Now it’s time to get down to the nuts and bolts of how speaker drivers really operate, and where they depart from the ideal. Despite the physical simplicity of a classic Rice & Kellog direct-radiator, the conversion from electricity to sound has three steps:
1) Electric power to magnetic force - the voice coil
2) Magnetic force to mechanical acceleration - the magnet and pole piece
3) Mechanical acceleration to acoustic radiation, via direct radiation and/or augmented by an enclosure or a waveguide (horn).
There are characteristic departures from the ideal at every step of the way, which we’ll be looking at in the following paragraphs. This is a good point to draw your attention to marketing claims of “removing” this or that coloration - as you’ll see, complete removal is impossible (contradicted by physics), and techniques to reduce problems in one area quite often make problems in another area much worse.
There are other ways to accomplish the electric-to-acoustic transformation - electrostats, piezoelectric transducers, or even ionized and modulated air - but these have their own set of problems, which are even more intractable than the problems of the conventional direct-radiator.
1) Electric power to Magnetic force. This looks simple - it’s nothing more than a voice coil wound on a non-magnetic former. Nothing more than a small air-core inductor, right?
Copper, aluminum, and silver (the materials used to wind voice-coils) all have temperature coefficients. With the voice-coils used in typical 87 to 91dB/metre audiophile speakers, the increase in DC resistance due to local heating effects results in 1dB of compression at levels as low as 90 to 95dB (average). If it were instantaneous compression like a good broadcast compressor, that wouldn’t be so bad - but it isn’t. The voice coil heats and cools with a time constant of several seconds - the time it takes to transfer its heat into the magnet assembly. In addition, in a multiway system, the time constants for the woofer, midrange, and tweeter are quite different, so the compression effect not only fails to track the music, but lags behind it with different time constants in different parts of the spectrum.
This is one of the primary benefits of a high-efficiency system - for a given sound level, the voice-coil doesn’t get as hot as a lower-efficiency system, so there is less compression due to VC heating. This is a direct benefit of high-efficiency prosound gear - in the home, it is operating at levels 10 to 20dB below professional use. The tradeoff - and there’s always a tradeoff, folks - is degraded performance in the time domain, and rougher response in the polar pattern and in the frequency response.
There’s an odd fetish out there for 16-ohm speakers - which is good for transistor or OTL amps, but doesn’t make a lot of difference when an amplifier is transformer coupled (the transformer already has a 20:1 stepdown ratio at the 16-ohm tap; 40:1 isn’t much different). One area where high-impedance voice-coils are at a serious disadvantage is higher mass; the mass of a voice-coil is parasitic, playing no role in sound radiation, and degrades the HF response fairly significantly, in addition to inviting in additional HF resonances.
How significant? Well, in a widerange driver, it can mean the difference between smooth response out to 8 kHz versus somewhat rougher response out to 5 kHz. In all honesty, if an output transformer can’t deliver full performance at 8 or 4 ohms, maybe you should look elsewhere.
2) Magnetic force to mechanical acceleration.
This is where we look at magnets, and what they’re doing to that little voice coil. On its own, the magnetic forces generated by the VC assembly in free air are tiny; the pole-piece and magnet assembly multiply it in the same way an iron-core multiplies the inductance of an air-core inductor. In addition, the magnet supplies the reaction force which the multiplied VC pushes against, generating movement.
Now we’re getting into deeper waters. As we know from transformers and iron-core inductors, the choice of core material makes a significant difference to the sonics, since magnetic systems are not linear (unlike air). The relatively small value of inductance of the VC in air is greatly multiplied by the magnetic system of the loudspeaker - and this new inductance is always in series with the circuit.
In bass, mid, and full-range drivers the inductance starts to become significant above 500 Hz. To compensate for self-inductance, most drivers are mechanically peaked, or exhibit a rising response, above this frequency. This is why a driver that should be rolling off above 500 Hz to 1 kHz, will actually have flat or rising response out to 5kHz.
As with many moving-magnet cartridges, the mechanical system balances out the electrical system. This also why simply adding inductance to a woofer crossover results in an annoying shelf response, instead of the expected rolloff. If the woofer had mechanically flat response and no inductance, adding an inductor would give the expected 6dB/octave rolloff. But since it’s already carefully balanced mechanically and electrically, all doubling or tripling the self-inductance does is create a more complex response, typically with a shelf characteristic.
Inductance compensation, or a Zobel network, isolates the crossover inductance from the woofer inductance. A more sophisticated approach is to use a computer-based “crossover optimizer”, but this requires precise measurements of the acoustic and electrical response before it can optimize a textbook crossover to one that really works.
The magnet is such an important part of the overall driver that one of the most important specs is the cryptic-sounding “BL Product”, usually in Tesla/Metres. BL product is actually really simple: it’s nothing more than the magnetic force in the gap (B) multiplied by the length of wire immersed in the magnetic field (L). In other words, this is the horsepower of the motor! The other key spec of the speaker is the total moving mass; these two, just like a car, control how fast it can accelerate. More BL, less mass, the faster it goes. Less BL, more mass, the slower it goes. In a loudspeaker, more acceleration translates to louder sound.
This is why a small gap is very important; the lines of force are more tightly concentrated. It’s also why large-area magnetic-planars are not very efficient; the BL product is much lower than a typical direct-radiator. The perfectly flat impedance curve is a direct reflection of the low BL product (loose coupling); if the BL product were higher, you’d start to see VC inductance, and if it was really high, cone resonances start to appear on the impedance curve.
The amplifier designer’s desire for a purely resistive speaker is a hopeless dream; the worst speakers are resistive, while the best ones, with the most powerful BL product, are highly reactive, and faithfully transmit all of their many resonances back to the amplifier. It is the responsibility of the amplifier design to do their job and design an amplifier that is not affected by reactive loads, instead of pushing it off onto the speaker designer to make speakers that are high-impedance and appear like resistors. If the amp designer can’t handle the real world, maybe they should stick to headphone amplifiers.
One mystery about magnets is why different materials sound different. These differences don’t show up on MLSSA in frequency response and waterfall charts, and don’t jump out on IM measurements, either. But different magnets do sound different, in a way that’s hard to pin down subjectively. It’s not a coloration in the usual cone-material kind of way, it sounds more like differences in the amplifier circuit or the choice of coupling caps vs transformer coupling.
As mentioned earlier, the voice-coil sends magnetic forces into the magnet assembly, and the magnet assembly reacts to this force in different ways depending on whether it’s made of ceramic, AlNiCo, Ticonal, Neodymium, or soft iron with a field coil to energize it. The choice of material affects the eddy currents induced by the voice coil; ceramic magnets are electrically insulating, while AlNiCo is conductive. If you were going to look for differences in IM distortion, 500 Hz and up would be the place to start, since this is where inductance starts to be significant.
And below 500 Hz? This is where the geometry of the gap becomes important, since the VC moves much more at lower frequencies (excursion increases at a rate of 12dB/octave for a direct-radiator). The linear-travel region of a tweeter or midrange is typically 1mm or less, so if you can see them moving, they’re distorting. The linear region of a hifi woofer isn’t much more - typically, 6 to 12mm. When you see claims of 25mm, most of the time, that’s excursion before damage, not the linear region.
There are a handful of specialized (and expensive!) audiophile sub-bass drivers that claim linear travel of 25mm or more. Before you get too excited, glance at the efficiency part of the specifications - it can be pretty low, like 85dB/metre. As mentioned above, low efficiency also means early onset of VC heating and compression effects. Once again, tradeoffs. I like to go in the other direction, efficient prosound drivers that are rated for hundreds of watts in continuous use, at least for bass drivers.
3) Mechanical acceleration to acoustic radiation.
This is where almost all driver coloration is coming from. There are two sets of independent problems: resonances in the spider, surround, dust cap, and cone, and antenna-radiation beaming due to cabinet diffraction and standing waves, lobing due to multiple drivers working at the same frequencies, and lobing due to cones being larger than wavelength they’re transmitting.
All of these are audible, although the antenna-radiation problems are not that important for single-speaker playback of mono. For mono, a big speaker with lots of drivers is actually an asset, since it can give a sort of pseudo-stereo effect thanks to its large area. Speakers with near-perfect point-source radiation can be annoying to listen to in mono, unless you play them in groups, which opens up the soundstage.
