What to listen for

[nightflier]

I was trying to explain to a good friend over the phone what to listen for when auditinoning speakers. Now I know what I like to listen for, but I couldn't really put it into words. Basically, he's looking for average speakers typically found at GG, CC, BB, etc., but he wants to avoid buying total junk. He was about to buy an expensive Bose system, so I don't think budget is much of an issue. I'm also sure that he's not going to be buying anything online (he's not really an online guy), so the local stores are it. If so, he's probably going to be wowed by sales reps, shown complex surround systems, force-fed a lot of numbers about watts and volts, and encouraged to buy a bunch of commission-oriented accessories.

So I pointed him towards some better brands and I described a few details about construction that he should look for, but what should he listen for to avoid the junk out there?

[GMichael]

I was trying to explain to a good friend over the phone what to listen for when auditinoning speakers. Now I know what I like to listen for, but I couldn't really put it into words. Basically, he's looking for average speakers typically found at GG, CC, BB, etc., but he wants to avoid buying total junk. He was about to buy an expensive Bose system, so I don't think budget is much of an issue. I'm also sure that he's not going to be buying anything online (he's not really an online guy), so the local stores are it. If so, he's probably going to be wowed by sales reps, shown complex surround systems, force-fed a lot of numbers about watts and volts, and encouraged to buy a bunch of commission-oriented accessories.

So I pointed him towards some better brands and I described a few details about construction that he should look for, but what should he listen for to avoid the junk out there?

Technically? I don't know. But I would say that he should look for speakers that make him say to himself, "wow, those sound fantastic!" If they are one of the good brands that you told him to look for, then he'll be a happy camper for many years. Have him bring his favorite CD and DVD to test.

[kexodusc]

I think GMichael is right. Everyone values different aspects of musical reproduction differently. I really don't care for a lot of so-called "warm" sounding gear. To me they sound dull and boring. Someone else finds the gear I like fatiguing or harsh, which I fail to recognize exists. Who's right? We both are. The final decision should be much easier than we often make it.

Listen to as many pairs as is practical, and pick the ones that just feel right. Usually go with your gut feeling.

[jasmit]

See this (http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/113515.html) for a short primer on how to buy speakers.

[RGA]

Give this article to your friend -- it will take several hours over several sessions to do right. It is less important to be listening FOR anything. When you are in a bar you can hear the cute girls you're interested in and shut out the discussion at another table. We select what we wish to hear. If you listen to music and not sonic elements such as imaging, bass or treble and you're reasonably versed in what instruments sound like then you'll have a feeling of which speaker is doing the music well. Very few do it well IMO.

http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm

This is an edit: There is a negative aspect to the article presented in that the two people who wrote it - one is a classical recording engineer turned photographer (search bio) and the other may very well have the single largest personal collection of music in the world at over 70,000 albums across a wide array of genres and listening to the best performers perform in all of the major halls helps too. Developing and searching out other companies and buying their intellectual property to augment their own products to strive for as close to the real deal as is possible.

The article requires no fancy set-up (it will work in any room) nor does it require an experienced ear, an engineering degree, blind listening sessions (though feel free to if it turns you on). By all means read many articles - few are PRACTICAL for everyone to go out and do.

[Pat D]

I was trying to explain to a good friend over the phone what to listen for when auditinoning speakers. Now I know what I like to listen for, but I couldn't really put it into words. Basically, he's looking for average speakers typically found at GG, CC, BB, etc., but he wants to avoid buying total junk. He was about to buy an expensive Bose system, so I don't think budget is much of an issue. I'm also sure that he's not going to be buying anything online (he's not really an online guy), so the local stores are it. If so, he's probably going to be wowed by sales reps, shown complex surround systems, force-fed a lot of numbers about watts and volts, and encouraged to buy a bunch of commission-oriented accessories.

So I pointed him towards some better brands and I described a few details about construction that he should look for, but what should he listen for to avoid the junk out there?
Well, one thing that is relatively easy to suggest is listening to male and female vocals, well recorded ones such as Mark Knopfler, Roger Whittaker, Diana Krall, Patricia Barber, and Jennifer Warnes.

I listen mostly to classical music, and I have no idea what to suggest to judge the upper midrange and lower treble in popular music and jazz that is anywhere near as useful as mixed choral music and full orchestra with massed strings.

Here's a link to an old article on How to Judge Loudspeakers by the late Julian Hirsch in Stereo Review for September 1986, which is still relevant. It is somewhat out of date as it is pre-digital, and CDs have no difficulty at all with low frequencies.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1219200314639.pdf

Since RGA has gone to the Audio Note site to suggest some material, he can't possibly object if I suggest an interview with a speaker designer and manufacturer, Paul Barton. The most relevant material is on pages 3-5, and is very easy to understand:

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/

It is also based on real scientific research done at the National Research Council.

