Wharfedale builds some of the best speakers on the planet regardless of price. The oldest speaker company in the world, and totally vertically alligned they build their own everything down to the internal wiring.i still have my Diamond 8.1 the first budget speaker to use Kevlar drivers, their tone is very similar to the Quad Esl 57's. The Diamond 225's reputation is well deserved, outstanding drive units, I just bought the D330 a killer little Floorstander, Spendor I feel has tone science down very speaker companies do, all the Wharfedalea new and old have it...
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?
80 responses Add your response
I agree tone rules. Who cares what else a speaker can do if it doesn't sound tonally realistic? I've owned a string of British box speakers over the last 30yrs - a pair of 3-way Heybooks, 3 pairs of Proacs, 3 pairs of Harbeths and now 2 pairs of ATCs. Tonal 'rightness' and realism has reached a pinnacle for me with the ATCs. The Harbeths were very good, but not really neutral in the bass and a bit 'sleepy' sounding dynamically - where the ATCs have far superior bass IMO and are alive with realistic dynamics. I think the little SCM19 I own should be much more popular given their quality of reproduction (tonal accuracy and dynamics) - they need a powerful amp, but watts are cheap these days. Does anyone in the world build a more seriously engineered 5-6" mid-bass driver than the one ATC build for the 19's (and scm20's)? - that thing weighs 9kg and makes up half the weight of the speaker! The active ATC SCM100s I'm listening to as I type this are another level again. Neutral, but marvellously tonally robust and realistic with terrific dynamics. They can play the big stuff with ease but also sound wonderful with delicate acoustic material. Probably the end of the road for me. |
Simple noromance, The plastic is almost the same mechanical impedance as air. What you are really listening to is the electricity! Speakers that are a bit brighter with heavier bass sound better at low volumes. Consequently the same thing holds for speakers with a depressed midrange. It is that Fletcher Munson thing again. With digital loudness compensation or really good tone controls you can make a speaker sound good at any volume as long as it is not distorting. |
Interesting tread, I often find, and I may be totally wrong in that big speakers with many drivers need a lot of power to sound good, and mostly they sound at their best at higher listening levels, I myself went the bbc route a couple of years ago (Graham Audio LS5/9) and the first thing that struck me was how wonderfully it sounded at low volume, and as the op, tone and timbre sounds really good, but for a big room (American) they would probably not be powerful enough, unless used as near-field monitors. My bigger speakers, I usually played louder, the 5/9 not so much, mostly 70-85db and I still get the same enjoyment, if not more from the 5/9. |
Both Gordon Holt and Doug Sax (both mentioned above) eventually discovered active ATC. ATC are the speakers they used daily until they passed away. The tone of the Spendor S 3/5S is mainly the polypropylene cone - the plastic is quite flexible and they tend to roll off early. A polite upper mid range BBC dip is the characteristic tone - not as lively as other materials. Harbeth and Rogers and other plastic cone speakers tend to share this tonal character. |
jaferd I am most definitely with you. A good system should do everything right and play all music correctly. Unfortunately to get it all right requires a fair expenditure beyond what most of us can afford so we have to make compromises. This is where the various opinions come in. Some issues are more important than others and this varies from one person to another. What many of us prefer is a little inaccuracy like the distortion with tubes which creates a warm blush over the music. It gives you a greater sense of space. I would not say there are just two schools. Some of us are easier to please as we tend to listen to less demanding music like light Jazz and classical. You wouldn't need to have a monster amp and subwoofers to get Smashing Pumpkins up to 110 db. But I think it is important to know that some of this stuff is stupid expensive and one need not spend that kind of money to get a top notch system and that is where the fun lies, creating that system without emptying your retirement account. |
@prof, your third paragraph perfectly expresses my own feelings on the subject. There is of course no such thing as a perfectly uncolored (or transparent, or anything else) loudspeaker, but some allow me to "suspend my disbelief" enough to enjoy the music. Each of us has our own personal requirements for what will achieve that objective, the challenge now is in finding a way to hear all the potential candidates. That, and finding the money to pay for the one of our choice! |
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. |
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, 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. |
No idea bdp24. But I think you missed the point. I was actually measuring what the subs were doing and had total control over the target curve sent to the woofers. There is no possible way yet anyway to maintain flat frequency response in a dipole woofer. The variations are so steep and at the magnitude of 15 db that you will clip your digital filters and probably your amp trying to do it. I had to back off the correction curves at several frequencies to prevent just that. Scientists experiment with lots of stuff. Doesn't mean that it will all work. No pain no gain. At the end of the day it is far better to use a subwoofer with naturally flat response which requires little correction and power to achieve the bass response you are looking for. The best way to do this is with very stiff and heavy sealed enclosures with opposing drivers which force cancel (like Magicos sub). The stiffest enclosure you can make for this purpose is a cylinder. The cylinder I plan to use will be a decagon with 2" to 3" thick walls about three feet long and 15 inches in diameter. I promise you there will never be a dipole speaker that will come remotely to the performance of these woofers. They will be able to punch out 20 Hz at 120 db all day long. |
A 3dB boost at 20Hz is NOT a shelving circuit. A shelving circuit is a progressive low-pass compensation filter, not a static figure (6dB/octave, the boost therefore increasing as frequency decreases), which exactly compensates for the 6dB/octave front-to-back cancellation inherent in dipole speakers and woofers. Without it, an OB/Dipole sub WILL exhibit declining output with frequency, and of course not perform optimally. That's just a poor or incomplete design, not an insolvable weakness in the design. ALL designs present their own challenges to be solved by a speaker designer. Siegfried and Brian Ding did just that, and their OB/Dipole subs do NOT exhibit the failing of a missing bottom octave. Linkwitz didn't chose to go with an OB/Dipole sub out of blind allegiance to some "pet theory". Give the a little more credit than that! He (along with Russ Riley) invented the Linkwitz-Riley filters, fer cryin' out loud! The dipole-cancellation shelving circuit is well known to professional speaker designers, and is included in the DSPeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual-Core. I wonder if the fact that both Gradient and DSPeaker are located in Finland has anything to do with that? |
Even methodical scientists have their pet theories which sometimes over run their thought processes. They were more like Linkwitz's W. I was using speaker (room) control from the start and a lot of power. The response of the subwoofer's was measured and a correction curve calculated. On top of this I always boost 20 Hz 3 db. Looking at the response curve there were large variations in volume up to 15 db if I remember correctly. The interesting thing is that when you started to boost the lower frequencies you would wind up increasing the volume only at certain points depending on how far the sub was from the front wall. The rest would stay almost the same due to cancellation effect. It required a lot of power to get anywhere which I had. But no matter what I did listening to something like a big organ as the bass traveled down the scale some notes would be loud then others would drop out. If you had a situation were the front wall was at some distance like 15 feet you could probably smooth out the bass response quite a bit but in most rooms that is impractical. Having a larger baffle will not do anything as the wavelengths are too long. There is one approach that I did not try which is to make four 2 driver subs and place them very close to the front wall in the positions I now use. I still do not think that would work. Wire your speakers out of phase and see if you can get the bass back moving the speakers around. |
Correct. It all had to done at the same time. Tower of Power Direct is an amazing disc. Lee Ritenour also had some great direct to disc albums on JVC records. Lee also has a new album available in high def on HD Tracks which is killer. It sits you right in front of the band and the cymbals are tight to the drums like they are supposed to be. 95 db puts you right there. |
@mijostyn, what were the dimensions of your OB/Dipole sub frames? Were they H-frames, or W-frames? Linkwitz chose to go with the W, Danny Richie with the H (though he provides plans for both on his GR Research website). Did you incorporate the mandatory shelving circuit (6dB/octave boost below 100Hz) to compensate for the endemic dipole cancellation? The OB/Dipole version of the Rythmik plate amp does, and the sub absolutely reproduces the bottom octave. Honest! ;-) Siegfried Linkwitz was nothing if not a methodical scientist, measuring everything. He published all the test results of his measurements on the LX521 loudspeaker, including those of its’ OB/Dipole woofer. That woofer too reproduces the bottom octave, and the LX521's electronics include the OB/Dipole-mandated shelving circuit. That shelving circuit is NOT optional in an OB/Dipole sub, it is mandatory. |
