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

[kemmler3D]

accept lowering the importance of aesthetics.

Aesthetic requirements should be considered as fixed... the output of a WAF evaluation is typically binary... but a little grille can go a long way in these situations.

 

[youngho]

I've made up close recordings of individual musicians in a group. Played back with one speaker per musician and speakers placed where they were live it is very high quality they are here result. Yes, people say directionality of a speaker and instruments are very different etc etc. Yes true. But a single real audio source with no phantoms for each musician with speakers arranged similarly is enough to get you a big step toward sounding real. Sounding like they are right here in whatever room you set up this kind of playback.

I think you've seen this reference before: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/1351-010X.18.3-4.349

 

[IPunchCholla]

I can’t speak for others. I listen to a broad range of music, and yes I do want to have the sensation that I am present at the performance. Yes I know that for some genres the recording can be a mix, the single version of Silver Machine by Hawlkind had Lemmy‘s vocals instead of the original ones, because his voice worked better.

Of course there is an illusion, and I tend to avoid recordings where the illusion is poor. I certainly can have the illusion of being there with jazz, classical, folk, rock, and other genres.

Sure. Me too, though I would say, in the music I make, I like to establish the illusion and then play with it. But that is the point., it is mostly an illusion created in the post process. One of my favorite examples of this is the From the Basement videos by Radiohead. They did much of In Rainbows and King of Limbs “live“ in the studio. But the mix presents a different spatial arrangement than what we can see of the performers.

When I am listening to music and other people are around, no one comments on the sound quality of the reproduction, much less any illusory aspects of being there. The people that care about these things, like posters at ASR are a tiny niche of a small niche.

 

[youngho]

The obstacles to fit for purpose loudspeaker blind AB testing are insurmountable. You can cut corners and do a shuffler or an anechoic recording and have listeners compare that with headphones.

Another potential approach could be electroacoustic simulation or sound field reproduction: https://users.aalto.fi/~ktlokki/Publs/JASMAN_vol_146_iss_5_3562_1.pdf. This sort of approach has led to some interesting research when it comes to concert hall acoustics (https://users.aalto.fi/~ktlokki/Publs/JASMAN_vol_140_iss_1_551_1.pdf), since AB comparisons of concert halls would be several orders of magnitude in terms of difficulty otherwise.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, you retroactively tried to cover by posting this long after I pointed out the folly of your original post AND the thread title itself, spelling out clearly the audiophile concoction of "detail retrieval" IS a speaker issue, not a:

LOL. Of course you yet again avoid answering a salient question (because you can't, without ceding my argument). And you continue to avoid the fact my thread title and OP is an open question, not an argument (hence your incorrect characterisation of "begging the question.)"

So now....my acknowledging the problems of sighted listening (and knowledge of Toole, Klippel etc) is just "retroactive cover" in this thread, like I was never aware of it before you leapt in to raise the issue and educate me?

Put your scientific thinking cap on for a moment...

What do you think the probability is that someone (me) with over 5,000 posts on ASR hasn't encountered information about Toole's work, Klippel measurement techniques, the problems of sighted bias...and all the things you argue I'm ignorant of?

Be like a scientist. Think carefully about the odds of that.

If you really think I'm a naive subjectivist who suddenly changed my tune to cover my butt AFTER you arrived here ....wanna make a bet which way this goes?

Me discussing the strengths of an objective/science oriented approach to audio, and the problems with subjectivism:

Synergistic Research apparently at "war" against Gene from Audioholics

Anybody can pretty much get a patent in the US if he/she has enough money to hire the right lawyer. An example is Eddie Van Halen. He wanted one and he got one. (Image source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/48/3e/7c/300417d86ab10a/US4656917-drawings-page-2.png)

www.audiosciencereview.com

Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

The psychological effect of a product is an important one that we tend to play down on ASR in favour of a purely objective analysis of enjoyment. If you pay more for a piece of audio gear, and it’s aesthetically attractive and well-built, you may inevitably spend more time with it and use it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Me explaining the tricky problems of sighted bias, and arguing for the relevance of blind testing for audio claims (as I have countless times), on another forum:

High end power cords do make a difference!

A number of years ago, I was given several highly lauded high end AC cables to test in my system, ranging as I remember from $500 to about $3,000...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

High end power cords do make a difference!

Now there’s a credible response. Didn't warrant more.

forums.stevehoffman.tv

So, FrankW, now that you have yet more evidence that I'm fully aware of the strength of a scientific approach, and the liabilities of sighted listening in terms of getting at reliable information about audio gear....are you ready to update your mistaken inference I'm the naive subjectivist you keep suggesting I was?

And acknowledge that I would have made my OP comments in the context of being fully aware of sighted listening liabilities (and in the context that most on ASR understood caveats)? And why I said the anecdote could be ignored for the subject of the thread?

Or are you just incapable of incorporating information that goes against your first impressions? (The essence of biased thinking).

It's you against your inner scientist, FrankW. Who's gonna win? Another cherry-picking snark post...or an admission that maybe you got this one wrong? ;-)

Your fellow Canadian gets it eh? Summarized your OP nicely here
It's ok Matt, some people will just never get that "Subjective" isn't what they think it means.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It's almost a super power.

 

[MattHooper]

I've had success in substantially increasing the detail and clarity in DIY speakers vs any commercial speakers I've yet to hear,
pursuing the following set of objectives in no particular order...

*An acoustic design that minimizes center-to-center spacing between drivers that share a common frequency range.
Goal is to stay within 1/4 WL throughout all summation ranges.
*Strive towards point source.
*A flat frequency magnitude response on-axis (quasi-anechoic). (Any house-curve preference applied afterwards.)
*Polar responses that reflect smooth pattern control of the on-axis flat response,.
*Constant directivity pattern control.
*Maintain that pattern control as low in frequency as possible. Goal is down to Schroeder.
*Linear SPL throughout the spectrum, including headroom for peaks, at desired maximum average SPL.
*Match driver sections' linear SPL capabilities, all staying easily within Xmax
*Sufficient subwoofer and low-mid sections displacements to maintain that SPL linearity, preferring cone area (Sd) over excursion (Xmax)
*Minimize modulation distortion of higher SPL by increasing the number of 'ways' employed.
*Each driver section individually amped and DSP processed.
*Flat phase response to reduce phase rotation and eliminate group delay apart from the bottom end rolloff.
*Delays between driver sections that equal, and only equal, the Z-axis distances between acoustic centers.
*Minimize lobing potential between driver sections via steep complementary linear phase crossovers.

Ok, maybe just a lot of technobabble for most I imagine.

But my hopeful point is this....if a numbnuts amatuer DIY speaker builder like me, has learned things that really do improve detail & clarity,
.....many/some of which are missing from the vast majority of commercial offerings.....
how is it possible there are not many speaker improvements still lying on the table?

Maybe a rebuttal is: "you just think you are hearing improvements because you are so invested into DIY."..
Good point...I wonder it myself at times.
But two things give me solace. First, I still have some highly regarded commercial stuff to compare to, along with listening to other folks'/stores'/shows' systems.
And second, probably 90% of things I try go nowhere...I fail at improving a LOT. Keeps the egoic investment down....

Good headphones are the only thing I've heard with greater clarity and detail than latest DIY speaker build.
But they of course can't begin to provide the sound of powerful bass and bass transients, that speakers can. The visceral experience.


Oh, a few suggestions for evaluating clarity and detail.
If your speakers and amps are up to it, take one side of the stereo outdoors and listen without the room. Bass output might be weak, but it can still be quite ear opening how much clarity usually improves. Back to the almighty importance of a room, huh

Another room test...put on sealed back headphones and listen to tracks playing through the speaker(s), but with a measurement mic providing the signal to the phones.
Shows the drastic amount of brain/ear processing vs what a mic measures.

Last, if you can do the setup outdoors, make a recording of a song played through the speaker. Play that recording, and while evaluating the difference vs original, record the recording. Play the 2nd recording, repeating the process. See how many recordings survive listenability. Typically only one or two.
(credit for both tests to posts by TD of DSL)

Holy cow! Great contribution, thanks! I'd love to hear your system!

 

[MattHooper]

No "blindfolds" are needed in 99.9% of "blind" testing. A scrim in front of both band and speakers simultaneously would suffice. But you've missed the point entirely.
It was possible to create something (JJs demo, which BTW, there is a new one that can be visited) that sounded very very real to 2 audiophiles (no lack of "details retrieval", in fact "details out the wazoo") who would (via Stereophile positions) have heard every magic material "$65k" "detail retrieving" type speakers on earth at the time, far more "real" than any of that nonsense, with rather pedestrian speakers. Using what would be (to audiophiles), vastly inferior cabinets, drivers, materials, etc, with highly likely more "distortions" than todays magic drivers, materials etc, etc.
How would one with such beliefs (99% of all audio forum posters?) reconcile this?