And, to get away from the man who built my speakers, on the Axiom site, there is good advice from an old audio writer, Alan Lofft:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/en-ca/archives/speakersound.html


More technical, there are the White Papers on the Harman International site, nobably this one:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf

That one may be a bit much for someone with just a casual interest in audio.

[thekid]

Pat D - Thanks for the links! The article from Julian Hirsch was very useful in explaining listening frequencies.

[nightflier]

Pat,

Thankd for the info. I printed out the articles and hopefully he will read them.

Just telling my friend to find something that sounds good to him is not going to help because everything will sound good to him, especially in the showroom with the sales rep. Without doing double blind testing (which he won't have the patience for anyhow), I don't think he would notice any difference between a $60 Sony speaker and a $200 Axiom (he didn't notice it at my house either until we compared them side-by-side).

Some may say that these speakers just sound different, but the fact is that their ability to reproduce sound is also very different. And for such a small difference in price ($140), it should be a no-brainer to go for the better speaker. Unfortunately Axiom is online-order only, and he just won't do that. I've directed him to GG, as they seem to have the best selection of mid-level speakers, but unfortunately they also charge an ungodly amount in commission and their return policy is ...well... they don't like to take anything back it seems.

Anyhow, thanks all for the input.

[bjornb17]

If he's not an online guy and is going to buy from the store, my personal opinion is that the Klipsch Synergy is probably just about the best that you're going to find at a B&M store. I guess that would depend on whether or not he would like the bright sound of them. You can convince him by telling him that the speakers have "good clarity" :D

[Pat D]

Pat,

Thankd for the info. I printed out the articles and hopefully he will read them.

Just telling my friend to find something that sounds good to him is not going to help because everything will sound good to him, especially in the showroom with the sales rep. Without doing double blind testing (which he won't have the patience for anyhow), I don't think he would notice any difference between a $60 Sony speaker and a $200 Axiom (he didn't notice it at my house either until we compared them side-by-side).

Some may say that these speakers just sound different, but the fact is that their ability to reproduce sound is also very different. And for such a small difference in price ($140), it should be a no-brainer to go for the better speaker. Unfortunately Axiom is online-order only, and he just won't do that. I've directed him to GG, as they seem to have the best selection of mid-level speakers, but unfortunately they also charge an ungodly amount in commission and their return policy is ...well... they don't like to take anything back it seems.

Anyhow, thanks all for the input.
I'm not specifically recommending Axiom. I currently have PSB Stratus speakers. I haven't heard an Axiom speaker for many years. It's just that the advice on the Axiom site is good. You can also find excellent advice on the PSB and Thiel sites if you look.

When people say they can't hear the difference, I think it's often that they simply don't want to spend the money, although your friend seems willing to spend some money. Or, as you suggest, he doesn't want to take the time. It may also be a confidence issue, which is why he has asked you for advice. But you have to be prepared that he may not follow it.

One thing is to find audition material that really does sound different on different speakers. Speaking voices, male and female vocals, saxophone, piano, and so on. He should use music he will enjoy, too, and often one will find that one enjoys the music more on one speaker than on another.

[nightflier]

I currently have PSB Stratus speakers

He went with the Klipsch RVX series speakers. I have not heard these, but given that they have plastic fronts and aluminum boxes (correct me if I'm wrong), I have the feeling that they won't really measure up to the Reference line (which I'm rather partial to). I would have prefered if he had selected a Monitor Audio set instead (I've heard these and they are quite good) but I think he wanted to have the look and of the Klipsch.

Speaking of plastic fronts, PSB speakers always get good reviews, but they also have those plastic fronts and that always worried me. Doesn't that affect the sound?

[Pat D]

He went with the Klipsch RVX series speakers. I have not heard these, but given that they have plastic fronts and aluminum boxes (correct me if I'm wrong), I have the feeling that they won't really measure up to the Reference line (which I'm rather partial to). I would have prefered if he had selected a Monitor Audio set instead (I've heard these and they are quite good) but I think he wanted to have the look and of the Klipsch.

Speaking of plastic fronts, PSB speakers always get good reviews, but they also have those plastic fronts and that always worried me. Doesn't that affect the sound?
My PSB Stratus Minis do not have plastic baffles.

I don't know very much about the PSB Alpha and Image Series speakers, but they do seem to have molded front and rear baffles. It can be made in any desired shape, which can be made to minimize diffraction. As to unwanted resonances, well, they don't seem to introduce any particular ill effects in the measurements in Stereophile, where the cabinet resonances look much like those of many other speakers. I'm not qualified to say what speaker boxes should and should not be made of. I would worry more about whether the speakers sound good than what they are made of.

