What makes this speaker so good?

[HarmonicTHD]

Ok, Tool is a great reference, although not the greatest of objectivist.
He likes omni-directionals, and tone controls. You must admit 64% is not a great majority.
Distortion correlated to SPL and vertical dispersion are probably the most important characteristics to this audiophile, any way. Perhaps more important then the quest for absolute accuracy. You can't have it all unfortunately.

He does not like anything. And I said look up the details than you would have found how small the preference deviation are for the other 36%. You don’t even know the study yet you think you can argue about it.

Besides you missing the point and you probably want to miss the point.

If you find it worthwhile to speculate about differences based on fairytales why even bother coming here.

Trolling? Stir things up? Share what great systems you installed? Great, based on what - ah yeah right. No facts just tales.

I am out. What a waste of time.

 

[Chrispy]

That was my question, why does this absolete cheap cone tweeter sound good. You are correct it may be due to my slopping ceiling. But then what is the point in reviewing a speaker if you don't know the character of the room. There is absolutely no magic involved, that is actually my point. If this old thing is still listenable it shows the lack of progress and the increase in BS in electro-acoustic technology.

Does it, tho? To you perhaps? Subjective reviews of speakers in various rooms is hit and miss,, mostly miss IMO.

 

[Goodman]

The issue is that it doesn't really make sense to speculate about design differences between different speakers until you rule out the more obvious possibilities for the perceived difference, namely that 94dB efficiency is radically higher than most modern speakers (like the Andrew Jones-designed ones you mention), and notably higher efficiency even than many older speakers. If the music you play is not volume-matched - if you are listening to one speaker at higher volume - it can totally change your perception of the sound.

Is it more fun to speculate about design differences? Of course! Is it tedious to have to volume-match? Sure. But the facts are the facts.

Yes, thank you, we have established and informed others that high efficiency can be a quality factor without having to set up a volume matched scientific (or pseudo scientific experiment) which so many here demand.

 

[Goodman]

He does not like anything. And I said look up the details than you would have found how small the preference deviation are for the other 36%. You don’t even know the study yet you think you can argue about it.

Besides you missing the point and you probably want to miss the point.

If you find it worthwhile to speculate about differences based on fairytales why even bother coming here.

Trolling? Stir things up? Share what great systems you installed? Great, based on what - ah yeah right. No facts just tales.

I am out. What a waste of time.

I have read the study.
What fairy-tales are you talking about?
My post was a question not a statement.
Some members have given answers.
Why all the aggression on your part.
I will have to read your posts with great interest to see what great vision you bring to this forum, sounds like they may be above my level. Good day to you Sir.

 

[ahofer]

Yes, thank you, we have established and informed others that high efficiency can be a quality factor without having to set up a volume matched scientific (or pseudo scientific experiment) which so many here demand.

How have you established that, what do you mean by “pseudo-scientific” and tell us about the “Distortion correlated to SPL and vertical dispersion” that you treasure while you "aren't into analytics" and have no measurement ability?

I’m deeply confused by your comments here.

 

[restorer-john]

They are just a cheap 1970s rack system speaker, but if you like them, that's all that matters. Some people like Bose 901s.

I found some internet pics of these Sanyo masterpieces.

High powered woofer:

Enormous magnet structure and superior pressed steel basket:

State of the art tweeter:

No expense spared crossover:

 

[Goodman]

They are just a cheap 1970s rack system speaker, but if you like them, that's all that matters. Some people like Bose 901s.

I found some internet pics of these Sanyo masterpieces.

High powered woofer:
View attachment 258453

Enormous magnet structure and superior pressed steel basket:
View attachment 258455

State of the art tweeter:
View attachment 258457

No expense spared crossover:
View attachment 258459

Unfair comparison with 901's. Knowledgeable audiophiles also praised Fulton FMI's even cheaper built, flimsier stamping, simpler and cheaper crossover. I am no way praising these cheapos, I am asking why not so bad compared to the 2 way wonders of new technology and quality components selling for thousands thanks to great reviews; that's all folks.

