How fast does speaker technology move?

[admin_exported]

I have just bought a Marantz 6010 KI amp, and am trying to match it with some speakers. Obviously, there are plenty of great-performing budget speakers out there nowadays (Mordaunt-Short 902i and Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 come to mind), but I was wondering: how fast does speaker technology move?

I am willing to spend up to ~£200 (although I'd rather spend less), and cannot decide whether I would get better results buying new budget speakers, or picking up a deal on e.g., eBay. Sometimes, pickup-only auctions on eBay can go for ridiculously small amounts for what were originally high-end speakers. Will older, high-end speakers perform better than new budget speakers?

I am aware that a large part of this is all down to my own ears, and I will endeavour to audition any speakers that come my way, but I wondered if anybody had any general tips on where I should be looking, what I should be looking for etc.

Thanks!

 

[Anonymous]

technology has moved on, however IMHO speakers that were very good 20 years ago, still sound good today ... it's always nice to buy brand new, but sometimes 2nd hand is better when budgets are lower

On your budget, I would personally be looking at the 2nd hand market, only prob is that you need to do really good research first

all boils down to synergy ... make sure if you go this route, that the speakers will 'syncronise' well with your current components .... you may not be able to listen before commiting, but google is your friend, and there are some very knoweleagble people on forums who will advise accordingly

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Just a quick note - if imaging is important to you, ie. accurate represntation of what should come out of left and right, and at the correct frequencies, then go for dual concentric speakers, i.e. where the tweeter and woofer are aligned so that the sound comes out perfectly in phase. Such speakers are KEF or my preference - Tannoy (DC = Dual Concentric).

 

[Anonymous]

it's all a question of cost. you cannot expect today's budget speakers to be better than yesterday's high-end speakers.

more expensive (i.e. higher end) speakers use more expensive components, period. often the cost of the crossover parts of truly high-end speakers would be more than a pair of budget speakers.

yesterday's high end speakers would have better and more expensive components (speaker units, cross over parts, etc) than today's budget speakers and would outperform them easily.

if u have the chance to audition and buy yesterday's high end speakers at affordable prices, do so.

 

[jaxwired]

With that budget I'd definately buy used. There are big jumps in performance between £200 and say £600. If you buy used, you can get what was a £600 speaker 5 years ago for £200 now. That's a no-brainer. As far as speaker technology advancements, I'm skeptical that any have been made in the last 10 years. Even 25 years back you see very similar designs to today's speakers. I would not at all be surprised if say a KEF Reference from 1992 could out perform today's model. They were very good indeed. I definately would not worry about missing out on the latest technology. It's mostly hype IMO.

 

[Anonymous]

jaxwired,

it's a bit sweeping to say that no speaker advancements were made in the last 10 years. carbon-fibre is one of the new materials used in today's high end speakers and it is creating a lot of buzz. check out magico, the new proac carbon pro eight, the new eggleston and the wilson benesch speakers. the diamond tweeter is another new invention and is used in the b&w top-end speakers. ceramic cones are also new in the scene...

 

[Anonymous]

Speakers are a bit trickier than other stuff 2nd hand I think: they do not live forever, as the material is in constant vibration and rubbery and plasticky polymers slowly deteriorate. Moreover, poking little fingers, or accidental maximum volumes could also hurt the SQ, so I'd be careful and do some thorough testing.

BTW, I do not have statistical proof, but it seemed to me that speakers became less expensive when surround became more popular (it probably was difficult to sell 5/6 units at the earlier prices), At the cost of build quality maybe, but in general I feel you can get quite good value for money with new stuff if you listen carefully. And there is always new/demo gear on sale too.

 

[Anonymous]

sflam:

jaxwired,

it's a bit sweeping to say that no speaker advancements were made in the last 10 years. carbon-fibre is one of the new materials used in today's high end speakers and it is creating a lot of buzz. check out magico, the new proac carbon pro eight, the new eggleston and the wilson benesch speakers. the diamond tweeter is another new invention and is used in the b&w top-end speakers. ceramic cones are also new in the scene...

what we are trying to say, is we dont care what materials, or wires or veneers are used in older speakers .... if old speakers were really good and sounded good 10 years ago, they still sound good compared to todays standards ...

especially when comparing prices when you have a limited budget

 

[Tonya]

The obvious answer is anywhere between 30Hz and 20,000Hz but I digress

IMHO, the humble loudspeaker is the last analogue bastion in the audio chain, not counting the faithfull cardiod vocal microphone of course.
There has of course been techlological advances over the years but the simple but effective moving coil mechanism has basically remained the same throughout.

