• 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

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
I enjoyed the actual sound of the Devore speaker not *just* how they look
I've not heard the Devore Orangutans, but they look like cardboard shipping cartons covered with fancy wood veneers and placed on funks, squat stands.

As a hobbyist fine woodworker, their looks would be not encourage me to like them.

1212devore.promo_.jpg
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
I know rock music the best, and one of the huge issues with this is that rock music is produced by loud instruments, often highly distorted.
Rock music is "produced" by amplifiers and loudspeakers. I'm sure you have heard an electric guitar played while not plugged in - not a pleasant sound.

Do you know any manufacturer that "voices" their home audio loudspeakers by comparing them to a Marshall stack and a bunch of stage monitors and PA speakers to ensure "accuracy" with respect to live rock?

Snark aside, I still ocassionally listen to my 70's-80's "oldie" rock and pop-rock recordings, but I will never again experience the in-home experiences I had with my pair of custom 16 cubic foot ported speaker systems from Honkers Sound Company in Berkeley with their JBL S8 driver set. (Picture below is a JBL Olympus with same drivers.) Without question, they were the best rock and roll speakers I ever owned. (Here is a LINK to a post about them I made at AudioAsylum.com in 1999 when I was a moderator for three of their forums. It is hard to believe that I have been participating off and on at internet audio forums for 20 years! And that post was made 23 years after I owned the JBL's)

JBL Olympus S8.JPG


And speaking of stage amplifiers, Hank was a McIntosh dealer, and I believe he was involved with the Grateful Dead's "wall of sound" PA system that employed 48 of the 128 pound, 300wpc McIntosh MC2300 stereo power amplifiers.

With respect to the primary subject of this thread - if I were to choose speakers strictly for rock and roll, I would not be worried accuracy and "evidence-based design" but rather I would just go for the classic JBL sound. Perhaps a pair of current production front-ported JBL's - the biggest and baddest I could afford. And then break with the past and drive them with a powerful, lightweight Hypex stereo amplifier...
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
To me the added spatial impression more than compensates for the lower resolution of modest gear.
Fascinating - that correlates with Dr. Toole's finding that mono reveals flaws most readily, and stereo less so. And you are saying that 5.1 multichannel masks flaws even more. Sounds like an opportunity for further research.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
I've not heard the Devore Orangutans, but they look like cardboard shipping cartons covered with fancy wood veneers and placed on funks, squat stands.

As a hobbyist fine woodworker, their looks would be not encourage me to like them.

View attachment 23643

Yup. Aesthetics are subjective.

I love the funky retro-look and having seen them in person the finish and build look fantastic; much higher than the typical speaker. The O/96s routinely receive high grades for looks and finish in reviews and among many who've seen them in person.

But, again, whether they appeal is subjective and I totally get that you see them the way you do.

Me, I feel at odds with many audiophiles who seem to love seeing every bit of technology they can in their set up. Speakers with lots of drivers are a big visual turn off for me, like a number of Paradigm and Revel speakers. Even the Revel Salon2, despite it's superb sound quality, is a visual turn off to me - there is such an industrial look to all those bare drivers facing me, and many audiophiles LOVE seeing the drivers on speakers. Not me.
Visually, the fewer drivers the better, and I always prefer they are covered by speaker grills when possible. (I know that in many cases speakers will come with grills, but the point I'm making is that aeshetically many people seem to enjoy the look of a speaker without grills, viewing all the flashy drivers, whereas I don't).
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
Grills effect the sound quality in a negative way. Even a "sound transparent" fabric does to some degree.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
Yup. Aesthetics are subjective.

I love the funky retro-look and having seen them in person the finish and build look fantastic; much higher than the typical speaker. The O/96s routinely receive high grades for looks and finish in reviews and among many who've seen them in person.

But, again, whether they appeal is subjective and I totally get that you see them the way you do.
They do not appeal to me in their appearance. They are nicely finished and, to me, they conjure up memories of the products of amateurs with good woodworking and finishing skills but not much in the way of aesthetic or acoustic ones. That's my bias.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
Grills effect the sound quality in a negative way. Even a "sound transparent" fabric does to some degree.

