Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

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.

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.

Johnk,

I like what you said.

This country needs more people who think like you!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!     

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.

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.

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.

"SOME SAY SPEAKERS MADE IN THE LATE 60's TO MID 70's WERE THE BEST SPEAKERS EVER MADE....SOUNDWISE".... "AlNiCo DRIVERS"

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.

>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.

""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.

is it a given that a crossover from 1969 is inferior to one designed in 2009 ?

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.

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.......

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.

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.

Oops, I misread, sorry.
so nothing on the Kings?

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/

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?

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. i know of no design which satiisfies the aforementioned requirement.

i have heard many, many cone designs.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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

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...

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.

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

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
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.

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.

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.