Quality vs price 2007 vs 2024? What happened?

[davidscott]

Hello all, this is the last resort for a plausible explanation.

In 2010 Audioholics did a review on a few towers. One of them was the towers I own and were purchased in 2009 - debuted in 2007.
They are 4 way JBL ES 80 series. Paired with an integrated amp pushing 110 RMS@8ohm, 165@4ohms, source is redbook CD's. They are Great and sometimes Jaw dropping with Jazz, EDM, slow rock, classic rock and female vocals, their weakness is when the pace pics up on faster tracks where male vocals and instruments get clumped.

However; after auditioning speakers form the likes of SVS ultra towers/Polk Audio reserve/ paradigm Founder 100f/ wharfedale 4.4, Lintons, Aura 2 / dynaudio emit 50/evoke 30, JBL 82's / 698/3600 Hdi, Dali oberon 9, KLH model 3/5 and Passif 50 all of them being 2.5 to 3 way. None of them sounded better only a different sound signature.

I realized to better what I have, I would need to spend in the ball park of 7000 USD. I paid 1200 for both JBL towers in 2009. Specification white page included form manufacture. P.S I called JBL California and spoke to a manager about their line up, he said if I still have my 4 ways and if they work great to keep them. Hmmm?

How is this possible?
What happened?
Thank you!

Agreed. Audioholics did a positive review of my current Infinity P363s back in 2010 or so and I bought a pair in 2012. Still my main speakers with an Elac 12-inch sub to augment the bass. Very happy with this 2-channel setup.
Paid less than $400 for the infinity's that retailed for over $700 back then.

 

[JerryLove]

However; after auditioning speakers form the likes of SVS ultra towers/Polk Audio reserve/ paradigm Founder 100f/ wharfedale 4.4, Lintons, Aura 2 / dynaudio emit 50/evoke 30, JBL 82's / 698/3600 Hdi, Dali oberon 9, KLH model 3/5 and Passif 50 all of them being 2.5 to 3 way. None of them sounded better only a different sound signature.

It's hard to parse "sound signature"; but I would assert that any such thing is "bad".

A speaker's job is to deliver into the room the signal it's being handed. They will have different SPL without it being "wrong" (though more capability is better); and their dispersion patterns will look different (the important thing here is that they remain flat off-axis; though this also effects sweet-spot size); but given a fixed volume and on-axis they are all attempting the same goal (or are supposed to be) and so the only question is "how far from perfect".

That said: there were speakers measuring near ideal 50 years ago (Infinity RS1, for example); so really the only thing I would expect time to do is (ironically from your post) make quality cheaper.

Of course, modeling could result in better tubes allowing cheaper/lighter speakers; or better modeling of dispersion, to materials tech for cabinet resonance. There are some areas (not to mention active processing); but really I'd not expect much movement in what the top end sounds like.

Just work the logic backwards. If speakers are supposed to have dramatically improved in the last 15 years; how terrible must all speakers have been 50 years ago... but they weren't.

 

[davidscott]

Agreed. My old 1980 DCM Time Windows sounded as good as my 2012 infinity P363s, Sadly I sold them in 2009 or so.

 

[Mikado463]

Agreed. My old 1980 DCM Time Windows sounded as good as my 2012 infinity P363s, Sadly I sold them in 2009 or so.

a walk down memory lane, loved my Dahlquist DQ-10's back in the day as well

 

[JerryLove]

a walk down memory lane, loved my Dahlquist DQ-10's back in the day as well

And the only reason that the '80's B&W 801 Matrix 2 speakers aren't still in use in my house is that they were very ugly and large (and the 801Ds were pretty but even larger and the only speakers I can recall that actually required me to use an expensive amp to get correct sound from)

 

[TLS Guy]

What are some of the ways their performance was increased and how was this accomplished?

Flatness? Dispersion? Efficiency? Something else?

There have been advances across the board.

Improvements in the magnetic gap, such as shorting rings to lower inductance and alleviate bass peaking.
Imrovematerals for magnets have also had an impact.

