04-26-09: Mrtennis
i was not trying to single out the magnepans, although their latest prototype might be something special. It is. I heard 'em in February. i have not heard them, my impression is based upon reading and talking to someone who was at the SHOW this past january. I sure hope Magnepan commits to the development and production of these. You're in for a treat. The smaller panels seem to overcome my one problem with larger Maggies--they're a little slow and not as transparent as some kinds of panels. These little panels are very fast, however, producing some of the best transients I've ever heard from any kind of speaker at any price. At the open house I was at (described here), the Wilson Maxx 3's made the 20.1s sound slow and a little thick; the mini-panels did not suffer compared to the Wilsons on that score. |
My Apogee Scintillas, made more than twenty years ago, have not been in danger of replacing, with any speaker, or any other speaker configuration. Leo Spiegel was quite the speaker genius before his time. With the gear I have to power them by, the Scintilla has finally shown it's full range capabilities. |
Thanks, mrtennis. I have no local dealer any longer, so we'll see. However, if you're all about the planar, then why would you be mentioning a hybrid? Wouldn't that be a no-no for you? From my recollections, granted, years ago, they were never successful. So what gives? and, speaking of newer speakers, I hear the new King Princes were garnering lots of praise at the recent shows, and no hybrid. Have you heard em yet? |
what hybrid are you referring to ? the new magnepan uses a panel woofer. i believe it is similar to the bass panel of the 20.1. by the way, i agree that integrating treble/midrange panels with cone bass drivers can be difficult/ |
Oops, I misread, sorry.
so nothing on the Kings? |
Ah, you initially said woofer, mrtennis, not bass panel, so I assumed cone. They'd still have to come a long way to impress me. It also seemed the bigger they got in the old days the less I liked them. |
04-27-09: Chashas1
Ah, you initially said woofer, mrtennis, not bass panel, so I assumed cone. They'd still have to come a long way to impress me. It also seemed the bigger they got in the old days the less I liked them. Pardon me for injecting myself into this conversation, but Magnepan calls them woofers. That doesn't disqualify them from being bass panels as well. As for the size, they are not as large as the bass panels of the 20.1, but are a downscaled version of the same. As I said before, the Magnepan woofer and small panels sound faster than the 20.1s. Integration between the woofer(s) and panels couldn't be better. Transient response is about identical, and here's the kicker: the woofer can respond up to 7 Khz, so blending with the satellites is easy. It doesn't start beaming or running out of response at 125 Hz like a regular woofer. It's the most seamless-sounding separate woofer/sat setup I've ever heard. |
I was re-reading Revrob's original post.
I purchased my last pair of speakers 3 months ago and they are over 10 years old (original Verity Parsifals). In fact, the design probably dates to the mid-90's. After numerous monitors (Harbeth, Spendors etc) it was first full-range with a small enough footprint not to "over-power the living room" (my wife's word's). Admittedly, I was a little reluctant to invest in an older speaker and design. But, wow can these things sing. My previous speaker was a Harbeth M30; a truly excellent monitor with vocals and amazing midrange, which btw I thoroughly enjoyed (as did my wife listening to Maria Callas or Diana Krall sacd). My point, there are some high end products of the past that can be accessed for a reasonable price today. Could I have done better with a another more recent design speaker (used) for the same dollar amount? I don't know. Possibly? Clearly, there are newer iterations (evolution) of the Parsifals which sound better over this time-frame.
To Revrob's second point, the sonics of the M30s did improve every time I upgraded the electronics, especially the amplification. It was very noticeable, from better defined (and lower) bass to a smoother high end that was more detailed. This surprised me a little. The M30s were capable of more when coupled with better electronics.
anyway, my 2c worth....... |
I think that some designers have maximized typically thirty to fifty year old driver designs, such as the Sander Sound electrostats, but really we have only slightly better speakers now than we have had no improvements. There is one exception. I have heard several speaker using expensive air craft aluminum cabinets that have been extraordinary. I have not been able to afford any yet and one I wanted never went into production, this was the LSA Model 10.
By contrast I think electronics have greatly improved and my speakers have revealed this improvement, meaning that the speakers were better than the driving electronics. |
does anyone think great strides have been made in crossover technology, especially with the availability of a such a variety of capacitors and resistors.
is it a given that a crossover from 1969 is inferior to one designed in 2009 ? |
""crossover from 1969 is inferior to one designed in 2009 ?
""
no crossover parts will help if basic of speaker(drivers matching, xover topology) is poor, but short answer is-YES new xover components is by 10-20% better(and now much more widely used than at that time) and as a bonus by 300% more expensive. |
>does anyone think great strides have been made in crossover technology, especially with the availability of a such a variety of capacitors and resistors.
The passive components don't matter that much.
Inexpensive computers which can make gated measurements to provide anechoic measurements and approach a target transfer function have made a big difference.
Linkwitz also didn't publish _Passive Crossover Networks for Noncoincident Drivers_ until 1978. |
There are a few companies using field coil technology again these days.
