The audio industry still doesn't make sense to me...

[j0nnyfive]

WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD (A RECAP):
I'm gonna share some observations I've made over the past several years and then segue that into me winning the Nobel prize for my genius idea:


1. Wilson Audios and Revel Salons have horizontal centers. Who cares?

- NO speakers are "too nice" for home theater. Home Theater be gettin' crunk.
- The whole "Oh, it's just for home theater" attitude is dying out.


2. The 85-90 bookshelf/tower dance. Who cares?

I dunno... room kinda big. Dynamics. Yadda yadda. Might regret it! Yay tower$!!!


3. Tower speakers need subwoofers. Who cares?

- Those room modes ain't gonna fix themselves. Better buy that bass twice, boy!
- The whole "subwoofers are evil" attitude is dying out.


4. Dynamics too low in modern music. Too high in modern movies. Who cares?

- Uh oh... some people went ahead and bought those Klipsch at Best Buy!


5. People give up horn speakers after figuring it out. Who cares?

- Now they're looking for a balance. They know what they're wanting now...

Drumroll please...... (A man sitting in the seat behind you whispers: better get ready to buy that bass twice boy).........

***Oh wait!! I have an idea! You know those small satellite speakers that have no bass but they can get pretty loud for their size? Yeah? Just make bigger, high-end versions of those!! No, I'm not talking about those NHTs. I mean bigger. NO, I'm not talking about those massive JBL sound re-enforcement speakers.. NO I'm not talking about the Lunas. I mean bigger! Normal size! Normal size! Yes.. that... Anyway, they're gonna get subs to fix those room modes, and I'm sure the woofers would probably be better at mid-range anyway because they aren't putting out a lot of bass!! (You're a genius Jonny, you're a genius!!)

YAY!!!! YOU WON THE NOBEL PRIZE JONNY!!!! (Someone yells "get 'em a body bag!")

(I'm sorry... It seems that there has been a mistake. We need to take back the prize. It appears that nobody wants that except Jimb. We don't like Jimb. ...I'm sorry, son.)

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So the reason I started this thread is to figure out why nobody wants what Jimb wants.
Why Jimb? Why? Why do they have to treat you this way?

[curtis]

Yeah, I must be at a loss. I don’t know what you want.

[j0nnyfive]

Yeah, I must be at a loss. I donÂ’t know what you want.

Okay... what I'm doing in this thread is learning how other people think about speakers. It's interesting. My "idea" or "observation" is that there is a missing speaker "design target" in the home audio world in general. Why? Not enough demand. I'm trying to get a feel for why and whether it is plausible that demand may increase in the future.

Imagine a bookshelf speaker the size of the Sierra 2EX. Now give it the bass extension of the Luna. What did that do? Made it louder. And made the mid-range cleaner. In theory.

So what? What does this accomplish? It pushes the speaker closer to the home theater ideal.

1. Midrange even better than 2EX (in theory). (maximized mids)
2. Sensitivity getting much closer to 90db (maybe). (maximized sens)
3. MT = good bang for buck, versatile placement, and closer to point source ideal.

What did we give up? Bass. So use your subs you're getting anyway to fix room modes.

So isn't sacrificing bass too big of a sacrifice? Isn't "perfect" the enemy of "good"? I would make the argument that people buy 3-way tower speakers. Why? They want perfect. So there may be a market for "perfect" in bookie land, too.

Have you ever heard of min/maxing in video games? Where you maximize certain things and minimize certain things to hit whatever targets you set? That's basically what I'm doing here. Trying to outline a "min/maxed" bookshelf speaker that hits a very definite home theater target. Bang-for-buck high end sound. Can't get any more bang-for-buck at this quality level than this. In theory. I might be totally wrong, though! Why not already existing speakers? They weren't built with these targets in mind. (I'm not focusing on speakers, I'm focusing on design targets)

I hope this helps, Curtis. Sincerely. I know it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but... does Dave ever get really really into trying to perfect something? I sorta come from a family of perfectionists. But... I like it.

