Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

Johnnyb53

Well Said.

MrT - Maybe you could increase your personal efficiency by changing your "handle" to something like "panelspkrlvr" or "planaraddict" or "wallofnoise". Then everyone who saw your posts would know instantly where you stand on speakers. This would save you countless redundant entries and free up a lot more listening time. And you could still use your Mr.Tennis name on a sports site.

I think you've explained your beliefs on the inherent superiority of panels satisfactorily by now.

In my opinion they exist as a valid option. Just about everybody has tried one kind of panel or another by now. Most of us move on.

I am currently using horns from 450 Hz. to 14Khz. No panel will ever approach them in the areas that are important to me.

04-05-09: Mrtennis
as to faults of cone design, they include the following:

cabinet colorations, lack of driver coherence, stridency of many metal-based tweeters, and crossing over dissimilar drivers

Those are not faults of cone design, but of enclosure design, driver selection, and driver integration. All can be corrected and often are. To wit:

Cabinet colorations: Increasing numbers of dynamic speakers have curved panels, increased amounts of bracing, and materials other than MDF. The thin-ply birch stock (also used for piano pin blocks) are seeing increasing use. Brands that use this very inert material include Lominchay, Nuforce, and Magico.

Lack of driver coherence: Pick drivers with similar rise times and physically align them on the baffle.

Stridency of many metal-based tweeters: 20 years ago, maybe. There are plenty of good metal-dome tweeters. The titanium tweeters in Mirage speakers have cloth surrounds, damping out all the ringing and leaving superior speed and linearity without diaphragm breakup. Tweeter materials fall in and out of fashion and have little to do with actual performance IME.

Crossing over dissimilar drivers: Use more similar drivers (duh). More and more drivers are made in families. Not only does Mirage use a titanium tweeter, all their cone-based midranges and woofers have vapor-deposited titanium to match the sonic signature.

These are all straw man arguments against cones. Some of the best speakers in the world are cones, including the best from Wilson, Magico, YG, Avalon, Vandersteen, Thiel, JM Labs ......., none of which exhibit the "faults of cone design" you mentioned.

Alright, enough Mr.T bashing. One of the most appealing aspects of large panels is the oversized soundstage—great on large scale recordings, and although unrealistic, quite attractive on intimate small scale recordings, such as, solo guitar, lute, violin. If one is completely sold on that scale of soundstage, box speakers can be underwhelming no matter how good they are in other respects. As an analogy, years ago when Fujichrome was first introduced in the US, many people went gaga over it. It wasn't because Fuji was better from a fidelity standpoint, it wasn't by a long shot. Ektachrome had far more realistic color rendition. It was because the high color saturation was so appealing. Could it be said that panels have a "higher soundstage saturation?"

It's too bad this thread has taken a detour from new technology. Has there really been anything revolutionary or only incremental improvements?

The only newer things I'm aware of are the MBL radialstrahler driver, Manger driver, the Impact airfoil, all bending wave drivers of some sort. Haven't heard any of these. What is almost universal is that new or exotic technologies usually do high and sometimes mid frequencies well, but low frequencies still need to be handled by conventional cone drivers. The exception to this is the Eminent Technology's rotary woofer. Quite an ingenious approach to infrasonic sound production.

Nothing has advanced, just new twists on old designs... Some materials have become slightly cheaper and more relevant again, but only real "Advance" would be in Capacitors for crossovers, some extremely different and better sounding caps are developed today, but even then most of the speaker companies unless paying mucho dollars don't use them anyway.

04-13-09: Ojgalli
Alright, enough Mr.T bashing.

I wasn't bashing Mr. T. I was using his outdated indictments of dynamic speaker systems to illustrate the very topic of this thread. More cone-based speakers at more price points have reduced or eliminated their glaring disadvantages in the past 10 years.

