The Most Realistic Speaker Technology?

darrenyeats · « **Reply #80 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 12:29 am »

To answer the original question about technologies, I think the perfect technology doesn't exist.

However I believe that single driver solutions cannot deliver the full frequency range and therefore you need a multiple driver solution.

I have no doubt that active amplification is a superior architecture. Technically it is just better than an amp + passive crossover loudspeakers. Am I saying all active speakers are better than all passive speakers? Please, don't be silly, I am talking about which technology is better all else being equal. I believe the speakers of the future will be active.

This fits with the OP who said he doesn't like changing things around - he doesn't feel the need to tweak amps and other components all the time.

Personally I like also the dipole concept. Whilst I'm not as certain of it as I am about active amplification, I have a hunch the (domestic hifi) speakers of the future will be dipoles.

The best speaker I've heard so far is an active dipole speaker.

But remember, this isn't about a specific speaker that is best, it's about what technologies have merit.
Darren

miklorsmith · « **Reply #81 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 12:39 am »

What's the point of "best technology" if not to produce the "best speaker"?

If a single driver can't cover 20-20, that does not make it inherently inferior though the further it gets from full range the more compromised. If it can deliver the emotional goods, who cares how flat it measures?

I recently heard Watt Puppy 8s and Alexandrias well set up. I'm sure Dave can get his speakers to measure flat or whatever curve he wants. They were dynamically impressive, with really incredible start/stop times but didn't fuel the luv.

Theoretically, active speakers make more sense than standard XO'd ones. The concept has been around for quite a while and hasn't taken off. It probably won't either because Aphiles don't like handing amp choices over to the maker of their speakers. Stereophile just trashed an active speaker, presuming a big part of the problem was the internal SS amps.

I just heard a pentamped Linn setup at a dealer this weekend - big bucks. That's right - 5 stereo amps for the 5-way speakers. My buddy and I didn't dig.

A single driver is really an active speaker where you get to choose the amp.

Dipoles and OBs are on a bit of a high, for sure. Whether that continues to grow will depend on new, bright designs and people's space allowances for such things.

JLM · « **Reply #82 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 01:03 am »

Opaqueice, I offer my observations, principles, and guidance - not a detailed PhD paper. Don't like them? Fine, but lets try applying some common sense to the debate. And I don't think a debate is what the OP was after.

I'm feeling so warm and accepted, thanks DGO. (Cheers?) Can't we just agree to disagree and ignore each other? Or do you enjoy stomping me? Please stay civil in forum.

Imperial · « **Reply #83 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 01:25 am »

Opaque and Dayglowing words are not anything but musical edictions JLM...
Who's to say that they know it all...

Opaq and D-Glow and J'ster could behave...in a neutral and realistic manner in this thread.
That would be a musical thing..

Peace...

Imperial

spwal · « **Reply #84 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 01:58 am »

Three letters for you: TAD

all the secrets will be revealed to you.

Double Ugly · « **Reply #85 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 02:07 am »

Quote from: spwal on 12 Feb 2008, 01:58 am

Three letters for you: TAD

all the secrets will be revealed to you.

Good speakers, though there's better to be had for a lot fewer $$$ IMHO.

Quote from: Imperial on 12 Feb 2008, 01:25 am

Peace...

An excellent sentiment.

Agree to disagree, ignore one another, or whatever approach makes it easiest to cease and desist with the name-calling and derisive, condescending remarks. Let's keep it civil, folks.

Thanks.

spwal · « **Reply #86 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 02:28 am »

Technical Audio Devices, not those other TADs lol...

When i got a pair of those drivers, nothing has compared.

peace

Double Ugly · « **Reply #87 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 02:37 am »

Quote from: spwal on 12 Feb 2008, 02:28 am

Technical Audio Devices, not those other TADs lol...

Yes, I knew (or assumed I knew) to which TADs you were referring.

The drivers have very good specs, but I don't recall hearing them in anything aside from the Model 1.

spwal · « **Reply #88 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 02:46 am »

they have great full range application.

model 1 is very $$$$, so i see what you are saying however,

yes, the drivers in some of these $50,000 speakers are only like 1-2k of the price tag tops. the drivers in the Model 1 are a huge part of the cost, not to mention the rediculous cost of the cabinet.

but i digress....

I have no problem spending 3.5K on a pair on nice TAD 2002. That is a serious bargain. I am running them in my 4way JBLs. fantastic.

Duke · « **Reply #89 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 03:26 am »

Double,

When you came by my room at RMAF 2007, you were listening to TAD prosound woofers. TAD Home (which developed the Model One under the leadership of Andrew Jones) doesn't seem to be closely connected to TAD Professional; I think Pioneer drew on the name and some of the technology but they're separate divisions. TAD Home division doesn't sell their drivers to anybody. The TD-2002 compression drivers that spwal is talking about came from the prosound side.

And if you made it to the Classic Audio Reproductions room downstairs at RMAF (they shared one of the big ballrooms with Atma-Sphere), you heard an all-TAD system.

Duke

Daygloworange · « **Reply #90 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 03:39 am »

Quote from: JLM on 12 Feb 2008, 01:03 am

I offer my observations, principles, and guidance - not a detailed PhD paper.

Problem is, your observations and principles are wrong. What kind of proper guidance can come from that?

Quote

Don't like them? Fine, but lets try applying some common sense to the debate. And I don't think a debate is what the OP was after.

You are the only one debating I'm afraid. The best defense is a strong offense, right?

