and seamless. People often comment on hearing T3s (and T1s) that the speakers sound more like ESLs in that they are so fast and seamless. IOW no ’horn artifact’ at all.
I must have thought of the T1.5’s/T1’s re: price. $33k/pair or thereabouts for the T.3’s isn’t cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but compared to many other offerings in high-end and the JBL Everest’s mentioned earlier I’d say, from what I’ve read by you and others, that they are very fairly priced in light of the drivers used (Alnico and field coil magnets), overall finish/use of hardwood and being handmade. @mijostyn -- Phusis, those are quite some speakers you have. What are you using for subs? They must be unusual to keep up with your main speakers.
Thanks, I think ;) The horn mounted on top of the EV main cinema speakers is the HP940 and crossed at just below 800Hz. Within a few weeks they’ll be replaced with the (much) bigger HP9040 horn using the existing (and still fitting) DH1A comp. driver. The EV bass cabs are meant for use with both of these horns, the entire speaker called either TS940D or TS9040D depending on the horn mounted to them. The intention using the bigger horn is to control directivity all the way down to the cross-over point (as low as 500Hz, if desired), and thus make for a somewhat better coverage pattern transition between the twin 15" woofers and the horn. The smaller horn I use now has a mode between 2-3kHz, whereas the bigger one moves it down to ~500Hz. Choosing a cross-over in the 650-700Hz region with the same steep slopes should avoid any outright mode issues. We’ll see. The two subs are tapped horns (called "MicroWrecker") fitted with a 15" B&C woofer each (15TBX100). Tuned at 23 to 24Hz, 97dB sensitive, and taking up 20 cf. per horn. They are unusual, yes, not what one typically sees in hi-fi, if rarely at all. They sound different to direct radiating twin 18" ported subs (their effective air radiation equivalent) being more smooth, enveloping and effortless sounding. They fit the EV mains great. @atmasphere -- Like any other tech, horns have benefited dramatically from the aid of computer optimization. I owned Altecs, Klipsh and EV horn systems and there’s no way I would go back to them; as you say they were very colored (and lacked bandwidth, particularly in the bass). The Classic Audio stuff is a different beast altogether- neutrality is a good descriptor. The speakers produced by Audiokinesis using waveguides had a similar neutrality- you found yourself involved with the music rather than the speakers.
The David Gunness developed HP-series horns from Electro-Voice (based on Don Keele’s Constant Directivity design’s from the 70’s) aren’t of the earliest "squeamish" types, and supposedly the bigger variants HP640 and 9040, as well as the earlier HR-series, are very well liked by audiophiles-into-horns. I’m sure the Classic Audio horns are better being newer, computer aided developments as well as their more inert hard-wood material use, albeit smaller; this is where physics and sheer size comes into place for directivity control down to the x-over point, and that’s not trivial. Compromises, compromises.. |
@mijostyn -- Just looked over at your profile, and you have an impressive set-up from what I can assess (haven’t heard it, obviously, but I’m sure it’s sonically extremely capable). You wrote "Sound Labs" being your main ESL’s, but the profile reads Acoustat’s - which is it? A friend of mine have a pair of older Acoustat’s, smaller than yours (can’t remember the model number), and they’re very coherent sounding, transparent and informative. Having a single transducer cover the entire range from 100-20kHz is an impressive, and not least an important feat when done well; being ESL’s I can only imagine that it is. Moreover being a line source (as such) from floor to ceiling adds to their traits. Personally and over time I’ve never been fully convinced or taken the type of presentation from the line sources I’ve heard, but as executed in your case, with subs augmentation and the ESL’s relieved below 100Hz to boot, I may feel differently about it. You don’t shy away from cone area with the subs either, and with lots of power at hand from your QSC’s bodes well for headroom and clean bass. Have you tried spreading out your subs DBA-style? Not meant as an advocation of mine, but just curious what you’ve come to find here, in case. I can certainly relate to where you’re getting at with your set-up imagining a large, enveloping and coherent sound field that’s fairly uninhibited LF-wise as well. It’s not at all unlike what I’m after, though quite obviously very differently executed. @johnk -- Community made the best horn designs even today we haven’t equaled what they offered during the 1970s. Their multi cells are by far the most advanced on earth the leviathan and the radials all not bettered by modern designs. I have been beta testing for a few companies they know I have many horn types to use the horns they made to go with there new designs are just based on older designs but are smaller. So while it is possible to design better horns today we don’t because of the size and costs to build them. It’s the recurring roadblock for sound reproduction in a home environment: size. JMLC horns (with the proper calculated horn profiles, that aren’t mostly used) are great, I find, and don’t skimp on size. The upcoming bigger EV horns of mine (HP9040) mayn’t dance with the best, but I’d wager they bring about advantages (compared to smaller, more modern horns) precisely because of their size and controlling directivity as low as they do. Getting a closer coverage pattern match over the cross-over range arguably is one of the "macro parameters," and being successful seeking out and attaining others as well is what it’s about, basically - to me, at least. Size restrictions keep one from hitting many of said parameters, but more than cost considerations it appears size itself (and the change in design narrative) is the primary obstacle. |
No free lunches indeed. There are those who'd like to sell the idea that big means much more expensive, but to them boutique, often vintage drivers with field coil or alnico magnets in addition to luxury, hand-build finishes is the only validating entry into the high efficiency arena. Their (affiliated) business, obviously, but NOT representative of what's possible with high efficiency and large size at more reasonable prices that can as well produce great sound.
The real non-free lunch here is size (and the product segment typically associated with that), as we're seeing considerable expense being shelled out already for a speaker package not much larger than a meager shoebox. Sound is physics, meaning displacement and efficiency is irreplaceable as that which accommodates truer dynamic envelope, low distortion and ease - core parameters into what is perceived authentic as a live event, yet they're wildly neglected for above reasons; not price, but size predominantly and the product narrative that follows here. Last but not least: live sound mayn't be that big of a draw after all.. |