As you know, speakers are designed with certain targets in mind. Most high-end bookshelf speakers target a reasonable amount of bass so that they sound good without subwoofers. The targets I listed above simply assume subwoofers, but give you high-end quality sound (such as RAALs).

I'm not after a speaker. I'm learning more about speaker people and what their ideals are. It seems like the speaker world has been changing over the past decade, to me. The distinction between home theater and music speakers has been blurring, and subwoofers seem to be becoming more and more common. Especially using multiple subwoofers. I'm wondering if these changes will begin to shift people's expectations and in turn shift design targets. Or not.

(Also, it isn't lost on me that even if there were demand, there still may be problems with my understanding, or technical issues or pricing issues or what not. In other words, it could be that a type of mid-woofer I am thinking of may be SUPER expensive. Or it may be that the 2EX is at the limit of what can be done in the mid-range frequencies at it's price point. Or anything! Who knows?)

I don't want anything Curtis. But, I do enjoy your conversation and you have good music taste!

[curtis]

I know it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but... does Dave ever get really really into trying to perfect something?

Why would you ask this question? You don't think he does?

[j0nnyfive]

Why would you ask this question? You don't think he does?

Ah, I'm sorry Curtis. That was a rhetorical question. It's obvious to me that he does. I'm using his desire to perfect something as an example to explain why I'm striving so hard to understand something. I'm trying to perfect my understanding by having a discussion about these things. I wasn't literally asking if Dave tries to perfect something. That would be rather silly.

[davef]

I don't have much time these days but I am pretty sure what jonnyfive is looking for is something like the Sierra-2EX but with an even lower moving mass woofer, thus sacrificing bass for higher efficiency. Notice I mentioned sacrificing bass for efficiency - because a woofer like our EX is already very low mass and fully optimized for midrange performance. Further lowering moving mass, would require a shorter voice coil and taking some mass off the cone (likely making it thinner and less damped) this will increase efficiency at the expense of deeper bass. It would also sacrifice some power handling but I don't expect any actual measurable improvements in the midrange response. Typically, lowering mass by a significant amount can result in improved midrange detail - but with something like our EX woofer, the reduction in mass would be minimal as the MMS is already extremely low.

The question is, why would someone prefer having, for example, 3dB higher efficiency in a speaker that will now handle less power and would not provide the flexibility of using lower crossover points if the room or subwoofer demanded it? You would really get the benefit of both worlds by simply using the Sierra-2EX crossed at 80Hz.

J - it is important to understand that designing a woofer that is very low mass and fully optimized for the range of, for example, 80Hz to 4kHz, will still attempt to reproduce those below 80Hz frequencies. Those frequencies below that optimization point, can cause significant issues for that woofer if it can not handle them.

Even with an 80Hz crossover, there is still plenty of information below 80Hz that the woofer will still see and must be able to reproduce without distortion or distress.

The Sierra-2EX woofer is optimized to be able to reproduce frequencies one full octave below 80Hz.

You mentioned Paradigm Persona B. This is, in fact, very similar to our Sierra-2EX with regards to specs. Its efficiency is not 89dB - that is just what Paradigm would like you to believe. Its sensitivity is slightly higher than our Sierra-2EX and that is because it uses a woofer with more surface area. In addition, its measurements are not impressive:

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...nts&Itemid=153

What you are looking for is doable, but it would require a larger very low mass woofer and I am not really a fan of trying to mate a woofer larger than 6.5" with a tweeter. The speaker would need to be a 3-way for it to be optimized.

I designed / worked on a slew of these THX specific speakers for M&K (-3dB at 80Hz with 90dB efficiency), we were able to accomplish this goal by using multiple woofers (S-100, S-150, LCR750, S1, S5000, S-125). What I learned was that people went crazy for them for home theater, but did not like them for music. They lacked midbass, warmth, and dispersion characteristics were not ideal for music.

While I understand exactly what you are looking for, there is a reason you don't see this type of speaker these days. A competent engineer can get just as good midrange performance, while also getting excellent midbass and bass all with simply sacrificing sensitivity. Wattage is quite inexpensive.

[Bruce Watson]

You would really get the benefit of both worlds by simply using the Sierra-2EX crossed at 80Hz.

