• 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!

What makes this speaker so good?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
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.
 
Last edited:

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
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.
 
OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
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.
 
OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
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.
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
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:
1674197978145.png


Enormous magnet structure and superior pressed steel basket:
1674198115319.png


State of the art tweeter:
1674198153375.png


No expense spared crossover:
1674198208266.png
 
OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 30, 2022
Messages
2,051
Likes
2,673
Location
NL
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,638
Likes
3,594
Location
Sweden, Västerås
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
 
Last edited:

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,638
Likes
3,594
Location
Sweden, Västerås
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
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.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21219

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


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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

delta76

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 27, 2021
Messages
1,613
Likes
2,452
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

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,739
Likes
16,166
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.
 
OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
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.
 
OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
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.
 
D

Deleted member 21219

Guest
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.

260px-The_Scientific_Method.svg.png


Jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,739
Likes
16,166
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom