Are The Speakers We Purchase Really What They Are Cracked Up To Be?

This whole concept of improving on what is already good, using better parts, fine tuning is not new, and not particular to speakers, or even audio. There are articles/videos and consumers dedicated to analyzing and improving parts and “flaws” in speakers, amplifiers, Porsches, and even high-end coffee pots (not a joke... people “mod” their Technivorms). Not everyone is as critical of manufacturers using “inferior” parts as this guy, though. Any company that manufactures finished products for a sustainable period of time understands that there are many factors involved with parts and design decisions. There are very few “build the absolute best design using the best parts available period” kind of products out there. Cost is no object is a bit of a myth. Companies like Dynaudio are trying to put out a competitive product in a given market segment, and make it affordable to build so that they and their network partners can ask make a profit. If they can’t, they don’t survive, and their partners/Audio dealers don’t survive.

My phono stage is the Modwright PH9.0, which is based largely on their much more expensive PH150. One of the major difference in the original version of the PH9.0 was the lack of the Lundahl output transformers used in the 150. It sounded great even without them, but now they offer a hot rod upgrade where they add those transformers as well as fully balanced XLRs for about a grand. You could say “why didn’t he just do that in the first place?” The sum of those extra parts are probably not all that much - couldn’t he have just charged the extra $50 to $75 in parts? Well, it doesn’t work that way. His engineering has a cost. And MW can’t position a $2,900 to 3,000 preamp against a$7900 unit if they share 95% of the parts and design. He can do that, however, as an upgrade, two years into the design cycle (and at least 15 years into the design cycle of the note expensive unit).

I do hope, however, this guy goes after Vandersteen Speakers and takes a couple of cheap shots. I would love to see Richard Vandersteen level the guy in his response to flaws in his engineering. Grab your popcorn!

 

Absolutely! More information in the link below...

Sierra Tower Bamboo Loudspeaker

 

I did just that on my beloved Meadowlark Kestrels. After replacing the very ordinary parts for "better," more expensive parts, the speakers lost the magic I had loved for years. The difference in sound was not subtle, and to my ears, it was not better. Lesson learned.

 

Dynaudio has an anechoic chamber in which they measure all their newer products before release.
Their design was intention, not a mistake.

GR Research believes the design is a mistake.

It’s possible for two members of the audio industry to disagree; all that matters is how it sounds to the listener...

 

All he did was lower the LPF and HPF cutoffs.
Lowered xover point from 2000 to ~1400.
The stated reason was driver peaks that only exist when the driver was measured individually, but all other SYSTEM measurements show good response above 1,000.

To do this requires changing the R, L and C for each filter. So he can sell them to you. You can just calculate and buy them yourself.
Input R (DC Z) 6 Ohm, each filter R 12 Ohm
Just measure DC R for each driver
Plug and play
Is it better? Or does it provide different 'problems'? I guarantee Dynaudio first designed with computer models, then fine tuned using a xover with variable elements to get the best result.

 

Dynaudio on crossovers

What is passive crossover? Explained by an expert - Dynaudio

 

A much less-intrusive way to tweak frequency response would simply be to use DSP. Combined with room correction, of course; otherwise it’s not clear you would achieve what I’m guessing GR is trying to achieve (or are they simply appealing to folks who believe measurements are more important than listening?).

However, it doesn’t appear GR Research sells those types of devices

Seriously, if you want to tweak your $3.5K monitors go for it. But you’d probably end up in a much better spot (while retaining resale value of your monitors) with DSP and/or room correction.

 

im curious. what parts you changed? I dont think id ever touch the coils, but getting better caps(. mundorf zn, Audyn, ect) and better resistors (mundorf mr-10) have always been a improvement

 

I believe the Model One has a 5" driver, not 4".

I love ProAc's, but I've only tried their larger 6.5" bookshelf speakers. If I had a pair of the 1SC for example, or some of the other speakers you mention, I'd probably want to pair them with a sub. And that should fix what you complain about to a large degree. But small speakers, in a small room at near field listening distances, can sound a lot bigger than they are. And large speakers can easily overwhelm in such a setting.

I think I favor using a subwoofer, because you can dial in the bass a lot more with the right sub so that it works with the room. Can't necessarily do this with large speakers. But with most 6.5" speakers, I don't even need a sub. Doesn't mean I won't use one, just that it's not a real necessity. The ProAc Tablette 2000 Signatures, for example, don't need a sub in a small room, IMO. Even the AN AX-Two produce enough bass and dynamics for rock and jazz. I can see them maybe struggling with some of the more challenging classical pieces unless they had a sub. Most 6.5" bookshelf models likely would as well. But if you listen to 95% rock and jazz, in a small room, personally I don't think you are giving up much. And you can always use a sub to fill in much of what is missing.

