GoldenEar T44 Loudspeaker Review

[shadyJ]

​

In 2023, GoldenEar announced the launch of a new series with the T66 tower speaker. It was an upmarket move relative to their Triton series speakers: a nicer, more luxury-oriented mid-sized tower speaker. The Triton speakers were an acclaimed series, but they had been around for a while without much change. The higher-end offered higher margins, and other manufacturers were doing the same pivot upmarket, a sensible move considering the rising costs of virtually every index of consumer electronics manufacturing. The T66 was well-received, so GoldenEar has now expanded that line with a smaller and more space-friendly tower in the T44. The T44 gives up dynamic range for its more reasonable size, but it looks like it should work well in small to medium-sized rooms. In today’s review, we look at the T44 to see what GoldenEar has done to justify this higher-end item. The T44 has a hi-fi price and hi-fi look, but does it have a hi-fi sound? And how does it compare to speakers within the same class? Read our full review to find out…

READ: GoldenEar T44 Floor-Standing Loudspeaker Review

 

[Mikado463]

Thanks James !

 

[TLS Guy]

View attachment 79898​

In 2023, GoldenEar announced the launch of a new series with the T66 tower speaker. It was an upmarket move relative to their Triton series speakers: a nicer, more luxury-oriented mid-sized tower speaker. The Triton speakers were an acclaimed series, but they had been around for a while without much change. The higher-end offered higher margins, and other manufacturers were doing the same pivot upmarket, a sensible move considering the rising costs of virtually every index of consumer electronics manufacturing. The T66 was well-received, so GoldenEar has now expanded that line with a smaller and more space-friendly tower in the T44. The T44 gives up dynamic range for its more reasonable size, but it looks like it should work well in small to medium-sized rooms. In today’s review, we look at the T44 to see what GoldenEar has done to justify this higher-end item. The T44 has a hi-fi price and hi-fi look, but does it have a hi-fi sound? And how does it compare to speakers within the same class? Read our full review to find out…

READ: GoldenEar T44 Floor-Standing Loudspeaker Review

Why is that designers of commercial speakers seem obligated to make at least one "howler" of a mistake and often more than one?

Crossing over to a 4.5" midrange at 113 Hz, is just insane design. So no wonder the speakers has compromised dynamic range. That is a bigger power band between there and 400 to 500 Hz range. That contains the bulk of the fundamentals of pretty much all musical instruments and the human voice. These guys most be totally oblivious to the power range versus frequency if instruments and voice. This data is available all pver the place. But no, just walk into a massive hole that was easily avoided.

This sort of nonsense is so common in speaker design and easily avoided. This was information I was well aware of before the age of 10, as Gilbert Briggs (dear old GAB) published it in his book on speaker design in the 1950s. So this has been known for a long time. GAB encouraged his readers to take note of this data in particular when selecting optimal crossover points. This is sort of stupidity in design is just totally uncalled for.

 

[lovinthehd]

As part of the Fraudioquest group, would never consider buying the Golden Ear brand myself. However, it seems the brand was sold by Fraudioquest to PML Sound Intl (Paradigm, Martin Logan, Anthem) last year so I can put them back into consideration . Better report than I expected except in the area of the powered "sub" which seems more as expected. Interesting aesthetic somewhat.

 

[TLS Guy]

As part of the Fraudioquest group, would never consider buying the Golden Ear brand myself. However, it seems the brand was sold by Fraudioquest to PML Sound Intl (Paradigm, Martin Logan, Anthem) last year so I can put them back into consideration . Better report than I expected except in the area of the powered "sub" which seems more as expected. Interesting aesthetic somewhat.

The problem is, I think these designers are taught to rely on measurements alone. Speaker measurements do not tell you the whole story, as there is a huge amount they don't tell you about a speaker. At this time experience really counts.

Shady has already alluded to the limited dynamic range. The experienced designer would look a the design and predict it. I suspect Shady was kind and somewhat minimizing the problem. If I heard that speaker, I'm pretty sure I would zero in on the problem immediately.

The design is badly flawed, no doubt about it.

 

[lovinthehd]

The problem is, I think these designers are taught to rely on measurements alone. Speaker measurements do not tell you the whole story, as there is a huge amount they don't tell you about a speaker. At this time experience really counts.

Shady has already alluded to the limited dynamic range. The experienced designer would look a the design and predict it. I suspect Shady was kind and somewhat minimizing the problem. If I heard that speaker, I'm pretty sure I would zero in on the problem immediately.

The design is badly flawed, no doubt about it.

Taught and what corporate restrictions are more likely tell more of the story....

