has anyone mentioned "dealer mark up" ???
What makes an expensive speaker expensive
When one plunks down $10,000 $50,000 and more for a speaker you’re paying for awesome sound, perhaps an elegant or outlandish style, some prestige ... but what makes the price what it is?
Are the materials in a $95,000 set of speakers really that expensive? Or are you paying a designer who has determined he can make more by selling a few at a really high price as compared to a lot at a low price?
And at what point do you stop using price as a gauge to the quality? Would you be surprised to see $30,000 speakers "outperform" $150,000 speakers?
Too much time on my hands today I guess.
Are the materials in a $95,000 set of speakers really that expensive? Or are you paying a designer who has determined he can make more by selling a few at a really high price as compared to a lot at a low price?
And at what point do you stop using price as a gauge to the quality? Would you be surprised to see $30,000 speakers "outperform" $150,000 speakers?
Too much time on my hands today I guess.
170 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
if you have a BIG BANK ACCOUNT you can fool yourself into
believing that the speakers you plan on buying ........ say 150,000 bucks but you also seen & listened to a set that you didnt know that they were only 2,000 but can anyone honestly say that the set at 150,000 are 148,000 TIMES BETTER than the set at 2,000 .......... i say " Bollocks " |
No Offense intended derrickengineer. I have heard some expensive speakers in optimal rooms with very pricey ancillary electronics and front ends. They produced some of the closest to live reproductions I have heard. A Wilson speaker with master tape front-end. Genesis Ones playing acoustic guitar...very real presentation. Vandersteen 7's...incredible air, depth of staging, delineation, and musical. Tidal...don't recall which model, with all Tidal electronics and digital front end...kept me totally absorbed. Polymer Audio did some spectacular things at Axpona. The larger YG Acoustics, to my taste and ears, bettered their smaller models. Kaiser Kawero were extremely enjoyable...great throughout the frequency range. Occasionally, the expensive Magicos performed well. I have never heard the MBL's sound musical and involving..but only heard at shows I would very much wish to hear the large Avalons and Evolution Acoustics. My understanding is each of these speakers have achieved this level of performance by utilizing expensive components; in the drivers and crossovers, plus the density of the cabinet and internal wiring. To reach the depths of lower bass, extension in the upper frequencies, and the delicious, seductive mid-range,; my experiences are from these high-end, high-priced products. My issue with your statement, derrickengineer, is as with all respondents who make blanket generalizations about a product without actual encounters. Not very practical or objective. |
@tomcy6 Agreed. Your emotions cause you to buy speakers, not your oscilloscope. Buy what you like, but always keep an ear out for what else you might like, and different types of emotional engagements. It’s like baseball. Stats are fun, but it’s the game that keeps you in your seat during the overtime innings. :) Also, I'm sorry but I'm not convinced the goal should be to spend the most. Anyone can spend $300 to get a great bottle of wine. I think the best audiophile and music lovers need to be looking for that $20 dollar bottle of wine that is just as good. :) Best, Erik |
Why do some people have the need to convince everyone that their brand of speakers are the best for everyone? People have to listen for themselves and decide which speakers they like best. There are many different brands of speakers that sound great and offer good value, not just one or two. Why do people have to dis speakers they can't afford? Yes the law of diminishing returns applies to speakers, but some people have listened to a lot of speakers and decided they like the sound of $100k speakers best and they can afford them. Why does that bother some people so much? I am glad that there are many different speakers to choose from at any price point and see this as a positive not a negative. I am also happy that there are people who are willing to pay the big bucks for the absolute best because this is still a free country where you can buy whatever the hell you can afford, and these people fund much of the research that goes into making my $5,000 speakers sound so good. So, don't let anyone tell you which speakers you should like. Listen and decide for yourself and allow others to do the same, even if the speakers they like are unaffordable to you. |
About listening at shows.... one tip that I go by now is I go through the hallways first. If the music sounds good outside, then and only then do I bother to go in. It sounds really weird, but this was a tip I had learned before, and was confirmed by an acoustician from ASC at one show. If a room is well treated, it's going to sound good inside and out. You can tell outside the room how well a room is going to sound. Of course, if you are on the "never acoustical treatment" camp this tip won't work for you and you don't care about what I was listening to in the first place, but for those on the other team, I suggest nest time you go to a show, pay attention and see what you think. One thing I also realized is that there are a lot of audiophiles who are perfectly happy to listen past the rooms, while I'm usually not. There are usually only a handful of rooms I can even tolerate to be in. So, depending on your listening style this tip may help you. Best, Erik |