J_Js method was quite something. A shame it was not allowed to develop commercially. It also was pretty simple.

Agreed, JJ's stuff was/is fascinating (I followed him off and on since our days back on the Audio Usenet forums and it's great to see he still posts here).

However, the JJ anecdote about someone finding the sound to be "realistic" in character does not speak directly to the question in this thread regarding whether we are able to accurately, audibly transpose all the sonic information in a recording to sound via current speaker systems.

Sonic convincingness and apparent realism are separable from accuracy. In my business of sound design we manipulate - which includes distorting - sound all the time to sound "more real" than it would if it had been left unaltered. The JJ demo may have been sonically compelling, but that in itself doesn't tell us the speaker system was retrieving all possible information from the recording.

 

[FrankW]

And acknowledge that I would have made my OP comments in the context of being fully aware of sighted listening liabilities

That's what you're claiming now, but fully ignoring all other controls, volume/level, room/modes, concocted audiophile lingo terms derived from "I heard it", etc.
Nor any cognizance that you have zero clue what's "in the recording", to "retrieve", other than what you imagine from your transductions. In different rooms. With different speakers, With....Caught in the Circle of Confusion.

Or are you just incapable of incorporating information that goes against your first impressions? (The essence of biased thinking).

I used many references with exact same theme
1+1=....

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

As Danny taught you, its that "flat earther" thing that makes me oblivious. Nice edit Btw

 

[FrankW]

However, the JJ anecdote about someone finding the sound to be "realistic" in character

There were 2 "someones", one is till a current member here

does not speak directly to the question in this thread regarding whether we are able to accurately, audibly transpose all the sonic information in a recording to sound via current speaker systems.
Sonic convincingness and apparent realism are separable from accuracy. In my business of sound design we manipulate - which includes distorting - sound all the time to sound "more real" than it would if it had been left unaltered. The JJ demo may have been sonically compelling, but that in itself doesn't tell us the speaker system was retrieving all possible information from the recording.

LOL

 

[Blumlein 88]

Agreed, JJ's stuff was/is fascinating (I followed him off and on since our days back on the Audio Usenet forums and it's great to see he still posts here).

However, the JJ anecdote about someone finding the sound to be "realistic" in character does not speak directly to the question in this thread regarding whether we are able to accurately, audibly transpose all the sonic information in a recording to sound via current speaker systems.

Sonic convincingness and apparent realism are separable from accuracy. In my business of sound design we manipulate - which includes distorting - sound all the time to sound "more real" than it would if it had been left unaltered. The JJ demo may have been sonically compelling, but that in itself doesn't tell us the speaker system was retrieving all possible information from the recording.

J-J's system was meant to somewhat recreate the soundfield around the listener's head. Soundfield reconstruction. It used microphones in a way it could pick up some important cues missed by conventional miking. And then upon playback with some simple math of combining the signals do a better job recreating the soundfield of the microphone rig around the LP. It used as I recall, 7 channels around and one up and one down microphone. Spacing was something on the order of 1 meter diameter I think.

 

[kemmler3D]

Lol

I'll send this latest DIY(white) , or its predecessor (blue) along with the DSP processor that runs their design, along with the needed amp rack.
Easy peasy to send along to Amir, huh?
View attachment 288376View attachment 288380View attachment 288377View attachment 288378

The processor and amp rack are set up for simultaneous speaker setups for A/B testing of other DIYs and commercials.
Of course doesn't need to be so complicated. Could all be put into some plate amps. So kinda ignore them, other than they are essential for my work.


BUT, pls don't ignore the large speaker....that's what I've found it takes to satisfy the acoustic design goals i listed
And I guess this is the real rub....since when will home audio embrace such large horn speakers?
Aesthetics appear to rank higher in home audio than sound. (not at all meaning to downplay realworld room constraints)

I guess in reality, the biggest single design factor i can think of for home audio to be able to increase detail and clarity, is to accept lowering the importance of aesthetics.
Like the new Genelec kinda did...big step forward for SQ I think...

BTW did I see your system on display at burning amp last year? If so, it sounded great but I remember thinking maybe cinderblock classrooms aren't the most favorable place to demo high-end speakers

 

[MattHooper]

It's you against your inner scientist, FrankW. Who's gonna win? Another cherry-picking snark post...or an admission that maybe you got this one wrong? ;-)

Who woulda guessed you'd double down?

