Major-Breakthrough for Planar loudspeakers !
Diptyque Audio Reference Loudspeakers
Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?
After a 20-year hiatus (kids, braces, college, a couple of new roofs, etc.) I'm slowly getting back into hi-fi. My question: is there really anything significantly new in speakers design/development/materials? I'm a bit surprised that the majority of what I see continues to be some variation of a 2- or 3-way design -- many using off-the-shelf drivers -- in a box (usually MDF at it core) with a crossover consisting of a handful of very common, relatively inexpensive components. I'm asking in all sincerity so please don't bash me. I'm not trying to provoke or prove anything, I'm just genuinely curious. What, if anything, has really changed? Would love to hear from some speaker companies/builders here. Also, before one of you kindly tells me I shouldn't worry about new technologies or processes and just go listen for myself -- I get it -- I'll always let my ear be my guide. However, after 20 years, I'm hoping there's been some progress I may be missing. Also, I unfortunately live in a hifi-challenged part of the country -- the closest decent hifi dealer is nearly 3 hours away -- so I can't just run out and listen to a bunch of new speakers. Would appreciate your insights.
129 responses Add your response
Maybe in other hobby interests this happens too. For example, I got back into cycling 20+ years ago, only to find that the bicycles of my youth were nothing like the advancements that they had made in the meantime. Brakes were better, wheels somehow were better, and more. Same thing in photography when everything went to digital. Maybe a rough start, but quite impressive for the last 15 years or so. Audio is no different. Speakers have much the same designs though, as a bass reflex design still is very common, or a ported design. There may new interest in other design such as open baffle, which I find to be incredible in many ways. In the end, if you have a 'decent' speaker to start with, as much could accomplished and more with speaker placement or somehow hiding room treatment. >>>Here is a tip about room treatment: In my case, I use pillows and chairs and maybe a memory foam sheet to cover the couch. The chairs with pillows on the back of the chair, is really convenient to move around as needed for control of reflections. Best part is, you can put it all back after a listening session, and the WAF is nil. |
Field Coils like how Classic Audio Loudspeaker are doing, bringing back Field Coils and improving them much more, I think they are one of the most musically statifying speakers available with transparency that will match the best speakers out their. They are the fastest drivers iv experienced feels like ESL/Planners. |
I generally find it easier to focus on the negatives. So if the OP was going to do that, then adding some extra dampening and bracing would likely help to tame the resonances. That Rane looks like it might be worth playing with for me. |
Allot of great comments here and many positive reviews out there on the OP’s current speakers. Jaybird, installing active crossovers in your current speakers may be a very rewarding project. I have 3-way, 8-ohm cabinets with very stiff cones and surrounds. The sensitivity is in the mid-90 dB’s. I’m using a Rane 23B 3-way fully balanced active stereo crossover. Each cabinet driver has a separate amplifier. The L/R balanced leads from the processor plugs into the Rane. The 23B has 3 pairs of balanced outputs for cables to the 6 amplifiers needed for both cabinets, Each speaker has rotary dials on the 23B to Easily set the correct crossover points and volume levels (being especially careful with the Fs limits). The critical info needed is each speakers crossover points. The Fs on manufacturer’s spec sheets is the absolute lowest frequency a speaker can safely handle. The tweeters are most sensitive to this critical setting. Once you verify the OEM spec crossover points, the rest gets easier. I chose SEA tweets w/ a Fs at 2K, and 7-inch midrange drivers that play up to 4500 hz. To keep the full midrange (300-3000 hz) on one driver, I set the XO between the Mid/Tweeters at 4500 Hz (sounded best/most natural to me), and Bass/midrange drivers at 200 Hz (and again, sounded most natural to me). Keeping my processor at low volumes and using a sound level meter, I started with the midrange at full volume on the 23B, then, turned up the bass to match, and lastly matched the tweeters. Then, used the processor’s SET UP feature to set the distances and better match each cabinets volume levels together. The 15 inch woofers play flat to 35 Hz and I added a SVS Ultra sub to play 20-35Hz. Ultimately, I tweeked the 23B volume levels slightly using a frequency test CD by isolating each driver. It was that easy. I still get chills listening to music and haven’t looked back in over 10 years.
