Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

04-14-09: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

>>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.

>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".

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Johnnyb53

Well Said.

04-08-09: Mrtennis
are you suggesting that a "properly" designed cone system can sound like an apogee duetta signature, sound lab, or magnepan 20.1 ?

The goal of any loudspeaker design is not to sound like a panel speaker; the goal is to sound like reality.

Since no speaker can sound exactly like reality on all types of musical reproduction, we have to choose the speakers' strong points that appeal to us subjectively, and listen through the ones that detract.

Cones and panels have their strong points and weak points. But as has been pointed out, it seems to be easier to mitigate many of cones systems' weaknesses--microdynamics, box resonances, dispersion patterns--than it is to solve the panel speaker problems--difficult impedances, lobing, dispersion anomalies, SIZE, insensitivity, self-cancelling bass, and overall dynamic range.

I've listened to Maggie 20.1's back-to-back with Wilson speakers (MaXX 3 and Watt/Puppy 8), and it's the Wilsons that beat the Maggies on transparency, ambience and low level detail. Not only that, the Wilsons can hit live levels of amplitude without cracking up. And there's nary a hint of box resonance.

I can see why AlNiCo Magnets are making a ComeBack now.... www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=52321.0 .. AlNiCo Magnets will make your speakers sound their BEST!

Mr T,We all know you greatly prefer stats or Maggies. But dynamic drivers exist in legion that out perform or perform as well as such loudspeakers but sure you wouldn't like any since you found designs in loudspeakers you like. Why not give others who found loudspeaker designs they enjoy the same respect? stats cones dynamic ribbon horn all can be used to design very hi performing loudspeakers this you dont seem to understand. Just because you prefer one or the other does not mean the other designs are not hi-performing just that you enjoy stats.

Thanks for all that responded, I have learned a great deal.

04-07-09: Ojgalli
Objections to cones
...
metal based tweeters: Use silk domes.

Then there's Mirage, who uses a pure titanium dome tweeter with a cloth surround. This combines the pistonic linearity of a very rigid dome with the superior damping of cloth. The Mirage tweeter is sweet and airy, never harsh, and nary a hint of metal harshness or ringing.

Mr.T:

I would also wager that you, and most anyone, definitely can tell the difference between panels and at least 9 out of 10 cone speakers.

To say they sound like big panels; not in every way, but with the positive attributes of panels, the openness, transparency, and resolution, yes. The very attributes that we value so highly. And without the lobing/beaming, dynamic restrictions, and low frequency limitations.

One such example is the open baffle Linkwitz Lab Orion, and a few other active, omnidirectional designs.

hi ojgalli:

are you suggesting that a "properly" designed cone system can sound like an apogee duetta signature, sound lab, or magnepan 20.1 ?

i would wager that in a blindfold or any other test, i could tell the difference between panel and cone 9 out of 10 times.

if there is a cone design in production that sounds like a panel speaker, please advise as to brand.

I do know my Linn Isobarik DMS speakers bought back in the 80's are nothing more than garbage in, and certainly garbage out.

Objections to cones

cabinet colorations: Get rid of the cabinet or build a properly designed, sealed, and damped enclosure.

driver coherence: Put the crossover at the correct frequency for the size of the drivers, and move the crossover in front of the amplification.

metal based tweeters: Use silk domes.

Panels are great, and compared to most box speakers far better. What many fail to understand is that the qualities of panels are achievable with cones. A thoroughly thought out cone speaker is capable of the same qualities as panels, and at the same time, will avoid the pitfalls of large radiating surfaces.

Concerning the preferences for panels vs. cone speakers:

You could always go for the speaker that has characteristics of both types--the cone speaker-based line array.

Like panels, they are fast and transparent, can have outstanding coherence, and keep the floor and ceiling reflections largely out of the equation. Unlike many panels, they generally present an easier load to the amp, and can play obscenely loud.

And then there's one area where they equal or exceed panels--total lack of WAF, what with the way line arrays' 6- and 7-foot tall columns completely take over a room. You might be able to sneak in the Scaenas IF she likes the bright red and the modern Euro look.

It really depends on the company, how active they are in R&D, and what they decide to do about it.

Case in point are my Mirage speakers. I bought a pair of M5si's in 1996, at the end of that product run. I still use them in the 7.1 home theater system. Last summer I bought a pair of Mirage OMD-15s for the 2-channel system in the living room.

Soundwise, the OMD-15 betters the M5si in every way:
o Airier, more extended treble
o Higher resolution--better nuance and low-level detail
o More omnidirectional dispersion pattern
o More transparent midrange
o Much clearer bass with equal extension (the M-series bass was formidable)

Yet the new design is much easier to own as well:
o Adjusted for inflation, it costs less
o Enclosure has curved walls, improving cabinet inertness
o Smaller tweeter improves speed and dispersion
o Mirage's patented ribbed elliptical surround enables better bass clarity, extension, and dynamics from a smaller driver (5.5")
o M5si was a 51"x14"x8" 85-lb. monolith; OMD-15 is 41"x8"x12" very stylish "lifestyle" column weighing 36 lbs.--Infinitely higher WAF and blends in much better with living space.
o OMD-15 is about 7dB more sensitive: M5si needed 150 highly damped watts bi-wired with $1200 worth of cable or more to come alive. I power the OMD-15 with an 85wpc Onkyo integrated with a damping factor of 25. The OMD-15 has better dynamic range at both ends, more clarity and transparency, cleaner, tighter bass, and more resolution overall.