That's what you're claiming now, but fully ignoring all other controls, volume/level, room/modes, concocted audiophile lingo terms derived from "I heard it", etc.

Sure Frank. I have done blind testing, and have literally just shown you posts where I argue for the relevance of controlling variables (including matching volume) when we want reliable information on audio gear...but...yeah...I'm ignorant of the effects of volume, room/modes on perceived sound. Oh, and I've never heard of Toole's Circle Of Confusion. That must be it. That's really the most logical inference. Again...your bias is bludgeoning your inner scientist.

Nor any cognizance that you have zero clue what's "in the recording", to "retrieve", other than what you imagine from your transductions. In different rooms. With different speakers, With....Caught in the Circle of Confusion.

Posting the Circle Of Confusion again doesn't obviate the relevance of my questions.
.
I have not staked the question of whether speakers can fully resolve all the sonic information of a recording on the subjective impressions of golden eared subjectivists.
(Which...for the umpteenth time...is why I said the question wasn't tied to my sighted subjective impressions). Nor on some unawareness of The Circle Of Confusion
I have raised it simply as an open question. Which means we can include why there can be difficulties answering the question.

The Circle Of Confusion points to *certain existing problems* in answering the question of accuracy but...and this should be obvious!...it doesn't entail the question of speaker distortion is irrelevant!!!!

Floyd Toole's work and views on loudspeakers doesn't speak only to sonic preferences, but also to idea of accuracy!

What do you think The Circle Of Confusion is about in the first place? Floyd Toole raises the Circle Of Confusion as a reason for adopting standards in music production!! (e.g. monitor/room calibration) as well as suggesting this could in principle be adopted in home systems. Why does he suggest this? Because it's one way to move towards maintaining accuracy in reproducing the recording from production to reproduction - including the reduction of speaker colorations that would distort the recorded signal. Right? Get it? (Similar to how we can have our home theater displays calibrated to more closely match that of the monitors used for content creation). So that is at least one concept of moving further or closer to "accuracy." Throwing up your hands like "how can we discuss speakers distorting the musical signal 'cause Circle Of Confusion?" - doesn't make my question moot: speakers remain implicated in the possibility of distorting or losing sonic information in a recording, as Floyd Toole himself has told you!

On this forum we've gone over the concept of "accuracy" ad nauseam. "Accurate to what?" Well, you have to state what you mean to help clarify any particular use of the term.

A "recording" is the "record" of all sorts of sonic information encoded in that recording - timbre, dynamics, the balance of various frequencies representing any particular voice or instrument, etc.

I have attached the term "accurate" as a modifier to the concept of "detail/information retrieval" of recorded information. As I've said, this is because it's possible to exaggerate, hence distort, the relationship of the details in a recording by, for instance, having frequency non-linearities in the reproduction. So for instance in a recording of a woman's voice there is information encoding the frequency balance of that particular recording. One recording may have used a mic/technique that exaggerated the balance of the frequencies somewhere between, say, 5k to 8k, resulting in sharp, artificial sounding exaggeration of vocal sibilance. Another recording may have recorded a much more "natural" balance of the frequencies in the sibilance range. Those relationships are recorded....in a recording! If you have a speaker that changes those sonic relationships by a distortion of one type or another (e.g. frequency response dips or peaks), then it may be obscuring or exaggerating details about the recording. You are hearing details but not "accurate reproduction" of the detail. And "accurate reproduction" of the recorded detail is what I'm talking about. Is this concept really that hard to understand?

I don't know, maybe for you it is hard to understand, which is why you have avoided answering the question of what it is you think we are trying to reproduce in recordings in the first place, and how the various efforts of reducing speaker distortion speak to this goal.

There's always going to some level of gray areas and fuzziness on these subjects. But the fact is we have recordings that have encoded sonic information, and we can ask what steps make sense in reproducing that sonic information in regards to speakers - which will involve the various (already known, possibly currently unknown) ways speakers can distort the sound. And if you think questions like these are beyond cogent inquiry ("circle of confusion!") you sure aren't thinking like a scientist.

I used many references with exact same theme
1+1=....

Yeah, in which you make the same cherry-picked inaccurate inferences as you have in this thread.

I acknowledged my impressions could be due to sighted bias, raising the speaker drivers in height etc and we discussed all sorts of variables that could account for what I perceived. But I also mentioned that I had measured differences in vibration isolation using springs. And I provided measurements screen shots showing how the springs clearly provided measurable isolation between the speaker/floor. Some in the thread who have worked in the field of vibration isolation chimed in that sonic changes using the springs were entirely plausible (even expected). So it was all done with the caveat "my impressions could ultimately be a bias effect, but IF the sound is changing what are the plausible explanations?" On this mutual understanding, plenty of people provided all sorts of interesting information, opinions etc on the subject.

That's what you get when people engage posts in good faith, rather than being triggered by the sight of subjective language in to persecuting subjectivist phantoms of their own imagination.

 

[IPunchCholla]

What do you think The Circle Of Confusion is about in the first place? Floyd Toole raises the Circle Of Confusion as a reason for adopting standards in music production!! (e.g. monitor/room calibration) as well as suggesting this could in principle be adopted in home systems. Why does he suggest this? Because it's one way to move towards maintaining accuracy in reproducing the recording from production to reproduction - including the reduction of speaker colorations that would distort the recorded signal. Right? Get it?

So my day job deals mostly with digital photography. It was surprising to me when I first came across this site, that audio management isn’t just taken for granted. That in the audio world this concept is still fairly new. Part of that is the inherently more complex situation with audio (light waves don’t interact in the same way (perception wise) as audio waves). But even then there are enough similarities with the audio world that I found it interesting.

In color management, every color creating device (camera, monitors, printer/paper combo) is calibrated and profiled so that the changes are controlled, understood, and accounted for. This isn’t done to make everything look the same, but for the artist to be able to control how they want the color to work. The reason it works in photo is the entire reproduction chain is controlled by the artist. For audio, the last step (the equivalent of the printer/paper) is in the hands of the consumer. And the speaker/room is far more impactful than print/room interactions in photography (not that they aren’t there in photo, just that they have been largely dealt with. No more metamerism!).

All of which is to say, in audio, perhaps, if transparency to the recording is the ideal, that the question maybe shouldn’t be better speakers or acoustics but simply to remove the issue entirely (big hand wave here) somehow? Is there a way to make playing a song the equivalent of buying a framed photograph and hanging it on your wall? I certainly can’t think of one off the top of my head, but it was a blank slate moment I had when you were addressing the points Tolle makes.

 

[tuga]

So my day job deals mostly with digital photography. It was surprising to me when I first came across this site, that audio management isn’t just taken for granted. That in the audio world this concept is still fairly new. Part of that is the inherently more complex situation with audio (light waves don’t interact in the same way (perception wise) as audio waves). But even then there are enough similarities with the audio world that I found it interesting.

In color management, every color creating device (camera, monitors, printer/paper combo) is calibrated and profiled so that the changes are controlled, understood, and accounted for. This isn’t done to make everything look the same, but for the artist to be able to control how they want the color to work. The reason it works in photo is the entire reproduction chain is controlled by the artist. For audio, the last step (the equivalent of the printer/paper) is in the hands of the consumer. And the speaker/room is far more impactful than print/room interactions in photography (not that they aren’t there in photo, just that they have been largely dealt with. No more metamerism!).

All of which is to say, in audio, perhaps, if transparency to the recording is the ideal, that the question maybe shouldn’t be better speakers or acoustics but simply to remove the issue entirely (big hand wave here) somehow? Is there a way to make playing a song the equivalent of buying a framed photograph and hanging it on your wall? I certainly can’t think of one off the top of my head, but it was a blank slate moment I had when you were addressing the points Tolle makes.

Many people nowadays view photos and videos on their computer or smartphone screens. The visual 'artist' has no more control over the accuracy of that reproduction than an audio engineer.
I don't know anyone who has calibrated the TV, but some will have fiddled with the image settings or presets to suit their taste. Audiophiles do the same with their systems.
I like my Darjeeling with sugar and no milk. What about you?

 

[MattHooper]

All of which is to say, in audio, perhaps, if transparency to the recording is the ideal, that the question maybe shouldn’t be better speakers or acoustics but simply to remove the issue entirely (big hand wave here) somehow? Is there a way to make playing a song the equivalent of buying a framed photograph and hanging it on your wall? I certainly can’t think of one off the top of my head, but it was a blank slate moment I had when you were addressing the points Tolle makes.

I personally don't pursue accuracy in a strict sense, as some goal in of itself. But of course that doesn't mean some goals can't be defined where one could get further or closer to the goal (even when goals are ideals that are never fully reached).