|
Bayz Audio Courante 2.0’s are the best speakers that 6moons has ever heard but they cost much more here in the USA compared to Node Audio Hylixa Signatures. https://www.6moons.com/audioreview_articles/bayz/
|
Here’s the Hylixa Technical White Paper on these Node Audio Hylixa Signature speakers...Very Interesting ! https://www.node-audio.com/docs/hylixa-technical-white-paper.pdf |
New Node Audio Hylixa Signature is unlike any other speaker ! https://www.node-audio.com/the-making-of/ |
And I 100% agree with ^this^. The title of the thread was is there anything new under the sun, and there really isn’t in the ~1k$ range… Those speakers are compromising just about all the “new tech” in favour of being able to be affordable… including sometimes the simplest of internal bracing. |
I think that it’s pretty much true of all of the heroically inert cabinet designs that they are successful in making the speakers "disappear" as sources, but I agree with fsonicsmith in thinking that it is not an overall solution to sound that is superior to other cabinet design philosophies. I personally just bought a pair of Spendor SP100’s for the second time after a hiatus with other speakers, and their cabinets are far from dead, but they are very successful in communicating the music. |
Agreed. If you subscribe to S’Phile, read the very interesting viewpoint of Jonathan Weiss of Oswalds Mill Audio and his sister company’s Fleetwood Sound Co Deville loudspeaker. I am not sure how much I am allowed to quote but it is a quote of a quote so I am think I am safe to repeat; " Loudspeaker manufacturers in general have moved in the wrong direction over the past decades, in a race to the bottom, trying to make the deadest, heaviest, most nonresonant enclosures". He goes on to say this effort results in heavy, sluggish sound. As you have so correctly stated it is a matter of taste. And priorities. I happen to believe that complex machined metal enclosures along the likes of Magico appeal to consumers who think that cutting edge tech must in some res ipso facto manner result in better sound. A few reviewers at Stereophile support this conclusion based on their listening. I have heard Magicos repeatedly and the sound to me is indeed heavy and sluggish. And dull and boring. I don’t mean to make this discussion an assault or focus upon S’Phile but let’s face it, it is the most widely read and influential audio publication in the US. My take is that there are two basic camps-when it comes to loudspeakers- comprised of John Atkinson, Jason Victor Serinus, and arguably Michael Fremer who gravitate to the inert enclosure approach and then the second camp of Herb Reichert and Ken Micallef carrying on the torch of the legendary Art Dudley who listen for different things and are able to set aside the search for the "latest and greatest" for the beauty of alternative thought and paradigms/vintage/subjectivity and the all-important appreciation of "how does this loudspeaker make me feel?". |
"I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons." And still - these days there are a number of $500-$1000 speakers that while having flaws, are quite satisfying. It's all about making the right compromises. In some respects, I think it's harder to make a very good speaker that needs to match a price point vs a cost is no issue design. Look at the original Andrew Jones speakers for Pioneer. Certainly had their faults but what a great accomplishment! |
And a dozen others or more.
The engineering path to troubled speakers is easier:
And probably a few more?? Many companies make speakers using quality drivers and cabinets that address the majority of the issues. And most of them sound pretty good.
I thought many people did agree on which speakers are great sounding and many agree on which are poor sounding? There is range in the middle, say $500-$5000 , where the cost compromises affect 1 or more areas, and we end up not being very certain that they are good. Or some will abide the flaws and others will abide different flaws more easily. So there is a huge agreement on the manufacturers side where they know what makes a speaker good and bad, and which flaws they can overlook to limit cost.
I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons. |
You can apply extraordinary measures to eliminate cabinet resonance and the result is a speaker like those made by Magico. Is this good? It depends on whether you like their speakers. There is no defined engineering path to a great sounding speaker. Ultimately, we like what we like, and what we like comes down to a personal preference for a particular combination of strengths and weaknesses (i.e., the right compromises) and perhaps even a liking for certain distortions. If we never come close to agreeing on what is a great sounding speaker, how can we then extrapolate from this uncertain data what is the right approach to speaker design? |
^That^ is all good, but the OP was asking about speakers as a whole system. Maybe they are OK with modifying their speakers? It seems like bracing and deadening the existing speakers could be more worthwhile - but if we knew what’s their new model is doing, we would know whether to mod the old ones, get new ones, or just get something else... |
I agree that resonances can never be fully eliminated but they can be lowed so they have negatable impact. Mundorf Twaron Angel Hair |
Specific to the speakers that the OP was considering, the review of the model before them had cabinet resonances as a major flaw.
