There are several things about the Magnepan x.7 series that supersede all the dogma about previous maggies--grainy, lack of low level detail, hard to drive, etcThat describes just a few of the reasons I unloaded my 1.7is, however, I'll admit they're one of the best at their price point.
Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?
I realise that the music industry seems to care less and less about timbre, see
https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII
But for me, without timbre music reproduction can be compared to food which lacks flavour or a modern movie with washed out colours. Occasionally interesting, but rarely engaging.
So my question is, what are your loudspeaker candidates if you are looking for a 'Technicolor' sound?
I know many use tube amps solely for this aim, but perhaps they are a subject deserving an entirely separate discussion.
https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII
But for me, without timbre music reproduction can be compared to food which lacks flavour or a modern movie with washed out colours. Occasionally interesting, but rarely engaging.
So my question is, what are your loudspeaker candidates if you are looking for a 'Technicolor' sound?
I know many use tube amps solely for this aim, but perhaps they are a subject deserving an entirely separate discussion.
279 responses Add your response
Hello everyone! First post here. It is very important that a speaker not add its own timbre to the recording we happen to be listening to. All too often we run into romantic sounding systems where all recordings seem to have a common denominator or character - the timbre of the speaker itself. In high end, it costs a lot of money to suppress a speaker's timbre (is it ever eliminated?). IMO it is far cheaper to design a timbre that is people pleasing than to neutralize added timbre. Some designs subtract or mask recorded timbre, and some sources benefit from adding harmonics somewhere in the stereo system chain, but here the OP is focusing on speakers. I agree with the OP's initial assumption that loudspeakers, on a weighted scale, have more to do with system sound than electronics, sources, and wires. |
@ nakdoc, Hi! Yes it's fair to say that all speakers must either be adding or subtracting to timbre (assuming a completely neutral speaker doesn't exist). So far we have many recommendations and suggestions for the all of the following: Devore Fidelity 0/96 and /93 (5) Sonus Faber (5) +Franco Serblin's Ktema or Accordo Audio Note (4) Daedalus Audio (4) the entire line solid wood speakers and very natural and engaging Big Tannoys (4) BBC designs eg Harbeth Spendor Graham (4) Vienna Acoustics (3) ProAc (3) Legacy Audio Aeris (2) Legacy Audio Focus SE Joseph Audio speakers (2) very accurate but with a particularly grain/haze-free sound. Just the way colorful pebbles are more richly revealed through a clean, clear stream than through one full of fine silt, I find the timbral colors of voices and instruments seem more finely and purely revealed from the JA speakers - a greater "rainbow" of timbres and tonal colors seem to get through. and mentions for the following: KEF reference, KEF Blades Diapasón, Ohm Walsh Focal Sopra 2 Amphion Gold Note Wilson Benesch Thiel Audio Triangle Magellan, JM Reynaud Ilumnia Magister Audio Physic Libras Meadowlark Audio Wilson Alexandrias Magnepan x.7 Klipschorns Tonian Labs Totem Acoustic Element Metal Vandersteen 3A Sigs with 2wq subwoofers I am a little surprised to see Wilson get so little mention. Anyway, what does all this tell us? I suppose the old adage still holds true, you have to get out there and listen to as many designs as you can if you are serious about finding satisfaction. It also can't be a coincidence that piano music was mentioned quite a few times as well. Perhaps no other instrument has such a wide range of contrasting timbres on offer. Think its time to give the old Ashkenazy disc a spin. The problem is, unless you are very lucky, it's virtually impossible to listen to half of them with any degree of ease. I'd love to give the Joseph Audio speakers a listen, the design sounds (ouch!) interesting. I'd also love to hear some Klipschorns and Sonus Faber models at least once, how could any audiophile not? What about Daedalus Audio? Thanks to everyone for their suggestions. I'm sure each of the above suggestions will all have plenty to offer. We just have to get out there and listen. Failing that, do our research and take a calculated risk. Good luck to everyone. |
Speakers don't do math. Nor are they polymaths given the numbers of instruments, materials, musicians, tuning, styles, etc. etc. in existence. Yes it's fair to say that all speakers must either be adding or subtracting to timbre Timbre is the human (expert) perception of the sound of a note made by a specific (tuned) instrument, brought into existence by a musician. Instrument. Musician. Human Perception of Sound. Note: No speakers involved. From this point on, there is a very long chain which attempts to provide a 'facsimile' of that note. What you are hearing in your listening chair has to do with that entire chain. |