I totally agree with you on the audio show set ups. The best scenario would be in your home listening to any high cost speaker. Audio shows are a great way for the masses to hear, (although crappy room set up as you stated) and see the high end products. Synergy ( equipment and room ) is the key to getting the most out of your speakers and system. I think the point is the sound perceived per dollar spent on speakers. As you stated the sound of the speaker in your example did not sound any better than the sound of the half priced speaker. We all have systems based on our means and wants. Should I inherit $50 million dollars, you bet Id be auditioning the high performance speakers out there, still that $200k speaker may not sound any better than a $100k speaker, my new found wealthy Ego allows me to try it thus fueling the demand for manufacturers to create such things of beauty. Cheers my friend. |
Ego? yes, for some. Most of my audio friends who can afford a speaker over 30k let's say, do it because they fall in love with the sound. They can afford them without even noticing the debit in their accounts. Audiophiles are of two groups usually. One group collects gear.....some collect as much as they can and they keep sites like this going. Others love their gear, but love the music more. That's one of the few statements any of can make in audio that isn't really subjective. Just ask any dealer who's been around for over 30 years and they'll say the same thing. As for 'what's in the box', we have discussed that at length in this thread. Too many avenues to discuss about that from scale of economy to R&D to cabinet build/finish to quality of the components in there to most importantly drivers and their implementation. Derrick, I do disagree with you about being able to listen at a show and then make any real subjective thoughts. Show conditions usually stink at best. The rooms alone are usually terrible, then you have so many in a room. Any speaker will only sound it's best in the sweet spot and it's nearly impossible to sit in that sweet spot. I don't think many will argue with that, but many who love the shows still will say I'm wrong. To each their own. Many of us have been fortunate to go listen at friends houses as well as top dealers, to many of the speakers in the market over 50k up to 250k. The other major part of the equation is the system as a whole. Some speakers must have specific amps to sound their best as well as cable etc... I loved a Tidal system I listened to that probably cost north of 400k when it was all said and done. Man did it sound awesome. It really did, but it didn't sound better to me than a system I love that costs less than half of that. Even half is still 200k. For some they laugh at this thread or get upset that folks even question why they'd pay so much for audio. Why do they own an Bugatti or other esoteric auto? Why does their house cost so much? Why do they......its' because they can and because they can, it allows smaller companies to make a nice profit and filter down the tech to speakers in the lower price ranges that most of us play in. I thank the manufacturers and the fellow audiophiles for helping us all out. In the end, we are all winners. How cool is that? |
Ive had 20 year old $2500 B&W 801's with new upgraded crossovers built by Solen sound better than a lot of $10k speakers that ive heard in dealers showrooms, Totem, Dynaudio, to name a few. My monet stayed in my pocket when I was shopping around for potential new speakers and to see whats out there. Revel Ultima Salon were the only ones that sounded better at $20k to my ears. |
YOUR EGO.. when audiophiles are willing to shell out a hundred thousand dollars + for an audio speaker I remember the words " If you build it they will come" from a Costner movie and so true is the rational behind mega buck speakers that sound greaty, but arne t any better than one costing half the price. Audio gear is the same. There was a website.. " Whats inside" that showed the inside of audio components and I was amazed to see a $60,000. phone stage with one transformer and a circuit board with a few caps. The inside box was 70% empty.. The Buyers feed the market as to whats made. If no one buys a super priced speaker.. no one will make it. Companies will have their flagship speaker but dont look to sell tons of them at over $100k . I wish the stereo reviewers would do shoot outs. I challenge Wilson Audio Alexandra XLS at over $100k+ to go up against Legacy Audio V $50k and have a panel of judges determine which speaker sounds better. Its a matter of each individuals taste in sound but i bet dollars to donuts the sound is not 3 x's the price better. Subjective.. you bet.. A rip off.. for those that can t afford it..lol. Thats why I thank God for Audiogon as it puts the costlier gear that I could never afford, at my reach years down the road when I could potentially buy it used at 60% off retail. Now does that $150 K speaker sound the same at $60k ? It sounds better..lol. |
