2. speakers
  3. 1016895490

How come that when most audiophiles

follow the philosophy of "shorter, less complex signal path is better", they then wire their carefully chosen equipment to speaker cabinets filled with a boatload of transformers, capacitors, resistors, and drivers which exhibit gross non-linearities which are only compounded by adding them all together? I believe that the reason is the "specification game" again, where people believe that speakers must have a frequency response from DC to light +-3db, and as a result, speaker systems must have many drivers to cover the range. Notice the specs only show freq. response, and nothing about phase non-linearity induced by multiple crossover components. This seems to be a non-linearity in system philosophy where short signal path does not apply to speaker systems, but is paramount in all other aspects of the system. I use a direct input from source to OTL amp and DIY Fostex based 1-way speaker cabinets. The result is very natural, dynamic, phase-coherent,detailed, and revealing. The only non-linearities I have to deal with are the ones inherent in the driver/cabinet combo. With some careful design and impedence curve mods, I get a more musical sound than any "high end" speakers I have ever heard(and I've heard alot) as well as any of the multi-way speakers I've ever designed and built(also alot). Why do you think that there is this disconnect in thinking regarding short signal path as it relates to speakers?
twl
gthrush1
241 posts
 
I agree, and that is why the theoretical "best" way to go is a low-distortion (e.g. Bryston, Westlake, etc.) external crossover, remove ALL crossover components from the speakers, connect each driver to its own set of binding posts, and drive each with a dedicated low-distortion monoblock amplifier (e.g. Bryston, Boulder, etc.).

Or, the easier approach would be to use a pair of quality pro monitors like the PMC AML-1, which is essentially a Bryston 10B / 2B / 3B built into the cabinet with custom drivers. They retail for about $5k, but you probably could not beat them for the price with "audiophile" gear.
drubin
3,285 posts
 
Interesting topic, twl. I would like to hear a speaker like yours to better understand what you are talking about.

At last year's Home Entertainment show, I spent quite a bit of time listening to the Roman Audio speakers, which use the Diaural crossover. I felt there was a seamlessness and overall "rightness" about the sound that was different from most other things I had heard. The Diaural is a very simple crossover, and I wonder if what I heard is along the lines of what you are talking about.
albertporter's avatar
albertporter
4,949 posts
 
OK, your looking for the impossible, how about this?

A single driver speaker that is pretty much flat from 24 Hz to ultrasonics, and can be driven by amplifiers from as little as 21 watts to over 700 watts?

This speaker would have no crossover, less than 36 inches of wire and exhibit an impedance of 8 Ohms.

It must have a radiation pattern that remains IN PHASE from 24 HZ to ultrasonics, and yet produce between 88 and 95 BD sound pressure level at 1 watt, measured from 12 feet, rather than the industry standard of 39 inches.

This speakers single driver must be engineered where it is so lightweight and quick, that it measures and weighs less than the air it moves.

It must use a magnet that will deliver equal force and power distribution over it's single driver at all times. This must remain true, regardless of the total power applied to the driver, the sound pressure level required, and regardless of the frequency it is producing.

Last, it cannot occupy any more floor space than a Vandersteen 2C speaker.
garfish
1,840 posts
 
It seems to me that about 99%+ of all audiophiles are at the "mercy" of speaker manufacturers. Why speaker makers don't use simpler electronics I have no idea, but if what you suggest is really superior, it should show up in music quality and character; it should show up in "reviews", and it should show up in advertising. IMO, audiophiles purchase by reading, by looking and especially listening-- no?. Some enterprizing speaker maker could make a lot of money from the concept "simpler is better" if it's really valid (and significant)-- and if he's able to "sell" it.

Speakers are certainly the most "colored" of all components in a stereo system, and it seems to me that the "simpler is better philosophy" regarding speaker electronics, may not be the biggest reason(s) for the colorations-- just my opinion. Cheers. Craig
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,351 posts
 
I reject the notion that there is a single technical and/or equipment path to audiophile nirvana. What works for one person may not work for someone else. While the system you describe might work wonderfully on several types of music, I doubt it would really excel at raggae, large scale orchestral, rap or electronica. At the same time these other systems may not have the textural magic and transparency that your system possesses. Any system involves making trade-offs. The success of each system will depend heavily on the biases of the listener. To paraphrase another Albert - it should be as simple as possible, but not more than necessary.
More to discover