Identifying Legitimately High Fidelity Loudspeakers - Part 1

[Frans]

Very nice article! A fun read. Keep up the good work.

 

[sfeinstein]

GREAT article, very well-written and well-documented. It illustrates many issues and the inherently conflicting nature of consumer product design, manufacturing and marketing. Loudspeakers may just as well be digital cameras or skis or cars or coffee makers or computer tablets. They all use technology to varying degrees, there is a constantly-changing notion of what constitutes SOTA performance in their given product area, they all must be marketed and sold in the real world to real customers, etc.


Profit is not an evil thing. Profit enables companies to stay in business, to research, design, and introduce new products, to service their existing customers, to influence the direction of the industry, to enhance their reputation by their success (and thus enhance their customers’ satisfaction with their products by enabling them to own a product with a well-deserved reputation).


Outside of a very limited novelty appeal, owners of a DeLorean sports car are pretty much holding the bag for a worthless product. That’s what happens to the customer when the company goes out of business because they couldn’t (for any of a hundred reasons) make a profit. Profit serves everyone’s interest—as long as the product delivers the performance it is represented to deliver and isn’t an outright sham.


But a beautifully-designed, high-performance product with great fit and finish and a legitimately-earned, highly-prestigious reputation in its industry? That’s a great thing. The manufacturer deserves the profit for finding (at their sole risk, in our entrepreneurial, capitalistic, no safety-net, dog-eat-dog free market system) a successful niche in a terribly-competitive landscape. The customer is commensurately rewarded with a product that meets—and exceeds—their needs and expectations, for both performance and egotistical/emotional satisfaction. This is true at all price levels, at all ends of the spectrum.


When the total ‘system’ works, it’s a win-win for everyone.

Steve Feinstein
Dir of Marketing and Product Development, Atlantic Technology

 

[shadyJ]

I enjoyed the article! Very informative. I'm looking forward to the next parts, thanks!

 

[cpp]

Profit is not an evil thing

no it's just a way of life in doing business.

Steve, I like the way you think.

 

[DS-21]

I think the article makes some useful points, particularly about the relative role of loudspeakers vs. everything else in determining the overall performance of an audio system. Also, great points about how common sense often gets tossed by the wayside, such as when people expect small woofers (even very good ones) to get low AND play orchestral-scale dynamics. Three constructive criticisms.

First, you didn't put the number one easy visual cue to see if a loudspeaker maker/marketer cares about high-fidelity reproduction and has the technical competence to effect it: Do they make extensive use of "toppled-MTM" center channels throughout their lineup? If so, say thank you and move on to a more serious firm. As Audiohoiics has previously published, such designs have no place anchoring the center of a music lover's system.

Second, I think it would be helpful to give a little bit of material about what to look for on the outside of the box from a sonic perspective, such as flush-mounting of woofers, gentle transitions between cabinet surfaces (curves, roundovers, etc.) to lower diffraction, and means of matching the directivity of the tweeter and the next driver down.

Third, I think the part about China is not only out of the scope of the rest of the article, but also simply wrong on fact.

Fact of the matter is, the "China price" has led to much better-quality speakers at lower prices for everyone. Let me give you an example of two entry-level bookshelf speakers from KEF, the British-made Q15 from ~1997 and the Chinese-made Q-Compact from ~2005. The speakers had a few things in common. They both sounded very good for the price, because of the sophisticated Uni-Q drive-unit and technically competent crossover design. End-user cost was also similar, though the later Q-Compact might have been ~$50/pr cheaper or thereabouts. Bass extension and output were even surprisingly similar, though the smaller Q-Compact did have lower efficiency. But in terms of parts quality, the Chinese speaker makes its old British ancestor look cheap.

Cabinet-wise, there is simply no comparison.
The old Q15 used cheap pressboard in a simple box, except for the baffle, which was a flimsy ribbed plastic piece and simply press-fitted onto the front of the box. (My old ones fell apart a few times, and I ended up gluing the baffles on.) There was a lone pressboard horizontal shelf brace.
The Q-Compact's cabinet was a finer (less grainy-looking) pressboard, molded into a curved shape. The baffle was part of this molding, and there was a plastic trim ring around the Uni-Q to hide the basket and lower diffraction. (Yes, that allowed them to save costs by not painting the basket black or sculpting its rim for lower diffraction.)

As for a comparison of the drivers, let's look at the two of them and see which one hits more of the "good" traits discussed in the article:

Made-in-UK Q15 (1997) driver:

Pressed steel basket, no ventilation under the spider, relatively small windows under the cone.