For 2 or more channels, though, radiation patterns are important, especially in reducing listening fatigue. Stereophonic sound, unlike old-fashioned stereoscopes, does not recreate reality. For sound, reality is a series of coherent wavefronts coming from all different directions. 2-speaker stereo is at best an approximation of this - even the best 2-speaker stereo has artifacts, such as comb-filtering and elevation of central sound sources (like a singer). This is the best-case; if the speakers have appreciable diffraction, multiple unsynchronized sound sources, or a complex polar pattern, then the near-3D picture will disintegrate into hard Left, hard Right, a wobbly, phasey Center, and a vague wash of sound filling the area between the speakers. Most audiophiles, and I suspect most reviewers, have never heard “real” stereo, even once.
When I was working at Audionics in the late Seventies, I built experimental speakers with almost no diffraction and good impulse response; in a dark room, you could walk right into them while they were playing, since they gave no impression of a loudspeaker at all. As a physical sound source, they completely disappeared. The soundstage, or rather, impression of acoustic space, had no apparent boundaries, was far larger than the physical dimensions of the listening room, and extended across 120 to 160 degrees - all of this with ordinary stereo recordings played on a good-quality phonograph.
Most people have never heard this; for them, it’s stereo if they can hear Left, Right, and Center, and get some kind of impression of dimensionality. When you pay attention to diffraction and the polar pattern, though, you get what I described above. That is the potential lying within most stereo recordings.
The dominant source of coloration, the quality that gives away the game that we’re listening to a mechanical contraption, are resonances in the cone, spider, dustcap, and surround, along with an assortment of cabinet resonances. Some audiophiles, especially who listen to high-efficiency systems, have trained themselves to “tune out” these colorations. This is a subjective matter; people really do hear things in different ways, and culture plays a role too. Americans, Brits, Germans, French, Italians, and Japanese have quite different national “styles”, especially in preferred loudspeaker design.
But there are some signal sources where ear-training, and culture, don’t make a difference. Pink-noise and applause immediately give away cone coloration; with these signal sources, the ear is 10 to 15dB more sensitive to coloration than it would be otherwise. Pink-noise should sound just like falling water, or the surf; the fact that it never does is a comment on far we have to go in speaker design. It’s still a good tool in refining driver and crossover design, though, since every time you remove a coloration you can hear it right away. The BBC started using pink-noise as a subjective reference tool back in the late Fifties, when they made the discovery that the ear can much more easily detect coloration with noise than recorded music.
It should be kept in mind that the BBC is one of the few organizations in the world where a speaker designer can do a direct comparison between a live orchestra and the prototype monitor speaker, simply by walking out of the control booth. For the rest of us, balancing a speaker with a few favorite recordings - made with unknown methods and equalization - and electronics - with their own set of colorations - is a pretty tricky thing to do. Although pink-noise is tedious to listen to, it has the advantage that the sound almost entirely unaffected by amplifier coloration. There’s also the further advantage that a speaker that is subjectively balanced to be flat on pink-noise almost always sounds well-balanced on music.
Returning to driver coloration, a primary source of reflections is the junction between the voice-coil and the cone, which are usually made of dissimilar materials - with a different speed of sound. If the dustcap is made of felt and placed right on top of this junction, it can damp the reflection and smooth out the response - unfortunately, dustcaps are usually only decorative, and worse, placed well outside the VC-cone junction, so it creates additional reflections. Some drivers use no dust cap at all, and have a bullet-shaped “phase plug” instead. My experience with these has not been positive - the metal bullet only seems to create additional reflections of its own - not what you want at the most sensitive location of the entire cone.
Exotic cone materials - Kevlar, woven carbon-fiber, fiberglass, aluminum, titanium, etc. have the advantage of greater rigidity at low frequencies, which decreases IM distortion, improves dynamics, and provides a greater sense of clarity. But as alway, no free lunch. These same materials, thanks to their greater rigidity, have more violent breakup modes, typically starting at 3 to 5 kHz, and extending all the way out to 20 kHz. As with horn enthusiasts, many audiophiles don’t hear the cone-breakup coloration. Some magazine reviewers actually confuse the breakup coloration for “resolution” or “detail”.
