‘modern’, ‘mainstream’ speakers—too many models converging towards too similar a sound


Over the last year I’ve auditioned a good number of speaker makes and models.  Through this process, I developed a kind of shorthand for myself to describe a particular kind of sound profile that I kept encountering, one that I came to call modern/mainstream.

Here’s the kind of speaker I’m talking about: typically a floorstander, fairly tall, narrowish baffle, deeper than it’s wide, tweeter on top, midrange, two or three 7” woofers.  It’s a design you’re going to encounter again, and again, and again.  Dynaudio, Quad, Paradigm, Monitor Audio, Sonus Faber, and many, many others.  (Not picking on those five—just for illustrative purposes).  It’s also a design that tends to come from large companies, some of them conglomerates, and one which consequently finds its way into more stores and more people’s consciousness because of the larger distribution and publicity networks involved.

And the sound.  Highly competent across the board, tending to the more detailed rather than the more forgiving, treble range quite prominent, decent but not incredible bass extension, more than acceptable imaging and soundstaging, perhaps the vaguest hint of a mechanical or electronic veil.  And above all, kind of unexceptional and unexciting.  They can range all over in price, and they don’t really sound that dissimilar one from another.  They are converging towards that single ‘modern’, ‘mainstream’ sound profile that’s becoming a norm.  It’s a safe design, with an acoustic presentation that many people these days seem to prefer or at least accept (or have been conditioned to believe is ‘correct’).  Being fairly narrow, it integrates well into many domestic environments, and the styling usually ensures a decent measure of SAF.

While there are still many individualists out there in the audio world, and the speaker design world in particular, this is a general trend that I lament, because I see it expanding and being more entrenched.


128x128twoleftears
Interesting observation. There's lots of tower speakers around. I wonder if they are trying to follow consumer trends by having a small footprint?  Even OHM is making omni directional speakers with an even a smaller footprint than they were 6 years ago. Its all about filling the demands of tve consumer. However I would 
like to hear from someone knowledgeable about speaker designs. Maybe its a sound way to build a speaker. No pun intended.
It's not dissimilar to the trend with people, especially younger people. Even if not exactly clones often not too far from them. Disturbing and somewhat puzzling. I hope mother of all gods won't let it slip beyond the point of no return.

@blueranger said: "There’s lots of tower speakers around. I wonder if they are trying to follow consumer trends by having a small footprint?"

I’m pretty sure that’s it.

I think it’s a symptom of a world in which listening to recorded music is a much lower priority than it used to be.

Imo that narrow footprint imposes constraints on what a speaker can do. There is an argument in favor of narrow speakers from an imaging standpoint, but ime a good wide speaker can image as well if not better.

Twoleftears notes that there is also a particular "sound profile" that these narrow-footprint towers are converging towards. That may be because the way they all interact with the room is inherently fairly similar, and room interaction plays a major role in what we hear. Imo the narrow tower format is not a particularly good one from a room-interaction standpoint.

But "it integrates well into many domestic environments, and the styling usually ensures a decent measure of SAF". In other words, it sells well.

Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.

Duke

maker of fat speakers

Post removed 
Snell Type A's with wide baffles and against-the-wall placement belie the belief that today's narrow and out-into-the-room speakers are the best at imaging! I have the AIII's and because of smart design handily still outperform most of today's conventional boxes!