Hi, there may not be a problem with your speakers or system. Jim Smith's book points out that bringing the speakers closer together riches the timbre. I find tweeter to tweeter should be inside 5 feet with speakers towed straight at you and exactly the same distance from your sitting position/ears.. Benefits include good focus with no smearing and a better sense of dynamic contrast between instruments and acoustical space. Of course multi-miked pop and rock records have little or no ambiance, but at least the timbre is better. I assume you attend live un-amplified concerts. |
What generates rich timbre out in the real world? Well, what makes your voice sound richer in the shower? What makes a grand piano’s timbre and texture so rich and lush in a good recital hall? And what makes the difference between a good seat and a crappy seat in a concert hall? The reverberant field. Get the reverberant field right, without screwing up the first-arrival sound, and you will have rich timbre. The best speakers for that may differ from one room to the next. But unless you listen nearfield, most of the sound that reaches your ears is reverberant sound. You don’t get directional cues from the reverberant sound because of the precedence effect, but the reverberant field plays a major if not dominant role in just about everything else. Exactly what is involved in "getting the reverberant field right" is a big topic and well beyond the scope of this post, but awareness that the reverberant field matters is a crucial first step. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is one of the more important ones, especially if rich and natural-sounding timbre is a high priority. Duke dealer/manufacturer |
@audiokinesis, good point. Guess that's one of the reasons why some rooms are deemed good and others not (along with any obvious bass resonance modes). How much life/ reflected sound you want in a room will always be a matter of personal choice. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer a more lively room than a dead one others may differ. I still think changing the speaker is the easier option for mist of us, and am inclined to believe that a great speaker should still sound good in any room. |
Thank you, cd318. Like you, I am "inclined to believe that a great speaker should still sound good in any room." My standard example is a grand piano: Sure it will sound best in a good recital hall, but it won’t suck in your kitchen unless you play it too loud. Imo this is because the piano’s reflections are spectrally correct, so their contributions are almost always beneficial (though they can overwhelm in your kitchen if you play too loud). You also said, "How much life/ reflected sound you want in a room will always be a matter of personal choice." I am currently working on a design that allows adjustments to the reverberant field independent of the first-arrival sound. Here are some of the general principles I try to follow, as far as the reverberant field and its effect on timbre: 1. The reverberant field’s spectral balance should be a good match for the first-arrival sound. It will have a little bit less high frequency energy because of absorption, but not by as much as is typically caused by beaming. When there is a significant spectral discrepancy between the first-arrival sound and the ensuing reflections, those reflections do not enhance the timbre very much. They can even cause listening fatigue. 2. Early reflections are undesirable, but late reflections are beneficial, provided they are spectrally correct. In general reflections arriving within 10 milliseconds of the direct sound tend to degrade clarity (though they can still enrich the timbre), and in general reflections arriving later than 10 milliseconds enrich the timbre without degrading the clarity. In fact they can actually improve the clarity by giving the ear multiple "looks" at complex sounds (assuming the reflections are spectrally correct). 3. There can be either too much or too little energy in the reverberant field. Too much and clarity and imaging are degraded; too little and timbre is degraded. For some anecdotal evidence of the above, consider Maggies. Maggies have a spectrally-correct backwave, and when you position them far enough out into the room (five feet gives about 10 milliseconds of delay on that backwave reflection), that’s when the magic happens. Imo Maggies might generate a little bit more reverberant energy than is absolutely ideal, but if you sit pretty close to them the ratio of direct to reflected energy is increased, and clarity is improved. @cd318, if you will be at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest in early October, please stop by Room 3002 in the Tower. We’re going to try to make the room seem bigger than it actually is by manipulating the reverberant field. We think timbre will also benefit along the way. Duke |