Yes. Exactly this. Dave's Sierra 2 designs + servo subs are very bloody difficult to beat.

[j0nnyfive]

Yes. Exactly this. Dave's Sierra 2 designs + servo subs are very bloody difficult to beat.

Oh, c'mon Bruce!! Don't pretend you KNEW all that all along now!! Because you didn't tell me, Dave had to take time out of his day to do all of your explaining!!



LOL I'm just kidding of course. (I love you Bruce)


Dave, I feel bad, on one hand, that you took time out of your day to educate me. I really do. But, YOU SIR... Thank you so much!! ..for clearing up my technical curiosities on this matter. Everything you said helps me to better understand perhaps WHY the kind of speaker I'm thinking of isn't around. (The trade-offs don't balance in a sensible way.) I wasn't sure just how much more mid range performance could be gained, and how that would balance with losing bass performance below 60hz, and how that would all balance out. The sensitivity boost/loss isn't too big a deal. I considered that a possible bonus in addition to improved mid-range detail. But, I didn't know for sure. Now I do!

Why would someone want to lose power handling? Because they're a ****y! LOL

And now, I am through with this topic unless anyone wants to keep discussing it.

I want to re-iterate one more time that I love my Sierra 2EX and I use them just about every day. I'm not dissatisfied in ANY way. In fact, and this is kinda funny, unless a person is considering spending at the 2EX level for speakers, I DON'T WANT THEM TO HEAR THESE SPEAKERS because I don't want them to start crying or be disappointed in the speakers that they got, because there are other good speakers out there at lower price points but GOOD LORD!! Listening to these speakers (2EX) after that would be cruel punishment. (...and now, you have to go back to YOUR speakers, son...)

Again, thank you ALL for your taking the time to discuss this topic with me. It means a lot to me!! (I won't bring up another technical topic like this for a long long time, don't worry)

You guys stay safe!!

[j0nnyfive]

Actually, wait a sec. I've been caffeinated.

Dave, I really don't want to take any more time away from your work, but I have to mention this just to be sure. This may not change anything about what you said, but I need to make sure that it won't. Some of the things you said in your post give me the impression that You and I were not on the same wavelength. Let me just describe the exact speaker I'm thinking of in the best, most specific way that I can. All the talk of large cones, multiple woofers, and 80hz -3db points was making me a little nervous. I think sometimes its easy to think someone is chasing loudness at all costs (because I'm sure you've had this conversation a billion times).

Here is the speaker I am envisioning (Jimb told me to do this):

Arrangement: MT (no more, no less)
Woofer size: 6.5" (I wasn't sure of your exact limit on size but I never wanted to sacrifice off-axis realism)
-3db point: I assumed the Luna's point was okay. (?)
Enclosure: Possibly sealed unless this would be bad. (minimize group delay? tighten clarity?)
Primary attribute: Maximized midrange quality from a woofer specifically designed to hit these specific targets.
Accidental attribute: Increased sensitivity. This is not priority one. But every little bit helps.
Known sacrifices: Ability to cross lower than 80hz. Warmth.

This speaker wouldn't be "warm" for music. It would simply be as neutral as possible.

I am hesitant to post this... but I don't want to be misunderstood or taken as a knuckle dragger who just wants a louder speaker at all costs. This is why I reacted in humor to Curtis when he said I wanted a big sound re-enforcement speaker... I thought... SURELY he thinks more of me than that?
Edit: Not that people who NEED louder at all costs are knuckle draggers!! Sometimes there are legitimate needs!! lol Gotta learn to be more P.C. about knuckle dragging.

My biggest curiosity at this point is:

How a sealed enclosure would affect things. (Jimb made me ask this)

So, only if you ever have time, Dave. (it doesn't have to be today or tomorrow or even next week!! My email will let me know whenever it is.) I truly appreciate your willingness to educate us!!!

P.S. When is your book coming out?

[curtis]

I don't get it...

Dave told you there isn't a reason to build what you are envisioning, and you asked again.

The Sierra 2EX crossed at 80hz is your answer.

The port really doesn't come into play above 80hz.