Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?

You can apply extraordinary measures to eliminate cabinet resonance and the result is a speaker like those made by Magico.

And a dozen others or more.

There is no defined engineering path to a great sounding speaker.

The engineering path to troubled speakers is easier:

• Cabinet resonances
• Compression limiting dynamics
• High distortion
• poor frequency response
• directivity issues
• port noises
• cone breakup
• Issues with diffraction
• issues with phase in the crossover regions

And probably a few more??

Many companies make speakers using quality drivers and cabinets that address the majority of the issues. And most of them sound pretty good.

If we never come close to agreeing on what is a great sounding speaker, how can we then extrapolate from this uncertain data what is the right approach to speaker design?

I thought many people did agree on which speakers are great sounding and many agree on which are poor sounding?

There is range in the middle, say $500-$5000 , where the cost compromises affect 1 or more areas, and we end up not being very certain that they are good. Or some will abide the flaws and others will abide different flaws more easily.

So there is a huge agreement on the manufacturers side where they know what makes a speaker good and bad, and which flaws they can overlook to limit cost.

I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons.

@holmz 

"I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons."

And still - these days there are a number of $500-$1000 speakers that while having flaws, are quite satisfying. It's all about making the right compromises. In some respects, I think it's harder to make a very good speaker that needs to match a price point vs a cost is no issue design. Look at the original Andrew Jones speakers for Pioneer. Certainly had their faults but what a great accomplishment!

You can apply extraordinary measures to eliminate cabinet resonance and the result is a speaker like those made by Magico. Is this good? It depends on whether you like their speakers. There is no defined engineering path to a great sounding speaker. Ultimately, we like what we like, and what we like comes down to a personal preference for a particular combination of strengths and weaknesses (i.e., the right compromises) and perhaps even a liking for certain distortions.

If we never come close to agreeing on what is a great sounding speaker, how can we then extrapolate from this uncertain data what is the right approach to speaker design?

Agreed. If you subscribe to S’Phile, read the very interesting viewpoint of Jonathan Weiss of Oswalds Mill Audio and his sister company’s Fleetwood Sound Co Deville loudspeaker. I am not sure how much I am allowed to quote but it is a quote of a quote so I am think I am safe to repeat;

" Loudspeaker manufacturers in general have moved in the wrong direction over the past decades, in a race to the bottom, trying to make the deadest, heaviest, most nonresonant enclosures".

He goes on to say this effort results in heavy, sluggish sound.

As you have so correctly stated it is a matter of taste. And priorities. I happen to believe that complex machined metal enclosures along the likes of Magico appeal to consumers who think that cutting edge tech must in some res ipso facto manner result in better sound. A few reviewers at Stereophile support this conclusion based on their listening. I have heard Magicos repeatedly and the sound to me is indeed heavy and sluggish. And dull and boring.

I don’t mean to make this discussion an assault or focus upon S’Phile but let’s face it, it is the most widely read and influential audio publication in the US. My take is that there are two basic camps-when it comes to loudspeakers- comprised of John Atkinson, Jason Victor Serinus, and arguably Michael Fremer who gravitate to the inert enclosure approach and then the second camp of Herb Reichert and Ken Micallef carrying on the torch of the legendary Art Dudley who listen for different things and are able to set aside the search for the "latest and greatest" for the beauty of alternative thought and paradigms/vintage/subjectivity and the all-important appreciation of "how does this loudspeaker make me feel?".

I think that it’s pretty much true of all of the heroically inert cabinet designs that they are successful in making the speakers "disappear" as sources, but I agree with fsonicsmith in thinking that it is not an overall solution to sound that is superior to other cabinet design philosophies. I personally just bought a pair of Spendor SP100’s for the second time after a hiatus with other speakers, and their cabinets are far from dead, but they are very successful in communicating the music.

@holmz 

"I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons."

And still - these days there are a number of $500-$1000 speakers that while having flaws, are quite satisfying. It's all about making the right compromises. In some respects, I think it's harder to make a very good speaker that needs to match a price point vs a cost is no issue design. Look at the original Andrew Jones speakers for Pioneer. Certainly had their faults but what a great accomplishment!

And I 100% agree with ^this^.

The title of the thread was is there anything new under the sun, and there really isn’t in the ~1k$ range… 

Those speakers are compromising just about all the “new tech” in favour of being able to be affordable… including sometimes the simplest of internal bracing.