Because you do give up some bass and dynamics, I'd agree that the speakers need to be special in other respects. Weak mids, one note bass; those things would be a problem. But some of the speakers you mention are known for the rich midrange. That is clearly what attracts people to them, and if the midrange is special enough that might make people willingly overlook deficiencies elsewhere.

 

The Kestrel has a fairly simple crossover with 2 caps, 2 resistors, and 3 coils. I replaced both caps with Mundorf mcap evos (had to look it up) and one of the ceramic resistors with a wirewound resistor. The crossover is hand wired which made it easy to draw a schematic to ensure correct placement.

After the swap the speakers had a different character. They had more clarity, more detail, probably could say a cleaner sound. The problem was, they lost the magic personality which made them so attractive to me. Another listener might have been ecstatic with the change.

 

You make such a great point, I could absolutely see someone upgrading to higher grade parts in their crossover network just to find, hey, what have I done, I don't like the sound with the new parts! How could this be? It would just be assumed if new, higher grade parts are used in a network, one would think the results would always be positive and the sound would be improved, better resolution, etc. but I just don't know, I suppose the so called improvement just might not be well received. To me this sounds crazy, however I suppose that could certainly happen, the loudspeaker would have a different character! Theoretically if component quality is improved, sound should be improved, but the resolution upgrade or sonic improvement might not be perceived as an improvement, oh heck!

People have brought up interesting view points in the thread, some just want to slam GR for doing what he is doing, which I think is unfair. Does he charge too much for the parts, I don't know, I have never priced any parts for crossover networks, it seems expensive, but, again, I don't know. I think some folks just get angry and a bit pissed off at the thought that someone has discovered their prize loudspeaker is possibly not as well designed as they thought it was. I have not followed GR closely, and I did not realize he had offered so many upgrade kits for so many different speakers. I looked at some of them last night and in a short period of time I found 15 loudspeakers he has designed upgrades for, and I'm sure if I did the research, I could find many others he has reviewed and designed a kit for.

Here is what I would really like to know, has anyone on the forum sent Danny their speaker for evaluation, and has anyone bought one of his upgrade crossover kits. Personally, I would like to have him evaluate mine, but they are so darn big and heavy (100 Lbs) each, it's not a practical possibility. I do have some smaller bookshelf speakers, but again, I'm not sure I want anyone digging into them, and then there is the warranty situation. But, truth be known, I wish I knew if my speakers could be improved, and if I see a kit become available for my particular model, I will be very tempted to pull out the charge card.

Here is a list of just a few of the speakers GR has evaluated and created a kit for, and as I said, I'm sure there are many others.

1. ATC Model 19
2. B&W Model 602
3. Dynaudio Special 40
4. Elac Debut 2.0
5. Epos ES-12
6. KEF Q100
7. KEF 204
8. KEF Q150
9. Klipsch RF-72
10. Klipsch RP-600M
11. Link Wiltz Lab Orion
12. Sonus Faber Venere
13. SVS Ultra Bookshelf
14. SVS Ultra Center Chanel
15. SVS Ultra Tower

So, let me throw this out there. Has anyone let Danny review their loudspeakers and has anyone on the forum bought an upgrade kit? He is obviously selling these kits, it would be nice to hear from some folks that have tried his upgrade products!

 

$500 capacitor
R/X = 0.0002, 89.9885 deg
Rated at 1,000 Hz, will increase as freq decreases
Mundorf EVO-SGO-33 Silver-Gold-Oil: Madisound Speaker Components

Audio capacitor by a cap mfg., in business since 1960. $10
R/X =< 0.001, >89.9427 deg, 0.05% difference, well within mfg. tolerances.
Rated mil spec, ANY operating frequency
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...opylene-foil-audio-caps-data-sheet-111114.pdf

the dissipation factor = X/R, the arctan of the inverse = power factor. Basically the purity of the cap, a perfect cap = 90 degrees.