Uh, no. Musical instruments don’t usually have metallic tin-can colorations, nor do they sound like ripping paper, which is the characteristic sound of rigid materials when they break up - and don’t kid yourself, nearly all cones exhibit breakup behaviour. This is easily measured with MLS systems - in the 3D waterfall curves, look for regions above 3 kHz that look like mountain ranges - and also in the excess group delay vs frequency measurement, where you can see where the center of radiation is breaking into several incoherent groups.
A sharp enough crossover - 4th-order, for example - can usually suppress most of the coloration. But crossovers don’t work miracles - there’s usually a some subjective residue left, even if it’s been suppressed 20 to 30 dB. I prefer drivers that sound musical with as little equalization as possible. This is easily auditioned on the same IEC-style test baffle used for making measurements. An IEC baffle is nothing more than a plywood panel, with the driver mounted slightly off-center to minimize standing waves. In addition to giving much more accurate driver measurements than measuring in-cabinet, it’s also an outstanding way of doing quick evaluations of the sound of the driver itself. Remember, a cabinet is not going to improve the sound of the driver, only reinforce the bass range - and at the expense of midbass-region box colorations, in the 200 to 500 Hz region.
(An IEC test baffle for an 8-inch driver is 135 by 165 cm, for a 10-inch driver 169 by 206.5 cm, for 12-inch driver 202.5 by 247.5 cm, and for a 15-inch driver 253 by 309 cm. Click here for recommended driver locations on the panel. For auditioning, and most measurements, these dimensions are not critical.)
Well, we’ve covered some of the basics of driver design, and the most important sources of driver coloration. This leads to the next topic, what you want the crossover to do - reduce IM distortion (the most important function), reduce coloration by steeply rolling off or equalizing the frequency response, making the response function fit the desired curve, which in turn controls the polar pattern at the crossover frequency.

A fascinating discussion which I’m finding highly enlightening. I realize it would be a digression, however I would be interested to know more about the different national “styles” of speaker design - in terms of design goals and audible differences.
Well, I don’t know how neutral or objective I am as a commentator, having quite different tastes than most Americans. I grew up in Japan and Hong Kong during the Fifties and Sixties, first getting into hifi at Radio People in Kowloon (Hong Kong) and listening to Quad ESL57’s, Bowers & Wilkins, and Fidelity Research m/c cartridges. As a result, I never cared for - and still don’t - the sound of Altec & JBL, finding them harsh, snarly, and aggressive. These days, of course, I translate that sound into artifacts I see on MLSSA.
When I went to the European Triode Festival in 2004, they had a one big room for the German contingent and another equal-size room for the French, with other folks stuck in assorted little bitty rooms through the main building. All of the participants - Swiss, German, French, Dutch, Danes, Brits, etc. etc. were all great fun to talk to and swap tech information, but there were clear national preferences in sonics.
To my ear, the French room sounded like French drivers I’ve used before - clear, but quite tipped-up sounding, and several speakers sounded outright bass-thin and screechy. The Germans liked a big, expansive sound with powerful bass - fairly similar to American tastes, really. From what I’ve heard of Italian systems at the CES, they optimize for opera - very lyrical and lush - sometimes small in scale, but always beautiful in appearance and sound. The Brit sound used to be the BBC/Quad sound, but the advent of the Linn/Naim “prat” and “slam” in the late Seventies break the Brit sound into several contingents - the Linn/Naim crowd going by the name of “flat earth” for some reason. Japanese systems go in for terrifying dynamics, especially Japanese drums at real-life levels. Hong Kong Chinese seem to listen to everything, but insist on high build quality, inside and out, and are partial to top-quality Brit and American gear.
These are obvious broad-brush generalizations - every group has its iconoclasts. eccentrics, and trailblazing pioneers who are out of step with national “styles” of hifi. I have no doubt there are French-designed systems with stunning infrasonic bass, exquisitely lyrical Japanese speakers, and petite small-sounding German speakers - I just haven’t heard them for myself. My current task is to design a speaker with the intimate lyricism of the Ariels - probably their greatest strength - and the effortless dynamics of some of the systems I’ve heard here in Northern Colorado.
