Who is we?
72 responses Add your response
No idea K,
Make your own, and move on...Only one person to get mad at then.. AY?
They'll get easier, as you go until you wear yourself out, trying to get there, the cycle of an audiophiler.
If they are good enough they live on, if not, they get chucked in the bin with the rest of the old stuff..
Any 1000, year old speakers out there, I think so, believe it or not..
The fault seems to lie on both sides.
The manufacturers want to sell us more speakers rather more than selling us better ones.
MDF boxes are cheaper and easier to build than spherical designs such as the Anthony Gallo's or the Eclipse TD 712s,
Most of us seem to prefer these MDF boxes or slimline towers in comparison to any open baffle or spherical or even egg shaped designs.
The pure audiophile is a rare species.
The rest of us have to compromise.
Quad also shaped their sound to mimic a point source a foot or two behind the speaker. They energized different panel zones using a delay ladder with high voltage caps and inductors - each part introducing distortion. Yes, they sound very good, but a little less clear than they might otherwise. No free lunch.
And if there are so great, why arent all speakers spherical. If they were, engineering-wise, the best solution then most speakers would long be spheres and no one is in the busi was to not make their interpretation of the best sound. What peer-reviewed engineering papers can you produce that say spherical is best?
"Why are we not being catered to? " I’m not so sure the industry is ignoring the demands of the marketplace, as you seem to imply. Where do you see the unmet demand for spherical speakers? It’s a legitimate question to ask why the sphere is not more commonly employed, but you have a faulty assumption in the mix. Have you yourself ever communicated to a dealer or manufacturer a wish for spherical speakers? Probably not, right?
Where do you see the unmet demand for spherical speakers?I never said there was demand for spherical speakers. I said there are some audiophiles that care about how a speaker sounds and don't care about how it looks. Do I really need to explain why? Is that not what being an audiophile means? It is about sound quality rather than looks no?
I did not know that. You are stating this as a fact. Provide some empirical evidence.The evidence is that speaker companies have been rounding the edges of square speaker boxes for a long time. This is supposedly to reduce diffraction. However the dirty secret that is not being disclosed is that the radius of curvature of the edge is too small relative to the wavelength of the frequencies where diffraction actually matters. Obviously a sphere has a much bigger curvature than a sharp right angled corner which has been rounded.
Have you yourself ever communicated to a dealer or manufacturer a wish for spherical speakers? Probably not, right?Right, however that has nothing to do with anything. The speaker companies are the ones who should know that a sphere is the best shape so why are they the ones not making spherical designs? Are we being taken for a ride? Or even worse, are these speaker designers ignorant about the superiority of spherical designs?
What peer-reviewed engineering papers can you produce that say spherical is best?Why dont you demand evidence from the speaker companies to prove that their designs are as good as they are claimed to be? I dont have to provide evidence if they wont.
Are you saying these are the best speakers simply because of their shape? I've heard Gallo speakers and they were nothing special, but, by all means, go and buy some.I am saying that all else being equal, spheres are best. So its perfectly possible that a spherical speaker may be worse than a box speaker if some other aspect of the spherical speaker is worse than the box speaker.
"I never said there was demand for spherical speakers. I said there are some audiophiles that care about how a speaker sounds and don't care about how it looks."
You asked why there are so few on the market. It seems to me it's a pretty easy answer on the surface: cost to produce and lack of demand. I don't disagree with your assertion that spherical is better. I thought this was generally held to be true in the speaker design world, though not foremost because of solving the diffraction problem. I thought it has more to do with no parallel internal walls and less resonance.
Some here appear to disagree. At any rate, I also thought the inferiority of the rectangular box was generally accepted. I don't know of any technical investigations of the matter. B&W seems to prefer alternatives to the box where it's most critical, while not going to the trouble when housing the woof. As I said, I think it's a legitimate question to ask, but I personally don't find it all that relevant, being a Maggie guy. And, maybe that's part of the answer too. Manufacturers do offer alternatives to box and cone speakers, and many would argue the alternatives do offer superior performance.
Well, they are a PIA to make....
