I’m going to make a similar comment to NoNoise, all speakers are a compromise, none are perfect. Whichever speaker sounds best to you is dependant on which compromises you’re willing to accept and how much you’re willing to pay in return (accepting that price is a compromise in itself)...
Should a reference speaker be neutral, or just great sounding?
I was thinking about something as I was typing about how I've observed a magazine behave, and it occurred to me that I have a personal bias not everyone may agree to. Here's what I think:
"To call a speaker a reference product it should at the very least be objectively neutral."
However, as that magazine points out, many great speakers are idiosyncratic ideas about what music should sound like in the home, regardless of being tonally neutral.
Do you agree? If a speaker is a "reference" product, do you expect it to be neutral, or do you think it has to perform exceptionally well, but not necessarily this way?
"To call a speaker a reference product it should at the very least be objectively neutral."
However, as that magazine points out, many great speakers are idiosyncratic ideas about what music should sound like in the home, regardless of being tonally neutral.
Do you agree? If a speaker is a "reference" product, do you expect it to be neutral, or do you think it has to perform exceptionally well, but not necessarily this way?
- ...
- 63 posts total
No reason to go for neutrality if you hate the sound. Rock and Techno/electronic stuff? Have at it. Whatever sounds best. But if you're into anything acoustic or vocal, neutrality is essential. Of course, we may disagree on the meaning of "neutral." But we will always make the best choice if the LIVE PERFORMANCE is our "reference" and not some imagined sound. |
"neutral" is one of those fraught terms in audio--people are always slamming other over the head with it, claiming that this or that product sounds more "neutral."
"Neutral" does nothing because it's essentially meaningless, too open to interpretation.
Early on in my audio journey I decided the only meaningful comparison to audio gear (besides other audio gear/by contrast) was real live music, electric or acoustic, played in a known space. Audio gear that sounds "musical" (ie, like real music) wins out with me. Is this subjective? Hell, yes. But is it meaningful? Yes. And "reference" to me connotes audio gear that takes audio reproduction even higher, with better qualities recognized & sought in audio (ie, dynamics, bass, detail/resolution, etc). I have some inexpensive, not-very-refined gear that makes music all day long, but is clearly outclassed by bigger/better gear that also makes music, albeit on a higher plane of attainment. |
Yes. They can predict with 86% confidence that people will pick the flattest speakers as the best sounding. And if you take bass out of the equation, that goes up to 99%. Paper: A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR CHOOSING LOUDSPEAKERS AND HEADPHONES FOR RECORDING AND BROADCAST (page 2) |
I've heard many monitor speakers in studios and do not think they would sound good for long term listening in my music room. @michaelgreenaudio I intend to purchase Von Schweikert VR9SE II which have maximum adjustability using highest quality components to alter the sound of each driver to match the room modes, despite having a great engineered room. My current speakers adjust bass alignment and mids/highs downward only. Flat is the best for that speaker in my room. The rear tweeter adjustment is probably the most important for me to control the ambiance level from the rear of a box speaker. Previously, from 20 to 35 years ago, I had non-adjustable electrostats. Didn't work out well in my lesser listening environments. |
- 63 posts total