So much misleading information " top 10 loudspeaker gimmicks"

K

kanebane

Audioholic Intern
Whenever I read this old audioholics article " top ten loudspeaker gimmicks to avoid" http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/avoiding-loudspeaker-gimmicks I literally get enraged.
There is so much misleading information here. Of course these points are sometimes true but does not always need to be. When someone ignorant reads these points, he will take them for granted as coming from a reputable source. Below are my take against each point.
1. Poorly constructed speakers that have a little bottom compartment that you are supposed to add sand in for "improved bass"
Unless a cabinet is given a heroic built like the magico all aluminum speakers, sand can always be used for improving damping of the cabinet. Sand is truly excellent for that purpose. Yes, sand won't help much a poorly built cabinet. But this article seems to make 'sand' appear like a gimmick. Poorly built cabinet is a gimmick, not sand.

2. Speakers that have metal grills over the tweeter that, according to the manufacturer, you are supposed to remove for extended highs
Maybe, not necessarily. Grills effect frequency response ( frequency dependent) and it has been test verified. Many manufacturers don't want to use any type of grills but has to for protection results.
3. Speakers that employ porting and multiple passive radiators (that look like woofers) in the same design
This one is true.
4. Some brands of loudspeakers (usually imitator brands) that place the tweeter on top of the cabinet in their own neat little chamber
This one may be hugely misleading. Many tweeters used this way are 3/4" super tweeters high passed maybe around 10khz. In such cases, tuned chamber is useless. Some absorbent material behind the dome is sufficient. The chamber is for aesthetics. Otherwise it would look pretty awkward with the bare tweeter dangling out. Before raising this point the crossover frequency and implementation of the tweeter should be checked.
5.Speakers that are long and thin and contain nothing but multiple 4" full-range drivers
Loudspeakers built this way using $10 drivers has been reviewed as " very high end" by reputable DIY members with no commercial interest in diyaudio. Just google "wesayso the two towers" Line arrays are not "simplistic" to begin with and equalizer is part of the speaker. Not every 3 way speaker with a 1 " tweeter, 6" mid and 12 " bass with all LR4 crossover are same. Same way not every line array of small fullrange driver are same, but this topology solves problems conventional speakers can never dream of. What is listed as a gimmick here is proven as a high end loudspeaker concept quite a few times.
6.Speakers where you have to place a metal cylinder or cone on top of the cabinet to dampen resonance
This is mass damping. Lowers the resonant frequency and Q. Much harder to resonate and impossible if taken out of passband.
7.Speaker companies that sell little "Cubed" systems and expensive clock radios endorsed by musicians on infomercials that claim "Better Sound Through Research".
Bose is not hi-fi. Maybe psycho-acoustics.
8. Some speaker companies that tell the consumer their speakers use the simplest crossovers possible to preserve phase coherence and that they build better drivers to match each other for optimal integration.
Depends on implementation. Should not be taken as granted as a gimmick. Can be misleading in many cases.
9. Speakers that use multiple 10" or 12" Chinese stamped woofers in large, bulky, poorly constructed cabinets with cheap horn-loaded or paper tweeters

This type of implementation is seen in PA use or for ear-bleeding SPL at low cost. Can be justified for the intended market segment. what else is the alternative that involves both low cost and very high SPL?
10.Floorstanding speakers that are too large for bookshelves, yet so small that you have to bend over to orient the tweeter at ear level
The customer can decide this for himself as per his requirement. It says nothing about the sound quality. Again the tweeter might be on a vertical slope like the wilson audio tweeters.
Someone without such knowledge that blindly trust this point can be misleaded.

I know there are lot of stupid speakers on the market polished with snake oil and audioholics is trying to protect innocent victims. But implementation of any topology/technique has lots of variables and as such a hard and fast gimmick rule book can have serve the opposite purpose than intended.

This is a very old article though. Maybe its time to update.




 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Did you see the publish date on that? 2006.... A few things have changed in the last 12 years.
 
K

kanebane

Audioholic Intern
Yes I am aware of the publish date. Nothing much has changed since then wrt the points in the article and it was misleading even then. From the perspective of time, the revel salon2 came out in 2008 and still one of the best available today. The world of loudspeaker is a slow one.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Yes I am aware of the publish date. Nothing much has changed since then wrt the points in the article and it was misleading even then. From the perspective of time, the revel salon2 came out in 2008 and still one of the best available today. The world of loudspeaker is a slow one.
Large, bulky (albeit not poorly constructed) cabinets is where modern audiophilia and I part ways in some respects.

I have followed enough relatively long threads to read all the how's and why's of what I don't know about speakers, only to have the whole shebang come crashing down in a muddy puddle of. . . . WAF!