Congrats Jim. What I've noticed in the years with all good speakers are that they won't wow you necessarily, but give them time to get to know them. Often times it's what they don't do rather than what they the opposite. Just like some stores turn up the brightness on their TV's to wow you in the store, may speakers are made to sound more exciting in a store do they show up better in demo's, but in the long run the best choice is often the one that you listen to and enjoy and you get to know them better and better during the journey. At first when I went from my Proac towers to the Vandersteen Treo's, I noticed a difference for the better, but I wasn't blown away. The longer I listened, the more I realized that I was reaching for all my recordings and not just the best recorded ones. I also was listening on average an extra couple or hours a day on days I was able to. I started to really heard the layering difference. Kind of like when I started to learn about wines in my 20's. It wasn't until I was told what to look for or taste that I really understood the huge but subtle differences in wines and cost. The detail retrieval is real on the Vandersteen speakers, where on some of the competing speakers in the 1's range, it's just tipped up on top and distortion. Too many folks hear that and think it's a 'cleaner' speaker or more open when in fact it's not. Just isn't so. That goes for expensive high end speakers also. Vandersteen puts tweeters on the backs for the 5 and 7 I believe, but no one I know uses them. They keep them on off all the time. I asked Richard about this and he said that in order for him to be competitive in the market, he decided to include them as some folks feel that makes the speaker better as it has more ambiance. It really doesn't. It's just more waves that aren't needed in the room. The more folks I speak with about Vandersteen in the industry, the more I realize that they privately own them for their personal listening. Some of the largest names in audio use them for personal use when they get other stuff for free or high reduced rates. They are often purchase and torn apart to try and recreate what he's done and it's been like that since he broke onto the scene with the 2's back in the early 80's. Feel free to email me about your thoughts and system. I just like seeing folks happy with their purchases and listening. Pete. |
Jim, I hear that from folks, but honestly, it's much larger than a foot or so. Everyone on the couch in my house enjoys them greatly. Like many great speakers, the sweet spot is smaller than others. There are always tradeoffs with any speaker build. Richard has chosen the best sound he can give you in it's price range, but that means that it won't be a sweet spot for the whole room. I find most speakers with large sweet spots to be unfocused a bit with no true sweet spot if you would. Again, this is a general thought as I think through my recent auditions. I know that recently at an event for the 7s, the sweet spot was very large. Larger than I remember it being for the mk 1's. I also think that the Niagara 7000 made part of that difference as we all felt the sound stage was larger and more realistic than usual. I try to always take the time to maximize the room acoustics when I'm able to. After that I do take the time to dial in my speakers. I've always had a sweet spot for two if you would, but the rest of the room never seems to suffer at all. I'm the only one who ever listens critically and even then, I enjoy the music so much with the Vandersteens, that I won't have a problem with the sweet spot, but that's just me. Most audiophiles I speak with Jim, seem to listen alone when it's critical time. It's going to be a personal thing of course, but honestly, for the price if you want a special sounding speaker, the Vandy's will give the critical listener a great sound and that's why he has and continues to be the sales leader in these price categories. Not saying you are wrong, but its' one of the trade offs and none of us who have them for long periods of time seem to have that problem. :) |
Thanks ctsooner that is interesting & helpful. To vander off topic (get it, vander instead of wander ), while I admire and appreciate the thoughtfulness put into the Vandersteen 1ci's and other vandersteen models, the sweet spot is too small (something like a square foot). You move a little bit, or there is more than one person listening, or there is a slight mis-measurement and the benefits are lost. |
Jim, let me take a stab at the Vandy 1's vs Totem. For this price range Richard is using pretty expensive parts under those covers. That's been his whole deal starting with the 2's many years ago. The cones and drivers are derived from his more expensive speakers since he came out with Treo's on up. The 1's also got better drivers and keep getting them as he keeps upgrading. He also does a ton of listening and choses the best sounding boards and components for the price of the speakers. The 1's are not the same crossover set up at his other speakers though. That said, for the price I think they are amazing. I heard those Totems recently here in CT and felt they were very good speakers in this price range also. Plenty of good choices. |