 

[Nondemo01]

Why is that designers of commercial speakers seem obligated to make at least one "howler" of a mistake and often more than one?

Crossing over to a 4.5" midrange at 113 Hz, is just insane design. So no wonder the speakers has compromised dynamic range. That is a bigger power band between there and 400 to 500 Hz range. That contains the bulk of the fundamentals of pretty much all musical instruments and the human voice. These guys most be totally oblivious to the power range versus frequency if instruments and voice. This data is available all pver the place. But no, just walk into a massive hole that was easily avoided.

This sort of nonsense is so common in speaker design and easily avoided. This was information I was well aware of before the age of 10, as Gilbert Briggs (dear old GAB) published it in his book on speaker design in the 1950s. So this has been known for a long time. GAB encouraged his readers to take note of this data in particular when selecting optimal crossover points. This is sort of stupidity in design is just totally uncalled for.

I think this criticism assumes the T44 is trying to be something it is not.

The T44 is not really designed as a high-output SPL monitor or a large-room reference speaker meant to play at punishing levels. It is better understood as a high-fidelity tower for modern listening spaces: compact footprint, powered bass integration, good imaging, strong tonal balance, and enough output for sane real-world listening levels.

Could you argue that a 4.5-inch driver crossed that low has theoretical dynamic limits? Sure. But that does not automatically make it a design failure. Crossover frequency by itself does not tell the whole story. Driver excursion, enclosure loading, filter slopes, DSP, powered bass behavior, protection, and the speaker’s intended listening distance and playback level all matter.

A limitation that may show up when you push the speaker beyond its intended use may not be meaningful at the levels and room sizes this product was actually designed for. Not every speaker is engineered to be a studio main monitor, a PA speaker, or a large-room cinema system. Some are engineered to sound refined, coherent, and full-range in normal living rooms.

GoldenEar has earned a pretty solid reputation for sound quality, imaging, and clever bass integration. Sandy Gross may no longer be directly involved, but the design philosophy associated with GoldenEar did not suddenly disappear. You may not like the design tradeoff, and that is fair, but calling it “insane” or “stupidity” seems like judging the speaker against a use case it was never really intended to serve.

 

[Nondemo01]

View attachment 79898​

In 2023, GoldenEar announced the launch of a new series with the T66 tower speaker. It was an upmarket move relative to their Triton series speakers: a nicer, more luxury-oriented mid-sized tower speaker. The Triton speakers were an acclaimed series, but they had been around for a while without much change. The higher-end offered higher margins, and other manufacturers were doing the same pivot upmarket, a sensible move considering the rising costs of virtually every index of consumer electronics manufacturing. The T66 was well-received, so GoldenEar has now expanded that line with a smaller and more space-friendly tower in the T44. The T44 gives up dynamic range for its more reasonable size, but it looks like it should work well in small to medium-sized rooms. In today’s review, we look at the T44 to see what GoldenEar has done to justify this higher-end item. The T44 has a hi-fi price and hi-fi look, but does it have a hi-fi sound? And how does it compare to speakers within the same class? Read our full review to find out…

READ: GoldenEar T44 Floor-Standing Loudspeaker Review

Great review James! Thank you.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think this criticism assumes the T44 is trying to be something it is not.

The T44 is not really designed as a high-output SPL monitor or a large-room reference speaker meant to play at punishing levels. It is better understood as a high-fidelity tower for modern listening spaces: compact footprint, powered bass integration, good imaging, strong tonal balance, and enough output for sane real-world listening levels.

Could you argue that a 4.5-inch driver crossed that low has theoretical dynamic limits? Sure. But that does not automatically make it a design failure. Crossover frequency by itself does not tell the whole story. Driver excursion, enclosure loading, filter slopes, DSP, powered bass behavior, protection, and the speaker’s intended listening distance and playback level all matter.

A limitation that may show up when you push the speaker beyond its intended use may not be meaningful at the levels and room sizes this product was actually designed for. Not every speaker is engineered to be a studio main monitor, a PA speaker, or a large-room cinema system. Some are engineered to sound refined, coherent, and full-range in normal living rooms.

GoldenEar has earned a pretty solid reputation for sound quality, imaging, and clever bass integration. Sandy Gross may no longer be directly involved, but the design philosophy associated with GoldenEar did not suddenly disappear. You may not like the design tradeoff, and that is fair, but calling it “insane” or “stupidity” seems like judging the speaker against a use case it was never really intended to serve.

It is not deigned as a good speaker at all. That speaker will not properly reproduce an orchestra, choir, opera or an organ recital in any satisfying way at all. All the drama will be knocked well and truly out of thrilling performance. I would find any speaker with one 4.5" mid crossed at 113 Hz totally useless. As an aside I would probably blow that 4.5" mid on the first day.

 

[ski2xblack]

Seems a bit unfair to cast judgement, but what the heck. These seem very similar to prior designs that were merely scaled down versions, e.g. the Def Tech 7006. I had those for a bit, and even though they had two 4.5" mids they were dynamic range constrained, fit for only modest levels and/or small rooms. So Doc's criticism seems quite valid to me.

Aesthetically, I prefer the 2001: A Space Odyssey alien obelisk look of the DT's. These with that rounded mesh grill look somewhat like a Remington microscreen electric razor. "Shaves as close as a blade or your money back!"

 

[TLS Guy]

Seems a bit unfair to cast judgement, but what the heck. These seem very similar to prior designs that were merely scaled down versions, e.g. the Def Tech 7006. I had those for a bit, and even though they had two 4.5" mids they were dynamic range constrained, fit for only modest levels and/or small rooms. So Doc's criticism seems quite valid to me.

Aesthetically, I prefer the 2001: A Space Odyssey alien obelisk look of the DT's. These with that rounded mesh grill look somewhat like a Remington microscreen electric razor. "Shaves as close as a blade or your money back!"

It is the crossover point that is the real issue. You DO NOT cross to a mid driver below 400 Hz. No exceptions.

 

[ski2xblack]

Well, in the case of the DT, and probably these GoldenEars under test, they rely on the acoustic roll off of the mids in their small sealed subenclosures within the cabs. No hpf to speak of. The lpf for the powered woofs is applied at line level before amplification, so no ridiculous coils or anything passive/post amplification. So they sort of sidestep some issues of crossing the mids so low, but it's still a recipe for limited dynamic range.

The DT's were plenty enjoyable at lower spls and nearfield, but not for more spirited levels and greater distances. These GE are probably similar in that regard. What measurements James provided look quite respectable, after all. I wish he had a klippel nfs to show how they'd fare in compression and dynamic range testing though. I doubt these GE would fair any better than small studio or desktop monitors with similar sized mid-woofs.

I guess I'm long-winded agreeing with your earlier point:

I suspect Shady was kind and somewhat minimizing the [limited dynamic range] problem.

 

[TLS Guy]

Well, in the case of the DT, and probably these GoldenEars under test, they rely on the acoustic roll off of the mids in their small sealed subenclosures within the cabs. No hpf to speak of. The lpf for the powered woofs is applied at line level before amplification, so no ridiculous coils or anything passive/post amplification. So they sort of sidestep some issues of crossing the mids so low, but it's still a recipe for limited dynamic range.

The DT's were plenty enjoyable at lower spls and nearfield, but not for more spirited levels and greater distances. These GE are probably similar in that regard. What measurements James provided look quite respectable, after all. I wish he had a klippel nfs to show how they'd fare in compression and dynamic range testing though. I doubt these GE would fair any better than small studio or desktop monitors with similar sized mid-woofs.

I guess I'm long-winded agreeing with your earlier point:

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.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Crossing over to a 4.5" midrange at 113 Hz, is just insane poor design.

This sort of nonsense is so common in speaker design and easily avoided.

This is sort of stupidity in design is just totally uncalled for.

And yet @shadyJ gave such high praise:
“they would be hard to beat for the cost.”

If people believe that James is an expert in this area, which I do believe and most of us do believe, they would think that these speakers are pretty awesome.

If people believe what you say, they would think these speakers are pure crap.

So you’re saying that bass-to-midrange XO should always be around 400-500Hz, midrange-to-treble XO should always be around 4-5kHz, and anything else is stupid?

 

[TLS Guy]

And yet @shadyJ gave such high praise:
“they would be hard to beat for the cost.”

If people believe that James is an expert in this area, which I do believe and most of us do believe, they would think that these speakers are pretty awesome.

If people believe what you say, they would think these speakers are pure crap.

So you’re saying that bass-to-midrange XO should always be around 400-500Hz, midrange-to-treble XO should always be around 4-5kHz, and anything else is stupid?

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.

 

[Verdinut]

And yet @shadyJ gave such high praise:
“they would be hard to beat for the cost.”

IMO, the JBL HDI-3800 performs better and I might be interested in getting a pair eventually.

JBL HDI-3800 Floorstanding Speaker Review

The JBL HDI-3800 84lb beast of a floorstanding speaker features triple 8" bass drivers and an advanced compression driver and waveguide. We review it to determine if it lives up to the JBL heritage.

www.audioholics.com