Best new loudspeaker

hi shadorne:

it is my experience, auditioning many cone designs that cone designs do not as good a job creating natural timbre as ribbons, electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers.

cone designs have driver colorations, cabinet colorations and crossover colorations with cones.

if cone designs reproduced timbre naturally, i would consider them.

as for radiating patterns. if you listen in the near field, there are still differences in radiating patterns, but they are reduced.

are you suggesting that a ribbon tweeter and a dome tweeter sound similar except for radiating pattern ?

how would you demonstrate that ?

how would you demonstrate that ?

By measuring the frequency response and the distortion on axis and verifying that the impulse response is of similarly high quality. A check of the phase and impedance plot for anomalies would also help. Many speakers have low distortion. Many have pretty good impulse response - especially in the midrange and at modest levels. However very few have similar radiation patterns though and very few maintain low distortion at higher levels.

it is my experience, auditioning many cone designs that cone designs do not as good a job creating natural timbre as ribbons, electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers

Everything you prefer has a distinctly different radiation pattern from a cone. However there are many cones and many ribbons/electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers that all have their own sound/timbre.

To me you are clearly associating the driver radiation pattern, sound field and room reverberation with "timbre", which is wrong.

if you compareh a three way cone design to a pair of martin logan cls 2 z speakers , you will hear many differences. let's say your source is a harpsichord.

the timbre of the harpsichord, in my opinion will sound more realistic played through the martin logan than through some 3 way cone design.

whether it is or is not a matter of dispersion, the drivers are different.

since i am looking to purchase a pair of speakers, reproduction of timbre is my primary criterion.

i consider electrostatic and planar/magnetic speakers more likely to produce a natural recreation of the sound of an instrument than cone designs.

if there is a speaker that is a worthy competitor of electrostatics and planar/magnetics/ribbons, with respect to reproduction of timbre, using "conventional" drivers, i would want to audition it, unless i have already heard it.

if there is a speaker that is a worthy competitor of electrostatics and planar/magnetics/ribbons, with respect to reproduction of timbre, using "conventional" drivers, i would want to audition it, unless i have already heard it.

Ok - but it isn't an issue of timbre. Gordon Holt used the big Soundlabs for many years - he now uses ATC SCM 50 actives - I suggest you start there. I expect the radiation pattern and room interaction will still be quite different from the big Soundlabs, however, the "TIMBRE" of both is of very high quality.

I suspect you may not be able to get past the differences from room interaction / reverberation and sound field from a short listening session (you have preconceived expectations). However, if you were to acclimatize and give it a few hundred hours then you might think differently. Leading classical audio engineers certainly do not have a problem with the timbre of these cone speakers, however, I would add there are many other good cone designs too....if you took the time to acclimatize I think you would find there is not such a "great divide" as you insist.

Are all tubes bad? Are all SS amps bad? Is all CD redbook sound bad? Is all vinyl inherently bad? Is all 5.1 HT sound bad? Is all two channel music bad? Are all horns bad?

IMHO - NO.... all of the above can sound excellent... given the right choices and room setup.