The "exotic" cone materials mentioned break up as well, perhaps not as prominently in their used audio band, but beyond that could be another story, and one that requires its measures. Certainly what matters here is the nature of their break ups. The tonal qualities, as highlighted by charles1dad, is also affected through the use of different cone materials - surely an important parameter? The associated use of typically butyl rubber surrounds for such (usually midrange) drivers also comes to mind, a material which high damping properties to my ears can quench some of the "life" of the sound. It's not only the use of cone material and surround ditto (and T/S data), but the sheer radiation area of the cone is also of significance. I've never quite fancied the sound of smaller mids drivers below 6" as I often find them to lack substance and fullness. As Mr. Ebaen says in his review of the WLM Diva's: "10-inch paper cones with hard cloth surrounds simply sound different than 5-inch Beryllium or ceramic cones that are hung off loose butyl rubber. The former are more natural, relaxed and full to my ears. In turn, they're not as overtly 'resolved'. The sharpness and leanness often associated with accuracy is missing. [...] It's a speaker that will tweak certain people because it lacks what they consider prerequisites for a hi-end worthy design - narrow baffles, small midrange drivers, exotic diaphragms, famous tweeters. WLM gets by with apparently lesser ingredients. Still and to my ears, the end result is a more inviting, tastier dish. What that really says about current high-end hifi sensibilities you may ponder yourself in some spare time. " http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/wlm/divamonitor_4.html Indeed I'd go so far to say that a +12" driver, with paper cone and cloth surround, is a necessity for the required energy in the lower mids and upper bass, but I gather that's another story. |
Phasing is a whole other subject.... EVERY speaker has phase shift... Period. 6db slopes help minimize it. 12/12 slopes can be 180 degrees out of phase and the designer simply flips the positive & negative on 1 terminal bring phase back around in tolerance... But no matter what every crossover creates some sort of phase shift... it can be minimized. Many take it that a electrical slope of 6db or 12 db creates an acoustical slope of the same degree, most of the time that is incorrect. You must account for the driver itself. My last MTM's had electrical slopes of 12/18, but the final acoustical crossover was 24db per octave. Final phasing on those speakers was maybe 20 or 25 degrees out of phase worst case depending on frequency. I consider those phase coherent. |
I think the quality-price issue also arises at entry level. For example, consider the Vandersteen Classics (specifically 1ci) and Totem Arros. They're about the same price and both are well regarded in the forums. The Vandersteen's have survived longer, so they can be said to have stood the test of time. Yet the Vandersteen's don't have expensive parts as far as I can tell. The Arros do - the interlocking cabinet, the veneer both inside and out, the crossover and the borosilicate damping. On the other hand, the Vandersteen's don't need most of the expensive materials because they've done away with the cabinet. (Hard not to be impressed with the application of Occam's Razor). Vandersteen's claim to fame is their first order crossover providing time and phase accuracy. Yet the Totem Arro's also claim to be phase coherent (which I thought wasn't possible with a 2nd order crossover?). How is the price similarity explained? I guess because the sound quality is on an equal plane |
When I said I'd love to see your designs, I meant the speakers that you are building, not the designs. Not an engineer. I can read a schematic, but not building anything anymore, lol. The one great thing about our hobby is that all the folks like to get to know each other and that includes the manufacturers etc... I always felt that was a nice thing. I'm made a lot of close personal friends as well as close enemies in audio (and sports where I'm much more involved). I usually put that sound is subjective and I believe I have said that in this thread. The only thing that I have said that is fact is the break up of paper drivers. I do agree that things can and are done to make them better. There is distortion everywhere in audio and some of it sounds fine. Yes, folks get their emotion from audio in different ways. I do believe that. I've learned to listen differently over the years as have most folks as we hear new and different things (not always better, lol). Personally I can listen to an Audio Note system and enjoy what I hear just like I do FM radio or a CD in the car. Personally (personally), I wouldn't want that system in my home as it lacks so many things for me. Even some of their dealers I've gotten to know say similar things. As for detail, to me if the 'detail' is actually distortion, or a tipped up tweeter (we all know a few high end manufacturer's tip the highs 1 or 2db to make them sound more 'open' than that's not for me. I know a couple of these companies who do this, sell the crap out of their speakers. Folks rave and rave and buy them like candy. Even their very expensive ones. I probably am posting too much for this thread and I get that, but It's more of a discussion over beers than an argument. Richard's speakers are not the only ones I enjoy and can live with. I typically can't handle ribbons