Recently read the comments, briefly, on the Stereophile review of a very interesting speaker. I say it’s interesting because the designers put together two brands I really like together: Mundorf and Scanspeak. I use the same brands in my living room and love the results.
Unfortunately, using off-the-shelf drivers, no matter how well performing, immediately gets arm chair speaker critics, who can’t actually build speakers themselves, and wouldn’t like it if they could, trying to evaluate the speaker based on parts.
First, these critics are 100% never actually going to make a pair of speakers. They only buy name brands. Next, they don’t get how expensive it is to run a retail business.
A speaker maker has to sell a pair of speakers for at least 10x what the drivers cost. I’m sorry but the math of getting a speaker out the door, and getting a retailer to make space for it, plus service overhead, yada yada, means you simply cannot sell a speaker for parts cost. Same for everything on earth.
The last mistake, and this is a doozy, is that the same critics who insist on only custom, in-house drivers, are paying for even cheaper drivers!
I hope you are all sitting down, but big speaker brand names who make their drivers 100% in house sell the speakers for 20x or more of the actual driver cost.
Why do these same speaker snobs keep their mouth shut about name brands but try to take apart small time, efficient builders? Because they can. The biggest advantage that in-house drivers gives you is that the riff raft ( this is a joke on an old A'gon post which misspelled riff raff) stays silent. If you are sitting there pricing speakers out on parts cost, shut up and build something, then go sell it.
This was a topic of much debate back in the 70s. Those of us in the minimalist camp (the no tone controls crowd) were convinced that with the really good systems the center channel was detrimental. From the purist perspective it is. The center channel disrupts a systems potential for forming a proper image from the ideal listening position. It steals the magic. What the center channel does do is help a system form a satisfactory (no where near ideal) image from positions off center. The term many people use incorrectly is " a wider sweet spot." The end result is that it corrupts the actual sweet spot. There is no such thing as ideal imaging away from the actual sweet spot. However a system with controlled dispersion using linear arrays can provide a satisfactory image up to about 15 degrees off center while preserving the very best image dead center. This would include three listeners ( a 3 person sofa's worth) at the distance of the sweet spot, satisfactory for theater. This is the reason I have two rows of seating in my media room enough for 6 people to enjoy a movie. As far as audio is concerned three channel recordings are of no consequence as so few are and will be available. Analog R to R machines are a total waste of time and money. All you have to do is buy the 24/ 96 or 192 digital file and you will have spent eons less on a superior program source.
We just watched the movie "Tar" starring Cate Blanchett. A very strange movie. The acting was wonderful but not a movie I would recommend to friends.
So it is rather rare to build foam core drivers then.
I would say it's not new. Electro-Voice Patrician 800 Had 30'' foam core woofer cones. By late 1961, Electro-Voice was ready to announce a 30" woofer incorporating a radically new cone material: polystyrene foam. Almost simultaneously, Jensen unveiled their "Polytec" speakers, also with expanded (foam) polystyrene cones. Meanwhile, two British firms were announcing the fruits of their efforts along similar lines. Leak with a "sandwich" speaker, and Rola Celestion with their "Colaudio" speaker. Other designs followed. 😎 See below: Mike
I totally respect where you are coming from and the debate I remember from the seventies was the value of 4 channels (quadrophonic) vs 2 (stereo). I don’t know that we are comparing apples to apples re: the center channel and music reproduction. Your philosophy of the center channel disrupting the proper image is the opposite of Bob Clearmountain’s (please check his creds here) and that is just one of many engineers/experts who prefer a three or more channel image. I agree re: 3 channel audio recordings being a non issue but there are many ways to integrate more than two channels. I agree that I can watch a movie with a sound bar or a pair of speakers and its better than the TV alone.
I don’t disagree with your preference for two excellent speakers, that’s all good. I disagree that the best strategy to reproduce music is with two speakers, any two speakers regardless of cost. I think the "chrome mountain/sound cannon" approach is the most profitable for the dealer and the most fun for baby boomers with disposable income. Look at all the threads here asking how to spend thousands of dollars with no questions asked about acoustics, it is almost crazy.
The "science" is available today to arrive at $$$$$ type performance on a beer budget. You need to treat your room $, use DSP and get the acoustics right $,
and setup an immersive audio system with a good receiver ($3-$5K), 8 good bookshelf speakers ($1-2K each), a CC ($1k to $2K) and a pair of good subs ($1K or so each +-). If you want to make it OTT add a high end DAC ($2-$5K) and a streamer.
This is 2023, Moores Law benefits consumers, to build a "stereo" like you would in the nineties makes 0 economic or sonic sense, but it can be a fun way to tinker around.
For example, look what Sony can do with a two channel signal via their 360 sound mapping tech, the most expensive receiver they sell comes in at around $3500:
Quadraphonic died rapidly because the technology at the time could not do it without marked compromise in 2 channel performance. To the serious audiophiles of the day it was a seriously bad joke. In the end it's sole purpose for being was to sell more equipment. Even now that the technology exists to do "surround sound" well, people interested in the highest levels of performance regard it strictly as a theater stunt. There might be a method of using two rear channels to enhance realism that I plan on exploring once I have the necessary equipment. The size of a venue from a sonic perspective is indicated by the delay of "late" reflections. The longer the delay the larger the venue. Two rear channels playing 40 to 50 dB down can be digitally delayed any period required to reproduce venue size from a jazz bar to a large indoor stadium. This could be used to increase the realism of live recordings without hurting image formation at least theoretically.
