Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?

interesting video! thanks !

what changed ? the most disgusting thing is that the level of the music itself (as the art and skill of the performers) ... has monstrously degraded ...

True.

People talk about cables, fuses, mechanical isolation and other tweaks… long before considering the speaker’s fidelity.

@pedroeb - Obviously (or maybe not), I think it is important. The Accuton may work similarly in the woofer/MR.
There are also carbon tweeters.

Just focussing on the speakers is probably good for the OP. But deciding between passive and active is worthwhile. If the OP has speakers already, then just staying with those seems like the most cost effective.

They can always look at room treatments and room correcting amps/DSP, which may be a better bang/buck.

Right!

And all Speakers are not designed equal for sure...

Inside of a certain minimal quality cone response domain it is certainly possible to improve at high cost. but better clarity and less cone distortion, so great it will be, will not nullify the minimal lower cost design working especially in a passively well treated room and in a mechanically controlled one...An improvement dont nullify something or all design  from which it improve upon  ...

All aspects of sound are not only frequencies response accuracy of the speakers but also the room response to the speakers and a part of the superioir clarity and except for better dynamic and better timbre accuracy gained whith better working cone design , there exist also, imaging, soundstage, listener envelopment, which depend also nore of  the room response itself  and not only from the speakers response especially if this higher end cone is not in a well treated and well acoustically control room to begin with...

Then in S.Q./price ratio acoustic treatment and acoustic mechanical  control is better improvement  than just higher end speakers in a normal room,  compared to speakers of a less costly design in a highly controlled room ...

The better bang for the buck is always acoustic in my experience.... Some vibrations control, and decreasing of the electrical noise floor with many simple solutions will help also greatly...

All that is a simple calculus S.Q./price ratio ... Acoustic is always the main factor for me up to a pont...Bad or not so well designede speakers cannot for sure be redeemed by  room acoustic... 

Just focussing on the speakers is probably good for the OP. But deciding between passive and active is worthwhile. If the OP has speakers already, then just staying with those seems like the most cost effective.

They can always look at room treatments and room correcting amps/DSP, which may be a better bang/buck.

Hi. OP here. So, my current speakers are Monitor Audio Silver 6's that I bought used around 15 years ago for just $600!!  I know these are entry-level hifi speakers at best, but I actually really enjoy them. I currently drive them with a NAD M10, which I also realize is not the last word in high end, but it's so dang convenient. As I was thinking about upgrading speakers, I was just curious how much the technology had really changed. For example, of Monitor Audio's current speaker offerings, the model that appears to comes closest to my old speakers is their new Silver 200 7G, which goes for around $2,000/pair. And it got me wondering just how different are these speakers, from a materials/technology/design perspective, from what I currently have? (I hope a lot!) Again, I know the proof is in the listening, but I'm more than a 4-hour drive from the nearest MA dealer. Also, to be clear, I'm not picking on MA at all -- I'm just using them as an example as I own some.  I do think the comments regarding DSP speakers is very helpful. 

Like almost every other industry, , there has been a revolution in computer aided design, modeling, measurement, and analysis. Some companies like the Harman group with Revel and JBL have really embraced this and been very successful in improving speakers designs.