2. speakers
  3. 1240876051

What matters most in speaker design?

So...What matters most in speaker design?

A. The Drivers
B. The Cabinet / Enclosure
C. Crossover / Internal Wiring
D. Cost / Quality of Raw Materials (Drivers, Cabinet, Crossovers, etc.)

Yes, I realize the "right" answer is "all of the above" or better yet "the design that optimizes the trade-offs of the given variables / parameters that achieves the goals set forth by the creator." However, indulge me...

Can a great sounding speaker get away with focus on only 2 of the 4 above choices? Can a high cost of raw materials trump a sound design that focuses on inexpensive (but great sounding) drivers, a well engineered cabinet, and a decent crossover?

I was thinking about speakers that use relativly cheap drivers, but are executed in a genius enclosure with a good (but not exotic) crossover - and they sound absolutely amazing. This made me wonder...

What matters most in speaker design?
nrenter

Showing 4 responses by audiokinesis

audiokinesis
2,765 posts
 
Well the thing is, loudspeaker design is system design. Many an enthusiastic amateur has started out with "the best woofer, the best midrange, the best tweeter, the best crossover, and the best enclosure", and ended up with only an okay speaker. The professional designer takes everything into account at once, including in particular how it all works together.

I would say a good match between the drivers is necessary as a starting point, but in my opinion crossover design is the heart and soul of loudspeaker design. Cabinet design and construction matters, but it's not that big of a challenge in most cases.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer
audiokinesis
2,765 posts
 
Hi Wireless,

Horn harshness really doesn't have anything to do with what's happening in the top 1/2 octave; it happens much lower down. It isn't necessarily caused by something that shows up in the frequency response curve either, but that's another topic.

I can't speak for Klipsch, but the tweeter I use has a mylar diaphragm and those tend to not go as high as titanium or other metallic diaphragms, but they often sound smoother. So indirectly the 17.5 kHz top end I claim is related to smoothness, but not because I think higher extension is undesirable; I just think that other factors matter more.

Duke
audiokinesis
2,765 posts
 
Ojgalli makes a very good point: "The first consideration is the design concept."

I agree. Doing a thing well isn't enough; it must be the right thing.

Duke
audiokinesis
2,765 posts
 
Up until the analog signal reaches the loudspeakers, it's a two-dimensional signal: Variations in intensity (voltage) over time. The loudspeaker has to deal with six dimensions: Variations in intensity (SPL) over time, across three dimensions of space (including reflections), and finally the signal processing of the ear/brain system.

Now the ear/brain system does not hear waveforms as such; it deconstructs the waveform into a series of excitations along the cochlea in a manner that is non-intuitive. So waveform preservation is relatively non-critical. In many cases audible benefits attributed to waveform preservation may well be due to other factors that matter more, such as minimizing diffraction or avoiding abrupt changes in the power response. I can explain why these things matter to the ear/brain system if anyone is interested.

Duke
More to discover