WAF, DNGAF what modern audiophilia knows about loudspeakers.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Whenever I read this old audioholics article " top ten loudspeaker gimmicks to avoid" http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/avoiding-loudspeaker-gimmicks I literally get enraged.
There is so much misleading information here. Of course these points are sometimes true but does not always need to be. When someone ignorant reads these points, he will take them for granted as coming from a reputable source. Below are my take against each point.

1. Poorly constructed speakers that have a little bottom compartment that you are supposed to add sand in for "improved bass"
Unless a cabinet is given a heroic built like the magico all aluminum speakers, sand can always be used for improving damping of the cabinet. Sand is truly excellent for that purpose. Yes, sand won't help much a poorly built cabinet. But this article seems to make 'sand' appear like a gimmick. Poorly built cabinet is a gimmick, not sand.
I've never come across a speaker cabinet with a bottom loaded compartment to put sand it in that was well braced or well built. Had it been well built, the compartment wouldn't be needed. The point is still valid.

2. Speakers that have metal grills over the tweeter that, according to the manufacturer, you are supposed to remove for extended highs
Maybe, not necessarily. Grills effect frequency response ( frequency dependent) and it has been test verified. Many manufacturers don't want to use any type of grills but has to for protection results.
There was a trend in the early 2000s where some manufacturers were offering this as a removable tweak. Yes this article could use an updating but at the time, it was a valid point.

3. Speakers that employ porting and multiple passive radiators (that look like woofers) in the same design
This one is true.
4. Some brands of loudspeakers (usually imitator brands) that place the tweeter on top of the cabinet in their own neat little chamber
This one may be hugely misleading. Many tweeters used this way are 3/4" super tweeters high passed maybe around 10khz. In such cases, tuned chamber is useless. Some absorbent material behind the dome is sufficient. The chamber is for aesthetics. Otherwise it would look pretty awkward with the bare tweeter dangling out. Before raising this point the crossover frequency and implementation of the tweeter should be checked.
This was mostly about the imitation brands pretending to be B&W knock offs. Again, I still think this is mostly a marketing ploy as really good tweeter design with an internal rear chamber doesn't need a fancy flared enclosure for anything other than cosmetic purposes.

5.Speakers that are long and thin and contain nothing but multiple 4" full-range drivers
Loudspeakers built this way using $10 drivers has been reviewed as " very high end" by reputable DIY members with no commercial interest in diyaudio. Just google "wesayso the two towers" Line arrays are not "simplistic" to begin with and equalizer is part of the speaker. Not every 3 way speaker with a 1 " tweeter, 6" mid and 12 " bass with all LR4 crossover are same. Same way not every line array of small fullrange driver are same, but this topology solves problems conventional speakers can never dream of. What is listed as a gimmick here is proven as a high end loudspeaker concept quite a few times.
Before the Don Keele design, there were many "so called" line arrays that really were nothing more than a collection of cheap drivers. They sounded like poop and still do. Even the Don Keele design has it's own issues.

6. Speakers where you have to place a metal cylinder or cone on top of the cabinet to dampen resonance
This is mass damping. Lowers the resonant frequency and Q. Much harder to resonate and impossible if taken out of passband.
Again not needed with properly designed cabinet. When was the last time you saw a Harman speaker use one? Hmm..

7.Speaker companies that sell little "Cubed" systems and expensive clock radios endorsed by musicians on infomercials that claim "Better Sound Through Research".
Bose is not hi-fi. Maybe psycho-acoustics.
8. Some speaker companies that tell the consumer their speakers use the simplest crossovers possible to preserve phase coherence and that they build better drivers to match each other for optimal integration.
Depends on implementation. Should not be taken as granted as a gimmick. Can be misleading in many cases.
Yep it usually is a gimmick and most companies claiming to use first order networks usually aren't. Thiel had many designs like this.

9. Speakers that use multiple 10" or 12" Chinese stamped woofers in large, bulky, poorly constructed cabinets with cheap horn-loaded or paper tweeters
This type of implementation is seen in PA use or for ear-bleeding SPL at low cost. Can be justified for the intended market segment. what else is the alternative that involves both low cost and very high SPL?
White van specials

10. Floorstanding speakers that are too large for bookshelves, yet so small that you have to bend over to orient the tweeter at ear level
The customer can decide this for himself as per his requirement. It says nothing about the sound quality. Again the tweeter might be on a vertical slope like the wilson audio tweeters.
Someone without such knowledge that blindly trust this point can be misleaded.

I know there are lot of stupid speakers on the market polished with snake oil and audioholics is trying to protect innocent victims. But implementation of any topology/technique has lots of variables and as such a hard and fast gimmick rule book can have serve the opposite purpose than intended.

This is a very old article though. Maybe its time to update.
Agreed an update is needed, but also, you get triggered too easily. Perhaps try some meditation ;) Thanks for the suggestions.

PS. This article was actually written around 2000-2001 when the site was just getting started. It has a 2006 publish date on it bc all old articles that were moved to our CMS system lost their original publish date. Congrats for digging up one of our oldest articles on the site ;)
 
K

kanebane

Audioholic Intern
Gene,

whatever you say is very true in specific (albeit common) case studies you did. But each title generalizes the specific cases. For example as you said in point no. 1, a poorly constructed cabinet with bottom sand compartment is a gimmick compared to properly built cabinet with no sand box. And if a manufacturer claims that sand loading makes proper cabinet bracing obsolete, they should be exposed. But a poor cabinet with sand is better than a poor box without sand. And a very good box can be further improved on measurements with sand loading. Will we hear such an improvement beyond what a good box has already achieved is another debate?
Will a manufacturer build a proper box with sand loading? Most likely not. You claim to have never come across such a design, neither have I. But folks who does not know how to check a proper cabinet like you do, will generalize that 'any type of post ops sand loading' is always a rip off design.

Thanks for your reply. I will not try a see-saw debate because I am not opposing the message you want to send everyone who might be prey of snake oil. But the presentation of the article will make people generalize too much on each point. Most people lack the pre-requisite knowledge to evaluate all the variables on a case basis and would just quote you wherever they find appropriate. Each point in this article is a case of "mostly true but not necessarily always" and depends on the actual implementation.

Your article might be quite old but google really really loves it so people are reading it, even today. I didn't have to dig it out of its grave.

But I will still comment on no 5 and 8. can't help it.

5. Since you brought up Don Keele, I assume you are referring to non floor to ceiling arrays. Half length arrays without shading are really a stupid implementation and a noob's design, of course will sound like poop. Don Keele's implementation is an approach on how make a short array usable and not sound like poop. But Floor to ceiling full length array without any shading but a proper equalizer works on infinite line source principle and is way beyond the results Don Keele's approach can give. These three are totally different topology commonly under the same 'line array' banner creating confusion. I suggest you check out the diyaudio thread I mentioned before. Technical approach with lots of actual measurements and extremely good non-commercial reviews favorably compared to even the Beolab 90! As always, implementation matters after topology.

But then again you said " stock clearing cheap drivers". Maybe you meant $2 drivers like the ones used in Bose 901! In many cases 'cheap' does not necessarily translates to ' low quality'. Scanspeak and Tymphany share same ancestry. TC9, a paper cone 3.5 inch full range driver by tymphany sells for $12. Occasionally the exact same version by Scanspeak appears on Madisound for $40. This $12 driver sets measurement benchmark that snake oiled $50 drivers can't compete with.

8. Maybe you measured a driver where it is claimed that a 1st order crossover is used and found 2nd order type results! Upon measurement we will get the results of electrical filter + mechanical ( natural slope of the driver response). If there is no mechanical filter in the driver, 1st order crossover is almost impossible to implement. Yet some manufacturers are adamant enough to use it between kevlar cones and diamond tweeters!
 
Eddie14

Eddie14

Enthusiast
I see your point, especially the number 10. The customer will have their measurement of the space before buying or try to make room for the speaker if they're too into it.
 
jliedeka

jliedeka

Audioholic General
You could add double speaker terminals for buy-wiring, or worse, buy-amping. Speaker manufacturers seem to think they have to add these to everything when they serve no purpose.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
LOL at putting sand in a speaker. That's worse then cable elevators IMO.
 
P

pudik

Audiophyte
Hello!

Thank you for your very pertinent article. I just happened on it, and read it with interest, even though it is an 'old' one. Paraphrasing Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his Terminators, the article may be old, but NOT obsolete.

I am looking for a pair of bookshelf speakers. After reading tons of reviews and tech material, frankly, i still have no idea what to buy. In general, reviews are narrowed down to pop and rock with their varieties, talking mostly about how better or lesser base is rendered. Some will talk about trebles as well, but vaguely. Very few touch upon classical music and that in generalities. For example, i'd much like to read about the tweeter as to how it will separate the oboe from the trumpet, two of the most difficult instruments to reproduce from an orchestral recording. Or, how would the melody carried by a violins group be heard over the full orchestra in a dense passage. Or, would these instruments not sound harsh, brittle and beset by myriad of harmonic distortions and resonances? How about reproducing instrument noises? When liistening to a solo piano, would the notes in a massive, or even modest chord be distinguishable? How about hammer noise and box reflections? When a violin concerto is played, will bow and box noise be audible? Or, when a jazz combo is playing, how about the riding cymbal's silvery clang? Unfortunately, I don't much hear about this. Of course, for all of the above to happen, very good recordings are needed, because there are many bad ones, but these are some of the parameters i'd like to find in a good speaker analysis. My lines don't mean to be critical, but the wish of someone who is valiantly looking to buy a pair of bookshelves at a reasonable price. Regretfully, I haven't yet the ideal article out there.

Thanks for reading, sincerely yours, john.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Hello!

Thank you for your very pertinent article. I just happened on it, and read it with interest, even though it is an 'old' one. Paraphrasing Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his Terminators, the article may be old, but NOT obsolete.

I am looking for a pair of bookshelf speakers. After reading tons of reviews and tech material, frankly, i still have no idea what to buy. In general, reviews are narrowed down to pop and rock with their varieties, talking mostly about how better or lesser base is rendered. Some will talk about trebles as well, but vaguely. Very few touch upon classical music and that in generalities. For example, i'd much like to read about the tweeter as to how it will separate the oboe from the trumpet, two of the most difficult instruments to reproduce from an orchestral recording. Or, how would the melody carried by a violins group be heard over the full orchestra in a dense passage. Or, would these instruments not sound harsh, brittle and beset by myriad of harmonic distortions and resonances? How about reproducing instrument noises? When liistening to a solo piano, would the notes in a massive, or even modest chord be distinguishable? How about hammer noise and box reflections? When a violin concerto is played, will bow and box noise be audible? Or, when a jazz combo is playing, how about the riding cymbal's silvery clang? Unfortunately, I don't much hear about this. Of course, for all of the above to happen, very good recordings are needed, because there are many bad ones, but these are some of the parameters i'd like to find in a good speaker analysis. My lines don't mean to be critical, but the wish of someone who is valiantly looking to buy a pair of bookshelves at a reasonable price. Regretfully, I haven't yet the ideal article out there.

Thanks for reading, sincerely yours, john.
Welcome to AH. Rather than hijacking this 5 year old thread I'd suggest you start your own. Also post your budget, and distance from your speakers and what gear you have now.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
LOL at putting sand in a speaker. That's worse then cable elevators IMO.
My memory is fading since I can't remember the brand. About 20 years ago I had a huge pair of 4 way speakers. They each had 2 12" woofers and a 12" passive radiator. There were a couple of mid range drivers and a pair of tweeters for each. They were huge and heavy. They had a dark sound. The manufacturer made a visit to the dealer that sold them to me and he brought him over to my house to "tweak" them. Instead of sand, he used a sort of clay or putty. He managed to get them slightly brighter but they were still pretty dark. They didn't need a subwoofer. I don't miss them. Today's speakers are better.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
Hello!

Thank you for your very pertinent article. I just happened on it, and read it with interest, even though it is an 'old' one. Paraphrasing Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his Terminators, the article may be old, but NOT obsolete.

I am looking for a pair of bookshelf speakers. After reading tons of reviews and tech material, frankly, i still have no idea what to buy. In general, reviews are narrowed down to pop and rock with their varieties, talking mostly about how better or lesser base is rendered. Some will talk about trebles as well, but vaguely. Very few touch upon classical music and that in generalities. For example, i'd much like to read about the tweeter as to how it will separate the oboe from the trumpet, two of the most difficult instruments to reproduce from an orchestral recording. Or, how would the melody carried by a violins group be heard over the full orchestra in a dense passage. Or, would these instruments not sound harsh, brittle and beset by myriad of harmonic distortions and resonances? How about reproducing instrument noises? When liistening to a solo piano, would the notes in a massive, or even modest chord be distinguishable? How about hammer noise and box reflections? When a violin concerto is played, will bow and box noise be audible? Or, when a jazz combo is playing, how about the riding cymbal's silvery clang? Unfortunately, I don't much hear about this. Of course, for all of the above to happen, very good recordings are needed, because there are many bad ones, but these are some of the parameters i'd like to find in a good speaker analysis. My lines don't mean to be critical, but the wish of someone who is valiantly looking to buy a pair of bookshelves at a reasonable price. Regretfully, I haven't yet the ideal article out there.

Thanks for reading, sincerely yours, john.
Yes, a new thread would get more attention. "Reasonable price" is totally subjective. There are review articles on Audioholics for different price categories, but if you listen to classical music I would put the Philharmonic Audio BMR monitor at the top of my list (scroll down the page for the monitor version). The designer, Dennis Murphy, listens almost exclusively to classical music and is a trained musician. I was able to listen to these speakers in his home and they reproduce classical music very well. If you want a speaker that produces lower frequencies, the tower version goes deeper, but the monitor has very respectable bass performance for its size.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top