Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?

@strawj 

Very true. Nothing really new at any price point tho I still like a standard Brit Box as much as anything. All else is window dressing.

Absolutely. To think out of the decades old box is fairly easy, I'm sure we could all do it, but to bring it to the market takes an awful lot of ingenuity and guts.

The usual obstacles of price and consumer expectations are always there obstructing your way.

The biggest one, however, may be that undefeatable foe, domestic acceptability.

It's so formidable, that it's even more or less seen off most of those large loudspeakers that previous generations got to enjoy.

I was at lecture where I heard a prominent designer unabashedly declare that he began his new design from the premise that it must be domestically acceptable.

That is to say, a slim cabinet.

Of course, there are always constraints in anything you do, but to see sound quality demoted in such a way is always disappointing.

Therefore we should always give credit to designers like Hiroshi Kowaki who bring us products like the TD712z, or Lawrence Dickey with his dynamic Vivid Audio speakers. 

Neither of these designs can be called your typical box, but alas neither also seemed destined to be commonly found either.

The TD712z mark 2 is certainly the speaker I'd most want to hear.

It's already well over a decade old and still no sign of a mk3. I guess when your working at the periphery of what is possible, time moves slowly.

Another way to look at speakers and design is to study the company.  Companies have cultures and some are in for profit (the big ones) and have a quarterly report that drives everything, including engineering budget to invent or build new things.  They hire the top engineers and have the brain power to develop new ideas.  These engineers might have a revolutionary idea but whether they can pursue it depends on if it will make more money.  These companies have a board, have an owner(s) who are not engineers, a larger staff with a CFO and very formal company structure.   They move forward new ideas that improve income- period. 

 The small companies are more often Engineering driven, and they will develop a new idea even if it puts them out of business (engineers are often not good business people).  They may struggle with staying around, but they are constantly developing new new new.   We can all think of companies like this.  I think of PS Audio, Cardas, ATC, Kii, etc. people like that.  They have an engineer at the helm and he calls the shots, win or lose.   We may not always agree with them, but they break new ground.  They will not be cheap products and are often the most expensive. 

So if you want new tech, look to the engineering based companies.  If you want a deal, look to the manufacturing based companies.  And stay aware of brands that change hands, as the brand value may have arisen through engineering, but the new owners see that brand as a way to grow the business through manufacturing.  This has happened quite a few times lately with major Danish and English brands.  

Brad

Thank you for weighing in. This is why I suspected the claim by @holmz (that there has been very little advances in materials since the 80's or 90's) might need checking.

@hilde45 sure, at the upper end there have been advances, but at the that higher end, they were doing good work 20 years ago. That link with the video up the page would be an example… but who exactly is running those drivers? We do not see them on any $2000 pair of speakers. Do they sound good, yeah they are great.

Take the OP’s speakers, or say the Moabs, and I doubt that we find anything earth shattering in terms of the driver technology. I doubt that the drivers would more than $10-$30 each. Maybe they are better than the $20 drivers 20 years ago… but how would we know?

There are still lots of speakers that have cabinet resonances these days, and they are using the same MDF and glues that they were using 2 decades ago. So something with bracing design and dampening is lacking… and that knowledge and material existed decades ago.

———

The AMTs that @arion described are a bit of a different beast… They might cost a lot more than the $20 drivers that I have been referencing.

Sure technology trickles down, But I am not sure it trickles down to $2000 range? It might.

———

The Monitor web site shows only minimum impedance, and sensitivity, and not impedance versus frequency, nor much else. So we are sort of assuming that the rest is OK.

But we really have no way of know much about them from the web site, other than the basics.

@jaybird5619 if you are in the SE, then maybe consider contacting Erin at Erins Audio Corner and have those Monitor speakers put onto his Klippel. Then we will know what they do, and whether new drivers and crossovers would be worthwhile.
He is in Alabama… 

@holmz I think we’re missing each other due merely to semantics, and I’m happy to let it rest. What has been said in this very interesting thread has gone way beyond resonances and has included materials in cones/drivers, ribbon tweeters, and other elements involved in making speakers. In your perspective (if I have your position right) these are minimal or even insignificant advances. To my mind, they seem substantial, and some here on the thread have agreed with that position. (Cf. decooney who worked in the industry and just said,

"Crossovers, caps, parts, Drivers, materials, cone materials, surround materials, internal wiring, binding posts, and even cabinet designs have improved compared to 20yrs ago....AMTs, better crossover parts and drivers with Nomex cones with better materials, new material diaphragms, decent solder, connectors, binding posts sound notably better than 20yrs ago.")

 

But I’m not an engineer or in the industry at all, so I cannot really judge what should count as a genuine advance. You seem confident that you know, so I will just let the issue/distinction rest.

@hilde45 I think that we are probably more in alignment than not.

Distortion
Those pistonic drivers, the Accutons, and various beryllium tweeter are covering cone break up.
(But we don’t see them on many low end systems.)

The new Purifi motors, as well as the ScanSpeak motors address more linear motors assemblies.
(And we do not see them on low end systems)

There are also some baskets which are stiller and reflect less energy forwards.

Resonance

There were great cabinets in the 80s and 90s which lacked resonances. And even better ones now.
But many singing cabinet boxes exist still.

Diffraction:

Diffraction is better known and accounted for now, but maybe not 100%

And that is only the mechanical part. There is also the cross over parts, etc.
The lion’s share of innovation has been in the active speaker space.

So yeah we are chipping away at it, but as the market is a driver, low cost usually results in things being cut so the technology is replaced with “good enough”.

Ideally we get really good speakers and they last a life time.
More often it is, “These will do for now.”

I’ll take a deep breath and you sir, have a nice evening.