How important are speakers for your system?

[AltecLansingFan]

I aways wonder why speakers are sounding so different, they all have metal baskets, magnets, paper cones and copper voice coils and they all look almost the same.

Is there anybody on this forum, who can explain me, why one speaker sounds good and an other (same looking) sounds bad.

The same problem do we have with diaphragms, they all look the same, but they sound different.

Why some people love a particular speaker/diaphragm, and other people don't like them at all.

I think here on this forum are people with a lot of knowledge, who can exactly tell me why same looking products are sounding different.

[mah]

That is a request for a hell of a lot of information. Have you thought of doing some googling to acqaint yourself with some basics and then come back with some more specific requests?

Anyway, I am sure members can give you some answers and maybe some links to information that can get you started on your desire to learn about these things.

Understanding how things that interest you work can be very rewarding. Good wishes in this endeavor.

Cheers, Marshall.

P.S. Wiki is not a bad jumping-off point for basics as long as you realise anything on the net is subject to reliable verification.

[AltecLansingFan]

That is a request for a hell of a lot of information. Have you thought of doing some googling to acqaint yourself with some basics and then come back with some more specific requests?

Anyway, I am sure members can give you some answers and maybe some links to information that can get you started on your desire to learn about these things.

Understanding how things that interest you work can be very rewarding. Good wishes in this endeavor.

Cheers, Marshall.

P.S. Wiki is not a bad jumping-off point for basics as long as you realise anything on the net is subject to reliable verification.

It looks you are a little burned, why is that, I hope it is not because of my other thread about cables, isn't it?

[mah]

No. That is really a lot to ask for in a single thread. I thought I was supportive. As far as I am concerned the other thread has nothing to do with this thread.

Marshall.

[rontec]

Basic answer....most here know...
...speakers may all look the same but they are very different from one another.
Different materials, voice coil diameters, coil wire type, magnets size and type ect., ect.
All of this will ultimately refect upon cost and performance.
Same is true of diaphrams. Different sizes, thickness and weight, materials and applications = extreem range of cost and performance!
Now add this to the equation that people are very subjective as to personal taste.
Bottom line - speakers that look good but are made cheap - sound cheap! my.02

[Old Guy]

Bottom line - speakers that look good but are made cheap - sound cheap! my.02

In Pro Audio there are lots of nice looking boxes with crap inside.

Generally referred to as "gutless wonders"

Pro Audio's equivalent of "white van speakers'

I have advised beginning musos to buy gutless wonders on occasion. Often a driver upgrade can help a lot.

[joyspring]

I aways wonder why speakers are sounding so different, they all have metal baskets, magnets, paper cones and copper voice coils and they all look almost the same.

Is there anybody on this forum, who can explain me, why one speaker sounds good and an other (same looking) sounds bad.

The same problem do we have with diaphragms, they all look the same, but they sound different.

Why some people love a particular speaker/diaphragm, and other people don't like them at all.

I think here on this forum are people with a lot of knowledge, who can exactly tell me why same looking products are sounding different.

Transducers - whether microphones for recording or loudspeakers for playback, magnetic record/playback heads, phonograph cutters or cartridges - are the weakest link of the audio chain. Any device that converts one form of energy to another (magnetic to/from electrical, acoustic to/from electrical, mechanical to/from electrical, etc.) will have a limited linear frequency and amplitude range and will always introduce some form of nonlinearity.

Reducing the number of transducers in the audio chain is an ideal goal which is why the digital medium is so far superior to analogue storage on every account - frequency, noise floor, distortion. No matter how flawed many consider A-to-D and D-to-A conversion to be, they are still much more accurate than any transducer can be.

Returning to loudspeakers, basic criteria include: wide frequency range, flat axial response, amplitude linearity, wide dynamic range and low harmonic distortion (harmonics of the original fundamental) - the same criteria that applies to line-level components.

Psychoacoustically speaking, more recent research (JBL, Keele, D'Appolito, Linkwitz) indicates that improved interface with the listening environment via smooth loudspeaker power response - or at the very least a smoothly rising directivity index - also markedly improves the listening experience.