If you have decent ears I can prove to you in a very short period of time that a center channel detracts from 2 channel image formation at its highest level.
While I think it is totally unnecessary to spend the ridiculous money some people spend to get the highest levels of performance, you still have to spend quite a bit more than most people are willing to spend. I think there are very viable short cuts one can take such as building your own loudspeakers as long as you are willing to invest in the appropriate measuring devices and digital signal programming of crossovers and EQ. Avoid Vinyl if you can and put the money into a computer and large SS hard drive. This is a seriously more cost effective approach to collecting music. Hi Res streaming has also come a long way and is excellent for discovering new music.
Forget about Sony. My old TacT processor finally died a permanent death and my new DEQX Pre 8 is still at least a month away. Living without music is not an option so for $1500 I got a MiniDSP SHD preamp and UMIK-2. My old Tact in todays money would cost $8,000 -$10,000. The SHD is not quite as transparent, but it does Room Control and subwoofer crossover every bit as well. With LS3 5As an amp like the Benchmark AHB2 and two subwoofers you can make a seriously high performance system. Higher than anything you could do 40, even 30 years ago.
@ditusa I read the too from 1962. 61 years later, how many companies use foam core drivers? Back then if was a handful. Also, comments concerning smaller boxes result in greater problems reproducing bass. Well, after hearing the Acora Acoustics pair of 7" paper mid-woofers in the low 30’s in a big open room, I was astonished. It’s a box, but made of special granite, not any cellulose product. Back in 1962, there were no computer modeling of speakers (that I know of). Today, it’s standard operating procedure for many functions in developing speakers. Polystyrene drivers are generally disfavored for quality music reproduction today after scanning Google. Maybe Zellaton's unique foam based drivers are just as advanced as many paper based drivers are today.
My own room has built-in activated charcoal bass filtering proposed by J.Gordon Holt. Anyone else comment on this type of bass filtering?
I am suprized that nobody mention Dr. Choueri BACCH filters...
Nobody needs multi channels system...
With the BACCH filter with no lost in TIMBRE , we can have complete holographic virtual room system representation for our SPECIFIC ears with a stereo system , speakers or/and headphones with no difference between speakers and headphone listening in perception...
Quadraphonic died rapidly because the technology at the time could not do it without marked compromise in 2 channel performance.
Today you can get a Jim Fosgate designed 4 channel upmixing matrix in a tube preamp (Black Ice F360) that markedly improves 2 channel performance, see this video:
Even now that the technology exists to do "surround sound" well, people interested in the highest levels of performance regard it strictly as a theater stunt.
"Surround sound" is so last decade, today surround sound has been superseded by immersive audio. News about this in the pro community can be seen here:
If you have decent ears I can prove to you in a very short period of time that a center channel detracts from 2 channel image formation at its highest level.
I just had my hearing tested and its perfect so I’m "all ears". I own a fantastic two channel preamp ( the Sony TAZH1-ES) and if you look at the two channel measurements of my room (posted) it reproduces the two channel response curve I prefer in an exemplary fashion (maybe better than yours? Please post your in room FR to compare if you dare). Let me know your experiment and I’ll do it, then I’ll post an experiment for you as a follow up, fair?
you still have to spend quite a bit more than most people are willing to spend.
This is a deal breaker that actually proves my point, trying to create the illusion of a live music performance with just two speakers is a fools errand. See how the goal posts have moved and artists are now using the same tech I use in my media room to deliver immersive sound to every seat in 5000 seat venues (hint, it needs more than 2 speakers LOL). You can build a system to reproduce immersive audio in someones home for less than $10K. You can blow it out as a SOA system for far less than it takes to build a stereo SOA system (I think the OP has invested over 6 figures if I’m not mistaken and I can’t imagine the time it takes to DIY it):
I think my definition of imaging is different than Mr Clearmountain's. With what he is trying to achieve he is correct. A center channel will improve the results. It will provide the best two dimensional image for the largest number of people (locations), a wide "sweet Spot." I am looking (listening) for something different. A center channel interferes with the formation of the third dimension. People talk about the third dimension even though systems that will produce it are rare, very rare. In my own experience since the early 60's only four systems have achieved this level of performance. The first one was the system of a high school music teacher in an apartment in Coral Gables just South of Miami, FL in 1978. It was based on Sequerra Metronome 2+2W loudspeakers and Threshold electronics in an irregularly shaped room with blankets and bean bag chairs tossed haphazardly throughout. To say I was in awe is an understatement. The second was an HQD system at Sound Components in Miami shortly thereafter. Peter McGrath ended the listening session by frying a Quad with an organ piece trying to impress a customer with the bass performance. Not me! I was not qualified for such a system. I was in awe nonetheless. It took me another 15 years to get my own system to perform at that level and another 10 years to fully understand what I was doing. #4 is the system of a friend that is relatively modest it relies 75% on DSP to achieve these results. I am working with another friend on a 5th system based on Magico S7 loudspeakers.