Materials research in both metals and plastics. Laser interferometry has allowed for detailed study of cone break up coupled with advanced metal alloys and plastics. The goal has been to try and push cone break to ever higher frequencies. This goes to one thing you are wrong about. You can have an excellent on axis response and have an awful driver and speaker.

One of the major issues that is a major cause of poor sound is the off axis response not closely matching the on axis response. It can start to roll off smoothly at higher frequencies, but if the off axis does not closely match the axis response, then that will be a bad speaker.

The reason is that the off axis response determines the reverberant field. If direct and reflected sound don't match then your brain cries foul. Then people spend a fortune on room treatments and fuss around with room correction. The latter I believe to me a misnomer.

I use no exotic room treatments only architectural ones, and I don't use so called room correction. Apart from the very low end response I truly believe room correction is actually speaker correction largely.

Materials research has also improved spiders and surrounds. The later helps prevent harmful edge reflections which cause peaks and troughs in the response due to cancellations and enhancements.

Modelling and measurement techniques have also improved not only for completed speakers, but for drivers as well. There have advances in physics and improved modelling programs.

The major current improvements will come from active speakers with digital crossovers for time alignment. This allows for major improvements not possible with passive crossovers.

Is that a long enough list for you?

 

[80'shighfiguy]

Everyone thinks differently for sure - personal preferences.

Some people think you don’t need to spend more than $3K/pair for speakers that are a lot better than your current speakers.

I do not disagree, I am probably not looking at the right speakers. If you have any recommendations I would love to look at those you suggest. Thank you.

 

[TLS Guy]

I do not disagree, I am probably not looking at the right speakers. If you have any recommendations I would love to look at those you suggest. Thank you.

Just because a speakers is cheaper, does not make it a better value.

The ones recommended to you from Dennis are a really good value, and bet you will never look to replace them.

 

[JerryLove]

There have been advances across the board.

Improvements in the magnetic gap, such as shorting rings to lower inductance and alleviate bass peaking.
Imrovematerals for magnets have also had an impact.

I'm not familiar with that term and a quick search seems to suggest that it's clipping. Is that accurate? If so, it would seem to open up new speaker designs or speaker/amp combinations but would not change the best sound possible (only how you get there)

Materials research in both metals and plastics. Laser interferometry has allowed for detailed study of cone break up coupled with advanced metal alloys and plastics. The goal has been to try and push cone break to ever higher frequencies.

This sounds a lot like the previous answer. You've avoided cone breakup by using a crossover to move to another driver. If your cone doesn't break up as easily, then you can move that crossover point; which might be convenient and might well open up more design options (fewer drivers for a given range); but I don't see how it improves best available sound.

This goes to one thing you are wrong about. You can have an excellent on axis response and have an awful driver and speaker.

One of the major issues that is a major cause of poor sound is the off axis response not closely matching the on axis response. It can start to roll off smoothly at higher frequencies, but if the off axis does not closely match the axis response, then that will be a bad speaker.

The reason is that the off axis response determines the reverberant field. If direct and reflected sound don't match then your brain cries foul. Then people spend a fortune on room treatments and fuss around with room correction. The latter I believe to me a misnomer.

I said exactly this in the post you are responding to: "the important thing here is that they remain flat off-axis".

I use no exotic room treatments only architectural ones, and I don't use so called room correction. Apart from the very low end response I truly believe room correction is actually speaker correction largely.

"largely" is your get-out-of-jail free card there. Having tried to have a conversation in a room with a lot of reflecting surfaces, I would assert that there are certainly room issues that can be involved.

Even with a perfect off-axis (is it still perfect after it reflects), the reflections add, well, reflections. When I listen in a dead space, I hear the recording. Perhaps it was a violin in a church... so I hear a violin in a church. When I listen in a room with reflections I hear a violin in a church in the room.

Indeed: it was a topic of my conversations with Dr.Tool, who is, I believe, the author of the studies where you pull this position from.

Materials research has also improved spiders and surrounds. The later helps prevent harmful edge reflections which cause peaks and troughs in the response due to cancellations and enhancements.

