New speakers

Good call on the KEF REF-1's -a brilliant loudspeaker !

Also funny (and a bit sad) that both the 12-year hi-fi absence correlating with your daughter's age ! lol

  pj

Innocent Bystander posted:

allhifi posted:

Hi I.B.: I sent a reply to your comments above several days ago -I don't see it ? (Moderator's/NA?)

It was detailed, and lengthy.

In any case, I missed your assertion that , quote: " A cutaway  view  is a pretty picture demonstrates the internal design, not build quality - and based on what I have seen over the years they do not all give you a real view ...."

A contradictory statement; how can a cutaway/exploded diagram NOT reveal build quality ?

(If only 99% of the other manufacturer's could be so dishonest, we all might learn a thing or two)

  Referenced in my earlier (missing?) reply was that I agree with your comment regarding listening  room acoustics, namely: "Meanwhile the listening room  can play a huge part in the sound heard - in some cases sufficiently so to make a speaker tha sounds good in one room sound awful in anorther, though my own experience has not echoed that ..." 

Indeed, given appropriate ancillary's (and cabling), and understanding AC power quality's impact upon sound, a loudspeaker should have a similar "tonality". (Ensuring the loudspeaker is positioned well away from room boundaries).

pj

 

 

 

Maybe it is semantics:

To me, "build quality" is how well something is put together: how accurate the machining, how it all joins with no leaks, how 'solid' it is, the quality of veneer and polishing or laquer finish or whatever. These are things that are very hard to assess from a single picture, even any picture, though maybe some detailed close-ups could convey something, and would have to be of a real loudspeaker not a simulation or mock-up.

A "cutaway view" on the other hand simply shows the internal layout (or part thereof). And cutaway views are rarely truly that: I do recall seeing one where it did look as if a manufacturer had literally cut thoug part of the enclosure, but by far the majority are like the one you linked: clearly a drawing, whether by hand as once was done or a computer generated image as this one. As the intend is simply to give the viewer an impression of the internals, and not to provide accurate detail for would-be cloners, I contend that it cannot be assumed that there is perfect dimensional accuracy, and panels and absorbent material and cables etc may or may not be exactly the relative thicknesses or positions that the diagam shows. And the diagram certainly gives no idea of precisely what the individual materials are. I do not see this approach as dishonesty on the part of manufacturers onless they were to claim that it is a speaker sawn in half.

As for other aspects of your response, my observations did not all relate to your postings, and we are indeed in agreement in some areas.

The point should remain clear; a maker's efforts to show construction details should be both expected, and the more detailed efforts lauded. 

I don't think you may be aware of the epidemic (pandemic actually -lol) of sub-par manufacturing techniques and parts detail. This should be of interest to anyone contemplating a considerable investment, no ?    

I believe we have grown lethargic in keeping manufacturer's honest -or at the very least making them work to earn one's purchasing decision -particularly relevant as prices continue to far exceed inflation or any other valid reason(s) for such ( in many cases) extravagant pricing.

One should never minimize the great importance of solid build quality, using modern, sophisticated techniques that may help justify pricing -or at least impress upon the reader of the importance allocated to any design/construction details. This is made clear with Q Acoustics "Concept 500" model, and I for one, automatically take note and may suggest one give it  further consideration.

Many more maker's should be held to account; we should not only expect it, but demand it.

pj

Another comment on the lack of information about Audiovector speaker. This is probably more  information than you can find on most speakers. You are also shown what you pay for when  you upgrade from one model to a better model in the 3 or 6 series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ynq1cwSrrs

allhifi posted:

<snip>

One should never minimize the great importance of solid build quality, using modern, sophisticated techniques that may help justify pricing -or at least impress upon the reader of the importance allocated to any design/construction details. This is made clear with Q Acoustics "Concept 500" model, and I for one, automatically take note and may suggest one give it  further consideration.

<snip>

Unfortunately that emphasis on "solid build quality" demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge concerning mechanical acoustic engineering.  'Solid' build quality implies strength and mass,  This results in a material with a high storage modulus and low loss modulus - not always what's required.

In fact the opposite construction (one that's lightweight rather than solid) with 'flimsy' but well damped components, with a low storage modulus and high loss modulus can also work well when combined with other heavier, more rigid and less well damped components.  This is what the BBC found in their seminal work on loudspeaker construction.

Engineering is almost always a compromise and whereas sometimes there's a single optimised operating area, sometimes there's more than one sweet spot.
"Oranges are not the only fruit."