bdp24, Siegfried was quite the character and I quite agree with him on the subject of dipole speakers however he took it a bit too far with the subwoofers. I have not bought a subwoofer since 1987-88. I make my own as commercial subwoofers have too many compromises. I have made every type of subwoofer using dynamic drivers except horn and infinite baffle. Yes, I certainly did make dipole subwoofers using 4 12 inch drivers per side. Not only did I build them but I also have the ability to impulse test them and have my computer graph their frequency response. After playing around with them for a year I built 8 enclosed subs sold 4 of them and kept the other 4 which I currently use. I was using the Dipole subs just before I sold my Apogee Divas so that would have been mid 90's or so. The dipoles only saving grace was that being right next to the Divas they did not drive the ribbons nuts as the Divas were right in their null zone. The best analogy for their response below 100 Hz would be the venetian blind. After playing around with the enclosed subs I now use for a couple of years I wandered into the configuration I now use. I can still do better. I have the design of a new sub in my head that I will use in the current configuration. I hope to build them next Winter after my right arm recovers. As for Doug Sax, the studio world is in another galaxy. Doug probably uses near field monitoring and ESLs are just too big for that environment. I would bet that he never even tried them. Doug does not do recording. He is a mastering engineer (and trumpet player) He takes the tapes and mixes them down to 2 channels. IMHO the best job he ever did was Tower of Power Direct. Great record. I think he did most if not all of the Sheffield Lab records. Interesting comment about Mr Pearson. So much for audio philosophy. Mike |
Speaking of transparency.....it was when I read Harry Pearson say in a review of a loudspeaker that it was "transparent in the same way the original is" that I realized he didn’t actually understand what the term transparent means. If the original were "transparent", you wouldn’t hear it! That's like saying a photo copy is as transparent as the original. If the original were transparent, there would be nothing to see or copy! Transparent means what J. Gordon Holt said it did: the ability of a component to be invisible, like an open window. Lack of transparency (JGH sometimes likened that to a layer of what he called "scrim" placed between source and listener) is any veiling, adding of texture, change in vocal and/or instrumental timbre and color, reducing of dynamic contrasts, hardening, or any other artifact added to the original; Doug Sax performed bypass tests to evaluate the transparency of any piece of gear he was considering for use in his studio. If the insertion of the component was absolutely undetectable, it was perfectly transparent. If it added any of the above, it wasn’t. Interestingly, in spite of their unequalled transparency, Sax didn’t choose ESL loudspeakers for monitoring his recording and mastering work. |
@mijostyn, Siegfried Linkwitz disagreed (R.I.P.) with you ;-). Have you actually ever heard an OB/Dipole sub, or are you speaking in purely theoretical terms? Rythmik's Brian Ding, even though collaborating with Danny Richie on the OB/Dipole Sub (it is more Danny's baby than Brian's), finds it to sound too "lean" for him. One complaint about subs mated with planars is their tendency to sound too 'plump", a little fat and tubby. That can certainly not be said about the OB/Dipole, and one reason why it works so well with planars. |
bpd24 There is a very good reason that there are very few dipole subs. If you think you are going to block a sound wave with a wavelength of 20 feet with a panel of any size or type that you could fit in a room I would love some of the stuff you are drinking. Dipole subs will make lots of bass you can hear and will sound quite different if you move them just one foot. What they will not do reliably is make bass you can feel. It found favor with people trying to avoid cabinet resonance and complexity unfortunately it does not work. Having said that the best dynamic loudspeakers I ever heard were a D' Appolito array, two 5" drivers and a diamond tweeter on a sandwich of MDF and solid surface material with a 6db/oct crossover at 2K and a 100 Hz cross to a pair of 12" subwoofers. The panels were hung from the ceiling on decorative chains. They were also home made! Brilliant. Comb filtering is not much of a problem at higher frequencies. It is a huge problem in the bass (just another reason dipole subs do not work) The rear wave interferes most with image specificity. All you have to do is put acoustic tile on the wall behind the speaker and everything snaps into focus. Won't do a thing for bass performance which is why I cross to enclosed subwoofers. |
There are those who still feel the best bass QUALITY they ever heard was that produced by the two bass panels of the Magneplanar Tympani loudspeakers; the original T-I up through the final Tympani, the T-IVa. The T-IVa (upon which the new MG30.7 builds) also contains the great Magneplanar ribbon tweeter, and a "pretty" good (;-) magnetic-planar midrange driver. Not quite as transparent as ESL’s, but what is? One aspect of ESL’s (in fact, all planars) that cannot be ignored is their line-source sound propagation characteristics. Their wave-launch is completely different than that of a point source, and it would appear a person prefers one or the other. When I replaced my Tympani T-I’s with Fulton Model J’s in 1974, I learned I was a line-source man. As with everything, ya gotta learn and chose your priorities, ’cause ya can’t have it all. |