Some vendors that have been around for awhile have offered evolutionary tweaks to their designs that perhaps offer more refinement.
You can certainly spend more than ever on new speakers these days if you like.
Nothing really revolutionary though that moves what is possible to a new major level that I can think of. |
"SOME SAY SPEAKERS MADE IN THE LATE 60's TO MID 70's WERE THE BEST SPEAKERS EVER MADE....SOUNDWISE".... "AlNiCo DRIVERS" |
mapman I have field coil drivers from 1928. Crossovers have not made major gains but parts quality has as has computer design for crossovers. This to me is both good and bad makes it easyer for designers but you end up with same old same old sound if you only use programs for design. |
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. |
Trelja,
I have a similar background and what you say rings true.
That makes me feel even better that the designer and management force behind the speakers I use is an MIT trained engineer who seems to be an independent spirit and has been evolving, delivering and supporting essentially the same products for a good 30-40 years now I would say. |
Computer designs are a good basis because you need a solid starting point.. But due to so many variations in drivers, and then combination of so many different mixed drivers, and materials available you will not end up with some kinda super speaker, as a matter of fact the "Over engineered" designs I have heard are far more complicated and less musical than ones somebody just goes in by hand and puts some slight variation values and much higher quality parts into. However this comes at a cost because not to many DIY audiophiles can afford a shelf of premium/exotic caps, inductors, etc
in several different values to just "Try" for themselves and let their "ears" be the guide as many say.
Also patience and time are a factor! I can remember when Madisound started the whole "L.E.A.P" designed crossovers with their kits and stuff back in the early-mid ninties, I was in highscool and decided to try a few
Always horrible results.. I would go to extents thinking its just not the best driver for my tastes, or I need to put a lot better time into the cabinet and materials.. Nope in the end it was simply due to really generic mathmatics trying to integrate the drivers.
Supposedly Wilson which is probably the first and most well known of the titans in big costly audio speakers to this day still tests by ear every single pair leaving the door.. Whether or not he goes back and changes something due to a variance detected by his golden ear is only for those who work in that building to know. So I would say for 1000 bucks an hour you can probably get him to evaluate your speaker and get some good ideas of what to change :-)
Not taking a shot at Wilson, just saying there is something to say about loudspeakers souly (with no soul) built in anechoic chambers and computer programs, although they are of course helpful measuring tools, but will not tell ultimately how a speaker will sound in average joes home, or even in a well done acoustically designed dedicated room. But as the thread originally asks are there any "advances" ? The only advance in any of this is the quality of materials available to YOU the consumer, sometimes at a cost. And most of that is in fact in crossover part quality, not necessarily design or technics used.. Or NO crossover at all which some speakers pull of even better! |
I agree with Trelja and I will take it a step further by suggesting that our modern American products, for the most part, are designed to perform well on the sales charts and not necessarily in the area where they function. Products in these times are meant to separate us from our money on any pretext and they rely more on their cosmetics, ad campaigns and reviews than on actual design, to get this done. No wonder there is a growing fascination with retro items. |
I agree that there are very good values in speakers these days and certainly more good ones to choose from at price points comparable to 30 years ago. |
My company is US based. And I design for 1 thing only performance and price acordingly even WAF has little effect on my designs;) Limitations mostly fitting through standard door openings. I can list a bunch more US companys designing for performance 1st. Maybe in the mass market you might be correct. But in mass market your dealing with imported builds. Not much US built in those. I think today many are looking past the big brand names and looking for real performance at fair prices. |
Quote Trelia[I have to say that putting trust into something that is designed and built by humans is a recipe for failure] We do this all day long. I would say putting trust into something souly designed by computers is a recipe for failure. I can wing out a loudspeaker design without any computer help and it will sound great. If I only use a computer it will sound like sh-t. I designed my new home without a computer at all its passive solar passive geothermal and works wonderful. Humans designed for far more years than we did on computers. I do agree crossover designs complicated and most dont understand. Look at all the folks moding crossovers without electrical testing results,just saying this brand sounds better than that brand;) pretty much proves your point. |
Johnk,
I like what you said.
This country needs more people who think like you! |
I would say putting trust into something souly designed by computers is a recipe for failure. This makes sense to me. Consider, for example, Totem, which makes a big deal of how their speakers are designed and tuned by ear, how they don't use the facilities of the big, government-supported acoustical research labs in Canada. Totem speakers are highly regarded for their musicality. On the other hand, I remember when I first started following high-end audio in the 1980's how TAS and other high-end publications scoffed at the writing of Julian Hirsch and others whose reviews prominently features graphs and response curves, as if those measurements really told you all you needed to know about the quality of a speaker. |
Rebbi, at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, Stereophile had a amp seminar which consisted of showing how sensitive to the load an unnamed amp was relative to the Boulder amp. The measure was THD. Everyone was asking technical questions as to how Boulder had done this. I asked whether the designer of the unnamed amp thought THD was all that went into an amp. Everyone was aghast that I would ask this. I followup by saying why are we not listening to these amps? I left the room. |
