advertisement


Nominations for a PFM list of 25 top speakers of all time.

paskinn said:
I have, and do, and 'great' isn't the word that springs to mind. Speakers design hasn't improved one jot in terms of ultimate sound quality. In fact many expensive speakers, loaded with 'technology' don't sound as good as an old pair of Quad 57s.
Actually, to my ears, they don't sound as good as my 1934 Voigt Corner Horns.....
Click to expand...

In terms of accuracy modern loudspeaker drive units are way better than old ones, the new technology for linear magnetic circuits, totally pistonic diaphragms and high power handling just did not exist in many old drive units, if any.
The Quad 57 sounds fantastic at low levels sitting in the right place, a bit louder or sit off axis and they do not.

It does beg the question, though, how good the speakers built with these fantastic drivers are. Weird tailored frequency responses proliferate in modern speakers IMHO. Goodness knows why.

Also many of us still love a bit of the euphonic colouration added by the imperfect kit, whether because we have become accustomed to it as the norm or just nostalgia. A bit too much fidelity is not always what we want to hear.
 
diybry said:
Is this thread for the best ANTIQUE speaker of all time?
Get out and listen to some modern technology!!!
Click to expand...

I took the thread to be about the top speakers throughout history that were remarkable in some way (technology or sound quality) at that point in time.

It's easy to make things with "trickle down" technology that are incrementally better, but much harder to make a step change.

If we are talking best outright then my list would be:

Acapella Horn
B&W 800 (cannot remember exactly which variant I heard that sounded phenomenal)
My Speakers
Quad 989


Oh, and can we have some examples of this modern technology that you rate so highly.
 
In terms of modern technology, then Grimm and Devialet's new loudspeakers are at the forefront, DSP to implement crossovers, correct phase anomalies,built from the ground up to provide the finest possible sound quality, and with tHe Grimms at least to be extremely room/placement friendly .
Keith.
 
diybry said:
Is this thread for the best ANTIQUE speaker of all time?
Get out and listen to some modern technology!!!
Click to expand...
You COULD make a very good speaker with modern drivers (likely a 3-way, 10"+ bass in a big, wide cabinet)
Unfortunately most modern designs choose to go for too narrow cabinets, a "smile" frequency response and 3 Ohm impedance in places
 
davidsrsb said:
You COULD make a very good speaker with modern drivers (likely a 3-way, 10"+ bass in a big, wide cabinet)
Unfortunately most modern designs choose to go for too narrow cabinets, a "smile" frequency response and 3 Ohm impedance in places
Click to expand...

I take your points David, particularly WRT the narrow baffles, but when you hear speakers like the Revel Salons properly driven, IMHO it's clear that there have been advances and that issues like low impedance are of less concern in the modern era.
 
Giya G1's the same , real narrow baffle , amazing dispersion , no smile... tho they do dip to 3.75 ohms from the nominal 6.. but for any competent amp , thats an easy load to drive.
At any rate , there is a corollary to all this .. you can have the best speakers in the world and if your room is rubbish.. they wont work much better than anything else
 
"I took the thread to be about the top speakers throughout history that were remarkable in some way (technology or sound quality) at that point in time."

That's how I read it too..
 
Rodney gold said:
Giya G1's the same , real narrow baffle , amazing dispersion , no smile... tho they do dip to 3.75 ohms from the nominal 6.. but for any competent amp , thats an easy load to drive.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't see why low impedance is a problem. If you're going to the trouble of hunting down the very best speakers you can afford, you ought to get a decent amp to drive them. The amp serves the speakers, not the other way round.

As for modern speaker technology, the latest batch of Martin Logan hybrids are outstanding. The individual elements (curved panels, aluminium woofers, Class D amp, DSP Xover) may only be new-ish and not the very newest tech but putting it all together in a package that works isn't at all easy.
 
S-Man said:
I took the thread to be about the top speakers throughout history that were remarkable in some way (technology or sound quality) at that point in time.

It's easy to make things with "trickle down" technology that are incrementally better, but much harder to make a step change.

If we are talking best outright then my list would be:

Acapella Horn
B&W 800 (cannot remember exactly which variant I heard that sounded phenomenal)
My Speakers
Quad 989


Oh, and can we have some examples of this modern technology that you rate so highly.
Click to expand...

Go and listen to some KEFs. :cool:
 
Is it possible that we are measuring the wrong things...or at least failing to understand how people 'hear' reproduced music? Only some vintage speakers are unquestionably 'wrong' technically, but sound wonderful despite that.
And some modern speakers measure well, but don't sound it....I suspect the issue is that designers are good at technical aspects of design but know too little about the complexities of psycho-acoustics.
One other rule-of-thumb; the most lifelike sound comes from big speakers. Preferably, really big speakers. You need that sense of ease and effortless such speakers bring to the party.
 
paskinn said:
Is it possible that we are measuring the wrong things...or at least failing to understand how people 'hear' reproduced music? Only some vintage speakers are unquestionably 'wrong' technically, but sound wonderful despite that.
And some modern speakers measure well, but don't sound it....I suspect the issue is that designers are good at technical aspects of design but know too little about the complexities of psycho-acoustics.
One other rule-of-thumb; the most lifelike sound comes from big speakers. Preferably, really big speakers. You need that sense of ease and effortless such speakers bring to the party.
Click to expand...

The issue is that there are 2 measurements , the speakers in anechoic conditions and then one at listening position. the listening position "ideal" graph is not at all flat across freq range or "ideal" , it slopes from a lift in bass *room gain* and then a droop in the treble *losses etc*

The listeners position measurement is a "target curve" which is not a universal truth as the ideal curve at listening is a taste based thing.. Im talking freq domain here.
 
jumbo said:
The implausibility of building 7's collapse still troubles me....
Click to expand...

That's because you think it was a separate building - the various WTC buildings all were part of one massive structure sharing a common basement and foundation, they only appeared separate above street level.
 
paskinn said:
Is it possible that we are measuring the wrong things...or at least failing to understand how people 'hear' reproduced music?
Click to expand...

Unlikely I would say given the results of Harman's repeated blind listening tests. It would seem we prefer technically good sound when we can't see what we are listening to.
 
Speakers with flattish response both close on axis and in room and with low distortion tend to be keepers. Unfortunately these are not the ones that stand out in the showroom and that is probably why so many keep swapping
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top