# home audio speaker brands that make their own drivers



## typericey

not sure if there's a thread like this before, but i just want to compile a list of home audio speaker system brands/companies that make* their own drivers. 

*let me quantify: this means that this company has a plant that manufactures their own drivers. companies that sub contract their drivers may also qualify as long as the R&D, design and technologies used are proprietary by the company.

a short list at the top of my head:

Dynaudio
Focal 
Morel
Paradigm (not sure)
Infinity and JBL (not sure)
Bose
B&W
Klipsch

feel free to add to the list...


----------



## typericey

ok so there's...

Dynaudio
Focal 
Morel
Paradigm (not sure)
Infinity and JBL (not sure)
Bose
B&W
Klipsch
Thiel
Tannoy

one of the reasons why i'm building up this list is because, I seem to notice that brands that make their own drivers _generally_ make better speaker systems within their class range, with the exception of Bose, of course. 

Example, I'd choose Tannoy speakers than Wharfdales anytime. And for the same dollar, I'd get a Dynaudio over a Sonus Faber...

Just an argument tossed in the air for healthy discussion...


----------



## backwoods

Autiophile said:


> FWIW, I've got a set of Thiels and some B&Ws and though I'm happy to keep them, I don't believe I'll be buying retail speakers again.


darn tootin...Until I get to where it actually hurts me financially to take time and diy instead of buying high end prebuilts, I'll be making my own. 

I get a kick out of people I build setups for, they'll call me up and tell me what they just got to listen to at the local high end shops, and tell me what is was lacking, etc...Or call and suggest different music to listen to. It's actually a cool experience, because more then half end up becoming hobbyists as well. 

But, I must say, you have to experience Orions. It's even more of an eye opener then the first time experiencing regular dipoles/electrostats/planars..etc. It's more of a religous experience then anything. 

I'd introduce people to them by starting with something acapello. And almost everytime, there was a shocked look on the persons face as they were trying to decide whether it was someone in the room, or if I had started playing the speakers.

priceles...


----------



## DS-21

Autiophile said:


> Thiel, Tannoy (I'm a pretty big fan of both)


Tannoy doesn't technically make their own drivers (though design and R&D is in-house, at least for the Duals). I believe Fane is their main build-house.

Another one I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned is KEF.

Along with Infinity and JBL, add Revel. There's some cross-pollination between different companies in the Harman Group (which also, after all, includes Audax), but Harman certainly makes a lot of drivers.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

i've definately liked harman products better than most others in the budget home stuff. with the harman car audio gear i've owned 2 of their amps and they were tanks. i'm actually going mostly jbl for my budget home setup. got a pair of the $100pr bookshelfs from bby and they better than i thought they would be


----------



## FG79

SEAS
Scan Speak

Kings of modern day raw drivers.


----------



## typericey

Autiophile said:


> I don't think the source of the drivers matters.
> 
> What matters is the optimization of the use of that driver.


I guess one advantage of an in-house company is that they can manipulate pretty much every component of their speaker system, versus off the shelf companies that tend to just get a raw driver from Scan-speak and "work their way around it." Although some off the shelf brands claim that they work closely with the driver manufacturers and even come up with a "custom designed" drivers, I'd bet that at the end of the day, everything just get's compromised.

I watched an old Dynaudio DVD about how they build their speaker systems. The CEO, who was narrating the video, mentioned that they design different drivers for the different speaker system models that they have. You can't beat that flexibility. (So i guess even if all Dynaudio tweeters and woofers look alike in the naked eye, the 6" woofers used in an Audience series may have a different design from the woofers used in the Contour series?)


----------



## kram

Revel ans Magico are two more expensive brands making their own drivers............


----------



## Sr SQ

I think def tech makes thier own drivers but........I'm not 100%
They do make some great sounding speakers
http://www.definitivetech.com/


----------



## the other hated guy

kram said:


> Revel ans Magico are two more expensive brands making their own drivers............


I'm almost positive that morel OEM's the midrange drivers for magico


----------



## Spasticteapot

typericey said:


> I (So i guess even if all Dynaudio tweeters and woofers look alike in the naked eye, the 6" woofers used in an Audience series may have a different design from the woofers used in the Contour series?)


If you do a big enough order, any off-the-shelf driver can be modified to your needs - and, as often as not, this is the case. NHT is known for using very slightly different versions of Seas products, and there's always the Alpine XT19 with a ceramic magnet in place of a neodymium.



