Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

04-08-09: Mrtennis
are you suggesting that a "properly" designed cone system can sound like an apogee duetta signature, sound lab, or magnepan 20.1 ?

The goal of any loudspeaker design is not to sound like a panel speaker; the goal is to sound like reality.

Since no speaker can sound exactly like reality on all types of musical reproduction, we have to choose the speakers' strong points that appeal to us subjectively, and listen through the ones that detract.

Cones and panels have their strong points and weak points. But as has been pointed out, it seems to be easier to mitigate many of cones systems' weaknesses--microdynamics, box resonances, dispersion patterns--than it is to solve the panel speaker problems--difficult impedances, lobing, dispersion anomalies, SIZE, insensitivity, self-cancelling bass, and overall dynamic range.

I've listened to Maggie 20.1's back-to-back with Wilson speakers (MaXX 3 and Watt/Puppy 8), and it's the Wilsons that beat the Maggies on transparency, ambience and low level detail. Not only that, the Wilsons can hit live levels of amplitude without cracking up. And there's nary a hint of box resonance.

Johnnyb53

Well Said.

MrT - Maybe you could increase your personal efficiency by changing your "handle" to something like "panelspkrlvr" or "planaraddict" or "wallofnoise". Then everyone who saw your posts would know instantly where you stand on speakers. This would save you countless redundant entries and free up a lot more listening time. And you could still use your Mr.Tennis name on a sports site.

I think you've explained your beliefs on the inherent superiority of panels satisfactorily by now.

In my opinion they exist as a valid option. Just about everybody has tried one kind of panel or another by now. Most of us move on.

I am currently using horns from 450 Hz. to 14Khz. No panel will ever approach them in the areas that are important to me.

04-05-09: Mrtennis
as to faults of cone design, they include the following:

cabinet colorations, lack of driver coherence, stridency of many metal-based tweeters, and crossing over dissimilar drivers

Those are not faults of cone design, but of enclosure design, driver selection, and driver integration. All can be corrected and often are. To wit:

Cabinet colorations: Increasing numbers of dynamic speakers have curved panels, increased amounts of bracing, and materials other than MDF. The thin-ply birch stock (also used for piano pin blocks) are seeing increasing use. Brands that use this very inert material include Lominchay, Nuforce, and Magico.

Lack of driver coherence: Pick drivers with similar rise times and physically align them on the baffle.

Stridency of many metal-based tweeters: 20 years ago, maybe. There are plenty of good metal-dome tweeters. The titanium tweeters in Mirage speakers have cloth surrounds, damping out all the ringing and leaving superior speed and linearity without diaphragm breakup. Tweeter materials fall in and out of fashion and have little to do with actual performance IME.

Crossing over dissimilar drivers: Use more similar drivers (duh). More and more drivers are made in families. Not only does Mirage use a titanium tweeter, all their cone-based midranges and woofers have vapor-deposited titanium to match the sonic signature.

These are all straw man arguments against cones. Some of the best speakers in the world are cones, including the best from Wilson, Magico, YG, Avalon, Vandersteen, Thiel, JM Labs ......., none of which exhibit the "faults of cone design" you mentioned.

Alright, enough Mr.T bashing. One of the most appealing aspects of large panels is the oversized soundstage—great on large scale recordings, and although unrealistic, quite attractive on intimate small scale recordings, such as, solo guitar, lute, violin. If one is completely sold on that scale of soundstage, box speakers can be underwhelming no matter how good they are in other respects. As an analogy, years ago when Fujichrome was first introduced in the US, many people went gaga over it. It wasn't because Fuji was better from a fidelity standpoint, it wasn't by a long shot. Ektachrome had far more realistic color rendition. It was because the high color saturation was so appealing. Could it be said that panels have a "higher soundstage saturation?"

It's too bad this thread has taken a detour from new technology. Has there really been anything revolutionary or only incremental improvements?

The only newer things I'm aware of are the MBL radialstrahler driver, Manger driver, the Impact airfoil, all bending wave drivers of some sort. Haven't heard any of these. What is almost universal is that new or exotic technologies usually do high and sometimes mid frequencies well, but low frequencies still need to be handled by conventional cone drivers. The exception to this is the Eminent Technology's rotary woofer. Quite an ingenious approach to infrasonic sound production.