So to speak to your question: take a recording that was produced using speakers that were neutral in frequency response, steps taken in the room to ensure as generally neutral a signal was being produced at a certain listening distance in the room. In principle someone reproducing that sound in another system/room can get further or closer to the sound produced in the original production system. Choosing neutral speakers (even possibly the same speakers - e.g. a studio may use Kii Audio 3 speakers, set up for neutral performance, you can use the same), and like the content producer taking steps to ensure the signal doesn't undergo gross room effect distortions (whether that's having a room response like that of the content producer, or using DSP to make the response in your room closer to the "neutral" character in the production room etc).

Again, one needn't say we have to have perfectly matching fidelity between both systems to know we can move further or closer in terms of accuracy to the sound of the original system. As they say, don't let Perfect be the enemy of The Good.

This thread is speculation. Anyone can speculate based on whatever evidence they want to bring to the table for their opinions. In terms of The Circle Of Confusion, the fact that it currently exists, or that it's improbable the issue will be solved for consumers any time soon, doesn't mean one can't speculate on how in principle accuracy can be made higher between systems.

And, again, the problem of The Circle Of Confusion itself isn't strictly necessary to overcome in simply asking whether we have reached the limits of resolution in speaker design (in terms of being able to transduce whatever sonic information exists in recordings in to sound waves - does the resolution capability of the best recordings outstrip the resolution capability of the best speakers? Or not?).

And that can also be broken down between the question of technical limits along with human hearing limits and distortions (e.g. like amplifiers, it may be possible to keep pushing distortion lower, even as it has surpassed the masking effects or limitations of our own ability to hear the differences).

 

[kemmler3D]

I don't know anyone who has calibrated the TV, but some will have fiddled with the image settings or presets to suit their taste.

This is pretty spot-on, but the accuracy of a good modern TV relative to what's used in the editing studio is MUCH closer to what most home systems sound like compared to what's used in a mixing studio. An LG C2 TV will be pretty close to properly calibrated out of the box, these days.

 

[tuga]

This is pretty spot-on, but the accuracy of a good modern TV relative to what's used in the editing studio is MUCH closer to what most home systems sound like compared to what's used in a mixing studio. An LG C2 TV will be pretty close to properly calibrated out of the box, these days.

What if the walls are yellow, or I'm using some atrocious LEDs?
The large majority of domestic rooms are very different acoustically from mixing or mastering suites.

 

[MattHooper]

Many people nowadays view photos and videos on their computer or smartphone screens. The visual 'artist' has no more control over the accuracy of that reproduction than an audio engineer.
I don't know anyone who has calibrated the TV, but some will have fiddled with the image settings or presets to suit their taste. Audiophiles do the same with their systems.
I like my Darjeeling with sugar and no milk. What about you?

The fact some people (most) don't care about accuracy of their displays doesn't mean it's a moot point for those that care. Many videophiles have their displays calibrated to become more accurate to content grading monitors. If you go to the AVS projector forum, it's constant discussion about how to accurately calibrate various projectors. Can there still be some variation in environments? Sure. But that doesn't mean one isn't getting closer rather than further from the look of the content on
professional monitors. Concerns about things like accuracy are one of the things that make lots of videophiles the enthusiasts they are, vs the "average joe."

Likewise with audiophiles, where this forum of course tends to represent those who seek accuracy.

Admittedly that can be problematic depending on what you take the goal to be (e.g. circle of confusion), but if one takes the goal "accurate reproduction of the signal encoded in the recording" then in principle there are moves closer or further away from realizing that goal.

 

[jonfitch]

A 3-way coaxial that can cross over with the woofers lower, that way vocals don't get split between bass/midrange multiple drivers. I always see really high crossover frequencies with the woofer(s). This will probably require more lower sensitivity and more power handling from the midrange.

Maybe the solution to this is a 4-way, where the coaxial driver itself is a 3-way that's all coincident, while the bass drivers are in a different location.

 

[IPunchCholla]

A 3-way coaxial that can cross over with the woofers lower, that way vocals don't get split between bass/midrange multiple drivers. I always see really high crossover frequencies with the woofer(s). This will probably require more lower sensitivity and more power handling from the midrange.

Maybe the solution to this is a 4-way, where the coaxial driver itself is a 3-way that's all coincident, while the bass drivers are in a different location.

If I had any legit use for these triaxials, they’d be a fun diy.