How about this for a 21st century speaker. A full range plasma point source driver! |
THE 21ST century speaker has arrived...but you can not ...i repeat can not walk in your local hi-fi shop and get one...my diligent hours of research has paid off...comercial speakers produce just that "comercial sound"...and believe the reviews if you want...have a nice day |
Woofer: SEAS W18EX001 CABASSE Tweeters: PHILIPS RT8P (isodynamic=ribbon-like) CABASSE TC21(they call it their "HOLY GRAIL" $600! EACH!!) SEAS T25CF002 MOREL MDT33 RAVEN1 RAVEN2 RAVEN3( the 3 sells for $1650! EACH!!) ADT tweeter. Now this is what i'm talking about. The above are SUPERIOR products. Some very expensive! These to me are 21st century drivers. With further research will list more later. |
Mr. Hager thanks a bunch for your imput. I've done alittle research and seems this ATC is a very fine speaker. AS FOR ME this would probably be one of the very few traditional cone speaker i would consider buying. However they are large and expensive. This thread would have made little sense a few ,say 3 or 4 yrs ago. But now with the spectacular new technology in CDP's and power supply , the speaker is the next challenge for engineers...While researching speaker drivers i came across a hightech web site for disscussions on speakers. WAY over my intelligence. But its facinating to read the posts between these hightech audiophiles. The Madison speaker parts site also shows a speaker designed by a Engineer (a DOCTOR) which has dual SEAS woofers 8 inch hightech and a supertech tweet/mid sells for like $1600. This as well is very interesting AND VERY beautiful speaker to consider. |
The speaker for the 21st century is going to be ATC. They were founded as a driver company and now in 60% of the world's recording studios. What makes their Mid-Range so Unreal and amazing is that they use a Soft-Dome Midrange. It is made out of a FABRIC and kept in it's 1/2 sphere shape though some weird sticky goo. Rumor has it that PMC (Bryston's Pro Speaker Line) has been trying to copy this design for years without success.
They also internally bi and tri-amp each of their active speakers with Active Crossovers instead of Passive Crossovers. Their amps have flattened wire as well to improve it's performance with a much tighter wind. Why more speakers aren't INTERNALLY amp'd, I don't understand.
Truly the best Mid-range and speaker system in the world.
Check them out at www.atc.gb.net! |
Lets assume my statements are correct. I did say possibly. I've read reviews and have seen statements made about speakers that are way off the mark (they did not sound sublime to any degree). But in this case I've done my research and read between the lines and added every thing into the equation and thats how i came up with these BOLD (but confident) statements. Heck all i need is just one SL owner to step up to confirm. But i'll admit its abit audacious. My apologies... Breaking news! I'm on to researching drivers and crossovers for a do-it-yourself. I'll keep everyone posted as to findings. Its not going to be cheap say around $6K/pr. |
Tweekerman - do you see anything wrong with this statement? "Sure Albert the Sound lab's ULTIMATE A-1's are in my opinion possibly the best OVERALL speaker on the market. There are no cone speaker in the world going to produce mids/highs sound stage imaging and every other description like the labs UA1. And i've never heard them before". |
Sure Albert the Sound lab's ULTIMATE A-1's are in my opinion possibly the best OVERALL speaker on the market. There are no cone speaker in the world going to produce mids/highs sound stage imaging and every other description like the labs UA1. And i've never heard them before. BUT at $18K!! I mean most of us can never touch them. So yea the "perfect" speaker is made avaliable. But WILL sound lab find the TECHNOLOGY to make this speaker smaller and more efficient and less expensive. I guess their other models. But they as well have the above problems. So they are "not" the "answer" to our speaker problem here. When i hear the VMPS ribbon speakers I'll post my opinions. If they are everything i expect they are then i see ribbons as the most practical and wise choice as THE 21ST CENTURY SPEAKER. If you are a)single b)rich and c)have the room then the SL's are the winner, QUAD's as well are a serious contender to the smaller model SL's and the larger VMPS. All my research has led to these 3 as the showdown. If you and i hear them together you may put the 3 in one order and i in another, some personal preference may be involved. Our choice in amp will be a very important factor AFTER we decide which speaker we will take home. BUT the speaker choice is the tough choice.Why tough? We need to consider 1) efficency 2)size 3)sound as in mids/highs/soundstage/imaging/midbass/bass/etc. 4) $$ or are they $$$$. By which standard shall we determine a systems sound. There are none. However you could use Jadis 800 amp Jadis 800 preamp as the reference in power. Thats a $100,000 reference point. Which could be pointless but then again may not be. You could use the reasonable priced Jadis JA60 interg. @$5K,as a comparison to all other amps in this range and lower. So lets assume this as the reference in amps. Now onto CDP's. We could use the LINN at $20K as reference point. But again out of reach. So lets say the Capitole and/or Mephisto at 6 to 8K. Again here is our reference to all other cdp's in this range and lower. Lets use Sound Labs as our reference in speakers. Listen to them first BEFORE you buy a ribbon or cone speaker so as to get a BETTER idea of what you are about to buy. But who can fly all over the country auditioning audio? (audio clubs are a big help here) I expect no agreement on my unusual possibly odd ,maybe even strange (OK... abit crazy) ideas. But who knows something may come of all this nonsense. One final thought. Can anybody even begin to imagine how this system would sound in a large perfect acoustical room. JADIS 800AMP + JADIS 800PRE + LINN CDP + SOUND LAB UA1...WOWW!!! |
Okay. Here goes:
