So, I know lots of people have there own preferences for what they feel makes the 'ideal' loudspeaker, and what design choices should be made to achieve it, but I haven't seen a lot of discussion about how we define our performance metrics and why we choose the solutions we go for.
Opinions?
Opinions?
A single driver that does 20hz-20khz in a box barely bigger then the driver, with virtually no distortion at HT reference levels, close to 100% efficiency, and a perfectly controlled dispersion pattern.
So really, the ideal speaker is only ideal for the given application. everyone's application is different.
So really, the ideal speaker is only ideal for the given application. everyone's application is different.
Can we have a discussion? Probably not, but heck, this is a public forum.
There's been no fundamental breakthroughs in basic loudspeaker design since the invention of the moving coil loudspeaker. Thus the work done by Toole and Olive would seem to be the most comprehensive scientific effort (read, mostly un-biased) to establish a relationship between performance metrics and listener preferences.
You can try mining DIY here for poster's input, but by and large I'd be surprised if, on average, what you find will depart significantly from Harman's research.
There's been no fundamental breakthroughs in basic loudspeaker design since the invention of the moving coil loudspeaker. Thus the work done by Toole and Olive would seem to be the most comprehensive scientific effort (read, mostly un-biased) to establish a relationship between performance metrics and listener preferences.
You can try mining DIY here for poster's input, but by and large I'd be surprised if, on average, what you find will depart significantly from Harman's research.
speakerdoctor, thanks for the heads up, I'll have to read more of what you've pointed out as they weren't resources I was aware of.
I guess the basic design goals are obvious.... flat response form 20-20,000Hz, no distortion and uniform dispersion, but even point source vs array raises some interesting issues.
I'd catagorise loudspeaker type in what I would think to be the most obvious way;
Full range, exotics and multiway.
But all of these have their own sub-genres as well, from 2 way to 3 way, to even 4 way. Additionally we have things like hybrid systems found with martin-logan type designs.
I guess the real reason I ask is because I'm a big fan of the theoretical principles of a 3-way system, but the reality often falls short of the supposed advantages - crossing over between a mid and a trebble at a high frequency leads to lobing and poor dispersion, crossing lower and you loose the benefits of a single driver covering what a lot of people would call the 'most important' frequencies, but chances are can get a lot lower in your response.
You can then solve that by changing to a line-array configuration, which gains many advantages but is expensive (I have to say at this point I feel cost is the primary negative factor with a line array, but would like to hear others opinions)
then there's things like phase - can we reproduce a square wave, if not why not, is this even important? What about variations in impedance?
I feel there is certainly a discussion to be had here - obviously opinions are going to be strong, but it would be interesting to see if definging some clear design goals would lead to a different approach to a solufion for a community based DIY solution that everyone feels is ideal... probably never going to happen, but still keen to try
I guess the basic design goals are obvious.... flat response form 20-20,000Hz, no distortion and uniform dispersion, but even point source vs array raises some interesting issues.
I'd catagorise loudspeaker type in what I would think to be the most obvious way;
Full range, exotics and multiway.
But all of these have their own sub-genres as well, from 2 way to 3 way, to even 4 way. Additionally we have things like hybrid systems found with martin-logan type designs.
I guess the real reason I ask is because I'm a big fan of the theoretical principles of a 3-way system, but the reality often falls short of the supposed advantages - crossing over between a mid and a trebble at a high frequency leads to lobing and poor dispersion, crossing lower and you loose the benefits of a single driver covering what a lot of people would call the 'most important' frequencies, but chances are can get a lot lower in your response.
You can then solve that by changing to a line-array configuration, which gains many advantages but is expensive (I have to say at this point I feel cost is the primary negative factor with a line array, but would like to hear others opinions)
then there's things like phase - can we reproduce a square wave, if not why not, is this even important? What about variations in impedance?
I feel there is certainly a discussion to be had here - obviously opinions are going to be strong, but it would be interesting to see if definging some clear design goals would lead to a different approach to a solufion for a community based DIY solution that everyone feels is ideal... probably never going to happen, but still keen to try
This is the book you want to get... It's all in there.
Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms - Walmart.com
Price a little better than Amazon.
Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms - Walmart.com
Price a little better than Amazon.
The ideal is a loudspeaker that perfectly reproduces the data fed into it. Period. Completely flat response from 0Hz to infinity, introducing zero distortion of any kind, no group delay, no ringing, no HD, nothing. Anything (anything) else would then be a matter for addressing in other parts of the system, which should be perfected to the same level.
Since we live in the real world rather than a pure thought experiment, we simply have an infinite number of compromises from which to choose according to system, budget, aesthetic and personal preferences. Whereupon YMMV rules, as always, since there is no consensus, nor can there ever be one. Would that it were so. But then, individuality would suffer. Music is ultimately a deeply personal experience and affects each of us differently.
Since we live in the real world rather than a pure thought experiment, we simply have an infinite number of compromises from which to choose according to system, budget, aesthetic and personal preferences. Whereupon YMMV rules, as always, since there is no consensus, nor can there ever be one. Would that it were so. But then, individuality would suffer. Music is ultimately a deeply personal experience and affects each of us differently.
Last edited:
+1 on Toole's book. One of the big reasons that it's so hard to make the 'perfect' loudspeaker is just that whatever comes out of a pair of speakers is going to be a very different animal from the waves that hit the microphones. There's a pretty good illustration of this in this paper:
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/speakers.pdf
There's also an interesting explanation of why there might not be such a thing as an ideal dispersion. Compromises are part of the design process.
This is assuming that you want to "accurately reproduce" something. There is music that is meant to be listened to with speakers and might not have used any microphones at all. Boards of Canada sounds pretty good on just about any speakers. I mostly listen to classical music, and I want the speakers to just get out of the way and let me hear the performance. Different people will like different kinds of speakers for different kinds of music.
IMO, there's more room for improvement in speakers than in the whole rest of the system, which means designing and building speakers can be very satisfying. 'Obvious' differences between, say, amplifiers, often vanish when you A/B them blind; but differences between speakers will stay. The great thing is that as a DIYer, you have a good chance of being able to tinker something together that outperforms commercial products costing ten times as much, and is tailored for your personal tastes and room.
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/speakers.pdf
There's also an interesting explanation of why there might not be such a thing as an ideal dispersion. Compromises are part of the design process.
This is assuming that you want to "accurately reproduce" something. There is music that is meant to be listened to with speakers and might not have used any microphones at all. Boards of Canada sounds pretty good on just about any speakers. I mostly listen to classical music, and I want the speakers to just get out of the way and let me hear the performance. Different people will like different kinds of speakers for different kinds of music.
IMO, there's more room for improvement in speakers than in the whole rest of the system, which means designing and building speakers can be very satisfying. 'Obvious' differences between, say, amplifiers, often vanish when you A/B them blind; but differences between speakers will stay. The great thing is that as a DIYer, you have a good chance of being able to tinker something together that outperforms commercial products costing ten times as much, and is tailored for your personal tastes and room.
Last edited:
Hi,
The ideal cannot be discussed except in the context of
total virtual reality indistinguishable from actual reality.
The reality for speakers is a comphrehensive set of
real world compromises for what is possible for a
given realistic purchase price and type of use.
Good design gives good examples of the above, bad
design doesn't, and bad principles (like line arrays
must be good) is really basically bad design.
You can argue about bad design until the cows come
home, it won't get you very far, whilst good design
is a set of carefully chosen compromises to suit.
rgds, sreten.
e.g. FR of 0 Hz to infinity Hz might be ideal, but is pointless.
So is an infinite output capability and the means to provide it.
The ideal cannot be discussed except in the context of
total virtual reality indistinguishable from actual reality.
The reality for speakers is a comphrehensive set of
real world compromises for what is possible for a
given realistic purchase price and type of use.
