Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?

@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.

@hilde45 Or, making your old speakers sound better is another option for some models if you don’t like new speakers. Can be fun. Wimslow, Troel’s Gravesen, Madisound, GR Research, others out there just to name a few.  

Wimslow:

https://wilmslowaudio.co.uk (UK)

Troels:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Diy_Loudspeaker_Projects.htm#Up-Grade_Kits_For_Vintage_Speakers) (DEN)

Madisound:

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/madisound (USA)

Referrals/Upgrades:

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/speaker-repair (USA)

GR Research,upgrades:

https://gr-research.com/speaker-upgrades/

Neals:

Simply Speakers:

@holmz  Thanks for going into more detail, and I was being earnest when I said I wasn't really able to make a judgment. If you say that not much advance has been made in materials for the last twenty years, I can only just say "I don't really know how to judge that statement" and will leave others the happy chore of either affirming or denying your claim with evidence they find salient. I'm here to learn, and you're contributing to that, so thank you!

@hilde45 I am not an expert, it is just my perspective.

So yeah there is new stuff happening. Just it is not happening at $2000/pair.
(IMO)
Or it is limited to a bit here and a bit there.

My 35 year old speaker were great in the 80s. And they are still pretty good.

To get really very good speakers is usually going to bring someone into the $5000+ range. (IMO)
 

But then how do we define good, really good, great, and exceptional?
We need a way to do it.

I have offered my opinion that distortion, compression, directivity, impulse response and step response as metrics which can offer us some insight. Unless we have those metrics we can only imagine.

So I, like you, also do not know how to judge statements (nor how to judge subjective descriptions).

Unless a particular speaker has addressed some component of the above list then I can only guess that they made a change that may or may not be working towards something. But there is no easy way to understand what it means in terms of performance or sound quality.

So yeah I am not sure that my perception is true, it is just the description of what I perceive from my filtered view.