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

[StigErik]

i meant with only stereo. the extra room interaction seems to render dialog that’s down in the mix harder to understand.

It helps to kill the front wall reflection, like I do in my room.

 

[suttondesign]

It helps to kill the front wall reflection, like I do in my room.

not if you want to stay married to my wife. i am lucky to get to have the linkwitz in our main living room.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I have come to believe that most "non-conventional" tried at one point in time ,to solve some problems. These are today either solved, or in the process of being solved by "conventional" designs.
The looks of some "non-conventional" designs remains a strong marketing point however.

Peace

 

[Blumlein 88]

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?

Still disagree. One of the best tightest center presentations I've had was using Magnepan 3.3Rs.

 

[GXAlan]

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.

+1

The Magnepans remain my favorite speaker for listening to music as long as it is within the dynamics of the speaker.

I have come to believe that most "non-conventional" tried at one point in time ,to solve some problems. These are today either solved, or in the process of being solved by "conventional" designs.

I think the big challenge is the other way around. Modern speakers are heavily focused on solving the aesthetic issue. Smaller speakers tucked away in corners vs. Magnepans that are restricted in position. Concentric drivers can be thought of as a unconventional design as are cardioid bass designs.

The LRS measured here performed poorly but it shows you how much frequency response irregularity is masked by the benefits of stereo vs. mono listening and the actual in-room presentation. When you get to the premium models, you actually get less frequency response irregularity.

 

[Keith_W]

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.

I agree with your comment. I can't find the reference right now, but I read somewhere that "they are here" means that the soundstage is equal to or smaller than your listening room, which in turn is a function of fewer reflections and earlier reflections. "You are there" means the soundstage is wider and deeper than your listening room, which is a function of more reflections and delayed reflections.

So, as Duke said (and what Duke says is always correct), it's all about direct sound and reflections. Everybody agrees that both should be smooth and flat, but nobody agrees on what the reflections should be like! More reflections? Less reflections? How much delay? This is a bit of a can of worms here on ASR and there have been huge bunfights with threads closed and people given suspensions.

So yeah, pretty much any opinion you have on reflections will be ripped to shreds by someone on ASR.

 

[darakon]

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?

Every Speaker (-Concept) is always a compromise.

The "conventinal" speaker design is a good compromise between production-costs, size and sound.

Unconventinal Designs are often more expensive due to more Material needed (like big horns) or special drivers needed.

An unconventinal design can for sure have some advantages in certain sound-categories (like dynamics, room impression,...) over an conventional design.
But often it has some other drawback like price, size, room-intagration or other sound-caracteristics (like neutrality).

Regards
Matthias

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I've been a "dipole man" for nearly 40 years. I've owned and enjoyed more conventional speakers like JBL, KEF and Tannoy, but I gravitate to Acoustat, Magnepan and Quad, and my own DIY dipoles.

In addition to their freedom from box coloration, and their unique open, airy soundfield, ESLs and planar magnetics have drivers with very low distortion going for them. My own DIY dipoles use conventional drivers and Heil AMTs with very low distortion. It all adds up to an optimum experience for me.

However, as important as room acoustics treatment is with box speakers, it's an even bigger deal with dipoles, so you'd better be ready for a lot of experimentation to make them work their best.

 

[StigErik]

The Magnepans remain my favorite speaker for listening to music as long as it is within the dynamics of the speaker.

Unfortunately you'll hit their limits quite quickly. That's why I've converted mine (5.1 setup based on 3.7 and 3.6) to active crossovers, moved the crossover points higher in frequency, and added large dipole mid-bass systems for each Magnepan, and also a Double Bass Array subwoofer system, essentially making it a 5-way active speaker. Both the Magnepan ribbon tweeter and the planar drivers themselves actually measure very good, although any Magnepan with its original passive crossover doesn't.

 

[Thomas Lutro]

I'd say different, in performance, is never only a gimmick. It may be good engineering, or bad engineering, but not a gimmick.

I've lived very happily with a pair of 'different' speakers, the Gradient Revolution. They're different in that they have a coaxial mid/tweet, waveguiding the tweeter. The mid cab has side vents for a cardioid dispersion down to the 200Hz XO, and a dipole bass module.

Like everything, a set of compromises. What I get is a rather good and even cardioid-like dispersion from 200 to 20k, giving even and low sidewall reflections, and hardly any front wall reflection.

There is a discontinuity in the pattern, but still reasonably even total balance between direct and reflected sound from the mid/tweet and the bass. This will have 'the same amount' of front wall as an omni only in opposite phase. Sidewall reflections from the bass will be very low.

All in all I like them very much, and have for nearly 20 years. The most significant compromise to my mind and ears is a limited extension and SPL/dynamic range in the bass. Two 12" woofers per side in a small baffle dipole is not much at all.

I find the sound well balanced, articulate, and somewhat dry (which may or may not be your tumbler of malt).

My current DIY project aims for cardioid all the way down to XO to corner placed subs at about 80Hz (waveguided tweet, side vented mid, active inverted and delayed rear woofers for cardioid bass). I believe in this, though it's not exactly a cheap way of doing things.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I would not ask if they are worthwhile, I would ask WHEN they are worthwhile.

When they fit the sonic preference of a person, or when they fit the room. For example, I have exactly zero good places where magnepans or similar speakers would work well. The design makes no sense for me, in my current house, with the current decor.

Plus I have cats, and maggies look very fun to climb.

 

[restorer-john]

Plus I have cats, and maggies look very fun to climb.

Compared to another unconventional design loudspeaker, the DCM Timewindow, they are a bit boring. They were giant, perfectly constructed cat scratching poles...

To her credit, a few blasts of pink noise and she stayed away (bless her long departed feline soul) and I quickly sold the TimeWindow 1as to a collector without a cat. I miss her, not the TWs.

Our latest addition (we have two cats now), is a young ragdoll and he just loves to hang out on my lab desk playing with the computer mouse and generally taking up half the space...

 

[suttondesign]

Compared to another unconventional design loudspeaker, the DCM Timewindow, they are a bit boring. They were giant, perfectly constructed cat scratching poles...

To her credit, a few blasts of pink noise and she stayed away (bless her long departed feline soul) and I quickly sold the TimeWindow 1as to a collector without a cat. I miss her, not the TWs.

Our latest addition (we have two cats now), is a young ragdoll and he just loves to hang out on my lab desk playing with the computer mouse and generally taking up half the space...

View attachment 404050

View attachment 404051

Wait. Cats? Australia?

 

[beeface]

Compared to another unconventional design loudspeaker, the DCM Timewindow, they are a bit boring. They were giant, perfectly constructed cat scratching poles...

To her credit, a few blasts of pink noise and she stayed away (bless her long departed feline soul) and I quickly sold the TimeWindow 1as to a collector without a cat. I miss her, not the TWs.

Our latest addition (we have two cats now), is a young ragdoll and he just loves to hang out on my lab desk playing with the computer mouse and generally taking up half the space...

View attachment 404050

View attachment 404051

Handsome fella! I have an 18 year old Ragdoll (as well as a British shorthair and a chihuahua). They’re great cats

 

[restorer-john]

Handsome fella! I have an 18 year old Ragdoll (as well as a British shorthair and a chihuahua). They’re great cats

View attachment 404062

Oh, he's beautiful. How long did your boy take to grow to "full size"?

 

[RayDunzl]

Most planar speakers (e.g. Magnepan, Quad, Martin-Logan, Sanders) don't go very loud.

My reQuests will go louder than I can contiue to listen to, so it's enough.

Apply more power, make more sound.

 

[DanielT]

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?

If the opportunity is given, why not try a well designed dipole or omni? If you haven't tried, you don't know if you like that type of construction. Maybe you like the spread of sound ? Or you think the sound becomes imprecise and "smeared". Likes and tastes and all that.

I know the old speaker model Sonab OA14 , if in full working condition, sell for around $250 (+/-$50). Now I've seen a pair for sale, fully functional for $95.
I have the opportunity to pick them up tomorrow. That IF they are not already sold. Otherwise, I buy them JUST to test how it sounds with four tweeters placed like this together with that placement the bass driver has:

Sonab OA14 has an unconventional design. Not dipole, not "true" omni but well something is it. . If I don't like them, I'll sell them at a later time.

Edit:
I add a little waffle about miscellany with the acoustics. You probably already know it, but since I wrote it anyway:
Plus what your listening room looks like, amount of damping that furniture and carpets etc provide. Imagine an unfurnished room with omnis and the sound bouncing around in there. Direct sound and reflections then compared to conventional speakers you mention, in a normally furnished room. Talk about a big difference then, and in that case omnis are not preferable in my eyes. But who likes listening to music in a completely unfurnished room regardless of speaker type on the other hand?
Possibility to place the speakers, type of music you listen to. Just a few aspects. There are more.
(possibility to EQ the lowest frequencies and so on)

 

[restorer-john]

Sonab OA14 has an unconventional design. Not dipole, not "true" omni but well something is it.

They are around 50 years old...

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Wait. Cats? Australia?

It’s got to be one of these. Do they even have domestic animals in Australia?

 

[Hear Here]

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?

I'd suggest that the most suitable choice of speaker TYPE (box, horn, electrostatic, omni, etc) is largely dictated by the features of the room it will be used in. Preferred music genre is also a significant factor.

In my own room, electrostatics are not good because there is no wall behind them to harvest the back-firing energy and conventional box speakers have never out-performed the horns that suit my room particularly well. I should in theory be using omnis (as the dining and kitchen areas are behind the speakers) but their poor imaging performance has discouraged me from taking that route.

So, your question

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

is unanswerable without taking into account the circumstances under which the speakers will be performing. But yes, there are many gimmick designs that history will show are just that!