Are "non-conventional" speaker designs worthwhile, or just gimmicks?

[beeface]

For the sake of this question, let's assume that a conventional speaker has:

• a box or box-ish enclosure
• one tweeter
• one or more woofers
• an analogue crossover or DSP

Basically all the most well regarded speakers on ASR follow this convention (all executed differently, of course), from manufacturers such as Neumann, Genelec, Revel, KEF, Kii

My question is, is there any merit to speakers that stray from this convention? Examples include:

• Magneplanar (e.g. Magnepan)
• ESL (e.g. Martin Logan)
• Open baffle (e.g. Spatial Audio Labs)
• Linkwitz's designs (e.g. LX521)

Can any of these other types of speakers seriously contend with the most well engineered designs from a company like KEF?

 

[RayDunzl]

I like my Martin Logan reQuest ESL hybrids.

Beamy maybe, but they work for the couch, with almost no wall/ceiling/floor reflections.

Crossover at 180Hz, sealed bass, extension to way down there.

Bought in 1998, haven't been speaker shopping since.

Wasn't disappointed upon return from the Audio Show a couple of years ago.

Liked the Big Budget Big Magico's in the Big Room with the Big Amps and Big Subs at the show, but don't have the necessary resources to give them a chance to work as intended.

This picture is not mine.

 

[jeffaegrim]

Reading around here for a while you’ll realise that many members with an excellent technical pedigree have electrostats or horn speakers in their systems. They are well aware of KEF and what constitutes good conventional speaker design, yet themselves opt for a different presentation. There just doesn’t seem to be a one size fits all solution with transducers

 

[mglobe]

I can only speak on the first two, as I’ve not heard the others, but I would say that they are not at all gimmicks. They provide a different listening experience, and excel at certain things that make them enjoyable for many to listen to, myself included. It I had the space and resources for a second system I’d likely buy some sort of open baffle or planar speakers. YMMV

 

[VMAT4]

For the sake of this question, let's assume that a conventional speaker has:

• a box or box-ish enclosure
• one tweeter
• one or more woofers
• an analogue crossover or DSP

Basically all the most well regarded speakers on ASR follow this convention (all executed differently, of course), from manufacturers such as Neumann, Genelec, Revel, KEF, Kii

My question is, is there any merit to speakers that stray from this convention? Examples include:

• Magneplanar (e.g. Magnepan)
• ESL (e.g. Martin Logan)
• Open baffle (e.g. Spatial Audio Labs)
• Linkwitz's designs (e.g. LX521)

Can any of these other types of speakers seriously contend with the most well engineered designs from a company like KEF?

You'll have to find an audio show that features these designs so you may hear and decide for yourself.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Worthwhile gimmicks?

I really like planar speakers myself. Mostly of the ESL variety, but variations on the ribbon are good too.

Plus they look really cool, and you can brag about the size of your woofer. "I have 18 inchers", vs "my woofers are 30x68 inches, of course so are my tweeters."

 

[beeface]

You'll have to find an audio show that features these designs so you may hear and decide for yourself.

I really ought to. I’ll need to find out if there’s any coming up in Sydney

 

[kemmler3D]

Can any of these other types of speakers seriously contend with the most well engineered designs from a company like KEF?

I own some nice KEF speakers, but I think unconventional designs can compete. In general my impression is they make material trade-offs to improve one aspect of the presentation at the expense of another.

The one time I heard magnepans I liked them the most of what was on offer at the show - AXPONA - and now I believe it's because they take the room out of the equation more. Rooms at shows are generally pretty bad. The narrow sweetspot is a virtue in those situations.

Horn speakers (very broadly speaking) trade flatness of FR for dynamic range. Depending on your priority, that trade off may or may not be worth it.

Open baffle speakers trade sharpness of stereo image for envelopment.

Etc.

Not for nothing, the "unconventional" speakers often make design / engineering trade-offs that make them pretty expensive, and therefore less common, too. The LX521 has a ton of power / driver for the woofers, way more than you'd need in a sealed / ported box. Horn speakers have to be physically large. Etc. It's economics as well as technical performance that converges the industry on "monkey coffins".

 

[Keith_W]

The designs you listed are all dipoles. There is a discussion on the merits of dipoles here: Frontal reflections, depth of soundstage, and dipoles

They definitely sound different to normal controlled directivity speakers in a box, however they do have limitations. Most planar speakers (e.g. Magnepan, Quad, Martin-Logan, Sanders) don't go very loud. For that you need dynamic drivers, e.g. Linkwitz LX521.

To be honest, I am sceptical that a good controlled directivity loudspeaker is the ideal loudspeaker. I have heard dipoles and omnis sound very good, when theory says that they should not. The problem is, frontal reflections are supposed to be bad because they smear the direct sound of the loudspeaker. Yet this is exactly what a dipole does. Dipoles do not sound smeared to me if they are well set up (i.e. pulled some distance into the room). That thread I linked to has a nice discussion on the psychoacoustics of reflections and a few ASR members have posted papers.

FWIW I think audio shows are not good demonstrations of the capabilities of a loudspeaker. The rooms are usually far too small, and you rarely get to sit in the sweet spot - which is crucial for planar speakers since the sweet spot is very narrow! You are much better off visiting a hi-fi dealer or trying to find an enthusiast in your area who will let you listen to his system. Loudspeaker placement is always important, but with dipoles this is especially so. It is easy to find a poorly set up system which will prejudice you against dipoles forever, and you typically find these systems in audio shows! Since you are in Sydney you should pop in to SNA and find out if anyone is willing to let you have a listen.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip....To be honest, I am sceptical that a good controlled directivity loudspeaker is the ideal loudspeaker. I have heard dipoles and omnis sound very good, when theory says that they should not.

I wonder about it. I've used mostly dipoles the majority of my adult life. What I wish is I could do a comparison with the 4 way loudspeaker switcher at Harman to see what would tickle my fancy without seeing what I am listening to at a given time. Even if it is one speaker only I would also like to do the same thing with the panel and other speakers in a position more typical of either the right or left channel in the room. The panels interact with the room differently.

 

[Ktacos]

I've tried lots of types of speakers and so far nothing really sounds more correct to me than a simple box speaker with neutral response and good dispersion. I've overall found most other speaker types like open baffle, full range, planar, whatever to not sound correct to me. I find most of the more uncommon designs to showcase the pursuit of one or few metrics and sacrifices are made in other areas that I find troublesome. Some of them are fun for a bit just because they render the music so differently, but it wears off quickly for me and I always go back to my typical two way monitor speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've tried lots of types of speakers and so far nothing really sounds more correct to me than a simple box speaker with neutral response and good dispersion. I've overall found most other speaker types like open baffle, full range, planar, whatever to not sound correct to me. I find most of the more uncommon designs to showcase the pursuit of one or few metrics and sacrifices are made in other areas that I find troublesome. Some of them are fun for a bit just because they render the music so differently, but it wears off quickly for me and I always go back to my typical two way monitor speakers.

Philistine !

Just kidding.......you know they sounded wrong to me until they started sounding oh so right. OTOH, one thing I detested from way before I could afford much in the way of speakers were boomy, obviously boxy bass in speakers. Way back that was the norm. Once you lived with some panels even speakers not so boxy had traces of it and I detested that. Now since everyone who cared started using Thiele-Small parameters and getting that right things are better. Much better.

 

[Duke]

My question is, is there any merit to speakers that stray from this convention? Examples include:

• Magneplanar (e.g. Magnepan)
• ESL (e.g. Martin Logan)
• Open baffle (e.g. Spatial Audio Labs)
• Linkwitz's designs (e.g. LX521)

Can any of these other types of speakers seriously contend with the most well engineered designs from a company like KEF?

One of the things that earns high regard here on ASR is good measured performance on a Klippel NFS system. But consider this: Many of the better multi-directional systems are too large for this to be practical, not to mention that their multi-directional nature is itself a deterring complication (according to my conversation with someone who owns one). So at the moment there is not much opportunity to do apples-to-apples data comparisons between "conventional" monopolar systems and "unconventional" multidirectional systems.

At the risk of oversimplifying, imo a speaker should get two things right: The direct sound, and the reflections. My preference tends towards multidirectional formats because I think they enable two characteristics which contribute to "getting the reflections right": They can minimize the spectral discrepancy between the direct and reflected sounds; and, they can push the strong onset of reflections further back in time with proper set-up.

Of course as with conventional speakers, the devils are in the details.

 

[LesterNZ]

Again, so very much is all about the room!
I've had 2 pairs of Genelec 8050A's for years, and their controlled directivity and ported bass provided "minor complications" in four rooms in two homes. Just as my Spatial M-3T OB's have had placement restrictions in some different ways.

But one thing about dipole OB's or planars, is that in an apartment setting, if you can place them properly, there is NO boom. Hence, no problems with the neighbours a wall thickness away. DSP tweak to the happy listening sweet spot, then just wear ear-buds in the kitchen etc. My three cents.

 

[dshreter]

I think conventional speakers are best at a “they are here” presentation of the music. It’s focused and imaging is mostly between the speakers. Wide directivity and room design can make things more enveloping, but scale is still mostly defined by the speaker layout.

With dipoles you have more of a “you are there” experience. I say “there” very loosely though because that expansiveness is not an attribute of the recording, but a psychoacoustic consequence of how these kinds of speakers interact with a room to produce this effect with any recording. I think it is a compelling alternative but most suitable to music only and less appropriate for home theater.

At least this is what I’ve experienced. I’d love for this comment to be ripped to shreds because that’s how I learn.

 

[StigErik]

Large planars like Magnepan or Martin Logan are line sources from the mid bass and up, and will practically eliminate floor and ceiling reflections. With the right toe-in you can also get rid of the nearest wall reflection. Gimmicks? I don’t think so.

 

[suttondesign]

The Linkwitz 521.4 suffers from being too complicated to be a readily-marketable and understood product. I have met very few people in my life who would understand how to set them up even if they were to buy them from the one company in Germany which makes turnkey systems. And even then, they are so expensive that few persons beyond hard core enthusiasts with money to burn would take the plunge.

Siegfried knew this, which is why he just sold licenses for DIY. I got in early enough that the drivers were not quite so expensive, and I do woodworking as well. But even the DIY proposition is now an expensive project.

So the small coterie of Linkwitz lovers go on, year to year, fixing things occasionally, and trying to remember what the wiring annotations we wrote years ago mean when we have to swap something out or move the system.

I admit to lust for traditional speakers with extremely flat response and simple setup. Above 200hz, they’re gorgeously silky, but the imaging and soundfield of the Linkwitz dipoles always brings me back. I’ve had two pairs of Dutch 8c over the years, but I missed the wide-open feel of the dipoles. I would try genelec 8351b’s with the Linkwitz bass modules just for the heck of it, but my wife vetoed them on looks grounds!

 

[suttondesign]

I think conventional speakers are best at a “they are here” presentation of the music. It’s focused and imaging is mostly between the speakers. Wide directivity and room design can make things more enveloping, but scale is still mostly defined by the speaker layout.

With dipoles you have more of a “you are there” experience. I say “there” very loosely though because that expansiveness is not an attribute of the recording, but a psychoacoustic consequence of how these kinds of speakers interact with a room to produce this effect with any recording. I think it is a compelling alternative but most suitable to music only and less appropriate for home theater.

At least this is what I’ve experienced. I’d love for this comment to be ripped to shreds because that’s how I learn.

yes to this. tv and movie dialog is difficult with dipoles as compared to traditional speakers.

 

[StigErik]

yes to this. tv and movie dialog is difficult with dipoles as compared to traditional speakers.

I can’t agree here. I have a Magnepan 3.6 with two dipole woofer systems as center channel …..

 

[suttondesign]

I can’t agree here. I have a Magnepan 3.6 with two dipole woofer systems as center channel …..

i meant with only stereo. the extra room interaction seems to render dialog that’s down in the mix harder to understand. also, arent the maggies very directional?