• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Are speakers actually already a solved problem?

Well I see that most posters are just ignoring the reality which I can't. So bumping this up - speakers are the real problem as they are so expensive. Nothing has been solved as the price point where it has been solved is still way too high.

That's a rather contrived definition of 'solved'. While we're at it, why not add, 'and they have to be no larger than bookshelf size' too?
 
Well I see that most posters are just ignoring the reality which I can't. So bumping this up - speakers are the real problem as they are so expensive. Nothing has been solved as the price point where it has been solved is still way too high.

Since I acquired my first batch of reference speakers some 15 years ago nothing has really changed. Spend another 10K for LCR and 12K for subs to get the system up to reference levels. So not accounting for depreciation and in today's money, I have north of 50K in speakers. Sure - all problems are solved but then isn't the price sticker the real problem?
I don't think this is quite right. We have speakers that perform much better than in the past at a given price point. Not all do and some of the most expensive disappoint. That is due to not all manufacturers being up to date on speaker design. I also think the very top will always be moderately expensive because of size needed for large rooms high sound levels and low distortion. Even there if chosen carefully you get better for less.

Yet I wouldn't call it a solved problem. It has been moved toward a solution.
 
I'm thinking the question actually being asked is, are loudspeakers a commodity yet? I.e., we can expect satisfactory performance --objective and subjective -- without having to worry about 'brand' or even (beyond a basic level) price?

Of course that's a no. But that's not because we don't know how to make good-sounding speakers.
 
That's a rather contrived definition of 'solved'. While we're at it, why not add, 'and they have to be no larger than bookshelf size' too?
I have not added bookshelf - but while the are at it, the newer designs of more capable (not active) speakers are huge and seem to be getting bigger to "solve" the problems. I wonder if we will see the the revival of old designs that are small yet hit big. Like the Gallo reference 3.1-3.5? I do wonder if the sad replacement for those would have to be active "monitors" that most seem to praise nowadays.
 
I don't think this is quite right. We have speakers that perform much better than in the past at a given price point. Not all do and some of the most expensive disappoint. That is due to not all manufacturers being up to date on speaker design. I also think the very top will always be moderately expensive because of size needed for large rooms high sound levels and low distortion. Even there if chosen carefully you get better for less.

Yet I wouldn't call it a solved problem. It has been moved toward a solution.
Perhaps moving, but very slowly and it's not just about big rooms. SPL and low distortion at 105 dB is still elusively expensive and that's not just for large rooms. Compared to what other HT and audio components have done in the past to move to affordable range, speakers are lagging by a mile... no wait, coupe of miles...
 
I have not added bookshelf

I know. I added it to be on par with demanding that 'solved' also mean 'affordable'.

- but while the are at it, the newer designs of more capable (not active) speakers are huge and seem to be getting bigger to "solve" the problems. I wonder if we will see the the revival of old designs that are small yet hit big. Like the Gallo reference 3.1-3.5? I do wonder if the sad replacement for those would have to be active "monitors" that most seem to praise nowadays.
You can't sidestep the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
I know. I added it to be on par with demanding that it also be affordable.


You can't sidestep the laws of physics.
I guess the point was that in very rare occasions you can. Gallo design and performance was widely praised, but unfortunately never followed. The day when I have to replace them with the active monitors or large bookshelves that have that "boxy" design will be a very sad day and hopefully will not come for years.
 
Last edited:
By starting with an acoustically-pleasant space (whatever that means) and then playing back via loudspeakers which are intended to mimic the original instruments, positioned however the listener sees fit. Perhaps all of those loudspeakers should be attached to CNC arms, so they can be re-aimed/positioned arbitrarily.
True optimisation in that direction would resemble a science experiment, but I suspect the results could be very good.

In this mode, having the acoustic image localise to a loudspeaker isn't a problem. In fact, it's intended: one instrument, one playback speaker.
The imaging, then, should be perfect.

There are few serious attempts at this stuff. Here's one: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/87291
Though I'd suggest that the speakers used will just happen to be approximately the size/radiation pattern of a human voice, rather than chosen specifically for that purpose.


Chris

I was talking about 2-channel audio, so my question was about what you would do to optimize for an “they are here” approach for a regular stereo setup and for ordinary stereo recordings.
 
I was talking about 2-channel audio, so my question was about what you would do to optimize for an “they are here” approach for a regular stereo setup and for ordinary stereo recordings.

I wouldn't.
Just as "you are there" requires surround/height channels to stand a chance of being convincing, "they are here" will have other requirements for the playback system.

IMO, ordinary stereo recordings don't have enough information to reliably pull off "they are here". Dispersion patterns of each instrument etc etc etc. We've covered this ground.

My suggestion, however, would be to consider omnidirectional or speakers with wide directivity to activate your own room more. It's only a first-order approximation which is easy to pick apart, but might be better than nothing. The Beolab 90's beam width control would be useful here, but even that only controls the horizontal plane.


Chris
 
Q: "Are speakers actually already a solved problem?"
A: Yes.

Domestically-acceptable loudspeakers fall laughably short in output compared to real musical instruments.


For goodness sake, we're still waving bits of cardboard around with magnets. There has to be something better than this...


Chris
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
"you are there" requires surround/height channels to stand a chance of being convincing.