Bose caused a shakeup with their famous 901 series using nine (I think!) smaller speakers instead of the traditional large cone drivers saying that they responded faster but I never thought that they were THAT hot.

I tried out a pair of JVC bookshelf speakers a while ago that had wooden cones but they looked rather better than they sounded.

As Dim_Span said above, some of the best sounding loudspeakers are old designs, some of my personal favourites are a set of ancient Tannoys and a bookshelf set of Rogers LS3a.

At work I regularly use Yamaha and EAW kit and at home I prefer Infinity for front, PSB for centre and sub and custom built "Kirks‘ter" rear units with double tweeters.

I can't imagine a speaker revolution any time soon as they have to obey the laws of physics in order for our ears to hear the waveform, which means the moving coil and cone-on-a-membrane will be with us for some time to come.

As a final note, I believe that it's probably the loudspeaker that has the most effect in shaping how your audio system sounds like and it's very much a personal choice.
When auditioning, always carry your own demo disc, you need a constant factor when comparing different models.

When you do decide on a particular set, remember that this is the one piece of equipment that really does need to be run in as it's the most mechanical in the link.
Always use good quality cable (Monster, etc) and terminate the ends correctly.

Merry Christmas one and all and a Happy New Year

 

[jaxwired]

sflam: jaxwired, it's a bit sweeping to say that no speaker advancements were made in the last 10 years. carbon-fibre is one of the new materials used in today's high end speakers and it is creating a lot of buzz. check out magico, the new proac carbon pro eight, the new eggleston and the wilson benesch speakers. the diamond tweeter is another new invention and is used in the b&w top-end speakers. ceramic cones are also new in the scene...

Fair enough and good points. However, it's surely debatable whether these advances sound better than speakers 10 years ago.

Plenty of expensive and respected speakers take a pass on these new materials.

 

[Anonymous]

jaxwired:

sflam: jaxwired, it's a bit sweeping to say that no speaker advancements were made in the last 10 years. carbon-fibre is one of the new materials used in today's high end speakers and it is creating a lot of buzz. check out magico, the new proac carbon pro eight, the new eggleston and the wilson benesch speakers. the diamond tweeter is another new invention and is used in the b&w top-end speakers. ceramic cones are also new in the scene...

Fair enough and good points. However, it's surely debatable whether these advances sound better than speakers 10 years ago.

Plenty of expensive and respected speakers take a pass on these new materials.

recently heard a pair of old Linn Isobariks .... sounded superb to me! ... (actually would not mind a pair of those) ...

My speakers are old and still sound pretty good (to me) ...I also have an old pair of leak sandwich speakers ... sound ok to me ...

but then again, after a few beers, all music sounds ok (to me)

 

[Anonymous]

30 years ago I bought 2nd hand some celestion ditton 25s. . I also have some 25 year old Tannoy oxfords. I have a separate amp for each pair, so the volume is balanced. ( and can be very high when I need).Sounds gr8. I upgraded one of the amps to a cambridge after trying a few. I then asked if I may try speakers. They don't let you take them home, so I took my 30 year old dittons into the shop. ( The super tweaters on them are duff too).After a few sniggers ,he put them on an amp and played music through them, then swiched channels to a pair of £500 kef something or others. Guess what.!!!!? We thought the kefs were maybe faulty, so he tried something more expensive, and again. 2hours later We ended up with a pair of speakers, and a (sub) woofer) which then sounded nearly as good for £1,200 , and that is with my faulty super tweeters. The guy in the shop agreed he would keep the dittons, and never snigger at old speakers again. I have since , eventually got them repaired at a speaker repair shop in Leicestershire. They also replaced the crossover parts. ( for less than £100) They have changed the crossovers in the Tannoys too for £30. So It appears that these oldies are still outperforming. They sound warm and natural. I am guessing the prefix sub, in subwoofer is short for substitute? Maybe speaker manufactureres are adobpting skin care product tactics by inventing fancy names, or maybe I am just not worth it

 

[Anonymous]

dim_spam is on the money with advice. Modern speakers tend to sound sqeaky clean and a little dry compared to older designs, but not necessarily better just different.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Modern speakers tend to sound sqeaky clean and a little dry compared to older designs

Surely a cleaner reproduction is better, and more accurate? There's plenty of speakers around nowadays that aren't as 'colourful' as some older designs, particularly those of the 70's era. Of course, all this talk of whether technology has moved on depends on price points, as budget models really haven't changed very much at all.

How fast does it move? Pretty slow really, and has been for many decades.

