Are speakers actually already a solved problem?

[audio.handyman]

Since the introduction of the CTA-2034 in 2015, scientific speaker design has made significant strides. The availability of more affordable measurement equipment—both hardware and software—for professionals and consumers alike has played a crucial role in this advancement.

Today, manufacturers like KEF, MoFi, Genelec, Neumann, and Kali offer speakers that are nearly perfect for their specific use cases and budgets. These speakers consistently demonstrate:

• Highly linear frequency response
• Excellent directivity
• Inaudible distortion, even at high SPL levels
• Deep bass extension relative to their size

Moreover, most of these companies publish their performance data, providing transparency and showcasing their commitment to honesty with customers.

This leads me to wonder: Are speakers, much like amplifiers and DACs, now a solved problem—even for budget options? If so, what innovations remain to be explored?

I’ve also noticed that the top-performing speakers today are predominantly coaxial. Do you think coaxial designs will eventually replace conventional tweeter-woofer arrays if they continue to prove superior?

I’m essentially thinking out loud here, but it’s an exciting time for music and movie enthusiasts.

Yes, the problem is solved but only from the perspective of whether the systems involved meet or exceed the users needs. If one desires or requires a much higher level of performance lots of compromises need to be eliminated. One should look for a system that integrates with the room better than a bookshelf speaker, or tower that looks like a modern version of the parlor radio of yesteryear, though now in stereo of course. Maybe enclosures should be made of stone or ultra high performance concrete. Maybe we should forget the idea that a linear frequency response is something that a system will deliver at all listening levels, a problem that current DSP cannot correct. For the ultimate in performance, at all listening levels, every source of loss needs to be eliminated, particularly transducer losses. I actually own some of the best speakers attributed to the "manufacturers like..." While excellent and much more advanced than systems of only a few years ago, these aren't without compromise and fall well short of my custom reference system's performance, full range and transparent at all listening levels designed to eliminate compromise, be upgradeable and integrate with the room, rather like headphones for the room.

 

[MAB]

If we take Genelec and Neumann in comparison. They both obviously have the same goal of having a very flat response, but still (and generally speaking), fans of Genelec speakers usually don't like the sound of Neumann speakers as they often seem to find them boring and unengaging, while Neumann fans often think that Genelec speakers have an unnatural bright representation in the upper range.

Fans. Sounds tribal. Also seems like these fans are the victims of the speaker brand they adore. Have the fans not learned EQ? Both of these brands are adaptable to preference. In fact both are predicated on it. I’ve never heard either brand without EQ, except straight out of the box. Maybe one fan base has tin ears, the other cloth. Or one brand’s followers only listen to electronica, and the other symphonic metal.

I am of course being sarcastic, but I can’t take this comment seriously. I like JBL (some models) and read all sorts of similar prattle on the internet about that brand. I also like Yamaha electronics and hear similarly derogatory representations, all of which are trivial to debunk. Speakers are harder to debunk this type of nonsense so I guess these contra-useful characterizations are harder to dispel. It doesn’t make them correct and spreading this around is silly.

 

[Oddball]

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?

Not many reviews with measurements out there. Below is the one I found for 3.5 model, which is improved compared to 3.1, but they do share same basic design so very indicative.

Anthony Gallo Acoustics Reference 3.5 Speakers - HomeTheaterHifi.com

In 2007, I reviewed the Gallo Reference 3.1 speakers along with Gallo’s Reference AV center, A’Diva rears and the Reference SA subwoofer amplifier. I liked them so much I bought the entire system. Recently, Gallo has released the new Reference 3.5 speaker, replacing the venerable Reference 3.1.

hometheaterhifi.com

This review does not have measurements, but talks a bit more about design if interested.

6moons audio reviews: Anthony Gallo Acoustics Reference 3.1 & S.A.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Speakers are NOT a solved problem in that speaker designers and many on ASR will say speaker design involves compromises. Trade offs. No speaker is correct in all ways, and certainly not for all rooms and set up configurations.

Speakers ARE a solved problem in the sense that if I have good data on a speaker (kippel), and I know my room (through measuring multiple speakers in multiple placement locations/seating positions over and over again), I can buy a speaker without auditioning and know what it will sound like in my room, and know how that sound will change if I change speaker position or listening position.

Ok, not easily solved, not compared to DACs, but solved enough for my purposes.

 

[krabapple]

While excellent and much more advanced than systems of only a few years ago, these aren't without compromise and fall well short of my custom reference system's performance, full range and transparent at all listening levels designed to eliminate compromise, be upgradeable and integrate with the room, rather like headphones for the room.

Please describe?