Loudspeakers are Rubbish and it's All Our Fault

[Macca]

Interesting article:

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/07/02/feature_the_future_loudspeaker_design/

The comments are worth a read too. As an old reactionary I found that this one struck a chord:

'Oh Christ, someone is about to do for loudspeakers what they did for radio, TV and telephones: make them more expensive and complicated while at the same time less fit for purpose.

Clue missile. People never walk into my 70s-era stereo sound and complain there is an impedance mismatch in the left tweeter causing a 2 decibel drop-off in the crossovers. They say "what're you playing?" so they know what to either compliment or complain about.

Give me back my analog TV. I'm sick of the periodic tiling the "state of the art" sends me or the set-top box that hangs every time the cable company sends new "info" to it (at midnight, every night, because, wow, rolling download schedules are so retro). At least ghosting didn't stop me seeing the f*cking news.'

[walpurgis]

Well manufactured speaker technology is still stuck in the last century and even the one before. We need some new principles. But what?

[Macca]

Well according to the article we can solve all our problems with digital processing.
The only thing preventing that is is stuck-in-the-past enthusiasts turning our noses up at the signal manipulation that would be necessary.

[Barry]

Very interesting read - thanks Macca.

Nice to know God uses Quad ESLs. :lol:

[Macca]

Nice to know God uses Quad ESLs. :lol:

That won't surprise some people.....

I suspect Jesus has some Cerwin Vegas with the twin 15 inch bass drivers and spends his time blasting out Queensryche and Cradle of Filth. God always yelling at him to turn it down....

[Reffc]

Nothing new in the arguments or the criticisms. They've been with us for decades but the truth is no-one has yet come up with a marketable viable alternative. The (sort of) suggestion that the answer lies in IT and mass market is not a welcome one. It sort of implies that the poeple needed to market these new wonder creations are the "IT" companies (do they mean TV, phone and computer companies?). Thats's ok then. No chance of sub standard quality, plastic bodied cheaply produced and soon-to-be-obsolescent little boxes flooding the market and being "upgraded" for fashion or whatever every 6 months. no; no chance of that at all.

That article misses a few vital points.

Firstly, our hearing isn't perfect, nor is it responsive to totally linear response (why some really good "legacy" speakers such as some BBC designs tailor the response to be slightly dropped in the mids);

Then the rooms we listen in aren't capable of allowing full benefit of the "perfect" response even if our hearing can;

Then there's the argument about whether ultimate time alignment is more important than response or vice-versa;

Then there's the assumption that all phase distortion can be ironed out of these (likely) tiddly IT speakers, which call me a cynic, are likely to be designed as TV sound bars or similar.


Add to that for true bass extension AND spl, physics is simple: you need a big box. You cannot get extension and SPL levels to match from little boxes. Even with electrostatics, you need big ones to do the job properly.

No thanks; I'm happy with what my "legacy" speakers manage and don't lay asleep at nigh fretting that the tech is 80 years old.

The points I'll concede are that hifi mass marketing by the large companies are interested in chasing profits more than in producing loudspeakers of true quality, and fashion has been allowed to dictate that to a greater extent. It's mostly the reason why the larger cabinets of the 1970s can still wipe the floor with many modern designs. Fashion and good looks sell; even where something is sonically compromised. God forbid though that "IT companies" should take over the marketing and selling of 'speakers.

[Macca]

Agreed Paul. Unless you want to go down the panel/electrostatic route (and let's face it they are not for everyone) then there is no substitute for big drivers in big boxes. The twin problems with this approach are that women, and in this day and age increasingly 'metrosexual' men don't want big ugly speakers in their living space. This is purely a cultural thing and it would not take much to change this trend and make big speakers cool and desirable; the sponsership of some celebreties, for example. But that seems unlikely to happen.

Over the years we have seen a number of approaches to squeezing a quart into a pint pot, mostly using additional internal drivers to try to get some real bass - KEF and Technics for example. Personally I have never liked this apporach since although it does generate the low frequencies it never sounds like instruments playing, it is just a low bass 'sound'. The best speakers to my mind always directly radiate the sound and do not rely on ports or internal chambers and drivers. But this approach means big and ugly.

It would be great if computers could come riding to the rescue and fix everything with 'Technology'. If it worked I would buy it. I just dont think it will work.

[Reffc]

Agreed Paul. Unless you want to go down the panel/electrostatic route (and let's face it they are not for everyone) then there is no substitute for big drivers in big boxes. The twin problems with this approach are that women, and in this day and age increasingly 'metrosexual' men don't want big ugly speakers in their living space. This is purely a cultural thing and it would not take much to change this trend and make big speakers cool and desirable; the sponsership of some celebreties, for example. But that seems unlikely to happen.

Over the years we have seen a number of approaches to squeezing a quart into a pint pot, mostly using additional internal drivers to try to get some real bass - KEF and Technics for example. Personally I have never liked this apporach since although it does generate the low frequencies it never sounds like instruments playing, it is just a low bass 'sound'. The best speakers to my mind always directly radiate the sound and do not rely on ports or internal chambers and drivers. But this approach means big and ugly.

It would be great if computers could come riding to the rescue and fix everything with 'Technology'. If it worked I would buy it. I just dont think it will work.

I'm with you there, but I also see generalisations on some speaker technologies tarring a whole genre or approach which can be misleading. It stems from mostly fashionable approaches compromising final designs. Ported speakers are a perfect example. It's easy to design a ported speaker with superbly short group delay and without any audible chuffing (I've done it with the Rhapsodys) but because most fashionable stand mounters used choked port designs, they tar a technical genre unfairly. Granted, big sealed boxes offer the ultimate design, but not everyone can accommodate the red telephone box sized cabinets needed for say a 12 inch driver to generate the effortless and true to full scale response needed.

Point is, we will never be able to replicate reality, we can only ever approach a facsimile of the true to life sounds and that ignores he fact that most recordings are born on the mixing desk anyway, so in many ways, achieving loudspeaker perfection is a fools errand. We have to set out what are or are not acceptable compromises and then accept the best quality we can afford, be that for £100 or £10,000.

[Macca]

Yes I agree that ported speakers can work well and it is a question of implementation more than anything. I know people bang on about the 'realistic sound of voices and instruments' but pursuing that goal can result in 'quirky' sounding set-ups that are not accurate to the recording but do sound pleasant and/or 'realistic' to some people. I prefer the approach of attempting to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible as opposed to colouring the sound of the recording to make it seem more like a 'live' performance. That dichotomy alone accounts for most of the arguments in our hobby as to what is the 'best approach'.

[Oddball]

Forgive a newbie interjecting , but is this the reason that we see so many large speakers on the Bay (because the other half wants the ugly feckers gone??)

Today i joined this forum and tried to sort out the bad channel on my amp.
Having swopped the speaker wires fom the amps to the speakers to check , it was obviously a speaker or lead prob.
The front cover came off the 35 yr old Marantz 50 watt spakers to reval all the foam off the woofer and the top tweeter split (most prob my kids )
The cone was dropped and sticking against the framework of the speaker so not working
Now , having looked on e bay there are loads of speakers arent there !!
I have mended both sub woofers with fabric for now befoe I hunt out some cheaper ones locally .

Oh sorry , dont mind me , I am a country boy:)

[YNWaN]

The foam around your drive units hasn't been split by your kids, it has just deteriorated with time and happens to all speakers that use foam roll surrounds - it's a well recognised issue.

[walpurgis]

You carry on Anto, we don't mind. Do you know that replacement foam surrounds are available in many sizes on ebay. I've done many surround replacements, so if you want any tips give me a shout.

[Macca]

If you want big ugly speakers and are prepared to travel to collect the world is your oyster these days. Mostly cheap too since as you say a lot of the time WAF forces sale.

[Oddball]

Oh I dont mind big speakers as long as they look ok. Having repaired the surrounds on the 2 sub woofers yesterday with a fabric ,I discover the one speaker is dodgy anyway.
Time to trawl the Bay for some suitable replacements for now ,unless I find a new sub woofer to replace it.
I did bid on apair of Celestion DL 6's yesterday but let them get away until I had evaluated the now plainly obvious , rubbish repair .
Sorry to interupt gentlemen , carry on :)

[Oddball]

I have the chance of some Ruark speakers . Rather than throw money away on 2 new woofers for my old one , I wondered if this might be the way forward?:scratch:

[Macca]

Which model Ruark? They are all pretty good speakers, mind.

[Oddball]

Rualt Etude

[Oddball]

Actually I have seen a pair of Pioneer S-Z92 speakers not too far from me either . They would do the job for now , but a part of me would like to buy the Ruarks because they will look very nice in the sitting room for my other half to enjoy:D

[walpurgis]

It depends what you're expectations are, but the Pioneers are very much a budget speaker and will limit any improvements you may want to make in the rest of the system. The Ruarks on the other hand may offer another problem. Ruarks tend to be revealing and they may highlight weaknesses elsewhere in the system. That said, I'd go for Ruarks, I've always liked them. If you're on a tight budget, look on eBay for a pair of older Ruark Swordsman speakers, they're rather nice and don't fetch a lot.

[Techno Commander]

The points I'll concede are that hifi mass marketing by the large companies are interested in chasing profits more than in producing loudspeakers of true quality, and fashion has been allowed to dictate that to a greater extent.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBe7-6rw4M

[Techno Commander]

TI suspect Jesus has some Cerwin Vegas with the twin 15 inch bass drivers and spends his time blasting out Queensryche and Cradle of Filth. God always yelling at him to turn it down....

What CVs lack in fidelity, they sure make up with fun. :D