GoldenEar T44 Loudspeaker Review

[TLS Guy]

Are there 6.5” midrange drivers that can do a good job in the 100-500Hz region?

May be, but the woofer will do a better job. Those frequencies are best handled by the bass driver. The other issue I did not mention in a narrow cabinet a low crossover to a mid puts it well into the Baffle Step Corrections zone, and that alone requires a massive increase in the power demand. Making a midrange handle the BSC is just poor design, as the bass driver should be handing that.

 

[TLS Guy]

Most people would not reach the dynamic range limits of the T44s. They can not get super loud, but few poeple listen at elevated levels. By saying they would be "hard to beat for the cost," I was commenting on the appearance and form factor and adequate performance levels for most people's tastes. I was not talking about just performance alone. In terms of raw performance, they can be beat, of course, but by speakers that are larger and not quite as slick-looking. They are decent speakers for small rooms or for people who aren't looking for extreme dynamics. They are basically just small bookshelf speakers that are mounted on 8" powered subs in a stylish package.

That is my point, but very small bookshelf speakers at that. Audio is not a fashion display. Having said that it does not need to be ugly either but elegantly functional. I just can't imagine making that a design concept for any speaker I would begin to design, and certainly not for 5K.

Lastly, I am certain the LF speaker could handle to 400 Hz at least without stressing the midrange driver the way they have.

 

[lovinthehd]

All this fuss over Goldennear, who woulda thunk?

 

[Nondemo01]

I did not say that. Those are optimal goals, but in practice hard to achieve, as there is always a shortage of really good midrange units to choose from. The lower end target is much easier to hit and should be a goal. It is hard to make and design a decent midrange unit that will play well below 400 Hz. If you do, you are likely to encounter high distortion and power limitations. The other reason is that 400/500 Hz to 4K/5K covers the speech discrimination band, where the ear is most sensitive to crossover aberrations. No crossover is perfect it is a point of discontinuity to higher or lesser degrees. Lastly, this design conundrum often makes a two way design a better option than three way, due to there being only one point of discontinuity. What really counts is to have an achievable design plan and avoid as many snake pits as possible and not jump right into them. The later seems far too common to me.

Your “no exceptions” argument is doing way too much work here. That is not a fact. It is an absolutist opinion. The T44 appears to be a deliberate compromise: lower ultimate SPL and midbass headroom in exchange for compact size, powered bass integration, coherent vocal range, broad imaging, and living-room-friendly fidelity.

Yes, a 4.5-inch driver crossed at 113 Hz may have output limits if you are trying to use the T44 like a high-SPL monitor or a large-room theater speaker. But that is not what this speaker is.

The frequency chart proves that 100–500 Hz matters. It does NOT prove that every speaker must cross at 400–500 Hz or the design is automatically wrong. That ignores the actual driver, excursion, distortion profile, crossover slopes, cabinet design, powered bass section, room size, and intended playback level.

GoldenEar clearly made a tradeoff: keep the vocal/midrange region more continuous and accept that the speaker is not meant for extreme SPL. That is not “insane.” That is a design choice.

To say “you DO NOT cross below 400 Hz, no exceptions” is not engineering. It is dogma.

 

[Nondemo01]

I have published this picture many times before, but I guess I can't repeat it often enough.

This is data that anyone who wants to design a speaker should really study and understand, as GAB so strongly advised, all those years ago. He will never be wrong about this.

Now note that many instruments have fundamentals below the 400 to 500 Hz range. Note that some have fundamentals above the crossover point to the mid of the speaker in question. The other thing to understand is that the acoustic power of an instrument is maximal at its fundamental, and progressively decreases from second, fourth etc.

I think you can see from this chart the the 400 to 500 Hz range is a really good place to cross from woofer to mid. If the mid is not really capable, use 2. You can also see that crossing to the tweeter at 4 to 5 KHz range is another sweet spot. Unfortunately too many mids suffer cone break up, with rise in output and beaming below that frequency.

That chart show why crossing to a 4.5" mid at 113 Hz is a really poor design choice.

WAY too simplistic.

That "chart" is basically an EQ/instrument-range reference showing approximate fundamentals, harmonics, and “air/overtones.” It does show that 100–500 Hz is musically important. But it does NOT prove that a midrange cannot operate below 400 Hz, nor does it account for modern long-excursion drivers, active bass sections, DSP, cabinet loading, or the intended playback envelope.

Real instruments have formants, body resonances, varying harmonic structures, and different spectral balances depending on pitch, volume, player, and instrument. Even when the fundamental is strong, the relative harmonic levels are not constant and vary with pitch, volume, instrument, and performer.

A speaker is not reconstructing the size of the instrument; it is reconstructing the waveform. If I crush my 10" tom and barely tap my 18" floor tom, the 10" tom may create the larger transient, stronger peak voltage demand, and greater short-term acoustic output, even though the 18" drum has the lower fundamental. The driver only sees amplitude, frequency, and time. That is why an instrument/frequency chart is useful background, but it does not prove that a given crossover point is automatically wrong. Level, dynamics, driver behavior, and intended playback environment matter just as much.

 

[Verdinut]

I think @TLS Guy meant that you do not use a passive crossover for frequencies below 400 Hz, unless you actively bi-amplify with an active electronic crossover.

As a matter of fact, active bi-amplification happens with a receiver and a powered subwoofer, with crossover frequencies of 80 Hz or.above.

In my HT system, I'm using active bi-amplification with a 15 inch sub and a pair of 5.25 inch mid-bass drivers, crossing over at 200 Hz. These drivers can handle 60 watts of power which is amply more than I need for my 12.5 ft X 18 ft room. Commercial QSC DCA 1222 Cinema amps are handling the frequency ranges.

 

[Nondemo01]

All this fuss over Goldennear, who woulda thunk?

Right? It's just frustrating cause buyers do read these reviews and comment sections. For whatever reason, so many of us feel compelled to dump on gear without any experience with it. EVERY. SPEAKER. EVER. MADE. has compromises and tradeoffs. James and AH do an OUTSTANDING JOB (IMHO) of articulating to the reader what those compromises are so we can make an informed decision. If I had a nickel for every "claim" on a forum from someone that's never heard any of these speakers and just dismisses them as junk compared to their "XXX" doesn't do anyone who is coming here for the first time any service. No wonder audiophiles get eye rolls from the broader public - we don't even like each other, why would they want to join us? THIS is how soundbars take over the world. Not prices, not country of origin, constant bickering about science that's already settled.

 

[Nondemo01]

I think @TLS Guy meant that you do not use a passive crossover for frequencies below 400 Hz, unless you actively bi-amplify with an active electronic crossover.

As a matter of fact, active bi-amplification happens with a receiver and a powered subwoofer, with crossover frequencies of 80 Hz or.above.

In my HT system, I'm using active bi-amplification with a 15 inch sub and a pair of 5.25 inch mid-bass drivers, crossing over at 200 Hz. These drivers can handle 60 watts of power which is more than I need for my 12.5 ft X 18 ft room. Commercial QSC DCA 1222 Cinema amps are handling the frequency ranges.

That is a more reasonable version of the argument, but it still cannot be turned into a universal rule. Passive crossovers below 400 Hz are not forbidden; they are just more demanding because of component size, losses, impedance behavior, and power handling. Plenty of passive 3-way speakers cross in that region successfully.

Also, AVR bass management with a powered sub is active system level integration, not quite the same thing as the internal crossover design of a tower speaker. An AVR crossed to a powered sub at 80 Hz or 120 Hz is active bass management.

 

[TLS Guy]

That is a more reasonable version of the argument, but it still cannot be turned into a universal rule. Passive crossovers below 400 Hz are not forbidden; they are just more demanding because of component size, losses, impedance behavior, and power handling. Plenty of passive 3-way speakers cross in that region successfully.

Also, AVR bass management with a powered sub is active system level integration, not quite the same thing as the internal crossover design of a tower speaker. An AVR crossed to a powered sub at 80 Hz or 120 Hz is active bass management.

No it is partial bass management. Bass extends to the 400 to 500 Hz range. This sub obsession makes the last octave or two the most important, which it is not. It is about the least important.

 

[shadyJ]

That is my point, but very small bookshelf speakers at that. Audio is not a fashion display. Having said that it does not need to be ugly either but elegantly functional. I just can't imagine making that a design concept for any speaker I would begin to design, and certainly not for 5K.

Lastly, I am certain the LF speaker could handle to 400 Hz at least without stressing the midrange driver the way they have.

The bass driver is rectangular; I have to wonder if it can go up to 400Hz? Regardless, the midrange in the T44 is surprisingly powerful, and I doubt that GoldenEar will see any complaints from typical users. That being said, if I were designing a tower speaker of this size, I would not have gone with such a low crossover frequency with a 4.5" midrange, but GoldenEar must have had their reasons for that decision.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

All this fuss over Goldennear, who woulda thunk?

Hey, we’re bored.

But it still opens up a good discussion.

 

[TLS Guy]

The bass driver is rectangular; I have to wonder if it can go up to 400Hz? Regardless, the midrange in the T44 is surprisingly powerful, and I doubt that GoldenEar will see any complaints from typical users. That being said, if I were designing a tower speaker of this size, I would not have gone with such a low crossover frequency with a 4.5" midrange, but GoldenEar must have had their reasons for that decision.

Well the bass driver is not that different from the venerable KEF B139, except that it is a flat oval. Despite being designed over 60 years ago, Falcon acoustics have it back in production, and supplying it to other manufacturers. So driver has such good bass extension in barely needs a sub, in fact if you load it in a TL, for which it has optimal parameters it does not. I am sending part of the sub signal to the four B 139s in my rear speakers, and they sound like subs.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This brings up a question. TLS Guy is sitting comfy at home with no one else in his ears. He could do whatever he wants with his DIY speakers and answers to no one.

OTOH, Brick and Mortar engineers have to answer to corporations. There’s no telling their exact situations and the different types of engineering decisions they have to make.

So to call their engineering choices “stupid” or “insane” is unfair, especially when we are not exactly sitting in their corporate hot seats.

As @shadyJ and others say, MOST people are not going to need the kind of SPL that @TLS Guy is talking about anyway.

At the end of the day, most consumers only care that the speakers sound good and look good; and they will probably buy the speakers, which will make these corporations happy and the corporate speaker engineers get to keep their jobs.

 

[Nondemo01]

This brings up a question. TLS Guy is sitting comfy at home with no one else in his ears. He could do whatever he wants with his DIY speakers and answers to no one.

OTOH, Brick and Mortar engineers have to answer to corporations. There’s no telling their exact situations and the different types of engineering decisions they have to make.

So to call their engineering choices “stupid” or “insane” is unfair, especially when we are not exactly sitting in their corporate hot seats.

As @shadyJ and others say, MOST people are not going to need the kind of SPL that @TLS Guy is talking about anyway.

At the end of the day, most consumers only care that the speakers sound good and look good; and they will probably buy the speakers, which will make these corporations happy and the corporate speaker engineers get to keep their jobs.

You bring up an important point that many of us forget: VERY few of us are able to go from "idea" to "reality" without compromising. This occurs for a myriad of reasons and without sitting in the project meetings for the T44, none of us knows why they made the decisions they did. Could have been driver availability, manufacturing capacity/ability, aesthetics (and before I hear they don't matter, everyone needs to ditch their bathroom mirrors. Even doctors want even scars after their surgeries.) See these FANTASTIC series of articles by the late Steve Feinstein on speaker development. https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/home-audio-products

Before my time in the military, I was a professional musician. I have had the good fortune of working in studios and can tell you that in the early 90s, we compromised on EVERYTHING. Recording to 2" tape was really restrictive from a creative perspective, but many audiophiles would argue until they're blue in the face that it sounds superior to digital. There are VERY FEW (if any) producers, engineers, or artists that would go BACK to recording on tape. "In the box" is SO much faster and nowadays, you'd be very hard pressed to tell a difference.

My point is, even the media we consume started off with an idea that had to be compromised. Guitar solos (remember those?) are redone to be shorter, movie scenes are cut for time etc.

Going back to the T44, a loudspeaker is an electromechanical transducer: it converts a time-varying electrical signal into corresponding mechanical motion of a diaphragm, which creates pressure variations in air.

When executed well, that conversion can sound “good” because the pressure variations produced in the room closely track the input signal with minimal audible distortion, smooth frequency balance, controlled dispersion, clean transient behavior, and enough headroom to avoid compression at the intended listening level.

In other words, “good” is about how accurately and cleanly the whole system turns voltage into acoustic pressure and if James says it sounds "good", I believe him.

 

[MrBoat]

As @shadyJ and others say, MOST people are not going to need the kind of SPL that @TLS Guy is talking about anyway.

At the end of the day, most consumers only care that the speakers sound good and look good; and they will probably buy the speakers, which will make these corporations happy and the corporate speaker engineers get to keep their jobs.

Excellent review, as always.

Better to have it and not need it, than just to not have it, just for the benefits of extra headroom alone. So many designs now can do (or, it all, really) both, which just makes speakers like these an odd and rather expensive novelty, at best.

Whenever I see designs like these, I get the feeling that some company ended up with too many leftover drivers they needed to use up. . .somewhere. Especially when I see these supposed 'interesting' cabinet designs, that seem more like a distraction to the design, than a benefit.

Not really knocking the design. It clearly wasn't designed for someone like me. The aesthetic is definitely a bit too eccentric for my tastes. It just seems a lot to go thru to make that shape work.

 

[ski2xblack]

. So many designs now can do (or, it all, really) both, which just makes speakers like these an odd and rather expensive novelty, at best.

Yep. Considering that a pair of Philharmonic HT towers, a pretty much end-game speaker that really does do it all, in superlative fashion and for less than these, the value proposition is pretty suspect.

 

[TLS Guy]

This brings up a question. TLS Guy is sitting comfy at home with no one else in his ears. He could do whatever he wants with his DIY speakers and answers to no one.

OTOH, Brick and Mortar engineers have to answer to corporations. There’s no telling their exact situations and the different types of engineering decisions they have to make.

So to call their engineering choices “stupid” or “insane” is unfair, especially when we are not exactly sitting in their corporate hot seats.

As @shadyJ and others say, MOST people are not going to need the kind of SPL that @TLS Guy is talking about anyway.

At the end of the day, most consumers only care that the speakers sound good and look good; and they will probably buy the speakers, which will make these corporations happy and the corporate speaker engineers get to keep their jobs.

So, its all about jobs for the boys!

I still maintain that to give good value for money you need a sound design properly executed.

The design below fits the bill. F3 30 Hz so plenty of output to 20 Hz, especially with room gain.

Crossover, bass to mid 400 Hz, crossover mid to tweeter 5KHz. Very powerful and accurate speaker. That sort of design could easily be made for the price of the speaker reviewed.

I maintain that is a sensible conservative and practical design that measures and sounds excellent.