Is “flat”, the generally accepted definition of a better design? Also in some of the videos, there’s reference to better sounding components. Does better sounding mean flatter?
Last edited:
Flat is one of many axis of loudspeaker performance that plays a role. But you see in many cases the use of FR measures a strict guideline, a case of if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
And then: The Room!
dave
And then: The Room!
dave
I've never really heard a speaker that I know has been measured SPL flat or even comes close to it.
I simply liked them or I didn't like them without knowing if they were flat or not.
But I am intrigued to think that, for example, KEF or B&W, having the infrastructure both in development and in the manufacturing plant, make a speaker that measures not flat just to save money. Could it be that they do it on purpose and the speakers that measure flat really don't sound pleasant? Cold measures are one thing and the other is the perception of the brain that tells you cute or ugly.
I simply liked them or I didn't like them without knowing if they were flat or not.
But I am intrigued to think that, for example, KEF or B&W, having the infrastructure both in development and in the manufacturing plant, make a speaker that measures not flat just to save money. Could it be that they do it on purpose and the speakers that measure flat really don't sound pleasant? Cold measures are one thing and the other is the perception of the brain that tells you cute or ugly.
I agree with most of what you said. But this one puzzles me a little. And to be clear, it's not what you said that puzzles me- it could possibly be true!
What puzzles me is why some manufacturers leave them out. I'm not talk about large sub-bass drivers etc 18" over larger playing only under 120Hz or so where the benefit is almost zero. (Vd matters most)
I'm talking about 3-15" drivers. If they are going to play up to 252Hz (middle C) or above, then need to reproduce all the harmonics accurately. That could extend up to 1KHz or more. So they almost always benefit from some kind of demodulation device. Now if Tymphany can put them in their TC/TG and fullrangers and Dayton can put them in their PC83 and PC105, and Faital can put them in their 4FE42 driver, SBA can put it in their 5-7" standard range and 8" full range driver... now these all cost typically cost $15-50ea at retail pricing. One could guess how much costs in 100+ units for the OEM. (a fraction)
I wonder whether is a artificial market segmentation. Suppose I build a amazing speaker (well I don't have time to something done half as well as I could), and the customer loves it but says it costs too much. They want somewhat half the price. Well guess what, I know what I'm going to skimp on... it's the passive crossovers (lots of savings can be had some switching from a air core to a ferrite, and polypropylene cap to a electrolytic, and making sure my cabinet weighs a fraction of what it did previously) But what it now sounds too close to my original. You know, the whole 85% of the quality at 50% of the price? Well I think I'd choose some worse drivers, to ensure that it doesn't kill sales of my pièce de résistance. Besides, humans want an upgrade path. We want something to aspire to.
Why get a Toyota when I can get a shinier sleeker Lexus with fancy badging and gizmos?
Humans...gosh we are so silly...
I saw a pair of those B&W in the flrsh yesterday. Pretty ugly IMO.
The KEF blade (no idea what they sound like) are a very good design exercise, have lots of things i like and cabinets are pretty & functional.
The Vivid are both functional and a bit more extreme cosmetically. Some will find them ugly, some will love them. Given the prices most of us can only look
This one is either pregnant or has a beer belly.
dave
The KEF blade (no idea what they sound like) are a very good design exercise, have lots of things i like and cabinets are pretty & functional.
The Vivid are both functional and a bit more extreme cosmetically. Some will find them ugly, some will love them. Given the prices most of us can only look
This one is either pregnant or has a beer belly.
dave
Last edited:
As a non-expert who likes good sound and builds other peoples' designs, some of what DR says and sells makes sense. Some of the XOs he pulls from some expensive speakers do look pretty crappy and could do with higher quality parts, although some of his upgrades are extremely expensive.
However, I simply don't believe that some of his products - I won't name them - make any difference at all except to your bank balance
Geoff
However, I simply don't believe that some of his products - I won't name them - make any difference at all except to your bank balance
Geoff
Now thats WAF for sure! I think a 4 yr old came up with that doodling with crayons and someone looked at it saying "hell yeah, thats my next speaker design sure to sell millions".
Historically, 'flat' only applied to the critical telephone BW (250-2500 Hz analog/300-3000 Hz digital) and as recording/playback BW increased, so went 'flat' out till ~8 kHz where it becomes increasingly moot except for some (most?) children, young women.
'Better sounding' includes various distortions with polar response the 'biggie' for speaker components, designs.