Good design gives good examples of the above, bad
design doesn't, and bad principles (like line arrays
must be good) is really basically bad design.
You can argue about bad design until the cows come
home, it won't get you very far, whilst good design
is a set of carefully chosen compromises to suit.
rgds, sreten.
e.g. FR of 0 Hz to infinity Hz might be ideal, but is pointless.
So is an infinite output capability and the means to provide it.
Last edited:
+1 on the Toole's book. Read it from cover to cover a couple of years ago and I'm already going through it again. I do have a habit of re-reading books and this is one that can survive the challenge of going through it a second time.
His main "motto" is: "Don't discount what two ears and a brain can do. In more words, you may measure one thing, aim for another and the brain will adapt and fill in the blanks - sort of.
Since the loudspeaker is a system that interacts with the room, and since there are several different types of rooms (sizes, ratios, coverage, furnishments, treatment, etc), and since the aim is the same (flat frequency response, no distortion, good dynamics), I propose that it's not possible to have a single speaker fulfill the goals in every different application in the best possible way. And since cost and size are also factors that - to many - are as critical as performance, we end up with various different compromises not by accident or lack of skills or technology but by design aims.
One could claim that the ideal loudspeaker should be able to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra in their living room at realistic SPL without distortion. A pretty valid aim for many. What happens if I'm not into classical music and I listen to heavy metal? The sound I would be aiming would not be natural but the sound I listen to in a heavy metal concert (heavily distorted, possibly emphasized in bass) and at even higher SPL. So I would be aiming for different things than the classical music aficionado.
His main "motto" is: "Don't discount what two ears and a brain can do. In more words, you may measure one thing, aim for another and the brain will adapt and fill in the blanks - sort of.
Since the loudspeaker is a system that interacts with the room, and since there are several different types of rooms (sizes, ratios, coverage, furnishments, treatment, etc), and since the aim is the same (flat frequency response, no distortion, good dynamics), I propose that it's not possible to have a single speaker fulfill the goals in every different application in the best possible way. And since cost and size are also factors that - to many - are as critical as performance, we end up with various different compromises not by accident or lack of skills or technology but by design aims.
One could claim that the ideal loudspeaker should be able to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra in their living room at realistic SPL without distortion. A pretty valid aim for many. What happens if I'm not into classical music and I listen to heavy metal? The sound I would be aiming would not be natural but the sound I listen to in a heavy metal concert (heavily distorted, possibly emphasized in bass) and at even higher SPL. So I would be aiming for different things than the classical music aficionado.
New products on the market are attempting to reproduce the data fed in by using DSP. Here's what one manufacturer (vanatoo.com) says about it on their webpage:
"Still another big advantage to the T1 speakers is the embedded Digital Signal Processor (DSP). The DSP is basically a computer that is programmed to meticulously match the input audio to the speaker drivers so that they output a near flat frequency response across the full speaker range. What this means to you is that the speakers are very “transparent” or in other words the speakers are tuned to neither add or subtract from what the artist intended you to hear, it just faithfully reproduces what was intended to be played. This matching of the amplifier to the speakers is much more difficult and much more costly to do if the amplifier and speakers are purchased separately."
This seems like a good approach that will become more widespread as the technology comes down in price and is better understood. I suspect that there are more issues to solve beyond distortion (dispersion issues, etc.) but it seems like a starting point has been staked out.
A couple questions:
- Has anyone heard these Vanatoo Transparent One speakers? Or competitors? Do they really reduce distortion and provide a flatter response than similar non-DSP speakers?
- This DSP approach seems like it would be a fun DIY project. Is anyone working on this? I did a quick search here and didn't find anything.
Thanks!
so only reality applies.... 😀
The ideal speaker is impossible, because it is always an engineering compromise..
Which is exactly the point I was making. Since there is no ideal loudspeaker in the real world, this discussion will lead precisely nowhere, other than the majority accepting that it's simply a matter of deciding what compromises on an individual level you can live with.
Even if you throw out the argument about physics limiting the real world results, there is still no ideal loudspeaker. The reason; the locations we place the loudspeakers are not the same, the source material is recorded with different goals in mind. Is the source material mono, is it stereo, multichannel? Is the venue inside or outside, is it reverberant or dead? There is and never will be an ideal loudspeaker.
"Do you feel lucky Punk?"
Everytime I purchase a new CD I remember this line from the Dirty Harry movie.
Stereo recordings are only a BIG FAKE ILLUSION.
The sonic quality and stereophonic presentation of each recording is a gamble.
When you bring questionable recordings and fake audio illusions into your home, your selection of speakers and room conditioning offer several very different options for the presentation.
Do you want to hear what the microphones hear? Horn speakers, especially converged entry unity horns and corner speakers, are good for this presentation. Many classical recordings use just two orthogonal mikes which match well with controlled polar pattern horns.
Do you want to add some auditorium ambience? Box monopole speakers with flat frequency response and controlled directivity can do this. Most of the 80-1100Hz vocal range can be covered by one speaker propagating into 180 degree 2-pi space. ENERGY into the room which generates new reflected "you are there" ambience illusions.
Do you want the illusion of the musicians playing in your room? Dipole and caridiod speakers can do this. Adding diffusion panels on the front wall behind the speaker improves the "they are here" illusion.
Do you want to play conductor? Nearfield listening of large linesource dipole planars like BG75, Magnepan and Apogee blend the microphone directness with stage ambience, similar to what a conductor hears.
.... most POP recordings are MIX'ed in close mic'ed small recording studios, and heavily compressed to generate hormones with IPOD earphones. JohnK/Linkwitz 4-way dipoles are getting love because they add some realism to compressed POP.
.... Don't ask... Don't tell.... the amplifier and speaker purist about the hundred opamps used in the recording studio.
.... there are 7 Billion people that dream of a Flat Screen TV on the wall and a pair of tall, narrow, stereo speakers.
Everytime I purchase a new CD I remember this line from the Dirty Harry movie.
Stereo recordings are only a BIG FAKE ILLUSION.
The sonic quality and stereophonic presentation of each recording is a gamble.
When you bring questionable recordings and fake audio illusions into your home, your selection of speakers and room conditioning offer several very different options for the presentation.
Do you want to hear what the microphones hear? Horn speakers, especially converged entry unity horns and corner speakers, are good for this presentation. Many classical recordings use just two orthogonal mikes which match well with controlled polar pattern horns.
Do you want to add some auditorium ambience? Box monopole speakers with flat frequency response and controlled directivity can do this. Most of the 80-1100Hz vocal range can be covered by one speaker propagating into 180 degree 2-pi space. ENERGY into the room which generates new reflected "you are there" ambience illusions.
Do you want the illusion of the musicians playing in your room? Dipole and caridiod speakers can do this. Adding diffusion panels on the front wall behind the speaker improves the "they are here" illusion.
Do you want to play conductor? Nearfield listening of large linesource dipole planars like BG75, Magnepan and Apogee blend the microphone directness with stage ambience, similar to what a conductor hears.
.... most POP recordings are MIX'ed in close mic'ed small recording studios, and heavily compressed to generate hormones with IPOD earphones. JohnK/Linkwitz 4-way dipoles are getting love because they add some realism to compressed POP.
.... Don't ask... Don't tell.... the amplifier and speaker purist about the hundred opamps used in the recording studio.
.... there are 7 Billion people that dream of a Flat Screen TV on the wall and a pair of tall, narrow, stereo speakers.
Ideal speaker? ... I reckon this is getting pretty damn close ... www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php/...014/541-phantom-sound-three-first-impressions
Here is an early attempt to get the "human factor" into ideal speaker technology, way back in those golden days when radio ruled the airwaves . . .
Please excuse a brief leeching parasitic advertisement before the actual video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_BNnjef93k
------------------
Please excuse a brief leeching parasitic advertisement before the actual video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_BNnjef93k
------------------
- Status
- Not open for further replies.