In an earlier post, I mentioned several developments of the past few years that have catapaulted speaker performance over what was affordably available 10 years ago. I mentioned the API/Mirage developments of the Omniguide and their elliptical rib surround, which totally changes the rules on diaphragm diameter vs. cabinet size, bass extension, and clarity. I mentioned increasing use of neodymium magnets and beryllium tweeters. To that I could add that offshoring manufacturing to China has made intricately built enclosures affordable. Basically China has freed us from the box speaker. More and more speakers at affordable prices have elliptical shapes, curved sides, curved tops, and the attendant decrease in cabinet resonances and standing waves. More are getting away from MDF, using polymers, extruded aluminum columns, multi-ply birch from Europe (the stock used for piano pinblocks), and staved construction a la Sonus Faber and Usher.

Drivers haven't stood still. Witness the emergence of the ring radiator tweeter, which has found a home in many upscale loudspeakers from Sonus Faber, Magico, and AV123, and the ring ribbon as used by Adagio and Genesis among others.

These advances have made their way into entry-level products. Take a look at the averaged anechoic response curve of the $449/pair PSB Image B25 stand-mounted speaker. It is +/- 3dB from 50 to 20KHz, and is about +0, -2dB from 300 to 8 KHz where most of the action is. This level of linearity at this price point IS revolutionary.

There's been a resurgence in open-baffle designs.

Earl Geddes has identified and fixed a major source of horn coloration with his open-cell foam filled oblate spheroidal wave guides.

Tom Danley invented the unity summation aperture (a multi-way point source horn) and tapped horn for bass. He's produced compact bass horns that get a lot of the horn size from the environment.

DSP and digital amplification makes it easier to realize multi-amplification in high output active designs.

There are newer drivers which are linear over higher excursion (for more output, or a MT array with the same output as an MTM but better polar response).

There are newer drivers with less distortion and stored energy, but this is a minor change when you have good polar response and a correctly executed cross-over.

There are more small makers which essentially charge you for parts plus a furniture maker's time. You can get much more attractive veneers and solid hardwood pannels without spending five figures.

OTOH, if you buy a generic speaker with generic drivers it's unlikely to be appreciably better than an older speaker. It'll just cost more due to inflation.

Mrtennis writes:

>i think you are ignoring the obvious. i exchew cone speaker >designs. i realize others like them. i just have a hard time >fathoming why they are so popular, given their faults. i will >never buy one .

You want to listen to a dynamic dipole like the Linkwitz Orion which combines a panel speaker's transparency and natural sound with relative placement insensitivity, a big sweet spot, and second octave bass at realistic output levels.

why is it that whenever i listen to a cone design i hear cabinet and driver colorations. please cite a cone system with no cabinet colorations and i will listen carefully to it when i have the chance.

you can blindfold me and i will recognize a cone speaker. if cone speakers are so realistic, why do i detect a sonic signature ?

i realize it is a matter of personal taste, but i wonder how many who prefer cone designs would not prefer them as much if they heard a panel speaker in blindfold mold.

timbre is most important to me and i feel panels do a better job.

if there are any outstanding cone systems, i will try to appreciate their virtues, the next time i go to las vegas.

>why is it that whenever i listen to a cone design i hear cabinet and driver colorations.

Because you listen to multi-way cone speakers in conventional cabinets which have big polar/power response problems, probably have cabinet resonances, and may have internal reflection problems.

There are not a lot of brands sold out of show rooms which get around that, their dealers are not numerous, and some of the designs are compromised to suit market tastes.

AccentSpeaker's Nola dipoles, Lyngdorf's dipole, the Gradient Revolution cardioid/dipole, and Jamo's R909 dpole use cone drivers in open baffle configurations.

B&W's flagship Nautilus has acoustically small drivers close together in damped transmission lines.

You can demo Linkwitz Orion and Gilmore's dipoles, although that's more likely to require a visit to an enthusiast's home, show, or plane trip somewhere.

The Carver Amazing and Audio Artistry line used conventional cones in dipoles but aren't around any more.

>please cite a cone system with no cabinet colorations and i will listen carefully to it when i have the chance.

Linkwitz Orion - no box, no box sound.

Linkwitz Pluto, where the mid-bass enclosure is

1. A damped transmission line with a 40dB return loss

2. Exceptionally rigid (there's an AES paper out there showing that cylindrical enclosures are as rigid as 4" concrete).

On top of the enclosure (or lack thereof) you've got the room interaction.

