What's Left In Speaker Design To Reduce Distortion/Increase Detail Retrieval?

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper:
Would you consider -- in some ways -- the newly-minted SourcePoint10s to qualify as a good design example in the right direction?

Especially considering their price-point.

I'll leave it to others as to what is a "good design" and I have no particular vision for loudspeakers.

But I did enjoy the sound of the Mo-Fi SP10 speakers!

 

[pseudoid]

I'll leave it to others as to what is a "good design" and I have no particular vision for loudspeakers.
But I did enjoy the sound of the Mo-Fi SP10 speakers!

Did your listening to the SP10s gave you any 'feelings' that they had lower distortion and/or more detail (for the sake of design advancements)?
I say 'feelings' because the SP10s have already been extensively tested/reviewed... mostly, in very positive ways [imo].

 

[MattHooper]

Did your listening to the SP10s gave you any 'feelings' that they had lower distortion and/or more detail (for the sake of design advancements)?
I say 'feelings' because the SP10s have already been extensively tested/reviewed... mostly, in very positive ways [imo].

No I didn't note anything that to me suggested any advancement in those areas. The speakers had a certain sonic character, which I described in my subjective report in the SP10 thread. But I didn't hear any properties that seemed more advanced than one can find in any number of other speakers.

 

[RedPanda]

The final challenge: in using solid wood as a speaker enclosure option instead of using MDF/Particle.


I think China is going that route given the fact China HATES MDF/Particle boards.

 

[Axo1989]

The final challenge: in using solid wood as a speaker enclosure option instead of using MDF/Particle.


I think China is going that route given the fact China HATES MDF/Particle boards.

I think you can order March Audio Sointuva in MDF or solid wood versions (and specific timber species). I don't know if sonics are different in those cases but it may be interesting.

 

[IPunchCholla]

The problem with solid would is that it moves. For anything floorstander size, you would need to build it in such a way that it can expand and contract sufficiently, so it doesn’t break itself apart. That makes it hard to make it airtight. I’ve stopped framing with wood here, because our cooling is evaporative, which means indoors it is humid in the summer (inside) and very dry during the winter. Unless you crazy overbuild them (which gets very expensice for larger frames), they tear themselves apart.

That being said, I am planning on using wood (from trees harvested with the urban area of Albuquerque) for the baffle. Right now I’m still planning on MDF for the rest of the cabinet. If I was going to move away from MDF, I would probably consider mild steel, a plastic like Acetal or Vinyl, or aluminum. Any of those are going to be significantly more expensive even than decent wood, though.

 

[Bridges]

This question popped in to my mind simply from some recent experience listening to some speakers at another audiophile's place.

I currently listen to some smaller floor standing speakers with good quality drivers (Joseph Audio Perspective 2 Graphene) and I find there to be a gob-smacking sense of clarity
and detail in to recordings. Along the lines of "how could it get better than this?" (And I've heard lots of other speakers).

Then I go over to my Pal's place and listen to a pair of big ol' Estelon speakers, one of the newer "it" brands in high end audio circles. I forget which new model, but they retail for something like $65K. Now, most of us have had plenty of experiences showing us that money doesn't necessarily buy you any better sound in high end audio. But I have to say, even though the presentation ultimately wasn't to my liking as much as my own system, they just seemed to obviously dig out more sonic information in the recordings. So for instance drums on a track on my system would be well placed in spatial terms, and I can hear if the drums were placed in a reverb. But the Estelon speakers just seem to effortlessly carve out precisely where the drums are in the soundstage and the precise acoustics or added reverb around the drums...and exactly where that reverb "ends" is more vivid and obvious. Basically there is this constant sense of more sonic information, presenting more precision about what is in the recording.

Which had me wondering what accounted for these differences. Better drivers? The more heroic efforts that went in to removing the influence of the Estelon cabinets? The whole design?

Now, that's just accounting for why this question was on my mind. Anyone can simply ignore the above example (it's just my subjective impressions after all) but still get to the issue I'm wondering about:

What is left in terms of speaker design to achieve, in terms of lowering audible distortion and hence retrieving more neutral sonic information from recordings?

(I add "neutral" because of course one can always hype a speaker's high frequency response to increase perceived detail...that's not what I'm talking about).

Are we done? Or is there more to achieve in terms of materials and design (drivers, cabinets etc)? Is a very flat frequency response all there is (since resonances will purportedly show up in frequency response)? Or could we take a speaker that measures very even, yet some upgrade in driver material/design or even more reduction in cabinet resonances may yield even higher sonic performance, retrieving some subtle details that were obscured before?

Where can we go from here?

I think we are pretty much done, most of the mega dollar speakers use old technology,Focal, Wilson, and others, panels and electrostats have not realy improved since the late 70's. I have attended several audio shows here in Europe, I listen to those half million dollar sytems, my usual comments are ya, sounds good. Not quite enough is it?

