Every few months someone releases technology that seems to be revolutionary, but goes nowhere a couple of years later. Some tech gets acceptance and even imitation. Some goes wildly successful.
Ideas that are a huge success:
Acoustic suspension
Bass Reflex
Soft dome tweeters
Some ideas, well, it's not so clear:
Perfectly time aligned speakers ilke Thiel/Vandersteen
ESL
Line Arrays
Plasma tweeters
Transmission line
What tech have you seen come and go, was it worthwhile?
I have actually been thinking a lot about that approach to reproducing musical instruments, and I'm not sure it was all hogwash, exactly. The quality of the drivers, timbre, etc. would keep me from seeking out a Bose 901.... but rear drivers is really interesting.
Snell used them, and Wilson's latest super-beast has one too. I think they are quite interesting, but still an effect as opposed to more musical extraction.
To large degree, open baffle speakers do this too. Again, niche products, but fun and interesting solutions to problems.
Donvito, they don’t because "acoustic suspension" is completely synonymous with "sealed." That’s the established convention.
I’m not saying new technology is not possible, but that I have never seen a single sealed speaker which did not rely on the same physics and models as an acoustic suspension design,so.... they’re the same. :) When you run a speaker simulation tool (WinISD, Bass Box Pro, etc.) there is no "sealed" option that is not also "acoustic suspension."
"Two Bose 901 direct/relecting speakers create a sound pattern that is larger than the room itself, almost as if you were listening to 8 separate speakers." I bought the coolaid, owned these speakers and loved these speakers in the 80s. Regardless of how speakers are measured, not all people will like the same sound, and so many speakers and brands will have fans. That’s cool with me, I think it’s fun and enjoyable. BTW Omar Bose developed an almost perfect suspension system for automobiles that was never implemented. Go figure.... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3KPYIaks1UY
1 - The point is, acoustic suspension, since it’s commercialization by Acoustic Research, is one of the two most common technologies used in home hi-fi speaker systems. Bass Reflex accounting for the rest, and horn and TL speakers a fraction of the total.
2 - Can you point me to any sealed speaker makers who claim to not use acoustic suspension?
We are talking about cabinets and dynamic drivers here, right?
The confusion comes from the older generic bass reflex enclosures that extended LF by adding almost random bass emphases at varying frequencies. I had a few of these.
Change came from the application of filter theory as exemplified by Olsen, Beranek,Theile, Small and others so that tuned vented enclosures can offer controlled performance.
All of my current speakers are BR, but I’m not religious about it.
I can say most definitely that these two technologies are among the most accepted ways to make a loudspeaker for the home, so neither fits the category of a flop.
On extremely large cabinets with specific heavy duty woofers the reflex port can be used not to extend LF response but to enhance linearity and increase SPL capability.
It is true that the majority of bass reflex is used to make a small box sound bigger and this is a pursuit of quantity at the expense of quality
ESL's are kind of in between, they didn't go away (obviously) but they also haven't achieved absolute market dominance. They are radically different from voice coil based speakers, for sure, but I can think of 4 manufacturers.
Which is bizarre in that it is so vitally important an attribute/feature for a coned speaker with multiple drivers for various frequencies.
Apparently not. I have to say, I am one who has hear Vandersteen and Thiel and not found this attribute so overwhelming. The marketplace agrees with me.
Mind you, a well designed, multi-way speaker IS phase and amplitude aligned. It is not however necessarily time co-incident, which is what Thiel/Vandersteen and a handful of other multi-way designs attempt.
If you like it, that’s fine, and if you think it is a must, well, OK! But the market and my ears have not felt this is an overwhelmingly important attribute. If it were truly an overwhelming advantage others would do it too.
Some of the best bass one will encounter, though not in the way most would expect and incredibly difficult to put into words. But actually far more important on the midrange, and also far simpler to get right.
Speaking of technology Bud Fried espoused, series crossovers. More important and impactful than transmission line. Imparts a coherence / seamlessness and naturalness that the parallel network 99+% of crossovers never can. Yet obviously, a technology that flopped...
Intelligent Chip inside joke: at one time I halfway considered offering a recharging service for the Original Intelligent Chip, for which I was Principal Shill. My recharging service would have been $25. One of the perplexities of the Intelligent Chip was why it ran out of hits. It appeared to behave like a battery. The basic chip gave 10 hits then could be thrown away. The Original Intelligent Chip sold for $16. Anyone who doesn't see the joke raise your hand.
"Quantum theory has many strange features compared to classical theory," Richens told Phys.org. "Traditionally we study how the classical world emerges from the quantum, but we set out to reverse this reasoning to see how the classical world shapes the quantum. In doing so we show that one of its strangest features, entanglement, is totally unsurprising. This hints that much of the apparent strangeness of quantum theory is an inevitable consequence of going beyond classical theory, or perhaps even a consequence of our inability to leave classical theory behind."
Although the full proof is very detailed, the main idea behind it is simply that any theory that describes reality must behave like classical theory in some limit. This requirement seems pretty obvious, but as the physicists show, it imparts strong constraints on the structure of any non-classical theory.
Quantum theory fulfills this requirement of having a classical limit through the process of decoherence. When a quantum system interacts with the outside environment, the system loses its quantum coherence and everything that makes it quantum. So the system becomes classical and behaves as expected by classical theory.
Here, the physicists show that any non-classical theory that recovers classical theory must contain entangled states. To prove this, they assume the opposite: that such a theory does not have entanglement. Then they show that, without entanglement, any theory that recovers classical theory must be classical theory itself—a contradiction of the original hypothesis that the theory in question is non-classical. This result implies that the assumption that such a theory does not have entanglement is false, which means that any theory of this kind must have entanglement.
The take-away is that all possible statements, theories and seeming rules of all objective scientific analysis all contain quantum entanglement. That entanglement is unavoidable and is in everything and all potential everything(s) to come. Which, as dominoes of logic fall and regarding falling in this line of thinking... means that objectivity is a fail.
That objectivity is not universal but in a localized bubble and outside of that, is, well, a pipe dream a forced projection, a non thing, in the overall analysis. A cute experiment and it can't and does not exist. Subjectivity is illustrated by the same dominoes falling, to rule the roost in all facets.
Ditto the original Intelligent Chip. The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry. 🐭
I just read the bit you wrote on it's function, etc (IIRC I've read it before). A bit complex for most, but I'm looking at it and see that is probably the most simple explanation that can be mustered.
I see zero wrong with the science of it (not that I'm an authority), but I'm not allowed to say that on an open forum lest I get ridiculed by ... ... ...
Ultra Tweeters. Even quantum mechanics couldn't save them from anonymity. Ditto the original Intelligent Chip. The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry. 🐭
Polk Audio - Stereo Dimension Array- interesting technology. Bad timing. Came out in the early 80’s I believe. Eliminated intermodulation crosstalk to create true stereo imaging so the left ear hears the left speaker first and so on.... The speakers were huge and retailers were reluctant to devote the space as the industry was moving towards smaller footprint speakers. Plus, they needed near front wall placement but lots of space to the sides for the SDA technology to work.
The Vandersteen 2 has probably the highest sales of any audiophile loudspeaker since it's introduction, so why wouldn't time aligned loudspeakers fall into the success category?
Sometimes the case is not that a technology was bad, but that it has been eclipsed by a better or more practical technology. The 24-track tape recorder was the world wide standard for recording studios, but multi-track hard drive based recording technology has supplanted it.
Whatever happen to the BGS Signal Completion processors? Are Kimber Iso/Mike recordings still being made?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