In the last 10 years we've seen increasing use of neodymium magnets, curved-wall cabinets, drivers made of diamond, titanium, ceramic, and beryllium, more inert cabinet materials such as birch laminate from Europe, etc.

Even Cerwin-Vega has improved to the point that their CLS-215 has received favorable reviews from Absolute Sound and Soundstage.

So in many cases, you can get a speaker today that can do things a speaker in that price bracket from 10 years ago could not.

Rleff,

I have a Cary 306/200 CD player and a Moon Audio Integrated similar to the LSA integrated amp. My room is 12 x 15.

Revrob-what electonics are you driving your speakers with,your source,how big is your room, and what what type of music do you like to listen to?

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

I collect vintage drivers and other kit. Sure some of it sounds good and designs are very interesting. But what I listed is what I find has made the most improvement. I still listen to a moded Altec in my office its good not great but fun and drivers of interest to me. But the only vintage I find equal to modern is comp drivers and few woofers. Some of the vintage cabinet designs are useful today with improvments. And you might be right about a large corpration realy caring about audio design? Except Fostex SEAS PIONEER etc so maybe a few are still at it;)

That's what makes this hobby fun, everyone's preferences and opinions. I love speakers with cones, I want something maintenance free, that meets with the wife's approval and is musically satisfying to me.

One of the things I have observed over the years is that the only people that are impressed with my system are people who buy their stuff from Radio Shack or Best Buy. I don't have any audiophile friends so to speak of where we evaluate each others system.

I guess what is important to you is all that matters. It's like being married, some people who never choose your spouse and I guess they would never choose your speakers, either.

My comment on "eschew" was just a gentle jab for a laugh - my thanks for taking it in the spirit it was intended and not taking offense.

I agree that each type speaker has it faults.

I find panel speakers less dynamic and too ambient. They also require more power and are hard loads for amps but I have never heard the really high end panels so I could be swayed.

sorry for the spelling error, the word is "eschew".

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

of course, pick your poison. nothing is perfect, i;ve picked mine. it's all a matter of opinion.

As regards panels versus cones I am still considering "exchew"...

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.

Shadorne, Consider that the 'obvious' that Mr T refers to may be nothing more that what he said in that post. He is telling us how he feels, what his opinion is. Nothing more or less. He doesn't like cone speakers. Cone speakers have faults. People buy them anyway. He will never buy one. Nothing controversial there.

So who cares what he believes or why, especially given his continual hawking the merits of one speaker, loaded with faults, that may only do one thing well (if the way it does that is the way you want to hear it).

His posts often remind me of necessity for getting even weeds to grow is some water and 'nutrients'. He supplies the 'nutrients', you supply the water, volia - a new crop of weeds. :-)

i think you are ignoring the obvious.

Obviously cone speakers, for all their faults, are extremely popular - not just with consumers but also in professional audio engineering circles and with musicians and artists.

I don't know of many multi-million dollar recording facilities that use panels.

I don't know of many concert halls that use panels.

Has it occurred to you that you might be ignoring the obvious?

Wow. A lot of great responses. I do like my Legacy speakers and because I have recently upgraded my amp and cd player I thought I might do the same with the speakers.

Still undecided however the response gives me some reassurance that if I did decide to keep them I wouldn't be losing much. The old saying "you can't lose what you never had."

Thanks

I suspect that computer modeling has made a huge impact on driver design. They can now accurately predict breakup and non pistonic behavior, and design even low cost drivers to minimize these aberrations.

Though I don't have any real knowledge of mid fi speakers, I imagine they have gained as much in quality as true high end products, simply by virtue of being able to buy or manufacture these modeled drivers, and know where their cheap boxes will flex and need reinforcement.

Just look at some of the sub $1000 models being reviewed in TAS and Stereophile. They get great reviews. I dont think this point would have garnered serious listening or many reviews 10 years ago.

I use quite small powered genelec monitors in my mac based edit and mix system. The shape of the metal cabinet and built in wave guide was all computer modeled, with a corresponding sound quality.

Quads and Soundlabs (with new PX panels) have improved immensely over the past decade, playing lower, louder and more dynamically.

Better quality caps are available for crossovers, and better internal wiring as well.

More and more designs seem to shave away more of the front baffle for less diffraction.

Cabinet materials have evolved as well. My current speakers are made from ceramic wrapped in kevlar.

No mater what choice you make, familiarize yourself with recent offerings. If nothing else it's fun and informative.

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 .

I've listened to a particular Martin Logan electrostatic speakers some time back and the sound was fantastic. Very coherent, full and seamless. I am staying away from these electrostatic panel speakers mainly because of WAF and the extra-care and maintenance needed to keep the speakers in tip-top condition (I've read that the panels need to be vacuumed or washed}. Also, I got to know that the panels have a life span of about 10 years before they need to be replaced whereas conventional cone designs will likely last longer.

I don't think it is a "fault" issue that contributes to the popularity of cone speakers but more towards listening preferences and priorities. Some folks prefer the "flaws" in cone design speakers and there are many of these excellent speakers around. It may not sound as bad as you have exaggerated it as there are still many people who enjoyed listening to cone speakers and can happily live with them in the long run.