1. Home
  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
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
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 
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,488 posts
 

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.

mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
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.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,488 posts
 

@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. 

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,488 posts
 

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.

More to discover