2. speakers
  3. 166005-136265

Speakers The single most critical component

I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>>
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system. 
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me  , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires  some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter)  in  the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity. 
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity  single drivers. 
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style  aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs. 
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic. 
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
 a  kt88 in brand X will sound  close to brand Y. 
So amplification takes a  distant 2nd place in critical component.  No need to break the bank buying amp A vs  a  lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all  tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound  close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is  only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
 the Shanling
only a  miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17. 
Now as for  best source  , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds. 
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy. 
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where  the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity  voicing  issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker  you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years, 
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances. 
To sum up, a  ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver. 
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity. 

mozartfan

Showing 6 responses by larryi

larryi
3,718 posts
 
I've heard many different speaker types, and many different systems employing ful-lrange drivers, many of which I really liked, but, I would hardly say that such drivers beat out all others.  I've heard many single driver fullrange systems, as well as full-range drivers used as a wide-range driver in multi-way systems.  The full-range drivers ranged from cheap, but quite good Tangband drivers to field-coil drivers that cost about $30k for a pair.  The best commercial single driver system I've heard is the Charney Companion with the AER driver, followed by a Voxativ system and then the Cube Nenuphar.  I have heard, and liked systems with full-range drivers plus woofers and full-range driver plus tweeter, and full-range driver used as a wide-range midrange in three way systems.  My favorite multi-way system with a full-range driver is an open baffle system employing a Jensen M-10 full-range driver and a Jensen RP 302 tweeter (custom-made system).  An example of a good commercial full-range driver plus tweeter speaker is the Soundkaos Wave 42.  Similar to the full-range plus tweeter system are two way single-driver coaxial systems such as those built by Tannoy and Trenner and Friedl.  

Of course there are many other kinds of drivers in many other kinds of systems that can deliver great sound, including many others that avoid complex crossovers, such as full-range electrostatic speakers.  I don't think any particular kind of speaker corners the market on great sound.

While it might well be the case that speakers matter the most when it comes to determining the basic character of a system, it is hardly the case that "all well made tube amps sound very close."  There is an incredibly wide range of differing sound characteristics among well regarded amps.  I heard a comparison of two very fine amps where a relatively modest pair of speakers was employed to show how differences between amps matter.  
larryi
3,718 posts
 
The notion that there is only one right approach, which implies only one correct set of priorities, is unreasonable.  I am a fan of extremely dynamic speakers, such as full-range, full-range used as wide range drivers in multiway systems, and horn-based systems.  But, there is no one approach that does everything right and so we all pick our favored set of compromises. 

I've heard a lot of different wide-range drivers and I have not found any particular approach is consistently best.  Among my favorite is a large  field-coil driver--Jensen/ERPI M10 (13" driver); I also like the AER 8" driver and several systems I heard with Voxativ drivers.  At the Capital Audiofest, I heard a prototype speaker by Classic Audio (I believe) that had an 8" field coil driver and a powered woofer; I really liked the vividness of the speaker, but, if I were to ever own it, the sibilance would have to be substantially tamed.  Sibilance, peaks in the upper midrange and treble, lack of bass and weight, are common issues, particularly with the smaller wide range drivers.  Larger drivers are typically lacking in top end response and have too narrow high end dispersion (even when they employ whizzer cones to improve dispersion).

I have not heard a "holy grail" driver of this type.  I know a lot of fans of the Western Electric 755a, but it is too thin, colored and rough sounding for my personal taste (substantially improved with a tweeter added to the system); I much prefer the Western Electric 756 (but it really requires a tweeter).  My personal pick would be the Jensen M10 with a field coil tweeter, but, I don't think I can afford that system.
  


larryi
3,718 posts
 
The basis for the OP's opinions has slowly become more clear--some of the comparative research involves viewing on-line videos.  I don't see how that can be of ANY value in evaluating sonic performance.  There is only one way evaluate the sound and develop one's own personal taste and that is by listening to the gear.  Even the most gross characteristics that one hears from a video is primarily that of the speakers the viewer is using and NOT that of the speaker being recorded.  It is also highly flavored by the microphones being used (probably not high end Telefunkens, or Schoeps or the like), the room where the recording is being made, the recording technique employed (a skill taking many years to perfect), the upstream electronics, the recording gear. . . .


larryi
3,718 posts
 
I've heard a couple of Feastrix driver systems.  Volti showed a single driver system with a Feastrix driver at Capital Audiofest one year.  It was a pretty decent sounding system.  A friend of mine has a Feastrix field coil driver that he put into an Onken cabinet.  This was also a nice sounding system.  My friend also had the Feastrix power supply for the driver (solid state).  We tried the power supply on a Western Electric 555 compression driver system to see how the power supply compared to a Tungar tube power supply; there was no comparison, the Tungar supply smoked the solid state supply.  With these kinds of systems, everything matters, including the DC power supply for the driver.

My personal favorite field coil driver is the Jensen/ERPI 13" M10 which must be used with a tweeter.  This is a spectacularly good wide range driver.  I particularly liked a system I heard with this driver in a open backed cabinet (i.e. open baffle) with the M10 run full range (no low-pass filter) and a tweeter crossed in around 8,000 Hz.  

Most of the full/wide range systems with field coil drivers that I've heard required periodic adjustment of the voltage fed to the driver (the M10 is an exception).  By periodic, I mean during the listening session.  To me, this is a bit too much work.
larryi
3,718 posts
 
Power is cheap and the market is flooded with 200 plus watt per channel amps.  It doesn’t make sense to say that amps hardly matter but efficiency in a speaker is paramount.  Why is efficiency important if you can readily find enough power and the quality of that power doesn’t matter?  To me efficiency IS very important because the best sounding amps are low-powered and amp quality matters a lot.
larryi
3,718 posts
 
I've heard some good high powered amps, and if I had speakers that required that kind of power, I would own such amps.  But, I have personally not heard a high powered amp that I preferred over a good low-powered amp when driving efficient speakers.  I've heard, and liked, amps from Constellation, Soulution and Ayre, but, I still prefer certain low-powered amps when driving high efficiency speakers.  A local dealer that only sells tube amplification has a Parasound Halo amp that is used for demonstration purposes against the mostly low-powered tube amps in the store.  I have not met anyone who preferred the solid state amp when driving speakers of medium-high efficiency (like Audio Note AN-E's).

If I owned the likes of a Soundlab  or Magneplanar speakers (I like these brands of speakers), I would own a medium to high-powered solid state amp, and I certainly would be happy with the combination.  All systems involve some compromises and making a small compromise with going solid state is something I would do (for higher power I actually prefer solid state over tubes).  But, I happen to own high efficiency speakers that I like, so I can stick with the low-powered amps that I prefer.


More to discover