This topic has some different approaches to create a point.
A few years ago I've read an article about the properties of the wood used by Stradivari to build his famous violins. Analysis turned out that the wood he used for his instruments was denser (compared to what other violin builders used in his time) due to some climate conditions the trees went through. Which might be the reason why his violins were having a slightly different timbre given the material is of great importance in string instruments.
Fast forward to the current age. Speaker manufacturers seem to prefer MDF over the best wood since its density measures evenly over the whole surface. It almost makes me wonder if violins made using MDF would not beat Stradivari in his time. (But that is a different discussion)
There is probably a factor build quality dedicated to sound, but there is also marketing.
For example: "Diamond tweeters"
"Standard diamond tweeters are made by depositing artificial diamond dust onto a former or substrate and it's this coated substrate that becomes the finished tweeter with the diamond used just as a coating to add stiffness."
When there are 'Diamond tweeters' consumers might think about stiffness and clarity (properties of the object) and probably associate that with a clear treble sound. Marketeers made them think like that, but that is odd given what it really is in the product. A powder that could have been literally any powder.
Same thing with Kevlar. My B&W's had it, All my Wharfedales have it. I've read about those who go with paper woofers as favorable and really believe it is better. But there is no chance it would ring in a good association. Kevlar looks better and consumers think about high tech, bulletproof stuff, so it must be good.
The last hype was the LS50 meta by Kef. That labyrinth that serves to dampen resonances is according to some a questionable addition but it seems to have attracted a lot of people.
Materials are important, if not at least to create a good looking piece of furniture / art. But I sometimes wonder at which point the focus on materials transcribed as 'for the sound' transite to real differences or just tapping into an emotion.
I wonder if knowing the merchandizing elements of manufacturers can help in making better choices.
A few years ago I've read an article about the properties of the wood used by Stradivari to build his famous violins. Analysis turned out that the wood he used for his instruments was denser (compared to what other violin builders used in his time) due to some climate conditions the trees went through. Which might be the reason why his violins were having a slightly different timbre given the material is of great importance in string instruments.
Fast forward to the current age. Speaker manufacturers seem to prefer MDF over the best wood since its density measures evenly over the whole surface. It almost makes me wonder if violins made using MDF would not beat Stradivari in his time. (But that is a different discussion)
There is probably a factor build quality dedicated to sound, but there is also marketing.
For example: "Diamond tweeters"
"Standard diamond tweeters are made by depositing artificial diamond dust onto a former or substrate and it's this coated substrate that becomes the finished tweeter with the diamond used just as a coating to add stiffness."
When there are 'Diamond tweeters' consumers might think about stiffness and clarity (properties of the object) and probably associate that with a clear treble sound. Marketeers made them think like that, but that is odd given what it really is in the product. A powder that could have been literally any powder.
Same thing with Kevlar. My B&W's had it, All my Wharfedales have it. I've read about those who go with paper woofers as favorable and really believe it is better. But there is no chance it would ring in a good association. Kevlar looks better and consumers think about high tech, bulletproof stuff, so it must be good.
The last hype was the LS50 meta by Kef. That labyrinth that serves to dampen resonances is according to some a questionable addition but it seems to have attracted a lot of people.
Materials are important, if not at least to create a good looking piece of furniture / art. But I sometimes wonder at which point the focus on materials transcribed as 'for the sound' transite to real differences or just tapping into an emotion.
I wonder if knowing the merchandizing elements of manufacturers can help in making better choices.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram