Is Speaker design evolution stagnant

Kosst,

What you describe is true, sometimes. As usual it depends on implementation. Active digital xo aren't that complicated to implement and can solve the issues you describe if done right. At a fraction if the cost of passive. But the system has to be designed to work that way - not just the xo.

Why this isn't used more frequently? The learning curve is steep. It's a lot more involved. You need to be able to measure. It's a lot simpler to connect an amp with a pair of wires to the speaker,  play music and call it a day.

lewinskih01 +1

Based on what I read from speaker manufacturers, many use the same drivers but apply different crossover philosophies to achieve a particular sound.

My simplistic understanding is that while limiting the range of high or low signals , the remaining signal is corrupted ( phase inversions, roll off, etc.. ).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can see where you are  goping with this *stagnant* idea
Yes agree.
Wayyy back when. Speakers for hollywood's early days were FC/Wide banders.
,,fast forward,,, along came xover things. 
WE all fell for them. Sure EV < Zeinth, SupraVox, Jensen a  few others had some nice speakers with wide banders,, but the labs had to go where the money was, rock N rollers wanted the boxes with xovers.
A few were allright, most sound like garbage.

Some folks like pannels/stats, others horns, others xover box types.
While others are showing interest in the new wide band designs. New = past 10 years.

I am of the new WBer camp.
And i've decided to invent/design/experiement with my own ideas of what is possible/not possible with these WBers.
Thing is don't need xovers, as i have  no exp in designing xovers.
Stats/panels pretty much are the same past 30 years. 
same issues
Horns, again, pretty much same issues as tyhe early days.
Xover types, same old, same old. Great Rock N roll speakers. 
There are the new concentric types that are making a  hit, like ZU's, 
This design although a  good alternative to WBers, just ain't my cup of tea.

Everyone is going to stay with his own preference of speaker.
A few might have several designs in their collection, but most really are just happy with the one selected design.
I have found some use for the xover widwoofer and a  tweeter as sort of supporting roles in the operatic casting.
The main tenor and soprano are the WBers. 
W18's + tweet are welcomed on stage as long as both are well behaved and don't  voice grouchy/colored.
Midwoofers have to be neutral like the WBers and tweets have to be 91/92db. 

I note Seas has a  dedicated midrange, which may substitue for a  WBers midrange magic, but my tech gave 2 thumbs down on that idea for a  3 way. After this idea, I completely abandoned xover types a a main voice in my speaker set up.
So like yeah to answer your Q. I ain't waiting around for Seas to develope a  breakthough in  a  midrange magical speaker or a  super WBer.
Seas put all their money in the xover types, and never gave a  hoot about the WBer design. 
The Exotic is wayyyy over priced and its a  older design.
Too old.
The other with the grey cone is trash garbage. Inspite of the YTer tech geek with all his measurements  giving 2 thumbs up to that Full range.
I sent them  back  to Madisound after a  15 minute testing , 

Everyone here is going to gravitate towards his speaker design by choice.
xover fan'atics ain;'t going to dump xover box designs and jump on the WBer band wagon. 
But at least, I am now awake and aware these WBers do exist and do make some nice musical sounds.
There are countless possibilities to  put together something really nice with whats already out there. You just have to get creative.

Loudspeaker design could be said to have stagnated as there doesn't appear to be much difference between the boxes of the 1960s and the boxes of the 2020s.

Ok, the boxes might be smaller and slimmer, but they're still usually cone/dome drivers in boxes.

The age old problem is that in order to sell in viable numbers they will have to be domestically acceptable.

Given that maybe we could say that development has been rather constrained by circumstances rather than stagnating by lack of effort or will?

Perhaps the only real significant development has been the emergence of active designsalong with the increasing integration of subwoofers.

These days virtually every single professional audio monitor has its own built-in amplifier.

The main differences cited are usually accuracy (by far in favour of pro designs!) and the prevalence of near field designs in the professional world.

Perhaps there is some convergence between these two approaches, as there should be with the use of sophisticated measurements available nowadays, but few professionals would consider using a domestic loudspeaker for their work.

[Not even the truly iconoclastic Quad ESL].


The reverse might be said for many audiophiles, but that situation might change with the emergence of more measurement based sites like ASR.

Perhaps as a direct consequence we might see more consumers gravitating towards pro designs in future?

Nevertheless such sites still favour cone and dome drivers in boxes.

So perhaps those early loudspeaker pioneers were on the right track after all?

So perhaps those early loudspeaker pioneers were on the right track after all?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually the early pioneers were the  Chicago and Berlin FC WBers.
Here is my fav video of the 1929 Colotura FC WBer
There are many xover box types  of today that can't match this midrange quality.
This is the Gold Standard where all speakers are judged.
Put the Wilson's, Tektons, ZU's,  next to this 1929 Colotura in midrange/voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrqv5nOjLuw