[nightflier]

... I would worry more about whether the speakers sound good than what they are made of.

But what they are made of has a lot to do with how they sound. Just take a look at Sonus Faber and the reasons why they chose those materials. To my ears these speakers are amazing.

Regarding BSB, I thought those were the Image series, you were talking about. Has anyone else done some comparisons of plastic-baffled speakers with non-plastic ones?

[Pat D]

But what they are made of has a lot to do with how they sound. Just take a look at Sonus Faber and the reasons why they chose those materials. To my ears these speakers are amazing.

Regarding BSB, I thought those were the Image series, you were talking about. Has anyone else done some comparisons of plastic-baffled speakers with non-plastic ones?
I actually like my PSB Stratus Minis as well as the Sonus Faber Concerto Grand Piano speakers. The PSB Stratus line is up from the Alpha and Image lines. Until the Platinum Series was developed, they were their top line of speakers. The Stratus Gold has been a Class B Stereophile speaker for many years.

As for molded plastic bafles, what makes you think that Paul Barton doesn't know what he is doing? PSB seem to think it's a cost effective way of getting the results they want.

[RGA]

But what they are made of has a lot to do with how they sound. Just take a look at Sonus Faber and the reasons why they chose those materials. To my ears these speakers are amazing.

Regarding BSB, I thought those were the Image series, you were talking about. Has anyone else done some comparisons of plastic-baffled speakers with non-plastic ones?

Wow the clock has struck twelve twice in a day and here I agree with PatD (well almost :D ). When you're building a speaker to a price point and everything on the other side of the ultimate statement products are built ot a price point designers have to make compromises someplace to get something else they really want to make sure they retain. I am more familiar with the B&W DM 302 but that little speaker had quite a number of inventive little designs in order to make it the class leader -- (always arguable comment) but it was a one piece molded plastic speaker with some fake veneer on top and and an open back design with off the shelf drivers.

As many have pointed out to me you can't necessarily take parts in isolation. This has been hard for me because if I hear 40 speakers using metal tweeters and 36 of them sound tinny and dreadful 3 sound muted as if they're trying to gloss over it and the one that sounds good costs $25,000.00 and is the only one that is a unique use of the metal dome then it's hard not to generalize that maybe the problem is metal tweeters. When I audition unknown to me speakers I don't look to see what they're using as drivers because I don't want to be biased before I listen.

The problem is in what you're comparing things too and to a degree what prices. Stereophile and any magazine recommends speakers to OTHER people and they are guessing as to what other people might like -- if I hate horror movies and I'm a film reviewer I still need to attempt to TRY and evaluate a good horror movie from a bad one and then to stick my 4 star rating on Halloween because I can recognize that this film is superior to other slasher films. Though I personally may never want to watch the thing again to save my life.

For instance I really liked my B&W DM 302 and it was the cheapest speaker ever to get a Class C rating in Stereophile...and for the money it is very good blah blah -- and in some respects i wish I kept it for a bedroom system (especially hearing their new speakers whcih cost more and sound worse). But with all the raves it received in the press and my own raves -- it just isn't good enough FOR ME to front my system. Like a film you loved when you were 8 years old that you see now and think what a hopeless piece of junk.

When I see material arguements of the cabinet then i say you would have to listen to a speaker(THE SAME SPEAKER) built out of different materials. My speakers have been built out of several materials and combinations and it makes a BIG difference. But, some speakers may not benefit from no-void Ply.

And incidentally I have a friend who works in Plastics - there are many plastics that have higher melting points than steel are more rigid etc There is also total crapola and plenty in between.

Unfortunately many designers grasping at the speaker market are being forced to lower prices to beat the competition building the same KINDA cabinet and same kjinda design from China for 1/8th the price. And they will write endless streams of papers telling you how none of this has any negative effects and only very positive effects on the sound -- some people believe this and why not? When the other 7 brands beside it are in the same boat - I would try listening to them compared to ones that don't play that game and then see how far the cheap parts but lotsa hype gets you. I have spoken to two Stereophile writers now -- one claims the best sub 2k integrated amp is one that doesn;t get into their listening (distributorship numbers??) and one speaker company they have been touting for ten years he doesn't even like enough to consider owning.

I suggest listening to non-mass produced speakers from smaller outfits. Smaller outfits are forced to be better to survive - not always but often.

[nightflier]

As for molded plastic bafles, what makes you think that Paul Barton doesn't know what he is doing? PSB seem to think it's a cost effective way of getting the results they want.

