Defining a "Good" Loudspeaker

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

I find the "what is a good speaker" discussion amusing. I would like to propose a workable definition for a "good" Loudspeaker where the word "good" is meant more in an absolute sense, rather than the Winnie the Pooh sense of good ("Hunney is good").

So, a good speaker then is one that allows the reproduction of a given recording of or a given acoustical event in a given acoustic envoironment in such a way that as much as possible is retained from the recording/event as possible while retaining a balanced (pleasant) tone/sound.



This suggests immediatly a few qualifications:

1) Speakers must be deliberatly designed for the acoustic target envoironment. A key factor in domestic speakers is the dispersion where wide dispersion makes the speaker interact excessively with the room, also LF issues need to be reviewed.

2) Speakers must be designed to have a "balanced" bandwidth. A good starting point is the rule of the 400000. Making speakers treble extension to extend very far upwards while having limited low frequency extension invariably leads to a sound that is percieved as unbalanced.

3) Speakers must be designed with a sensibly large dynamic range and must offer low distortion and compression at realistic levels.

The above qualifications suggest that the vast majority of commercial and DIY Speakers fail to provide a sufficient measure of "goodness" which then gives rise to excessive audio relativism, where "good" becomes a pure matter of taste.

If practically ALL speakers available are fundamentally flawed it is indeed a question which particular flaws one is prepared to live with. However, we know sufficiently much about speakers so as to make the production of a "good" speaker a fairly tivial matter.

Yet I am only aware of one or two commercial products I would consider "good" in the absolute sense, the Hartley Concert Master from the 1960's and possibly the new "K" Version of the MEG RL900. I will readily give a passing nod to Siegfried Linkwitz and the Dipole Speakers he designed for the company who's name I forgot (shame they did not sell well) and the one from Gradient in Finland.

In a more limited sense the Micro-Blue Lui-Lui (and similar systems) also qualifies as "good" with the qualification that a subwoofer is required to balance the tone. The Orion with qualification and especially the larger DIY dipole systems proposed by SL are pretty good canditaes for being awarded the "good speaker" tag, though the Orion really suffers in dynamic range stakes.

Non of the full range dipoles qualify (so no ESL, no Maggies etc.) and practically no speaker with a "boxed" LF section does. The result does not leave all that much, I'm afraid....

Sayonara

PS, if someone want's a "cookbook" recipy for a "good" Speaker then I would suggest to combine a massive dipole woofer system to something like an Oris Horn or other high sensitivity "SATELLITE" sections capable of working from around 200Hz upwards and offering tightly contrelled directivity. Cone Dipole speakers do offer a good deal of what it takes but tend to be compromise on dynamic range and off axis response issues.

[Guss]

Alot depends on the room and the placement of your speakers but I won't comment on that, I know others will. But a loudspeaker is not a source of music so it cannot ''sound'' good, it just worsen the signal.

It doesn't mean we cannot get sweet sound but we always make compromise...we do our best and thats the point here Most of you already found what they were looking for but whatever you need, you'll always find that the speakers you build are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard, and that is worth the feeling.

[tcpip]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
So, a good speaker then is one that allows the reproduction of a given recording of or a given acoustical event in a given acoustic envoironment in such a way that as much as possible is retained from the recording/event as possible while retaining a balanced (pleasant) tone/sound.

Made a lot of sense.

I've always been a little surprised at the overwhelming support for the purely subjective assessment of speaker quality that I see in this forum and elsewhere among DIYers. Many people seem to talk about speaker quality as if it's totally a matter of taste, like Darjeeling tea or fine wine. But for music reproduction (as against production) systems isn't fidelity to the original recording a simple yardstick of quality? Where is the scope for subjectivity?

Of course, people can have preferences for sound different from the original. Preferences are okay; preferences that may initially appear "strange" in fact usually serve to push the envelope of what's known or achievable. But if a discussion tries to arrive at a common or shared yardstick for speaker quality, isn't fidelity to the original a very reasonable and objective yardstick which we can use as a starting point, then decide what our individual preferences are?

Just one of those things I've never quite understood in the opinions I've seen expressed. That's why I always take care to identify myself as a newbie.

