Is The Overall Weight Of A Speaker Important?

Rok2id said:

Why does speaker design result in so many exotic looking products. After all this time, don't the makers know what makes a good speaker? Shouldn't they all look pretty much alike?

Actually I think that there are pretty good answers to your questions that result in the conclusion that there are good reasons why all speakers do not look alike.
1. Very different ideas on what constitutes "good sound".
2. Very different driver designs; dynamic vs. esl. vs planar magnetic vs. plasma vs. ribbon vs. horn
3. Single driver vs. 2 way vs. multi-way.
4. Very different ideas on what the partnering amplifier might be (power vs. voltage "source".
5. Full range vs. monitor.
6. Controlled resonance vs. non-resonant.
7. Cost constrained vs. cost-no-object.
8. Near field vs. far field use.
9. Omni-directional or not.
10. Aesthetics vs. sound vs. efficiency

Given all of these various design decisions, one could argue the opposite; that it's surprising that there are so many conventional box speakers. However, a more careful analysis would reveal that most cost-constrained, semi full-range, aesthetically neutral, low-moderate efficiency, voltage source friendly speakers do look alike; the "conventional" rectangular, taller than it is wide, veneer-covered mdf box housing a 2 or 3 way complement of dynamic drivers.

Not trying to give Rok2id a hard time; just pointing out another way to look at it.

Swampwalker:

I would classify your following points as 'mission' dependent. The design is 'end use' dependent. I get that.

Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10.

#1 is just just subjective. I get this.

Nos. 3, 6, are the type thing I was speaking of. Number of drivers? Resonance or no-resonant? Seems to me as if we should know which is more desirable.

And I was also thinking of the speakers that look like the bells of huge plastic horns. And the Italian made speakers that look like modern art. Large speakers with woofers at the top and bottom and the other drivers in the middle. I was just wondering what problem are they solving. I am sure they are good speakers, just don't look like the usual rectangular box.

Thanks for you post. Good points.

Cheers

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy, Rok2id. And by false I just mean incorrect, not implying purpose or making a value judgment. For example, #3 single driver vs multiple driver is very much mission dependent- if you are interested mostly in vocal and small ensembles, or if you value coherence over top and bottom extension, then single driver may be your cup of tea; but the mission is also dependent on the other components of the system. If you want to build your system around a flea watt valve amp, then a single driver or other high eff design is dictated, regardless of your musical preferences.

OTOH, if you want to achieve near realistic SPLs for orchestral music, then the "best" speaker may be a horn-loaded, multi-way design (if you fancy valve amps), but a large multi-way line source might fill the bill (if you want to achieve that w a moderate power class A ss amp.) If you've got to place the system in a multi-use (and multi-user) room, then that's probably going to rule out the Wilson Maxx or VS-9 type design so even if you need full range, you're probably looking at 2 way monitor or 3 way towers w a sub.

The "best" speaker design depends on the "mission", the "team", AND the end-user's weighting of the strengths and weaknesses of different design approaches. If there was one or 2 "best" high end speaker design approaches, then the high end market (which is by definition primarily sound quality driven) would weed out the inferior or highly user-dependent/mission-dependent designs and relegate them to the fringes. Of course, one could argue that the overall consumer market has already done that w the "the "conventional" rectangular, taller than it is wide, veneer-covered mdf box housing a 2 or 3 way complement of dynamic drivers" I mentioned above, which is clearly the "best" design for the majority of users (said only slightly tongue in cheek).

As for me, I say viva la difference! That's part of the fun of the gear side of the hobby, seeing how different combinations work to provide a satisfying home audio experience. Of course, I am completely ignoring the implementation side of the equation. I am sure that certain design choices are "easier" to implement satisfactorily than others, although I would be the first to admit that I do not have the technical knowledge to speculate about which those are. Maybe Duke or Johnk or Atmasphere or some of the other speaker or electronic designers could chime in and educate us on that issue.

To the OP- great thread, it's obviously made me think about this quite a bit. Thx.

Sorry for rambling on further, but there may be something to the weight idea. Similar to those who say that weight of an amp also correlates w SQ, due to importance of power supply, energy storage and output xformers, all of which come w significant weight. The laws of physics dictate that large boxes, large drivers, and/or large magnets are typically required to achieve an acceptable compromise btwn efficiency and frequency extension. Now there are some designers who are clever enough to provide at least the subjective impression of near full range extension w smaller boxes or lighter weigh panel designs, but you've still got to move air to make sound; and lots of it at low frequencies.

Not per se. But it may be indicative of things the designer has done that is important.

The best speaker I have ever heard is a smallish stand-mount two way where each speaker weighs nearly 50kg. The reason is is its made out of HD3 and lined internally with 3/4 copper plate to reduce resonances.

If you come across a speaker that weighs a bomb there is a reason and that is usually positive for the speakers performance.

Thanks
Bill