Technically speaking, the near field ends at the critical distance where direct sound and reverberant field are equal. With conventional speakers in a domestic environment that point is at 2-4 feet from the speaker. By the time you get a comfortable 8' out the sound you're hearing from your speakers is 6-12dB below the direct sound.

Many of your conventional speakers have a mid-range that's getting acoustically large with narrowing dispersion and the tweeters are uniformly acoustically small so they have wide dispersion. The two are relatively far apart compared to wave lengths about the cross-over region. Combine the two and you have a power response notch there. Conventional MTMs have issues for the same reason. As a tangent I think people prefer first order designs due to the shape (shallower + broader versus deeper and narrower for higher order) of the power response notch since the all-pass response introduced by fourth order filters isn't audible by itself.

When 3/4 to 15/16 of the energy you hear has a big bite taken out of its spectrum the result sounds like a speaker.

Single drivers like a big planar work around the problem with decreasing power output at high frequencies without the cross-over notch although the resulting lobes make the reflections unpredictable and placement finicky.

Dipoles like open baffle cone speakers have at least 4.8dB of directivity so things can't broaden too much at higher frequencies. The angles where cancellation is creating the biggest notch in output about the cross-over region are in a dipole null so the impact on total power response is less severe.

Speakers with acoustically small drivers close together like the Pluto avoid the problem because there isn't a large fraction of wavelength between the drivers at any angle. 4" between mid-bass and tweeter with a 1KHz cross-over is about 1/3 wave length so there shouldn't be cancellation anywhere (I haven't looked up the tweeter time alignment all-pass delay and considered it).

Coaxials can work well for the same reason. I heard a pair of the Seas coaxials in open baffles which didn't sound like speakers.

John Krevosky's NaO for Não em uma caixa "Not in a box" should work like the Orion. The Nomad Audio Ronin which is an open-baffle coaxial at high frequencies might work well too although I think you loose a lot not retaining dipolar radiation down to 40-50Hz.

I'd speculate that the GedLee and Audio Kinesis speakers mating a waveguide to a large mid-woofer matching its radiation pattern at the cross-over point would sound natural for the same reasons cone based dipoles do - more uniform power response because the driver directivity matches and the angles of greatest cancellation are in an area where response is attenuated.

>Technically speaking, the near field ends at the critical distance where direct sound and reverberant field are equal. With conventional speakers in a domestic environment that point is at 2-4 feet from the speaker. By the time you get a comfortable 8' out the sound you're hearing from your speakers is 6-12dB below the direct sound.

The last direct should read "reverberant".

>>04-14-09: Mrtennis
you can blindfold me and i will<<

I think a gag is a better idea than a blindfold

And really, who cares if you can do this? It proves nothing.

Give it a rest.

To audiofeil's point - it is all about preferences in this hobby.

No real breakthroughs or advancements apart from capacitors with lower harmonics and slightly faster settling woofers. Some manufacturers finally decided the shape of the cabinet was important enough to dictate design and that was known in the 1950s.

The new diamond tweeters have low harmonics but slow rise and settling time. JM Labs Beryllium now have higher frequency extension but no other improvements or differences over previous Yamaha beryllium designs of the 1970s, as the measurements reflect in addition to listening.

To audiofeil's point - it is all about preferences in this hobby.

Exactly - the hobby is nothing more than fashion or fad.

timbre is most important to me and i feel panels do a better job.
Mrtennis (Threads | Answers)

If you highly value timbre in a speaker design, you really need to listen to the Audiokinesis Jazz Modules or Dream Maker speakers. You don't have to wait for CES to hear them either. I own the Jazz Modules and you're welcome to come by for a listen anytime.

hi clio9:

i live in the nyc metro area, do you live near there ?

i would love to hear these speakers.

thanks for the invite.

the most realistic timbre of any speakers i have auditioned were stacked quad esl, mcintosh c22, quad 15 watt tube amps, and thorens t/t with ortofon arm and cartridge.

Mrtennis,

I live in Las Vegas. You may want to call Duke Lejeune and see if he has any customers in your area. Also, since you do audio reviews maybe Duke would be interested in having you review a pair. I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask. Otherwise Duke does an excellent job describing how his speakers reproduce natural timbre on his Web site.