Made-in-China Q-Compact (2005) driver:

Rigid cast alloy basket with under-spider ventilation and much less reflective area behind the cone, also (not visible) a motor with a Faraday ring inside for lower distortion.

Besides, the simple fact of the matter is, American production fell by the wayside long ago. But American companies were defeated by white people, not Asians: American firms by and large weren't' able to compete with the Scandinavians, not the Chinese. Long before the Chinese entered their picture, American companies looking for high-qualtiy OEM drivers went to Peerless, or Seas, or ScanSpeak, or Vifa, and so on. (Or, outside of Scandinavia, to Audax in France, Eton in Germany, and so on.)

Furthermore, if you want to talk about statist/corporatist policies affecting the loudspeaker industry, there's a better example than China much closer to home. The Canadian government made audio research a priority (makes sense, lots of timber in Canada that could be profitably turned into loudspeakers) and highly subsidized the NRC. Where would Paradigm, PSB, the former API companies, etc. be without that statist interference from the Canadian government? (And can we all collectively say "thank you" to Canada for that?)

 

[gene]

Do they make extensive use of "toppled-MTM" center channels throughout their lineup? If so, say thank you and move on to a more serious firm.

As you have previously published such designs have no place anchoring the center of a music lover's system.

MTM's aren't always a bad design, especially if the seats are withnin a reasonable listening field as I wrote in our counter article here. In fact, in some cases MTM's outperform W(T/M)W designs.

Cabinet-wise, there is simply no comparison. The old Q15 used cheap pressboard in a simple box, except for the baffle, which was a flimsy ribbed plastic piece and simply press-fitted onto the front of the box. There was a lone pressboard shelf brace. The Q-Compact's cabinet was a finer (less grainy-looking) particle board, molded into a curved shape. The baffle was part of this molding, and there was a plastic trim ring to hide the basket and lower diffraction.

As for a comparison of the drivers, let's look at the two of them and see which one hits more of the "good" traits discussed in the article:

Agreed on some points about cabinetry but still the best built cabinets tend to be made locally for cost no object speakers. It's too expensive to make and ship very heavy cabinets overseas. Some companies have moved their production to more local 3rd world countries as a result.

Agreed partly on driver comparisons though the problems often associated with Chinese made speakers are the lack of quality control. Unless an engineer is willing to travel routinely to their factory in China to inspect assembly and other QC elements, you likely wind up with drivers wired out of phase or the Chinese cheapening the design by using inferior parts over time. You have to really keep on top of this when making products in China. Some companies are good at this, others aren't.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about statist/corporatist policies affecting the loudspeaker industry, there's a better example much closer to home. The Canadian government made audio research a priority (makes sense, lots of timber in Canada) and highly subsidized the NRC. Where would Paradigm, PSB, the former API companies, etc. be without statist interference from the Canadian government?

I have strong opinions about the NRC mantra and how some companies that follow it as their gospel do so to the demise of the quality of their products. They run flawed so called "DBT" tests and make bad decisions based on the results of such tests. Many of the design issues we discuss in this article and the following one are done by Canadian companies that hold NRC research so dear to them. The picture of the poorly designed crossover in the first article is a prime example of this. Anything followed to an extreme is a bad thing especially when its used to justify cost cutting to increase profit. A good dose of common sense is often needed here.

 

[3db]

Furthermore, if you want to talk about statist/corporatist policies affecting the loudspeaker industry, there's a better example than China much closer to home. The Canadian government made audio research a priority (makes sense, lots of timber in Canada that could be profitably turned into loudspeakers) and highly subsidized the NRC. Where would Paradigm, PSB, the former API companies, etc. be without that statist interference from the Canadian government? (And can we all collectively say "thank you" to Canada for that?)

What the hell does a compapny "'renting" NRC servies have to do with off shoring to China? How did the government make audio research a priority? If you want to really dig deep at offshoring, look at TI which was the very first US company to offshore in 1953.

BTW Paradigm owns their facilities and does not use the NRC.

 

[DS-21]

What the hell does a compapny "'renting" NRC servies have to do with off shoring to China?

Please read more carefully next time. I simply did not make the connection you are alleging. "Offshoring" (your word) is not the same thing as "statist/corporatist policies affecting the loudspeaker industry" (my words).

How did the government make audio research a priority?

By spending the money to set up the NRC, assisting the industry in its infancy, and so on.