1. Yes. Speakers are the most important component in our systems.
2. No. New materials are always being developed; lighter materials for cones, stronger magnets, etc.
3.,4.,5. Possibly. Electrostats may improve like any other technology, but there does not seem to be a whole lot of interest in this technology. Reducing size seems even more unlikely, as the panel vibrates so minutely that the only way to get bass volume would require large panels. Cost would be dictated by its market acceptance. Large panels in the living room have low WAF, so lower prices are unlikely.
6. The "new tech ribbons" if they exist have the best chance of succeeding if they can be efficient, but only when used with dynamic cones. Read my earlier post.
I think the bigger issue with regard to speaker design breakthroughs is that our best and brightest minds are not working on them. The suckout is probably due to computer technology and all its relatives. And also, the relative lack of profit potential, both on sole proprieter and big business levels. Think about it, over that last 18 years (the length of time I've been involved in audio) has there really been any major breakthroughs? Back then, there were some systems (all analog) that provided as much or even more emotional impact than any system I've heard today, even though it may not have been as refined or transparent.
|
Tweekerman, perhaps my political correctness in protecting newer cone speaker designs was too much. I cannot imagine a better speaker than Soundlab, and only wonder how much better they can be in the next version.
If you could hear Ultimate One Soundlabs set up with analog and all tubes you would have no reservations about what ultimate performance can be.
Provided the room acoustics are engineered properly, and all the electrical is dedicated and grounded properly, there is less compromise in the musical performance than differences experienced from one performance hall and another.
The one reservation in my statement is DETAILS. Details are what make the difference in any system, and the higher end one strives for in performance, the narrower the margin for error. The art of making a music system as perfect as it can get is much greater than the sum of it's parts.
In short, even if a "perfect" speaker existed, and it never will, some owners will have worse sound than we have today, because they simply cannot get the rest of the system right. |
So far i have NOT received 1 response that answers any of the above questions satisfactorily. I'm sure this web site has more than 4 members. How can anybody be satisfied with the majority of speakers out there. |
My dream speaker, for the 21st century, would be extremely efficient (+100db), full range (goes down to 20hz), have a generous sweet spot, and be relatively compact (48x10x20). And, of course be musical, dynamic, and have an accurate tonal balance. One more thing it would cost less the $5k retail.
Now back to reality.
Currently, ribbons are too inefficient to be used full range, and would preclude SET amplification, but may have no peer when it comes to speed and producing a natural sound (Apogees were great but needed a lot of power). Single drivers (Lowther, TAD, Mits) do not have the extension (on the top and bottom), weight, and they beam. Also, they are too big if you want to get any bass out of them. Dynamic cones are cheaper and easier to manufacture and can move a lot of air, but give up the immediacy of ribbons, especially from the midrange up.
I actually do not care what drivers this new 21st century speaker uses so long as it all works well together. Extrapolating on the current technology this "speaker" would have to be some sort of hybrid with dynamic cones, possibly active and hopefully have a ribbon midrange and/or tweeter. I think some older designs with new technology might be viable. How about redesigning the Infinity RS-2bs (with their open baffle "ribbon" tweeter and midrange and sealed subwoofer) to become more efficient with an active subwoofer? |
Hi tweekerman. Have you heard a Lowther driver or it's equivalent? From your statement "never heard a midrange cone that produced high fidelity sound" I would have to venture a guess that you have not, or that you've heard them in highly colored boxes. Of all the things you can say bad about these drivers, midrange is not a weak point. That is the very reason most people buy them. The midrange is world class.