If you ever come out this way feel free to contact me.

04-14-09: Clio09
If you highly value timbre in a speaker design, you really need to listen to the Audiokinesis Jazz Modules or Dream Maker speakers.

In the writeup on its Jazz Module, Audiokinesis writes:

Natural timbre arises from smooth frequency response, but to really get the timbre right requires attention to both the on-axis response and the summed omnidirectional response. The summed omnidirectional response is often called the “power response” and is important because it dominates the spectral balance of the reverberant sound (which in turn dominates the perceived tonal balance in most in-home applications). It’s not enough just to get the first-arrival sound right. In the Jazz Modules we have gone to great lengths to also get the reverberant sound right, using a constant directivity waveguide crossed over to a 10" woofer where their directivities converge.

Audiokinesis' description confirms my experience at home. I'm a long time owner of Mirage loudspeakers, both from their Bi-polar and Omniguide series. In December 2004 my wife & I got married in the living room of our house. We had live acoustic music for the ceremony and afterwards. A couple months later I brought in a pair of Mirage Omnisats for evaluation for a neighbor's system that I was putting together, and my wife and I marveled at how "real" these speakers sounded. To sound "real" they have to be timbre-correct, and to do that, they have to energize the room as live musicians do. With the recent memory of our wedding, it was apparent that these speakers energize the room (the power response) in this manner.

While a loudspeaker can't duplicate the dispersion pattern of every instrument, the latest generation of Omniguide Mirages imitate this pattern *on average*, and it's based on nearly 30 years of research and testing. You get more imaging than the typical omnidirctional speaker because the Mirages throw at least 60% of the energy forward, but--just as with live music--the entire listening area is a workable sweet area with no lobing or venitian blinding artifacts of conventional speaker dispersion patterns.

Audiokinesis is obviously on to this phenomenon, as is Mbl, Gallo, James speakers, and a few others. Some of the conventional speaker companies add a rear-firing tweeter on some models (e.g., Snell) to improve timbre accuracy as well.

One thing I like is that more manufacturers are finding that MDF is NOT the ONLY suitable material for building excellent speaker enclosures. IMO: It's been a limiting factor.

04-15-09: Rja
One thing I like is that more manufacturers are finding that MDF is NOT the ONLY suitable material for building excellent speaker enclosures. IMO: It's been a limiting factor.

Yes. Wilson knew it all along, but their solution is very exclusive and expensive. We've seen this liberation from MDF elswhere, however, such as extruded curved aluminum cabinets (e.g., Mirage Omnisat FS3), the spun aluminum enclosures of Gallo, and the more widespread use of multilaminate birch stock from Europe, as used by Magico, NuForce, and others.

Although the original poster was referring to the overall trajectory of loudspeaker technology over the past decade or so, I'd also like to toss into the mix the factor of loudspeaker VALUE for the price.

My own sense and experience here is that there has been a gratifying "bang for the buck" improvement over the years, and that's even taking inflation into account. There are some astonishingly good loudspeakers out there for well under $1000 these days, and the values get even better if you are willing to consider used equipment.

Case in point: I had to sell my old pair of original, 1985-vintage Vandersteen 2C speakers about a year ago due to moving into a much smaller listening room than the one I had 20 years ago (read: low wife acceptance factor). This led me to reacquaint myself with what's out there now, over 20 years down the road, and I have to say I've been very impressed. I had the opportunity to listen to Totem Arros, Ohm Micro Walsh Talls, Ohm 100s and Silverline Preludes in my home. I ended up settling on the Ohm 100s and I'm extremely pleased. But in the other speakers I mentioned measured up extremely well, and although they are quite different in character than my old Vandersteen speakers, I am very impressed by the value that's available now. If I remember correctly, the Vandersteen's set me back around $1200... and those were 1985 dollars! :-)

So I think that one of the exciting developments in speaker technology over the past 25 years is that there are some great bargains available out there. It's true that the cost-no-object designs of the most expensive manufacturers have probably gone up in price, but in some ways, I find the ability to get wonderful sound out of less expensive products to be even more interesting.

Rebbi,

That's a great point. Value certainly plays a role. It is quite possible to purchase speakers today at considerable less money than in the past and receive more value for better speakers.

Maybe we could consider what speakers offer the best value at a certain price point.

I'm not convinced that todays speakers provide better value than yesteryears models.

Check out www.belifurari.com these guys have a new driver design that is very different. I would love to hear one!!!

wqit 'till the new magnepan becomes commercially available. let's see how many abandon their cone systems and buy the magnepan.

i understand that the expected price for the new magnepan speaker system, a stand mounted + woofer combination is around $2500.

MrTennis - You are impenetrably dense but I'm going to make yet another effort in the hopes that I can say this clearly enough. I have owned numerous panel speakers including models from Magnepan, Sound Lab and QUAD. I do not own panels today. I know what I am missing and I'm very happy with my horns.

I can tell from the way other people have responded to you and from reading thousands of comments on Audiogon and other sites that I am not alone in this. Please give it a rest.

By the way, if you were to hear a pair of really good conical horns, you would discover that they do things no panel ever will. But its O.K. for you to like what you like. Apparently it's right for you. Just stop the John the Baptist, Johnny Panelseed evangelism.

04-20-09: Unsound
I'm not convinced that todays speakers provide better value than yesteryears models.

Then you need to get out more. :-0

For under $500 you can get speakers with far more resolution, dynamic range, and linearity (the PSB Image B25 comes to mind) than was even considered possible 20 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, a $479 speaker today would have been $266 in 1988.

What could you have bought for $266 in 1988?
Not much.

I got a pair of ADS L1090 small towers in 1987 when they listed at $1100/pair. Adjusted for inflation that's $2100 today. For about that you can now get a pair of Mirage OMD-15s. They're physically the same size, are 6dB more efficient (equivalent to quadrupling your amp power), have more uniform in-room response, have nearly a full octave more bass extension, and can handle nearly 100 wpc more power. That's nearly 10dB greater dynamic range.

Johnny, perhaps I was thinking beyond budget speakers, I'm not at all convinced that "more efficient" speaker designs sound better. I can give you examples of some of todays speakers that are harder to drive, and have less bass response and cost much money than their predecessors. I'm not suggesting that they aren't better in some regards, I just wonder if they offer better value. BTW, you have no idea as to where I go and how often I do.

04-20-09: Unsound
Johnny, perhaps I was thinking beyond budget speakers, I'm not at all convinced that "more efficient" speaker designs sound better. I can give you examples of some of todays speakers that are harder to drive, and have less bass response and cost much money than their predecessors.

I've had low sensitivity speakers and higher sensitivity speakers, and all other things being equal, I'll take the more sensitive ones. It's like quadrupling your amp power and doubling your dynamic range.

But you raise a really important point: If some manufacturers' speakers perform worse and cost more money, they're ripping their customers off or have a bad business model.

But there are upscale speakers that are improving as well, perhaps at high cost, but are improved just the same. The Wilson Maxx 3 and latest version of the Alexandria are stunning, and are more coherent than their predecessors.

I also like what Sonus Faber is doing as well as JM Labs.

BTW, you have no idea as to where I go and how often I do.

Ahh, I was just goofing off, and had a goofy emoticon to prove it: :-0

Johnnyb53, while I tend to agree with you re: "some manufactures' speakers perform worse and cost more money..." In all fairness I suspect that sometimes some of those manufactuers' might have been working towards different priorities or market considerations. Never the less I find the higher prices of todays products not necessarily in line with higher performance, again value.
Perhaps I goofed, the "emoticon" went over my head.

Well, Unsound, why not name some names? Who's making speakers that perform worse and cost more? I don't doubt your word that they exist; I just don't know anything about them.

What I've been amazed at is how the entry-level and mid-level of audiophile speakers is performing at levels previously held only by the most expensive gear. I already mentioned the $479 PSB Image B25. The PSBs continue to improve in dynamics and bass extension (while retaining that flat, smooth frequency response) as you move up their price/quality scale into the $4K-$6K range.