Generally the good speakers separate the men from the boys in that respect… so yes, they can be reduced to below hearing level, or unmeasurable.
So IME putting grounding wires on these speaker drivers is a bit of a “lipstick on a pig” approach towards fidelity. |
This takes some effort, but it worked wonders for me. I'd love to hear if others can achieve a similar result. |
The slim floorstander is a cludge the baffle is too small so they require BSC in networks.Woofers to small so they require multiple, most need porting and high excursion transducers, and high power to function well. They exist because they are cheap to build, and easy to ship, stock, and sell. Wide baffles are costly to build stock ship sell and thus are less popular among manufacturers. Keep in mind that much of what you think is SOTA is just profitable. Most audiophiles are buying mass-produced items, not SOTA designs. Just stuff others can make a profitable product out of for you to consume.
|
Let’s stick with Monitor Audio like the OP has.
I can see nothing on the monitor audio web site that would suggest that they have fixed the issues, other than they did mentioned somthing about vibration work at a lab, so maybe the resonances were addressed??
Yeah other speakers at the higher end, have (and have had) low resonances and low compression… so it is not like current state of the art is in this (discontinued model). We would need to see a test of a current model to know for sure. (And whether that is distressing to the sound, is dependant upon the listener.) The conclusion in ^that link^ Is as follows: Conclusions |
Test your speakers....( not for timbre because it is techno music but test it for imaging and listener envelopment/source width ratio and soundstage) This techno piece must be heard ALL AROUND you in front/left /right/back simultaneously ... Like a quadraphonic piece almost....😁😊 Headphone like sound but better than headphones but OUT of the head in my two postions: near listening and regular one...the soundscape must bear no relation to the speakers themselves...They dont exist and the soundscape fill the room.... My system is good but of low cost...Vintage well chosen piece thats all ...Dac of low cost but of good design.... The difference comes from basic knowledge of acoustic implemented in my room .... Audiophile experience is NOT linearly RELATED to money spending sorry for those who never learned it......
|
Also, I’ll just throw this out there, my wife and I were outside in kind of a pavilion we have with some Dayton outdoor speakers and a chip amp. We were listening and both of us turned to each other and were like "does this sound insanely amazing?" I was checking behind me to see if I had installed extra speakers there or something. It was absolutely amazing. Maybe it was just a nice day and we were outside, but I would put that listening session up against small house money systems I’ve heard.
I’ve had this happen too, once or twice and in my case I’ve tended to put it down to some psychological effect. I don’t know. In any case it was actually a bit annoying on one occasion when my brother played back this cheap ferric tape on my NAD tape deck and it sounded way better (image size, transients, dynamics) than my own chrome tape recordings done at home via my LP12 turntable. Slightly taken aback, I asked my brother to find out more about how this tape had been recorded. It turned out to be a common or garden all in one music centre! I’m pretty sure now that it wasn’t a psychological trick but back then my audiophile sensibilities couldn’t accept it as anything other than a as yet unknown anomaly. Reminds me of the old Groucho joke, ’Who you going to believe, me or your own eyes?’ |
"Nobody wants your used floor standers. They come cheap." Taxonomy, A lot of what you said makes sense and I agree, but that statement doesn't make sense because the category of floorstanding speakers is bigger and more popular than stand mounted speakers, and many of those speakers are among the most costly and desirable. |
I think the principals of design have been well known for a long time. I think if you are asking the speakers to do some very difficult task maybe new speakers might be able to do it better but for normal listening volumes and materials any good speaker, new or old, is probably fine. The hobby tends to get hung up on scenarios that are largely imaginary or theoretical e.g. nobody over 50 years old can hear 20k tones. If this is about money then comes the question of what you can get in the new vs. used market. You can buy some pretty nice used stuff depending on what you want. Nobody wants your used floor standers. They come cheap. The other thing is that there are a lot of great cheap speakers now like some of the Andrew Jones stuff or the KEF Q150. I think that you can put together a really accurate and nice sounding system cheap now and that marginal gains are ever more expensive. Personally, I feel like room setup and placement is a big deal but nobody likes to talk about it. Cheap DSP, like MiniDSP has come a long way too. So, in my mind, what's new is there are great cheap speakers that will really do a nice job for short money and you can get some really nice used