Interesting description, "ghostly" as in "not there." That is right, ESLs can disappear. Point source speakers can not. You always know you are listening to a dynamic speaker particularly when you walk up to it. Essentially we are in agreement as before I got the 2+2s all the ESLs I had listened to and owned where missing the kind of dynamic punch I was looking for even with subwoofers attached. But, that did not chase me back to dynamic speakers because to me the benefits of ESLs out weighted the problems which proved to be surmountable. What makes the 2+2s and Soundlabs Majestics special (black swans) is that they are full range linear arrays and project power in the bass and mid bass like no other type of speaker. The result is a speaker that disappears but has more thereness. I can put you 10th row center at a Nine Inch Nails concert or front row at a Melos String Quartet performance. I can make dynamic drivers be just as powerful, Bob Carver's Line Source is a good example but they will not do the same disappearing act the 2+2s or Majestics will do. The Majestics are currently the only full range line source ESLs I know of available new which is a pity. Prof, I love the LS 3/5a. It is the best little loudspeaker ever made and probably the most copied loudspeaker ever made but what I am talking about is in an entirely different league. Mike |
@prof, I too have heard that "ghostly sound" from planars (most recently a pair of Maggie 1.7’s), but that can be and often is a result of comb-filtering caused by the back wave of the speaker bouncing off the wall behind it, meeting up with the front wave, and causing frequency-related cancellation. Planars are less effected by sidewall reflections than are point source loudspeakers, but much more effected by those from the front wall. That an OB/Dipole sub cannot produce anything below 40Hz is complete and utter nonsense, assuming it is constructed properly---in an H-frame (GR Research/Rythmik) or W-frame (Linkwitz. See below), to prevent front-to-back dipole cancellation. Anyone who has heard the Gradient made for the 63, such as yourself, can attest to that fact. Robert E. Greene reviewed the Gradient/QUAD 63 combination in TAS, and reported no lack of bass below 40Hz. Same with those (such as myself) who have actually heard the GR Research/Rythmik OB/Dipole Sub. Remember too that Siegfried Linkwitz employed an OB/Dipole woofer section in his outstanding LX521 loudspeaker, and it also had no problem reproducing the bottom octave. Does anyone really believe an engineer with as much knowledge of and talent at designing loudspeakers as had Siegfried would let one out of his lab if it had no bottom octave output?! What IS true is that the output in general of an OB/Dipole sub is quite a bit lower than that of a sealed sub using the same driver (for instance, it takes four of the GR Research/Rythmik OB’s to equal the output of a single Rythmik F12G). But that is unrelated to it’s bottom octave---it is frequency-unrelated. It is for that reason some OB/Dipole sub owners use them in multiple sets, stacked atop one another. A Google Images search will lead you to pics of two, three, even four OB/Dipole Sub stacks. Not cheap, but SOTA never is. ;-) On the other hand, the Gradient SW-57, made for the original QUAD, WAS deficient in the bottom octave. But then, it employed a pair of 8" woofers, and they can play only so low, whether in an OB/Dipole design, sealed, ported, or infinite baffle. The LX521 uses a pair of 10" Seas aluminum-cone woofers, the GR Research/Rythmik a pair of 12" paper-cone woofers designed by Richie and Ding and custom-manufactured for them. The same woofer, with an aluminum cone, is the one Rythmik installs in their F12 sealed sub (the F12G has the paper-cone woofer. Confused yet? ;-). |
mijostyn, Even my tiny little Spendor 3/5s spec'd only down to 90Hz have a palpable "thereness" that I haven't heard from any electrostat. Adding a dynamic woofer to an electrostat seems to produce pallpability in the region covered by the woofer, but the frequency range covered by the panel has that ghostly sound. So every electrostatic I've heard (a lot!) either full range or hybrid, has had the characteristics I described. I guess I'll just have to take your word that a Black Swan version exists somewhere that sounds different.In any case, I'd say my generalization about electrostics, especially any of a size/price I'd ever be in a position to own, is inductively sound. :) |
Prof, The reason ESLs sound "skeletal" to you, and I hate sounding like a stuck record is that the ones you have been listening to switch radiation characteristics in the mid bass. They are acting like linear arrays above 250 Hz but like point source radiators below, square of the distance versus cube of the distance. A linear array has to be taller than the lowest wavelength you need to reproduce. Their ability to radiate power drops off dramatically below 250 Hz as you move away from the speaker. Add dipole effects to this and you wind up with wimpy bass. This is what glued everyone to the Acoustat 2+2s. They were the first planar loudspeaker that did not do this. The Soundlabs you want to listen too if you get the opportunity are the Majestic 845s in an 8 foot room or the 945s in a 9 foot room. A linear array that terminates at boundaries above and below acts as a linear array into infinity. At the beginning of Roger Water's Amused to Death is a segment with a barking dog. A friend's medium poodle went ballistic when the dog started barking. Never play Amused to Death with someone's dog in the house. This notion that dipole subwoofers fit dipole speakers better is faulty. There is just no getting away from the cancelation and front wall effects. The result is very lumpy frequency response and no bass at all below 40 Hz. They will make the satellites sound better as long as you are crossing out of them but that is about it. The mistake people make is trying to match a point source subwoofer to a linear array loudspeaker. Linear array subwoofers either have to be as tall as the room or as wide as the room. That is a lot of woofers. |