Sr SQ said:


> I think def tech makes thier own drivers but........I'm not 100%
> They do make some great sounding speakers
> http://www.definitivetech.com/



Those things are chock full of Vifas - I do a lot of searching on eBay, and see them all the time. 

Also add to the list:

Bohlender-Graebner
Apogee
Energy
JM Labs (it's part of the same company as Focal)
Dayton (Parts Express' house brand)
Cabasse
Usher (also manufactures complete speakers)
Monitor Audio
Celestion 
Definitive Technology (though they may only do the woofers these days)
Acoustic Energy (now defunct)


----------



## thehatedguy

Majico uses ALE compression drivers and Aura subs in their top of the line speaker. I thought they used Scan tweeters in the smaller ones.

Klipsch used Atlas Sound compression drivers back in the day...they are a subsid of Mitek.

JBL has been using a lot of BMS compression drivers in the last couple of years too.


----------



## FG79

Autiophile said:


> *There is no great mystery to building a speaker to function properly with the selected drivers.* You measure the drivers, use the parameters to design the enclosure and crossover, then measure again when you're done and tweak if necessary. The bigger brands can afford to go through that routine quite a few times and I'm sure they also have rather wonderful simulation software at their disposal. Nothing needs to be compromised unless the manufacturer is trying to fit a certain form factor or other constraint.


There is definitely more than meets the eye to make a speaker sound coherent. Piling 3 or 4 drivers per enclosure and using T/S parameters to determine crossover points and enclosure volume will not get you close enough to the sweet spot than you think.

Coherence is when you cannot tell where the crossover point is; your speaker sounds like *one* driver not *multiple* drivers. A lot of DIY kits sound like multiple drivers. Even some higher end commercial brands sound like multiple drivers.

As for the size of the company, it does not matter the size. Some of my favorite systems for coherence and imaging are the very small boutique brands that struggle to survive. 

Building a speaker that is very coherent, images well, dynamic, warm, etc. is very tough to do at the all levels. If it were easy, believe me I would be doing it too.

However, if you just want "nice sound"....a bunch of drivers playing together, then sure, not so hard to do.


----------



## DS-21

FG79 said:


> Coherence is when you cannot tell where the crossover point is; your speaker sounds like *one* driver not *multiple* drivers. A lot of DIY kits sound like multiple drivers. Even some higher end commercial brands sound like multiple drivers.


The only way to avoid that problem, regardless of origin or cost, is to match the directivity of the tweeter at the bottom of its passband with that of the woofer at the top of its. There are really only a handful ways to do that today: coaxial mid/tweet (used by TAD, KEF, Tannoy, Gradient, and others), panel with concentric delay lines (Quad ESL), and waveguide-loaded tweeter (GedLee Summa, SP Technologies, AudioKinesis, and others.)

Everything else is underdesigned.

(Also, no crossover at all from as low as possible until maybe ~6kHz or so helps quite a bit, too. To get any kind of pattern control with such a system, either a large coax or a large woofer and large waveguide is required.)


----------



## Porsche

I use the Dynaudio Confidence C4 and they are by far the most neutral speaker I have ever owned


----------



## FG79

DS-21 said:


> The only way to avoid that problem, regardless of origin or cost, is to match the directivity of the tweeter at the bottom of its passband with that of the woofer at the top of its. There are really only a handful ways to do that today: coaxial mid/tweet (used by TAD, KEF, Tannoy, Gradient, and others), panel with concentric delay lines (Quad ESL), and waveguide-loaded tweeter (GedLee Summa, SP Technologies, AudioKinesis, and others.)
> 
> Everything else is underdesigned.
> 
> (Also, no crossover at all from as low as possible until maybe ~6kHz or so helps quite a bit, too. To get any kind of pattern control with such a system, either a large coax or a large woofer and large waveguide is required.)


Good points DS. 

The no crossover up to 6khz is a great starting point. The SAP Duet utilizes two of the techniques you describe:

It is a coaxial 8" driver that has no crossover; it rolls off mechanically after 9khz, at which point the compression tweeter takes over.


----------



## DS-21

FG79 said:


> Good points DS.
> 
> The no crossover up to 6khz is a great starting point. The SAP Duet utilizes two of the techniques you describe:
> 
> It is a coaxial 8" driver that has no crossover; it rolls off mechanically after 9khz, at which point the compression tweeter takes over.