I meant no disrespect to Paul (or Sue) by suggesting that there might be differences in sound. I am certain that all the research that went into the development if the stratus line has trickled down generously to the Image line. I was merely asking if there were differences to note, which I suppose would be impossible to determine sans indentical speakers, as RGA pointed out.

Maybe my reservations are more psychological than anything else. It just seems that plastic baffles, especially on less reputable speakers (Sony and the standard CC/BB fare), are making sonic trade-offs that would be audible. I personally like the Klipsch reference line with their wood & plastic fronts, but I wonder how their new smaller/narrower all-plastic speakers stack up.

What I'm really getting at is whether the cost-cutting from plastic baffles is also cutting into the sound when comparing today's speakers with previous generations. By extrapolation I'm wondering whether this is a trend similar to what we are seeing with compressed audio and video (MP3 and downloadable movies) replacing good quality music and high-quality movies, simply because the market dictates this progression, or rather, regression.

[RGA]

I have heard the Silver and Gold -- of course the cost cutting effects sound.

[nightflier]

...of course the cost cutting effects sound.

but my question is whether this trend towards mediocrity in sound is growing, where one day, we will no longer have access to speakers w/o plastic baffles.

Who knows, maybe when that day comes, we will not have the time or the energy to care anymore, either...

(I suppose that this is turning into a totally different thread than my original post...)

[RGA]

well I lost my reply - I hit the backbutton by mistake then went forward and everything I typed gets deleted - man this is such a lame ass forum compared to all the others I go to.

Quality? C'mon most of the brands sold in the big box chains in Canada are sold to people who think MP3 is good. So why make a good speakers? Mainstream companies by choice or by necessity have to lower their prices to compete with the competitor who decided to move their lant to China. Paying an 11 year old girl $.20 a day for a 16 hour shift is sure better than pay Fat American/Canadian $23.00 an hour for an 8 hour shift(slacks and eats lunch and has a break for two hours of that day) to screw tweeters on. Company can now sell speaker for a fraction of the other guys. Then when the competitors do the same we'll be forced to find another way to cut corners. Well we don't need real wood, we can use 3 screws to hold the tweeter there not 6 - plastic that'll save us a few bucks. Ply has a higher failure rated when cuttiing so that costs too much cash - plus we'd have to hire someone who is competant at woodwork -- let's buy a mold and fill it with plastic - any D student from high school can do that.

Forget paper woofers - too long and too hard to do them right besides we can use far cheaper componants and then just hire a good spin artist to write us some ad-copy. I know our new Dilitium impregnated kevlar woven polyproplene berylium technojargen tube tapered baffle reduction step curve proprietary heat absorband dimpled refrating energy beam self dampening diffused driver with inverted ear wax bypassable technology will forever change the audio world -- until 4 years from now when all the magazines have finished their reviews and we'll bring out another stupendous technobabble driver whcih still sounds worse than the paper one they could have used in the beginning.

I am not suprised that I have held on to my Wharfedales for ~15 years -- judging by virtually every $3k and under floorstander that I've run across and despite the difficiencies of the Wharfedales -- they'll be more than worth the couple hundred fix-up job. hand made in yorkshire 20lb plus magnets Fostex Ring fac tweeters all wood cabinets - versus what a $3k B&W 704? Please! IMO the industry is selling mostly unmitigated garbage and charging through the nose for it.

[Pat D]

Wow the clock has struck twelve twice in a day and here I agree with PatD (well almost :D ). When you're building a speaker to a price point and everything on the other side of the ultimate statement products are built ot a price point designers have to make compromises someplace to get something else they really want to make sure they retain. I am more familiar with the B&W DM 302 but that little speaker had quite a number of inventive little designs in order to make it the class leader -- (always arguable comment) but it was a one piece molded plastic speaker with some fake veneer on top and and an open back design with off the shelf drivers.

As many have pointed out to me you can't necessarily take parts in isolation. This has been hard for me because if I hear 40 speakers using metal tweeters and 36 of them sound tinny and dreadful 3 sound muted as if they're trying to gloss over it and the one that sounds good costs $25,000.00 and is the only one that is a unique use of the metal dome then it's hard not to generalize that maybe the problem is metal tweeters. When I audition unknown to me speakers I don't look to see what they're using as drivers because I don't want to be biased before I listen.

The problem is in what you're comparing things too and to a degree what prices. Stereophile and any magazine recommends speakers to OTHER people and they are guessing as to what other people might like -- if I hate horror movies and I'm a film reviewer I still need to attempt to TRY and evaluate a good horror movie from a bad one and then to stick my 4 star rating on Halloween because I can recognize that this film is superior to other slasher films. Though I personally may never want to watch the thing again to save my life.

For instance I really liked my B&W DM 302 and it was the cheapest speaker ever to get a Class C rating in Stereophile...and for the money it is very good blah blah -- and in some respects i wish I kept it for a bedroom system (especially hearing their new speakers whcih cost more and sound worse). But with all the raves it received in the press and my own raves -- it just isn't good enough FOR ME to front my system. Like a film you loved when you were 8 years old that you see now and think what a hopeless piece of junk.

When I see material arguements of the cabinet then i say you would have to listen to a speaker(THE SAME SPEAKER) built out of different materials. My speakers have been built out of several materials and combinations and it makes a BIG difference. But, some speakers may not benefit from no-void Ply.

And incidentally I have a friend who works in Plastics - there are many plastics that have higher melting points than steel are more rigid etc There is also total crapola and plenty in between.

Unfortunately many designers grasping at the speaker market are being forced to lower prices to beat the competition building the same KINDA cabinet and same kjinda design from China for 1/8th the price. And they will write endless streams of papers telling you how none of this has any negative effects and only very positive effects on the sound -- some people believe this and why not? When the other 7 brands beside it are in the same boat - I would try listening to them compared to ones that don't play that game and then see how far the cheap parts but lotsa hype gets you. I have spoken to two Stereophile writers now -- one claims the best sub 2k integrated amp is one that doesn;t get into their listening (distributorship numbers??) and one speaker company they have been touting for ten years he doesn't even like enough to consider owning.

I suggest listening to non-mass produced speakers from smaller outfits. Smaller outfits are forced to be better to survive - not always but often.
"Plastic" is a generic term and different plastics can have very different properties. There is no reason why some of them would not work well for speakers, and they have the advantage that they can be molded in any shape and thickness desired, whereas wood has to be cut and is less consistent.

Actually, I think one tends to get better values from some of the larger companies, ones that can take advantage of many economies of scale. Of course, if one doesn't like the sound, then the speaker is not a good value. But then, I understand there are computer programs available which can help design speakers. Speaker companies can use the excellent test facilities at the National Research Council in Ottawa. They have to pay for this, of course, but they don't have to put out the capital cost for an anechoic chamber, listening rooms, and all sorts of measuring equipment themselves. But generally speaking, speakers from small companies tend to be expensive--though some of them are excellent.

[RGA]

I agree with you 100% on the notion of ecoomies of scale but it also has to be USED. Simply being a very big company one should not ASSUME that said company will have sound as the top priority - see Bose big and could be good but isn't.

My problem of course is that if I hear a relatively small company's speaker a $700.00 and another from a major company with huge tes facitlities anechoic chambers and a speaker at $2300.00 and everyone in the room clearly and not even clsoe chooses the small no name then whatever economy of scale advantage obviously went instead to said company owner's beach house or the marketing department president's golden parachute fund.

I have been hearing rather consistently small no name companies consistently betterring mainstream comapnies. Of course up until a few years ago the dealers I had usually went to kept carrying mostly mainstream stuff -- comparing one big one against another means little - and sure there are bound to be several smaller companies that don't cut it.

Plastic is easier to work with and generally cheaper. I have heard the Silver and Gold I hear no advantage with them or a bunch of other speakers -- I prefer the Paradigm Studio 100V2 to the Stratus Gold which I assume to be the main competitor. Though I generally prefer the sound of PSB speakers over paradigm overall and certainly the case of the new Studio series.

The other thing is that small companies generally don;t make very cheap speakers -- one is probably because the market is too big and the people looking to them are not looking for $200.00 loudspeakers -- two because they don't buy in as large a bulk won't get the same deals the big guys get - three - they're building stuff they love and not just in it to make a buck and have less interest in lower end speakers or various concotions in between.

I also think you give no credit to smaller companies' ability to meet the three criteria you're talking about. Plenty of smaller companies have very good rooms with top flight measuring equipment and computer programs to get flat on and off axis response low distortion etc. So whatever they're using is just as good as any of the big boys -- and really one can tell that when listening.

[thekid]

Re quote: three - they're building stuff they love and not just in it to make a buck and have less interest in lower end speakers or various concotions in between.

A common perception voiced on these forums but not sure if this based on fact or wishful economic thinking....

Most companies get started because they think they can build a better mouse trap not because they love mouse traps....Most start up loans are given based on a profitable business plan not the desire to create a niche market.

Too many discussions involve the perception or cache of the manufacturer's name rather than the product itself.... :)

[Pat D]

I agree with you 100% on the notion of ecoomies of scale but it also has to be USED. Simply being a very big company one should not ASSUME that said company will have sound as the top priority - see Bose big and could be good but isn't.