BTW Paradigm owns their facilities and does not use the NRC.

Now, perhaps.

 

[3db]

I have strong opinions about the NRC mantra and how some companies that follow it as their gospel do so to the demise of the quality of their products. They run flawed so called "DBT" tests and make bad decisions based on the results of such tests. Many of the design issues we discuss in this article and the following one are done by Canadian companies that hold NRC research so dear to them. The picture of the poorly designed crossover in the first article is a prime example of this. Anything followed to an extreme is a bad thing especially when its used to justify cost cutting to increase profit. A good dose of common sense is often needed here.

I want to clarify a point...that some Canadian companies who see the value of using the NRC's facilities have examples of poor design practices. There are many that use it legitemaltely and come up with solid designs.

 

[3db]

By spending the money to set up the NRC, assisting the industry in its infancy, and so on.



Now, perhaps.

Oh wow are you ever misguided. The NRC is far from just an anoechic chamber and it was not purposely set-up to promote loud speaker design in Canada.

Go educate yourself before making wild and dumbfounded accusations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Canada)

 

[gene]

I want to clarify a point...that some Canadian companies who see the value of using the NRC's facilities have examples of poor design practices. There are many that use it legitemaltely and come up with solid designs.

Agreed, but like anything, research can be poorly misapplied and/or abused to fit an agenda. That was my point.

 

[3db]

Agreed, but like anything, research can be poorly misapplied and/or abused to fit an agenda. That was my point.

Agreed.

 

[Paul_Apollonio]

China IS the reason we lost our manufacturing base

Dear DS-21,

China is the entire reason this country has lost its manufacturing base. China is the sole reason quality of the cones has gotten worse. China is a haven for people who want to destroy the working and middle class, depress wages, and poison the Earth. This is the reason we no longer have manufacturing in the USA. Business is a bottom feeder. Why pay you, when they can get a Chinese worker to put in 50-60 hours per week for $300 per month without benefits.

We knew as a country this would happen in 1928, and language was put into the GOP party platform when the country still cared about a working middle class. Go online and find it. Tonight when I get home, I will find the graphs that show the drop in the value of the Chinese currency. I am sure we can incorporate them into part two.

As for your GLOBAL proof, you use ONE driver, a cast you compare to a stamped. Brilliant. You forgot to mention that KEF has learned nothing in the past 24 years as a company? Sure.

Quality is dropping, not increasing. I know. I fight this battle EVERY day. As for my facts, I can support them with objective data. I will. As for your conclusions, they do not follow from your premise.

Why not look at the cones we had made in the USA in the late 90's and compare them with the GARBAGE coming out of China today.

Here is another fact. In the average year, the Chinese give out 100,000 visas for students to study post grad abroad. In the same year, 22,000 come home. Why? Because if you've an advanced degree and can speak Mandarin or Cantonese, you can make several times what the Chinese will pay. Why go back? This country has the WORST brain drain in the entire world. They make everything, and yet, know very little.

EVERY factory we do business with is run by someone from Taiwan, a much more cultured place (IT IS NOT CHINA, and IF YOU DOUBT ME, ASK SOMEONE FROM TAIWAN WHILE THE CAMERA IS OFF). This is because the lack of knowledge in the country is horrible. I deal with their ineptitude on a daily basis. Several times a day. I speak with China 3-4 times per week, and have daily emails go back and forth. If it were not for the fact the Chinese Govt. MANIPULATES the value of their currency, NO ONE in their right mind would want the headaches, yourself included, and if you deal with China, you already know this.

Better steel and frames for the money? Sure. But only because they are free to pollute the Earth without consequence and manipulate the currency to suck the jobs from the USA. Better technology? They only have what they can copy or steal.

There is a reason why certain China factories work with Germans, Brits, and Americans. They know full well where the knowledge lies still today. In 30 years, it may well be different. Today, this is common knowledge in our business. Ask ANY engineer who designs for a living.

The reason your dollar buys MORE is because of currency manipulation, the unfair competition that is free trade, and the fact that the US government is only concerned about building military hardware. Loudspeakers don't let the politicians project their power halfway across the world. Bombs do.

There are a lot of naysayers like DS-21. Part two is coming. I will make it my personal obligation to prove you wrong.

 

[DS-21]

MTM's aren't always a bad design, especially if the seats are withnin a reasonable listening field as I wrote in our counter article here.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that we hear the on-axis response (that "lobe" nonsense) and not the total sound power of a loudspeaker. Single-point in-room measurements do not really capture what is heard. See Geddes and Blind, "Localized Sound Power," a JAES article from the mid-1980s.