Some speakers are designed to sound best with the grill on.

I've preferred the sound of some speakers with the grills on.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
Some speakers are designed to sound best with the grill on.

I've preferred the sound of some speakers with the grills on.
Perhaps tuned in terms of the frequency response, but you don't get away from the diffractions caused by the frame or the fact that the fabric doesn't attenuate evenly. So either way it's not something one would choose for a SOTA speaker design.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
Perhaps tuned in terms of the frequency response, but you don't get away from the diffractions caused by the frame or the fact that the fabric doesn't attenuate evenly. So either way it's not something one would choose for a SOTA speaker design.

That's ok with me. Whatever those diffraction effects may be, they are so subtle I don't seem to notice them, and having the grills on some speakers I've owned didn't seem to hold them back in sounding more than competitive with plenty of newer speakers I auditioned sans grills (e.g Paradigm, Revel, Magico, others). I think that all the other design choices in a speaker overwhealm the effects of a good speaker grill. The Revel Salon 2 I'd expect would sound SOTA grills on or off. Likewise, I have not found "grills on/off" to be a determining factor for being blown away, or not, by a pair of speakers (UNLESS the grills are truly crap and significantly reduce sound quality).

For me the sonic detriment of a speaker with grills (especially those designed w grills in mind) are far outweighed by the aesthetic/psychological effects of not seeing speaker drivers. When I see speaker drivers it's hard for me to forget the sound is coming from those drivers. Once they are covered up, for me a good looking speaker just looks like a piece of furniture not a transducer, and the musicians just "appear"around and between those pieces of "furniture." Helps with the illusion. But, again....that's me....
 

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,893
That's ok with me. Whatever those diffraction effects may be, they are so subtle I don't seem to notice them, and having the grills on some speakers I've owned didn't seem to hold them back in sounding more than competitive with plenty of newer speakers I auditioned sans grills (e.g Paradigm, Revel, Magico, others). I think that all the other design choices in a speaker overwhealm the effects of a good speaker grill. The Revel Salon 2 I'd expect would sound SOTA grills on or off. Likewise, I have not found "grills on/off" to be a determining factor for being blown away, or not, by a pair of speakers (UNLESS the grills are truly crap and significantly reduce sound quality).

For me the sonic detriment of a speaker with grills (especially those designed w grills in mind) are far outweighed by the aesthetic/psychological effects of not seeing speaker drivers. When I see speaker drivers it's hard for me to forget the sound is coming from those drivers. Once they are covered up, for me a good looking speaker just looks like a piece of furniture not a transducer, and the musicians just "appear"around and between those pieces of "furniture." Helps with the illusion. But, again....that's me....

You are right. In well designed loudspeakers the grille can be an audibly "invisible" factor. For many speakers the most serious issue is the grille frame, not the fabric. Integrating the frame to avoid reflections and diffractions costs money. If that has been done, removing the grill could conceivably degrade the performance.

Exposed drivers are often not only unattractive to many, but they send meaningful cues to technically minded listeners - a biasing influence. For some, I suspect that there is a macho factor. But those are personal issues, not generalizations. Some of it is in the imagination.

Taking the discussion one (big) step beyond grilles, having conducted numerous blind stereo listening tests I can say that not seeing the loudspeakers at all can change the perception of the soundstage. So, how about removing the speaker grilles and replacing them with an acoustically transparent, visually opaque screen across the room in front of the loudspeakers. Now that would indicate a truly serious interest in hearing everything in a recording without external distractions.:)
 

Joe9tee

New Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
1
Likes
0
I think this sentiment is largely correct...if one is designing a speaker as a commercial project, then all else equal (roughly), favoring designs with relatively flat frequency response and consistent off axis is a good idea.

