How old is old technology when it comes to speakers?

[thecoolguy11]

As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I am planning to buy the Energy Take 5.2 speaker system. Energy has stopped production of these speakers and replaced them with the Act6. I find that the take 5.2 have better sound (and so do a lot of folks on the forum). My only concern is that how old is old technology. Th energy take 5.2 was released in 2001 and has been replaced by the act6 this summer. Would the act6 have major tachnological and sonic improvements over the Take 5.2 or does speaker technology remain relatively static compared to other audio technology? Am I making a smart decision by purchasing a speaker that's good or am I shooting myself in the foot by buying 3 year old technology that's no longer on the production line.

 

[markw]

You said it. Think about it.

"I find that the take 5.2 have better sound (and so do a lot of folks on the forum)."

As far as "new technology" goes, not a heckuva lot has transpired in the three years. They knew how to make good speakers overhalf acentury ago and they have just been refining and tweaking it since. Actually, there are some that crave speakers from the 50's and 60' over and above what's available today. Why? It's the sound.

Sometimes, as time marches on, style dictates what's in the marketplace.

If, as you say, you've compared and you like the sound the 5.2s over the newer version, buy then with confidence. They should last a good, long time.

If you are swayed more by style and what the ads tell you, then go for the latest and greatest.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Compared to other audio technologies, speakers don't really change much. With digital and computer tech, three years old can be ancient but not so for speakers. As with any mature technology, changes and improvements in speakers are incremental. A three year old speaker is no more "out of date" than a three year old car. The basic moving coil driver has been around for the better part of a century. The "exotic" drivers like ribbons and electrostats have been around for decades. The basic box designs (bass reflex, acoustic suspension, etc.) are decades old as well. Speakers ten and more years old can and do sound every bit as good as today's "latest and greatest". So a fair amount of marketing and cosmetics are applied to convince you otherwise!

Where speakers are likely to undergo rapid change in the near future is with wider use of things like digital active crossovers. Maybe powered speakers will finally gain acceptance. But there haven't been major breakthroughs in a while, and there's nothing on the horizon that looks like it will replace the basic drivers and the boxes we put them in.

So if you like the Take 5.2 get it!

 

[annunaki]

I beg to differ here. Although it does not really apply to the poster's question.

Speaker technology has changed quite a bit over the past couple years. Not so much in how they work, but more of a refinement in how they do it. Speakers are beginning to become increasingly more linear in terms of output, and lower distortion from the speaker itself. This is due to manufacturing techniques in the design of the motor structures (bottom plate, magnet, top plate, pole piece, ect). Here is what I am talking about

http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/XBL2TechPaper.pdf
http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/XBL2DetailsPaper.pdf
http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/W7_DMA.html

These technologies are now making their way into fullrange speakers as well. We are going to hear music better than we ever have before. Better as in lower distortion, higher detail, and more efficently. I am sure companies like B&W have also done things like this but are much more secretive about it.

As for the Take systems versus the ACT systems, I would say like stated previously was more for asthetics than actual performance.

 

[JoeE SP9]

Anyone who thinks speaker technology has changed that much should listen to some Quad ESL57's. Introduced in 1957 and still have a midrange to die for!

 

[Az B]

The actual technology really hasn't changed that much. Materials for the drivers have been made a little more modern and crossover materials have been updated. But everything that is being done now has been done before, in many cases it wasn't econmically feasible or realistic because of size or other restraints.

Probably one of the biggest advancements has been one of style... smaller speakers sound better now than they ever have.

 

[annunaki]

What JL Audio and Adire Audio are doing has not been done before. That is why their designs are patented. These seemingly small changes lower distortion produced by the driver by leaps and bounds. The efficency (in terms of turning wattage into actual, usable, acoustic output) on drivers using this technology is also improved. I would like to see evidence of some one or company that has addressed bl limit induced distortion.

 

[WmAx]

The main relevance of these motors that remain linear into 'extraordinary' excursions is applied to situations where the motors must be operated into non-linear ranges. In cost no object hi-fi speakers designs, these motors would usually be of little benefit since the designs never(or rarely) operate anywhere near a non linear range. The biggest benefit of such ulta-linear motors would ironaically be in low and mid-range speaker systems that may be foreced into such contstraints and must have a midrange(midbass) that has to move signicant distances to cover a wider than optimum band or a woofer that is not optimally suited to a situation, by conventional standards. Summarily, the benefit of such a motor system is to allow a smaller diameter speaker produce higher SPLs with equivalent distortion of a larger diamter speaker. But I should point out that across a wide band and with a particualr excursion/incusrion, other distortion artifacts may become problematic that are not related to motor linearity(mainly phase intermodulation distortion). Since one of the papers from Adire had a distortion graph for a subwoofer, I thought it would be interesting to point out that under 100Hz, [1]15% THD is generally the audible threshold for music program. The BL and distortion graph vs. excursion is not nescarilly represenative of what can be obtained with different examples of conventinoal motor designs. An underhung motor will remain more linear then a stanard overhung motor(seemingly what is presented as teh conventional motor on the Adire link) at the expense of reduced maximum amplitude/spl capability. As with everthing else, the use of one of these ultra-linear motors *may* or *may not* be beneficial: it depends on the specific application and engineering objectives.

-Chris

[1] Just Detectable Distortion Levels
James Moire, F.I.E.E.
Wireless World, Feb. 1981, Pages 32-34 and 38

I beg to differ here. Although it does not really apply to the poster's question.

Speaker technology has changed quite a bit over the past couple years. Not so much in how they work, but more of a refinement in how they do it. Speakers are beginning to become increasingly more linear in terms of output, and lower distortion from the speaker itself. This is due to manufacturing techniques in the design of the motor structures (bottom plate, magnet, top plate, pole piece, ect). Here is what I am talking about

http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/XBL2TechPaper.pdf
http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/XBL2DetailsPaper.pdf
http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/W7_DMA.html

These technologies are now making their way into fullrange speakers as well. We are going to hear music better than we ever have before. Better as in lower distortion, higher detail, and more efficently. I am sure companies like B&W have also done things like this but are much more secretive about it.

As for the Take systems versus the ACT systems, I would say like stated previously was more for asthetics than actual performance.

 

[annunaki]

Chris,

You do have a point, as you most always do. However, upon listening to the W7 versus other drivers of similar quality one can hear more detail. Even at normal listening levels. I have done much non-biased listening between the W7 and other drivers and it is pretty easy to tell a difference. The differences become even more apparent as the drivers are pushed to higher levels, which you stated. The low level detail however is simply better. I have not had the opportunity as of yet to hear a full range speaker equipped with either type of technology. Although I will soon. If the differences as the same in terms of detail, I will be happy as well as surprised. According to testing done by Autosound 2000 Testlabs (or Carsound magazine?), Sorry I do not have a link. The 13W7 did not reach 10% thd until its powerhandling was exceeded by THREE TIMES (rated rms power is 1000 rms, power it took to reach 10% thd was 3000 watts rms). I feel that that says a lot about the linearity of the driver and design.

You were correct in saying that it (linear BL technology) was developed primarily to lower BL limit distortion when near power compression. This allowed for more linear output at higher output levels by keeping BL more constant over the entire range of the woofer's motion. A side effect was more detailed output through the entire range due to reduced distortion (intermodulated as well as harmonic) at all power levels.

I do understand what you are saying though. It has not really been used a lot in full range drivers as of yet, therefore the benefits of which may or may not be realized. With customers wanting smaller less obtrusive designs, this could help out greatly in that department.

 

[WmAx]

Chris,

You do have a point, as you most always do. However, upon listening to the W7 versus other drivers of similar quality one can hear more detail. Even at normal listening levels. I have done much non-biased listening between the W7 and other drivers and it is pretty easy to tell a difference.

An unbiased listening comparision of this nature requires drivers to be matched in frequency response and level matched exactly, and listened too in blind conditinos in order to make such a conclusion. Ultimately, this would mean a blinded comparision in a 4pi space, since boundaries would create noticable FR anomilies with just a small placement difference in a room. Less strict comparision will result in unreliable judgements, since other variables are not being controlled. A more practical test woudl be to record(nearfield) the output from the subwoofers with linear, low disotortion measurement microphone, then perform transforms on the captures to normalize levels and adjsut frequency response(s). After analysis to ensure that no extraneous artifacts in the recordings, an ABX test using precision monitoring headphones would be sufficient.

Or we could skip all that stuff and measure the THD and compare it to established perceptual research.

-Chris

 

[Westrock2000]

What a relief because just the other day I was listening to The Eagles on my 3000 watt amp with the volume at max, and I think I heard some pecular anomalies....it could have just been the blood running down my neck though


I agree that while there are refinements in driver technology (like neodynmium, metal cones, etc...), there have been no real advancments in several years. As mentioned the often regarded as high tech stuff like electrostatics and planars is still older than me (23!).

You also have to realize that up until 15-20 years ago, bass wasn't really even a big deal, so high power handling and extreme excursions were of no consecuence. Hell I have magazines from the late 90's and the high powered subwoofer systems were 12" drivers with 100 watt amps (which I still feel is plenty for most applications).

However it would be entirely possible to take drivers of yesteryear and using an large multiway active system with high order crossovers, you could probably achieve a speaker just as ruler flat in response as any of todays "no holds barred" systems.

 

[16hz lover]

Chris,

You do have a point, as you most always do. However, upon listening to the W7 versus other drivers of similar quality one can hear more detail. Even at normal listening levels. I have done much non-biased listening between the W7 and other drivers and it is pretty easy to tell a difference. The differences become even more apparent as the drivers are pushed to higher levels, which you stated. The low level detail however is simply better. I have not had the opportunity as of yet to hear a full range speaker equipped with either type of technology. Although I will soon. If the differences as the same in terms of detail, I will be happy as well as surprised. According to testing done by Autosound 2000 Testlabs (or Carsound magazine?), Sorry I do not have a link. The 13W7 did not reach 10% thd until its powerhandling was exceeded by THREE TIMES (rated rms power is 1000 rms, power it took to reach 10% thd was 3000 watts rms). I feel that that says a lot about the linearity of the driver and design.


JL may have introduced a woofer for technology geeks, but it still sounds boomy compared to the top SQ woofers out there. More than once I've been at events that the standard comment was " not as tight as they say it is" and I've heard quite a few applications including the company JL demo vehicles. They just don't know what tight bass sounds like.

 

[annunaki]

Chris, I think will go with the second choice.


16hzlover,

What are you saying is a top SQ woofer? Many "audiophiles" that "think" the JL sounds "boomy" are used to rolled off low end response that they tend to favor. The W7 has very linear output from 80hz down to around 15hz or so. Linear, in that all frequencies are produced at or near the same level. Also, when reviewing a car that uses the W7 driver, one is not reviewing just the woofer, but rather how the bass, midbass, midrange and treble work together as a system. Basically how all of the speakers in the vehicle interact together. To properly evaluate a subwoofer's response to determine whether or not it was "boomy" an anechoic chamber should be utilized. Listening to just the subwoofer.
Many reviewers of the w7 taking into account the objective measurements, as well as subjective listening have stated that it was their new reference subwoofer. From an objective standpoint the W7 is the most linear, highest displacement subwoofer on the market, it its respective size category(13" was tested). That is according to Richard Clark any way.

Quotes by Richard Clark:
based on the audible distortion threshold limits of the two speakers the JL exhibited inaudible distortion power handling at levels that were at or near the limits of the brahma when it was at or near its distress limits-

the JL is simply incredible and thats all there is to it-------anyone want to come by and hear the JL being driven to ridiculous power levels and still remain free of distortion is certainly welcome--------the suspension in the 13w7 is amazing and at the present time unequalled by anything i have yet to measure or hear-------in car racing there is a saying "engines make you go fast but its tires that win races"-------i have a saying about speakers-------"magnets and voicecoils make speakers powerful but its suspensions that make them sound good".................RC

[ October 23, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Richard Clark ]

http://www.caraudiomag.com/testreports/0210cae_jla/

http://www.m-emag.com/reviews/reviews.html?reviewID=155