When one plunks down $10,000 $50,000 and more for a speaker you’re paying for awesome sound, perhaps an elegant or outlandish style, some prestige ... but what makes the price what it is?
Are the materials in a $95,000 set of speakers really that expensive? Or are you paying a designer who has determined he can make more by selling a few at a really high price as compared to a lot at a low price?
And at what point do you stop using price as a gauge to the quality? Would you be surprised to see $30,000 speakers "outperform" $150,000 speakers?
I'm not saying they don't make good speakers. They just aren't my cup of tea and never have been. That's all. I've had the discussion with someone from Wilson on two occasions and they laughed. One agreed with me as to what I don't like. They have done the best job of the old time speaker companies in advertising. That's a real positive and I'm giving them a ton of credit for it. I wish Richard and others had done the same thing as I feel that this industry could have grown bigger than it has. I see that Alon is doing a great job advertising also. I think that these post fit into this thread because it shows where some of your money goes into their overhead. My second favorite speaker/system that I've heard (I LOVE Vandersteens new AMP. that thing makes the 7's a powered speaker, but not internally. When you can build the amp around a specific speaker you can really make it sound better than other amps I feel.) are both made by Tidal. I have heard their system twice in my life and was really impressed. Again, it was also with their own amplification along with analog and the Aurender W20 server. Perfectly set up room too. What a treat that was. That's even using their black diamond tweeter that isn't quite pistonic, in movement, but they've done a great job voicing them I feel (again, for MY ears).
I've also never and would never call the buyer of a component stupid....at least not in person or online, lol. j/k. I'm just glad we are all passionate for what we like and are willing to post about it and argue about it. Healthy, all of it IMHO. I try to be respectful to all and sometimes I'm not in the way I post, but I don't mean ill will towards folks.
When I make a post about paper woofers breaking up at 250HZ, it's proven and it has to effect the quality of the sound. That's just physics and no way around it. That said, some companies who use paper cones can try to do other things to lessen the effect, but to me it's very noticeable. that does mean I can't listen to hard rock and not enjoy it. Mikey Fremer had a great ear and loves him some hard pounding LOUD rock. Nothing wrong there at all and it's a big reason he loves his Wilson's. Again, that's awesome for him and others. I'm just happy that we all have wonderful choices that make us all happy. Wilson's are beautiful to look at and I can listen to rock on them, but I'd never be able to live with them. Plenty of you guys have them and are happy. All is positive.
The real answer, is in the slide from Focal. Modernity, brand, perceived advancement. All of these contribute to what consumers perceive as value. I’m sure there’s more. However, there’s no real connection between cost or quality of the parts and the perception of the value of the finished product. That is an entirely subjective thing which good product managers milk for all they can.
What I can say is that most of the high end speakers come in around 20 to 30 times the driver cost for a single speaker. Mind you, I used the term "most" so for sure there are outliers. However as an investor, builder you want to be on the top of that range. For _most_ that is the math they seem to use. The latest Sterephile has yet another example of this, the Marten Coltrane 3. On the upper end of that range, and like the Sony AR1, has a very lukewarm review. The review, like the AR1 concludes they are worth their price. Hah.
Well, I guess latest smartphones that sell for $800 cost no more than $50 to make. Most things are way overpriced, but then again many people are overpaid or simply make money by doing virtually nothing. Sad but not really surprising. For some $100k is almost a pocket change, and there is quite a number of people like that.
Not really. The R&D, and design costs are fixed, but the number of units sold is not. If you double the units sold, you cut your R&D investment per unit in half. Now whether that investment actually produces "better" sounding equipment is another story altogether.
Bose used to have (may still) massive R&D spends, but they were laser focused on what consumers would pay the most for while spending the least. It wasn't just about selling units, but about getting the ratio of price to cost as wide as possible. Not a bad strategy to make a company successful. The Bose Wave radio didn't just come out of a garage, it was tested and retested by consumer interest groups many many times. Focal and other companies do the same, to various degrees.
Lot's of ideas and in the end every company is very different. Many companies are not that expensive to make, but they are large structures and priced accordingly. Some give you a LOT of high quality components and hand made drivers with tons of R&D. I know of two companies like this and both sound GREAT to me. Every company has a different way to price. The other thing I've mentioned earlier is that every company has a different points for the dealers. I've heard numbers from 30% to over 50%. That's HUGE. When you hear of a dealer or manufacture selling for steep discounts, those are obviously the ones at or near 50% I would assume. When you get a company where you can't get much if anything off, then they are probably much closer to the 30% profit margin to the dealer. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, but it's a great thing to discuss and think about.
Having said that, I do think that really good speakers should and have the right to be quite expensive. But $100k ? Give me a break. You can buy a sure path to American citizenship for a little over $500k, and you won't lose anything in the end, it's investment. Now that's cheap. Going to be a million soon, as I heard.
Personally even if I had that kind of money, I'd never spend it. The best speakers I've ever heard in a system are the Tidal (the big ones at well over 100k) and the Vandersteen 7 Mk 2's at 62k. The only reason I can say the Vandy's to me are a great value is that they sound better (to me) than anything over their cost AND for only 15k more (or so) you can now get their dedicated high pass matching subs to make even bigger sound in your room if that's what you feel you need. That's still only 77k total. To me, that's paying off a huge chunk of my mortgage so that's never happening, lol. For folks who can afford it, I'm very happy for them and don't blame them one bit for spending what they want. They earned, or stole it so....;)
But...if you have a very big room and listen to orchestra and want great sound - cost of the speakers and amps will be much higher. Other than that, $100k for the entire system is more than enough, in my opinion. In used prices this would be, say, $55k. Still a lot of money but within the reach of many.
One thing that keeps coming up is that we are paying for R&D. Wrong. If a speaker maker sold speakers for the sum cost of their expenses it would be almost like loosing money.
No product, good or service should be sold at cost. You always pay for more than what it costs, you pay for the perceived and relative value. That perceived value is complicated, but that's what product managers get paid to calculate.
Mind you, I buy and sell services and goods, so I'm not saying this practice is wrong. I just want to make sure readers and posters understand this.
Erik, I thought we had discussed that earlier in this thread. Maybe not. Yes of course it's what people will pay. I would say that most speakers costing X amount are priced up from what a companies normal pricing is. I will say that we do pay for R&D. You have to as that's part of the pricing as you know. Do we pay a premium on top of costs with normal retail channels? of course we do. Each company has a different way to pricing obviously.
Ctsooner I agree with most of what you have said except for your comment about an expensive speaker using paper drivers. Paper is a great cone material and most of the speakers using paper cones always seem to sound more natural to my ears. And just because it is paper doesn't mean it's not high tech. People who have a Coral 10 that needs a recone can attest to that, it can't be done. And as far as the folks who are saying part of the high cost is R and D, give your head a shake, there are no new developments in speaker technology!! The best speakers I have heard are still older efficient designs with paper drivers. Just like 99% of high end audio megabuck speakers are a huge ripoff! When I go to the shows I invariably never enjoy the high dollar rooms with the megabuck SS electronics. They are very detailed and some of them are impressive sounding but they never sound like proper music to me. And ctsooner don't take this as a slight against vandersteen, I think they are one of the few that actually do R and D and try to give you something for your money. I enjoy them and used to own a pair.
Paper cones can sound very good, but that does not change the fact that they are in total break-up at nearly all frequencies and therefore not an accurate diaphragm to excite the air in the room. Subsequently, the ear drum can't preserve an instrument's waveform. Most people think Bose speakers sound great and are totally adequate, but those who listen know they are not
It's a personal thing and I get that. I won't be able to change your mind and that's cool. It's what makes the hobby part fun. Most of the major and respected designers are working hard finding newer materials to make a pure pistonic moving driver.
I personally can and will never be able to afford a speaker over 25K, however making that statement that nothing is worth it is dead wrong. It's proven to be wrong as we live in a society where folks control the market. Plenty of folks are purchasing these and feel they are worth it, so they must be. Maybe to you they are overpriced and maybe to you over 50k isn't worth it, but the market sure thinks they are and personally I am happy as the trickle down has helped speakers in MY price range of under 15k sound THAT much better.
This is a discussion as to why speakers cost what they do not if they are worth it or not.
I would tend to agree with ricred1. Some folks may not be in the US and understand the free market system though. I full understand that part of the equation, but I'd think if you were on a board like this, you would understand it.
Hi analoguvr, Despite having the privilege to hear speakers that utilize various types of "exotic" materials for their drivers, paper implemented properly is still preferable to many listeners. High quality paper cones sound exceptionally natural. Personally I’d choose this option compared to an ultra detailed analytical sound. Paper cones and tubes for example never measure as good as their alternatives but they sure sound very much natural and realistic when done correctly. There are non paper driver speakers that sound very well without question, I just do not find them superior to top quality paper drivers. Of course YMMV as is always the case. Charles,
I have had this discussion recently with a lot of my audio friends. I asked them about paper cones and the cost of speakers that use them. It's funny, but to a person, they feel that some of the top name companies who are still using paper in drivers that are not costly, are just charging a lot due to their name. I brought up the fact that the cases can be expensive. I'm personally on the side of not loving paper as I hear the distortion they have as they break up a ton. I fully respect folks who love them, but they aren't for me. I tried to take up the cause of the cost of a specific brand that utilize soft domes and paper drivers. Even a couple of dealers I'm friends with have joked about the true cost of the drivers in the 50k plus speakers. The bottom line is that there is a market for speakers that are costly or the companies would probably just go under and thats not happening in most cases. We all like different sounds and there are plenty of companies who give us all what we want.
Hi Ctsooner, We can definitely agree that listening impressions are simply subjective and personal. In this case Analoguvr posted comments that I could truly relate to. Coincidentally he and I also prefer SET amplifiers so we certainly hear in a similar manner it seems. We're all fortunate that the High End audio market has products to suit a multitude of tastes. Charles,
Charles, I too love SET's, but only from the lower mids on up. That's why I fell in love with Vandersteen's new amp on the 7's. I've heard plenty of great reference amps on that speaker, but his just blows me away. He too loves the sound of the SET amps in the mids. Just so real and palpable to many of our ears, but the bass isn't quite impactful, so doing a hybrid made sense. I know he'll have a smaller amp eventually if he follows his normal business practice and I'll have to give it a whirl, that's for sure. SET's can make speakers that normally fry my ears, listenable. Some folks don't get it though and again I appreciate that POV. lol.
What are the prices of vandersteen replacement drivers? Who makes them? You say paper cones have a lot of breakup? Can you please give example of driver and speaker model? I do not regularly see it as a direct problem for end user. I also looked up Sabrina 3 as possible example, but did not see real evidence of that on stereophile’s "spectral delay" plot. May be I do not know what you mean. I would bet the damping characteristics between particular carbon fiber and paper driver models vary and possible overlap much as their costs.
You may be interested in Reference 3a driver implementation if you have not heard of them already. They have carbon fiber driver "hyper-exponentially shaped to avoid cone break up modes". Its run full range.
Hi ohlala, I didn't address ctsooner's comments about paper cone "breakup" as I want to avoid going too far off topic (which is easy to do ). No matter the driver cone material of choice there's always a hierarchy of quality and performance. Designer talent, knowledge and most certainly implementation are the determining factors.
Paper cones done poorly will have obvious failings, if done right they'll sound wonderfully natural. Carbon fiber, aluminum, beryllium etc. The same principle holds true, there's good and bad examples of all materials. Charles,
ohlala They vary depending on which speaker. The range is from $136.00 to $2700.00, but that is the cost for rebuild. New drivers are not priced out.
Paper cones are always in break-up at all frequencies, but because of the cone profile and the fact they are paper, it is smoothed. A lay way to know if a driver is pistonic is if the frequency curve rolls off at the same rate the voice coil inductance increases with frequency. Single layer carbon fiber, woven kevlar, poly and paper have very low frequency break-up modes. The shape of a cone is primarily to smooth and spread out the break-up modes for smooth response, but does not eliminate break-up. Early articles done by Celestial, when metal tweeters first came out, compared them with soft domes which break-up at approximately 8K.