A "Tee top antenna."...??? Never heard that one before...does he mean a Dipole antenna?, and just what does broadband RF radiation reception in a speaker-wire have to do with the tens of volts of AC going to your speakers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
The other thing to be cognizant of is what the marketing (which included the radiational paper print magazines, then the online reviewers, and now YouTubers) what they consider to be high-end of audio.
I know a few people who have "made a bit of money". And I'm not even talking about people in my line of work- were individual people salaried or wage earners ie. "paid for hours or services". I'm talking about what the financial services industry call as people who Very High Net Worth individuals (apart from their primary home, they have financial assets of over ~US$5M), and people who are Ultra High Net Worth individuals (assets ~US$30M). There are many of these people amongst us. But they tend to live a similar life to the middle upper classes. They are among you, typically middle aged grey hair male, lived in the same city of most of their working life, business owners.
Of course there are billionaires, which we've read about. Their lives and antics are scrutinized by paparazzies- these people are the individuals with private jets, helicopters and super yachts for transport instead push bikes, cars etc.
The high end audio marketers and reviewers, the likes of Ken Kessler want audio to be marketed to people who like fine Swiss-made analog watches, LEICA lens, Louis Vuitton handbags, and drink Hennessey and so on. He thinks speakers and amplifiers and turntables need to be designed and marketed to the people who know how to enjoy the "finer things in life" and are happy to spend on jewelry, watches, shoes, perfume, wine, alcohol and automobiles that cost an extra 0 compared to what the rest of the 99% of the population are willing to pay.
What he doesn't realize is that NOT what most of the Very High Net Worth millionaires don't care about these. The number of High Net Worth individuals and Ultra High Net Worth individuals outnumber the Billionaires, but they share the same values and spending habits. What the millionaires care about is NOT jewelry or those excesses that the 99% are led to believe. Marketing do this because they are trying to capture the 99% of the population. They're trying to encourage you to think that being a millionaire is to wear big lots of jewelery, pine for that Hublot or buy that Moncler. Or whatever the sporting heroes or pop stars or movie stars are sponsored (paid) to sell to you.
What they actually spend money on (and don't bat an eyelid doing so) is yearly overseas holidays, private schooling K-12 + tertiary education for their offspring and sporting and musical and cultural activities* And their home music system certainly aren't yellow snowman shaped speakers. That yellow speakers is a statement piece is for the those who want to make a statement. ("I've worked hard, so I deserve this!")
These VHNW individuals prefer something more discreet, like custom AV furniture and systems, installed by subcontracted AV professionals. The set a budget first eg. $100K to $1M+ for their social/entertainment spaces that seats 8 to 80+ people.
This is part, is the reason for the slow death of the hi-fi store.
Fewer and fewer people want to see funky looking speakers. They want an amazing experience that is easy to use.
*Reference: Thomas J Stanley - The Millionaire Next Door
Last edited:
Not interested. That space is taken up by my wrist computer. it doesn’t hurt that the latter i can actually use, and it is very useful.It also tells time.
dave
That’s right Dave. They are a slowly dying breed. Increasingly rare and increasingly expensive to ensure total profit remains “sustainable”
High end hi-fi seems to be the same. One of the reasons the late SL hated it so much. No innovation, all they do is build increasingly heavy vented boxes with near indestructible cabinet materials and drivers with fancy unobtainium cones. And keep pushing the price up to justify the “improvements”. I think we have the late Dave Wilson to thank for starting that race.
And as an established Brand all they need to do is pivot and shift to emerging markets eg. Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil to continue sales.
High end hi-fi seems to be the same. One of the reasons the late SL hated it so much. No innovation, all they do is build increasingly heavy vented boxes with near indestructible cabinet materials and drivers with fancy unobtainium cones. And keep pushing the price up to justify the “improvements”. I think we have the late Dave Wilson to thank for starting that race.
And as an established Brand all they need to do is pivot and shift to emerging markets eg. Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil to continue sales.
I've wondered about this as well. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I reckon lots of what people are saying here holds true: cost cutting measures, ruler flat response not being the only route to a generally pleasing sound, etc.
But I also wonder about the extent to which designers consider unit to unit deviations in the parts used. For example, when Snell was still around, they would take special care to measure every single driver they received to make matched pairs, then tweak the crossover of every loudspeaker pair they sold based on the response(s) of that (those) matched pair(s). At the cheaper end, such meticulous QC is not realistic, so I wonder how much of a role that plays in commercial designers' processes
For another example, when I was still in high school, I attended the then yearly Parts Express Tent Sale. I hung around long after most people had packed their bags and left, and noticed the PE employees throwing out loads of perfectly good equipment they'd failed to sell that day. So, I left, and later that night came back and raided the Parts Express dumpsters. I got lots of neat goodies, but perhaps overzealously, I also grabbed hundreds of no name woofers (which I still have by the way) not unlike what you might find in a lot of cheapish commercial speakers for sale today. At the time, I had no inkling of diy audio, so these woofers were totally useless to me; I just put them in a cabinet and forgot about them. Years later though, I got me a DATS, and a few months into owning it I decided to measure a few of these no name woofers I have. To my surprise, the TS parameters varied wildly (I mean, WILDLY)
When Danny Richie mods these commercial speakers, he is generally only sent a single loudspeaker. So, if there are any deviations between even a single pair, Richie is none the wiser.
My thinking is that at the price these speakers are often sold for, such deviations are inevitable, so kneading out minor kinks in the response of a speaker is pointless, due to the uncertainty that every unit produced will have that exact response.
Heck, maybe (probably not) designers even proactively account for this inevitability, and design their crossover such that the speaker will still sound relatively fine even if the drivers within don't perform exactly as intended
Us DIYers are spoiled. Manufacturers that make their drivers available to the public have us to hold them accountable if they start slacking in the QC department. And even with this, we can't always rely on the consistency we desire.
On the other hand, speaker companies only have themselves to decide what tolerances are acceptable. Again, I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe something to think about
But I also wonder about the extent to which designers consider unit to unit deviations in the parts used. For example, when Snell was still around, they would take special care to measure every single driver they received to make matched pairs, then tweak the crossover of every loudspeaker pair they sold based on the response(s) of that (those) matched pair(s). At the cheaper end, such meticulous QC is not realistic, so I wonder how much of a role that plays in commercial designers' processes
For another example, when I was still in high school, I attended the then yearly Parts Express Tent Sale. I hung around long after most people had packed their bags and left, and noticed the PE employees throwing out loads of perfectly good equipment they'd failed to sell that day. So, I left, and later that night came back and raided the Parts Express dumpsters. I got lots of neat goodies, but perhaps overzealously, I also grabbed hundreds of no name woofers (which I still have by the way) not unlike what you might find in a lot of cheapish commercial speakers for sale today. At the time, I had no inkling of diy audio, so these woofers were totally useless to me; I just put them in a cabinet and forgot about them. Years later though, I got me a DATS, and a few months into owning it I decided to measure a few of these no name woofers I have. To my surprise, the TS parameters varied wildly (I mean, WILDLY)
When Danny Richie mods these commercial speakers, he is generally only sent a single loudspeaker. So, if there are any deviations between even a single pair, Richie is none the wiser.
My thinking is that at the price these speakers are often sold for, such deviations are inevitable, so kneading out minor kinks in the response of a speaker is pointless, due to the uncertainty that every unit produced will have that exact response.
Heck, maybe (probably not) designers even proactively account for this inevitability, and design their crossover such that the speaker will still sound relatively fine even if the drivers within don't perform exactly as intended
Us DIYers are spoiled. Manufacturers that make their drivers available to the public have us to hold them accountable if they start slacking in the QC department. And even with this, we can't always rely on the consistency we desire.
On the other hand, speaker companies only have themselves to decide what tolerances are acceptable. Again, I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe something to think about
Last edited:
A top of the line JBL speaker rectifies a tiny sample of the input signal and uses it to DC bias the junction between two film caps for what they claim are sonic reasons. I guess you can safely write off everything JBL does as untrustworthy too.
DR has found himself in the unenviable position of being turned into a public propaganda symbol, accused of all manner of misbehaviour and dishonesty well in excess of any rationality.
Re: are they all badly designed, customers dissatisfied with their purchases send their speakers to GR. There's a customer pre-selection bias for everything that appears on that channel. Even at that DR won't alter a system that measures well by his standards, save for offering a parts upgrade.
Having seen many audio kitchens as a consultant, can I collect that bet?
Because I can tell you from my own experience, that this idea is 100% untrue.
Actually most of the time some company contacts me for help in electronics (often DSP's these days), but looking at their ideas and design, often it either already rolls my eyes out of the sockets, or their issue is not a DSP but rather just bad acoustic design.
You will be surprised how many big major brands (with all their tools, budget and equipment) still only look at like one single on-axis measurement. Also nothing more than that.
Also, why are so many smaller business still using a freaking DOS PC with MLSAA on it?
Last edited:
Forgot to add, but obviously not every company operates like this.
There are still ones around that really do know what they are doing (and that also shows! )
But yeah, I have changed my mind quite substantially over the years 😀 😀