Most aren’t comfortable with their appearance, esp. guys, who prefer their spheres....well, you get the drift...
aewarren wants to be buried in his speakers; could be a waste of nice ones’, but to each...I will point out that ’if you’re dead, you really won’t know the diff between Magico’s or a burlap bag...and really won’t GAS.
The only spherical speaker I’d waste T/M/$ on would be a something that would strive to approach the ’point source’ on a level with a arc driver.
Obviously the ozone that accompanied said drivers was and is a drawback. On the other hand, the spherical drivers found in the MBLs’ speakers seem to work fairly well to some listeners.
I know one who has been DIY’ng such, as well as one who’s labored long to DIY an entire MBL.
....and as for ’funny-looking’...that’s what grilles are for...
For you....likely stuck with a large bag.....*smirk*
cost to produce and lack of demand.Magico go to a lot of trouble with their cabinets. How much more trouble are you implying it would take to do a sphere? Is it going to take more effort than to send a man to mars? Surely not.
As for lack of demand, that's a myth. We all know that speaker companies do not produce their speakers in response to any demand from audiophiles, they just design what they like. When did B&w magico or wilson audio consult the audio community to discuss what type of crossover design, cabinet shape, driver materials etc was wanted? NEVER.
Who says spherical is best?
A spherical speaker can only have one drive unit facing the listener.
So it must either be full-range and suffer the obvious consequences of that, or use drive units whose output is even across an arc of at least 60º (think about the diminsions, for reasonable size spheres at least). Such drive units don't exist.
In particular the tweeter needs to face the listener as HF is very directional. If the tweeter faces the listener, all other drive units will be well off axis, unless one considers spheres of some 1.5m or more that would have many other obvious problem issues.
The only workable solution would be to house each drive unit (save possibly the woofer) in a separate sphere.
You need to think before you post, kenjit.
According to dumbo Kenjit, if he says you are wrong you have to prove you are right. The is no onus on Kenjit to prove his claim it seems.
The theory of gravity is wrong, scientists prove it to me right please?
So he wants sphere in his hole in the wall now? Is that an improvement he didn't see before? So he lied when he claimed the best speaker before?
If he wants to make any point he has to prove it - and as he writes absolute bollocks that is a bit of an ask.
Sorry to answer the troll chaps ....
I did not know that. You are stating this as a fact. Provide some empirical evidence.kenjit
"The evidence is that speaker companies have been rounding the edges of square speaker boxes for a long time. This is supposedly to reduce diffraction. However the dirty secret that is not being disclosed is that the radius of curvature of the edge is too small relative to the wavelength of the frequencies where diffraction actually matters. Obviously a sphere has a much bigger curvature than a sharp right angled corner which has been rounded. "
That is not empirical evidence, just some malarkey.
Exactly...the drivel is strong with kenny. So many proclamations of superiority of self and acumen. The “best” is at best a roving target of BS with no proof other than “because” or “prove me wrong, I dare you”. I’ve seen third grade students do more to prove they are right than use these retorts. It has almost become exhausting to come here and gain some knowledge or insight within a category of deep interest only to find endless threads of moronic nonsense. It is no wonder that some of the best and brightest minds left here years ago.
" Magico go to a lot of trouble with their cabinets. How much more trouble are you implying it would take to do a sphere? "
Not as much as it would have been before cnc routers, but the waste is huge. You are still trying to get the best out of a cone design though, and maybe the simple answer is that designers prefer to move on from cones to get to the next level of performance. Maybe a sphere vs. a box is not enough of performance increase to justify. Maybe you need to try some panel speakers?
In the end it’s supply and demand.
Many would say that MBL has some speakers that are close to being spheres and that they sound pretty good... but the technology and cost result in a selling price that most can’t afford.
Therefore, the risk of getting into the “spherical speaker business” is too high.... so we will keep getting improved boxes which are more likely to be commercially acceptable.
The beauty of an an open market is that anyone who believes spherical speakers can be sold can put up a few hundred thousand dollars and get a new company started to design, manufacturer and sell them.