I agree with you in principle, though imo Atmos is not the only possible solution.

Ime suitable multidirectional speakers (dipoles, bipoles, etc.) set up properly can do "you are there". Atmos is arguably a multidirectional loudspeaker system paradigm if we're talking about two-channel stereo being upmixed. Likewise multichannel with "tasteful upmixing" (<- Floyd Toole's term) of two-channel program material is arguably a multidirectional system.

The common thread here is, the injection of additional relatively late-onset, spectrally-correct reflection energy into the room's reflection field in a beneficial way. With Atmos and multi-channel the setup is largely done in the processor, whereas with suitable multidirectional speakers achieving a "you are there"-capable setup is much more a matter of loudspeaker positioning.
 
I guess the point was that in very rare occasions you can. Gallo design and performance was widely praised, but unfortunately never followed. The day when I have to replace them with the active monitors or large bookshelves that have that "boxy" design will be a very sad day and hopefully will not come for years.

Sidestep the laws of physics? Amazing!
Can you find me a good set of measurements for these Gallo wonder speakers of which you write?
(Since praise from the audiophile press won't impress me.)


gallo_ref3_1.jpg
 
..


For goodness sake, we're still waving bits of cardboard around with magnets. There has to be something better than this...


Chris
Why do you say that? Verity or irony?
;)
 
Perhaps moving, but very slowly and it's not just about big rooms. SPL and low distortion at 105 dB is still elusively expensive and that's not just for large rooms. Compared to what other HT and audio components have done in the past to move to affordable range, speakers are lagging by a mile... no wait, coupe of miles...
So? Something is lagging and transducers are much more complex physically. They interact between mediums of sound and electrical signals. Defining an electrical signal is very simple compared to sound entering a microphone to create that signal or that signal creating sound at the loudspeaker.
 
I used to read the audio critic webzine back in the day. And at one point he said he refused to review trad speaker designs that he called “monkey coffins” and would only focus on truly innovative stuff.

I always wanted to buy a pair of linkwitz Orion speakers but I think the man behind the company passed away a few years back and I never got the chance to get to California to audition them.
 
Sidestep the laws of physics? Amazing!
Can you find me a good set of measurements for these Gallo wonder speakers of which you write?
(Since praise from the audiophile press won't impress me.)


View attachment 410761
I am not trying to impress you :) And side-stepping the laws of physics was a figure of speech - so called hyperbole. The point was spatially efficient design with high performance.

Given the attitude, not really feeling compelled to share or discuss further. Best of luck in your audio journey.
 
side-stepping the laws of physics was a figure of speech - so called hyperbole.

My understanding is that Anthony Gallo holds a patent on a material and technique for stuffing the inside of a sealed enclosure which results in the enclosure behaving as if it were a significantly larger airspace than it actually is, enabling deeper bass extension than would normally be possible in that size sealed enclosure. So I have no objection to your terminology even if technically the laws of physics are still very much in play, as Gallo's unconventional technology shifts the size/efficiency/bass extension combination in a beneficial way compared to conventional enclosures.
 
My understanding is that Anthony Gallo holds a patent on a material and technique for stuffing the inside of a sealed enclosure which results in the enclosure behaving as if it were a significantly larger airspace than it actually is, enabling deeper bass extension than would normally be possible in that size sealed enclosure.

As far as I can tell, the Gallo speakers have been around long enough for all of the patents to expire.

Even the HDI horns will expire in 10 years.

Home Atmos was launched 10 years ago; iPhone 6 era, so 10 years isn’t too far.

Even Genelec’s concentric driver patent expires in 4 years. The pandemic wasn’t that long ago…
 
My understanding is that Anthony Gallo holds a patent on a material and technique for stuffing the inside of a sealed enclosure which results in the enclosure behaving as if it were a significantly larger airspace than it actually is, enabling deeper bass extension than would normally be possible in that size sealed enclosure. So I have no objection to your terminology even if technically the laws of physics are still very much in play, as Gallo's unconventional technology shifts the size/efficiency/bass extension combination in a beneficial way compared to conventional enclosures.

Making a small box sound surprisingly big isn't new. The Bose Wave Radio was amazing people in that regard already decades ago.

You can also 'get' more bass from a speaker by putting it near a wall, obvs.

But none of that sidesteps any laws of physics. Oddball wrote "in very rare occasions you can" do just that. Figuratively, apparently.
There are always tradeoffs.

I still would like to see how the Gallo speaker I showed -- the 3.1 afaict, which is one Oddball praises -- actually performs by moderm objective metrics.
And what constitutes its 'enclosure'? The structure the two woofers face out from? Or the vertical piece that's attached to?
 

As far as I can tell, the Gallo speakers have been around long enough for all of the patents to expire.

Even the HDI horns will expire in 10 years.

Home Atmos was launched 10 years ago; iPhone 6 era, so 10 years isn’t too far.

Even Genelec’s concentric driver patent expires in 4 years. The pandemic wasn’t that long ago…
Do be aware (I'm sure you are!) that, at least in many industries, patents often end up with de facto extensions -- in my business, we typically make some substantive change in something in the manufacturing process or final formulation (talkin' drugs, here), and the new and improved has a fresh patent estate. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom