Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

I definitely agree with the above. Most of the focus these days is on the cosmetic. Bookmatched veneers, piano gloss finish, and jewel-like binding posts are what seems to attract too many buyers.

The best drivers have improved, but a lot of that has been negated by the fading away of folks who understand crossovers, which are more important than the actual drivers themselves.

I have a few friends who build speakers, and in all honesty, their knowledge of crossovers is almost nonexistent. One has a design that was given to him, and despite making other changes to the speaker, he steadfastly refuses to change the crossover, as he simply doesn't understand them. Sadly, most folks are afraid of mathematics these days, and that holds things back.

From a technical standpoint, we've more or less returned to a long ago time. Gone are the days when the likes of designs like Quad, Magneplanar, Apogee, and Ohm are on the horizon.

Johnk, "Cone materials, surrounds,spiders, cone shapes, crossover parts, cabinet designs, binding posts sets, internal dampening all have improved for transducers."

I agree with you, mostly...

Although, I will say that some of the things we're told strike me as people congratulating themselves for what amounts to the normal incremental improvement one sees in most fields that survive over a period of time. We're living in a time of evolution, not revolution. I believe that is a reflection of the fact that precious little in the way of resources are now dedicated to the craft.

A couple of years ago, I attended the annual Tube Tasting that Jonathan Weiss puts on at Oswald's Mill. Although some of the discussion was above me, and some has been forgotten, a most informative presentation was given on the team of folks who designed the 12" RCA full-range driver way back when (late 1940s?). It was a real breakthrough, and pointed the industry to where we have come since. I don't want to get into too much of the minutiae, but suffice it to say that regarding the level of talent, resources, money, time, and passion that RCA threw at the development, I believe NOTHING like that will likely occur again for a very, very long time.

Johnk, "Crossovers have not made major gains but parts quality has as has computer design for crossovers."

My argument is that there are less people than ever who actually understand crossovers. Partly because of the programs themselves, but mostly due to the overall decline of science, engineering, and mathematic strength in our society.

As you intimated, computer programs make the work easier, but the end result is that the thinking becomes homogenized around the models. In the best case scenario, folks involved in design use the computer models to learn design patterns, then stand on the shoulders of the work that was programmed into that model, and go beyond it via their own experimentation. Instead, I find most use the programs as a crutch to compensate for their own reluctance to put the required hard work into craft.

Beyond that, as a software engineer myself, I have to say that putting trust into something that is designed and built by humans is a recipe for failure, as the all but a very few computer programs are at least moderately flawed.