The mistake armchair speaker snobs make too often
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.
As to why most speaker manufacturers use "off the shelf" drivers is because it is more cost effective and easier. Easier? Yes. Cost effective? No, companies that make their own drivers don't do it to compress their margins, they do it to increase their margins: https://www.paradigm.com/en/technology-design/factory-tour
|
@kota1 I disagree. As to obtaining the true stereophonic sound of a recording based on a stereophonic mastered recording, only two speakers are required and only two speakers are generally used in mastering. The quality of the speakers, associated equipment and room determine how accurate the stereo image is reproduced. I have heard fantastic audio systems that present a "live-like" image of the performers. Why would I want or need more by installing a center speaker? I don't. As to dispersion, that is one of the three reasons I want a high end speaker which disappears, retaining imaging and resolution in a wide seating pattern. You should hear Audio Physics Virgo or any of Von Schweikert Ultra speakers in good setups. I've heard them and there is no need for a central channel speaker. Now, when you talk about Duntechs, Dunlevys and my Focus, they are big box, one person listening speakers. A 3rd center channel Focus would be great. My Legacy Signature IIIs with their rear tweeter provides a superior open sound and dispersion where everyone in the room enjoys great sound. Actually, my friend's high end mini-monitor speakers have fantastic center fill and great imaging/dispersion. I'm not stuck on thrills but on the reproduction of the recorded event. |
@kota1 Why do you think the boutique (like Paradigm) and high end manufacturers make their own drivers? For quality control. When Accuton drivers are ordered by high enders they specify the parameters, have the drivers altered to meet their specifications and often matched as well. Cheapy off the shelf speakers are a dime a dozen because that's what they are worth. They should not be used in high end speakers. Tekton speakers probably use drivers you mention. Maybe even the Carver Amazing speakers. Plenty of drivers in each and they aren't ceramic, beryllium or diamond. Tekton's are cheap and Carver's was expensive. Talk about dispersion and imaging, the Tekton's bad and Carver was phenomenally good in mids and highs. My original Focus speakers use cheap Mexican woofers, cheap ribbon tweeter and common cone and Kevlar mid-range drivers. It's so rare that it does sound so great (huge crossover and excellent heavy cabinet). It has been superseded by higher end speakers at greater cost. |
OK, if you are talking mastering a stereo recording I agree, two speakers with the engineer sitting in the sweet spot is what you need to master the recording. Now, where our personal "preferences" take a fork in the road is you feel it is the "quality" of the speaker that determines how accurate that image is produced. To me that is simply a money pit. We both agree you are an expert on audio matters. You have years of experience, a custom built room, and enough disposable income to pursue the "quality" speakers you mention. You are required to sit in the sweetspot and let stereo do its thing. I agree with Tomlinson Holman: three items correlate well with Holman's answer to the question; "What determines the bit rate needed for audio on media?"
As Mr Holman is quick to point out, any audio engineer confronted with the question, “what do you want to do with a higher bitrate?”; will always ask for more frequency range and more dynamic range because they don't know what to do with more channels. "It's a new paradigm." "Just to go to 192 KHz sampling rate to satisfy passing bats instead of human beings is pretty crazy, but adding channels is of very great value." If your personal taste prefers two expensive speakers I got no beef with that. It is the most expensive, least realistic way to recreate what the MUSICIANS actually did in the studio (not what the engineer palyed back on the desk. My layout is similar to the Tooles (as in Floyd), right down to having not one but TWO center channels and a VOG channel:
|
@kota1 , 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. |
