In any case, we agree that low efficiency, multi driver speakers in boxes with complex crossovers unsuccessfully trying to get them integrated is not the way to go.
Active DSP crossovers negate many of those issues.
Speakers The single most critical component
I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>>
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system.
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity.
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers.
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs.
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic.
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y.
So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
the Shanling
only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17.
Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds.
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy.
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years,
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances.
To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver.
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system.
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity.
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers.
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs.
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic.
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y.
So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
the Shanling
only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17.
Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds.
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy.
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years,
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances.
To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver.
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
Showing 18 responses by dletch2
@herman This thread is weird isn't it. I don't think anyone discounts the importance of fixing acoustics if you are not listening near field, but if this was any time before about 1990(ish), there would be no discussion at all. Speakers would be the critical component and almost no one would dispute it. It shows the power of marketing though. If you are not a speaker manufacturer, there is motivated self interest to create artificial importance in a whole range of products both those that can make some difference, and some that are highly questionable. It sells magazines, it generates clicks, it supports manufacturing companies, etc. Only thing it has not done, it appears, it resulted in a focus on better sound. A concerted effort to eliminate any form of critical evaluation was the last nail needed to seal the coffin. Now we don't even have to worry about the outlandish claims, we will just blame the listener. |
All others will have to play catch-up, but its doubtful Seas and Scan Speak will be around much longer. You were doing so well, then the deep end you fell off of. Much work has been done in the last 30 years to reduce impact of thermal compression from voice coil/magnet structure heating. That will continue. Seas and Scan Speak both are still viewed as making some of the best drivers on the planet. That is not likely to change any time soon. Single full range dynamic drivers, ala Voxatif have one large, unavoidable and limiting issue. Doppler distortion. They solve one issue and create another one. I am hoping for direct brain interface in <50 years. |
Huh? What magical event do you think happened around 1990-ish? Did it change the orbit of the earth or something like that? Earlier mistakes w.r.t. THD while ignoring IMD were recognized, fixed the most egregious problems with digital, shift to portable listening habits, MP3 in the mid-90s, demographic shifts, off-shore manufacturing, you name it. It all resulted in a commodification of audio with less emphasis on high end and less "real" things to sell to audiophiles/budding audiophiles. So you don't think anything in audio has improved since 1990-ish? That's pretty silly. Coming to that conclusion is pretty silly, but look at amplifiers, most of the "improvements", except Class-D, would fall under art, not engineering, i.e. voiced for a particular target listener. Sure there are ever more expensive units every year, but pick two with the same design goals, and you would have a hard time telling apart a 30 year old and 3 year old one. Old is new w.r.t. tubes, which comes down to preference, not engineering. Digital has plateaued effectively for some time, though, again, voiced products result in differentiated sales, but not an advance in state of the art, no matter the level of special pleading. One area that has probably advanced is power delivery, but is that due to poor product design? |
Can't agree with that pesky, as what ultimately comes out the end is a combination of additive error and multiplicative error. The additive error of speakers far outweighs the additive error of the source multiplied by everything that happens after it. IMHO I will give you, for vinyl at least, that your source may alter the sound significantly enough, in a way that is highly pleasing to you, just as a tube amp may, and I could see circumstances where that is essential, at the individual level, to give a level of precedence. However, I feel that the speakers would need to be of sufficient quality before that became dominant. I can also accept that the combination of a tube amplifier and speaker could alter the sound enough to be accepted as an inseparable unit, at least for an individual who likes the result. |
mozartfan OP669 posts 04-24-2021 11:17amAudiogon discussion board Have you done the same analysis for acoustical treatments, and I don't me SR toys. |
The first question I will ask is why you are so insistent that a full range driver is the ultimate in reproduction. When we look at psychoacoustics, brain operation, I don't think there is a good justification for it. The concept of time alignment of all drivers sounds like a great idea, but somehow speakers that are not perfectly aligned still sound as good as ones that are. Why is that? The reason is likely that the ear/brain uses a very narrow portion of the audio band, about 200-1500Hz to extract timing information. That is it. That is where all the timing information comes from. If you are aligned in that area, you have done what is needed. Even then what matters is both speakers are the same, not so much alignment. After that, frequency response and distortion dominate, and full range dynamic drivers will always have doppler distortion worse than multi-driver systems. It is unavoidable. They also tend to have higher distortion. It is a technical solution in search of a problem while creating other problems. |
rspyder89 posts04-26-2021 6:24pmI think the speaker is the last piece in the audio upgrade path for two reasons: No, just ... no. Give me a $150-$500 DAC with volume control, a $2-3,000 amplifier, $20,000 speakers (of my choice), and enough money to fix most of the acoustic issues in a room. I will put that against any $5,000 speakers, I don't care what electronics you connect it to, and that goes quadruple if you don't fix the acoustic issues. |
pesky_wabbit330 posts04-27-2021 3:33pm@dtetch2 Can you please repeat that in English. You and others are presenting critical information, but it is falling on deaf ears. There is no acknowledgement of it let along a rebuttal. To that end, there is information being presented, but no communication is occurring. Communication requires two active participants. |