speakers if you want a form factor that's out of favor. DSP is now so accessible and underutilized. In the end though it's about being satisfied. I stopped reading forums mostly and dropped out of my audio club because I felt that both things made me unstatisfied with my systems and made me unhappy. Also, I'll just throw this out there, my wife and I were outside in kind of a pavilion we have with some Dayton outdoor speakers and a chip amp. We were listening and both of us turned to each other and were like "does this sound insanely amazing?" I was checking behind me to see if I had installed extra speakers there or something. It was absolutely amazing. Maybe it was just a nice day and we were outside, but I would put that listening session up against small house money systems I've heard. |
Check out the Yamaha NS-5000. 8 years in development. The only speaker with Zylon drivers (that beats beryllium, which Yamaha pioneered in the 1970's), the only full range speaker with woofer, mid-range and tweeter made from this same material) and all made by Yamaha, a whole new tech for internal damping, A real 12" woofer that does not break up, a true dome midrange (not cone), traditional looking with a real piano finish, and only $15,000 including stands. |
No kidding though… One place played what I wanted over Spotify… and I ended up ordering a set of speakers. They also played a lot of other stuff.
At the last place I was at, I noticed that the ARC preamp was set to a higher level on the more expensive speakers… I thought to myself. “I see what you did there… (with the preamp going from -34 to -31)” |
Thank you, @mahgister. |
There's a distinction between an older design and an older speaker per se. The prevalent issue it seems is how an older design compares to a newer ditto in very basic terms (and not whether age has had a deteriorating affect on SQ), and what strikes me here is that older designs aren't as much brought into present day standings combining current technological advances or evolutions from their original state, but rather that they've been "left behind" in a sense and replaced with a much smaller package, much less efficient and direct radiating at that; more domestically acceptable, that is, which was the main incentive behind their invention and success in the first place. What the latest quite a few decades by now have set out to do design-wise is trying to cultivate/refurbish what's basically a 1950's Edgar Villchur design, and in that context I'm sure there have been advances - in some areas, at least. But the macro physical properties of sound and their overwhelming importance and necessity to emulate a live imprinting, properties that were realized about a century ago, have been severely left by the wayside in this process, and there's no ameliorating their negation no matter what's claimed to the contrary - it's really just a big pile of "have your (small) cake and eat it too" marketing crap. Admittedly the designs of yore, like the Shearer horns mentioned, weren't domestically intended - very few speakers of the time were anyway - but it's not the point. The point is such speakers were and still are great designs, and if audiophiles bothered to find out (and could transcend audiophile dogma) they'd realize these older designs are one heck of a capable speaker package in a domestic setting. What's a domestically capable speaker supposed to be in any case, other than being capable in a domestic setting? Too much of a forced narrative has been shoved down our throats about how domestic speakers need to be small and "fit the room size," but you have to wonder if this isn't mostly about catering to the demand of the costumer who'd much prefer a smaller package than a larger ditto, and be at peace with their interior decoration aspirations and/or spousal demands. I vividly remember walking into an audio store back in the second half of the 80's, witnessing a pair of Snell AII's carefully set up with both equipment (that I can't recall, other than - I believe - a Pink Triangle turntable) and the listening locale. It was a presentation that I didn't find equaled for decades, such a large stage and acoustically and tonally authentic sound that immersed me. That's the word: immersive, and more about the acoustic event and the energy of it than something "audiophile" sounding. Of the direct radiating speakers I've heard the Snell AII's are, to this day, among the most real to my memory. |
@jaybird5619 - since you are in the Atlanta, GA area, I'd suggest joining the Atlanta Audio Club. They are a great bunch of folks, and being a member will enable you to meet and attend listening sessions at a number of member's homes. This will give you direct experience with a range of speaker systems, many fairly current in their design. The club is also starting to have in-person events that may give you additional exposure.For my own journey, I'm starting to explore single-driver speaker systems with no crossovers. There are significant physical limitations to such designs, but remarkable progress has been made in driver technology to minimize the effect of compromises here. Examples include Audience, Omega, and Pearl, but there are many others. Welcome back! |
