2. speakers
  3. 149378-2227

Tone, Tone, Tone !


I was reminded again today, as I often am, about my priorities for any speaker that I will own.

I was reminded by listening to a pair of $20,000 speakers, almost full range. They did imaging. They did dynamics.They did detail.

But I sat there unmoved.

Came home and played a number of the same tracks on a pair of speakers I currently have set up in my main system - a tiny lil’ Chihuahua-sized pair of Spendor S 3/5s.


And I was in heaven.

I just couldn’t tear myself away from listening.

Why?

Tone.

The Spendors satisfy my ears (MY ears!) in reproducing music with a gorgeous, organic tone that sounds so "right.". It’s like a tonal massage directly o my auditory system. Strings are silky and illuminated, saxes so warm and reedy, snares have that papery "pop," cymbals that brassy overtone, acoustic guitars have that just-right sparkle and warmth. Voices sound fleshy and human.

In no way do I mean to say the Spendors are objectively "correct" or that anyone else should, or would, share the opinion I had between those two speakers. I’m just saying it’s often experiences like this that re-enforce how deeply important "the right tone/timbral quality" is for me. It’s job one that any speaker has to pass. I’ll listen to music on any speaker as background. But to get me to sit down and listen...gotta have that seductive tone.


Of course that’s only one characteristic I value. Others near the top of the list is "palpability/density," texture, dynamics.

But I’d take those teeny little Spendors over those big expensive speakers every day of the week, due to my own priorities.

Which brings me to throwing out the question to others: What are YOUR priorities in a speaker, especially if you had to pick the one that makes-or-brakes your desire to own the speaker?

Do you have any modest "giant killers" that at least to your way of thinking satisfy you much more than any number of really expensive speakers?



prof

Showing 2 responses by ahofer

ahofer
225 posts
 
but please dont mistake these type of designs as accurate. For me a speaker should as much as possible reproduce what they are handed and this is not what speakers like Harbeths or Spendors for that matter actually accomplish.
I agree that personal preference is important, but I'm puzzled by your assertions here.  Harbeths measure quite well.  Subjectively, I'd say I've never heard string instruments and voice (sounds for which I have frequent live reference) as accurately reproduced as on a Harbeth.  What, specifically, is inaccurate, and to which model do you refer?

ahofer
225 posts
 
To answer the OP question, "non-fatiguing" was a huge priority for me. Read on.

But first, to respond to the inner thread on Harbeths-

So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos" all of which coincidentally reduce the
production cost that are then presented as a viable design methodology that doesnt make sense to me and also runs counter to the design philosophies from speakers that I think sound best.


Well, I completely disagree about "homogenizing", but YMMV.   I think it's a stretch to say the whole line of speakers is representative of "inaccurate" designs when most of the recent model line at least measures more accurately than most speakers.

The "no-nos" were one of the things that intrigued me in the first place.  It's counterintuitive that optimizing an older, resonance-managed, design is not only appealing to a ton of experienced listeners but also *measures* flat.  And Harbeths just refuse to sound the way their looks prejudice me.  But it's worth noting that Shaw prolifically defends and explains his methods and design choices on the forum.  And he's made significant and expensive changes to the original design in terms of driver materials and crossover design, so they haven't been sitting still.  I hadn't heard Harbeths before recently, but clearly many people think the last few years have brought huge improvements, particularly with the proprietary driver/material.

As for phase coherence, I moved over from Thiels, much like @prof ,  Thiels famously optimize around phase/time coherence.  Honestly, the Harbeths were the only speaker I heard in my last round of auditioning that (and forgive the imprecise analogy) offered as clean a "window" onto the sound as my old Thiels, while providing an even more lively and natural-sounding presentation of instruments I know well from live performance.  That's where I get the "tone is just right" feeling others are referring to here.  Their marketing catch-phrase is well chosen.

I listen to music for hours every day*, and there can be no doubt that a major search criterion for me is "non-fatiguing".  I was happy with my Thiel CS3.6 for 25 years (!), and I'm becoming similarly wedded to the new SHL5+ (Anniv).

Now, Harbeth's ridiculous additive model naming, that's seriously fatiguing.  I suppose some model down the road will be the "Super HL5 Plus Ultra Enhanced Anniversary of Anniversary Edition"

*as I write this, I'm listening to the Sony Classical/Sol Gabetta-Schumann recording on Tidal - lovely open-sounding recording, close-up image, and lovely tone in my living room.
More to discover