2. speakers
  3. 1240876051

What matters most in speaker design?

So...What matters most in speaker design?

A. The Drivers
B. The Cabinet / Enclosure
C. Crossover / Internal Wiring
D. Cost / Quality of Raw Materials (Drivers, Cabinet, Crossovers, etc.)

Yes, I realize the "right" answer is "all of the above" or better yet "the design that optimizes the trade-offs of the given variables / parameters that achieves the goals set forth by the creator." However, indulge me...

Can a great sounding speaker get away with focus on only 2 of the 4 above choices? Can a high cost of raw materials trump a sound design that focuses on inexpensive (but great sounding) drivers, a well engineered cabinet, and a decent crossover?

I was thinking about speakers that use relativly cheap drivers, but are executed in a genius enclosure with a good (but not exotic) crossover - and they sound absolutely amazing. This made me wonder...

What matters most in speaker design?
128x128nrenter
audiokinesis
2,751 posts
 
Hi Wireless,

Horn harshness really doesn't have anything to do with what's happening in the top 1/2 octave; it happens much lower down. It isn't necessarily caused by something that shows up in the frequency response curve either, but that's another topic.

I can't speak for Klipsch, but the tweeter I use has a mylar diaphragm and those tend to not go as high as titanium or other metallic diaphragms, but they often sound smoother. So indirectly the 17.5 kHz top end I claim is related to smoothness, but not because I think higher extension is undesirable; I just think that other factors matter more.

Duke
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Lesson 2: A flat frequency response is no indicator of how good a speaker sounds.

True in that it will not sort out the wheat from the chaff but flat frequency response is a fundamental minimum requirement for accurate reproduction.
mrjstark
1,112 posts
 
In some designs A & B is crucial.

C - doesn't apply since it isn't part of that particular design.
D - is subjective and varies based on application and design.

(the short answer to your "Q" if you can get away with 2 out of 4 points listed by you is - yes.)

I never understood why some insist on complexity (this also applies to audio reproduction/mastering in general) but we do what we can do best - I guess.

My admiration goes out to those who "did it" with out the "band-aid"!

Cheers
Mariusz
dan_ed
2,451 posts
 
In my meager experience I would agree with Duke and others about the crossovers. That is truly where the art meets the engineering and can make or break a speaker system.

I have gone down the same path that Wireless' friend traveled. It is very easy for a DIY'er to do because we are limited in what resources we have available. So the tendency is to get the best looking specs whether they be simulations or RTA plots. When it comes to the crossover, the best resources to have are good and varied ears to help listen and give feedback. I can do Pspice simulations all day but none of them will tell me how it is going to sound. There is no way around this if one is striving for the best they can achieve. At this point all of the numbers have been used up. Now it is time to decide what sounds the most realistic by using your ears.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
In my meager experience I would agree with Duke and others about the crossovers. That is truly where the art meets the engineering and can make or break a speaker system.

Great point - it is certainly the weakness of many designs - this is where active speakers have a huge advantage (with a degree of control & reduction in distorton that is simply impossible with passive designs).
More to discover