Proof that even with the right bones, it's easy to go astray! 

I couldn't find the speaker online, but if you run an 8 up to 9kHz, you're going to both suffer nonconstant (i.e. narrowing) directivity in the midrange, and have serious response irregularities in the crucial midband. In an 8" coax, the tweeter should be brought in where the directivity of the woofer has narrowed to a reasonable coverage angle (maybe 60-90deg). That generally means a crossover in the 1.4-1.8Hz range, depending on the cone profile, etc. That is a somewhat intrusive crossover point, which is why I prefer a 12" coax.


----------



## thehatedguy

I dunno if I would call the compression driver the Summa uses a tweeter since it is crossed at 900 hertz. And I think what Duke at AudioKinesis is similar...Duke is one heckuva a guy.


----------



## Beat_Dominator

Magico does not make their own drivers, they're still much, much too small to afford to do so. 

Triangle (tree-angle) of France does build their own paper midrange drivers though. Though we don't see them often, I bet Japan has a ton of companies that make drivers as well.


----------



## DS-21

thehatedguy said:


> I dunno if I would call the compression driver the Summa uses a tweeter since it is crossed at 900 hertz. And I think what Duke at AudioKinesis is similar...Duke is one heckuva a guy.


Don't see why not. It's the top driver in the system, and plays the audible range of treble. Ditto the waveguide-loaded dome tweeters in modern Tannoy dual concentrics, and the compression drivers in other good coaxes (B&C, BMS, Beyma, etc.) when they're used properly.


----------



## FG79

DS-21 said:


> Proof that even with the right bones, it's easy to go astray!
> 
> I couldn't find the speaker online, but if you run an 8 up to 9kHz, you're going to both suffer nonconstant (i.e. narrowing) directivity in the midrange, and have serious response irregularities in the crucial midband. In an 8" coax, the tweeter should be brought in where the directivity of the woofer has narrowed to a reasonable coverage angle (maybe 60-90deg). That generally means a crossover in the 1.4-1.8Hz range, depending on the cone profile, etc. That is a somewhat intrusive crossover point, which is why I prefer a 12" coax.


DS,

The SAP 8" woofer is a very light, well constructed paper cone with NO excursion, and a wonderful motor. It runs up to 9khz with no problems whatsoever that you mention. It is not an amateur design that you are more than likely used to, so I understand your skepticism. 

I'm getting tired of people with no listening experience to said products commenting that it can't be done. Get out of your own box, come to my store and show me "nonconstant (i.e. narrowing) directivity in the midrange, and have serious response irregularities in the crucial midband"! LOL.

You guys don't like it if my student proposes some ideas without backing it up with an installation, but it's perfectly ok to just copy & paste some paragraph off the internet to dispute real world performance (especially when said content was written by an amateur #s guy).

There's only so much I can tolerate. Sorry.


----------



## DS-21

FG79 said:


> The SAP 8" woofer is a very light, well constructed paper cone with NO excursion, and a wonderful motor. It runs up to 9khz with no problems whatsoever that you mention.


Well, if it has no excursion at all, by definition it can't make sound. Unless it's really a Manger-style bending-wave driver. 

Regardless, I'm sure it can reach 9kHz, at some either attenuated or wildly broken-up level. However, simple physics dictates that it cannot do so with any reasonable directivity.



FG79 said:


> It is not an amateur design that you are more than likely used to, so I understand your skepticism.


I wasn't aware the Tannoy Dual Concentric is an "amateur" design. 

Obviously, we have rather different definitions of the term.



FG79 said:


> I'm getting tired of people with no listening experience to said products commenting that it can't be done.


Never said it couldn't be "done," just that simple physics indicate that it won't sound good. Big difference. 

Of course, if you're the kind of guy who obsesses over wires and anti-vibration pads for your amps, then physics probably doesn't mean much to you anyway.  



FG79 said:


> Get out of your own box, come to my store and show me "nonconstant (i.e. narrowing) directivity in the midrange,


Ah, what a shock. I figured from your first post that you were just a guy pushing some incompetently-designed unknown speaker....


----------



## ~thematt~

See, some points I just dont get here.....

Simple basic physics (ie. the type that defines the galaxy and all that, like gravity) states that beaming will narrow directivity based almost entirely on cone size. 

