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
 
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.

mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
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
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Oh as for plump subwoofers, I think most subwoofers sound "plump." This is probably due to cabinet resonance which is one problem dipole subs should not have. My current system sounds anything but plump dipoles and all. So I guess you have to watch it with the generalizations.
More to discover