I have trouble imagining how a spider causes an edge reflection, and a surround would have to be, what, at least 0.5x+ wavelength?

Were edge reflections really causing major sound issues in well-designed speakers 20 years ago that are now resolved? Do you have a source for this?

The major current improvements will come from active speakers with digital crossovers for time alignment. This allows for major improvements not possible with passive crossovers.

Those aren't really being discussed by the "modern speakers are better" crowd though. Which time alignment are we discussing? I have speakers driven through active crossovers (the WiMx set); I also have "phase coherent" speakers, such as my GMA Europa's. I've even had "mechanical crossover" single-driver speakers (not to mention single driver headphones and nearfields). I haven't noticed a sound improvement in removing the passive crossover's phase/time alignment.

Is that a long enough list for you?

Not really. I feel like there was a single item which was on-point (though I'm dubious of it), which was the assertion that changes in surround materials have resulted in a hearable improvement related to the reduction of edge reflections.

Nothing else (other than your time alignment comment, which doesn't apply since we aren't really comparing active to passive so much as new to old) actually seemed to address the *sound* from a speaker.

 

[JerryLove]

The ones recommended to you from Dennis are a really good value, and bet you will never look to replace them.

What about when the tech improves? What about when active speakers with digital crossovers add time alignment?

Either sound quality advances significantly or it doesn't. There's no quantum super positioning where both can be true. If it doesn't, then your statement about the Philharmonics (I own a pair of Phil 2s) can be true. If it does, then the speakers will be surpassed by future speakers which use new technology for better sound.

My problems with the logic aside, I do actually agree with the conclusion. Philharmonic puts out fabulous-sounding speakers (I've not heard them all, but I own a pair, and he also did the crossover and some design work for Salk, and I own a pair of Salks as well)

 

[TLS Guy]

There have been advances across the board.

Improvements in the magnetic gap, such as shorting rings to lower inductance and alleviate bass peaking.
Imrovematerals for magnets have also had an impact.

Materials research in both metals and plastics. Laser interferometry has allowed for detailed study of cone break up coupled with advanced metal alloys and plastics. The goal has been to try and push cone break to ever higher frequencies. This goes to one thing you are wrong about. You can have an excellent on axis response and have an awful driver and speaker.

One of the major issues that is a major cause of poor sound is the off axis response not closely matching the on axis response. It can start to roll off smoothly at higher frequencies, but if the off axis does not closely match the axis response, then that will be a bad speaker.

The reason is that the off axis response determines the reverberant field. If direct and reflected sound don't match then your brain cries foul. Then people spend a fortune on room treatments and fuss around with room correction. The latter I believe to me a misnomer.

I use no exotic room treatments only architectural ones, and I don't use so called room correction. Apart from the very low end response I truly believe room correction is actually speaker correction largely.

Materials research has also improved spiders and surrounds. The later helps prevent harmful edge reflections which cause peaks and troughs in the response due to cancellations and enhancements.

Modelling and measurement techniques have also improved not only for completed speakers, but for drivers as well. There have advances in physics and improved modelling programs.

The major current improvements will come from active speakers with digital crossovers for time alignment. This allows for major improvements not possible with passive crossovers.

Is that a long enough list for you?

Well, these issues do matter. Gap designs to lower inductance are a big advance for one.

Getting a higher bandwidth from drivers as it reduces the number of crossover point and above all gets the crossover out of the critical speech discrimination band, or at least to the higher end of it which reduces the issues.

The SEAS XL magnesium alloy cone drivers I used in my main speakers are a big advance for instance.

You seem to have some odd aversion to progress and development. That is how humans advance in all things.

 

[Danzilla31]

Thank you for your reply. Also, thank you for the recommendation - very expensive and way past my budget...wow 10.000 for each speaker! I may just have to keep looking. Best case senecio, I may find something as good but with a different sound signature. Thanks again.

You should also check out the new Mofi Source Point 888's

Erin's Audio Corner just did a full review on his YouTube channel and they look and measure very very well. $2500 each so $5000 for a pair

Thats not to crazy a price considering some of the other prices you were looking at

 

[Danzilla31]

I do not disagree, I am probably not looking at the right speakers. If you have any recommendations I would love to look at those you suggest. Thank you.

I tried to post you a link to Erin's Review of the Mofi but it wouldn't work

Honestly the Mofi would have been probably my upgrade if they were out at the time I upgraded.

 

[TLS Guy]

You should also check out the new Mofi Source Point 888's

Erin's Audio Corner just did a full review on his YouTube channel and they look and measure very very well. $2500 each so $5000 for a pair

Thats not to crazy a price considering some of the other prices you were looking at

Thanks for alerting us to that. That looks like a really good speaker. Good coaxials are far and few between, but that speaker looks excellent.

A center speaker built round that driver should go straight to the top

 

[lovinthehd]

Thank you I will! cheers.

Another direct seller to consider is Ascend Acoustics.

 

[JerryLove]

Well, these issues do matter. Gap designs to lower inductance are a big advance for one.

Getting a higher bandwidth from drivers as it reduces the number of crossover point[...]

The number of crossover points is determined by the number of driver (sets), yes? So a two-way has one crossover point, and a three-way has two crossover points.

Are you saying that we've moved from two-way bookshelves to single-driver bookshelves over the last 20 years because of this advance? Or are you only talking towers and I'll see a reduction in the number of drivers there?

Because we both like Philharmonic, and you recommended them in this thread, and even some of his bookshelves have two crossover points. (I also looked at the most expensive sets from them and their crossovers are at 700Hz and 3800Hz... relevant below)

... and above all gets the crossover out of the critical speech discrimination band, or at least to the higher end of it which reduces the issues.

The SEAS XL magnesium alloy cone drivers I used in my main speakers are a big advance for instance.

This could matter if it's true and you can show that response is objectively not as good if there's a crossover.

So I went to look up data on speech frequencies, and it seems to cover 80Hz to 8000Hz. (https://www.dpamicrophones.com/mic-university/facts-about-speech-intelligibility#:~:text=It can be seen that,of high importance for intelligibility.&text=Background noise has an influence,intelligibility of the speech signal. )

I don't know which SEAS XL Magnesium alloy cone you have, but this seemed reasonable. (https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-5-woofers/seas-excel-w15cy-001-e0015-5.5-magnesium-cone-woofer/)

Except that it's FR curve really breaks up around 2KHz, well before the end of the speech bands.

So perhaps you can get more detailed? Which frequencies are you discussing that used to be in the crossover (20 years ago), but which modern speakers don't cross-over in?

From what I can tell: SEAS introduced their Magnesium Alloy cones in 1993 and their new cones are Graphene; but it's not trivial data to search.

You seem to have some odd aversion to progress and development. That is how humans advance in all things.

Interesting. An Ad Hominem, or at least the setup to one. Am I to respond in kind? That you have an obsession with newness to the point of believing newer=better regardless of if it is or not? I don't feel that conversation will get us anywhere.

I'm skeptical of the claims made; mostly for two reasons. Reason 1) having done critical listening to more than a half-century of speakers, I haven't noticed a distinct and consistant upward progression of the sound quality; and 2) neither you nor anyone else has been able to articulate a solid case for how or why thusfar.

You've asserted edge distortion from surrounds, but I notice that you didn't follow up on that when I asked for references regarding impact.

You are now asserting that driver design improvements have, apparently after a century of speaker making, finally moved the crossover points outside of the speech bands; but I don't see that in evidence either; though I leave open that I might be misunderstanding part of that assertion.

 

[TLS Guy]

The number of crossover points is determined by the number of driver (sets), yes? So a two-way has one crossover point, and a three-way has two crossover points.

Are you saying that we've moved from two-way bookshelves to single-driver bookshelves over the last 20 years because of this advance? Or are you only talking towers and I'll see a reduction in the number of drivers there?

Because we both like Philharmonic, and you recommended them in this thread, and even some of his bookshelves have two crossover points. (I also looked at the most expensive sets from them and their crossovers are at 700Hz and 3800Hz... relevant below)


This could matter if it's true and you can show that response is objectively not as good if there's a crossover.

So I went to look up data on speech frequencies, and it seems to cover 80Hz to 8000Hz. (https://www.dpamicrophones.com/mic-university/facts-about-speech-intelligibility#:~:text=It can be seen that,of high importance for intelligibility.&text=Background noise has an influence,intelligibility of the speech signal. )

I don't know which SEAS XL Magnesium alloy cone you have, but this seemed reasonable. (https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-5-woofers/seas-excel-w15cy-001-e0015-5.5-magnesium-cone-woofer/)

Except that it's FR curve really breaks up around 2KHz, well before the end of the speech bands.

So perhaps you can get more detailed? Which frequencies are you discussing that used to be in the crossover (20 years ago), but which modern speakers don't cross-over in?

From what I can tell: SEAS introduced their Magnesium Alloy cones in 1993 and their new cones are Graphene; but it's not trivial data to search.


Interesting. An Ad Hominem, or at least the setup to one. Am I to respond in kind? That you have an obsession with newness to the point of believing newer=better regardless of if it is or not? I don't feel that conversation will get us anywhere.

I'm skeptical of the claims made; mostly for two reasons. Reason 1) having done critical listening to more than a half-century of speakers, I haven't noticed a distinct and consistant upward progression of the sound quality; and 2) neither you nor anyone else has been able to articulate a solid case for how or why thusfar.

You've asserted edge distortion from surrounds, but I notice that you didn't follow up on that when I asked for references regarding impact.

You are now asserting that driver design improvements have, apparently after a century of speaker making, finally moved the crossover points outside of the speech bands; but I don't see that in evidence either; though I leave open that I might be misunderstanding part of that assertion.

Yes, a rigid cone breaks up violently at some point. I use the
E0018-08S W18E001 for the mids on the main speakers

It breaks up around 3.5 K, so you have to cross at 2.5K and notch the break up mode.

I use the two of the 10" drivers in the bass lines and they go down to 20Hz at power a Fs is 20 Hz.

This is the axis FR and impulse response.

Axis and off axis responses out to 90 degrees (black).

In an in room measurement accuracy below 200 Hz is not entirely reliable. The fall off above 15K is a limitation of Omnimic.

 

[JerryLove]

Yes, a rigid cone breaks up violently at some point.

Understood and agreed.

I don't know that the last 20 years have seen major changes in the range of given cones to not break up; but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion.

The question is: where does this result in higher audibility. You are still running a 3-way, Your 2.5kHz crossover seems to be well within the range of sounds human voices make, and we haven't established that crossovers make an audible problem that can be improved upon in ways that can be heard (much less that it actually has been).

I don't see any support, experiential or theoretical, that 2024-build speakers sound better than 2004-built speakers.

 

[TLS Guy]

Understood and agreed.

I don't know that the last 20 years have seen major changes in the range of given cones to not break up; but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion.

The question is: where does this result in higher audibility. You are still running a 3-way, Your 2.5kHz crossover seems to be well within the range of sounds human voices make, and we haven't established that crossovers make an audible problem that can be improved upon in ways that can be heard (much less that it actually has been).

I don't see any support, experiential or theoretical, that 2024-build speakers sound better than 2004-built speakers.

I think more do. I agree that 2.5K is still in the speech discrimination band by 1000 Hz. However there is a significant difference between 1.5 and 2.5K. So it get it in the right direction.

Unfortunately there are very few midranges that handle the whole speech discrimination band at high power. That is the ATC dome midrange driver. Dynaudio used to make one that was similar and I use that in my family room speaker with cross at 400 Hz and 4 KHz.

 

[Danzilla31]

Thanks for alerting us to that. That looks like a really good speaker. Good coaxials are far and few between, but that speaker looks excellent.

A center speaker built round that driver should go straight to the top

Most people just use the Mofi Source Point 8's or 10's as a center channel