1. Home
  2. speakers
  3. 1016895490

How come that when most audiophiles

follow the philosophy of "shorter, less complex signal path is better", they then wire their carefully chosen equipment to speaker cabinets filled with a boatload of transformers, capacitors, resistors, and drivers which exhibit gross non-linearities which are only compounded by adding them all together? I believe that the reason is the "specification game" again, where people believe that speakers must have a frequency response from DC to light +-3db, and as a result, speaker systems must have many drivers to cover the range. Notice the specs only show freq. response, and nothing about phase non-linearity induced by multiple crossover components. This seems to be a non-linearity in system philosophy where short signal path does not apply to speaker systems, but is paramount in all other aspects of the system. I use a direct input from source to OTL amp and DIY Fostex based 1-way speaker cabinets. The result is very natural, dynamic, phase-coherent,detailed, and revealing. The only non-linearities I have to deal with are the ones inherent in the driver/cabinet combo. With some careful design and impedence curve mods, I get a more musical sound than any "high end" speakers I have ever heard(and I've heard alot) as well as any of the multi-way speakers I've ever designed and built(also alot). Why do you think that there is this disconnect in thinking regarding short signal path as it relates to speakers?
twl
albertporter's avatar
albertporter
4,927 posts
 
No doubt, and I am pleased that you found happiness with your system. The important thing is finding the special combination of equipment and speakers that allows you to listen to the music without constantly thinking about how the system "sounds".

If you are there then you are successful, regardless of how much money is spent.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
4,163 posts
 
Two comments for Twl:

Where does the Quad 63 series fit into your schema? It's a phase coherent point source design, yet at the same time with its miles of wire it definitely ignores the shorter is better philosophy.

Shorter is better may only apply to the analog world. Correctly implemented DSP processing is essentially transparent and opens up the possibility of digital crossovers driving multi-amp/multi-speaker arrays with phase coherent in-room results.
twl OP
3,251 posts
 
Two responses for Onhwy61. It is true, the Quad 63 has alot of wire that effectively is part of the transducer. Sort of like the dynamic speakers have lots of wire in the voice coil. These are simply a part of the transducer design that one picks. You could say the perfect transducer is none, but that leaves us without music. So, I'm not saying reduce to zero, it is already effectively a one way system - with disadvantages, I'll grant you, but also great strengths. I am a fan of the Quads and other electrostats for their legendary strengths. Also, I've never designed or built electrostats, but have done many dynamic types and have wrestled with the multi way issues many times. I have concluded that single-way provides the most direct and pure interface currently possible. I will settle for the one way limitations for my system. Regarding digital crossovers having great potential, I'll believe that when I hear it. Thanx for adding to the post.
hearhere
55 posts
 
The key, as pointed out by Onhwy61 and Craig is "Everything should be made as simple as possible, BUT NOT SIMPLER". Not all speaker designers are willing to compromise phase and time performance just for simplicity's sake, even in their wide bandwidth designs.

As TWL has shown, with a different set of design goals, one can make a very satisfactory "short wire" speaker. Different goal, different approach, happy listener.
hearhere
55 posts
 
Albert, you posted a list of features and elevated them to the level of standards for an ideal speaker. To quote you:

"My "impossible" speaker posting was exactly on topic because it listed ideal standards for that single driver system, including the crossover design and ability to be driven (impedance load and efficiency specs). If you do not believe that these are important to a speakers design and performance, you have much to learn."

For many of the features it is irrelevant whether you are referring to a single- or multi-driver speaker, and I’m still uncertain as to the need for such absolutes. For example, why do you specify an 8 ohm impedance as ideal? Are 4 ohm speakers inherently worse? Or why must speakers have a sensitivity in the specific range you mention? There are many audiophile-grade amplifiers that can drive the 4-ohm, inefficient Thiels to very high volumes without working up a sweat. And the size constraint baffles me completely.

There is more than one approach that leads to state of the art, especially in speaker design. Some violate one or more of your standards by a wide margin - that does not make it a design flaw.
More to discover