I just wanted to get you an answer, but this really has gone too far off course for this thread. Sorry for the hijack. I will stay on topic. Again, sorry all.
Darn, I'm sorry, but it won't let me edit a post that's over 30 minutes old. I forgot to answer you on the drivers. Their drivers come from ScanSpeak, but they don't have part numbers as they are not standard models. All of them are custom or use custom components made by Vandersteen like baskets and cones.
Ctsooner you can have great impact with a SET depending on which one you are listening to. Also as long as the speakers are a proper load. I use 845 with paper driver tannoys and the impact will blow your hair back. And I find the bass to be much more natural sounding than SS bass. It sounds right to me, not like over damped Ss bass.. Especially when you are listening to a standup bass. The harmonic overtones you get from a SET can't be equaled. YMMV. We get into trouble with generalizations like SET doesn't have impact or do bass, or paper drivers do this, or whatever.....
Well, if we are now talking about what makes an upgrade expensive, I read online, but never verified myself, that B&W has a couple of very closely related lines. The higher end line is identical except for a Mundorf MKP replacing the default polyester tweeter cap. About an $7 upgrade (retail) for a couple of hundred bucks in MSRP for the speaker.
The Brand it is all about the Brand you are being sold on the brand and it's perceived quality.
Looks good well made and well finished all Bling, a great piece of furniture. Must be good, it costs a small fortune right.
Have heard DIY efforts that absolutely out shine (sound wise) expensive well regarded speakers. In the Same Room. But we are not talking sound vs value, are we. The good DIY's cost half the price, but are nevertheless still expensive. The biggest and most time consuming and expensive thing, is getting the finish right. Sorry guys paying more for speakers than a Car is just no within my budget. If it was; then OK, no problem. Like everything out there it's worth is only dependent on how much someone is willing to pay for it. Good components are not cheap making a fine speaker with a superb finish is not cheap. Lots of time goes into development, made in small quantities. Got to pay for all that.
[...] Paper is a great cone material and most of the speakers using paper cones always seem to sound more natural to my ears. And just because it is paper doesn't mean it's not high tech. People who have a Coral 10 that needs a recone can attest to that, it can't be done. And as far as the folks who are saying part of the high cost is R and D, give your head a shake, there are no new developments in speaker technology!! The best speakers I have heard are still older efficient designs with paper drivers. Just like 99% of high end audio megabuck speakers are a huge ripoff! When I go to the shows I invariably never enjoy the high dollar rooms with the megabuck SS electronics. They are very detailed and some of them are impressive sounding but they never sound like proper music to me. And ctsooner don't take this as a slight against vandersteen, I think they are one of the few that actually do R and D and try to give you something for your money. I enjoy them and used to own a pair.
I would have to agree both on your statements regarding paper cones and the general lack of advance in speaker technology. I believe many of the older designs can be refined, but this is without changing the basics. Paper cones may break up more prominently than more modern "exotic" diaphragms, but given their natural sonic imprinting (at least to some ears) I'd wager the mode of their break-up as well as the general properties of the diaphragm has significant impact; "pistonic behavior" may come at a cost in other areas. The same in a sense seems to apply to the enclosures where most modern designs strive for an inert structural behavior (as the equivalent to pistonic ditto), contrary to older designs that may even use the cabinets as an integral part of the sonic signature. "Signature," or lack thereof, is a popular go-to phrase for newer designs, but where sought often leads to robbing the life and vibrancy of live acoustic music. Paper cones to my ears often has the more relaxed, vibrant, true-to-tone and naturally detailed (as opposed to "analytical") imprinting. More modern cones, like those of Raidho speakers, are exceptionally balanced and well-behaved, but to my ears are ever so slightly "dead" or even dull sounding. I used to own a pair of C1's, and they were wonderful in their own right, but ultimately that rather indescribable "something" was missing. Actually my first speakers were a pair of Coral 8..
One thing to keep in mind is that the selling price is very rarely decided by the engineering or design department. The marketing department is in charge of deciding the list price and the allowed dealer markup. Much has to do with perceived value -- particularly in an industry like high-end audio, a product simply will not sell profitably unless it is priced at a high enough level (how could something be seen as "high end" unless it is expensive?).
But you could take that knowledge and think you can ’win’ by not paying the high prices, go for some newly introduced speakers that are well designed and sound good but don’t cost crazy money (and made by a company that probably won’t be around long since they just don’t get viewed as being "high end" and get zero attention). Maybe, but only if you choose correctly, and are sure those are the speakers you will want for a long time. Because when you try to sell your speakers to get something else, the ’perceived value’ effect is still there and you may find it difficult to find anyone interested in your older wise choice!
I've read this thread, its been an interesting read. Building speakers for so many years, I've experimented with many cone materials.... a lot of what has been said about cone break up on paper cones is valid to a degree, but in so many ways, quite far off....
Everyone knows that paper is ground up wood pulp in some form or fashion. Thin paper resonates at a higher frequency than heavy paper and does show break up quite easily, but through the years many things have been done to help solve this... One is layers, a layer of paper over the next helps dampen the first layer and each layers adds dampening... Next, as paper is made, the binding material will also change the frequency that the paper resonates at and its breakup frequency... Not entirely, but basically, the stiffer the material, the higher frequency that it resonates. So a heavy stiff cone, won't break up anything like a thinner cone. One process that has been used for years is to paint a dampening coat on paper. I have used a couple of types of latex. I have also blended latex with other materials, i.e. glues, epoxies, silicone mixtures and other things, which helps to stiffen paper as well as dampen the cones all at once. A stiff material can extend the frequency response of a cone, while a softer material will simply dampen the cone and help control break up and change the frequency roll off.
Sure, this is an elementary explanation, but it holds true... Paper has been around for along time and I'd be quite surprised if it went away anytime soon.
This really is a great thread. I understand that so many of you love the paper cones. Again we all hear differently and we also listen differently. Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup. One can make a very pleasant sounding speaker with paper cones for sure, but it would not give you the micro information that gives you the goose bumps!
The feeling and emotions of the music is in the micro information.
Quote: "Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup."
If the Break up is controlled or Eliminated, is it really in Break Up?
In an average woofer 4 to 15 inches, any material will have an issue. If we design around the issues, we can have a great sounding speaker.
Metal cones typically have a huge peak, we use a crossover to get around that, so why is paper different?
In any driver, we identify any issues and design around them.
As far as Micro Information (detail) being portrayed by other materials??? that could be true, but in the 35 years I've been doing this, I find most people find emotion of music can be conveyed in many ways and quite often, it is from a system which does not portray "micro information"....
Sorry, not trying to start any arguments, I prefer a detailed speaker myself, but I've heard some fabulous all paper cone speakers.
Same with all poly cones, Kevlar, poly etc. etc. etc.
Smoothed and damped does not eliminate the breakup distortion, it just minimizes the harshness of it. At the same time, it damps information someone may have spent 10's of thousand's on the front end of the system to get. Metal cone drivers use the crossover to notch the breakup peak out, but it does not eliminate the breakup. Many believe it is still audible, just less so. This is a very well defined breakup and the driver is pistonic below this breakup frequency forcing the designer to use steep slope crossovers which have their own ringing to add to the soup. Hi-End audio is all about resolution and is why some people spend huge amounts of money on the front end of a system regardless of the vinyl/digital argument. I realize that many of you are married to paper cones and enjoy the 'smoothness' of them. The fact remains that they still have more distortion than a true pistonic driver. That's supported by measurements and to many of us, we hear much more detail in these types of speakers than in paper coned drivers regardless of what you have done to them in order to try and minimize the break up. The fact remains that you aren't able to, you can just try and work around it.
This is why the newer materials that are offered to designers are making this hobby a blast. So many great designs can now flourish with carbon fiber, better made capacitors and resistors. Just so many great advances in audio right now and more to come. Even the diamond coating crowd is trying to make a more pistonic cone. Tidal speakers use diamond coated tweeters and the black ceramic in their 200k plus speakers and to me, they are nearly in the Vandersteen 7 mk 2 camp at almost 4X the cost.
Hi ctsooner, Well, Ok, in many perspectives, you are making the point of the entire thread... materials like ceramic and diamond coated drivers, Kevlar or magnesium, etc are very expensive, but that isn't where you where going with paper, you have been simply insinuating that paper breaks up and isn't worthy of a high end speaker. I'll end my portion of it here, you are welcome to the last word.
Notch filters can be used on any type of cone material. You can't take a measurement that tells you that one speaker is more detailed than another. In general, a stiffer cone offers a more detailed sound than a pliable cone so yes, if you don't properly treat paper, it will not be as detailed as a stiff high dollar material, but I have coated paper cones with the likes of wood glues and epoxy and ended up with a very stiff, very detailed sounding paper cone. Yes, the break up was dealt with, so within my crossover frequency, there was NO cone break up.
I have zero arguments that many of todays materials make GREAT sounding speakers, my real argument is just the idea of discounting paper drivers as so far down the ladder when in fact, you can come up with some very musical and enjoyable speakers at a fraction of the cost of the exotic material drivers. Again, that is a big portion of the point of this thread.
I have 3 pair of speakers in the works.... one heavy treated poly cones... similar to a Dyn 6 inch and Scan Speak Dome... Another, I have a pair of ESS Heil Air Motion tweeters from the late 70's, making a high sensitivity 12 inch 3 way out of using a treated pro paper mid and poly 12 inch and lastly an 8 inch 3 way using a 5 1/2 aluminum mid and ribbon tweeter.... So, no, I'm not stuck on paper at all. I just thought that your general state against paper was way too general.... Again, I do agree with much that you said, I felt that there was clarification needed to keep it accurate.
Good discussion here and insightful comments from Tim. I don’t get the sense that anyone is "married" to paper cones at all. Rather they simply identify the natural tonality and sound quality that they can provide. Carbon Fiber, ceramic, aluminum, poly plastics etc. Each has its strengths and thus proponents as well as inevitable short comings. None of these materials are without some intrinsic flaw, yet each can be used successfully with high level implementation.
Tradeoffs abound and choices must be made. Some would choose natural tone over ultra micro detail and some will choose the converse. Charles,
Paper cones are often treated, or even composites, and from this a variety of diaphragms emerges that may all be called "paper cones," but that does not follow the typical shortcomings of paper cones equally. Even if they did, what is truly gained in a discussion of sound by making reference to their mechanical properties as a basis to support our sonic impressions? All we have in listening to reproduced music through our stereo’s is what we hear, and to me that’s the reference first and foremost that should put into question theory; not the other way round. That is to say: the aspect of pistonic behavior of a cone not made of paper and its claimed advantages into "micro details" (and ultimately its superiority in musical reproduction as a whole) compared to the break-up behavior of a paper cone (or its varieties) can be moot for several reasons, in that our ears may tell us differently. It appears to be more of a marketing ploy to single out one aspect as all-important than to be humble (and less outspoken) on the challenge of implementation.
Marketing ploy? Seriously? No it's not a marketing ploy at all. It's just an agree to disagree. I just pointed out that no matter how you treat it, it's still going to break up. Even a big name maker of paper coned drivers admits this. To many, like the few posters who are opposing some of what I say (or even all of it) I'll never change your minds and that's cool. Just stating some facts about paper cones, but as many have said, you can still make a nice speaker from them. I'm talking about full out assault on speakers and when you are playing in that league I'm saying there are better choices available now that don't break up, so why not use a better material to make a better driver. Yes, they will be very expensive and that's why so many speakers are so expensive now. That's the original post. When I see the most well known speaker company using paper cones in their woofers and that the cost to replace these drivers just isn't that expensive, it makes me think they can probably do much better and not charge so much. That's how we all got started on paper cones (yes, I stated they break up regardless of how you treat them) argument. I stand by the fact that with break up, it won't let you get the last bit of detail from the driver and that's where the emotion lies. Many top speaker designers will tell you that. That's what we are paying for in all of our systems. That's where much of the incremental sound increases lie...The micro detail. To those of you who are designing speakers, I think it's awesome. I just feel that you can probably make a better sounding speaker using better drivers than paper coned ones regardless of what stiffener you use and how you play with a crossover. Again, I can't and won't change your minds, just like you won't change mine. I've heard so many top end speakers over the years and honestly have never warmed up to any of the paper coned ones for a variety of reasons. I never even realized it until I had a long discussion with one of the largest named speaker designers about what speakers I like and don't and why. He then pointed out many things, but said that every paper coned speaker we discussed were on my no way I could own them list. Again, I do respect you guys and feel that this is one of the first true discussions I've read on this board.
Are any of you builders selling your speakers commercially? I'd love to see their designs etc... Thanks. Pete
Hi Pete, thanks for posting your name... So, If Someone isn't selling a design commercially then??? Send Your un named Largest named Designer this thread. Get his response. Hmmm, do you really expect anyone to give you their designs. I'd be glad to give you a few designs, but unfortunately I haven't been working manufacturing speakers for some 30 plus years. I have also rubbed shoulders with some of the best names in the industry. If they are old enough, they may even remember me. So does that make the facts that I quoted any better or worst than your opinion? And again, I have never posted that paper is better, only that there are very satisfying drivers out there made of paper. You've been posting here for a few years and made a bunch of strong points on many many threads, But, I'm sorry brother, Not sure why you continue to push this, but we are all on solid ground.... I'd love to build with ceramic drivers, just haven't been able to justify the price for the parts, but your points have all been listened to. Maybe we should start a thread on how designers deal with voice coil issues. Its can be a huge issue, I haven't seen that thread yet. Roy, John or Peter.... If your out there, comments from someone as respected as you guys would go along way.
Hi Pete, You make some good points which I accept as opinion but not fact. I don't equate micro detail with emotion as you do. Emotion can be elicited by a variety of sonic or musical parameters. For example in my case it's triggered by authentic and natural tone, timbre and harmonic overtones. Another listener would have yet different triggers to spark an emotional response. One could make the argument that many modern speakers in the quest for Uber detail can sound analytical and even sterile. This type of presentation would be considered "accurate" by some. The point is this is guided by personal preference rather than some agreed upon absolute standard of right sound, wrong sound. If your benchmark ideal is say Vandersteen with carbon fiber drivers that's excellent for you. Other ears may prefer something different. Charles,
When I said I'd love to see your designs, I meant the speakers that you are building, not the designs. Not an engineer. I can read a schematic, but not building anything anymore, lol. The one great thing about our hobby is that all the folks like to get to know each other and that includes the manufacturers etc... I always felt that was a nice thing. I'm made a lot of close personal friends as well as close enemies in audio (and sports where I'm much more involved).
I usually put that sound is subjective and I believe I have said that in this thread. The only thing that I have said that is fact is the break up of paper drivers. I do agree that things can and are done to make them better. There is distortion everywhere in audio and some of it sounds fine. Yes, folks get their emotion from audio in different ways. I do believe that. I've learned to listen differently over the years as have most folks as we hear new and different things (not always better, lol). Personally I can listen to an Audio Note system and enjoy what I hear just like I do FM radio or a CD in the car. Personally (personally), I wouldn't want that system in my home as it lacks so many things for me. Even some of their dealers I've gotten to know say similar things.
As for detail, to me if the 'detail' is actually distortion, or a tipped up tweeter (we all know a few high end manufacturer's tip the highs 1 or 2db to make them sound more 'open' than that's not for me. I know a couple of these companies who do this, sell the crap out of their speakers. Folks rave and rave and buy them like candy. Even their very expensive ones.
I probably am posting too much for this thread and I get that, but It's more of a discussion over beers than an argument. Richard's speakers are not the only ones I enjoy and can live with. I typically can't handle ribbons or even many of the panels out there as they aren't set up properly, are run with the wrong front ends and amps and seem way too 'hot' for my tastes. Again, my tastes and no one else's.
I didn't love the older Vandersteen's. Was going to get a pair of 2's in the 90's after my first stint on active duty (Navy), but went to a store in RI who carried them and was talked into a pair of Proac Superpowers. It's only recently since he went to carbon fiber that I have fallen in love with his speakers. I did love the older Avalons and they too were first order cross over and time and phase aligned I believe. Also love Charlie Hansen's speakers years ago.
I'm sure you guys all have your favorites as we all do. Again, it's all good stuff here and I do really like this thread and how it's evolved. Wish others liked it as much and posted, lol.
"It's more of a discussion over beers than an argument " Agree completely with this sentiment. Just exchanging points of view, that's what these forums are meant for. Charles,
I think the quality-price issue also arises at entry level. For example, consider the Vandersteen Classics (specifically 1ci) and Totem Arros. They're about the same price and both are well regarded in the forums. The Vandersteen's have survived longer, so they can be said to have stood the test of time.
Yet the Vandersteen's don't have expensive parts as far as I can tell. The Arros do - the interlocking cabinet, the veneer both inside and out, the crossover and the borosilicate damping.
On the other hand, the Vandersteen's don't need most of the expensive materials because they've done away with the cabinet. (Hard not to be impressed with the application of Occam's Razor).
Vandersteen's claim to fame is their first order crossover providing time and phase accuracy. Yet the Totem Arro's also claim to be phase coherent (which I thought wasn't possible with a 2nd order crossover?).
How is the price similarity explained? I guess because the sound quality is on an equal plane
Phasing is a whole other subject.... EVERY speaker has phase shift... Period. 6db slopes help minimize it. 12/12 slopes can be 180 degrees out of phase and the designer simply flips the positive & negative on 1 terminal bring phase back around in tolerance... But no matter what every crossover creates some sort of phase shift... it can be minimized.
Many take it that a electrical slope of 6db or 12 db creates an acoustical slope of the same degree, most of the time that is incorrect. You must account for the driver itself. My last MTM's had electrical slopes of 12/18, but the final acoustical crossover was 24db per octave. Final phasing on those speakers was maybe 20 or 25 degrees out of phase worst case depending on frequency. I consider those phase coherent.
The "exotic" cone materials mentioned break up as well, perhaps not as prominently in their used audio band, but beyond that could be another story, and one that requires its measures. Certainly what matters here is the nature of their break ups. The tonal qualities, as highlighted by charles1dad, is also affected through the use of different cone materials - surely an important parameter? The associated use of typically butyl rubber surrounds for such (usually midrange) drivers also comes to mind, a material which high damping properties to my ears can quench some of the "life" of the sound. It's not only the use of cone material and surround ditto (and T/S data), but the sheer radiation area of the cone is also of significance. I've never quite fancied the sound of smaller mids drivers below 6" as I often find them to lack substance and fullness. As Mr. Ebaen says in his review of the WLM Diva's:
"10-inch paper cones with hard cloth surrounds simply sound different than 5-inch Beryllium or ceramic cones that are hung off loose butyl rubber. The former are more natural, relaxed and full to my ears. In turn, they're not as overtly 'resolved'. The sharpness and leanness often associated with accuracy is missing.
[...]
It's a speaker that will tweak certain people because it lacks what they consider prerequisites for a hi-end worthy design - narrow baffles, small midrange drivers, exotic diaphragms, famous tweeters. WLM gets by with apparently lesser ingredients. Still and to my ears, the end result is a more inviting, tastier dish. What that really says about current high-end hifi sensibilities you may ponder yourself in some spare time. "
Indeed I'd go so far to say that a +12" driver, with paper cone and cloth surround, is a necessity for the required energy in the lower mids and upper bass, but I gather that's another story.
Jim, let me take a stab at the Vandy 1's vs Totem. For this price range Richard is using pretty expensive parts under those covers. That's been his whole deal starting with the 2's many years ago. The cones and drivers are derived from his more expensive speakers since he came out with Treo's on up. The 1's also got better drivers and keep getting them as he keeps upgrading. He also does a ton of listening and choses the best sounding boards and components for the price of the speakers.
The 1's are not the same crossover set up at his other speakers though. That said, for the price I think they are amazing. I heard those Totems recently here in CT and felt they were very good speakers in this price range also. Plenty of good choices.
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.