I watched the video of Toole's lecture above. He has some excellent arguments for what makes a "good" speaker, including the evidence from the listening tests. But there are some assumptions and matters of opinion he injects into the discussion along the way. (Look at medical research for contrast, researches are careful not to extrapolate the implications of the research beyond what can be reasonably concluded. So if a researcher is testing a cancer drug in vitro they report the results of that experiment. They can't jump to the efficacy of the drug in humans...)

I would be very interested to know what the correlation is between the objective aspects of sound, size, cost, visual design, and sales are!

Some considerations:

- Nobody listens to speakers blinded. You can only draw limited conclusions about a product if you don't test in relatively real-world conditions. Blinded tests cannot be used to fully test phenomena that involve visual elements. Visual input has an effect on sound, and this is not just placebo. (Prove this to yourself by sitting in front of your speakers listening closely, then close your eyes.) I'm pretty confident that visual elements of subjective speaker quality could be ascertained to some level of repeatability. As Toole points out, the effect is so strong that it can't be overcome by the intention of the listener.

- Blinded tests have limited meaning when testing subjective phenomena. For example, if you are testing medication, there will be an objective measurement that will prove efficacy or not. There is no objective way to prove that a person had a better subjective experience (Maybe you could do an MRI). You can only rely on the subjects reported experience. In the case of the blinded speaker tests, the repeatability of the results is a proxy for an objective result. This cannot invalidate a given person's subjective experience in the way a blinded speaker wire test could. The differences in speaker sounds are real, and easily determined.

- The classic "audiophool" objection to AB/X testing is that differences can't be picked up in short term tests. This is indeed a ridiculous objection, when subjective reports of sonic improvement are often superlative, implying a substantiality that should be discernable quickly.

When considering speakers, I don't think you can as confidently extrapolate from short term listening tests. (Harmon may have done long term listening tests, and the results might correlate exactly, I don't know.) I mention this because when evaluating speakers I can usually make a quick determination as to what I like that's close, but I have found that my impression changes over time.

- There's a big element left out of simply asking what makes a speaker "good" which is good for what? Different kinds of music, from different eras, are flattered by different types of speakers. So if someone listens to a wide range of styles, then a relatively neutral speaker might be the best. In my own case, for fun I listen to primarily rock music from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s.

As Toole mentions, studio monitoring deviated from some objective "norm" of quality for most of this time. The most common monitors would be large soffit mounted monitors or wooden boxes with 2 or 3 way systems. The engineers and producers of the time also mixed to the speakers that would be found in the "real world," which were largely wooden boxes! It is my opinion that the rock music of these eras sounds the best on speakers that have these characteristics.

- There is a subtle reason for this, but essentially it goes back to the idea of "transparency." Toole is "old school" and the concept of "hi fi" is rooted in the ability of a playback system to represent the original musical event faithfully. So he talks about an ideal studio monitor being one that would be "transparent" to...what? If you record a violin or voice it's pretty "clear." We know what these sound like, so we can evaluate whether it is being faithfully reproduced. But most modern music exists as an a complete acoustic event only at the output of the studio monitors. So if you wanted to be "accurate" in your playback representation, then your best hope is having similar speakers.

Because this is not a realistic possibility, having relatively neutrally voiced speakers is a good strategy for having a speaker that on average does a good job across a lot of different recordings. But many people have a definite taste, and I think different styles of speakers lend themselves to different styles of music. As a simple example, if you have a speaker that can reproduce acoustic instruments with exquisite accuracy, that speaker will likely sound abrasively bright on recordings that have an excessive amount of high-frequency information in them. Which is a lot of recordings.

- I know rock music the best, and one of the huge issues with this is that rock music is produced by loud instruments, often highly distorted. Reproducing this accurately is not possible unless playback volume approaches a similar level (which is loud as fuck.) Recording engineers and producers work to create mixes that translate well across the playback systems that exist in the real world. But this is an illusion.

Even with rock, because of the need for mixes to translate, it is preferable to have a relatively neutral speaker as a monitor. But that is not because it is "accurate." It's because it gives you a chance to make a reasonably balanced recording that will translate well. I have a sense of how rock music should sound, and it is shockingly hard to get this effect in a well controlled, modern, flat speaker. On playback, a speaker cabinet with resonance helps embody the sound and can create the illusion of "rocking" more convincingly. I think part of this is that when a speaker is turned up enough to resonate the cabinet, that translates as "loud" on a psychoacoustic level.

- Toole also makes a comment that if you have a "good speaker" and the playback "sounds bad" you can be confident that it's a "bad recording." Well, bad recordings are the rule of the day. Some speakers can have a distinct voice that can sort of homogenize recordings, and mask deficiencies. This could be a very desirable quality. It's also the kind of thing that would require more extensive, long term testing, with specific inclusions of bad recordings to figure out what objective characteristics contribute to this.

I believe in science, and am in favor of improving the overall sound experience of the world in general. But when it comes to my personal listening, I have taste, and I hate listening to "accurate" speakers. The Neumann KH120 were so horrific to my ear, that even though I think I could have made them work as studio monitors, there is no reason to subject myself to this sound if I don't have too. I sold those suckers.

At our studio we also have a set of Genelec 8030's with a sub in our main recording room. I'm not sure if these measure well, but this system is strikingly accurate in that sound in recording space is represented in the control room to an uncanny level. These are very easy speakers to work on, they are relatively uncolored, so I can kind of stop worrying as much about what I'm hearing is what I'm getting. They are also pleasant sounding.

But I would never choose such speakers to listen to for fun. They have no discernable character. The sound is boring. The cabinets are so completely damped that you can barely hear them at all. This leads to a kind of "disembodied" sound which is unnerving. My pet theory is that we are just not evolved to hear disembodied sound. Without the sense of a resonant body, there is no "medium" there. We don't hear sounds, we hear things. If the speaker "disappears" what we are left with is often incoherent.

As far as the future of recorded and reproduced "music" is going, the horses are out of the barn. The notion of "hi fi" reproduction is ever less relevant. Producers of pop, rap, EDM mix to target specific playback systems which have no relationship to accuracy.

Music itself has crossed a singularity, in which it is decreasingly the product of muscles making movements, in real time, translating energy into physical mediums. Until we can jack the bitstream directly into the cerebral cortex, the need to translate these bits into acoustic energy will be relevant. Which makes for an interesting world:)
Until I read this, I thought I was going mad. I bought a pair of KH120s after seeing the 270 {100%} five star reviews. I compared them to my twenty year old Linn hifi system in an instant a/b test. It was a night and day difference. When switching to the Neumanns, the whole sound came "into the centre" almost as if it was mono. By comparison the Linn hifi system sound is spread out between the speakers.
Any idea why this would be so?
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
Until I read this, I thought I was going mad. I bought a pair of KH120s after seeing the 270 {100%} five star reviews. I compared them to my twenty year old Linn hifi system in an instant a/b test. It was a night and day difference. When switching to the Neumanns, the whole sound came "into the centre" almost as if it was mono. By comparison the Linn hifi system sound is spread out between the speakers.
Any idea why this would be so?