Whilst you might be on-axis to a 8" driver, there is simply no way on god's green earth that speaker has consistent on and off-axis frequency response and polar radiation patterns. Its simply too big.

Therefore, by definition, it simply does not have the same polar radiation as the tweeter at the crossover point. Therefore, it is not fully coherent.

You cant argue with physics (well, you can, but you'll be wrong). The Earth revolves around the sun, and gravity will always win.


----------



## FG79

~thematt~ said:


> See, some points I just dont get here.....
> 
> Simple basic physics (ie. the type that defines the galaxy and all that, like gravity) states that beaming will narrow directivity based almost entirely on cone size.
> 
> Whilst you might be on-axis to a 8" driver, there is simply no way on god's green earth that speaker has consistent on and off-axis frequency response and polar radiation patterns. Its simply too big.
> 
> Therefore, by definition, it simply does not have the same polar radiation as the tweeter at the crossover point. Therefore, it is not fully coherent.
> 
> You cant argue with physics (well, you can, but you'll be wrong). The Earth revolves around the sun, and gravity will always win.


I agree you can't argue with physics, but you must remember one thing:

According to the Scientific Method, a theory can never truly be PROVED, but is always SUBJECT to being DISPROVED at a future time.

So we're in a constant state of disproving theories and going with a new theory. For the most part many of our theories are on the money, but quite a bit of audio theory is inaccurate or just not comprehensive enough to know it all on paper. 

Whomever proposed that large speakers cannot sound good at higher frequencies (EVER!) is a complete AMATEUR who never got to hear vintage Western Electric drivers from the freaking 1930s!! The key is in a very low excursion (not literally ZERO excursion, DS....just not a whopping 25mm peak to peak xmax), and light paper cone woofer with a strong motor (also relying on a quality amplifier as well). 

If you take your run of the mill 2008 spec Dynaudio or Focal 10" woofer and run it up to 10khz, you'll obviously run into a lot of problems. Nice, "healthy" xmax, heavy cone, so-so motors will do that for you; save your dispersion theories for another time. 

I've got a background in physics, and my customer Fellippe is nearly a licensed Engineer so we both have plenty of understanding about physics and the real world. In fact, it's those who have actually studied it formally who TEND to see things as being more complicated than they actually are, always seeing the bigger picture, while most of the lay society sees things as more SIMPLE than they are. 

Take a physics or engineering program for ONE SEMESTER and see how 70% of you will drop out ("look left, look right, he/she won't be there when you graduate"). Now all of a sudden, 90% of an internet forum are AUTHORITIES on Acoustics Engineering?? LOLOLOL. 

Anyways, enough ranting, I've got a gift for you all. You guys love internet links and specs, here you go:

http://www.hifilit.com/hifilit/Western Electric/Western Electric.htm

Click on the 755A for what looks to be an 8-10" woofer playing from 60-10,000 hertz. 756A is a 6-7" woofer playing to 13,000 hertz.

The 728B is a 12" driver that plays to 10,000 hertz and mates with a horn to form the 757A enclosure. I have this in the basement of my house and it plays with such presence at 50 dbA that you'd think you were playing it at 75+. 

Of course, I'd rather play it for you drinking a beer. But I've come to accept that #s are the way to woo certain audio enthusiasts.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off adversarial with some of you, but such is the nature of an Internet Forum, and I've been very fair with what I've offered and I've never gotten the respect or courtesy in return. 

I can back up 100% of my claims in person, for FREE. What can do you in return?


----------



## ~thematt~

FG79 said:


> Take a physics or engineering program for ONE SEMESTER and see how 70% of you will drop out ("look left, look right, he/she won't be there when you graduate"). Now all of a sudden, 90% of an internet forum are AUTHORITIES on Acoustics Engineering?? LOLOLOL.


See, my Engineering degree alone makes me more of an authority on that particular point then you care to recognize. 

We're not all internet authorities.

And as to your other point, yes, you are right, theories are exactly that. However, Laws are not.


----------



## CBRworm

I was that guy to the left of you.

I am short about 16 hours and 13 years.


----------



## DS-21

FG79 said:


> According to the Scientific Method, a theory can never truly be PROVED, but is always SUBJECT to being DISPROVED at a future time.


Which is great for high-level stuff, but we're talking about rather basic wave propagation here.



