Are loudspeakers that different?

Hi, Jimmy:

As I have commented before in these pages, speakers present THE greatest degree of variability of any component in an audio system (I know some will argue this point, but based on 40 years of audiophile listening -- and selling high-end gear -- I stick to my guns).

Phono cartridges and speakers are usually the only two electrical transducers in a normal audio system (transducers being the components that transform mechanical energy into electrical energy (cartridges), or electrical energy into mechanical energy (speakers)). The ideal for a transducer is to perfectly duplicate the original audio signal, without introducing distortion, non-linearities, etc. This is much more difficult to do accurately than most people think.

Over the past 100 years or so, a lot of different approaches to speaker design have been tried: horns, dynamic cones, electrostatic panels, magnetic planar panels, ribbons, ionic drivers, etc. Beyond the obvious differences in the design of the speaker, you must then wrestle with the kind of materials used (there are at least a half-dozen different material compositions being used today in the cones of dynamic drivers alone), the inherent non-linearities of the voice coil or driving element, the effects of the crossover (if one is used), etc. A similar range of problems occurs in the design of cartridges, with the added complexity of extremely small size and incredibly tight tolerances.

Ultimately, once the design of a speaker has been decided, the "art form" takes over from the science, and speakers must be tuned by ear. Given the variability in human hearing, with the differences in acuity -- not to mention that there are probably significant subjective differences in HOW each of hear and translate sound in our brains -- and what each of thinks sounds "good", it should be no surprise that there is a LOT of difference in how speakers sound.

If you read this forum often, you have seen the on-going debates between the adherents of dynamic speakers vs. the lovers of electrostatics vs. the admirers of horns, etc. What all of this demonstrates, in summary, is that only YOU can decide which speakers sounds "best" to you and appeals to your asthetic tastes.

The other aspect of your question addresses the relative performance and value of expensive vs. less expensive speakers. I recently posted the summary of an article about value in high-end audio which was written by Richard Hardesty, wherein he made a number of points about the prevalence of hyperexpensive speakers (and other audio gear) which often carries the implied promise of much better performance than more modestly priced equipment. Hardesty commented that high price is NOT necessarily a guarantee of higher performance. With speakers, there are a lot of really excellent speakers today in the $2500-3500 range (for a stereo pair), such as the Thiel 1.6's, Vandersteen 3A Signatures, Magneplanar 1.6R's, to mention only three. The most salient point that Hardesty made in his article is that you should audition all audio gear, and particularly speakers, without regard to price. You will probably find that many of the mid-priced products offer all of the performance of the higher-priced spreads, although they may lack some of the "status appeal" and appearance of the more expensive competition.

Sorry to ramble on, but speakers have long been, and continue to be (IMO), the most difficult single audio component to buy. You are wise to solicit input from others, but ultimately you will have to do a LOT of listening (remember: put your price prejudices aside), and then trust your own ears.

Jimmy; It seems to me that-- in my limited experience-- what you pay for when buying expensive speakers is 1. deeper and more articulate bass, and 2. a much more revealing character in the mids and treble. In general I would say that this is good assuming you have very high quality source and amplification components driving them. But if you don't, you could be very disappointed. And at this level, component synergy becomes even more critical. Cheers. Craig

...every speaker is designed for a particular listening room. for every speaker the amp must be matched to it's maximum perfection. Larger more expencive speakers are for larger rooms. If one listening room occupies 2 floors and has 2000 sQft area than you'll probably need Genesis 1.1 to fill it with the air. At the same time if you will place the same Genesis onto the 200 sqFt room with low ceiling you might not bring to yourself a desirable result meaning that you'd probably better off with under $6000 speakers for the very very best.

Thus I believe that there is a limit of spending that depends on the size of room and listening position beyond which you will not get improvements.

There are huge differences between all audio components, check out opinions here on Audiogon thread archives and try www.audioasylum.com for more information about the differences between various speakers and cd players.

Sdcampbell is entirely correct. Speakers exhibit by far more variability than any other component in the audio chain. The winds of audiophile fashion have blown from various quarters over the years. Right now the fashion is to say, "The source is everything," which sounds good but just ain't so. You'll hear people say, "A good source can make a cheap speaker sound good," and that is true up to a rather limited point. But the electronics will not change the essential CHARACTER of the sound that the speakers produce. Read the endless threads about single-driver versus multi-driver systems, or about e'statics versus dynamics or about ported versus closed-box versus TL versus horn cabinet designs. Any of these designs, well executed, can produce glorious sound but the character of that sound will tend to be different on the basis of the fundamental characteristics of the designs, themselves. If a horn speaker sounds hooty (the "Winchester Cathedral" sound) with one set of electronics, then it will sound hooty with every set of electronics. If a Lowther design truncates the ends of the frequency spectrum in favor of a delicious midrange, then various electronics might make a little difference, but not a whole lot because the foundational characteristics of the sound of a Lowther system are bounded by the design of the driver, not the electrons coursing through it.

I'm from time to time bemused to visit the homes of new or old audiophile friends and find them listening to hideously expensive electronics, cables, and power systems played through cheap speakers, saying as they do so, "Well, you know, the source is everything." Then they come to my house, where they hear good but not splendiferous electronics (Belles, Rega, etc.) played through absolutely fantastic speakers. And their eyes pop out. Not that my system is the be-all-and-end-all of everything by any means, but simply because they discover how much impact on the sound of the system depends on the speakers.

Let me just close on an objectivist note here, because I know some of y'all are itching to get to the bottom of this post and start writing rebuttals. :) The literature is replete with instances in which critical listeners in short-term ABX trials have been unable to differentiate among various amplifiers or preamps or cables or other source-related elements. Now, without going into all the interesting things that could, can, and will be said about the limitations of ABX testing, keep in mind that virtually EVERYONE, in ABX speaker comparisons, can reliably differentiate among different speakers. That's a telling point.

But, hey, when all is said and done do what gives you pleasure and satisfaction. That is, or should be, the name of the audio game.

Good luck and let us know what you choose.

will