Hell, a recent Absolute Sound had a gush review over the Cerwin-Vega CLS-215 speakers, some floorstanding 3-ways with two 15" woofers that weigh about 115 lbs each. are 92dB efficient at 1KHz, and can absorb up to 500 watts. And they sound good, scale down, and do human voice particularly well. The ultimate frat-house speaker for about $1K/pair. The review mentioned that these speakers are not only *very* listenable for acoustic and small group music, they also have the kind of dynamic range you usually have to pay very big bucks to get.

Ten years ago, when someone came to me for a sub<$1K speaker recommendation, I had to scour the internet to find them a deal. Now there are so many decent $1K speakers I don't know where to start--PSB, Paradigm, Mirage, Revel, Infinity, Totem Rainmaker, JM Labs, B&W, Magnepan..., stand-mounted, columns, panels...

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 have a question on distortion. I've read several times that box speakers have much higher distortion than panels (ESL's)? The box itself is apparently the culprit with measured distortion of 4% or more not being uncommon. In comparison distortion on panels has been found in some instances to be almost unmeasurable.

I have also read that because the radiating surface of panels is so large and because their forward energy is so great that the room vs. speaker interface (or the impact of the room) is less problematic than small box speakers with cones. Any comment on this?

Martyk1, thanks for the enlightening response.

I think this trend to create flagship products has had the benefit of improving speaker performance from the top to the bottom of the line. The rapid improvements in quality of speakers in the $500 to $2000 range corresponds with the recent history of cost-no-object speaker development.

To improve the breed, someone has to make an all-out assault on the state-of-the-art. For a long time, David Wilson had that quest (and market) to himself. But as you pointed out, we now have many such products from Mbl, Focal, Hansen, Magico, YG; and 5-figure flagship speakers from others you named. B&W's Nautilus belongs in there somewhere as well. Each has contributed something that has been of general use to the industry--dispersion patterns, driver materials, magnet assemblies, cabinet construction, modularity, and even in-room setup.

I liken the 6-figure all-out assaults to auto racing: ultimate performance and a very high ratio of R&D to final product cost because there are so few units made and sold to offset development. However, this process creates a trickle-down benefit. Most of these speaker makers have several lines of speakers, and even the lowest priced ones make use of some of the design features developed for the flagship.

About the only companies named that *don't* trickle down much are YG and Wilson. They build to only one standard, whereas Focal, Revel, Snell, B&W, and others have very affordable lines of speakers. Even there, Wilson's development has benefited the state of speaker making as a whole. Although he may not have invented many of these design constructs, he certainly popularized them--time alignment, the virtues of a well-built mini-monitor (WATT), inert cabinet materials, and even room setup.

I've read several times that box speakers have much higher distortion than panels (ESL's)? The box itself is apparently the culprit with measured distortion of 4% or more not being uncommon. In comparison distortion on panels has been found in some instances to be almost unmeasurable.

For sure many speakers will struggle to perform as low as 4% distortion, expecially in the bass (where 20%+ distortion is pretty much standard). A lot depends on volume level, and as you lower the volume level requirements then many designs can perform adequately.

However, I think you are mistaken about box speakers being systematically a problem due to the "box". For example, top of the line ATC speakers give you 121 db SPL at 1 meter (with 10 db headroom) with a THD of less than 0.3%. Do you have any examples of panels that meet or exceed this kind of performance?

04-22-09: Shadorne
However, I think you are mistaken about box speakers being systematically a problem due to the "box".

There is design, and then there is implementation. The $460,000 Saleen supercar uses a (gasp!) pushrod engine. Grado makes a wood-bodied $2500 moving iron cartridge. Grandprix Audio makes a $20,000 (w/o arm) S'phile Class A direct drive turntable. Every design concept has its strengths and weaknesses. How a design is implemented to mitigate those weaknesses and exploit the inherent strengths determines how successful the final product is.

Therefore, categorically dismissing a given design approach may cause you to miss out on some really good products.

Therefore, categorically dismissing a given design approach may cause you to miss out on some really good products.

Exactly. Panels are not the only way to make a great speaker.

if i could not tell i was listening to a cone design in a cabinet, i would seriously considder it. i know of no design which satiisfies the aforementioned requirement.

i have heard many, many cone designs.

