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
prof OP
3,435 posts
 
snapsc,

I"m familiar with that thread.

I fully respect the work done by Toole et al on correlating speaker design with general listener preferences.   Problem for me is the personal applicability.   I've auditioned the speakers designed via that research - e.g. Revel - and found them to be extremely competent, and to "sound" like the measure as much as the measurements can predict.  But it hasn't predicted this "sounds right to me" specific timbral quality I'm talking about.   In other words, the Revel speakers just never had the "it" factor in their voice that made me immediately feel 'yes, that's like the real thing.'

(It would be fascinating to undertake the Harman Kardon blind tests.  Statistically I'd have to expect that I would actually choose a Revel speaker over ones I *think* I like more in sighted tests.  Which is an interesting conundrum for a buyer - buy what sounded better under blind conditions, or what pleased you more under sighted conditions in which you'll actually listen?).

prof OP
3,435 posts
 
mijostyn
I started off smitten by electrostatics.  I owned Quad ESL 63s, and later also added the Gradient dipole subwoofers made especially for the Quads - still I think the most seamless dynamic woofer/stat blend I've heard, even including the ML hybrids.   (I've heard tons of different ML speakers).

I have of course encountered most of the largest electrostatics exhibited at audio shows.  Aside from that I also have more personal, extended experience with various designs.   As for "full range," depending on your definition, I use to listen to the ML CLS,  I also had a fair amount of time, on and off over a few weeks, listening to my music on the giant full-range A1 Sound Labs, and I also used to listen to a huge double-stacked Quad ESL57s set up at another acquaintance's house. 


I still love electrostatics for their particular strengths - I don't even have to mention them as I think most of us know that electrostatic sound.But for me I can't ultimately be satisfied with electrostatics.  They just move air in a different way that to me sounds detached and somewhat weightless and skeletal, like I'm viewing the performers through a window in to another room, whereas good dynamic speakers have an air-moving dynamic palpability that feels "more real" and/or that connects me more with the music.  Dynamic speakers recreate the performers flesh-and-blood, rather than conjuring up ghosts. 



I get why there are fervent fans of electrostats though.  They do other aspects of accuracy, believability and realism that...if those are your focus...make them really compelling.





bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,408 posts
 

@prof, knowing how well the OB/dipole Gradient sub integrated with the QUAD 63, you may be interested to know that there is now a contemporary OB/dipole that does everything the Gradient did, and more. It was developed as a team effort between Danny Richie of GR Research and Brian Ding of Rythmik Audio, and it is really special. It is comprised of a pair of 12" servo-feedback controlled (Rythmik’s reason d’etre) woofers installed in an OB H-frame. It is THE sub for dipole loudspeakers.

Danny Richie showed at RMAF for a few years, using a pair of the OB/Dipole subs at the front of the room and a pair of sealed subs (Rythmik F12G’s) at the rear. His room was voted "Best Bass At The Show" three years running.

prof OP
3,435 posts
 

wow bdp24, that sounds very cool.  Wish I could have heard that!
johnwern
24 posts
 
Beauty is on ears of beholder. 
More to discover