or even many of the panels out there as they aren't set up properly, are run with the wrong front ends and amps and seem way too 'hot' for my tastes. Again, my tastes and no one else's. I didn't love the older Vandersteen's. Was going to get a pair of 2's in the 90's after my first stint on active duty (Navy), but went to a store in RI who carried them and was talked into a pair of Proac Superpowers. It's only recently since he went to carbon fiber that I have fallen in love with his speakers. I did love the older Avalons and they too were first order cross over and time and phase aligned I believe. Also love Charlie Hansen's speakers years ago. I'm sure you guys all have your favorites as we all do. Again, it's all good stuff here and I do really like this thread and how it's evolved. Wish others liked it as much and posted, lol. |
Hi Pete, You make some good points which I accept as opinion but not fact. I don't equate micro detail with emotion as you do. Emotion can be elicited by a variety of sonic or musical parameters. For example in my case it's triggered by authentic and natural tone, timbre and harmonic overtones. Another listener would have yet different triggers to spark an emotional response. One could make the argument that many modern speakers in the quest for Uber detail can sound analytical and even sterile. This type of presentation would be considered "accurate" by some. The point is this is guided by personal preference rather than some agreed upon absolute standard of right sound, wrong sound. If your benchmark ideal is say Vandersteen with carbon fiber drivers that's excellent for you. Other ears may prefer something different. Charles, |
| Post removed |
Hi Pete, thanks for posting your name... So, If Someone isn't selling a design commercially then??? Send Your un named Largest named Designer this thread. Get his response. Hmmm, do you really expect anyone to give you their designs. I'd be glad to give you a few designs, but unfortunately I haven't been working manufacturing speakers for some 30 plus years. I have also rubbed shoulders with some of the best names in the industry. If they are old enough, they may even remember me. So does that make the facts that I quoted any better or worst than your opinion? And again, I have never posted that paper is better, only that there are very satisfying drivers out there made of paper. You've been posting here for a few years and made a bunch of strong points on many many threads, But, I'm sorry brother, Not sure why you continue to push this, but we are all on solid ground.... I'd love to build with ceramic drivers, just haven't been able to justify the price for the parts, but your points have all been listened to. Maybe we should start a thread on how designers deal with voice coil issues. Its can be a huge issue, I haven't seen that thread yet. Roy, John or Peter.... If your out there, comments from someone as respected as you guys would go along way. Sorry for the bit of sarcasm, Tim |
Marketing ploy? Seriously? No it's not a marketing ploy at all. It's just an agree to disagree. I just pointed out that no matter how you treat it, it's still going to break up. Even a big name maker of paper coned drivers admits this. To many, like the few posters who are opposing some of what I say (or even all of it) I'll never change your minds and that's cool. Just stating some facts about paper cones, but as many have said, you can still make a nice speaker from them. I'm talking about full out assault on speakers and when you are playing in that league I'm saying there are better choices available now that don't break up, so why not use a better material to make a better driver. Yes, they will be very expensive and that's why so many speakers are so expensive now. That's the original post. When I see the most well known speaker company using paper cones in their woofers and that the cost to replace these drivers just isn't that expensive, it makes me think they can probably do much better and not charge so much. That's how we all got started on paper cones (yes, I stated they break up regardless of how you treat them) argument. I stand by the fact that with break up, it won't let you get the last bit of detail from the driver and that's where the emotion lies. Many top speaker designers will tell you that. That's what we are paying for in all of our systems. That's where much of the incremental sound increases lie...The micro detail. To those of you who are designing speakers, I think it's awesome. I just feel that you can probably make a better sounding speaker using better drivers than paper coned ones regardless of what stiffener you use and how you play with a crossover. Again, I can't and won't change your minds, just like you won't change mine. I've heard so many top end speakers over the years and honestly have never warmed up to any of the paper coned ones for a variety of reasons. I never even realized it until I had a long discussion with one of the largest named speaker designers about what speakers I like and don't and why. He then pointed out many things, but said that every paper coned speaker we discussed were on my no way I could own them list. Again, I do respect you guys and feel that this is one of the first true discussions I've read on this board. Are any of you builders selling your speakers commercially? I'd love to see their designs etc... Thanks. Pete |