I have said this in other posts, experience is king. You have to hear this to understand it. It is one thing to get a system to sound good. It is another issue to get it to image properly. You can get a fine two dimensional image out of a poor sounding system but you can not get a good three dimensional image out of a poor sounding system. You can get a wide sweet spot with a two dimensional system, but there is only one sweet spot for the third dimension and you can hear this by simply shifting your head side to side. Certain issues like a bad crossover design will permanently preclude a system from getting that third dimension. Variances in frequency response between the two channels is another common factor that prevents a system from achieving that third dimension. This is why measuring a systems amplitude response is so important, but you also have to have the ability to alter amplitude response without adding distortion, DSP again. Group delay is another issue. Then there is room acoustics. That third dimension is the most fragile of all audio characteristics. All this is a great argument for active loudspeakers and we have had the capability to make any loudspeaker "active" since around 1995 with the foundation of TacT Audio. TacT is now Lyngdorf and other companies have entered the market such as Trinnov, Anthem, Legacy and my personal favorite, DEQX.
i am with you for your saying about center channel...😊
But you are wrong here because you focus too much on gear and electronic equalization... Not enough on room acoustic ...
You can get a fine two dimensional image out of a poor sounding system but you can not get a good three dimensional image out of a poor sounding system.
An IDEAL timbre experience need a minimally sophisticated set of components...Not only acoustic passive and active mechanical control, even electronical equalization is not enough here ...here we are dependent of the gear quality first ...
But to create a good imaging with holographic effect is possible with 100 bucks speakers... Using acoustic and some tweaks to optimize the speakers response : damping and isolation...
I just made yesterday my M-audio self powered cheap box speakers imaging with depth /front/back and beside the speakers if the recording is well chosen ... the soundfield is not coming from the speakers or the imaging is not in the plane between the speakers but develop his own holographic 3-d volume...
I cannot improve timbre passed some treshold of quality dictated by the specs limitations of these low cost speakers for sure ... But imaging i can ... 😊
Acoustic cannot change the gear specs but can create imaging easily and way more easily than improving the timbre perception which need some higher gear quality level ...
I did not even use resonators here as in my past acoustic room... I am in a basement corner😁 ... Just the right balance between reflection/absorption/diffusion...
My main system is now by fate : top headphone...
But i used my low cost speakers with success... Imaging matter for me... Then...
I listen Albinoni oboe concertos right now.... It is a minimalistic audiophile experience with cheap good speakers... I even have minimal bass.... It is true that these cheap speakers were minimally "good" , i bought them after reading reviews 12 years ago... They never sound as good as right now because i never bother to organize acoustic for them before...
I guess you are very much like me. We never sleep:-)
First of all we need better definitions. I am referring to 2 channel systems. I have a 2 channel system , but it is comprised of 6 individual loudspeakers forming a full bandwidth line array.
When I refer to "good hearing" it is not just the measured performance of the ears themselves, but also the training and interpretive powers of the lump connected to them. Not a problem. Once exposed to such a system you will never forget it. I still have vivid recollections of the High school teacher's apartment and system.
I must be a fool then. With your eyes closed playing a 24/192 version of a great live recording like Arctic Monkeys Royal Albert Hall or the perennial Waiting for Columbus, the only audio clues that you are not at the real performance is the crowd noise coming only from in front of you and an image that is much too good for a concert of this nature. Playing music this way is for demonstration purposes only. Running at such a volume on a continual basis is not good for your ears or your marriage. My house is an open design with very few doors. The media room essentially exits into a large cavity. There are enough late reflections to convince the brain that you are in a larger venue or not necessarily in a small one. Playing classical music or acoustic jazz is probably a better, safer indicator and will produce the same results.
Immersive sound? Do you sit in the center of a band or orchestra? Immersive sound is for theater use. My system does double for theater use but I am not willing to compromise it's 2 channel performance
Immersiveness is an acoustic concept which is in the reach of two speakers system not only theater system and defined by the ratio between listener envelopment ASW/LV and the sound sources holographic volume ratio ...
Acoustic is key in audio not the gear....With the Dr. Choueri BACCH filter it could be very easy to attain complete immersiveness by the way with headphone or any stereo speakers...
My headphone are in their own specfically headphone way "immersive" as was my two speakers/room...( not my actual cheap speakers/basement corner , here i enjoy imaging but not immersiveness for sure, i could not tune resonators there to modify the pressure zone distribution this is why immersiveness is not possible in my basement only a good imaging )
This means that i as a listener i feel as if i was among the musicians on the musical scene with the musicians around me , it is recording dependent for sure... With organ Bach music and Marie Claire Alain recording for example i am as a listener in a church, no more in my room , and the headphone soundfield is "out of my head" ... In my acoustic room it was like that but not as much precise because of my speakers specs limitations which were less performative than my hybrid top headphone now...
