• 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!

Evidence-based Speaker Designs

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I am wondering what the title "Evidence-based... design" means.

Design cannot be based on evidence, but must be based on ideas.

Ideas are 'engines' that enable the creation of new things. Facts are almost dimensionless points in that they don't tell you anything at all about the future or how to create something new. "Evidence based policy" is a road to nowhere.

There may be speakers for which there is evidence that they work subjectively or objectively well. But in what way was their design "based" on that evidence?

If the evidence came after the speaker was built, then the design can't have been based on that evidence. If the speaker was designed based on existing evidence of the performance of a different, but similar, speaker, then the design is really just a copy - and then the question is, what was the basis for the original design?

Or if constant measured "evidence" was used with some sort of dynamic feedback strategy to create the speaker, then it wasn't really designed at all, and might not be scalable or applicable in any other circumstances.

I think that what we might really be looking for is "Philosophically correct speaker designs, with evidential confirmation". This says that the design is based on sound ideas, and that testing - always incomplete - provides assurance that the design is probably good.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,766
Likes
37,624
I am wondering what the title "Evidence-based... design" means.

Design cannot be based on evidence, but must be based on ideas.

Ideas are 'engines' that enable the creation of new things. Facts are almost dimensionless points in that they don't tell you anything at all about the future or how to create something new. "Evidence based policy" is a road to nowhere.

There may be speakers for which there is evidence that they work subjectively or objectively well. But in what way was their design "based" on that evidence?

If the evidence came after the speaker was built, then the design can't have been based on that evidence. If the speaker was designed based on existing evidence of the performance of a different, but similar, speaker, then the design is really just a copy - and then the question is, what was the basis for the original design?

Or if constant measured "evidence" was used with some sort of dynamic feedback strategy to create the speaker, then it wasn't really designed at all, and might not be scalable or applicable in any other circumstances.

I think that what we might really be looking for is "Philosophically correct speaker designs, with evidential confirmation". This says that the design is based on sound ideas, and that testing - always incomplete - provides assurance that the design is probably good.

Splitting hairs aren't we.

I think the idea part would be assumed. Now if you go ahead and design build the speaker on ideas for which you've evidential confirmation, I don't see that evidence based design is hard to grasped the intent being communicated. I think most pointedly the OP intended to convey the evidence was not after the fact, but rather before unlike what many speaker makers do.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,238
Likes
9,371
The OP continues to display his disdain for the KEF LS50. By the way, What Hi-Fi (he also hates them) gave the LS50 5 stars and product of the year in it's category. By comparison, the Kii 3 won only 4 stars with their editors stating: "Sound is easier to admire than love."

https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/kii-audio-three

The Technics SB-700, much to the OP's chagrin won only 2 stars with a litany of faults:

https://www.whathifi.com/technics/sb-c700/review

I don't have a great explanation for this other than to say measurements are a valuable tool for speaker designers, but there are more ways than one to interpret them. As for the Kii, it might show that some things are just a matter of taste.

Anyone who wants to hate the LS50 is welcome to, but it's an uphill battle.
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,098
Likes
7,577
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
Those Technics SB-700 look really nice. They make me want to ditch my DIY plans and go buy a pair when I have the money.

Or at least find a place that sells them and have a listen :)
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,238
Likes
9,371
I heard the wireless version and the impression was just "small speaker".

I never heard the wireless version. John Darko thinks it's fabulous, whatever. There's all kinds of stuff I auditioned over the years and I didn't like in the shop. Many of these speakers had big reputations. Perhaps, if I took it home and gave it more time I might have liked it.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I never heard the wireless version. John Darko thinks it's fabulous, whatever. There's all kinds of stuff I auditioned over the years and I didn't like in the shop. Many of these speakers had big reputations. Perhaps, if I took it home and gave it more time I might have liked it.
It might be that if you play string quartets and girl-and-guitar over them, then they are state-of-the-art for that signal content and at those levels, but then to me they would be almost useless - because I don't play much of that kind of music.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,454
Likes
15,806
Location
Oxfordshire
It might be that if you play string quartets and girl-and-guitar over them, then they are state-of-the-art for that signal content and at those levels, but then to me they would be almost useless - because I don't play much of that kind of music.
I haven’t heard the actives but the first time I heard the originals they were playing a symphony and the sound was so big I had to go over and stick my ear near them to be sure it was them playing.
Massive and powerful I was surprised
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,174
Likes
12,452
Location
London
The OP continues to display his disdain for the KEF LS50. By the way, What Hi-Fi (he also hates them) gave the LS50 5 stars and product of the year in it's category. By comparison, the Kii 3 won only 4 stars with their editors stating: "Sound is easier to admire than love."

https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/kii-audio-three

The Technics SB-700, much to the OP's chagrin won only 2 stars with a litany of faults:

https://www.whathifi.com/technics/sb-c700/review

I don't have a great explanation for this other than to say measurements are a valuable tool for speaker designers, but there are more ways than one to interpret them. As for the Kii, it might show that some things are just a matter of taste.