Paper cones are often treated, or even composites, and from this a variety of diaphragms emerges that may all be called "paper cones," but that does not follow the typical shortcomings of paper cones equally. Even if they did, what is truly gained in a discussion of sound by making reference to their mechanical properties as a basis to support our sonic impressions? All we have in listening to reproduced music through our stereo’s is what we hear, and to me that’s the reference first and foremost that should put into question theory; not the other way round. That is to say: the aspect of pistonic behavior of a cone not made of paper and its claimed advantages into "micro details" (and ultimately its superiority in musical reproduction as a whole) compared to the break-up behavior of a paper cone (or its varieties) can be moot for several reasons, in that our ears may tell us differently. It appears to be more of a marketing ploy to single out one aspect as all-important than to be humble (and less outspoken) on the challenge of implementation. |
Good discussion here and insightful comments from Tim. I don’t get the sense that anyone is "married" to paper cones at all. Rather they simply identify the natural tonality and sound quality that they can provide. Carbon Fiber, ceramic, aluminum, poly plastics etc. Each has its strengths and thus proponents as well as inevitable short comings. None of these materials are without some intrinsic flaw, yet each can be used successfully with high level implementation. Tradeoffs abound and choices must be made. Some would choose natural tone over ultra micro detail and some will choose the converse. Charles, |
Hi ctsooner, Well, Ok, in many perspectives, you are making the point of the entire thread... materials like ceramic and diamond coated drivers, Kevlar or magnesium, etc are very expensive, but that isn't where you where going with paper, you have been simply insinuating that paper breaks up and isn't worthy of a high end speaker. I'll end my portion of it here, you are welcome to the last word. Notch filters can be used on any type of cone material. You can't take a measurement that tells you that one speaker is more detailed than another. In general, a stiffer cone offers a more detailed sound than a pliable cone so yes, if you don't properly treat paper, it will not be as detailed as a stiff high dollar material, but I have coated paper cones with the likes of wood glues and epoxy and ended up with a very stiff, very detailed sounding paper cone. Yes, the break up was dealt with, so within my crossover frequency, there was NO cone break up. I have zero arguments that many of todays materials make GREAT sounding speakers, my real argument is just the idea of discounting paper drivers as so far down the ladder when in fact, you can come up with some very musical and enjoyable speakers at a fraction of the cost of the exotic material drivers. Again, that is a big portion of the point of this thread. I have 3 pair of speakers in the works.... one heavy treated poly cones... similar to a Dyn 6 inch and Scan Speak Dome... Another, I have a pair of ESS Heil Air Motion tweeters from the late 70's, making a high sensitivity 12 inch 3 way out of using a treated pro paper mid and poly 12 inch and lastly an 8 inch 3 way using a 5 1/2 aluminum mid and ribbon tweeter.... So, no, I'm not stuck on paper at all. I just thought that your general state against paper was way too general.... Again, I do agree with much that you said, I felt that there was clarification needed to keep it accurate. Tim |
Smoothed and damped does not eliminate the breakup distortion, it just minimizes the harshness of it. At the same time, it damps information someone may have spent 10's of thousand's on the front end of the system to get. Metal cone drivers use the crossover to notch the breakup peak out, but it does not eliminate the breakup. Many believe it is still audible, just less so. This is a very well defined breakup and the driver is pistonic below this breakup frequency forcing the designer to use steep slope crossovers which have their own ringing to add to the soup. Hi-End audio is all about resolution and is why some people spend huge amounts of money on the front end of a system regardless of the vinyl/digital argument. I realize that many of you are married to paper cones and enjoy the 'smoothness' of them. The fact remains that they still have more distortion than a true pistonic driver. That's supported by measurements and to many of us, we hear much more detail in these types of speakers than in paper coned drivers regardless of what you have done to them in order to try and minimize the break up. The fact remains that you aren't able to, you can just try and work around it. This is why the newer materials that are offered to designers are making this hobby a blast. So many great designs can now flourish with carbon fiber, better made capacitors and resistors. Just so many great advances in audio right now and more to come. Even the diamond coating crowd is trying to make a more pistonic cone. Tidal speakers use diamond coated tweeters and the black ceramic in their 200k plus speakers and to me, they are nearly in the Vandersteen 7 mk 2 camp at almost 4X the cost. |