 

[Anonymous]

Modern speakers tend to sound sqeaky clean and a little dry compared to older designs

Surely a cleaner reproduction is better, and more accurate? There's plenty of speakers around nowadays that aren't as 'colourful' as some older designs, particularly those of the 70's era. Of course, all this talk of whether technology has moved on depends on price points, as budget models really haven't changed very much at all.

How fast does it move? Pretty slow really, and has been for many decades.

I know where your coming from David but when I listen to some of the older recordings say the Beetles for example it feels more natural to me on my 15 year old Epos. I doubt they had speakers as clean sounding in the studio as say Proacs sound.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Agreed

 

[paradiziac]

I would say the main advances/developments have been:

- smaller, more "domestically acceptable" boxes (so development has focussed on creating a big sound from a small box rather than just using a big box in the first place)

- cheaper manufacturing costs for larger quantities (esp. of budget speakers)

- cheaper/faster development due to computer modelling etc (of little obvious benefit to the customer)

- a different tuning/new materials (as referred to in posts above)

So your choices are basically either read up and take a few punts on t'Bay (which may itself be costly in terms of time and effort or fun depending on how you view it) or go demo some budget speakers (the advantage being you can bring your amp to the shop).

The second option is the better place to start as you'll build up more knowledge of your amp and what kinds of speakers produce what kind of sound.

 

[tyranniux42]

Just a quick note - if imaging is important to you, ie. accurate represntation of what should come out of left and right, and at the correct frequencies, then go for dual concentric speakers, i.e. where the tweeter and woofer are aligned so that the sound comes out perfectly in phase. Such speakers are KEF or my preference - Tannoy (DC = Dual Concentric).

Cant say I agree with you fully here... Im sure certain dual concentrics have strengths in the manner you state but they certainly arent the last word in imaging or soundstage. its all personal preference at the end of the day but I know I vastly preferred my DM602 s3's to the KEF IQ5 when I auditioned them many years ago.

My Ovators image like no other speaker I have heard, but then they arent in the same budget bracket as the OP's, they are however in the category of new technology as the BMR unit is a new design, and IMO works beautifully

 

[matthewpiano]

On that note I also disagree that dual concentrics necessarily image better than other speakers. My Quad 11Ls image far more naturally than the Kef Q300s I had at one point.

 

[Richard Allen]

I would not at all be surprised if say a KEF Reference from 1992 could out perform today's model. They were very good indeed. I definately would not worry about missing out on the latest technology. It's mostly hype IMO.

Good point. In reality, it'll probably out perform many of the models today.

The fundamental principle of the loudspeaker hasn't changed much since it's inception in 1900 and frozen to death. Until we get away from the principle of wobbling a copper coil up and down a magnetic pole piece, nothing's gonna change much with the exception of the invention of the BMR. Sure. Newer materials, cones, coils, surrounds etc. These all make it 'better' but until the principle has changed, things will be much of a muchness IMO. This is why there are so many loudspeaker makers out there. Each one has his/her own variation of ' re-inventing the wheel'.

 

[Anonymous]

I would not at all be surprised if say a KEF Reference from 1992 could out perform today's model. They were very good indeed. I definately would not worry about missing out on the latest technology. It's mostly hype IMO.

Good point. In reality, it'll probably out perform many of the models today.

The fundamental principle of the loudspeaker hasn't changed much since it's inception in 1900 and frozen to death. Until we get away from the principle of wobbling a copper coil up and down a magnetic pole piece, nothing's gonna change much with the exception of the invention of the BMR. Sure. Newer materials, cones, coils, surrounds etc. These all make it 'better' but until the principle has changed, things will be much of a muchness IMO. This is why there are so many loudspeaker makers out there. Each one has his/her own variation of ' re-inventing the wheel'.

Somthing like a dyson revolution ?

 

[hammill]

I would not at all be surprised if say a KEF Reference from 1992 could out perform today's model. They were very good indeed. I definately would not worry about missing out on the latest technology. It's mostly hype IMO.

Good point. In reality, it'll probably out perform many of the models today.

The fundamental principle of the loudspeaker hasn't changed much since it's inception in 1900 and frozen to death. Until we get away from the principle of wobbling a copper coil up and down a magnetic pole piece, nothing's gonna change much with the exception of the invention of the BMR. Sure. Newer materials, cones, coils, surrounds etc. These all make it 'better' but until the principle has changed, things will be much of a muchness IMO. This is why there are so many loudspeaker makers out there. Each one has his/her own variation of ' re-inventing the wheel'.

Somthing like a dyson revolution ?

You mean that guy who makes vacuum cleaners that are not as good as a Miele?