By the way it was very hard to find a set of headphone able to do that and optimize it, it takes me 6 months... With the headphone it was necessary to use electronical equalization too by the way to go nearer the Harman curve , the mechanical equalization was done already internally by the designer with a grid of 5 Helmholtz resonators 😊 the AKG K340 is vastly misunderstood, their internal shell is a masterpiece of acoustic and their genius designer was a physicist founder of AKG ...
Immersive sound? Do you sit in the center of a band or orchestra? Immersive sound is for theater use. My system does double for theater use but I am not willing to compromise it’s 2 channel performance
A center channel will improve the results. It will provide the best two dimensional image for the largest number of people (locations), a wide "sweet Spot."
Agreed.
That third dimension is the most fragile of all audio characteristics.
I can’t argue that if you only experienced it 4 times its rare and desirable. You know there is a system that is literally named after 3 dimensions, I am not claiming it will reproduce what you heard, only that we are both in agreement in our quest to achieve a 3D soundstage.
I have been building speakers for over 40 years. Another miss-conception is that they are cheap. Not so. Markup on drivers and crossover parts is as brutal as finished speakers and one needs to figure I go through a couple prototype boxes before I am happy and usually several sets of drivers. I prototype the crossovers with cheap parts before I risk buying big air-cores and poly caps. Then, you think you can match those Chinese piano finish cabinets? I can but it takes me weeks and materials for a couple bookshelves can run several hundred.
If you look at the direct sale companies, Buchard, Emotiva, Taylor, Ohm etc, you will see about half price compared to the traditional distribution network. It is actually hard for a DIY to match them in overall value and a disaster if you include your time.
FWIW, I lean to paper cones and silk domes. Seas, SB, Vifa etc. Above 4K, I have never heard a tweeter beat an XT-25. Unfortunately, that leaves a problem getting from a 6 inch to the tweeter, so I am working on one now using an SB.
The GR kits may be pretty fair. Danny can at least get the simple frequency response decent which is far above 90% of the speakers in the store! The CSS kits and even the spec design from ASR would seem to be reasonable. SEAS and SB have spec designs. All could be built if not getting crazy with exotic woods for under $1500 a pair. Do consider if the same materials were bought by a big company, they may be only $150. If I get lazy, I really like the CSS tweeter, but the ASR spec uses the Purify woofer which is in a class by itself. I prefer one of the SB tweeters over the DTX though. I wish Transducer Labs was still around.
Fortunately for my bank account, the couple of times I thought about a commercial line, events saved me. Closed I got was a series of three and I had two stores and a distributor seriously looking.
Why so few off the shelf drivers in commercial speakers? Well, preventing copy-cat rip-offs is one, and then we engineers always think we know better than transducer engineers who have been doing it for decades. Sometimes for good reason to make a woofer fit a box size and price point set by marketing. Sometimes just for our ego.
In-house manufacturing is reserved for ultra high volume ( cost control, supply chain management, rapid prototyping like Dynaudio) or for the uber high end prestige market where you are trying to justify the price. Even there, you will find they don't make all the pieces. As far as quality control, if you can't control the quality of your supplier, it is your fault. I say that from the years I spent in Failure Analysis as a Quality Engineer. Even I knew how to prevent Chinese bait and switch runs.
Eric, a super smooth $50 clean tweeter is not that easy to find though they are out there. If you have any recommendations, I am all ears. But yea, if you want to produce insane levels then follow the hints from the late Dr. Geedes and use compression drivers in horns and JBL PA midranges. Personally, a 1 inch soft dome can exceed the level of hearing damage in my living room so I have no need.
Now the patents have run out, I keep hoping for AMT's with distortion levels that I can handle. They do so much well, but gasp, not there yet. Elac, Golden Ear, Martin Logan. ARRG! RAAL and other similar ribbons? Just as bad. I get the airiness and that is great, but just can't handle the distortion.
Hidden cost factor: For what my woodshop cost, I could have bought top end Wilsons! Same with the misconception you can build furniture cheaper than you can buy it.
You just referenced the XT25, so I thought you had this covered. The dual magnet versions can help bridge the gap for use in 2-way speakers. Even so, if you can fit a 4" midrange you can really do yourself a favor in terms of dynamic range, distortion and dispersion. The Scanspeak 2604 is also a great bargain with very smooth output.
The GE AMT tweeters are not something I would use to judge the best AMTs today.
Yea, from 4K up the Vifa is fantastic and easy to use. Have them on my desk with RS 120's. Go much below that, even in my near-field desk setup and the distortion skyrockets. It just does not have the surface area. Hard part is a decent midrange. I have not found one because of the efficiency problem and blending them with the woofer. Totem did well with them until the supply got short during COVID and they switched to a metal dome that IMHO is no where near as nice.
I tried a pair of the SS, and a pair of the HDS. Both were OK, but to tame and flatten took too many parts. I have a pair of SB26 I am giving a try as they can work below 2K at reasonable levels. I tried their "ring radiator" and while it did sound clean, was a bit bumpy. I noticed Sonas Faber is doing something similar stabilizing the dome from the front. At least in the store, I am pretty impressed. I have used several pairs of the Seas 27 TBFC but in hind sight, I think the issues I was having was not rolling off the woofer steep enough. I had less luck with the 29TTF and the DXT.