Quote: "Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup." If the Break up is controlled or Eliminated, is it really in Break Up? In an average woofer 4 to 15 inches, any material will have an issue. If we design around the issues, we can have a great sounding speaker. Metal cones typically have a huge peak, we use a crossover to get around that, so why is paper different? In any driver, we identify any issues and design around them. As far as Micro Information (detail) being portrayed by other materials??? that could be true, but in the 35 years I've been doing this, I find most people find emotion of music can be conveyed in many ways and quite often, it is from a system which does not portray "micro information".... Sorry, not trying to start any arguments, I prefer a detailed speaker myself, but I've heard some fabulous all paper cone speakers. Same with all poly cones, Kevlar, poly etc. etc. etc. Tim |
This really is a great thread. I understand that so many of you love the paper cones. Again we all hear differently and we also listen differently. Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup. One can make a very pleasant sounding speaker with paper cones for sure, but it would not give you the micro information that gives you the goose bumps! The feeling and emotions of the music is in the micro information. |
I've read this thread, its been an interesting read. Building speakers for so many years, I've experimented with many cone materials.... a lot of what has been said about cone break up on paper cones is valid to a degree, but in so many ways, quite far off.... Everyone knows that paper is ground up wood pulp in some form or fashion. Thin paper resonates at a higher frequency than heavy paper and does show break up quite easily, but through the years many things have been done to help solve this... One is layers, a layer of paper over the next helps dampen the first layer and each layers adds dampening... Next, as paper is made, the binding material will also change the frequency that the paper resonates at and its breakup frequency... Not entirely, but basically, the stiffer the material, the higher frequency that it resonates. So a heavy stiff cone, won't break up anything like a thinner cone. One process that has been used for years is to paint a dampening coat on paper. I have used a couple of types of latex. I have also blended latex with other materials, i.e. glues, epoxies, silicone mixtures and other things, which helps to stiffen paper as well as dampen the cones all at once. A stiff material can extend the frequency response of a cone, while a softer material will simply dampen the cone and help control break up and change the frequency roll off. Sure, this is an elementary explanation, but it holds true... Paper has been around for along time and I'd be quite surprised if it went away anytime soon. I hope this helps, Tim |
One thing to keep in mind is that the selling price is very rarely decided by the engineering or design department. The marketing department is in charge of deciding the list price and the allowed dealer markup. Much has to do with perceived value -- particularly in an industry like high-end audio, a product simply will not sell profitably unless it is priced at a high enough level (how could something be seen as "high end" unless it is expensive?). But you could take that knowledge and think you can ’win’ by not paying the high prices, go for some newly introduced speakers that are well designed and sound good but don’t cost crazy money (and made by a company that probably won’t be around long since they just don’t get viewed as being "high end" and get zero attention). Maybe, but only if you choose correctly, and are sure those are the speakers you will want for a long time. Because when you try to sell your speakers to get something else, the ’perceived value’ effect is still there and you may find it difficult to find anyone interested in your older wise choice! |
analogluvr -- [...] Paper is a great cone material and most of the speakers using paper cones always seem to sound more natural to my ears. And just because it is paper doesn't mean it's not high tech. People who have a Coral 10 that needs a recone can attest to that, it can't be done. I would have to agree both on your statements regarding paper cones and the general lack of advance in speaker technology. I believe many of the older designs can be refined, but this is without changing the basics. Paper cones may break up more prominently than more modern "exotic" diaphragms, but given their natural sonic imprinting (at least to some ears) I'd wager the mode of their break-up as well as the general properties of the diaphragm has significant impact; "pistonic behavior" may come at a cost in other areas. The same in a sense seems to apply to the enclosures where most modern designs strive for an inert structural behavior (as the equivalent to pistonic ditto), contrary to older designs that may even use the cabinets as an integral part of the sonic signature. "Signature," or lack thereof, is a popular go-to phrase for newer designs, but where sought often leads to robbing the life and vibrancy of live acoustic music. Paper cones to my ears often has the more relaxed, vibrant, true-to-tone and naturally detailed (as opposed to "analytical") imprinting. More modern cones, like those of Raidho speakers, are exceptionally balanced and well-behaved, but to my ears are ever so slightly "dead" or even dull sounding. I used to own a pair of C1's, and they were wonderful in their own right, but ultimately that rather indescribable "something" was missing. Actually my first speakers were a pair of Coral 8.. |