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 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. |
bdp24 That's an intriguing matchup as Danny Richie was getting a lot of buzz about 10 years ago. Also, I own a pair of 15" Rythmik Audio subs for my home theatre set-up and think they're fantastic! |
@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. |
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. |
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, if you ever get the opportunity you must listen to a set of full range electrostatic loudspeakers. Quads or Soundlabs. I think your opinion on what a loudspeaker can do will evolve a bit. Audioguy85, it is not that the Whardales are cheap it is just that many speakers are comically overpriced as would be indicated by resale values. Just pick out the most expensive drivers you can find and add up the prices. Double the sum for labor and crossover parts. Is there any box worth $200,000? |
No doubt measurements have a value and a place....maybe they may get you to the right arena in the right city...but they probably won't get you to the right seat. Why? Because we all have individual preferences...we have different gear...we have different rooms. If you want to explore the whole measurements discussion and correlation, then this is a fun read. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/3038828-how-choose-loudspeaker-what-science-shows-98.html |
Interesting jsautter. JA has been measuring speakers, and mapping the results to audible characteristics, for as long as I can remember. I have no idea what type of experience you have to compare - hence no idea how much weight to grant your claims. (?) Can you give me any examples of the best systems you are referring to? In terms of my experience, over the decades I've heard most of the "big guns" in high end audio. I've been working in the pro sound world (film/television) since the late 80s, my work having been mixed at various millions-of-dollars pro systems. Not sure what type of "higher bar" you are talking about. (And, if my experience still isn't enough to recognize good sound, I'm wondering about whatever relevance the systems you have in mind have for the real world choices for most audiophiles). |
prof, I assume that when you suggest a speaker measures well you are referring to frequency response? I have seen JA ignore, explain away or excuse very bad measurements on speakers which frequent the pages of Stereophile while scratching his head over why a speaker with bad frequency response sounds good. I would suggest that JA appears to know how to measure but is at a total loss as to why certain measurements are or are not important. I would suggest, and this applies to all enthusiasts, that you are only as enlightened it terms of quality, as the best systems you have ever heard. The best systems you will ever hear are rarely at dealers and never at shows. |
@prof I agree with your last post and that the spendors have great tone... but put them in the wrong room or with the wrong equipment and they may not shine so well..... and my brain may hear and process what an acoustic guitar sounds like a little differently than yours and as a result, I may prefer speaker x to the Spendors This is the great audio journey... finding the source, preamp, amp and speaker that in your room allow your brain to say “this sounds right and it sounds good”. |
Thanks for all the great responses! @almarg (and others) Yes the whole tone/timbre thing is fairly vexed. Like a lot of us, when I hear, or play, unamplified instruments I am struck by the richness and harmonic beauty (and, often, "warmth"). I think "that's what I want, wow that would be great if my system could reproduce that." Unfortunately I find that every system homogenizes instruments, and instrumental timbre to one degree or another. (I want to lay blame on speakers, which typically introduce the most distortion in the chain). Even the most "neutral" or "best" measuring speakers I've heard homogenize, in that once I hear drums, cymbals, sax, trumpet etc the sense of "surprise" is gone; I know how those will sound through the speaker forever more, unlike the sense of almost "limitless" timbral pallet in the real world. So when I hear so many instruments and voices sounding essentially timbrally "right" through a speaker, as I do through my Spendors it's hard to decide whether such speakers more accurately reproduce the actual timbral qualities of the real thing, or whether the speakers have a "voice" or "coloration" that happens to be consonant with the real thing. My feeling is that it's more of the latter than the former, as I can hear a consistent voice from the Spendors, like any speaker. There isn't the level of timbral variety and surprise of the real thing, but most instruments/voices have a *quality* that *feels like* the real thing. Hand claps through the speaker sound timbrally like my