Thanks Lynn, some interesting insights. I’m in the UK and remember the Yamaha NS1000 arriving here around the same time as the Linn/Naim revolution. UK dealers and reviewers could never figure them out because they were designed for use with tube amps and sounded lean when used with the then vogue high power solid state amps that were in vogue then.
Flat earth was used here as a term of derision for the LP12/Naim advocates who refused to accept that audio could sound better but they seem to quite like the term and use it to describe their sonic preferences.
Living through the era, I’m not sure that the Quad/BBC sound was ever truly representative of British tastes. Quad was always a minority, esoteric brand bought by wealthy classical music listeners. The LS3/5a was well reviewed but I never met anyone who bought a pair - they were so inefficient and lacked real bass weight.
The consumer middle ground was occupied by Celestion, Mission and Wharfedale which probably reflected our national characteristics by being kind of average at everything whilst excelling at nothing!
I’ve heard about your current design task from conversations with Thom Mackris and I’m excited about the prospect of a speaker with tonal accuracy and horn dynamics.
Well, my experience of Brit hifi in the Sixties was the rarefied atmosphere of luxe Hong Kong tastes - nothing like the expat community luxuriating in the waning days of the Empire - days at the Repulse Bay hotel, watching the waves roll in and roll out, drinking Pimm’s Cup - Zzzz. Frankly, I can see why the expats didn’t want to return to the UK! They had a very nice thing going in Hong Kong, living the life of Riley. Never visited Singapore, but I was told it was pretty luxurious in the Sixties too. Our US Foreign Service family had quite an adjustment to make when we returned Stateside in the late Sixties - no servants, nobody waiting at the airport to pick you up and drive you around, etc. etc.
I like to give my American pals a hard time about how terrible America is at Empire - now the Brits, it had a good run for more than 200 years, and in truth, the countries involved *were* developed at a rapid pace, even if it was exploitive in nature. Other imperial powers were a lot nastier, the US included, with a lot more racism and a lot less development. Having lived in HK in the palmy days of a Royal Crown Colony, I have to say it far better admininistered than any US protectorate I’ve been to.
Americans should forget about Empire - almost nobody here has the faintest understanding of world history or cultural affairs, thanks to a very US-centric media and school system. Making money and creating worldwide monopolies, well that’s another thing altogether. Americans are pretty good at that.
I should add we’re not bad at engineering, although the UK and Europe are damn good too - although like audio, there are clear national styles to engineering. I was surprised to find the Swiss and German styles had a strong craft elements you’d don’t see in the UK or America, where engineering developed out of the mass-production industrial model instead. You see craft engineering in Japan as well, although the sheer scale of the industrial combines pushes it far into the background. Since it is so far into the background, the Japanese treasure the few artisans they have left, including in hifi. Everything else in Japan is overwhelmed by the sheer power and omnipresence of the corporate state - almost everywhere you look, there’s a corporate logo, even more than the USA.
The homegrown quality of German/Swiss engineering was what impressed me - the Swiss figured out how to make clocks a thousand years ago! I wasn’t aware of the cultural overlap between Germany, German-speaking Swiss, and the people of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire - in cultural, musical, and scientific terms, it is a common, shared culture, with ancient musical and craft traditions going back to the Middle Ages. Both streams create an affinity for technology and hifi in the German/Swiss/Austrian style.
By contrast, hifi in the UK and America draw more on the early days of electronics, and the rapid industrialization and mass-marketing of the radio industry. In the English-speaking cultures, hifi was an outgrowth of the radio industry and the R&D labs of Bell Telephone and RCA - the craft element didn’t really arrive until the Fifties, and was always overshadowed by heavily marketed manufacturers like Dynaco, Scott, Fisher, Marantz, and McIntosh. I’d say real craft audio in this country didn’t fully arrive until the early Nineties, with Sound Practices magazine exposing Americans to the Japanese model, and to a lesser extent, what was going on in Europe.