Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?


After a 20-year hiatus (kids, braces, college, a couple of new roofs, etc.) I'm slowly getting back into hi-fi.  My question: is there really anything significantly new in speakers design/development/materials? I'm a bit surprised that the majority of what I see continues to be some variation of a 2- or 3-way design -- many using off-the-shelf drivers -- in a box (usually MDF at it core) with a crossover consisting of a handful of very common, relatively inexpensive components. I'm asking in all sincerity so please don't bash me. I'm not trying to provoke or prove anything, I'm just genuinely curious. What, if anything, has really changed? Would love to hear from some speaker companies/builders here. Also, before one of you kindly tells me I shouldn't worry about new technologies or processes and just go listen for myself -- I get it -- I'll always let my ear be my guide. However, after 20 years, I'm hoping there's been some progress I may be missing. Also, I unfortunately live in a hifi-challenged part of the country -- the closest decent hifi dealer is nearly 3 hours away -- so I can't just run out and listen to a bunch of new speakers. Would appreciate your insights. 

jaybird5619

@holmz 

"I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons."

And still - these days there are a number of $500-$1000 speakers that while having flaws, are quite satisfying. It's all about making the right compromises. In some respects, I think it's harder to make a very good speaker that needs to match a price point vs a cost is no issue design. Look at the original Andrew Jones speakers for Pioneer. Certainly had their faults but what a great accomplishment!

You can apply extraordinary measures to eliminate cabinet resonance and the result is a speaker like those made by Magico. Is this good? It depends on whether you like their speakers. There is no defined engineering path to a great sounding speaker. Ultimately, we like what we like, and what we like comes down to a personal preference for a particular combination of strengths and weaknesses (i.e., the right compromises) and perhaps even a liking for certain distortions.

If we never come close to agreeing on what is a great sounding speaker, how can we then extrapolate from this uncertain data what is the right approach to speaker design?

Agreed. If you subscribe to S’Phile, read the very interesting viewpoint of Jonathan Weiss of Oswalds Mill Audio and his sister company’s Fleetwood Sound Co Deville loudspeaker. I am not sure how much I am allowed to quote but it is a quote of a quote so I am think I am safe to repeat;

" Loudspeaker manufacturers in general have moved in the wrong direction over the past decades, in a race to the bottom, trying to make the deadest, heaviest, most nonresonant enclosures".

He goes on to say this effort results in heavy, sluggish sound.

As you have so correctly stated it is a matter of taste. And priorities. I happen to believe that complex machined metal enclosures along the likes of Magico appeal to consumers who think that cutting edge tech must in some res ipso facto manner result in better sound. A few reviewers at Stereophile support this conclusion based on their listening. I have heard Magicos repeatedly and the sound to me is indeed heavy and sluggish. And dull and boring.

I don’t mean to make this discussion an assault or focus upon S’Phile but let’s face it, it is the most widely read and influential audio publication in the US. My take is that there are two basic camps-when it comes to loudspeakers- comprised of John Atkinson, Jason Victor Serinus, and arguably Michael Fremer who gravitate to the inert enclosure approach and then the second camp of Herb Reichert and Ken Micallef carrying on the torch of the legendary Art Dudley who listen for different things and are able to set aside the search for the "latest and greatest" for the beauty of alternative thought and paradigms/vintage/subjectivity and the all-important appreciation of "how does this loudspeaker make me feel?".

I think that it’s pretty much true of all of the heroically inert cabinet designs that they are successful in making the speakers "disappear" as sources, but I agree with fsonicsmith in thinking that it is not an overall solution to sound that is superior to other cabinet design philosophies. I personally just bought a pair of Spendor SP100’s for the second time after a hiatus with other speakers, and their cabinets are far from dead, but they are very successful in communicating the music.

@holmz 

"I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons."

And still - these days there are a number of $500-$1000 speakers that while having flaws, are quite satisfying. It's all about making the right compromises. In some respects, I think it's harder to make a very good speaker that needs to match a price point vs a cost is no issue design. Look at the original Andrew Jones speakers for Pioneer. Certainly had their faults but what a great accomplishment!

And I 100% agree with ^this^.

The title of the thread was is there anything new under the sun, and there really isn’t in the ~1k$ range… 

Those speakers are compromising just about all the “new tech” in favour of being able to be affordable… including sometimes the simplest of internal bracing.

There is no reason for an inert, stiff enclosure to be inferior, all things equal, and assuming it is indeed  inert and stiff. Any matters of teste will not change that.