MrTennis, have you heard Tannoy Monitor Gold drivers ? If yes compare to ESL57?

if i could not tell i was listening to a cone design in a cabinet, i would seriously considder it.

You are undoubtedly hearing the markedly different radiation pattern from large panels. There is a dipole effect for those that radiate backwards and there is plenty of lobing on the primary signal going forward. This results in a markedly different sound at the listening position. Since these effects are variable with frequency and hard to predict (room/listening dependent) they make panels unsuitable for monitoring (where accuracy at the listening position is needed). The increased ambience and comb filtering effects can create an impressive spacious sound and, in the right room/setup, can give a more natural ambience or a large space/hall - which will probably help most with classical genres.

I'd hazard a guess that the ambient sound field is what you enjoy so much about this type design. Panels are a good design for creating some excellent effects that add realism and can increase the enjoyment for many listeners.

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

thanks marty and shadorne for your insights. i happen to have heard a few tannoy speakers which i like based upon their frequency response.

in addition, there was an early gradient speaker which had an open baffle midrange and tweeter (jordan modules) which i thought was a wonderful design. i could easily live with that gradient speaker.

in the past, i liked the aerial 10t, rogers ls35a and proac response 3, and chario academy one, driven with the original jadis orchestra.
i guess there are some exceptions to my panel preference after all.

The real 'advancements' from an engineering stand point have been with DSP added room and drive correction. Meridian seems to be playing around with this for a number of years now slowly advancing the concept.

Can't say I've heard a Meridian system that I've liked but the technology is a refreshing leap forward. I suspect there will be leaps and bounds made with more and more DSP actively implemented into speaker design.

The future lies within this concept.

I have a question on distortion. I've read several times that box speakers have much higher distortion than panels (ESL's)? The box itself is apparently the culprit with measured distortion of 4% or more not being uncommon. In comparison distortion on panels has been found in some instances to be almost unmeasurable.

Kiwi,

I'd be interested to see the article you read/refer to.

I have also read that because the radiating surface of panels is so large and because their forward energy is so great that the room vs. speaker interface (or the impact of the room) is less problematic than small box speakers with cones.

Large panels cause beaming/lobing of the sound which produces variations with frequency that will make placement and listening position quite critical. They also need more space, IMHO.

Have you actually tried panels - they are not so easy to setup, at least IMHO?

Also, do you have any experience of panels at anything approach realistic instrument sound levels - say 110 db SPL (which would cover grand piano and a drum set)? It is all very well having low distortion at low SPL levels - in fact there are a great many speaker designs that can achieve this.

hi shadorne:

i would be shocked that anyone would expose a pair of ears
to spl exceeding 100 db. my normal listening level is about 75 db. anything above 75db i consider loud.

my preferred seat at a large concert hall, is last row orchestra. i doubt i would experience a spl excceding 85 db, especially with all of the bodies in front of me.

i would be shocked that anyone would expose a pair of ears
to spl exceeding 100 db.

Don't be shocked. Real music from real instruments is full of transients and has a large dynamic range. If you sit 12 feet from a speaker playing at 100 db spl then the sound is already 12 db down and quite close to your 85 db SPL back row orchestra seat.

Lush has a great point - room DSP for bass modes is indeed a substantial advance - if not the most substantial.

Hi mrtennis, could you give your thoughts on planars for me? I haven't heard any since the 80's, back then it was maggies, acoustats, early martin logans, quads, apogees. Of those, the acoustats were my favs. I never have liked the maggies or the apogees. Why do you like the magnepans so much?
thanks
and to the point of the thread, I do think speaker design and materials have improved.

hi chashas1:

i happen to like most panel speakers, but consider the magnepans a good value.

i was not trying to single out the magnepans, although their latest prototype might be something special. i have not heard them, my impression is based upon reading and talking to someone who was at the SHOW this past january.

the virtues of magnepans are well known. i like the boxlessness, depth, frequency response and radiating pattern. i think they are "easier" on the ear using a tube preamp and tube amp.

why not listen to one ?