But leaving that aside, if you don't think a 10dB dip at 500Hz (part of 15dB variation in the 200Hz-2kHz decade is a material, and perhaps fatal, flaw...well, I guess you don't listen to a lot of piano music. For movies, hey, maybe it doesn't matter. But given that the "listener's" focus is typically on a screen, movie sound is comparatively uncritical anyway.

Also, you ignore an issue of critical importance to music reproduction, which is how the directivity pattern* interacts with a room. Do you not think that the wide-open vertical response of such a loudspeaker, with the floor/ceiling reflections that implies, will destroy imaging cues with all of those extra early reflections?

*Inasmuch as any of the speakers speakered can be said to have directivity patterns: they are all poor designs with inadequate directivity control at the bottom of the tweeter passband.

But the proof is in the listening. Toppled MTM's, without exception, sound as awful as they measure, at least to someone used to high-fidelity equipment. Indeed, I blame the crappy sound of toppled-MTM center channels for the failure of multichannel music. People who focus on movies might not notice how awful they are, but while multichannel music is a significant advance in realism on a properly designed system, with a toppled-MTM center channel one may as well stick to 2-channel.

Agreed on some points about cabinetry but still the best built cabinets tend to be made locally for cost no object speakers. It's too expensive to make and ship very heavy cabinets overseas.

That may increasingly be true - though in the mid-2000s it wasn't - but energy costs are the issue there, not quality control.

Agreed partly on driver comparisons though the problems often associated with Chinese made speakers are the lack of quality control.

That is hardly a China-specific problem. If you want to talk about horrible quality control in drive-units, you need to look at Morel in Israel before you go anywhere near China...

Unless an engineer is willing to travel routinely to their factory in China to inspect assembly and other QC elements, you likely wind up with drivers wired out of phase or the Chinese cheapening the design by using inferior parts over time. You have to really keep on top of this when making products in China. Some companies are good at this, others aren't.

While I do understand the concern given that issues at a Chinese build house have recently brought down at least one excellent vender of high-quality subwoofers, you are unfairly singling out China here. The same is true for industrial production everywhere. Italy is no different from China is certainly no different from the USA.

I have strong opinions about the NRC mantra and how some companies that follow it as their gospel do so to the demise of the quality of their products.

I made no comment about the correctness of the "NRC philosophy." I merely noted that if you want to rant about state policy directly affecting the loudspeaker industry, Canada's a lower-hanging fruit than China.

 

[3db]

I made no comment about the correctness of the "NRC philosophy." I merely noted that if you want to rant about state policy directly affecting the loudspeaker industry, Canada's a lower-hanging fruit than China.

Show me proof positive and not your personal biased opinion of this.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....

Go educate yourself before making wild and dumbfounded accusations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Canada)

Most interesting. Started in 1916? WOW. Didn't the loudspeaker industry start soon after that.?

 

[3db]

Most interesting. Started in 1916? WOW. Didn't the loudspeaker industry start soon after that.?

Yes Paul Barton was designing MTMs while in cloth diapers as pamaper didn't exist back then. Thats before he became an accompished violinist.

 

[DS-21]

China is the entire reason***

It is a typical habit to blame the "other" rather than to look within. It is, however, a very unproductive habit. People of character will avoid it.

Perhaps this site wishes to pursue a jingoistic (and defeatist) agenda. While I consider that sad and just a little pathetic, it is out of my hands..

I think some of what transducer engineer **** Pierce wrote a while ago may be illuminating:

"With some notable exceptions that are in the almost invisible minority, the American driver manufacturers are simply stupid and, for some reason, afraid to make money. I have been forced to deal with the Far East for OEM driver purchases because of both the inability and the unwillingness of domestic manufacturers to produce drivers of fairly mundance specifications correctly and with any degree of consistancy whatsoever. In six months, I might have to go through 5-6 iterations with a Far East manufacturer before they get it right (and usually I end up building the prototype for them). In the same six months, the American vendors are deciding whether to respond or not. In the end, it's the Far East vendor that gets the $100,000 order, and the Americans simply loose [sic] out.