I am holding out hope for better AMT's. The Mundorf is a bit pricy for me ($1400/pair) just to play with and I have never heard one well done or seen any distortion measurements. I(distortion vs freq and spl) Dispersion is kind of an issue with them, but that can be dealt with. The SB is a lot cheaper, but again, neither heard or seen measurements and not pocket change.
I keep hoping for a 90 dB efficient midrange that can go 400 to 4K. There was a lot to be said for the old "decade" monkey coffins. 40-400, 400-4K, 4K up. The new SB "filler" dome may have some possibilities.
Actually, depending on how the SB's work out, I am half tempted to just buy some Sonas Faber Lumina IIs, sell all my lab stuff and give Komiko woodworking a try.
@mijostyn J. Gordon Holt wrote about activated carbon in wall filtering in Stereophile. I built a custom listening room, four walls and floor (had to keep the ceiling without them due to thin 2X8 rafters). You can see a description on my profile. The carbon is contained in a four chamber, wooden 12.5" wide X 48" high compartment lining all walls and both doors. The wall width is 16". With 6-12" woofers, I'm not overloading the room with this design and don't require external filtering, including available activated carbon boxes on walls.
From the ad for external boxes:
Carbon technology has the same smooth frequency response starting at 40 – 60 Hz. and going through 6,500 Hz. it is a smooth low-frequency absorbing tool for absorbing unwanted low-frequency energy along the boundary surfaces in small rooms. At a maximum depth of 12″, it won’t take up much wall space and gives you lower frequency absorption down to 40 Hz.
With carbon technology, you achieve a smooth absorption curve that is smooth in rate and level with a special quality of clarity that is not offered with foam or other absorption technologies especially the building insulation types that dominate the industry. If you are looking for a more natural rate and level of absorption that does not over absorb at certain frequencies and under absorbing at others, our carbon and foam technologies will give you that linearity you need.
@erik_squiresThe wall is sealed shut. Every orifice has sprayed Flex Seal. The walls are 16" thick (see my profile) The activated charcoal was recommended by J.Gordon Holt and implemented in a sealed design. Green glue is silly (2% vibration reduction results at messy and high cost). Using drywall in a listening room is silly. I'm not saying my room is perfect or the best, just sensible and effective (since the moment I moved in, everyone says the room is on the slightly lively side but superior to 95+% of listening rooms-mastering engineers and confirmed audiophiles).
@asvjerryYes, young and wealthy would have been nice. My late former wife suffered for 11 years with severe systemic lupus. I could not avail myself of huge economic growth during my prime earnings years. I have labored hard and studied harder to become comfortable economically at 67, in the top 15% of income earners in California with even greater net worth. Music is my real equity other than family. .
@fleschler- Not only is the topic of room treatments off-topic in this particular thread, but I can find absolutely nothing mentioning J. Gordon Holt and carbon wall panels.
Hidden cost factor: For what my woodshop cost, I could have bought top end Wilsons! Same with the misconception you can build furniture cheaper than you can buy it.
Your post is illuminating for those of us that lack "the skills to pay the bills". You have me curious about getting one of Danny’s kits to dabble a bit without the expenses you mention above, THANKS!
@fleschler - Not only is the topic of room treatments off-topic in this particular thread, but I can find absolutely nothing mentioning J. Gordon Holt and carbon wall panels.
I totally respect the OP and of course he is correct, I started a new thread if you care to share over there 😀
@fleschler - Not only is the topic of room treatments off-topic in this particular thread, but I can find absolutely nothing mentioning J. Gordon Holt and carbon wall panels.
I hope you are all sitting down, but big speaker brand names who make their drivers 100% in house sell the speakers for 20x or more of the actual driver cost.
I personally measure value when I compare speakers around the same price point. If the manufacturers have high or low margins at that price point has little interest to me. I think consumers are more conscious about where a product was assembled/made today then the sum expense of the parts used, do you agree?
I build speakers also and relative to the enclosure, drivers are inexpensive. The driver market is huge and there is lots of competition. Take a Big Wilson. All The drivers might cost say $10,000, probably a lot less. However, the speaker pair retails for $350,000. For the sake of argument let's break this into 3rds, the actual cost of the speaker including labor and associated costs, Wilson's profit and lastly dealer's profit. That would be 117,000 each. The actual cost of the speaker minus drivers would be $107, 000
My point is that relative to making a speaker enclosure the cost of drivers is minimal even with a very inflated figure. It is difficult to spend more than $2000.00 for the drivers of a two way system. The best subwoofer driver for my purposes cost $256.00 each. After all the work on those enclosure I am not about to put a second rate drivers in them and I investigated the entire market before putting pencil to paper..
As for crossovers Eric is correct that the active approach is superior in every respect and easy to implement. The active part need not be in the speaker itself. Outboard equipment is seriously superior and electronics companies are starting to get the message. DEQX has a preamp coming out that has a complete 4 way digital crossover which is extremely flexible giving you a choice of filters from 1st to 10th orders, butterworth or L-R. in 1 Hz increments.
