Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

Isn't correct/natural/realistic timbre (or as close to it one can get) a better target vs. 'richer'? 

I'd rather see us consider: How do we build systems (yes, Systems) that get us close to 'nailing' timbre?

I believe this would be a more valuable and productive discussion vs. having another 'Type of Speaker List' thread. 

+1 @mtrot  

different instruments will their produce their signature timbre at different frequencies. Is this not correct?

It seems to me that one should look to acquire speakers with the most accurate response over the widest frequency range.

Why spend the dollars on a speaker when one can saturate and distort, delay, pitch shift, play with reverb, EQ, etc. to fatten up portions of a recording?

Thank You: @shadorne  and @audiotroy 

Wealthy (and overbearing) relative of Joe Timbre. 😊

Speakers don't do math. Nor are they polymaths given the numbers of instruments, materials, musicians, tuning, styles, etc. etc. in existence.

Yes it's fair to say that all speakers must either be adding or subtracting to timbre

Timbre is the human (expert) perception of the sound of a note made by a specific (tuned) instrument, brought into existence by a musician.

Instrument. Musician. Human Perception of Sound. Note: No speakers involved.

From this point on, there is a very long chain which attempts to provide a 'facsimile' of that note. What you are hearing in your listening chair has to do with that entire chain.

Are these past few posts self-critiques?

 On the plus side, it's a way of getting to know yourself better.

+1 @cd318 Thank you for your post above and a prior post.

Earlier, I had posited that some of the posts by some of the posters were "self-critiques." With the exception of @cd318 , there was silence in response.

Said another way, I was learning far more about the poster than the speaker.

Speakers Do Not Operate In Isolation.

Without the entire system (inclusive of source material, cabling, isolation, power, etc), the room, and the listener being taken into account these 'speaker' discussions are fairly meaningless.

This forum is littered, daily if not hourly with examples, both pro and con on  "speakers" working small wonders or frustrating the poster to no end, generally divorced from their systems and themselves.

Focusing (unflinchingly) on understanding one's own self and learning what one's preferences and dislikes are and which trade-offs and compromises (vis a vis one's self or capabilities) one is willing to accept and live with, would be far more helpful THAN the repeated efforts to analyze and deconstruct speaker attributes (especially isolated from the system and room and the individual).

In other words, Understand Yourself. And keep working on it.

I also believe that our discussions would be markedly more polite if we led from What / Who We Are or where we want to go or what we want to be, rather than the focus on singular components.

I recently had the privilege to experience the effort and time one of our members has put into squeezing the very best out of his multiple systems - all bent to his preferences and offering him the connection to, and understanding of, the music in his special and unique way.

I experienced HIS experience in time and space relative to what he has come to know and become, as expressed through his system and room.

Last evening, I was again exceptionally fortunate to experience a completely different system. What I found was one of the best examples in my audio journey (and to my preferences) of balancing sheer musicality in conjunction with many elements of so-called 'modern hi-fi sound' or 'analytical' sound. This system delivered a thoroughly emotional and breath of life connection to the music.

It wasn't the speaker. It was an expression of these audiophiles choices from source material through room reflections.

It is an art form.