A good basic outline of caps/crossovers:

A typical speaker crossover network is populated with a combination of electrolytic and film capacitors [see Figure 10: Typical Speaker Crossover Network]. The board has installed the Electrocube 976D series polypropylene and foil capacitors. Electrocube does not recommend a metallized capacitor for this type of application.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...ssover-networks-tech-bulletin-967d-010721.pdf

 

the mundorf evo are quite bad. Ive used them in my pass b1 and then upgraded to mundorf zn
look here, they rate them at 7 which is extremely poor. Mundorf zn use tin foil which is the best material. the next upgrade would be copper but its $$$$. tin foil is the best thing before going for the best which is copper.
Humble Homemade Hifi - Cap Test

 

Mfgs. usually give the numbers but folks don't know what they mean so they rely on subjective opinion when the numbers really do tell the story.

Assume a cap: R/X = 0.001, 50 uF, 1000 Hz
X = 1/(2 Pi 1000 50e-6) = 3.1830989 Ohm
0.001 = R/3.183, so R = 0.0031831 Ohm
Z = sqrt(R^2 + X^2) = 3.1831005, obviously R has no impact on total circuit Z.
Phase angle: arctan(1/0.001) = 89.943 deg
How much impact will 0.057 deg have when the speakers phase shift is +/- 40 deg?

Do not be fooled by 'science speak'.
If it sounds implausible it likely is.

I have no issue with capitalism but value should be exchanged BOTH ways.
You buy $3,500 speakers
Then a $350 kit
Open them up, cut parts off, solder some back on, possibly damaging the xover, possibly making it sound worse, for the very small chance you will hear a difference, and a good one at that.
Is it worth it?

The same stuff happens with cars:
ECU tunes
Car runs worse: rougher, poor mpg, throws codes
Warranty voided
Engine damage at times
Emission law violated

This is not directed at any one company, or industry, it's ALL questionable imho.

 

Who's pissed off though? I mean, I'm sure some have had that reaction, but I haven't seen anyone here react that way.

In terms of a speaker not being as well designed as people may have thought. You have a segment of people who see parts cost = x, and MSRP = y, and they scream bloody murder when y > x. As some have pointed out though, these companies are running a business and business considerations are part of it. Anyone who believes otherwise is, frankly, naive. And then there is the consideration, also raised in this thread, that companies voice their speakers to sound a certain way. It is not a mistake by Dynaudio that the Special Forty sounds as it does. Change parts, add No Res - the sound will change. For the better? Who knows? Until you hear it, you simply cannot know.

So to say that Dynaudio made poor design decisions, let me hear the stock S40 and let me hear it upgraded, and if the upgrade sounds significantly better I might agree. That still doesn't acknowledge though the business side of things, which a company like Dynaudio must take into account when they design their mid-level products.

 

The kit is 10% the cost of the speakers not including the labor to install.
I would guess the replaced component cost Dynaudio maybe 3% of the sell cost, if that.
Profit, OH, R&D, marketing, and labor is likely 50% So 50% for the enclosure, drivers, xover pcb's, wiring, packaging, etc.
The stuff replaced by the kit? $50, $100? Max

 

This and I've said something like this many times on threads, mostly other forums, when people talk about parts costs and pricing. People look at parts and say, the parts are the speaker, why does it cost X. I daresay none of those people have ever made something and sold it for a living not on any large scale. And had warehouses and offices, rent or mortgage to pay on those, and inventory, and employees, who had benefits, and transportation costs, and importer markup, and dealer markup. Not to mention various taxes and regulatory costs and other things like TP in the bathrooms etc.

 

Well there it is.

 

They are when you design them, build them, and measure them yourself.

 

I cannot imagine these speakers would sound better (or good) with the tweeter playing at 1400Hz with just a first order high pass. That's just 12db down at 350Hz, way too much low frequency energy for a 1.1" driver.

 

The 1400 is a guesstimate off the video, may be closer to 1200.
Which means he had to lower the HPF too. If he didn't, major hole.

Agreed, actually worse

The speaker spec is 2,000, first order

 

And if you lower the frequenzy the resilience is lowered also.

 

Here's Dynaudio's raw drivers. Look at pages 6-10, 28 mm. It is obvious why they roll off at 2000.

woofer page 36

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/pdf/Dynaudio Driver Catalog.pdf

woofer, clear to see why 2000
Hard to imagine the people who MAKE the drivers don't know how to use them?
Looks smooth to me?

Tweeter

 

This is one of the best posts I've seen in an audio forum. Richly informative, well argued and articulated.

Well done, Agitater!

 

If a Thread Starter has the ability to bestow the "Most Informative Thread Contribution Award", surely you must be awarded that honor. Your post was so informative and well written, you absolutely win the coveted award!