FWIW, the inverse equally applies to microphones and has been known much longer; while omnidirectional mics sound subjectively most natural, directional mics that can maintain the same pickup pattern over the widest frequency range (eg. - Sanken CU-41) also sound quite natural as well.

Indeed moving coil dynamic loudspeakers share the same basic design but balancing features which affect the criteria enumerated above is the art (tempered by science) of loudspeaker transducer design. Cone mass, magnetic gap geometry, suspension compliance, et al. are all balanced to attempt to fulfil these criteria.

One must realise, however, that with current technology, trade-offs must be made. Enthusiasts on this forum exchange wide, smooth frequency response and good off-axis behaviour to obtain good dynamic range and electroacoustic efficiency. Others (Bowers + Wilkins, KEF, for example) have excellent frequency response and off-axis behaviour but are inefficient and require high electrical input power. You can't have it both ways as John Murphy aptly describes:

http://www.trueaudio.com/st_trade.htm

An A7 cannot be called upon to reproduce anything below 80 hz or above 15 khz with any competence or low distortion, nor can a B+W 801 play back at 118 dB SPL/1M continuously without power compression or damage.

Improved material science - i.e. - rare-earth magnets, cone/diaphragm material - have perhaps made the most significant improvements in the past twenty years. Recycling older, novel concepts limited by older material technology using improved material and processes have yielded great results: for instance, ADAM Audio's ART/X-ART HF drivers finally brought reasonable dynamic range to Oskar Heil's Air Motion Transformer concept.

The higher input power and acoustic power output capabilities afforded by improved material science are also allowing boxless dipoles and omnidirectionals (and their attendant good power response) to become a reality. Siegfried Linkwitz' Orion and Pluto are stunning examples; I've personally built a pair of Plutos and have been so impressed that I use them for final evaluation. IMO, taming off-axis performance and removing baffle diffraction are the next major step in loudspeaker development:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com

The site details the process of loudspeaker design from conception to completion indicating exactly what trade-offs are made, which parameters matter to the designer, how to competently prioritise and manage (and not micromanage as do most DIY'ers) a fairly large-scale project. I'm sure that those on this forum who are more open-minded and technically-inclined will appreciate it.

Hope this provides some insight for your inquiry.

BobR

[LICORNE]

The people at Western Electric Bell Labs and The team at Altec Lansing with James B Lansing.Got it right the first time. Even 10 years after James Lansing left and tried to come out with something different and superior , He could not do it. So you have JBL with someting close which survived thanks to his insurrance policy. Evry thing else since has been imitations.

Believe me that is the truth. Klipsch Horn was a close second.I did hear the Bell and the Horn.
Altec A-5 still first and foremost.

[joyspring]

The people at Western Electric Bell Labs and The team at Altec Lansing with James B Lansing.Got it right the first time. Even 10 years after James Lansing left and tried to come out with something different and superior , He could not do it. So you have JBL with someting close which survived thanks to his insurrance policy. Evry thing else since has been imitations.

Believe me that is the truth. Klipsch Horn was a close second.I did hear the Bell and the Horn.
Altec A-5 still first and foremost.

I suppose you believe leeches and trepanation are preferable to modern medicine as well.

Had the engineers at WE and Altec followed your logic, perhaps they would have felt that wax cylinders epitomised sonic performance and there was no need to conduct any additional psychoacoustic research.

BobR

[LICORNE]

I suppose you believe leeches and trepanation are preferable to modern medicine as well.

Had the engineers at WE and Altec followed your logic, perhaps they would have felt that wax cylinders epitomised sonic performance and there was no need to conduct any additional psychoacoustic research.

BobR

No sir the wax cylinder was not part of the HI FI development . Tube Amps , Mag track films for recording: better than 16 bit 44KHZ CD your listening to. Somtime in the 30's the magic happened with the Shearer Horn. Ask guys like Doug Sax I'm sure he thinks the same way I do.

You need to look at the perspective of it all.