If using a DEQX, then you might as well by your speakers at K-Mart. :) Yea, I had one. Great for a PA system. Not HI-FI. Not even HT. The last thing I want to do to my stereo is add a $2 A2D and D2A in the chain with Op-Amps worse than 5558's and electrolytic caps even if the DSP was half decent. Now, setting up for a small band in some unknown club, I would not be without one. Never done a stadium so don't know about that.
I get the comments on very high sound pressure, but as I like my hearing to remain in tact, I do not consider that part of HI-FI. My humble stand mount 6 inch 2-ways can exceed permeant hearing damage thank you. One can do a DeApolitto MTM and reduce upper bass distortion at "Who concert" levels but at higher SPL, you can't hear the difference and if you play that loud, you just can't hear any more.
PA is of course a totally different animal where the problems of multiple driver comb filtering are overshadowed by getting the sound to the back of the room. ( Line arrays of those nice JBL's and compression horns) I don't think the markup is PA is as high as residential. Neither is fidelity. I agree, separate the adults from boys. Adults know better than to use PA systems in small rooms. We all did that as boys of course.
I also get what you are saying if you are replicating some ego-prestige all-in-the-name bragging rights like WAMM though I think you should look at that it takes to design and build such a monstrosity. ( I am not a fan having heard most of their line over the years starting with Watt/Puppies. ) But, do you think you can out-do ELAC on a D6.1? Can you equal a Dynaudio Special 40, Focal, Sonas Faber, Even a Kef R3? Size and price real people can pay?
Now we have increasing direct sales cutting out the importer, distributor and retail chain. ( we still pay that on components) So the equivalent cost is about half of the traditional chain. They do have to cover the cost of returns though. An example may be Taylor who puts together a seeming well worked out SB 2-way quite reasonably. If you want to touch entry level as cheap as possible, then a flat-pack CSS kit and a can of spray paint is far cheaper than even direct sales for similar quality and the design work is done. Just glue it together. Some of the Bagby or Zaph designed kits are not bad. GR has kits. I don't really consider a kit the same as DIY. It is just slapping together some one else's work.
It "burns" me when I see a product trashed from an audio "snob" that simply mismatched the speaker to the amp, the cable, or the room.
A bundled, active speaker is a preconfigured package drawing in particular on the advantage of having its amp channels looking directly into their respective driver segments, as well as having minimized cable influence. It's also an easy plug-and-play solution. The room however is still a variable that needs attention as a separate measure, and you’re also left with accepting a choice of amps that mayn’t suit your preference if you actually had different options to go by and compare to each other. Actively amp choice is less critical, but it’s still a factor - both technically and subjectively.
If you go outboard active you can have even better and more powerful amps. Although less power is generally needed actively for the same SPL compared to a passive scenario, not to mention providing power indendancy between the different driver segments where a more power hungry bass section will leave the HF segment unaffected (the same of course goes for a bundled config.), more power can come in handy for even lower distortion and more headroom.
You’ll have longer cables with outboard active, yes, but look at JBL’s prime monitor, the M2’s. They come sans passive crossover (safe perhaps a capacitor over the D2 driver for its protection), and with no built-in amp or electronic/digital crossover needs to be fed externally. JBL recommends the sibling company (owned by Harman) Crown I-Tech 5000HD with DSP, an off-the-shelf item that wasn’t in any way designed around the M2’s, but it has sufficient power (1,250W/8 ohm) and overall quality. Not a smaller version to the top section, no, but two similar 5000HD’s. Why wouldn’t JBL go bundled with their top monitor if it (supposedly) meant the world into über-specialized amp-driver integration with a differentiated amp topology approach? My guess: not only don’t they find it worth it, but on the contrary they may find it the preferred route qualitatively going outboard active with two similar amps for the best coherency, while giving the customer the option of other amp/DSP choices - cable influence be damned. As they say: forest for the trees..
If you go outboard active you can have even better and more powerful amps.
Bryston has a line of active speakers, an outboard crossover that you can BYOA (bring your own amp). I know Bryston makes great amps but I would prefer a Sunfire 7400 or 7401. You can choose their outboard BAX-1 crossover OR (my preference) use their SP4 HT processor for the crossovers and DSP.
Why wouldn’t JBL go bundled with their top monitor if it (supposedly) meant the world into über-specialized amp-driver integration with a differentiated amp topology approach?
I often thought the same thing, it must have been a decision of the marketing dept.
I have pictures, but not sure how to post. The control ribbon asks for a URL. Other forums give the option for a local file. I want to imbed, not link.
Here is my simple desk, the first system NOT to have any edge to Joni Mitchel, Judy Collins etc. It plays plenty loud with the 2W. I stuck a 1 1/4 fan on the Schiit heat sink. Totally silent and it dropped the temp over 20 degrees.
PC, JRiver, wasapi exclusive, asynchronous, with -3 dB gain, 100ms buffer. I use the JRiver eq to tame a 115Hz mode. No other eq.
JDS Atom+ stack. Schiit REKKR amp and my own Dayton RS/VIfa speakers, Dayton 8 inch sup and plate. I have .22uF caps in the lines going to the Rekkr.
I use a USB controlled relay to power on the audio stack.
Main system has my workshop Elacs as I am in the process of painting my main speakers (Seas ER18/SBs) Amp is an old Hafler chassis with my own MOSFET amp in it. Same combo for the music server but testing the Topping DX3pro plus right now. JDS I think is smoother, My Asgard not quite. I use an Emotiva DC blocker as I had DC issues when I had a Parasound amp with a toroid transformer, a Pyle sequencer controlled by the PC USB to power on and off everything. O-Audio amp. The chest in the picture is the sub. I had to give the matching one away as there was just no room for it, but doing REW and True64 tests, my bass is not a problem so no eq needed. Focal 906's should get here tomorrow as they measure well but were strange in the only shop that has them. Something was funny so I ordered a pair while they are less than half price. ( being replaced maybe?) I suspect I can beat them as they have metal domes which I basically don;t like, but execution is everything so giving them a try. The only speakers in a store that actually impressed me are the Lumina IIs. A lot were quick "NO!" I was listening to any bookshelf under 5K.
I do nothing exotic with cables. Short as possible, twist the zip cord etc. Just decent as all that esoteric stuff if it has any positive effect, is above my hearing. ( Some is worse and I can hear that)
My third system is HT. Anthem AVR, more Dayton/Seas speakers as wall plates. Panasonic 4K player. In the shop I use the Elac's with an old Kenwood tuner and the Fosi V3. Makes noise.
In my last house, I had my morning system, a Creek integrated, Kenwood tuner, and older Boston in-wall speakers.
I have sold off my pile of of stuff I was not using. Trying to clear out anything we have not used in 5 years. I am sure when finished fooling with DACs, I'll have several. Sold off my Rotels, Parasounds, Denons, Haflers and DIY amps. Denon, Rotel, Sony, OPPO players. Dumped all the Berhringer, Rolls, DBX stuff. APT, Hafler, Nakamichi, DIY preamps. All my tube stuff.
I have sold off my pile of of stuff I was not using.
It's good to focus on what you really need. I try and recycle by just giving it away to friends if I don't want to sell. Go into the virtual system area, you will see a link at the top to add a new system and it will walk you through. You can see a members system by clicking on their handle and if they have one posted there will be a link.
Bryston has a line of active speakers, an outboard crossover that you can BYOA (bring your own amp). I know Bryston makes great amps but I would prefer a Sunfire 7400 or 7401. You can choose their outboard BAX-1 crossover OR (my preference) use their SP4 HT processor for the crossovers and DSP.
Oh, I know their line of products as some of the few to currently offer an outboard active solution. More brands should follow their example instead of obstinately and dogmatically sticking to passive, and to stop thinking 'active' can only be a bundled approach.
I often thought the same thing, it must have been a decision of the marketing dept.
If it even is it wouldn't have been without a clear signalling from engineering.
Manufacturers may use a wide array of strategies to find/develop something that will sell. OEM is attractive because building drivers is expensive and slow. It also requires a significant investment in labor and infrastructure to maintain over time. Building your own (in house drivers) enables you to design something different and special and you can build it exactly as you like. This is rarely a motivator for a small manufacturer to make more money because the infrastructure and tooling costs far outweigh the additional profit of the in house drivers. In house drivers are almost always used to design/build something that is beyond what is available OEM.
OEM tends to focus on very large runs of the same driver to make the tooling cost less per driver. This is why a speaker maker attempting to build a system and does not have in house driver capability has two advantages using OEM: a large assortment to pick from (lots of companies offer drivers) and a low cost per unit to buy (especially if you can buy in any kind of quantity). They also have two negatives: 1)to get something special made for you you have to commit to large investment and/or large quantity orders that require massive money and 2) you can only buy what is offered, not what you might ideally might want otherwise you are paying for tooling and design etc (just like in house). So there are limits to OEM in what is available and limits to what you can have custom made for you based on your product development budget.
OEM solves a huge headache in manufacturing and enables a manufacture to focus on other things that might be more impactful to their product (sales). Maybe it’s a feature like Sonos with their wi fi audio where the feature is more important than the absolute ultimate driver performance. ( I do have to add that Sonos ERA 300 is absolutely state of the art speaker designed by one of the best transducer designers on the planet). Or maybe its price or size like JBL’s little flip speakers- extraordinary value there- a pair of those and bluetooth turntable and you have a $300 home system that sounds amazing! Way beyond what we could buy in the 60s and 70s. But its worth noting that the cost of design and prototyping a driver is insane- its takes years to develop and then once you have the design the cost of tooling is beyond what 99% of smaller volume manufacturers can afford. An audiophile speaker company would likely NEVER recoup that investment unless they are at the absolute top of the market. Witness companies like Magico, KEF, ATC and several others do exactly that.
