Are advances in technology making speakers better?

Most of the advances in the last 60 years have been to make speakers more compact rather than to improve sound.  Earlier speakers that were all out assaults on sound quality were gigantic in size.  The advent of stereo made them even more impractical.  Shrinking the size became even more sensible when the transistor made higher powered amps needed for smaller speakers (lower in efficiency) cheaper to produce.  But, you can take the drivers in some of these very old systems and build extremely good systems that can easily rival the best modern systems if you have the money and the space.  I’ve heard a few, but I don’t have that kind of space or money.  One of the was almost five feet wide, 4 feet seep and nine feet tall; one only saves on amp space because one can drive this thing to ear-splitting levels with a couple of watts.

As to The new Mo-fi speaker, which I’ve heard and found very impressive, it is very much old-school in many respects: paper cone,  pleated surround, silk fabric dome for the co-axial tweeter.  The only thing “new” is the 30-year or so practice of using neodymium magnets.  Also, it is very large for a stand-mounted speaker, and this is very much and old school approach to sound quality.

@moonwatcher I agree you summed it up well. While the original problem by the OP didn't inspire me to get serious, the comments made it one of the most educational thread for me.

I think it's easier than ever to put together a horrible sounding system from a lot of money. It's also easy to buy a pair of cheap, active, wireless speakers and play music from your phone and get incredible sound. Technology can improve a lot, it's up to us how we adapt. Advances can make products cheaper, more accessible, easier to use, more accurate, longer-lasting, "faster", easier to integrate, etc. - if we are looking for sound quality improvement, it's on the list but just one of the many areas.

And I think there is truth companies trying to sell new releases for the sake of making money. Not in the audio business specifically but in the tech space in general. Saying that they are all honest is unfortunately way too optimistic. I have upgraded my phone 3 times in the last 10 years and I see so little improvement, I would be just as happy with my 2012 version as with the latest. But of course I don't spend 6 hours with my phone a day (only 4, haha!)

@larryi 

Most of the advances in the last 60 years have been to make speakers more compact rather than to improve sound.

Like everything else these days design has to be market led. I recall a well known designer explaining how a new design begins with whatever the market seems to demand. In his case it was a slim compact floorstander. So right from the bat there were serious sonic compromises involved (thankfully his company do produce a larger more substantial model as well).

Therefore it's good to see that Andrew Jones is able to finally cut loose a little on a design such as the MoFi SourcePoint 10. I guess their feeling is that there is room in the market for a direct challenge to the likes of Tannoy etc.

It's certainly going to be interesting to see what Jones/MoFi offer next.

Earlier speakers that were all out assaults on sound quality were gigantic in size.

The advent of stereo made them even more impractical.  

Shrinking the size became even more sensible when the transistor made higher powered amps needed for smaller speakers (lower in efficiency) cheaper to produce.

Good points, especially the first one.

Whatever people think of speakers like the Klipsch La Scala, there's no denying the fact that they make most other loudspeakers sound positively anemic and puny.

@larryi --

+1

Advance in tech only gets you so far when the overall package of a speaker is diminished in size; it’s the one thing we can’t miniaturize without severe sonic implications. Like on the driver side: a several thousand $$ 1" dome tweeter is still a 1" dome tweeter, the same with an expensive 6 1/2" woofer, etc. I’ve read Mr. Atkinson’s and others from Stereophile’s praise of Edgar Villchur’s AR-1 speakers and what it initiated, and while we see the ramifications of the acoustic suspension design of his flourishing in its basics to this day - the success of which they’re so eager to bow to - one shouldn’t equate smaller speakers with their being the better sounding alternative, as much at least as their widespread domestic success while fitting the narrative of an "audiophile" magazine’s paradigm or dogma even that has more or less banished large, high efficiency speakers decades ago.

The quality of materials has improved markedly, but the philosophy of physics determining good speaker design remains conflicting among manufacturers.  Therefore what to believe is lost to the consumer. 

Shortening this complex topic to cardinal violations interfering with waveform reproduction:  1. cone drivers containing coils for midranges and higher, 2. sharp edges producing diffraction.  3. symmetry of driver placement, 4. passive crossovers with large value components, most containing coils, 5. improper impedance mismatched lead-in connections, 6. use of cheap copper alloys in the connections, etc, etc

If you think this excludes almost all speakers, then it should come as no surprise why few have heard the remarkable phenomena of when the artist appears in the listening room.  It is a jaw dropping, if not a life changing, experience.  That good. 

Your answer to this simply boils down to: 1. Alot of study and hard work building your own, or 2. spending an extreme fortune, which is still not guaranteed to solve your problem. 

I went with #1, followed the rules of physics, avoided the violations, a few of which were stated above, and achieved the performer-in-your-listening-room result.  So it works.  It was also a 30 year project. 

There are alot of good responses in thie thread.  Take every one of them.