My problem of course is that if I hear a relatively small company's speaker a $700.00 and another from a major company with huge tes facitlities anechoic chambers and a speaker at $2300.00 and everyone in the room clearly and not even clsoe chooses the small no name then whatever economy of scale advantage obviously went instead to said company owner's beach house or the marketing department president's golden parachute fund.

I have been hearing rather consistently small no name companies consistently betterring mainstream comapnies. Of course up until a few years ago the dealers I had usually went to kept carrying mostly mainstream stuff -- comparing one big one against another means little - and sure there are bound to be several smaller companies that don't cut it.

Plastic is easier to work with and generally cheaper. I have heard the Silver and Gold I hear no advantage with them or a bunch of other speakers -- I prefer the Paradigm Studio 100V2 to the Stratus Gold which I assume to be the main competitor. Though I generally prefer the sound of PSB speakers over paradigm overall and certainly the case of the new Studio series.

The other thing is that small companies generally don;t make very cheap speakers -- one is probably because the market is too big and the people looking to them are not looking for $200.00 loudspeakers -- two because they don't buy in as large a bulk won't get the same deals the big guys get - three - they're building stuff they love and not just in it to make a buck and have less interest in lower end speakers or various concotions in between.

I also think you give no credit to smaller companies' ability to meet the three criteria you're talking about. Plenty of smaller companies have very good rooms with top flight measuring equipment and computer programs to get flat on and off axis response low distortion etc. So whatever they're using is just as good as any of the big boys -- and really one can tell that when listening.
The PSB Stratus Series speakers do not have plastic baffles. Maybe some new iteration will, I don't know.

I think some speaker design software is relatively inexpensive and is available to small companies or even DIYers, which is why I mentioned it. One small speaker company I am somewhat familiar with is Ethera, and they do use the measuring and listening facilities at the NRC, though I think they have some measuring equipment of their own. They make very fine speakers, too, but they're not cheap.

You can get along without an anechoic chamber by measuring outdoors, too, but this is subject to the contingencies of the weather. Analysis as detailed as from the NRC? Certainly not as quickly unless you can afford comparable facilities, which small companies generally cannot.

[RGA]

Well of course it also depends on what the companies value in terms of measuring -- measuring frequency response off axis response polar response and distortion can be done accurately by small companies. And of course what the definition iof a small company is -- the guy builing a speaker in his basement is a small company. A company with a factory with over 20 employees is small relative but may not be small for their market?

You are probably correct though that smaller companies have less availability to proper measurement systems and controls. I know Audio Note brought in the Industry standard MLSSA 7 speaker measurement system and they were surprised at how totally unnacceptably innacurate the system was. Some standard.

[RGA]

Re quote: three - they're building stuff they love and not just in it to make a buck and have less interest in lower end speakers or various concotions in between.

A common perception voiced on these forums but not sure if this based on fact or wishful economic thinking....

Most companies get started because they think they can build a better mouse trap not because they love mouse traps....Most start up loans are given based on a profitable business plan not the desire to create a niche market.

Too many discussions involve the perception or cache of the manufacturer's name rather than the product itself.... :)


Well of course you to are correct they certainly want to make money - they have to eat. But there is still a difference between "i'm going to sell Gum because I think i can make a million dollars even though gum makes me retch" and "I love audio and want to make my hobby a career to take this to the next level"

Using AN as an example
There is no question that they want to make some money -- but if they were in it to make money they would not at all be making the kind of products that they make. Their new Turntable took a long long time to develop and probably won't sell inany sort of numbers. Why spend time doing that when instead you can make a metallic box and stick some ribbons in it for that sizzly treble which has the cool factor and sell them in droves. If it was all about the money they'd move the plant to China, they'd advertise. Once you get to the point where you're in a steady 6 month waiting list to fill product orders -- you're already set in terms of being a good business. If you build the stuff for yourself to satisfy yourself -- it's easy to sell.

If i was a salesman I could sell much easier if I felt I could stand behind the product and be honest about my feelings toward. ie i would have a tough time selling Ford and Bose because I'd probably have to lie.

[thekid]

Point made. The analogy of the salesman is good but that is coming at the situation from a different perspective than the manufacturer.

Too many discussions here get mired down (see most Bose threads....:) in discussions of the perception of the manufacturer or their business practices. We are all fellow consumers on this site and should speak to the merits of the products we own/use rather than our opinions of products we don't/won't own.

I was just commenting that in my short time in this forum there is general tendency to make the following equation;
Big Company=Bad Product
Small Company=Good Product

But we have beat this horse to death I am afraid.
We just need to keep it positive here...using your analogy a good salesman sells their product on its merits not by tearing down the products of the competition......

