@Millercarbon -- When in reality: Imagine the perfect speaker
Sounds like an oxymoron to me, certainly the premise it forms: ... with the perfect speaker the speaker itself no longer matters. It is the components feeding it the signal that matters. Since you cannot hear the speaker then logically the only thing left to hear is the signal, which is running through all these other components.
Do you get it? All these other components are the amp, source, wires. The better the speaker the more these matter. So when you say the speaker is the most important, what you forget to leave out is it is only the most important when it is the worst component.
The better the speaker the less it matters and the more everything else matters. What’s to get here, pragmatically speaking, is that the speakers (and acoustics) have always mattered the most to even approach "perfection," and trying to convince oneself we’ve actually accomplished that seems, if anything, unrealistic. Everything may matter to some degree, but certainly not all equally. |
@mahgister -- The room is the cake, you must design a room with all the passive and active acoustical controls necessary to help your speakers...
I would go so far to say the room is certainly part of the cake as the main dish - in conjunction with the speakers, that is. The predominant focus on acoustics potentially fails to take into account their being relative to the speakers and their dispersive nature. That is, below the Schroeder frequency (seeing the room here as a resonator) a multitude of bass sources is the acoustic measure to at least partially alleviate the need for absorbers/bass traps/PEQ, while above the Schroeder frequency narrower dispersive characteristics from the likes of line sources, large coned drivers and horns will limit the influence of the room. That is to say: generally speaking a smaller, direct radiating coned speaker will be more dependent on acoustic measures, or certainly for the listening room to natively better suit it for it to perform closer to its fuller potential, compared to earlier mentioned more narrowly dispersive, larger speakers. My listening room is on the livelier side of neutral, and the recent addition of a (much) larger MF/HF Constant Directivity horn (replacing its smaller CD horn sibling) - controlling dispersion better and also lower in frequency - has seen a welcome indifference to the acoustics at higher SPL’s in particular; the sound is now more focused, physical, relaxed and better saturated. My main gripe with absorption (in contrast to diffusion) is that used too extensively it simply kills the soundstage and natural life of the presentation. Indeed, usually I find the fine line here to be easily crossed with just a limited amount of absorption. That’s why earlier I left the acoustics of my listening room on the slightly livelier side, a compromise for sure, whereas now (with the bigger horns) it feels closer to being ideal. |
One could ask: what is it you want to achieve and like in particular with with wideband speakers/drivers? A noteworthy trait is their alluring simplicity sans cross-over of any kind, and another is they're a single point source per channel - with all that entails and the advantages that offers. I would imagine though some people also have an inkling towards their often found character or signature (as elaborated on by poster @larryi just above) as a certain flavor of sound they like, even though it may deviate from a more "correct" imprinting in certain respects. Where a point source goes Tom Danley's Synergy horns are a potential "having your cake and eat it too" scenario that offers the advantages of a point source without the pitfalls of most wideband drivers. They do need a cross-over however to handle the response of the different drivers (that sum as a single point when configured the way they are), be that active or passive, and presently they're only found as pro segment offerings - which nonetheless shouldn't keep one from acquiring them for a home setting. Danley does have their more domestically oriented Signature Series coming soon, for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBl5lhmzRKA |
@herman -- ...
I've had the same speakers for almost 20 years with no desire to change.. everything else has changed and most many times.
That's a great looking system. Is that a sub in the background? |
@mijostyn -- The problem with the vast majority of speakers including everything Mr Mozartfan is talking about is, they sound like speakers. The very best speakers disappear. Unfortunately, the very best speaker I know of does poorly with tube amplifiers with the exception of Atma-Sphere amps. Solid state amps as a rule tolerate difficult and reactive loads better. The best loudspeakers will appreciate better gear up stream but excepting the amplifier you can get away nicely with less expensive equipment. Unfortunately, the cheapest speaker I have heard that disappeared was $30K. On the other hand I have listened to $250K loudspeakers that sounded like loudspeakers. Let me guess: those 8’ iteration of the Sound Lab 645’s retail for $30k? I feel rather confident that setting the bar at the top with those speakers will actually have a substantial basis as something that delivers on that "promise," though I don’t understand why you’d skimp out on the subs? ;) Partially kidding; I’d have proposed vertically aligned, flanking bass columns with higher driver count (i.e.: more displacement) to seal the deal, so to speak, but it would seem your current solution is a rather capable one. Many can’t afford the luxury of a binary approach offered by a main speaker system like yours, and will instead have to make settlement with a solution that more pragmatically dictates the speakers, in conjunction with their interaction with the acoustics, as the (by far) most coloring part of the chain. Indeed, though: sheer displacement and headroom are your friends and among the vital parameters to attain, and yet that demand sees limited following. |
Shouldn’t this thread have been re-named by now into "Full Range driver-based Speakers The single most critical component"..? ;)
|
For a lot of them, mute would greatly increase the accuracy. If only they knew how to sort them.
|
@pesky_wabbit --
"For a lot of them, mute would greatly increase the accuracy."
My interpretation: for a lot of the "other voices," meeting them with silence would more accurately reveal their insignificance.
"If only they knew how to sort them."
My intention: if only audiophilia possessed the ability to assess which of those "other voices" needed to be addressed (i.e.: shown interest) or not.
|
@dletch2 --
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.
I'd even go a bit further with that statement: audiophilia in general is in love with its own narrative, and not at all inviting of "other voices." Backlash is one thing, muteness quite another.. |
@mozartfan -- talk about resist changes,
WOW,
I will not continue down the xover design any longer,
40 years of xovers is quite enough for this audiophile.
You can have em.
I suppose you refer to passive cross-overs first and foremost, and (if so) on that we agree. Instead of going totally sans XO though I’m using one actively (DSP), implemented prior to amplification and with one XO-point on the main speakers only - in the more or less critical band (just above 600Hz), that is; a XO-point is also placed below 100Hz for subs augmentation. Debate arises over where the lesser harmful XO-point(s) should be placed, but in a 2-way main speaker design that can be dictated by factors that wouldn’t consider the most optimal XO-point as an outset. Using non-waveguide loaded dome tweeters necessitates a XO typically not much lower than 2kHz, whereas acoustic transformers can lower that point considerable with dome tweeters, AMT units and compression drivers alike (with the latter offering the lowest extension), and hereby give way to experimentation - in conjunction with other design considerations - on where to most optimally place the XO-point. To me the very important "power region" (~150 to 600Hz) should be left untarnished - that is, sans XO-point here - and be reproduced with ample radiation area. One or two high efficiency paper coned 15" drivers here, not least actively driven, simply smothers anything lower eff. typical 8" or smaller alternative with a more unforced, dynamic and naturally full presentation here. They won’t extend clear of the central midrange though, but that mayn’t be an issue with a large horn to cover from 6-700Hz on up, offering qualities here - also in regard to directivity control - that direct radiating, smaller coned drivers wouldn’t be able to replicate. Resisting changes mayn’t be a bad thing, not least in light of what has gone before that position and shaped it into what it is, but it can also be a rigid stance that limits oneself from further exploration. I’ve expelled myself from much of typical hifi and wouldn’t dream of changing that with what I know now. One the other hand, if spacing and economy had allowed I’d have cherished seeking out a secondary set-up with a smaller pair of passively driven 2-way speakers (or even XO-less widebander) and a good integrated amp and source - and just that with no subs or anything other. Simple, clean - like it all started.. |
@lonemountain --
Efficiency is NOT the only thing that matters in engines or drivers.
And yet it's rarely prioritized or recognized as even ONE of the core parameters in speaker engineering.
From product management experience at JBL and with ATC, a driver can be optimized for bandwidth OR efficiency. If you want more low end from a driver, it WILL be less efficient. IF you are willing to forgo some low end, you can go for efficiency.
To some extend at least you can have your cake and eat it too: add size, but that's usually the one thing audiophilia wants to avoid, so, in that case it's either/or. |
A lot of things matter, but not all equally - I’d say that goes without saying, or it should. Implementation on the other hand is wholly important. To say speakers are the least important because they’re at the end of the signal chain is just rubbish. They are, together with the acoustic environment they inhabit, by far the most signature imparting element of all. With limited funds selective $50 DAC’s of today are not the sonic bottleneck to point your finger at, nor are cheap pro amps coupled actively or low cost cables in this context. The speakers and the acoustics however are, how they’re positioned and the way their digital XO is configured. But who wants to tell their audiophile friends they have $50 DAC’s, cheap pro amps, DSP units for active XO and, preferably, high efficiency horn-loaded pro segment speakers, DIY or not? The ones that don’t care about the typical audiophile narrative and are instead willing to invest their time where it matters the most - without being brand, segment or price numbed. Implementation is key, and letting physics have their way. |