FG79 said:


> Whomever proposed that large speakers cannot sound good at higher frequencies (EVER!) is a complete AMATEUR who never got to hear vintage Western Electric drivers from the freaking 1930s!! The key is in a very low excursion (not literally ZERO excursion, DS....just not a whopping 25mm peak to peak xmax), and light paper cone woofer with a strong motor (also relying on a quality amplifier as well).


I've heard a few WE drivers, such as the 8" tweeter in the Acoustic Research AR-1 (I believe the 755A you mentioned, infra) and a 12" so-called full-range in a big cabinet. Which, as you may know if you've actually heard one, both beam like a laser from the upper mids up. My listening experiences suggest to me that WE, like Lowther and that expensive French (?) coax with the piezo tweeter, are largely overrated.

And the minute you start blabbing about a "quality amplifier," anyone who's read anything about subjective same/different listening tests knows you're full of it...



FG79 said:


> If you take your run of the mill 2008 spec Dynaudio or Focal 10" woofer and run it up to 10khz, you'll obviously run into a lot of problems. Nice, "healthy" xmax, heavy cone, so-so motors will do that for you; save your dispersion theories for another time.


So, you don't seem to think that dispersion matters?



FG79 said:


> I("look left, look right, he/she won't be there when you graduate").


That, of course, is a line about law school out of "The Paper Chase."



FG79 said:


> Now all of a sudden, 90% of an internet forum are AUTHORITIES on Acoustics Engineering?? LOLOLOL.


There's quite a difference between being "an authority" and having the common sense to read and understand the works of true authorities (e.g. Geddes/Lee) especially when what they have written corresponds so well to one's own subjective observations.



FG79 said:


> According to the Scientific Method, a theory can never truly be PROVED, but is always SUBJECT to being DISPROVED at a future time.


Which is great for high-level stuff, but we're talking about rather basic wave propagation here.



FG79 said:


> Whomever proposed that large speakers cannot sound good at higher frequencies (EVER!) is a complete AMATEUR who never got to hear vintage Western Electric drivers from the freaking 1930s!! The key is in a very low excursion (not literally ZERO excursion, DS....just not a whopping 25mm peak to peak xmax), and light paper cone woofer with a strong motor (also relying on a quality amplifier as well).


I've heard a few WE drivers, such as the 8" tweeter in the Acoustic Research AR-1 (I believe the 755A you mentioned, infra) and a 12" so-called full-range in a big cabinet. Which, as you may know if you've actually heard one, both beam like a laser from the upper mids up. My listening experiences suggest to me that WE, like Lowther and that expensive French (?) coax with the piezo tweeter, are largely overrated.

And the minute you start blabbing about a "quality amplifier," anyone who's read anything about subjective same/different listening tests knows you're full of it...



FG79 said:


> If you take your run of the mill 2008 spec Dynaudio or Focal 10" woofer and run it up to 10khz, you'll obviously run into a lot of problems. Nice, "healthy" xmax, heavy cone, so-so motors will do that for you; save your dispersion theories for another time.


So, you don't seem to think that dispersion matters?



FG79 said:


> I("look left, look right, he/she won't be there when you graduate").


That, of course, is a line about law school out of "The Paper Chase." I have a little bit of experience surviving that particular ordeal...



FG79 said:


> I'm sorry if I'm coming off adversarial with some of you, but such is the nature of an Internet Forum, and I've been very fair with what I've offered and I've never gotten the respect or courtesy in return.


********. You're trying to use a hobbyist forum for commercial gain. Which is fine, of course, if you offer an interesting product. But yours is probably a little too pomo for this place.


----------



## Tonyguy

Just for the record, Paradigm does indeed make their own drivers.


----------



## thadman

I haven't had the time to read through this entire thread, but I believe some points need to be mentioned.

You've got to remember that you're designing the loudspeaker as a system, the sum of all its parts. By solely focusing on avoiding any aberrations caused by the crossover you are introducing even more significant aberrations from other variables. Consistent power response is very important as you have suggested. By recommending to cross above 6khz you are placing unrealistic expectations on the drivers considered...there is no way that a dynamic cone driver will be able to operate with consistent power response over that bandwidth without SEVERELY compromising its performance. There are simply no drivers available that provide what you are asking...you will not be able to avoid beaming, the modal behavior of the cone that creates significant interference patterns, the displacement limits (SPL) imposed by its design (ie cone diameter, xmax) nor the non-linear behavior associated with such demands, etc. You must equally view all variables considered and minimize their sums ability to restrict the performance of the speaker...this would suggest crossing at or below frequencies where the CTC distance is 1/2WL. It's something we have to accept and coaxials are not the solution, the cone profile and size associated with them are very undesirable with respect to what we know about wave propagation in waveguides and its effect on power response.


----------



## DS-21

thadman said:


> By recommending to cross above 6khz you are placing unrealistic expectations on the drivers considered...


Just for the record, I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. In fact, I think "supertweeters" are generally a bad idea, or at least I've only heard one implementation of one that wasn't clearly detrimental to the overall system. (Acapella Violon 2000.) I'm suggesting that a system have no crossover at all between ~1kHz and ~6kHz, or as close to that bottom line at all.



thadman said:


> there is no way that a dynamic cone driver will be able to operate with consistent power response over that bandwidth without SEVERELY compromising its performance.


Measurements of well-designed speakers suggest otherwise. 



thadman said:


> There are simply no drivers available that provide what you are asking...you will not be able to avoid beaming,


I don't disagree with your facts, but I quibble vehemently with your underlying premise that "beaming" is something to avoid. By contrast, I've found that narrow but controlled directivity (literally, like a flashlight beam) above the bass is highly desirable. It minimizes interaction with room boundaries, and leads to a much higher ratio of direct sound at typical listening positions.

I would also much prefer generally a constant taper (think something like a Vifa TG9 used without a tweeter) than a power response discontinuity in the midband (think a typical 7" 2-way with a flush-mounted tweeter and a crossover in the 2-3 kHz range).




thadman said:


> You must equally view all variables considered and minimize their sums ability to restrict the performance of the speaker...


All variables aren't of equal weight, though, so I do not believe one should consider them equally, or even close to it. Take, for instance, high low-order distortion vs. even midband power response. Should the latter be compromised to reduce the former?

In my listening experience, there is a definite priority: even and narrow controlled midband directivity, enough cone area to make dynamic compression (especially in the lower mids) a non-issue...and everything else.



thadman said:


> It's something we have to accept and coaxials are not the solution, the cone profile and size associated with them are very undesirable with respect to what we know about wave propagation in waveguides and its effect on power response.


100% disagreement there. Midwoofer cone size is a virtue, not a detriment, because its directivity narrows earlier, allowing a lower crossover to the upper driver/waveguide for a given desired covered angle than a smaller driver. 

Moreover, cone profiles can be designed to make the cones act as excellent waveguides.


----------



## Get_Zwole

Ascendacoustics.com im pretty sure they do all their own stuff i use the cmt340's for L/R/C in my theatre room and they are fantastic.


----------



## fej

> In my listening experience, there is a definite priority: even and narrow controlled midband directivity, enough cone area to make dynamic compression (especially in the lower mids) a non-issue...and everything else.


I am a mere lay person, but this discussion seems to be getting far too complex.

The human ear works best in the midrange, specifically in the 1khz range. This accounts for why we are always looking for a "great" mid, it is the frequency range we "operate" best in, and the range that most discerning listeners "listen" for the most.

The above statement by DS seems to me to be the most obvious statement that you can make about audio playback/reproduction. It is purely logic, although a bit wordy, and DS likes his words


----------



## FG79

fej said:


> I am a mere lay person, but this discussion seems to be getting far too complex.
> 
> The human ear works best in the midrange, specifically in the 1khz range. This accounts for why we are always looking for a "great" mid, it is the frequency range we "operate" best in, and the range that most discerning listeners "listen" for the most.
> 
> The above statement by DS seems to me to be the most obvious statement that you can make about audio playback/reproduction. It is purely logic, although a bit wordy, and DS likes his words


It is obvious, but why is it that midrange emphasis is so neglected everywhere in audio discussions???

It's all about the tweeter....the "sparkle", the "air".....or the subs being able to play to 6 hz flat, lol.

Maybe some slight exaggeration here, but clearly getting the midrange right needs to be top priority.


----------



## alexbass311

I know Paradigm do make their own drivers, I'm running a Monitor setup right now.


----------



## dsrviola

Just wanted to read a thread on scanspeak tweeters, but I'm new and I'm REQUIRED to post a reply to a thread before I'm allowed to read anything. Thus Spake the Moderators.

