What would it be? I'd say - instead of building great furniture that also happens to sound good give us great sounding speakers that also happen to be acceptable furniture.
Duke, my hypothetical questions would not be of someone looking for particular speakers but of someone interested in how speakers can be built and what it takes to make them sound good. I don't know a thing about crossovers but I am always suspicious of speakers with multiple drivers. Would you say that three is enough even if the room is big and you sometimes play loudly?
"So, what kind of questions should I ask a speaker designer to see if he has a good idea of crossovers and their implementation?"
In my opinion there is no "secret handshake" by which a particularly good crossover designer can be picked out in a crowd.
Personally, I don’t think I could begin to evaluate a crossover designer’s work just by asking him a few questions. And if I had to rely on questions, they would be open-ended, like, "Would you mind sharing with me as much as you are comfortable about what you do, and how you do it, and why?" If he talks a good game, well I guess that’s a start.
Far better of course would be actually listening to his speakers. If they sound good, they probably are good, and that would include the crossover.
The one thing I would caution against is, embracing an exclusive notion of what the "ideal crossover" should be and using that as a yardstick to judge speaker designs from a distance.
Thank you, Ivan. Great points you've made in this thread, by the way...
@inna "Though every element and the interaction of them is important, my
understanding is that drivers are the single most important element. I
don't want to pay thousands for nice finish, give me great drivers
first, nice finish can be optional for those...whatever you want to call
them."
You have a most reasonable position. Few people think about crossovers, and that actually drove my point.
In fact, these elements divide and feed the signal to the drivers. Not that it's my rallying cry, but it's a bit like the source is the most important element in the chain. The drivers can only produce what gets fed to them. The crossover determines that. Because these components live inside the box, and don't have the visual impact of the cabinetry / aesthetics or the drivers, we presume the builder has that part of the loudspeaker equation nailed down. Seeing more familiar, high-quality, or exotic components (wire, resistors, capacitors, coils) further puts our minds at ease.
In reality, high-level parts quality actually provides little indication the designer has any handle on crossover theory. It's really something few people understand, and that's why I suggested folks take just half the time spent on their cabinets and learn it.
Anecdote: A friend builds a line loudspeakers that always sounded "distinct" to me. Initially, I wondered if that reflected the midrange driver. After building my own speakers with that part, and hearing other products that used this driver through its growing popularity, that characteristic at all. Over the years, the iterations of his speakers piled up. One day, for whatever reason, he showed me the schematic of a crossover. I felt happy to see it featured a simple design, but my eye immediately fell to a part that looked off by a factor of 10. I began to discuss it with him, and despite his background as an engineer, instantly saw his discomfort with the subject. He told me he had no idea about the different topologies. A mutual friend (a technician, not an engineer) gave him those values way back, he'd employed them in every speaker he built, and would never mess with them. Even as I let him know somehow the decimal point must have got moved over one place, and that he should simply (how much effort and cost would it cost him?) listen to a pair with my suggested value, he wanted no parts of it. But in fact, that perfectly explained the signature sound of his products.
Unfortunately, most of the folks who build loudspeakers I've met have nothing close to his acumen with mathematics, engineering, and the like. That's not to say people don't exist who can explain the what, why, and how of their crossover. But as the hobby has shifted to a more mom and pop type of business, a quick conversation with most people makes it clear cabinets and drivers get the lion's share of attention
Take half the time you spend on the enclosure / aesthetics, and passive crossovers, and build speakers with an amp. for each driver, using digital crossovers before the D>A conversion.
Part of what I’m going on about here may be rooted in how we traditionally approach manufacturing in this country.
We don’t necessarily approach wholly from the standpoint of how do we serve the customer’s need. We tend to approach from: I’ve got x amount of ingredient A, x amount of ingredient B and x amount of C. How many different widgets can I make from these ingredients?
IOW, it’s just as much a manufacturing concern as it is a market concern, perhaps more so with speakers because of the extra degree of difficulty and expense of cabinetry involved. That does not lend itself per se to design freedom.
But, OTOH, what difference does it make if you can make any number of widgets and nobody buys them?
But then again, if widgets of one form or another are all that’s available in the market, then what are people going to buy??
Though every element and the interaction of them is important, my understanding is that drivers are the single most important element. I don't want to pay thousands for nice finish, give me great drivers first, nice finish can be optional for those...whatever you want to call them.
Far too much of what goes on day to day in the speaker biz seems to me to be based on tradition in one way or another - they’re are accustomed to doing certain things a certain way because that’s the way everyone else has always done them...even at times when the design is in other ways an attempt to appear innovative. If speaker manufacturers would spend less time trying to cash in on the latest speaker-design or appearance trends and focus instead on the ceaseless parade of the same, classic, ordinary design blunders I see repeated over and over, maybe then (at least we audiophiles) might be just as well or better served.
Sometimes it seems to me that speaker design is generally seen by manufacturers as something that should be dallied at - to pick from, cafeteria style, the long list of possible design elements - and come away with something that will separate their line or product from everything else out there...you know, you gotta have something to give you an edge in a crowded market - you know, like a gimmick. The idea of just doing what it may take to get everything right in a given design has seemed to have pretty much gone out the window.
Take half the time you spend on the enclosure / aesthetics, and invest that in learning about crossovers.
Most people would come away shocked at how little most of today's loudspeaker builders understand about one of the most directly influential components of a speaker
Aesthetics certainly matter but ... I am just as much , if not more so , interested in the internal design . Why not build efficient speakers ? There are quite a few of us who would rather go the low power amp route with out getting a second mortgage ! There are plenty of affordable low power amplifiers available but high efficiency speakers , not so much . If the kit designers can do it ...why not the big boys ? They wouldn't have to redesign the whole line , just one or two offerings .
The big Tannoys in the Prestige line do have a bit of a dated look to them, but at least they're not hideous, and they sound even better than they look.
I couldn't afford any of the Tannoys that would satisfy me, so I bought old drivers, designed my own cabinets, changed the foam surrounds to "Hard Edge", built outboard crossovers, and they weigh 192 lbs. each, w/o drivers or crossovers. I believe they would hold their own against almost any of the current Prestige line. They don't look too bad either, a bit utilitarian though.
I'm going to kind of go along with the "making acceptable" furniture point by saying that on almost all of the speakers I've owned the finishes are so delicate it's near impossible not to inflict damage/scratches, etc. on them. I totally understand that in better systems the cabinetry is an utterly amazing engineering accomplishment, but how many of us view our speakers from the side once set into place?
Speakers are moved about more than any other component, ain't they? I understand that most manufacturers have to appeal to making aesthetically appealing furniture as well, but given the practical end-user's personal adjustments down the road, would more practical materials detract from the sonics?
When I change cables on my Thiel CS 3.6's I actually get pillows down on the floor to protect the cabinets. They're 108 pounds apiece with the connections on the BOTTOM. No easy task for anybody and risky as hell for the cabinets.
Speaker designers will always get it wrong because they can only afford to focus on what they think will sell, not on what is right. Speaker designers who focus on what is right feel they can only afford to ’educate’ their prospective buyers so much and still get people’s attention...they consider the number of audiophiles already educated and seasoned enough to be discerning enough to recognize a fully well-thought-out design when they’re confronted with one, may actually represent only a tiny fragment of the buying market. Well-thought-out in a particular technical regard or two are easy to find, but the comprehensive ones not so much (comprehensive does Not mean cost-no-object). Ergo, there are not that many examples of those types of speakers in the market. Furniture-oriented, crazy-looking, technically compromised bargains, absurdly expensive, boring but traditional, etc...pick your poison.
This will probably match well with the kind of 'music' their owners will play. They might also excite the hell out of partners. We might be facing the beginning of ultimate idiocy and perversity. I'll take those nice furniture speakers I was talking about. But Tannoy..maybe even them.
Check out the latest issue of TAS - there on the cover is a real "monster" of a speaker: the new Wilson Chronosonic!!! With its grills off it looks like the ALIEN about to pounce and devour the hapless listener! Jeez, speaker design has reached a new height of ugliness! Sure, it has the ultimate WOW factor, but it would give your domestic partner a simultaneous coronary and stroke if you brought it home! Wait for the optional backhoe attachment to go along with those hefty sub's - to dig a deeper foundation for bass response!
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.
