BEL 1001 MK5 driving Joseph Audio Pulsars

The L100 is a good example. Hearing it when it was first introduced, and having already developed a high sensitivity to loudspeaker coloration, as well as a love of vocalists and harmony singing, I knew I could never live with the L100. It’s reproduction of voices was atrocious!

For one who listens predominantly to instrumental Classical and/or Jazz, the vowel coloration of the L100 may not have been as objectionable. Yes, it was still introducing the same coloration, but we all know what the human voice sounds like; recorded instruments, not necessarily. Vowel coloration added to a tenor sax (which I have myself recorded, with a good quality condenser mic straight into a Revox A77) is not as noticeable (and objectionable) as is that same coloration added to a voice. IMO.

A loudspeaker which is good at revealing the inner detail in recordings will allow one to hear more of that detail than will a speaker which is mediocre in that regard. I know, of course. But if you listen to music which doesn’t require that ability as much as do some other musics, you won’t miss it in a speaker which doesn’t provide it. It’s not a matter of a speaker being able to play all music equally well, but rather a matter of one speaker being able to do more of what you want or need it to do than will another.

All loudspeakers are the end result of numerous choices, of trade-offs and compromises, the designer going after what he values most in music reproduction (or thinks the marketplace does ;-). The trick is finding one whose compromises produce a sound that aligns with your musical desires and/or needs.

Whether or not any given speaker "favours a certain kind of music", there are certainly examples of speakers that are poor choices for certain kinds. A mini monitor (or the QUAD ESL) for reproducing pipe organ recordings (a Symphony Orchestra performing, say, Berlioz Requiem, such as Colin Davis conducting The LSO. Or Saint-Saens Symphony No. 3 by George Pretre and The Paris Conservatoire Orchestra with Maurice Durufle on organ. Or AC/DC’s Back In Black ;-) played at live listening SPL. Another reason to buy a DBA!

One who listens to predominantly acoustic Folk (or Bluegrass) music may not need the same "kind" of speaker as does one who listens to Death Metal, just as a driver who travels on only highways doesn’t need a car with the same abilities as does the driver who spends time on winding mountain roads. It’s the ol’ sports car vs. tractor scenario. Horses for courses: It’s not only what a speaker can do, but what it can’t. Different musics certainly DO place different demands on loudspeakers, which reward the musics accourding to their strengths and weaknesses (or abilities and inabilities). IMO ;-) .

Yes, a perfect loudspeaker would be able to reproduce all musics equally well. Since there aren’t any, and since different speakers have different imperfections (or inabilities), does it not make sense to choose one whose abilities and inabilities align well the demands the music the listener is most concerned with places on the speaker? You can’t have it all, though the "best" speakers may come closer than more compromised ones.

What abilities are most important to you? What are you willing to give up in order to get something else? I can’t live with a speaker exhibiting ANY vowel colorations (the great term coined, as far as I know, by J. Gordon Holt), And I need a speaker which can reproduce the contrasting timbre of the harpsichord, cello, violin, and flute playing J.S. Bach, revealing the very complex (and changing) root/harmonic overtone structure each instrument produces (speakers vary DRASTICALLY in their abilities to do that). But pinpoint imaging and a great soundstage are not that important to me. To each his own!