Anyone who wants to hate the LS50 is welcome to, but it's an uphill battle.
If you enjoy comics, I can recommend ,
https://goo.gl/images/QuVbzp

Keith
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,170
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
Interesting thread.

I do not trust the What-Hifi reviews either

A very interesting graph is Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise

KEF LS50

https://www.soundstage.com/index.ph...nts-kef-ls50-loudspeakers&catid=77&Itemid=153

thd_90db.gif


Better graph:

KEF Reference 3

https://www.soundstage.com/index.ph...-reference-3-loudspeakers&catid=77&Itemid=153

thd_90db.gif



More speaker measurements:

https://www.soundstage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=77&Itemid=153
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,170
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
You can read good reviews about Elac Uni-Fi coaxial, but Elac Uni-Fi Slim FS U5...

https://www.soundstage.com/index.ph...fi-slim-fsu5-loudspeakers&catid=77&Itemid=153

thd_90db.gif


Of course, if you listen to only modern commercial music, badly recorded and wiht low/very low DR...

What is the point of spending money on the stereo sytem if you hear bad or bad recordings? Either you put the speakers wrong, or they are too big for the room or ...
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,157
Location
Singapore
Are there any speakers that aren't designed based on evidence? If you use alleged golden ears to design a piece of audio equipment it is still evidence based, just a different sort of evidence (one that I'd be very sceptical about).
 
OP
Ilkless

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,771
Likes
3,502
Location
Singapore
Are there any speakers that aren't designed based on evidence? If you use alleged golden ears to design a piece of audio equipment it is still evidence based, just a different sort of evidence (one that I'd be very sceptical about).

But it isn't objective, nor controlled and can scarcely be called "evidence". We see this in the dogma that plagues cottage-industry brands like the lot of BBC-style monitor manufacturers - though sometimes as in the case of ATC (if what Keith says about ATC using MiniDSP is true), be the result of an audience that is outright antagonistic against innovation.

edit: to anyone else reading, I've pushed the CBT entry to the main list.
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,157
Location
Singapore
There is a symbiosis between the objective and subjective when it comes to speaker (and headphone) design. The work done by companies like Harman is studying preferences and developing response curves but a lot of the input data is entirely subjective. So to try and remove subjectivism from psycoacoustics and speaker design is incorrect. Going beyond that to studying wave behaviour is a scientific endeavour and a mix of the empirical and analytical but that work can be done based on an existing response curve I think. Or in other words you could develop a sound signature you are aiming for based on your own preference and then develop DSP and room correction tools to deliver that. Conversely you could develop your sound signatures based on all sorts of psycoacoustics research and leave it to the customer to sort out room correction. Both approaches are based on a scientific and analytical approach. Then there is the design of the transducers, casing and electrical hardware which will be based on basic engineering principles. Those aspects sometimes seem to be taken for granted but not all transducers, boxes etc are the same. Which means that when you add all that up all speaker designers will be applying scientific principles and analysis at some point. I think the work done by companies like Harman is great but I think it is a bit narrow to restrict evidence to a few psycoacoustic principles.
 
OP
Ilkless

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,771
Likes
3,502
Location
Singapore
It is clear from Toole's writing that saying "a lot of the input data is entirely subjective" is quite inaccurate. The preference ratings under controlled conditions are moderated by what you might call "wave behaviour", known physiological facts of hearing (such as auditory masking and perception of reflections) and tested human thresholds (an approach that does not substantially differ from a lot of Amir's commentary on measured artifacts in DACs).

Accordingly, there are approaches for optimal "wave behaviour" (controlled directivity) in loudspeaker radiation that cohere with human hearing mechanisms in bounded acoustic spaces. However, methods to achieve controlled directivity vary in a balance between objective properties of deviation from the input signal such as horizontal dispersion, vertical dispersion, non-linear distortion, frequency response linearity and compression for a given set of placement and application requirements. The intention of this thread is to triangulate a variety of designs that, unlike the murky intuition-heavy world of "hifi" at large, to pursue verifiably improved performance in at least some of these properties, while not crippling their loudspeakers with disproportionate compromise (as in the case of the Thiel example cited earlier in the thread).
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,157
Location
Singapore
Analysis of preferences in a group of people is predicated on capturing data on what those preferences are. Preferences are subjective. Analysis of the input data is scientific but it does not alter the fact that the analysis is working with subjective data. That isn't a criticism and I think in some ways the dichotomy between objective and objective is slightly false as there is a symbiosis between the two. The concept of euphonic distortion is well established as is the potential of EQ and DSP to tune sound to a personal preference.

In terms of speaker manufacturers who have done a lot of psychoacoustic research and analytical research then Bose have to be commended yet most audio enthusiasts hate Bose. The world of AV has applied science for years to develop various simulated surround sound effects, reflecting sound etc. Some relatively low cost soundbars are the result of serious analytical work.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,250
Likes
11,556
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Changelog
2/2/19 -
Expanded the Keele/Dayton CBT entry and placed it in the main list.
27/1/19 - Expanded the NHT, Technics SB-C700, KS Digital and Arendal entries. Added the Gradient Audio Finland entry into the main list.
___________________________________--
There is a "State-of-the-art Loudspeakers" thread on this forum already. A slight semantic distinction from that thread and my intention here has to be made from the outset. The focus is not on absolute pinnacle performance from cost-no-object speakers. Instead, I hope to share about more affordable loudspeaker designs and manufacturers that have a demonstrable commitment to releasing evidence-based designs consistent with acoustical physics and psychoacoustics, even if they do not quite reach the levels of unsurpassed excellence often appearing in that other thread. There is a surprising variety of driver configurations and design choices in the list that follows - much more so than proponents of subjective intuition-led audio reproduction often assert when they speak of a "boring" homogeneity/convergence arising from evidence-based audio.

However, the nature of divergence in the loudspeakers I describe here is, in my view, consistent with what one might call a "reasonable pluralism". I will attempt to point out the different priorities of each design and the relative compromises their designers accept. However, what all these designs share is a spirit of progressiveness, advancement and commitment to making rationally-defensible engineering choices - and are most importantly well-priced. From my perspective, it is actually the conventional "hifi" market that is far more homogeneous in its stagnation of design format - think passive flat-baffle "monkey coffins" without any care to match dispersion.

Note: the list is unsorted, work-in-progress (hence the empty entries) and largely stream-of-consciousness for now. If this thread gains traction, I will probably reformat it with a taxonomy based on driver configuration (2-way, 3-way, coaxial etc.) and expand my descriptions. At least one speaker in every listed manufacturer's line has been independently tested to measure well. Special mention has to be given to German magazine Sound and Recording for world-class measurements for several speakers. They deserve all the support we can give for their contributions. You can do so by purchasing a PDF collating measurements of over 80 speakers (mostly active monitors). You can read more about their measurements in this thread.

Neumann - The German studio legend, now under Sennheiser, has a line of active monitors that have impeccable horizontal dispersion (note: refraining from using the more technical term "directivity" in the interests of making this piece accessible). The designs show a clear lineage tracing back to manufacturer Klein+Hummel, which Sennheiser bought over, rebranding their loudspeakers as Neumann products and releasing new designs under the Neumann name. There is existing material on ASR about the importance of at least smooth horizontal dispersion for accurate (and likely preferable) playback from Toole et al.