"The American vendors continue to shoot themselves in the foot. They suffer from a level of both technical and (most especially) bureaucratic incompetence that is simply amazing. Even considering the economic times, the right person with about $1M in capital and the right marketing and manufacturing plan could completely dominate the U.S. high quality OEM, semi custom and DIY driver market, turning it into a nice $5-$8M a year business fairly quickly (hint, hint, hint "

Here is another fact. In the average year, the Chinese give out 100,000 visas for students to study post grad abroad. In the same year, 22,000 come home. Why? Because if you've an advanced degree and can speak Mandarin or Cantonese, you can make several times what the Chinese will pay. Why go back? This country has the WORST brain drain in the entire world. They make everything, and yet, know very little.

Worst brain drain? The pattern you discuss is common in the entire developing world. Look are you and see how many Subcontinental doctors there are in the U.S., for instance.

EVERY factory we do business with is run by someone from Taiwan, a much more cultured place (IT IS NOT CHINA, and IF YOU DOUBT ME, ASK SOMEONE FROM TAIWAN WHILE THE CAMERA IS OFF).

What makes you think I've not been to both, and can't make up my own mind?

And who's more "cultured" has little to do with the topic at hand, except illuminate your frothing bigotry.

If it were not for the fact the Chinese Govt. MANIPULATES the value of their currency, NO ONE in their right mind would want the headaches, yourself included, and if you deal with China, you already know this.

Every government manipulates their currency. Nothing new there. It's an established part of national policy.

There is a reason why certain China factories work with Germans, Brits, and Americans. They know full well where the knowledge lies still today. In 30 years, it may well be different. Today, this is common knowledge in our business. Ask ANY engineer who designs for a living.

Again, this is nothing new. In fact, it's how America industrialized: knocking off the Brits/Germans/French/Bohemians who got there first.

There are a lot of naysayers like DS-21. Part two is coming. I will make it my personal obligation to prove you wrong.

Too bad. There could be useful knowledge spread in the next article, instead of yet-another half-baked jingoistic rant from someone who doesn't seem to understand policy very well.

 

[gene]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that we hear the on-axis response (that "lobe" nonsense) and not the total sound power of a loudspeaker. Single-point in-room measurements do not really capture what is heard. See Geddes and Blind, "Localized Sound Power," a JAES article from the mid-1980s.

But leaving that aside, if you don't think a 10dB dip at 500Hz (part of 15dB variation in the 200Hz-2kHz decade is a material, and perhaps fatal, flaw...well, I guess you don't listen to a lot of piano music. For movies, hey, maybe it doesn't matter. But given that the "listener's" focus is typically on a screen, movie sound is comparatively uncritical anyway.

Also, you ignore an issue of critical importance to music reproduction, which is how the directivity pattern* interacts with a room. Do you not think that the wide-open vertical response of such a loudspeaker, with the floor/ceiling reflections that implies, will destroy imaging cues with all of those extra early reflections?

*Inasmuch as any of the speakers speakered can be said to have directivity patterns: they are all poor designs with inadequate directivity control at the bottom of the tweeter passband.

But the proof is in the listening. Toppled MTM's, without exception, sound as awful as they measure, at least to someone used to high-fidelity equipment. Indeed, I blame the crappy sound of toppled-MTM center channels for the failure of multichannel music. People who focus on movies might not notice how awful they are, but while multichannel music is a significant advance in realism on a properly designed system, with a toppled-MTM center channel one may as well stick to 2-channel.

noone is arguing that placing an MTM horizontally can be a compromise. However I did an interesting in-room experiment taking an MTM vs a 2-way and orienting the MTM vertically vs horizontally on axis and up to 27 degress off axis as can be seen here. Yes the MTM measures better when oriented vertically but its not that bad horizontally (if its well designed). I've done listening experiments comparing good MTMs to not so good W(t/w)W designs and preferred the better engineered MTM. The whole issue is a bit overstated in my opinion. Most people don't sit that far off axis and a good MTM can produce a very dynamic sound compared to having a little 4" driver of a W(t/w)W doing most of the vocals.

Multi channel music didn't fail b/c people didn't like the sound of MTMs. To even imply that is comical at best and ignorant at worst. Most people don't know good sound, let alone the benefits of multi channel music.

 

[DS-21]

Oh wow are you ever misguided. The NRC is far from just an anoechic chamber and it was not purposely set-up to promote loud speaker design in Canada.

Go educate yourself before making wild and dumbfounded accusations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Canada)

Where did I ever claim that's all the NRC did?

My claim is simply that Canada set up substantial support network to nurture a Canadian loudspeaker industry, and thus represents a better example of state interference in the loudspeaker industry.

Are you arguing that I'm wrong?