Speakers: is there scope for innovation? ?

I agree with Pete ergun.  The 851 are an exceptional speaker.  It is always hard to say when people ask what a speaker sounds like.  It will depend a lot on your room, system and hearing.   To me the Scanspeak and SEAS drivers do sound different - perhaps that is the voicing Troels has added with his XO too.   They are both exceptionally good.   Sadly, only you will know for sure when you hear.  Certainly, with Troels speakers, 4 or 5 listeners have found the SEAS sound a little smoother -  that is on my system and in my room.

All the speakers in question reveal similar amounts of information. Their differences in character are more related to the harmonic distortion levels. Even numbers (2nd, 4th harmonics etc.) tend to add harmonics that some people like and find add something positive. Odd harmonics (3rd, 5th harmonics) are not generally considered to add as positively to the character.

Most manufacturers don't publish this data. A few do and I use good reviews of drivers to investigate their harmonic structure. Sadly it is something rarely measured, but something I am looking at when designing speakers.

Just to make it clear, this your view based on your experience and knowledge to date.   I do not agree with many of your assertions.   

Most people in any industry have to start somewhere.   Whether a 'maverick' has found something new or produced something special is for the market/listener to decide.   

I believe there is still innovation/progress in all industries, including HiFi and speakers.   I believe there is potential for further improvement.

With the new heading things are a little broader so just to add in my case the reason my speakers sound very different is because they use a very different system to move air . I use Quad ESL57 speakers and being electrostatics they move air using an incredibly thin static charged Mylar set of panels . This means almost no cabinet to colour the sound and incredible speed due to the very low mass of the drivers . What this offers to me is transparency and the most realistic portrayal of instruments . But there are downsides , it does not offer very low bass in my view the sound is so quick that subs never sound right . High volume is not always possible . So like all speakers a compromise . These are my compromises and I accept them because I love the strengths so much and they make music that I enjoy . Others will not agree and we are both right .

That's why the best part of this job is to enjoy it Of course, when we build something, we want to shoot the bullet in our hand in a way that hits the target exactly. In the end, nothing is free. And some of us don't get it easily.

"I happen to be kind of an inquisitive guy and when I see things I don't like, I start thinking, why do they have to be like this and how can I improve them?"

- Walt Disney

"cold wind? Nah, we've already got that"

That's so weird though as I distinctly can't remember my parents streaming CD quality flac files through their hifi from their phones in the 90's (less than 30yrs ago).

I guess you're right and no technology has or could possibly have moved on since 1956.

That wasn't what I said. 

In any case, digital audio in a useful form is 50 years old, lets not forget. Consumer digital is 42. Long since maxed out, way better than our hearing. Doesn't matter what new delivery tech you can invent, sound quality is already way past the limit. No where else to go. And that's not a bad thing.

Because asr say they do

Ah, it's all been done before has it?

Has it?

A long time ago now, i sat down with an unknown valve electronics expert who demonstrated his system to me. So shocked was i, that i immediately started thinking "why isn't this guy knocking hifi out at ridiculous amounts of money!"

Time passed, we became great friends. We embarked on a joint venture to create a phonostage that could compete with the big boys for Common Man money. Whilst talking through circuit design ideas, we started to realise that the one section of the design was pretty much brand new...how new? Well, it turns out that in over 100 years, an obvious (to him) way of utilising valves (can't disclose the IP) hadn't appeared anywhere that we could find. We searched, very thoroughly. But no, we never found anything remotely similar. Obviously we thought there may be a reason why people don't configure valves in this way, but all the measurements and listening tests we did never revealed an issue.

I bought multiple "valve cookbooks" , downloaded vintage articles etc.....and no, never found anything similar.

Now, whilst looking, it dawned on us that it may have just never been applied to HiFi. The search continued, and FINALLY we found something similar in a TV i believe, similar, but not the same.

Obviously, we can't see everything that has ever been made or designed, but in this instance, the application of this design was essentially "new" to HiFi as far as we can reasonably tell. Most Valve circuits are regurgitations of 1960's designs BTW.

So what!? you may be asking.

Well, here is the value of what guys like Jason, Alan, Angus, and Tony are doing. They're explorers in the world of HiFi. Yes, sometimes you have to be a bit of a maverick to push the boundaries of what already exists, but just because it may have been done before doesn't mean it was done right, or well for that matter. Quite often, half the stuff i do personally, I have no idea "why" its working, but that doesn't mean it isn't, it just means I haven't got a full suite of measurements to explain it. If that's not good enough for the reader, again, they have the nous to evaluate if there is any merit in what I am doing.

The guys I previously mentioned tend to spot something wrong with how things were originally done, and they are having a bash at a different approach. What's the harm in that? Does that make them mavericks? I hope so!

Personally I am 100% behind innovation and investigation. I am genuinely grateful for their endeavours as my system has only ever improved with their input. I'd much rather take advice from them, than someone sat at a Laptop reading and regurgitating what they have read of other peoples efforts on the subject, which in effect is limited to the original authors ability and understanding on the subject.

I have investigated construction methods, materials, and tested almost every capacitor i could afford. On the subject of capacitors, I am not one bit interested in the opinion of someone who has never tested a capacitor in their life, but reads about caps on ASR and proclaims it to be foo, because ASR have.....which is exactly what happens there.

That approach will never work here.....


We are explorers.

I freely admit to having little or no technical skills and a very vague idea about technology . However I am much happier with exchanging ideas and views with people who are trying different things and just saying what they find . I then have my own personal choice I can read it snort with laughter and carry on . Or I can try it for myself and see if it changes things for me . I then need to be honest and tell the truth about what I found , there have been some very times when I have to admit i do not hear anything but far more times I have been surprised and delighted how things have altered .

LPSU use has been a huge boon in making listening to music easier and more enjoyable . SMPS of its own is not bad it is just the cheap and nasty universal units that are sold that sound awful . If an SMPS was designed and implemented for a specific item with due consideration for the design and filtering employed for that specific circuit I am pretty sure it would sound top class . But it would also be expensive . LPSU units have benefited from years of use in that the design is well known and used so even cheap and basic ones can be made to be low noise . Again if you want the very best then it needs good design , good components and real application and that ends up being expensive .

Using an external clock in a digital system makes a difference the better the clock the more natural the sound . The final file may appear to be the same but the music that issues out is not . Show me how to measure for that ? (Tony probably can but then I would not be able to see what he sees) . Nothing in life is always known , it may have been tried before but was it done for the same reasons ?

My brother's speakers are Trigger's broom... He recently sent this message:

"I was just thinking about my speakers... cabinets made by dad and me, drive units from “x“ company and "y" company, xo design by "a", "b" and finally ARKE Audio, they've been 3 different colours by 2 different body shops, everyone's had a go at them 🤣 sounding v nice right now!“

Essentially, my brother has never been happy with his speakers and has paid 2 of the most respected speaker/crossover designers in the UK. They have over 100 years combined experience and design speakers for many of the world's most revered companies. I measured his latest crossovers and they were terrible - full of phase issues and a terrible frequency response - one very 'renowned' designer charged him £1000 for the XO design and components - utter rubbish and this knowledge goes into a lot of 'high end' retail speakers.

About 6 weeks ago I decided to redesign his crossover remotely using very good simulation software. I spent one morning modelling the drivers, baffles, time alignments, diffraction and various topologies. I also used my measurements (of his poor XO) to verify the simulation was correctly modelling the correlation between his poor XO and the poor measurements.... The simulation was bang on! The poor XO did indeed have the same poor FR and phase issues in the sim.

After a little work (about 3-4hrs), I remotely redesigned his XO and achieved results which far surpassed the 'experts' in the industry. In addition, the new XO design cost nothing as the sale of unwanted components covered the cost of the new ones.

Maybe I got lucky, or maybe the experts using tried and tested methods fell short of the mark.

Who is innovating and providing results and performance? The people/companies with (50+ years) experience and knowledge or the 'Mavericks' trying to excel by breaking the mould?