Cheers


----------



## F1Audio

I did not see PSB anywhere...but they make their own drivers.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the companies that manufacture their own drivers tend to make better speakers.

Case in point: Wilson Audio. They manufacture zero of their drivers in house, yet produce some of the best speakers out there....best I have heard anyway. Now, just because they use drivers from such companies as scan speak, vifa, focal, etc....does not mean they are off the shelf drivers. They are designed by the engineers at Wilson, and built to an exact specification. In some cases, they may buy drivers, then completely rebuild them, using only a few of the original parts. The cool thing about Dave Wilson is that I really do not think he would care what parts went into his speakers as long as they sound the way he wants them to. Period. And he still is the last word on any developments on their speakers. He listens to everything and if it does not meet his approval, back to the drawing board.

On a side note, even though they do not have really cool cone molding machines, or basket casting stations, or surround gluer onner machines, they do have the sweetest paint booths in the world. Higher tolerances than Ferrari, Mercedes, Porsche, etc....the paint process takes something like 6 weeks from beginning to end....on every speaker that leaves the factory. Impressive.


----------



## xxx_busa

Don't Forget Usher's The Best affordable Scanspeak knock - off made. And in most cases are a better driver


----------



## Nathan P

I'm somewhat confused by DS-21's arguements, first he's arguing against the shop owner guy's idea to cross things really high because of driver physics restrictions, then saying crossing above 6k is not only good but that there are drivers that do it well. 

Nathan


----------



## Chrisssssssss

How's about MB Quart?


----------



## PhaseShift

Truth be told, this list is probably very short- a lot shorter than most folks think, particularly of companies with US and European locations. For instance, Thiel- do they make all of their drivers? How about Paradigm? BG? If they make any drivers, would they qualify to be on the list or if they only make one driver out of a host of purchased components, are they still on the list?

I think it would really surprise a lot of folks to find out how many companies do not make the core components such as drivers and tweeters any more. It is not cost competitive and frankly, a company that is focused on driver manufacturing is often far more competent than a company trying to do everything with the almighty budget reigning down doom and gloom on everyone in the engineering department. My experience tells me that finding a company that manufactures all of their own drivers for all systems they sell would be tough and I would look to a cottage industry sized outfit to start with.


----------



## PhaseShift

Deleting a double post- My bad.


----------



## lechuck

Cabasse make their own fantastic drivers.
Meridian is the best, they custom build their drivers and use DSP to correct their response!
Both are good, but Meridian is the best in the world hands down!


----------



## ultimate k

typericey said:


> not sure if there's a thread like this before, but i just want to compile a list of home audio speaker system brands/companies that make* their own drivers.
> 
> *let me quantify: this means that this company has a plant that manufactures their own drivers. companies that sub contract their drivers may also qualify as long as the R&D, design and technologies used are proprietary by the company.
> 
> a short list at the top of my head:
> 
> Dynaudio
> Focal
> Morel
> Paradigm (not sure)
> Infinity and JBL (not sure)
> Bose
> B&W
> Klipsch
> 
> feel free to add to the list...




for additional 
- quad electrostatic
- apogee
- martin logan

and many more


----------



## MarkB

+ ATC


----------



## Se7en

MBL 










FAL (Unique Japanese Drivers)









Mark & Daniels ("very compact" full range monitors)


----------



## jpswanberg

Magnepan + 1


----------



## lotusing

I love my Martin Logan and B&W. They make my house hard to leave.Are they not made in house? I thought they where.


----------



## Se7en

lotusing said:


> I love my Martin Logan and B&W. They make my house hard to leave.Are they not made in house? I thought they where.


Martin Logan yes. B&W I think so.


----------



## 88clipper

EXCEL SEAS


----------



## gymrat2005

lechuck said:


> Meridian is the best, they custom build their drivers and use DSP to correct their response!
> Both are good, but Meridian is the best in the world hands down!


Love Meridian..they have a focus on incredible D/A conversion which is what makes their digital line sound so good.
What I wouldn't give for an 808.i2 hooked to a pair of DSP8000's


----------



## fujifrench2k4

lotusing said:


> I love my Martin Logan and B&W. They make my house hard to leave.Are they not made in house? I thought they where.


Their ESL series all are still assembled in house. Don't know if they actually make their drivers or outsource them. I know their electronic static panels are made in house.


----------