The Brand it is all about the Brand you are being sold on the brand and it's perceived quality. Looks good well made and well finished all Bling, a great piece of furniture. Must be good, it costs a small fortune right. Have heard DIY efforts that absolutely out shine (sound wise) expensive well regarded speakers. In the Same Room. But we are not talking sound vs value, are we. The good DIY's cost half the price, but are nevertheless still expensive. The biggest and most time consuming and expensive thing, is getting the finish right. Sorry guys paying more for speakers than a Car is just no within my budget. If it was; then OK, no problem. Like everything out there it's worth is only dependent on how much someone is willing to pay for it. Good components are not cheap making a fine speaker with a superb finish is not cheap. Lots of time goes into development, made in small quantities. Got to pay for all that. |
Well, if we are now talking about what makes an upgrade expensive, I read online, but never verified myself, that B&W has a couple of very closely related lines. The higher end line is identical except for a Mundorf MKP replacing the default polyester tweeter cap. About an $7 upgrade (retail) for a couple of hundred bucks in MSRP for the speaker. Best, Erik |
Ctsooner you can have great impact with a SET depending on which one you are listening to. Also as long as the speakers are a proper load. I use 845 with paper driver tannoys and the impact will blow your hair back. And I find the bass to be much more natural sounding than SS bass. It sounds right to me, not like over damped Ss bass.. Especially when you are listening to a standup bass. The harmonic overtones you get from a SET can't be equaled. YMMV. We get into trouble with generalizations like SET doesn't have impact or do bass, or paper drivers do this, or whatever..... |
Darn, I'm sorry, but it won't let me edit a post that's over 30 minutes old. I forgot to answer you on the drivers. Their drivers come from ScanSpeak, but they don't have part numbers as they are not standard models. All of them are custom or use custom components made by Vandersteen like baskets and cones. |
ohlala They vary depending on which speaker. The range is from $136.00 to $2700.00, but that is the cost for rebuild. New drivers are not priced out. Paper cones are always in break-up at all frequencies, but because of the cone profile and the fact they are paper, it is smoothed. A lay way to know if a driver is pistonic is if the frequency curve rolls off at the same rate the voice coil inductance increases with frequency. Single layer carbon fiber, woven kevlar, poly and paper have very low frequency break-up modes. The shape of a cone is primarily to smooth and spread out the break-up modes for smooth response, but does not eliminate break-up. Early articles done by Celestial, when metal tweeters first came out, compared them with soft domes which break-up at approximately 8K. I just wanted to get you an answer, but this really has gone too far off course for this thread. Sorry for the hijack. I will stay on topic. Again, sorry all. |
Hi ohlala, I didn't address ctsooner's comments about paper cone "breakup" as I want to avoid going too far off topic (which is easy to do ). No matter the driver cone material of choice there's always a hierarchy of quality and performance. Designer talent, knowledge and most certainly implementation are the determining factors. Paper cones done poorly will have obvious failings, if done right they'll sound wonderfully natural. Carbon fiber, aluminum, beryllium etc. The same principle holds true, there's good and bad examples of all materials. Charles, |
What are the prices of vandersteen replacement drivers? Who makes them? You say paper cones have a lot of breakup? Can you please give example of driver and speaker model? I do not regularly see it as a direct problem for end user. I also looked up Sabrina 3 as possible example, but did not see real evidence of that on stereophile’s "spectral delay" plot. May be I do not know what you mean. I would bet the damping characteristics between particular carbon fiber and paper driver models vary and possible overlap much as their costs. You may be interested in Reference 3a driver implementation if you have not heard of them already. They have carbon fiber driver "hyper-exponentially shaped to avoid cone break up modes". Its run full range. |
Charles, I too love SET's, but only from the lower mids on up. That's why I fell in love with Vandersteen's new amp on the 7's. I've heard plenty of great reference amps on that speaker, but his just blows me away. He too loves the sound of the SET amps in the mids. Just so real and palpable to many of our ears, but the bass isn't quite impactful, so doing a hybrid made sense. I know he'll have a smaller amp eventually if he follows his normal business practice and I'll have to give it a whirl, that's for sure. SET's can make speakers that normally fry my ears, listenable. Some folks don't get it though and again I appreciate that POV. lol. |