own hand claps in the room. I have an acoustic guitar I play, that I've recorded and when I play it back on some speakers it sounds vivid, but timbrally gray, plastic, electronic. "Made of the wrong stuff" and not evoking the same tonal colors in my mind's eye as does the real thing. When I play the recording of my acoustic guitar on the Spendors - I'll be damned but my brain says "yes, THAT is what my guitar sounds like FOR REAL." The same "sparkly, warm, golden" overtones that I "see" when I play the guitar. The same "slightly papery/fleshy quality" of the fingers on the strings. I can play that recording on the Spendors, then play my guitar and...yup...that's essentially, timbrally, what it sounds like. This is something I really value - for the same reason I can sit and play my guitar and be transfixed by the beauty of it's tone, if a speaker can do some of the same thing - even by subterfuge of some sort - it's much more pleasurable than speaker producing a hyper-detailed, holographic "guitar thing" in front of me, but which never gives me the sparkle and inherent richness/timbral warmth I enjoy in the real thing. So every speaker homogenizes, but I prefer one that homogenizes in a voice that reminds me of the qualities I value most in the real thing. |
jsautter So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos" Which somehow add up to very good measured performance - very often more neutral than the vast majority of measurements found for other speakers. Take a look even at JA's measurements for the Harbeth Monitor 30.2 40th An. edition. Beautifully even tonal balance, even the bass "maximally damped" design, cabinet resonances there but "low in level" by JA's comment. (A bit of a bass bump there, but typical for measurements of most speakers, including my beloved Thiel 3.7s, and even my sealed-box Spendor 3/5s). Totally disagree that the Harbeths homogenize instruments - I find the opposite (relative to loudspeakers in general - every loudspeaker to my ear homogenizes to some degree, but I find the Harbeths among the most convincing, tonally). Anyway, as you say, horses for courses. No reason you have to like them. But I do think that once we start making claims about speakers being "colored" or "not neutral enough" etc we are in to objective-claims territory. Btw, I'm also a fan of time/phase coherent speakers as I own Thiel 2.7 speakers as well. I just find different speaker designs do one or another thing like like better - no perfect speaker. |
I'm pretty fond of my Omega Super 3i Monitors. These are Omega's entry-level loudspeaker ($695). They are a tube-friendly single-driver design efficient enough to sound great with 2 WPC. Tone, vocals, and coherence is wonderful (no crossover to muck up the sound). I think they're a true bargain. Add a sub for the lower registers. SET/single-driver loudspeaker systems certainly aren't for everyone but I can honestly say I never been happier. |
I refer to the entire Harbeth line although I have never heard these speakers in my home. I did, I think, get a very good idea of how they sounded at shows and at a few dealers. I am sure they can sound better but the fundamental "house" is pretty hard to forget. All Harbeths I have heard all have a tendency to homogenize material. I hate the cabinets and take issue with the designers belief in this being an effective energy dissipation method. Essentially you have a big vibrating box with a large surface area. I dont like large front baffles and I shouldnt have to explain why these are not a good thing. Feel that first order crossovers are best and am guessing a 2nd or 3rd order is used by Harbeth. I certainly dont see any attention paid to time alignment. In addition dont like ported speakers and also feel no science exists that supports this type of design other than a pleasant hump, increased efficiency and a reduction in cabinet size. 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. I am not knocking anyone that likes this type of sound. But it is safe to say that those of you that like Harbeths hear things in a very different way than I. Who is to say which of us is correct? |
I have learned through many years any speaker that sounds good will sound at least 10-20% better just by upgrading the wiring and rebuild the Xover with Good quality parts 90% of speakers even at 12kor more rarely put top quality capacitors,resistors inductors ,and yes you get what you pay for . Duelund cast capacitors way too expensive and too big unless you have a Big speaker or external Xoverand the $$. On average $1-2k in parts can get you a Exceptional Xover that will transform your speakers.for the majority use Solen or lower grade Clarity or Mundorf ,not their top stuff.I have been doing this for almost 20 years even with your electronics ,it pays big dividends sonicly. I rewired my whole system including electronics with VH Audio solid Core -OCC Teflon copper wire,and only Copper connections throughout, most companies use gold over Brass which is 4x less conductive and bright compared. it made a Huge difference in system synergy ,to complement the Xover upgrade. These are things that cost say $3k in total but better then if I spent 3-4 x that for cable markup alone in name brand cables is 4-5x at least. knowing the quality of the wire and geometry is the main thing then just taking the time to do it and save $1,000s in the process. |