When I've thought about this issue, I've realised that the acoustic environment where the sound is being reproduced is an integral part of the reproduction system. I was happy see that you concur.

One of your comments confused me ... why do dipole speakers suffer in the dynamic range stakes? Can you please explain?

Tarun

[ronc]

Being one of the full range single driver types(let the flack begin) i find that the Fostex Fe-166e in a back loaded horn driven by battery powered chip buffered (will be tube or transfo powered as soon as i find the time) gainclone to be the best sound i have had yet.Yes F3 is only 48Hz and will not make it to organ frequencies but i enjoy the tremendous dynamics of the horn/GC combo.
My room is treated with bass,mid and high frequency traps because of the poor layout.I believe many ppl out there forget the room dynamics and many times blame the performance on the speakers.Time permitting (and i dont have much of that) i want to try the argent room lens clones as i find the physics of the room lens quite interesting.
ron

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by tcpip

One of your comments confused me ... why do dipole speakers suffer in the dynamic range stakes? Can you please explain?

Most simple dipoles (including the ones I have at home) lack a sufficiently large cone surface to allow the full dynamics of large scale music. In my experience anything below around 12" Cone diameter (15" Frame) is challenged in dynamic stakes unless you use several drivers to make up the cone surface, which is subject to other problems.

For example, to match a single 15" Frame lower midrange driver you need 8 to 16pcs 8" to 6.5" Frame drivers.... Non of the dipoles currently promoted for DIY and available commercially manage that kind of cone surface.

Only the old Hartley Concert master got the Idea, by fitting a 24" Dipole woofer with a 10" Fullrange (sealed box makes this behave as a cardiod) and a 7" Tweeter..... The Gradient with dual 12" woofers comes close but has a way too low efficiency to allow good dynamic range....

Sayonara

[zygibajt]

It's true.Once one hears a good and efficient 12" or 15" bass driver there is no gong back.The music just doesn't sound real any more on all those fancy Lowthers/Fostex or today's state of the art 18cm Scan-Speak based speakers.

Thorsten,
Do you have any pictures of that Hartley system,or do you know where to find it?
I have only seen a picture of raw drivers.
Bartek

[purplepeople]

What distance? What room? What sounds?

:)ensen.

[Timn8ter]

I would like to propose a workable definition for a "good" Loudspeaker where the word "good" is meant more in an absolute sense, rather than the Winnie the Pooh sense of good ("Hunney is good").

I've been thinking about that thread too and the only conclusion I came to is that "good" MUST be qualified. There must be a point of reference. To my thinking a person attempting to judge a speaker as good must listen to a great many speaker systems to have a point of reference. I've heard "good" speakers, the kind that have realistic imaging, a huge soundstage, draw you in, give you shivers and make everything else seem poor. It was about 20 years ago and the only thing I remember (besides the sound) is that they were tall and powered by their own monoblock tube amps. Not being able to afford the huge pricetag all my speakers have been compromises but I know just how "good" they are.

[phase_accurate]

Not being able to afford the huge pricetag all my speakers have been compromises but I know just how "good" they are.

It is not a question of the pricetag: ALL speakers ARE a compromise. If some glossy brochure states something different then this is a lie !
Apart from that: You might even be disappointed by the sound of some expensive speakers !

The ideal speaker would be a point source and able to reproduce from 0 Hz to infinity and it should be able to do this with at least 120 dB throughout the whole frequency range, without significant linear or nonlinear distortion.

No try to achieve this !

Regards

Charles

P.S. The new Geithains sound indeed great to me (which is a purely subjective statement of course and was also valid for their "ancestors"), but maybe it is just because Mister Kiesler and I have the same (bad ?) taste !

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by phase_accurate
P.S. The new Geithains sound indeed great to me (which is a purely subjective statement of course and was also valid for their "ancestors"), but maybe it is just because Mister Kiesler and I have the same (bad ?) taste !

I only know the pre 1989 RL900 from Gaithain but it sounded mighty fine then. I would think the "K" should be exceptional. I wish I could get my grubby mitts on a pair for review, you don't see MEG's much at all in London....

Sayonara