Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

Well, Unsound, why not name some names? Who's making speakers that perform worse and cost more? I don't doubt your word that they exist; I just don't know anything about them.

What I've been amazed at is how the entry-level and mid-level of audiophile speakers is performing at levels previously held only by the most expensive gear. I already mentioned the $479 PSB Image B25. The PSBs continue to improve in dynamics and bass extension (while retaining that flat, smooth frequency response) as you move up their price/quality scale into the $4K-$6K range.

Hell, a recent Absolute Sound had a gush review over the Cerwin-Vega CLS-215 speakers, some floorstanding 3-ways with two 15" woofers that weigh about 115 lbs each. are 92dB efficient at 1KHz, and can absorb up to 500 watts. And they sound good, scale down, and do human voice particularly well. The ultimate frat-house speaker for about $1K/pair. The review mentioned that these speakers are not only *very* listenable for acoustic and small group music, they also have the kind of dynamic range you usually have to pay very big bucks to get.

Ten years ago, when someone came to me for a sub<$1K speaker recommendation, I had to scour the internet to find them a deal. Now there are so many decent $1K speakers I don't know where to start--PSB, Paradigm, Mirage, Revel, Infinity, Totem Rainmaker, JM Labs, B&W, Magnepan..., stand-mounted, columns, panels...

Johnny,

Lots of folks have blamed David Wilson for a "premium pricing war" that has surely escalated over the last decade. There are tons of >$10,000 speakers out there and many that cost more than 10X that. Even adjusted for inflation, I don't think there were many speakers carrying this type of price tag 1 or 2 decades ago. Each of these mega-bux models has, I'm sure, it's fans, and each, in its own way may (or may not) advance the state of the art, but I also believe that, as a group, they represent deterioration in value.

So, to name names:

Choose from Wilson, Magico, Cabasse, German Physics, MBL,YG, & many others at the 6 figure level.
Focal, Verity, Snell, Canton, Sonus Faber, Hansen, Burmester, etc at the mid to high 5 figure level.

I name so many because I don't want to "slam" any single manufacturer. Any one of this group may represent great value to a given listener. As a group, I have my doubts.

Marty

I have a question on distortion. I've read several times that box speakers have much higher distortion than panels (ESL's)? The box itself is apparently the culprit with measured distortion of 4% or more not being uncommon. In comparison distortion on panels has been found in some instances to be almost unmeasurable.

I have also read that because the radiating surface of panels is so large and because their forward energy is so great that the room vs. speaker interface (or the impact of the room) is less problematic than small box speakers with cones. Any comment on this?

Martyk1, thanks for the enlightening response.

I think this trend to create flagship products has had the benefit of improving speaker performance from the top to the bottom of the line. The rapid improvements in quality of speakers in the $500 to $2000 range corresponds with the recent history of cost-no-object speaker development.

To improve the breed, someone has to make an all-out assault on the state-of-the-art. For a long time, David Wilson had that quest (and market) to himself. But as you pointed out, we now have many such products from Mbl, Focal, Hansen, Magico, YG; and 5-figure flagship speakers from others you named. B&W's Nautilus belongs in there somewhere as well. Each has contributed something that has been of general use to the industry--dispersion patterns, driver materials, magnet assemblies, cabinet construction, modularity, and even in-room setup.

I liken the 6-figure all-out assaults to auto racing: ultimate performance and a very high ratio of R&D to final product cost because there are so few units made and sold to offset development. However, this process creates a trickle-down benefit. Most of these speaker makers have several lines of speakers, and even the lowest priced ones make use of some of the design features developed for the flagship.

About the only companies named that *don't* trickle down much are YG and Wilson. They build to only one standard, whereas Focal, Revel, Snell, B&W, and others have very affordable lines of speakers. Even there, Wilson's development has benefited the state of speaker making as a whole. Although he may not have invented many of these design constructs, he certainly popularized them--time alignment, the virtues of a well-built mini-monitor (WATT), inert cabinet materials, and even room setup.

I've read several times that box speakers have much higher distortion than panels (ESL's)? The box itself is apparently the culprit with measured distortion of 4% or more not being uncommon. In comparison distortion on panels has been found in some instances to be almost unmeasurable.

For sure many speakers will struggle to perform as low as 4% distortion, expecially in the bass (where 20%+ distortion is pretty much standard). A lot depends on volume level, and as you lower the volume level requirements then many designs can perform adequately.

However, I think you are mistaken about box speakers being systematically a problem due to the "box". For example, top of the line ATC speakers give you 121 db SPL at 1 meter (with 10 db headroom) with a THD of less than 0.3%. Do you have any examples of panels that meet or exceed this kind of performance?