The simple explanation is probably that it's about "image spread". Reflections can do that to stereo images. I would guess that your old linn speakers probably have a different dispersion pattern than the Nueumanns, and therefore make the stereo image appear wider. Many people like that.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
In terms of applying science and technical expertise to speakers, I really think that the consumer mainstream deserves a lot more recognition. OK, wireless speakers and soundbars such as those sold by Sonos, Samsung, Yamaha, Bose, Apple, JBL etc aren't normally seen as audiophile products (that might actually be a good thing) or taken particularly seriously by many audio enthusiasts but there is a lot of technology in many of these products and in some ways they have been well ahead of traditional hifi in using DSP and EQ tools and applying serious science to speaker design. And the audio performance of some of them is very good, I can very happily listen to music and thoroughly enjoy it when listening to many of these products. Some of the Sonos speakers are excellent and some of the Samsung and Yamaha sound bars superb. Even Bose, I know it is almost like a condition of being an audio enthusiast to be anti-Bose but I find some of their sound bars and wireless speakers actually sound very good (and their noise cancelling headphones mean they deserve far more respect than most audiophiles will ever admit). If we're talking about applying science then in many ways I think the consumer mainstream should be seen as a bit of a leader in some ways.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
4,337
Likes
7,731
In terms of applying science and technical expertise to speakers, I really think that the consumer mainstream deserves a lot more recognition. OK, wireless speakers and soundbars such as those sold by Sonos, Samsung, Yamaha, Bose, Apple, JBL etc aren't normally seen as audiophile products (that might actually be a good thing) or taken particularly seriously by many audio enthusiasts but there is a lot of technology in many of these products and in some ways they have been well ahead of traditional hifi in using DSP and EQ tools and applying serious science to speaker design. And the audio performance of some of them is very good, I can very happily listen to music and thoroughly enjoy it when listening to many of these products. Some of the Sonos speakers are excellent and some of the Samsung and Yamaha sound bars superb. Even Bose, I know it is almost like a condition of being an audio enthusiast to be anti-Bose but I find some of their sound bars and wireless speakers actually sound very good (and their noise cancelling headphones mean they deserve far more respect than most audiophiles will ever admit). If we're talking about applying science then in many ways I think the consumer mainstream should be seen as a bit of a leader in some ways.
Hi

I bought the Sony TOL Headphones after reading the reviews and being an audiophile, suffer from Bose-Automatic-Rejection-Syndrom (BARS):), The Sony WMX 1000 II is good. Its noise cancelling is category leading, superior ro Bose or anything else on the market and it seems to adapt to the environment in a semi-automatic fashion .(You have to push a button for it to analyze the ambient noise) . The Bose to my ears sound more "refined" for the lack of a better word, the Sony bass is a bit blaoted and the mid not as clear as the Bose TOL...I prefer the Bose NC35 sound and may acquire one ..

We tend to go to the extreme of audiophilia but some consumer products are surprisingly "good" ... but not accurate if one starts paying attention For ambiance music duties they do an admirable job.. One of those are the ... Bose Wave Radio or thing whatever it is called these days .. The darn thing fill large room with an impression of "good" sound. Focusing on the sound , one would have to admit that t the midbass is leading the charge where there should be low bass and that there is no highs where there should be .. yet for the average person who just want to sing along .. these do a reasonable fac simile ... No nuance, everything sound the same but for many these are enough ..
Audiophiles will be quick to deride those and I know I just lost my membership to the Platinum Eared Audiophile Society (PEARS) .... :( ... :D . Same for Sonos which I find to sound good too. When you start listening attentively they fail in most areas but present an overall satisfying reproduction for many people. IMO superior to the Bose.
When it comes to TV.. many soundbar will be all that most people need. Especially those with discrete surround speakers and wireless subwoofer, One of those the VIZIO SB36512-F6 5.1 Soundbar Home Speaker on Amazon around $400 is surprisingly good for a Bedroom or even a small Living Room. I have it in my bedroom.. On music not good to my ears... on movies .. rather good but no match for my current 3 JBL LSR 308 upfront 2 in the back and 3 Parts Express cheezewofers ... This less than $2500 HT system does in my room above 110 dB peaks at the listening position and goes down 20 Hz easy.. Measurements to come some time ;)

I am not by any means dismissing serious audiophile efforts but one can be quite surprised how these provide a good level of satisfaction to most people .. Let's drop the prejudices. We are often guilty of that ... :)
Peace
 

Dialectic

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
1,740
Likes
3,096
Location
a fortified compound
In terms of applying science and technical expertise to speakers, I really think that the consumer mainstream deserves a lot more recognition. OK, wireless speakers and soundbars such as those sold by Sonos, Samsung, Yamaha, Bose, Apple, JBL etc aren't normally seen as audiophile products (that might actually be a good thing) or taken particularly seriously by many audio enthusiasts but there is a lot of technology in many of these products and in some ways they have been well ahead of traditional hifi in using DSP and EQ tools and applying serious science to speaker design. And the audio performance of some of them is very good, I can very happily listen to music and thoroughly enjoy it when listening to many of these products. Some of the Sonos speakers are excellent and some of the Samsung and Yamaha sound bars superb. Even Bose, I know it is almost like a condition of being an audio enthusiast to be anti-Bose but I find some of their sound bars and wireless speakers actually sound very good (and their noise cancelling headphones mean they deserve far more respect than most audiophiles will ever admit). If we're talking about applying science then in many ways I think the consumer mainstream should be seen as a bit of a leader in some ways.
I think that, for a number of years now, there has been a great deal of sophistication in laptop speakers/amplification. I'm listening to my 2006 Dell laptop speakers now as I watch a Formula 1 race while doing some work around the house. The race sounds fine from these perhaps 3/4" by 2" speakers. No, the sound from the Dell laptop speakers is not particularly involving or high-fidelity, but it certainly is adequate for the high-pitched whine of today's underpowered F1 cars and the high-pitched whine of Martin Brundle.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
4,337
Likes
7,731
The sound from the iPads is impressive.. Not Hi-Fi but conveys what is in there ...
OTOH some SONOS, VIsio, Samsung speakers sound better than many audiophile speakers. I heard one of those full range speaker once and to this day I can't understand how someone would mistake these for High Fidelity . The only thing that came our was midrange, men voices sounded so wrong and female voices sounded like those of young kids ... one famous full range name in a long box and driven by a flea powered SET something like 8 wpc.. :rolleyes:
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
The sound from the iPads is impressive.. Not Hi-Fi but conveys what is in there ...
OTOH some SONOS, VIsio, Samsung speakers sound better than many audiophile speakers. I heard one of those full range speaker once and to this day I can't understand how someone would mistake these for High Fidelity . The only thing that came our was midrange, men voices sounded so wrong and female voices sounded like those of young kids ... one famous full range name in a long box and driven by a flea powered SET something like 8 wpc.. :rolleyes:
From the iPads specifically, yeah. I would really like to know how they're built.
 
OP
Ilkless

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,437
Location
Singapore
In terms of applying science and technical expertise to speakers, I really think that the consumer mainstream deserves a lot more recognition. OK, wireless speakers and soundbars such as those sold by Sonos, Samsung, Yamaha, Bose, Apple, JBL etc aren't normally seen as audiophile products (that might actually be a good thing) or taken particularly seriously by many audio enthusiasts but there is a lot of technology in many of these products and in some ways they have been well ahead of traditional hifi in using DSP and EQ tools and applying serious science to speaker design. And the audio performance of some of them is very good, I can very happily listen to music and thoroughly enjoy it when listening to many of these products. Some of the Sonos speakers are excellent and some of the Samsung and Yamaha sound bars superb. Even Bose, I know it is almost like a condition of being an audio enthusiast to be anti-Bose but I find some of their sound bars and wireless speakers actually sound very good (and their noise cancelling headphones mean they deserve far more respect than most audiophiles will ever admit). If we're talking about applying science then in many ways I think the consumer mainstream should be seen as a bit of a leader in some ways.

Definitely. Look at the spinorama measurements of the Apple Homepod from Sausalito, an audio engineering consultancy:

1564975809830.png


(Data anechoic down to 500Hz)

It is an absolutely tiny speaker with a beamforming omni array that uses a multiple-entry waveguide and an underhung woofer. Plus it is packed with circuits that integrate it to Apple's ecosystem. Look at that DI.

There is an absolutely unfathomable amount of R&D in this speaker to both overcome the severe constraints of its form factor and exhibit unique properties for any speaker (relatively high linearity on and off-axis over a wide coverage angle). The economies of scale to manufacture it cost-effectively are immense. Wilson and Devore need not compare.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom