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
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,412 posts
 

@mijostyn, you sound like the guys on the Home Theater Subwoofer sites. They too consider the SPL output capability of a sub as the only criteria with which to assess it’s quality. Linkwitz and Richie/Ding designed their OB/Dipole subs for the reproduction of music, not car crashes and bomb explosions ;-). OB/Dipole subs are not for everyone, and obviously not you. Each to his own!

I still have a pair of the original HSU subs utilizing cylindrical enclosures. Also a pair of KEF B139 woofers each in it’s own quarter-wave transmission-line enclosure, and a pair of sealed subs with 15" woofers. I bought the latter as a kit, and designed my own 4 cu.ft. enclosure: 18" w x 24" h x 24" d, inner cabinet (cross-braced every 5") separated from the outer cabinet by 1/2", that 1/2" filled with sand. Got that idea from Danny Richie, who posted plans for his 12" sub on his GR Research website.

jaferd
44 posts
 
Going back to the op's question, why is it that there seems to be two camps of audiophiles.  One favoring musicality and tone/timbre and the other wanting detail, and accuracy.  Shouldn't an "accurate" system also get the tonality right? Why can't we have both? I personally much prefer accurate tone but I don't know why one needs to compromise. I understand that no system is perfect but is it too much to ask for a system that is fairly accurate tonally yet detailed with good soundstage?
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,178 posts
 
Alex, I did not know he used those. They are a 15" (I think) coaxial driver with  horn in the center. Altec called it a duplex driver. It was mounted in a simple ported enclosure. It would be about the right size for a studio monitor. Probably very efficient.
alexberger
854 posts
 
Hi @mijostyn ,

Yes he did. But he used "improved" crossover that made frequency response more flat.

Regards,
Alex.
prof OP
3,437 posts
 

jaferd

It seems intuitively obvious that an accurate system would reproduce the beautiful tonality of natural instruments and voices, so that's what "everyone" would shoot for.

I think this all gets complicated by the vast number of colorations inherent in the recording/mixing/mastering/reproduction chain (including speakers designs, different rooms etc).   I've seen some people, who know more than I do about speaker design, explain that it's essentially impossible for a speaker to truly, accurately reproduce the original sound of instruments (different polar responses and other issues being a bugaboo).  Whether that's strictly the case or not, it seems like many can do better than others, at least to our individual ears.

My ideal is a speaker that would indeed reproduce the amazingly wide variety and richness of "the real thing" (be it piano, voice, guitar, and many other instruments).  Some seem to get closer than others.  But as a compromise, since much of what we listen to is artificially constructed (and often sounds that way), I at least want a speaker that helps me enjoy the music as much as possible, and I'll go with a speaker that has a general "voice" that sounds generally "right" in terms of an organic quality, even if strictly speaking it's not able to perfectly reproduce the original sound.

As per my OP, I'm not wedded to only the Spendors.  Not at all.  I have a number of speakers that for me all capture some essentially "right" and pleasing qualities. 






More to discover