[RGA]

I agree that it's not right to generalize and people can discuss the various advantage of either the big vs small company but really those discussions are more about the business end rather than conceptual end. Big company can make more units at lower cost due to scale of production -- but none of this has anything to do with the design. Geenrally speaking a small company will have products that they taylor to what they themselves like (which of course can be good or bad depending who listens). big companies could do that too but they often farm it out to another group of people -- you make this line you make that line etc.

I am ultimately of the opinion that the product stands on its own merit and it is the same when I review a film - I don't care if Scorcese has made ten great films in a row -- if his new one sucks it sucks - but chances are Scorcese is going to make superior films than McMovie maker Michael Bay.

I give credit to a number of big makers who make very nice speakers for little money -- I just think this tends to be where their strengths lie generally speaking i'm impressed by what they can do with the Paradigm Atom and the B&W 302 than I am with the N804 and the Studio 100v3.

[nightflier]

...Too many discussions here get mired down (see most Bose threads....:) in discussions of the perception of the manufacturer or their business practices. We are all fellow consumers on this site and should speak to the merits of the products we own/use rather than our opinions of products we don't/won't own.....

I don't know if that would work. People tend to exagerate the products they own and disparage what they don't own. But therein lies the problem: how can one discuss a product s/he doesn't own? Perhaps not owning any products, but just auditioning them (like the the writers in a/v mags), is more appropriate. Or someone who has money to burn can buy a number of units and altruistically compare them and write about them here. But anyone who decides to purchase a single product has made the conscious decision that it is somehow superior, and thus better than the rest.

Regarding the ongoing discussion, almost every company has some wonderful story about how they started from humble beginings blah-blah-blah... (Polk, Klipsch, and today's whipping boy, PSB, come to mind). But eventually the company reaches a distribution volume where they have to employ that 20-cents-per-hour-little-toddler-in-china to continue to meet the profit-margins mandated by its stockholders. That famous-name engineer who started the company with all his great ideas is slowly value-managed out of decision making, and cheap materials creep into all but the most expensive models. Companies that refuse to do this are swallowed up by those that embrace it wholeheartedly.

Eventually it's no longer about quality but about quantity. It is the perpetual problem of capitalism: a convergence towards monopolies that force-feed their consumers mediocre and similar products (notice how all cars are starting to look the same?). In the end the companies divest themselves of the manufacturing process entirely and become only hollow entities that have lost any and all relation to the actual products under their brand. I don't know what happens next, but I do know that one way small companies buck this trend is by not going puplic (like Kingston, for example), but that may be at the expense of substantial growth and profit losses for not going public.

In my opinion, much of what a company becomes stems from two factors: company philosopy (which is largely dependent on the strength of the leadership - Dynaudio comes to mind), and (cover your ears, libertarians), government regulation. The latter is really codification of societal expectations that are local to the company's home base. These expectations have a tremendous impact on the attachment the company's employees have to the product line, and consequently affect the quality of that product line. If a country has a tradition thousands of years old to produce a stellar product (French wine for example), the local government will stem profit-quantity forces from diluting product quality. Sure there are excellent California wines, but how many of these are still drinkable after 20 years? So maybe Triangle speakers are not selling like snow-cones on the the 4th of July, but they are still of a very respectable quality.

Finally, I also think that foreign consumers themselves also have higher expectations. I am just guessing, here, but I would attribute that to a different education system that emphasizes critical thinking more. By it's very nature, a business-oriented country will likely emphasize and reward an educational system that encourages less-critical consumerism, hence the drive towards quantity over quality.

[RGA]

Mr Ford (the slime-bucket he was) did realize this. You sell Ford cars to the rich -- when that market dried up he doubled the wages of his employees so they could then buy his cars.

The silly thing about the way the industries in the west are heading is they lay people here off and move plant to China -- so the shoe that cost $40.00 to make and which they sell for $200.00 can now be made for $8.00. Person here either can't afford it and goes to Wal-mart (pays employees **** and uses slave labour) or the person racks up credit cards (see debt load across the board and it's getting nightmarish.

The people in China don;t get paid enough to even buy the Wal-mart priced shoe. The middle class gets gutted for the compuer designer making $400K per year(to put out programs no one needs) and the Wal-mart emloyee at $8.50 an hour (Cdn).

If I were a reviewer in a magazine I would probably present my reviews in a similar fashion to the other reviewers. If I want to keep my job I'd have to. In the end what does it mean. I have a great deal of respect for Martin Colloms and his level of experience -- but one of his reference speakers I think is completely dreadful - the Quad ESL 63. It's famous and people like it but it is in my opinion not even a good speaker. Now if a reviewer is using a speaker in his home as a reference to judge other speakers against and you don;t like his reference how credible is he to the reader. It's the same problem that UHF magazine has and most. How do you know what you're hearing is the truth or a preference you've gotten used to.