 

[Bridges]

Active directivity control + multi-channel reflection management.

Basically the Beolab 90 + Dirac Live Active Room Treatment.

Although even the Beolab 90 isn't using state of the art drivers. In theory, you could build something even better with Purifi woofers and KEF "Meta" coaxial drivers.

Keep on dreaming. But yes that would be the best of both worlds, at a price.

 

[gnarly]

I think we are pretty much done, most of the mega dollar speakers use old technology,Focal, Wilson, and others, panels and electrostats have not realy improved since the late 70's. I have attended several audio shows here in Europe, I listen to those half million dollar sytems, my usual comments are ya, sounds good. Not quite enough is it?

I was having the same experience...nothing at any price point was sounding all that much better...certainly not with the $$$$.
But that was with home audio speakers / products.
When I tried some commercial install, made for live-sound speakers amps and processing...i finally heard dynamics at realistic SPL that changed everything for me.
And at prices, although not cheap, reflect that the proaudio world considers gear a tool / not an object of desire.

 

[Bridges]

I was having the same experience...nothing at any price point was sounding all that much better...certainly not with the $$$$.
But that was with home audio speakers / products.
When I tried some commercial install, made for live-sound speakers amps and processing...i finally heard dynamics at realistic SPL that changed everything for me.
And at prices, although not cheap, reflect that the proaudio world considers gear a tool / not an object of desire.

Yes, audiophile specialised engeneers have much to learn from pro audio and even PA specialist. The downside to these very good amplified monitors I am familial with, is that can be fatiging for long term listening.

 

[gnarly]

Yes, audiophile specialised engeneers have much to learn from pro audio and even PA specialist. The downside to these very good amplified monitors I am familial with, is that can be fatiging for long term listening.

I agree with the long term listening experience. Most of my long term is background, like from another room, etc.
Short term can be such a rush i can only take so much...

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, audiophile specialised engeneers have much to learn from pro audio and even PA specialist. The downside to these very good amplified monitors I am familial with, is that can be fatiging for long term listening.

An anecdote comes to mind:

A looong time ago I was reviewing some Hales Transcendence loudspeakers. Paul Hales was a competent designer, knew what he was doing. I loved the speakers for their clarity, richness and they had a particular sense of "bang on" tonality for instruments and voices. I told him so on the phone at one point, but mentioned the only thing I could have asked for was a greater sense of dynamic life and force to the sound. I remember being surprised that he agreed with me: this was something he himself was missing from his commercial loudspeakers and most of the competition. And that he was actually at that point starting to go in to another direction, more pro audio oriented, looking in to horn loading and other pro design areas where sound power is required. Hales folded and he went on to design stuff for super high dynamics in the pro world IIRC.
I always wanted to hear his later stuff, never encountered it.

 

[benanders]

An anecdote comes to mind:

A looong time ago I was reviewing some Hales Transcendence loudspeakers. Paul Hales was a competent designer, knew what he was doing. I loved the speakers for their clarity, richness and they had a particular sense of "bang on" tonality for instruments and voices. I told him so on the phone at one point, but mentioned the only thing I could have asked for was a greater sense of dynamic life and force to the sound. I remember being surprised that he agreed with me: this was something he himself was missing from his commercial loudspeakers and most of the competition. And that he was actually at that point starting to go in to another direction, more pro audio oriented, looking in to horn loading and other pro design areas where sound power is required. Hales folded and he went on to design stuff for super high dynamics in the pro world IIRC.
I always wanted to hear his later stuff, never encountered it.

I think it’ll remain a struggle to tease apart lackluster dynamics based on speakers vs. music recordings / masterings.
I’ve never heard recorded music played before concerts on the PA kit (some of which can be awe-inspiring in sheer capability of energy transfer) and thought “Wow, it sounds like a band’s already on stage.”
Just an anecdotal aside.

 

[gnarly]

I think it’ll remain a struggle to tease apart lackluster dynamics based on speakers vs. music recordings / masterings.
I’ve never heard recorded music played before concerts on the PA kit (some of which can be awe-inspiring in sheer capability of energy transfer) and thought “Wow, it sounds like a band’s already on stage.”
Just an anecdotal aside.

I'll echo that anecdotal assessment.
My take for why live always sounds more dynamic than a recording, no matter how strong the PA is ......is because, well...kinda simply ..live signal is plain more dynamic.
I think very good recordings might have +18dB Peak to average RMS. But that's taken over averaging the entire recording.
I think with live, the peak to average ratio has to be broken down into time frames, not averaged over the entire song/performance.
Average-live-SPL within a song seems to vary more than with recordings, I think...
Which I think makes the whole dynamic range be greater...
Hope that made sense...