 

[Rednaxela]

What is the technical explanation that this 40 year old cheap 2 way [speaker] with inverted suspension 10 inch driver and a phonolic ring tweeter sounds better th[a]n some rather expensive audiophile speakers of the day?

This is the core of your premise. The thing you’ve established and are hoping to find an explanation for. Not any explanation, but a technical one. (Why this limitation by the way?)

Knowns
Speaker A

Unknowns
Speaker B
What ‘sounds better’ means

Were you a researcher I think your peers would tell you that your research question needs some work before you can continue.

HTH!

 

[ahofer]

I am asking why not so bad compared to the 2 way wonders of new technology and quality components selling for thousands thanks to great reviews; that's all folks.

We are often in a world of small differences. But as to why your subjective listening finds a small difference in this case seems impossible to speculate, which is all we can do absent measurements.

 

[Mnyb]

I just bought an old pairs of speakers (mint condition) Otto Sanyo SX401a. What is the technical explanation that this 40 year old cheap 2 way with inverted suspension 10 inch driver and a phonolic ring tweeter sounds better then some rather expensive audiophile speakers of the day? Could it be the light cardboard woofer and the fact that it is 94 db sensitivity Could it be the simple 2 inductors, 2 caps crossover?. Could it be that it just happens to mate well with my electronics? What is the mystery?

Mate well with electronics is not a thing . Room interaction and or personal taste ?
What did you compare with exactly "expensive audiophile speaker" it could be anything there is a lot of bad speakers regardless of price sadly

 

[Mnyb]

They are just a cheap 1970s rack system speaker, but if you like them, that's all that matters. Some people like Bose 901s.

I found some internet pics of these Sanyo masterpieces.

High powered woofer:
View attachment 258453

Enormous magnet structure and superior pressed steel basket:
View attachment 258455

State of the art tweeter:
View attachment 258457

No expense spared crossover:
View attachment 258459

Suggesting someone is pulling our legs just a little bit

 

[tomtoo]

I wish I was equipped




It could be, but take the new Andrew Jones speakers, he chose to implement a design to suit his taste (and market research), of course, with the appropriate measurements to back it up, but regardless, it wont suit everybody's taste either. Will every speaker that measure well sound identical? I don't think so. Planars and electrostatic speakers don't measure well, so why are they making them? are they ignorant? who would measure a phonelic ring tweeter, they are garbage no? domes are the only way to go,yes? Well maybe not.

Without any measurements its all guessing. The FR has not to be bad. And if deviations go in your directions of taste they not have to sound bad to you. Hard to imagine that this are realy neutral sounding speakers, but not hard to imagine that they can make some fun. And to be honest i dont care what kinde of tweeter this is as long it measures well. If a diamond dome measures bad and this phenol tweeter good, i prefer this. There is one at parts express that has a nice FR. And i not see why it should sound bad.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Knowledgeable audiophiles also praised Fulton FMI's even cheaper built, flimsier stamping, simpler and cheaper crossover

Fulton Musical Industries Model 80 & "J-Modular" loudspeakers

In the last issue we published a rather enthusiastic "Quickie" report on a small, $190/pair speaker system from a new company—the FMI Model 80. It was virtually devoid of low end, even as a stereo pair (pairing effectively doubles bass output), and slightly rough as well as a shade soft at the...

www.stereophile.com

A totally unscientific farce ..... with a "subjective response curve", no less! Seems like more of a crude joke. Perhaps that is exactly what it was.

Jim

 

[delta76]

I just bought an old pairs of speakers (mint condition) Otto Sanyo SX401a. What is the technical explanation that this 40 year old cheap 2 way with inverted suspension 10 inch driver and a phonolic ring tweeter sounds better then some rather expensive audiophile speakers of the day? Could it be the light cardboard woofer and the fact that it is 94 db sensitivity Could it be the simple 2 inductors, 2 caps crossover?. Could it be that it just happens to mate well with my electronics? What is the mystery?

- you probably bought it cheap, and that alone would make it sounds better to your ears.
- the modern, expensive audiophile speakers might be tuned to some specific tastes, which are not yours

you are asking why this speaker sounds good to you, and sounds better than some other speakers (again, to you). that's some possible explanation

 

[thewas]

I once had found some cheap export version of large Technics 3-way loudspeaker with very cheap drivers and minimalistic crossover and on the first listen I was surprised that it was more fun to listen to than my state of the art linear Technics SB-10. The reason is usually in the bass which as we know from Toole's research accounts for more than 30% of the perceived sound quality. Those cheapos had a bass boost which worked better with my bass absorbing room, when both equalised to the same bass target of course the better loudspeaker showed its superiority. So like many wrote above, to investigate why one loudspeaker is preferred at least some measurements at the listeners position are needed, even better when there exist also full set of anechoic measurements.

 

[Goodman]

This is the core of your premise. The thing you’ve established and are hoping to find an explanation for. Not any explanation, but a technical one. (Why this limitation by the way?)

Knowns
Speaker A

Unknowns
Speaker B
What ‘sounds better’ means

Were you a researcher I think your peers would tell you that your research question needs some work before you can continue.

HTH!

If I walk into room playing a getto blaster, or transistor radio and a year latter Walk into the same room playing some Focal Speakers, I don't need an degree in engineering from MIT and 100,000 dollars of equipment to tell you which is best.

 

[ahofer]

I once had found some cheap export version of large Technics 3-way loudspeaker with very cheap drivers and minimalistic crossover and on the first listen I was surprised that it was more fun to listen to than my state of the art linear Technics SB-10. The reason is usually in the bass which as we know from Toole's research accounts for more than 30% of the perceived sound quality. Those cheapos had a bass boost which worked better with my bass absorbing room, when both equalised to the same bass target of course the better loudspeaker showed its superiority. So like many wrote above, to investigate why one loudspeaker is preferred at least some measurements at the listeners position are needed, even better when there exist also full set of anechoic measurements.

Wide baffle designs also tend to sound different in the midrange, which could perhaps also be a factor. Again, measurements are key.

 

[Goodman]

I once had found some cheap export version of large Technics 3-way loudspeaker with very cheap drivers and minimalistic crossover and on the first listen I was surprised that it was more fun to listen to than my state of the art linear Technics SB-10. The reason is usually in the bass which as we know from Toole's research accounts for more than 30% of the perceived sound quality. Those cheapos had a bass boost which worked better with my bass absorbing room, when both equalised to the same bass target of course the better loudspeaker showed its superiority. So like many wrote above, to investigate why one loudspeaker is preferred at least some measurements at the listeners position are needed, even better when there exist also full set of anechoic measurements.

I concur with these findings and it is exactly what I was trying to express in my limited English. However it also shows that you need to do a lot to show that the cheapo is inferior by what should be obvious and wide margin.

 

[Jim Taylor]

If I walk into room playing a getto blaster, or transistor radio and a year latter Walk into the same room playing some Focal Speakers, I don't need an degree in engineering from MIT and 100,000 dollars of equipment to tell you which is best.

True. Some degrees of difference are beyond comparison .... such as a firecracker and a nuclear bomb. What relationship does this have to your original question?

However it also shows that you need to do a lot to show that the cheapo is inferior by what should be obvious and wide margin.

You've got that backwards. We're not here to do your work for you. YOU need to show that whatever it is that you espouse, cheapo or expensive, is good, bad or indifferent. That is done by tests and measurements based on science and logic, applied with rigor and discipline. None of those have been forthcoming .... especially not in the Fulton piece you have offered as a comparative base.

This simple diagram explains the scientific method. Notice that the beginning is a question or observation. You've got that part. Now you need to go through the rest of the steps:

research
hypothesis
tests (that's an important one!)
analysis, and then, and only then,
conclusion.

Jim

 

[thewas]

Wide baffle designs also tend to sound different in the midrange, which could perhaps also be a factor. Again, measurements are key.

Sure, in my above example though both were similarly wide, around 40cm as they had 12-13" woofers.