You posted some incorrect assumptions on how a number of things work. You present them as if they are known law of physics. Someone corrects you, and it doesn't sit well with you. It's only when you won't admit you are wrong that you debate to avoid being proved wrong.

Quote

Can't we just agree to disagree and ignore each other?

I ignore opinions that I disagree with on a regular basis. We aren't disagreeing on opinions, we are disagreeing on facts. Present correct factual information, and people will thank you (although you have never thanked me for proving to you in no uncertain terms that the made up theory of vertical imaging in 2 channel audio is just that, made up). AudioCircle is about learning, as much as it is about people offering opinions on preferences. I don't debate preferences, I just offer corrections on erroneous information when I come across them.

You're obviously feeling singled out. It matters none to me, who puts forth erroneous information. I would have corrected anyone else who posted what you did.

Quote

Or do you enjoy stomping me? Please stay civil in forum.

Attempting to portray yourself as a victim here is a total cop out. And in the context of this one thread, without people knowing the history between you and I, it might even look like I'm bashing on you.

I haven't even made mention of the fact that, in order to validate your personal preference for single driver speakers, you will go so far as to make up facts in order to bash almost any and all types of other speakers.

Please stay civil? JLM, I can post a few links to you being a little less than civil to me, so spare me.

Quote

I'm feeling so warm and accepted, thanks DGO. (Cheers?)

I'd rather be havin' a laugh than cryin' y'know? And yes I said "Cheers" to you JLM, and meant it. I have no ill will towards you.

Cheers

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #91 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 04:09 am »

I made a bad before based a poor recollection of Leroy's inquiry. So much for history. I looked at Duke's website for the first time and read carefully. The selection of speakers he offers to clients, to include those of his own design, bespeak of his own thinking about the subject under discussion, I do believe. The tweeters in all of them appear seem to be time aligned at their voice coils with waveguides or free standing. There seems to be a kind of integrity running through all of the products featured here. Admirable, IMO.

Double Ugly · « **Reply #92 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 05:03 pm »

Quote from: Duke on 12 Feb 2008, 03:26 am

Double,

When you came by my room at RMAF 2007, ...

Thanks for setting me straight, Duke. I remember wondering what drivers you were using, but I don't recall seeing any mention of their pedigree in the room.

Your speakers sounded good, but the drivers you used aren't the reason; they were merely an enabler. *YOU* are the reason they sounded good.

Duke · « **Reply #93 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 07:06 pm »

Jimdgoulding , thanks for your kind words here and back on page 3. Yes the stuff I carry is generally consistent with my philosophy. The reason is, I'm a really crappy salesman so I have to stick to stuff that I "believe in" or else I'd fail miserably at selling it.

By they way, there are brands I don't sell that I still believe in. Magnepan, Omega Loudspeakers, and SP Tech are three that come to mind. Come to think of it, those three right there would make a killer line-up, wouldn't they??

And thank you for the compliment, Double. I used the TAD woofer because its parameters and characteristics suited what I was trying to do, rather than because of who made it.

Duke

Double Ugly · « **Reply #94 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 07:51 pm »

Quote from: Duke on 12 Feb 2008, 07:06 pm

I used the TAD woofer because its parameters and characteristics suited what I was trying to do, rather than because of who made it.

Thus my last sentence.

muralman1 · « **Reply #95 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 09:45 pm »

Ribbons win. My new Scintillas prove that to me with every disc.

Daedalus Audio · « **Reply #96 on:** 12 Feb 2008, 10:25 pm »

Leroy,
it's an interesting thread you've started. one thing that has become more apparent to me (as this thread so well points out) is that there are many 'definitions ' of what realistic'. for some it's the experience of being at a rock concert or club listening to the PA, for others it's the sound they've heard from great two-channel sound systems, then there's a recording studio playback system, or a live orchestral performance, or the natural reference of close up vocals and acoustic instruments.... what is your reference for a 'realistic' sound?
btw one thing that makes it even more challenging is that many recordings are done (even with acoustic instruments)to reflect the sound of a PA.....
as for the different technologies, i of course as a builder have my opinions but the more i hear what others are doing the more humbled i am.... as the old saying goes "there's more than one way to......". it's really more about the final product than the theories. and there there's the question of what is the rest of the system? would you be using high power class A or low power SET and what is your budget in that area? once you get near $10k for speakers your electronics may be effecting how real the sound is more than the speaker. (at least i hope so...)
as for recommendations i agree that the TAD ref one is a great speaker, but it's $60k.
good luck,
lou

Steve · « **Reply #97 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 12:32 am »

"once you get near $10k for speakers your electronics may be effecting how real the sound is more than the speaker. (at least i hope so...)"

I would say you are quite conservative. Amps, preamps vary alot as well. Good point.

Cheers.

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #98 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 01:31 am »

And don't forget waveform behavior in your room. That's a part of the "voicing" of anything you put in it.

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #99 on:** 13 Feb 2008, 03:52 am »

For the record, I think, we do have the technology to build 'realistic' sounding speakers. But then again this is a relative term. Atleast I am glad to see a quest for 'realistic' speaker..rather than smooth, or juicy/goosey or whatever synonym of flavored sound is. I take it for 'realistic' to mean 'natural'/'transparent'/'uncolored'. In my very humble opinion, if you ask for anything else, you will be on merry-go round forever. If I play Jazz, I want it to sound exactly like the way it was recorded or meant to recreated (with those artificial reverbs and delays added to studio recordings). If a concert was recorded in a hall, I want that venue ambience recreated.
Sometimes, audiophiles tune their systems to sound so 'gooey' everything sounds the same. This surely cannot be High-Fidelity !!!
Just some personal biases