Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

Back to the original question:

For better or worse, there's been one giant change:

Digital/x-overs and (sometimes) room correction.

All of the DEQX enabled room corrected stuff (Salk, Selah, etc.) and the non-
room corrected DEQX (Salagar, NHT Xd -already discontinued) and the
emerging Lyngdorf entries (Lyngdor, Bosendorfer - now called something
else, etc), as well as the Behringer powered models (Emerald Physics).

You also see Audyssey and similar systems; both full-range pre/pros and
bass only units(for subwoofers).

You may or may not approve of the approach, but this represents a
fundamental change in technology of the sort the OP inquired about.

Marty

Johnny,

Lots of folks have blamed David Wilson for a "premium pricing war" that has surely escalated over the last decade. There are tons of >$10,000 speakers out there and many that cost more than 10X that. Even adjusted for inflation, I don't think there were many speakers carrying this type of price tag 1 or 2 decades ago. Each of these mega-bux models has, I'm sure, it's fans, and each, in its own way may (or may not) advance the state of the art, but I also believe that, as a group, they represent deterioration in value.

So, to name names:

Choose from Wilson, Magico, Cabasse, German Physics, MBL,YG, & many others at the 6 figure level.
Focal, Verity, Snell, Canton, Sonus Faber, Hansen, Burmester, etc at the mid to high 5 figure level.

I name so many because I don't want to "slam" any single manufacturer. Any one of this group may represent great value to a given listener. As a group, I have my doubts.

Marty

I'm sure that Shadorne is correct re: radiation pattern.

Mrtennis' preference likely has little to do with distortion which varies dramatically with SPL - as noted above - for both boxes and panels. Similarly, tonal balance varies as markedly for different model panels as it does between any given panel and any given box. (The original Quad 'stat has a strikingly different tonal balance from the large Sound Lab 'stats.)

It's likely that the radiation pattern delta is also distinctive because it excites room nodes differently. My forward firing designs tend to produce a few suckouts between 50hz and 150hz, each of which is deep and narrow. My Maggies produce a larger, more complex pattern which features shallower troughs. The omnis produce the flattest response, although the primary suckout is large - much like the forward firing designs. Some of this specific result is due to my particular room (and I address some of this with EQ'd subs), but there's little doubt in my mind that the speaker/room system behaves differently when the radiation pattern is altered.

I rotate boxes and panels in my system roughly on a monthly basis, though my subs stay put with both. Each design has its particular charms and Mrtennis evidently values those of panel designs (and cardioid radiation) most highly. I would recommend that Mrtennis audition an omni design like Ohm, MBL, or Duevel (if he hasn't already) to see how those strike his fancy. They present a third radiation pattern that brings a different set of cards to the table.

Marty

Marty