Curious question about speakers

I find it a splendid question, especially if compared to the like of 'how can I spend the £10,000 I found forgotten in my trousers' pocket while I was gathering the laundry'?

Although I am not sure what an asymptote is, or how it applies here, I think that an asymptotic answer would be 'nearly yes'.

Err...  yes and no.

To lower the bass extension limit frequency you can do a few things...

Reduce the sensitivity of the system (e.g. increasing the moving mass driver)
Increase the effective volume of the enclosure
Decrease the maximum volume limit for the system
Allow higher distortion at LF
Apply an electronic filter to boot the gain below natural limit of the system (this decreases the max volume!)

So yes there's a reason for bigger speakers, and bigger cabinets cost more.

For any given 'quality' point in the market for a series of speakers from a manufacturer, bigger speakers have lower LF limits and cost more.

If this is the case, then no-one seems to have told Raidho of Denmark, who make those ferociously expensive D1.1 and C1.2 standmount speakers.  They have poured a fortune into the driver technologies though.  Quite remarkable sounding things they are too.  Staggeringly fast.

Best regards, FT

Foot tapper posted:

If this is the case, then no-one seems to have told Raidho of Denmark, who make those ferociously expensive D1.1 and C1.2 standmount speakers.  They have poured a fortune into the driver technologies though.  Quite remarkable sounding things they are too.  Staggeringly fast.

Best regards, FT

They might sound good, and might be fast, but response claim says the D1.1, for example, only goes down to 50Hz,  (and no declaration of what cutoff pointbthat is (-3dB, -6dB?), and doubtless there's a reason for larger models in the range...

Didn’t Art do the same speaker with different crossover components and a £4k price difference? I seem to remember a review in + a few years back.

Innocent Bystander posted:

They might sound good, and might be fast, but response claim says the D1.1, for example, only goes down to 50Hz,  (and no declaration of what cutoff pointbthat is (-3dB, -6dB?), and doubtless there's a reason for larger models in the range...

Indeed IB, indeed.  They must sound thin, tinny and awful, judging by this paper specification.

Here's another, similarly weedy speaker: the ATC SCM40.  ATC only manages 48Hz at their -6dB cut-off point from this 3 way speaker.

The funny thing is, those ATCs don't sound at all thin or weedy.  There are a number of ATC SCM40 owners on this forum who are most welcome to confirm or refute this outrageous assertion of mine .

Nor do the Raidho D1.1 sound thin or weedy when I've heard them.

Sure ATC and Raidho both do larger models that go deeper, especially at higher volumes.  But few decent 2 way speakers sound lacking at "normal" volumes (not your normal, TonyM or Jon Honeyball!!!) until one does a back-to-back audition.  Active DBLs, you just gotta love 'em.

The more I listen to decent music systems, the more I am convinced that the published specifications are meaningless in terms of perceived sound quality, while the specifications that really do matter for perceived sound quality are hidden away from public view like a trade secret.

So, what are the important specs that we should be asking about to give an indication of sound quality?

Best regards from a genuinely curious FT

yeti42 posted:

Didn’t Art do the same speaker with different crossover components and a £4k price difference? I seem to remember a review in + a few years back.

Err, yes and they still do.  They have 3 grades of crossover components.  If grade 1 is the cheapest, then grade 2 (better copper inductors & superior capacitors) was/is about £3-4k more.  I have the Grade 2 in mine, the so called Signature version.

The Grade 3 crossovers contain inductors wound with a lot of silver wire and capacitors made from unobtainium.  The on cost for going to Grade 3 was a lot more than a lot.  I vaguely remember around £10k or so more but don't hold me to that.

I'm sure that all 3 versions have the identical published specifications, yet strangely do not sound the same.  So which specifications should we be asking for to better understand the differences?

Is there a specification for good PRaT, HH's infamous Inky Blackness, a silky smooth treble, one-note bass or good 3D imaging, all of them perceived attributes that matter to different listeners?

Best regards, FT

En passant, I happened to be able to listen to a pair of Raidho C1.1 a few years ago at my usual dealer and, apart from the crazy price tag (they were 2nd hand and costed €6800), they sounded extremely good with a Nait 5si. I don't even remember the CDP. I have owned Marten Design Miles II, and I know think that all speakers using ceramic transducers have unique qualities, but also such a drastic lack of coloration to make them eerie to some ears. Those tiny C1.1s had bass, not much below 50/60 Hz but an experience, trust me. And I am speaking of a Nait 5 si.

The point I was making was in response to the specific implication that those speakers negate the Huge's answer to the question about larger speakers.

I haven't heard them, so have nothing to go on other than what I found in a quick look onlinecwondering what they are. From the information I found, including the manufacturer's own other speakers, I concluded that one clear limitation compared to good bigger speakers (and I know that a generalisation) is that the very bottom end is likely to be missing, and if that is important to the listener then it will be significant. Othe factors of consideratiin that may limit its ability include the size of the room and options for placement, and maybe even  how loud one likes ones music. These factors do not mean they might not sound good to some or many people, in at keast some listening rooms and positions, but tgere is a good chance that they won't satisfy peoole that want what these ones will struggle to, or can't give.

This is all academic.  There will be a day in the future when 1k standmounts outperform today's large expensive floorstanders for sure.

TOBYJUG posted:

This is all academic.  There will be a day in the future when 1k standmounts outperform today's large expensive floorstanders for sure.

I don't think it is academic, at keast not likely in my lifetime!

Small speakers certainly are better today than 40 years ago, but for as long as we hear sound via our ears and feel it via our bodies (as opposed to pluggingbinto our nervous system), music in a room has to follow the basics of acoustic physics: low frequencies are large wavelenths, and require a lot more air movement than high frequencies for the same sound level. Conceivably different means of moving the air (coupling to the air in the room) than the present electromagnetic or electrostatic means of moving thecair may be developed, which could use smaller devices, but i am unconvinced that movong diaphragms will achieve low bass ar high acoustic energy.

TOBYJUG posted:

This is all academic.  There will be a day in the future when 1k standmounts outperform today's large expensive floorstanders for sure.

And on just what is your assertion based?

TOBYJUG posted:

This is all academic.  There will be a day in the future when 1k standmounts outperform today's large expensive floorstanders for sure.

That may already be the case in small rooms.

Small speakers can sound fantastic. I have heard Raidho not sure about the model, and Audiovector Sr 1 Avantaarde Arreté very very good, but in the end still small, you can hear something is not there. I have also heard Linn exact again with some of the smaller speakers, and even with the digital correction in the end it was still a small speaker no matter how much was corrected digitally. But a small speaker with one or 2 subs setup correctly is a very interesting way to run small speakers. 

Claus-Thoegersen posted:

Small speakers can sound fantastic. I have heard Raidho not sure about the model, and Audiovector Sr 1 Avantaarde Arreté very very good, but in the end still small, you can hear something is not there. I have also heard Linn exact again with some of the smaller speakers, and even with the digital correction in the end it was still a small speaker no matter how much was corrected digitally. But a small speaker with one or 2 subs setup correctly is a very interesting way to run small speakers. 

Indeed, that is a completely different matter! A small size of 'main' speaker is then perfectly possible as their ability in the bottom couple of octaves ceases to be a factor.  Of course, that approach has its own challenges with placement and getting the integration right, but inherently has potential for greater room flexibility. If I had no option but to have a listening room too small for my speakers I'd investigate this actively (pun not intended!). The Wilson Benesch Torus always has a draw for me, though I haven't yet heard it,