Is The Overall Weight Of A Speaker Important?

08-02-13: Rok2id
And the ANSWER is???

i don't know if the weight of a speaker is important or not. The answer to that is: depends on what the designer intended.
For ex., the Audio-Note (UK) speakers are medium-heavy & sometimes even light considering their size. I believe here that the designer intended for some box resonance to be in sympathy with the music.
In another case, say, Rockports, the tall Von Schweikert, planar speakers, ESLs, the designer did not intend the cabinet to resonate with the music i.e. intended the cabinet to be sonically inert. In such cases, the cabinet is made of vcery thick material which is often multi-layered + the internal braces are made from metal (as in Magico's case). All this adds to the weight of the speaker. Exotic cabinet materials + metal inside adds to overall cost. And, with Rockports & Magicos many of their speakers are made with a no-holds-barred mind-set which further adds to the cost - the manuf is thinking that those models of speakers are not like Colgate toothpaste where everybody needs to have one. The sales are going to be single-digit #s per year. Thus, those models are priced accordingly in the un-obtainium band.
Another reason for weight - driver size. Bigger speakers often demand physically bigger drivers. Phyiscally bigger drivers require phyiscally bigger magnets, which weigh a lot more adding to the overall speaker weight.
Does a heavy speaker always sound better than a lighter speaker? not always.....
FWIW.

Bombaywalla:

Thanks for your informative response.

The OP's question struck a cord with me, because I am always interested in the thinking or thought process that determines a product's desiogn or appearance.

I can see the design purpose in a lot of products, but not so much in audio. For instance:

Why does speaker design result in so many exotic looking products. After all this time, don't the makers know what makes a good speaker? Shouldn't they all look pretty much alike?

It's getting difficult to tell the difference between AirBus and Boeing these days.

Cars seem to be going toward small 2.0 liter turbo charged engines.

Military aircraft do look different, but that is based on mission requirements. And the differences are easily explained.

But when it comes to audio equipment, esp speakers, there is no rhyme or reason to the design that is obvious. At least not to me.

Reminds me of the Soviet space shuttle. Looked identical to US shuttle. The Russians said if you solve the problems you face, then the shuttle design is where the physics and science takes you. Liars for sure, but logical.

Why not the same logic in speaker and amp design?

Thanks for your post

Cheers

Rok2id said:

Why does speaker design result in so many exotic looking products. After all this time, don't the makers know what makes a good speaker? Shouldn't they all look pretty much alike?

Actually I think that there are pretty good answers to your questions that result in the conclusion that there are good reasons why all speakers do not look alike.
1. Very different ideas on what constitutes "good sound".
2. Very different driver designs; dynamic vs. esl. vs planar magnetic vs. plasma vs. ribbon vs. horn
3. Single driver vs. 2 way vs. multi-way.
4. Very different ideas on what the partnering amplifier might be (power vs. voltage "source".
5. Full range vs. monitor.
6. Controlled resonance vs. non-resonant.
7. Cost constrained vs. cost-no-object.
8. Near field vs. far field use.
9. Omni-directional or not.
10. Aesthetics vs. sound vs. efficiency

Given all of these various design decisions, one could argue the opposite; that it's surprising that there are so many conventional box speakers. However, a more careful analysis would reveal that most cost-constrained, semi full-range, aesthetically neutral, low-moderate efficiency, voltage source friendly speakers do look alike; the "conventional" rectangular, taller than it is wide, veneer-covered mdf box housing a 2 or 3 way complement of dynamic drivers.

Not trying to give Rok2id a hard time; just pointing out another way to look at it.

Swampwalker:

I would classify your following points as 'mission' dependent. The design is 'end use' dependent. I get that.

Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10.

#1 is just just subjective. I get this.

Nos. 3, 6, are the type thing I was speaking of. Number of drivers? Resonance or no-resonant? Seems to me as if we should know which is more desirable.

And I was also thinking of the speakers that look like the bells of huge plastic horns. And the Italian made speakers that look like modern art. Large speakers with woofers at the top and bottom and the other drivers in the middle. I was just wondering what problem are they solving. I am sure they are good speakers, just don't look like the usual rectangular box.

Thanks for you post. Good points.

Cheers

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy, Rok2id. And by false I just mean incorrect, not implying purpose or making a value judgment. For example, #3 single driver vs multiple driver is very much mission dependent- if you are interested mostly in vocal and small ensembles, or if you value coherence over top and bottom extension, then single driver may be your cup of tea; but the mission is also dependent on the other components of the system. If you want to build your system around a flea watt valve amp, then a single driver or other high eff design is dictated, regardless of your musical preferences.

OTOH, if you want to achieve near realistic SPLs for orchestral music, then the "best" speaker may be a horn-loaded, multi-way design (if you fancy valve amps), but a large multi-way line source might fill the bill (if you want to achieve that w a moderate power class A ss amp.) If you've got to place the system in a multi-use (and multi-user) room, then that's probably going to rule out the Wilson Maxx or VS-9 type design so even if you need full range, you're probably looking at 2 way monitor or 3 way towers w a sub.

The "best" speaker design depends on the "mission", the "team", AND the end-user's weighting of the strengths and weaknesses of different design approaches. If there was one or 2 "best" high end speaker design approaches, then the high end market (which is by definition primarily sound quality driven) would weed out the inferior or highly user-dependent/mission-dependent designs and relegate them to the fringes. Of course, one could argue that the overall consumer market has already done that w the "the "conventional" rectangular, taller than it is wide, veneer-covered mdf box housing a 2 or 3 way complement of dynamic drivers" I mentioned above, which is clearly the "best" design for the majority of users (said only slightly tongue in cheek).

As for me, I say viva la difference! That's part of the fun of the gear side of the hobby, seeing how different combinations work to provide a satisfying home audio experience. Of course, I am completely ignoring the implementation side of the equation. I am sure that certain design choices are "easier" to implement satisfactorily than others, although I would be the first to admit that I do not have the technical knowledge to speculate about which those are. Maybe Duke or Johnk or Atmasphere or some of the other speaker or electronic designers could chime in and educate us on that issue.

To the OP- great thread, it's obviously made me think about this quite a bit. Thx.