I have found that it's only after auditioning the actual sound of a given rave component is when I understand what all the fuss may be about. Reading a list of specs. or some graph rarely (never?) accurately conveys the subjective sonic experience. Sometimes, it's best not to know what we may be missing, at today's crazy pricing. Whether the experience is worth the price depends on the listener and on how deep are their pockets.
I wasn’t intending to indicate a concern over the potential effect of such non-uniformity on the performance of the cone. Only that it indicates the cone is hand made, whether for performance reasons or not, which would drive up it’s cost to manufacture.
That's one part of the equation, another is that machines cost money too. For a small company like this I do not expect another machine would help lower the cost of the end product.
The economics of the high-end audio industry is an interesting topic. The perfectionist oriented, long product development cycle nature of it dramatically drives up R&D cost. The low volume, almost cottage industry, nature of it dramatically drives up production costs. No economies of scale. The traditional distribution chain of it (manufacturer, to dealer, to customer) also is costly, as the dealer must manage relatively costly inventory. Which is probably why we see traditional brick & mortar dealers largely vanish, and manufactures retailing direct to customers via the web. Those are just some of the real cost factors driving up product retail price.
There is, however, another aspect to product pricing pricing which is not derived from the real cost elements of a product. This is where the perception of product value make a big entry. Firms would like to price their products according to the value with which their customers perceive it, not simply on the cost of manufacture. Obviously, no one is in business merely to recover their costs, they're in business to make a profit. Cost sets the floor for which a product may be priced, while perceived value sets the ceiling. Products which provide an significant emotional benefit are most able to induce an high perceived value, and so be priced accordingly. Emotional value judgements are, by definition, not rational value judgements. This is the market territory which all luxury goods occupy, whether jewelry, watches, shoes, sports cars, Hi-Fi or what have you. Luxury goods strongly appeal to passionate emotions. What is the value of emotional glory?
The economics (wealth) of the luxury goods customer also plays a role. The more money a potential customer has, the less they will perceive a high price as a barrier to purchase. It's all relative. Boosting this effect is the primarily baby-boomer generation market base of high-end audio. Whose members are either at the highest point of their earning potential, or have their lifetime accumulated wealth in hand as they enter retirement. They want to reward themselves for a lifetime of sacrifice and wealth creation. Some may buy a Porsche, some may buy high-end Hi-Fi. In any case, I believe this a a major factor in the rapidly rising pricing we have seen in high-end audio. Also, as seen in the seemingly dramatic increase in the number of products directly targeted at the very top edge of pricing. Such increases are certainly not attributable to the rate of monetary inflation.
It is also fair to suspect that simple greed plays some role. However, I would suggest that no one enters the high-end audio business out of greed. There certainly are more lucrative, less failure prone business options around. I should think that those in the high-end audio business are there primarily because of their own passion. High-end audio is an industry of passionate vendors serving passionate customers.
What and where does this leave the the equally passionate, though less well heeled customer? It leaves us the trickle-down technology, or it leaves us DIY. The very best products can be ridiculously expensive. However, nearly as good products often become available at prices disproportionately lower than the performance they deliver. At least, relative to the top of the line product. In other words, while the highest of the high-end gets better, the lower-end (should) also get better as a result, only a bit delayed in time. In addition, newer vendors such as Schiitt are encouraging to see. Reminds me of the role Hafler used to play back in the day. I humbly suggest, that we pay no attention to how much fun a really big dollar rig can provide today. Only pay attention to how much fun we can have with an affordable rig today, relative to the amount of fun we were able to have with one of yesterday.
There is, however, another aspect to product pricing pricing which is not derived from the real cost elements of a product. This is where the perception of product value make a big entry. Firms would like to price their products according to the value with which their customers perceive it, not simply on the cost of manufacture. Obviously, no one is in business merely to recover their costs, they're in business to make a profit. Cost sets the floor for which a product may be priced, while perceived value sets the ceiling. Products which provide an significant emotional benefit are most able to induce an high perceived value, and so be priced accordingly. Emotional value judgements are, by definition, not rational value judgements. This is the market territory which all luxury goods occupy, whether jewelry, watches, shoes, sports cars, Hi-Fi or what have you. Luxury goods strongly appeal to passionate emotions. What is the value of emotional glory?
The economics (wealth) of the luxury goods customer also plays a role. The more money a potential customer has, the less they will perceive a high price as a barrier to purchase. It's all relative. Boosting this effect is the primarily baby-boomer generation market base of high-end audio. Whose members are either at the highest point of their earning potential, or have their lifetime accumulated wealth in hand as they enter retirement. They want to reward themselves for a lifetime of sacrifice and wealth creation. Some may buy a Porsche, some may buy high-end Hi-Fi. In any case, I believe this a a major factor in the rapidly rising pricing we have seen in high-end audio. Also, as seen in the seemingly dramatic increase in the number of products directly targeted at the very top edge of pricing. Such increases are certainly not attributable to the rate of monetary inflation.
It is also fair to suspect that simple greed plays some role. However, I would suggest that no one enters the high-end audio business out of greed. There certainly are more lucrative, less failure prone business options around. I should think that those in the high-end audio business are there primarily because of their own passion. High-end audio is an industry of passionate vendors serving passionate customers.
What and where does this leave the the equally passionate, though less well heeled customer? It leaves us the trickle-down technology, or it leaves us DIY. The very best products can be ridiculously expensive. However, nearly as good products often become available at prices disproportionately lower than the performance they deliver. At least, relative to the top of the line product. In other words, while the highest of the high-end gets better, the lower-end (should) also get better as a result, only a bit delayed in time. In addition, newer vendors such as Schiitt are encouraging to see. Reminds me of the role Hafler used to play back in the day. I humbly suggest, that we pay no attention to how much fun a really big dollar rig can provide today. Only pay attention to how much fun we can have with an affordable rig today, relative to the amount of fun we were able to have with one of yesterday.
Last edited:
Yep! For sure, the psychological aspect plays an interesting role in all of this.
I like lower cost stuff though, no Lowther or equivalent for me, but perhaps some of the Sonido field coil units may be in my future somewhere.
To my eye, the graphs on this driver do not look significantly different to some of the much cheaper wideband units from Beyma, Fane or Eminence.
Though, the Cube units look nicer and probably has a better basket amongst other things.
I like lower cost stuff though, no Lowther or equivalent for me, but perhaps some of the Sonido field coil units may be in my future somewhere.
To my eye, the graphs on this driver do not look significantly different to some of the much cheaper wideband units from Beyma, Fane or Eminence.
Though, the Cube units look nicer and probably has a better basket amongst other things.
Yes unfortunately published specs/measurements are often lacking, when one sees good actual measurements the correlation to the sound is very impressive.
In my experience, that's generally only true in course terms. Such as graphed visually obvious frequency response differences among loudspeakers. I don't find, however, that a list of specs. or some graphs accurately communicate the subjective experienced difference between the better components when listening to music. We tend to wrongly judge measured differences which appear (in)significant to the eye, as necessarily (in)significant to the ear.
I'm not saying that small differences aren't reflected in the various graphs, only that the subjective sonic experience is not predictably and accurately conveyed. Part of the problem is that most graphs are static depictions of dynamically changing and interacting phenomena, among other issues. Then, there is the problem of cognitively integrating all of the measured information into an expected perceptual/emotional experience. Just my 2 cents.
You can say that, but that would more or less negate the need for graphs alltogether.
What I would say is: A graph such as for the F10 Neo that just barely seems to contain itself within +/- 10db, and made to merely seem smooth-ish on paper, will probably scream your ears off if you're unfortunate enough to sit with your head in a vice at 0º from both speakers.
It looks like a great driver and the materials and craftsmanship may be compareable to something like a Lowther, but there's a few things to consider before opening your wallet to these kinds of drivers.
Not for everyone.
Edit:
I realize that my post may perhaps seem a bit harsh, but I just really hope that whoever purchase these speakers do not use much toe-in towards the sweet spot. That would make it a "harsh spot".
They probably sound really nice and sweet off axis.
What I would say is: A graph such as for the F10 Neo that just barely seems to contain itself within +/- 10db, and made to merely seem smooth-ish on paper, will probably scream your ears off if you're unfortunate enough to sit with your head in a vice at 0º from both speakers.
It looks like a great driver and the materials and craftsmanship may be compareable to something like a Lowther, but there's a few things to consider before opening your wallet to these kinds of drivers.
Not for everyone.
Edit:
I realize that my post may perhaps seem a bit harsh, but I just really hope that whoever purchase these speakers do not use much toe-in towards the sweet spot. That would make it a "harsh spot".
They probably sound really nice and sweet off axis.
Last edited:
One only has to compare available data with for instance high-end Wavecor speakers, to realize "something is wrong". For instance this tweeter doc https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/298-1124-1126--wavecor-tw030wa13-14-specifications.pdf
which provides SPL graphs at 1 dB / div vertical, and also provides data re distortion. This is the kind of data one would expect from high-end FR producers as well.
Last edited:
I should make clear that I am not advocating for or against the F10. I'm instead suggesting that reading graphs and specs. - whether for the F10, or any other audio component - is very easily misinterpreted for the purpose of translating what the eye sees on those graphs and spec. lists in to what the ear/brain will perceive upon audition. Graphs are not useless, it's just that they point to the beginning of predicting the subjective experience, they do not yet seem to accurately convey the complete music listening experience unless there are relatively gross parameter aberrations.
At some future point, I feel certain that the meaured parameters will be accruately presented so as to completely predict the subjective music listening experience. I'm not suggesting this is some sort of magic. Physical devices obey physical laws. As of now, however, many of us perplexingly find an disconnect to exist between conventional measurements (or in their presentation for accurate predictive interpretation) and our subjective experience. The former does not seem to reliably predict the latter. At least, not among components free of gross parameter differences.
Music reproduction is, of course, a dynamic, multi-dimensional, contrived phenomena. One which includes the human ear/brain as the final link in that system chain. As such, it requires the cognitive integration of the various graphs and other measurements to preset an accurately INTERPRETABLE prediction of what will be the subject result with music. Unfortunately, the industry has not yet been coherently convey such an accurate prediction via the presentation of the current measurment regimens, IMHO. Again, this is just my 2 cents worth.
Last edited:
There is an 8in version that seems to have nice TS parameters for vented/TL style alignments. If one could make any type of box, what would that box be? A MLTL, or a tapered TL? Or simply sealed cabinet?
Cube Audio F8 Neo Fullrange Drivers
Cube Audio F8 Neo Fullrange Drivers
I fint it a very weird analysis
How you would compare the two things?
A measure is a thing, the perception another thing.
How would you compute the self will to a thing called "music" and "sound" ?!
The algorithms that are used in DSP are predictive but that's another thing.
Many things on the balance plate...almost infinite ( almost infinite is a nice nonsense!)
I think that what he wants to say is, that it's not because it measures good, it will sound good and reverse. And i agree with that.
But that does not mean we don't have to measure our stuff, and try to find what sounds the best on that measurements. No data is always worse than data that only gives a part of the equation. And even with only a part of the data, we can find what we need. That is how i work. And drivers without measurements or T/S data are suspicious for me as i'm allergic to snake oil.
But that does not mean we don't have to measure our stuff, and try to find what sounds the best on that measurements. No data is always worse than data that only gives a part of the equation. And even with only a part of the data, we can find what we need. That is how i work. And drivers without measurements or T/S data are suspicious for me as i'm allergic to snake oil.
Correct, that's part of what I want to say. Also, that there is undoubtedly an accurately quantifiable cause-and-effect relationship between the human perceptual experience and the measurable physical system parameters, so as to accurately and fully predict the listening experience simply from the measured parameters. I'm not suggesting there is some sort of magical process at work. It's just that current measurments seem either ineffectively/incompletely presented, or cannot be accurately/reliably interpreted for that purpose.
The integrity of the signal transfer from microphone through loudspeaker is certainly verifiable via existing parameter measurement methods. However, this also tends to imply the presumption that an accurate signal transfer between those two system stages produces an accurate listening experience of the original acoustic event. Some would argue that there is not such a presumption, it's just that, what else is there to use as an objective reference of fidelity?
That argument is logical to me, but also seems insufficiently holistic just the same. It seems to lack complete consideration/understanding of the human perceptual stage of the reproduction chain. Perhaps, that's because that stage of the system chain is not directly measurable via instrumentation. It requires observational reporting by humans as part of an statistical analysis loop. So, as of now, an incomplete correlation between the two seems objectively established/recognized.
This is merely my '2 cents worth' of thought - I claim no declarations of absolute truth here.
Last edited:
Oh, I didn't want to scare you, but let's say the truth:
the difference between the measured sound pressure/phase is infinitively different to sound
As, to be mathematically precise, sound is a vector and with SPL you define only one magnitude ( the amplitude).
Then there's time, as everybody could tell the difference of a sound that lasts a second and one that persists for 10 seconds
I'll presume the above comment is addressed to me. (Pardon me, if I'm incorrect in that presumption.)
Are you scared by the truth? I often find that those of dogmatic persuasion (I don't know whether or not that description applies to you, so I'm not accusing) tend to be frightened by 'truths' counter to their own. I'm certainly not scared by the truth. I'm happy to be corrected so that I can move forward in less ignorance.
Yes, sound is, in a basic physical sense, localized cyclic changes in air pressure. The frequency of which renders it audible or not to human ears. Any notion that live music has a single vector direction, however, would be overly simplistic. Instruments are not acoustical point sources. Obviously, neither are bands and orchestras. Unless heard from a relatively large distance.
There are many vector sources of most sounds, at any given instant, produced by the playing of live music. This fact is consequential for creatures which hear via two ears, as those ears each beneficially recieves a differing set of time variant vectors. Leaving aside the twin issues of the brain's psychoacoustic processing of those multiple correlated vectors, and the uniquely human emotional appreciation of 'music', which the sound may represent.
Last edited:
On this subject i'm a big fan of the view of Nelson Pass who say both measurements and subjective judgement are important, and you need both to get there where you want. So excluding one of those factors always limits you in what you can do. He uses that on amps, but that counts on everything that has to do with sound quality. There are some factors that we can't measure yet but with our ears (who are not objective). Maybe one day we will be able to measure them. But for now we need to use both subjective (ears) and objective (measurements) judgements to get there.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.