When I started in this hobby I owned (and still do) Wharfedale Vanguards an at the time well reviewed speaker. When i went out auditioning several years later I kept noting what all the other speakers DID NOT have that my Wharfedales did have rather than trying to be objective (which really is difficult) and judge the speaker on its own merrit. We all have a preference after all and deviations from our preference can seem to be worse even if in fact that it was our reference all along that was problematic.

This is one thing that tool me a while to GET. And sometimes I still have some relapses in the way I talk about given products. I have a clear preference for the Audio Note reproduction sound sytem. But recently hearing what is a rather big departure I also think that the set-up was pleasing and while not my ultimate cup of tea is certainly very accomplished at what it does: The lower sensitivity efficiency Gershman X-1Sub1 with big mega watt SS Oddysey amps and Sony SACD front end. It doesn;t get much bigger of a departure from AN than that and yet I would post a glowing review of it because i can see why people would like the kind of sound.

Same for Magnepan - it certainly isn;t going to make me trade what I have but I also understand the appeal and the bang for buck seems quite high -- and there is the neato factor of the whole thing.

And does it all really matter -- if you buy a speaker you don;t end up liking -- sell it and buy another one.

[abstracta]

This thread only convinces me that the speaker industry today is a lot like the PC industry in the early 90s. Too many companies putting together non-distinguishing products with the same few parts at unsustainable margins.

To try and get around this, big name speaker companies have tried to divert attention to other snake-oil tactics, the most common being to focus attention to the design of the cabinet. The result being audiophiles buying $2500 two speakers that compromise $200 worth of drivers (at most), $30 for the crossover, and I guess the rest going into specially grown MDF or something. I've always wanted to ask Mr. Wilson and the design team at B&W that if cabinet resonance were such a frikken issue with a single 6" driver, why do you build boxes reather than cylinders?

Which bring me to my first rule when buying speakers, and that's never spend more than $500 for a pair of two ways regardless of brand, because if I did, I'd be a retard. Hand me the drivers for any two way speaker and I can likely find them whole-sale, and two way Xover design is hardly rocket science. You guys won't be able to justify the rest of the price difference without getting into the realm of magic.

Next rule when buying speakers is bring my favorite recording to listen to, and if the speakers vanish and don't bring attention to themselves, then they are worth getting. Sadly most electronic store speakers don't fit thsi rule, and the ear bleed inducing Klipsch mentioned at the beginning of this thread certainly don't qualify. I could care less about on axis response characteristics because off axis is where most decently made speakers get their individual flavor anyways.

Regretfully I agree that speaker makers are having to resort to Chinese production to stay competitive, which woulnd't be so bad if the stupid things weren't over-priced to begin with.

[nightflier]

One thing that we can do to alleviate the trend towards mass-produced consumer-oriented sameness is to refuse to buy retail, and to encourage others to do the same. I for one, try to buy my audio gear on the used market. Even if I have to have it repaired, it helps minimize the abuse of labor overseas. It also allows me to own equipment I would never be able to afford new and it validates the quality of older gear that was built to last (I love my Carver amp and holographic spacializer).

And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this way, as the success of online auction sites suggests. And even on eBay, I steer clear of business selling stuff new (especially NIB stuff), too, because they will in all likelyhood not be authorized resellers and are contributing to the same problems pointed out above. Heck, I don't even think they belong on eBay and I wish I could filter out "businesses" and the inflated "buy-it-now" stuff. To me, a piece of quality gear has to have passed the test of time a bit, past all the product recalls, potential negative reviews, and wear-and-tear of everyday button-pushing and dial-turning. If it is still as good as new after 5 years, has survived the magazine and online reviewers, and shed that fresh-off-the-store-shelf inflated pricepoint, then it is worth a look.

Now this is especially true for speakers. As long as they have been well cared for, speakers should have a useful life of about 20 years or more. I don't agree that material don't matter, however. In my double blind tests, I have found that there is a noticeable difference between speakers that are solidly built of strong materials as compared with the mass-produced plastic-molded stuff. A used pair of 2-year old Sonus Faber bookshelves (~$700) will be more listenable than most speakers in that price range, new or used. Strong materials also permit a speaker to weather that 20 year life better, so I do think materials play a part in sound quality and value.

As for my friend's Klipsch speakers, they appear to be clear and precise, particularly in the mids, but to my ears they are fatiguing to listen to for long periods, even more so than my own Klipsch bookshelves. They have a bit of a canned/metal sound too which I really don't care for. But my friend loves 'em. He will use them mostly for movies and loud listening sessions, so they fit his needs. I did mention that he could buy used Klipsch speakers for less, but he told me that he would never buy used. So I guess that settles that...