Today, OEM is really the only way unless you happen to have these driver manufacturing capabilities already in hand. It’s no mistake that several OEM driver makers (JBL, Focal, ATC) now build speakers as they have the unique ability to make their own. Many OEM driver makers/speaker builders have moved to a location like India and China where making drivers is much cheaper and can actually make sense as the labor is so low and their aren’t environmental restrictions like in the west. So that leaves us with the truth that the only people left doing in house drivers have a clear and compelling reason for it, usually performance or some specific feature they need for differentiation. Additionally, most manufacturers that build their own do not add a profit to the driver separately like OEM does; its just one cost like all the others that get added together into "cost of goods" and then margin is added based on their overhead (cost of operations, facilities, inventory of parts, labor, marketing etc) .
So in house is no magic formula to money, it’s just one strategy of many to be different.
This is rarely a motivator for a small manufacturer to make more money because the infrastructure and tooling costs far outweigh the additional profit of the in house drivers. In house drivers are almost always used to design/build something that is beyond what is available OEM.
I think there’s a difference between unique and excellent. Having drivers no one else has makes them unique and impossible to evaluate the same way we can evaluate small shops with OTS parts. They may also take steps to give the "impression of modernity" (from a Focal marketing slide). For instance, adding a graphite coating, which may do NOTHING to the sound quality. Boom, instant markup, zero value.
Forgive me if I’m too cynical, but of course if I was running a big-brand I’d constantly be looking at ways of cutting costs while at the same time claiming my cost cutting methods were actually purely for the consumer’s benefit. I think both are possible but if I’m not increasing profit margins by vertically integrating I’m failing.
There’s also, of course, the dozens of far east driver makers who actually make decent, bespoke drivers for cheap. Having the time and experience to cultivate those relationships is another way in which big brands increase profit margin.
Regardless of your approach though, if you are a big brand you have to pay for that factory, warehouse, repair, packaging, product development, etc. and that takes money and the only way to get to afford that and actually make a profit is to decrease your cost per driver/increase your profit margin. The other way to say that is to decrease the percentage of cash you have to pay to put those drivers in those cabinets.
Regardless of the motivation, whether purely cost-cutting or purely to deliver drivers with audibly better performance, you can’t get to success if you pay 10% of your retail to driver costs. You have to drive that number down. And that’s fine, that’s business. My message to people who can barely plug a lamp into a wall but want to complain about small businesses using OTS driver because the drivers are "only" 30% of the speaker retail is that they have no idea what they are talking about.
KOTA1 Was that really Paradigms OEM supplier? Sure that wasn't someone else? I find that hard to believe. I would take that down if I were them.
Whoever that was, it was NOT a clean assembly line- it was filthy! The only part of the line that can be messy is the coil winding.....Once you assemble a coil and start gluing parts to it cleanliness becomes critical. There is a huge issue with tiny little particles getting caught in the gap. These tiny nearly invisible particles that don't belong will reduce performance or cause failure modes; your work area has to be spotless. It has to be maintained and clean enough you can see anything that doesn't belong near your work. A skilled QC person would have a fit if a line that looked like that. [Stuff will stick to you hands, your clothes, fall on the driver, get where they aren't supposed to be and affect that driver later].
That glue bead machine applied a very irregular glue bead and this is not okay with a high performance driver. It needs to be perfectly consistent. Small areas where there is more glue and less glue will change the moving dynamics of the cone and will impact performance especially at higher levels. Any kind of mass irregularity in a moving part is not okay.
That line is typical of inexpensive drivers (maybe even a "better" drivers) but not a high performance line. You have to run an extremely clean facility to make high performance drive units and deliver consistent repeatable behavior at all levels.
Here is a clip of a clean assembly line https://youtu.be/dF-Ux7h1Auk Go a minute in or so. Hopefully the difference is obvious. This would be typical of a high performance (hand made) drive unit facility. Not many like this left.
Brad, that was a clip on you tube from someone’s cell phone. The link below is a "sanctioned" video that is from a year ago. The reason I posted it is because I had damage to drivers in my Paradigm active speakers which are out of production. I called paradigm asking to buy new drivers and they told me because they have their own factory all I needed to do was send the damaged drivers in. I paid a repair fee and my drivers were repaired and I just reinstalled them. This was a HUGE relief and made me a fan. When I saw this thread I didn’t realize the advantage I had when I bought speakers that had their own driver factory. The other nice thing is the dealer network, you can drop it off or send it in. When I bought these speakers I wasn’t even thinking about the service side, I kind of lucked out.
The clip you posted is excellent, it looks like speaker surgery :).
Kota1-Now I get it! Sorry I didn’t understand the post.
Yes having a repairable driver is a great thing especially when you realize so many factors say just toss it in the bin and by a new one.
And YES, that newer post looks much better! A lot of folks don’t know what hand making a driver looks like or they think these things can be made on machine the same as by hand- which is NOT possible. SO that newer link does credit to Paradigm, THAT looks like proper speaker factory.
@kota1 and @lonemountain Wow, that first video looks like a cheapy build in a bad factory. The second video looks like the typical high end, high quality build, this from Paradigm. So glad about the second video. I saw a video of Cardas cable manufacturing and the first video reminded me of that with no quality control that I could tell and no testing after the cables were manufactured.
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.
Acoustic Fields