The Neumanns are perhaps some of the most conventional speakers you will see in this thread. The entire line uses the multi-way non-coaxial driver configuration that dominates audio. However, they use computationally-optimised waveguides (see here for explanation on what a waveguide is, as well as the importance of seamless horizontal dispersion at least) to ensure a seamless transition in dispersion. Tools like computational fluid dynamics have been used to minimise any sort of anomalous movement of air (think port chuffing and baffle diffraction) within the physical limits intrinsic to the size of each speaker. This explains the complex port shapes and seamless baffles (either cast aluminium or polycarbonate) with no edges. Incredibly advanced construction techniques compared to boring old veneered MDF boxes. All their speakers are excellent, but it is the two babies in the line - the KH80DSP and KH120A - that are conspicuous value leaders for their performance level. The KH80DSP is the latest design. It uses a DSP crossover. It has a 4-inch midwoofer, which basically restricts it to very nearfield or desktop use. However, it is perhaps at the absolute limit of loudspeaker engineering for its size. This is a speaker, that when tested independently at a German acoustics lab, achieves a +/-0.6 dB (you read that right) on-axis response out of the box (scroll down for measurements). It is flat to 60Hz and has a -6dB point at 52Hz - great for the size. Distortion is state-of-the-art, which allows maximum SPL to be above 90dB right down to 60Hz. It has linear phase response even at crossover due to the use of FIR filtering. The crossover works in tandem with the waveguide to achieve absolute seamless and uniform horizontal dispersion. It has vertical dispersion as good as possible for a non-coaxial, non-symmetrical driver placement (aided no doubt by tight centre-to-centre spacing made possible with the tiny woofer). All that for $1000 a pair. It is pricey, but (in my reckoning) commensurate with the amount of R&D. Did I mention the hiss (always a complaint against active monitors) of the KH80DSP is not just inaudible in the typical sense of being masked by room noise? No, it was tested at 0dbA/1m - just about the absolute threshold of human hearing acuity under any circumstances. The KH80 upstages its older, larger brother, the KH120A, which is designed similarly (and measures quite similarly), but is "only" +/-1.2dB on-axis, has a bit more vertical lobing due to the larger midbass driver, uses an analog active crossover and doesn't have FIR filtering. Still a very good value as I've outlined. Hopefully a KH120DSP is in the works.

Genelec - A famous name. Much of their product line is like Neumann's. Smooth, seamless low-diffraction enclosures, smooth dispersion for their non-coaxial loudspeaker designs. Neumann is slightly more accurate. Genelec is sold in more places. Here are polar maps of the most common 2-way Genelecs (provided by the company) compared to the Kali LP-6. However, they have released 'The Ones' - comprising the 8331A, 8341A and 8351A in order of size. This uses coaxial driver loaded in a large waveguide, crossed to double oval-shaped woofers that fire out of slots made by the large waveguide and the rest of the cabinet. There is no baffle in the conventional sense to speak of. The entire front of the speaker is a waveguide. Sound and Recording has measured the 8331A and 8351A. At the bottom of this post, I explain the advantages and disadvantages (have edited it from the original for clarity):



Kali - I don't need to introduce them, there is a thread on this forum already. Their story (top designer, blank slate, budget positioning) is well-known, the design well-optimised for its constraints. I have heard reports of both hiss and no hiss. But the acoustic radiation of the speakers is otherwise beyond any reproach for the price and even much more (see my link early in the post about waveguides and dispersion to understand how to read a polar map). There are some minor response anomalies to consider though, like a slightly-depressed treble.

KS Digital - A highly under-the-radar active monitor manufacturer outside of Germany. Their speakers tick a lot of boxes. Coaxial. Sealed. Active DSP with class AB amplifiers. FIR filtering for linear phase at crossover. Aluminium enclosures (with hardwood trim). German-made even. All that for around KEF LS50 passive pricing. Scarcely believable, right? The model I'm referring to, the C5 Reference, uses a 6.5-inch SEAS Prestige coaxial driver imported from Norway. This entry is special, because it is the C5 Reference inspired this thread. Sound and Recording measurements here.

It has some issues but there is, as I wrote, a broader significance to this product:



KSD also has a newer line that load the coaxial tweeter in a rigid waveguide, reminiscent of Presonus and the old Altec coaxials. I have not seen detailed measurements or indeed much information at all about it.

NHT - I think their fairly long history means they should really be in the "usual suspects" section below. However, the brand was in the woods for a short span in the 2000s, before re-emerging with a direct-sale model. They also seem to have a mediocre reputation among pure subjective audiophiles for their ho-hum Chinese OEM provenance, nondescript aesthetic and association with home theatre (all of which do not predict any acoustic property of their speaker design).

Their speakers are highly well-designed across the entire line and (in a welcome departure) sealed. The idea of a well-engineered flat-baffle 3-way is to offer near-seamless dispersion wider than a waveguide speaker. Waveguides narrow dispersion to help achieve a seamless transition between drivers with a large disparity in radiating diameter. The larger driver's dispersion gradually narrows with higher frequency (and shorter wavelength). Sound path length differences between different points of the radiating surface at HF become significant relative to the wavelength of the frequencies in question.

This necessarily entails acoustic interference (due to the addition and subtraction of out-of-phase signals) that accumulate into highly-attenuated SPL at oblique angles compared to on-axis - ie. a narrowing of the net acoustic radiation a.k.a dispersion with increasing frequency. A flat-baffle 3-way with carefully chosen driver diameters splits the difference so the dispersion mismatch is small enough to be almost eliminated (at least on the horizontal plane of the design axis) through optimising driver placement and crossover topology. This is evident in the NHT C3, as well as the Philharmonic BMR.

What of flat-baffle 2-ways? The mismatch in dispersion is very large, and minimising it requires crossing tweeters lower and woofers higher than they'd be comfortable with in virtually all circumstances.

Arendal Sound - Another direct-sale Scandinavian brand, but Arendal hails from Norway instead of Sweden like XTZ. They sell a line of high-SPL speakers, . They provide on-axis and off-axis curves as well as impedance response. Drivers are integrated well with a deep waveguide and good crossover. That sort of waveguide promises narrower dispersion but higher SPL capability (together with what look like beefy woofers), which is good perhaps for rooms with harsh specular early reflections from sidewalls. Unfortunately we don't know what smoothing technique they used for the curve, but the graphs don't seem excessively-smoothed.

Technics - The venerable brand's return to high-performance audio was muted, not least because What Hi-Fi gave a two-star review for their coaxial SB-C700 that has no basis in empirical reality. I will not dignify that site with a direct link on my pose. Stereophile measured them. These are way better designed than the LS50 passive. LS50 has shelved up response (+3dB within the listening window per NRC measurements at Soundstage Network) from 2-5kHz. That's stupidly bright. Its the result of a dispersion mismatch at the crossover frequency - rather ironic because coaxials provide a better basis for smooth-dispersing speakers to be engineered. In contrast, the SB-C700 is totally seamless in dispersion and flat throughout the crossover range. Going by raw driver performance, the Technics is only very slightly behind the Genelec seamless coaxial that covers the midrange up and the KEF Uni-Q. As a complete speaker, the SB-C700 leaves the LS50 (and the other 2-way KEF coaxs without a separate woofer) in the dust. In fact it is to my knowledge, the best implementation of a pure 2-way coaxial, despite using a passive crossover. It extends cleanly (see distortion measurements in the third pic of the first post) right down to its 48Hz tuning frequency, giving up little in bass performance to a non-coaxial midwoofer of similar size.

The "peaks and dips" are mostly artifacts of the normalisation technique as mentioned in the KS Digital entry. Also the midwoofers are much larger (6.5-inch vs 5.25 for LS50), which means more headroom and bass extension. In my opinion their white low-diffraction curved enclosures and flat aluminium honeycomb midwoofer look a damn sight better than the LS50's industrial design too.

Gradient Audio Finland - Read up on Jorma Salmi's contributions to audio engineering, talking about his wide-ranging research publications would be beyond the scope of this thread. Suffice to say he, like Siegfried Linkwitz, was concerned about room-agnostic performance and optimising designs using both in-room measurements and a solid foundation in engineering. To this end, Gradient's top offerings are dedicated to exotic driver configurations that achieve unconventional polar patterns like cardioid, dipole or a mix of both. All their speakers are built in Finland using birch ply. Their entry-level offerings are the Gradient Five standmount and Gradient Six standmount, both of which using SEAS coaxials customised to their specs and passive radiator bass loading. I have no measurements and only an useless subjective report that they did not sound severely coloured in my experience and were enjoyable on and off-axis. Their flagship, the Revolution mixes cardioid (in the midrange below baffle step), dipolar (in the bass) and monopolar (in the treble) radiation. They use dual 12-inch woofers mated to a coaxial acting as MF/HF. The 1997 version of the speaker is exemplary for its era and still good by today's standards. It has been incrementally-revised to keep up with driver and active crossover advances of course. The Revolution now is not that of 1997. The Five and Six use the same coaxial as the current Revolution, except those are used "full-range".

Note that even way back then, the custom coaxial they specced does not have any major on-axis dips below 10kHz, and only one at 16kHz, which is more than can be said for some coaxial drivers today (not that it should be a problem IF it fills in immediately off-axis). The in-room response John Atkinson measured falls within +/-1.3dB at 1/3-octave, one of the best results Atkinson ever measured. Robert E. Greene of The Absolute Sound reports similarly in his own room.

Constant Beamwidth Transducers (Dayton/DB Keele) - There are two CBTs you can buy as manufactured products: the CBT36 kit and the CBT24 kit/complete speaker, both offered by Dayton. The CBT24 is on sale for $1495/pr as of February 2, 2019. For mini-monitor money, you can get a bleeding-edge driver array, albeit limited by driver performance. I would personally love to see someone stick in Vifa TG9s or some other widebander with smoother dispersion and FR. Rick Craig of Selah Audio also does custom CBT work at a much higher price range. The CBT isn't a line array. Despite its looks it is as far as one can get from a line source. The curvature and gradually-decreasing SPL (called "shading") emitted by drivers as one moves up the array come together - as someone described brilliantly on DIYAudio - a "slice" (like an orange) of the wavefront of a perfect point source placed on the ground plane. Project an imaginary line backwards from each driver at the angle at which the driver is pivoted. Do you see the slice of a sphere now? Exceptionally uniform coverage both vertically and horizontally. No floor bounce because the speaker is on the ground plane. Floyd Toole mused that it could be the "perfect" surround loudspeaker due to the uniformity of coverage allowing similar sound over a larger seating area. There is more discussion on another ASR thread.

Note that the CBTs will require subs and ideally DSP to equalise driver response. Don Keele (ex-JBL, designer of the JBL biradials before the CBT array for audio) has an excellent lecture series that examines the properties of CBTs:


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Entries below are work-in-progress>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Danley - Horns, linear phase, point-source. You get the idea.

HEDD - ADAM's co-founder starts a new firm. AMT active monitors, all assembled in Berlin (starting to see a German slant here...). More expensive than ADAMs of a similar design made offshore (T5V and T7V). Unfortunately, the only third-party measurements I could find were from Russian sources with measuring conditions I'm not so sure of. They have a VST plug-in that linearises FR and phase (HEDD Lineariser). They also use ICEPower for amplification. Add-on support for either Ravenna or Dante is available through slot-in modules. Clever I think. Trivial to add a card if either protocol takes off, but one isn't left with a white elephant if it doesn't.

Merovinger - Custom installer from Germany with a DSP coaxial speaker using an air-motion transformer tweeter. I know the Fluid Audio FPX7 does so too, but the DSP for Merovinger seems more extensive. It is used to linearise both phase and FR, as well as time-align. Need to do more research on these. Intriguing.


ME Geithain - Coaxial, cardioid and active. From, you guessed it, Germany.

ABACUS Electronics - Germany again. Active speakers, preamps, power amps and streamers with built-in Acourate functionality.

The usual suspects (residual category for evidence-based brands that seem to be well-known, so I'll get to them last or simply leave this list unelaborated. Lots of information available from a Google search anyway) - Salk, Philharmonic, ELAC, Ascend, Selah, Seaton Sound, PSB, B&O, Revel, JBL (LSR and Synthesis), ADAM, Buchardt Audio, Vanatoo

Get roasted:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/some-well-a-lot-of-worthfull-information-on-speakers
 
OP
Ilkless

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,771
Likes
3,502
Location
Singapore

I don't see a need to get ruffled by wilful anti-intellectualism. I'll like to see them translate the same behaviour to matters of more direct pertinence to personal well-being, like medicine - though I suspect delegating care entirely to homeopathy isn't on the cards even for most of these people.

edit: I'll also note that together with much of intuition/anecdote-based retail hifi, I'd argue such enthusiasts as we see on Audiogon only claim to be in it for the music/aesthetic experience but are concerned instead with social status: to express a narrative of personal discernment that eludes all scrutiny.

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/ajt7re/_/eezivkc
 
Last edited:

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,238
Likes
9,371
The OP has a view which likely fits the saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." He understands some speaker design principles but not others, taking the view that any data regarding listener preference should be discarded. In his view the beloved BBC style monitors are crap because of their intentional frequency response variations. The OP's dogmatic view is not the reality of what people want to listen to.

There are some speakers which come close to his ideal like the Kii 3 and Genelec 8351. However, even those get an occasional tepid review. He would explain those reviewers are idiots. The simpler explanation is mathematical perfection isn't for everyone.

At Audiogon it isn't anti-intellectualism. They are calling a stone a stone.
 
Top Bottom