Have you heard the pipedreams? They use cone drivers and sound exquisite? Very expensive, but they sound great. |
Personally i've never in my life have heard a midrange cone that produced high fidelity sound. Its always a mid/tweet that worked to the best of its potential. Think about it. The size of a electrostat panel takes MUCH more energy to drive than a two way (tweet/mid + woofer) Efficient cone speaker. But the one t/m cone driver has a very small surface area thus BIG soundstage will never be realized to the degree we all like it. Which leaves us the ribbon to consider. Ribbons are more efficient than electrostats = better performance from our amps( sorry big high quality watt ss amps are not considered i'm thinking of high quality tube amps with say 50 to 100 watts). Midrange ribbons have a much sweeter sound than any cone mid and can almost match the electrostats superior mids. Ribbon tweeters are comparable to high quality cone tweeters. Ribbon tweeters are a tad superior to electrostat panels for the broader imaging. On to woofers/bass. The electrostat produces the superior mid/bass over both ribbons and mid/woofer cones. For the lower bass frequencies woofers do what electrostats cannot. So a good sub can be added to electros but more$$. Ribbons possess the best qualities of both. Albert says that Sound Lab has a superstat in the works maybe 10 years. Some of ya'll say the cone will soon correct its deficiencies. I'm saying the ribbon is here and now and will be choice of speakers for the new decade. I say decade because with computers around who can really say what will be the choice speaker after 10 years. At present its the ribbon hybred design. I may be mistaken on some points and so open to correction. |
Cones have a lot more potential than they seem because they are almost always put into a highly compromised cabinet with suboptimal crossovers (both parts quality and filter type). Most of the complaints about box speakers can be traced to these two areas, and this is where big gains can still be made. I agree also that active systems have a lot of potential, but if done properly will cost every bit as much as a separate amp and speakers, with less flexibility, so in the end I'm not convinced they will take over the world. The biggest problems with stats and planars are efficiency and room interactions, and these are both more or less inherent to the design itself and cannot be fully solved. |
Paul its true all speakers have their limitations: sound size weight and last but most certainly not least the price. What irks me to the max is the claims that advertising makes about a speaker that to me falls way short of those high praises. As well the amount of hype that surrounds certain speakers that to me is not justified...Where are Mr.Plato and Mr.Gassman when you need them most... |
Tweekerman. My guess is that we hear things differently. For example, some sounds are certainly more annoying to me than to my wife or kids. And some people love speakers that I think are irritating. Who knows?
In response to your query, although Harbeth has been in business for 25 years, their proprietary RADIAL material used to make their mid-woofers was not introduced until 1994 in the Compact 7 and the Monitor 40 came out a few years later. Alan Shaw, the md/designer/proprietor took over the company in the late 80's I think, and his current cabinet design philosophy (lossy instead of inert) was also introduced with the Compact 7.
Because the things he has written over the years have made sense to me, and because of his experience and expertise, I am persuaded by Professor Greene's (REG of TAS) choice of the Monitor 40 as his reference.
Me, I'm easy. With a few exceptions, I like almost anything someone else has spent a lot of money on. |
From my extensive experience with all types/genres of speakers/drivers, and what not(5 high end audio store sales possitions, 1000's of installations/sales, way too many audiophile shows, demo's, auditions, and in home experience)I think we either need to go more in the dirrection of higher sensitivity(or ultra sensitivity) drivers, or active speakers!...if we're ever going to move further from up the sonic lader that is. There's been ten' of thousands of loudspeaker and driver designs over the last 40 years, and not much in the way of mass market upswing in the end product quality of the loudspeaker as a whole. I take it back, we've gotten good enough as loudspeaker designers(not me of course), that we can get very very clean and clear sounding speakers to market, using various methods of passive designs and such. But still, in the area's of dynamic transparancy and believablity, I think some of the stronger designs out there(i.e, Avantgarde horns, or ATC active speakers, Avlar active's, or other high sensitivity/high output speaks and such) have shed some stronger light on the need for more dynamically surefooted and authoritative speakers, that will bring the quality of pressentation up to where it should be!
Most speaker manufacturers shy away from such agressive designs, I think, simply for cost and simplicity of manufacturing. I believe, unless more "active" speaker designs, or much much stronger/high sensititity drivers are produced, there's really not much more that can be done to further the audiophile higher end sound reproduction ladder!
I know a lot of recording studio's are using active speakers, and I think there's a whole whole lot to be said for going with more advanced speaker set-up's this way.
There are some manufacturers out there producing home speakers like this, but they're all ultra expensive at this point!(well into the tens of thousands of dollars).
Passive networks and speaker designs are ancient, and it's time we moved on, or up. We've got the tranparency, detail, and soundstage thing down. Now I think we, the audiophile community, needs to see some more affordble designs put forth, which really push the dyanamic envelope.
There's far too many dynamically polite, non-believable/realistic sounding, delicate, dainty, audiophile speakers out there, and it's all pretty much been done a gillion times before, with small improvements here and there. With the advent of the sub/sat systems, and home theater, w/adjustable crossover networks, and such, bi-amping speaker systems has helped out the home theater crowd a bit, with the ablility to delegate bass mangagement in such a way that it gives a much more dynamic sound pressentation, that's definitly advantages for movie tracks, and makes music listening a lot stronger sounding. Although, for audiophile purposes, in regards to high end purity and refinement of overll sound, as you know, this hassome drawbacks.
Really, again to be redundant, in the 2 channel audiophile world world at least,there should be a call for an advance in the areas I've been describing. All the passive bi-amping in the world can only go so far ultimately. Manufacturers can do so so much more with today's technology and experience. It's a shame there's not more affordable out there that meets this need! |
I for one would like to see more widespread use and innovations in cabinet design. A large portion of the sonic capabilities of my Hales is credited to the very thick front baffle (their older models used several inches of concrete). Vandersteen also took similar drivers and did the opposite to reportedly good effect. Most interesting are the non or quasi-cubic designs by companies like Waveform and B&W and believe they have potential in addressing a couple of the drawbacks associated with cone speakers. |
Can anybody second Paul's "as alive as you can get" British Harbeth($3K) cone drivers? Harbeth has been around for like 30 years. If they are the superior cone driver then most of us would have them by now...no matter what the price! For the speakers mentioned lets keep things in clear perspective and put price tags. Avalon's $6K. Kharma's $17K. Sound Lab starts at $7K up. Herman i can find a few amps say $3 to $5K i like(all are tubes). I can find a few CDP's say $1800 i like. But i'm perplexed as to the speaker component in the equasion. Here goes: whats the weight of the Khramas the Avalons and the Sound Labs? On a scale of 1 to 10 what is the LAF ( the Lady's Acceptance Factor) due to size due to weight and most importantly due to price? |
Herman these questions are presented with all genuine curiosity. If you read something in there thats not, then... I'll take the 5th for the moment.. |
I was watching a kid run the bases the other day with someone timing him. He was, shall we say, portly. I laughed and thought a calendar would be more appropriate. Opposite with speakers. The calendar is irrelevant. Right now, Harbeth makes a speaker, the Monitor 40, that reproduces as accurate a facsimle of real life as you can get. If you can't afford it, try the Compact 7. |
Cone driver systems have evolved more in the last 20 years than planar speakers have. I am a Soundlab guy, and 20 years ago there was NO cone speakers that could touch Soundlab.
After hearing the new Kharma and Avalons at CES, I would say it is now a close call, with both systems offering something the other cannot do.
The next 10 years will bring great advancements to Soundlab and other planar speakers, I know of one on the burner at Soundlab that will be remarkable when it happens. Although you can rest assured that the best of the cone driver speakers will continue to evolve with better crossover parts, faster and lighter drivers and even better designs for cabinets.
This is good for all of us. Truly, high end has gotten much better in the last few years and will continue to evolve, as long as there are dedicated listeners to buy these products. |
Sorry, I can't somewhat agree. It's called a system for a reason. Weakest link and all that stuff. I've heard mediocre speakers sound pretty good when hooked up to superior electronics and good front end. I've also heard some excellent speakers sound like crap when hooked up to mediocre electronics.
To your question about cone drivers, I am a fan of the full range driver (Lowther, et al.) and from what I can see, they continue to improve and have not even begun to approach their potential.
Superb vinyl + tube preamp + SET + Lowther = bliss
Don't knock it if you've never heard it! |
the bose 2101. pretty sad, eh? -cfb |