You tell me Audiotroy and Inna. I agree with prof that Blue Jean cables are musically adequate (not for me). They outperform many HEA cables costing $5K, $10, $15/m However, that's because of the defects in those cables; in particular, I dislike High Fidelity cables with their huge magnets in-line with the signal. However, Monster 300 original ICs are just as cheap and besides rolled off at the frequency extremes, quite musical. My friend built phono cables 20+ years ago using fine shielded silver conductors with similar to Blue Jean cables, extremely low capacitance. The result is an excellent phono cable still used by another friend who can't afford my upscale phono cables from the same manufacturer. I paid $375/m for my phono cables, which is exorbitant to some of you posters, but for the labor involved (see GroverHuffman.com), a real bargain. I've got a $16K analog front end (table/arm/cartridge/isolation), so spending $375 to complement the sound was a wise choice. I had another friend purchase Blue Jean cables for long speaker and IC runs (20' and 25') because he wanted to build an inexpensive music system. He bought a Yamaha CR620, Dynaco 35s, Project table, Pioneer DV-05 DVD/CD player and has a decent sounding system. Not high end. But could it be lower mid-fi for under $1K ? |
I vote for Legacy Focus (originals or 20/20) for the best bang for the buck with the "warm" sound of analog music using Kevlar mid-ranges. Cheaper, more efficient and easier to drive (current hungry though) than so many new speakers. Deep bass, wide soundstage. What's not to like from a guy who had Acoustat X, 2&2s and Martin Logan Monolith IIIs for over 20 years prior. |
audiokinesis,
I’m sure it depend on how much you mean by "too much" in each case, but generally speaking I find the opposite. The more reflected room sound the brighter "clearer" and more present the sound. But the cost is a sort of reflected/hash signature that starts to overlay the sound, homogenizing instrumental timbre. The more room reflections are taken out, the more I hear the subtleties of individual instrumental timbre in a recording. This is certainly the case in my own room where I have good control over some of the liveness of the room (via being able to pull curtains across reflective area, or open them up, use some diffusors I have, or not, etc). This has been true in virtually every case I’ve ever encountered (it’s my habit when auditioning speakers to investigate the direct-to-reverberant sound quality via taking different positions to listen - further for more room, closer for more direct sound. In every case I’ve ever known, the observations I mention have applied. It just strikes me as strange that your comment *seems* to point the arrows the other way. |
The Room or the Recording? Why is audio so complicated? What's all this nearfield business? It does make sense that if you want to hear the speaker primarily then you can either sit close up or if possible take it to a quiet place outdoors and do your listening there. On the other hand if you want to hear the effect of the room then you should sit as far away from the speaker itself as possible. Then there are good rooms which can add via reflection to the direct/ original sound. Since no one listens in an anechoic chamber some room effect must be taken into consideration by the designer - eg dispersion patterns, placement etc. Perhaps audiokinesis has developed some form of refined DSP (unlike those crude ones found on many surround sound systems) which can subtly change the sound of your room. Perhaps it is possible to increase 'sympathetic' room reflections which could give a sense of increased realism. Sounds phenomenally difficult but it's certainly interesting. As if all this wasn't complicated enough then there's the issue of the Fletcher-Munson/ Equal Loudness curves which prove that ours ears cannot hear frequency (bass to treble) in a linear fashion. The following article suggests that as the actual loudness/volume changes, the perceived loudness of the bass and treble frequencies that our brains hear changes. The actual frequencies don't, it's just that we hear them differently. Nature gives more importance to the midrange frequencies. https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/
Anyway, until audiokinesis can demonstrate otherwise, and it will be fantastic if he can, then we still rely primarily upon the speaker cone for our perception of recorded sound. I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that DSP will be the future of all reproduced sound once all the software algorithms, processors, and hardware have advanced sufficiently. |
I used to think that tone controls were necessary decades ago. With the ability to hear music at both high and low levels, I don’t have a problem with hearing frequency extremes and mids. My 78s have limited bandwith and I only need e.q. for their differing recording e.q. (especially acoustic horn recordings). As to modern recordings, I leave it up to the mastering engineer to determine the sound. Overall, the sound is usually more than adequate. I’ve noticed on some other audio systems that (low cost generally), they are unable to consistently sound adequate with differing recordings (some sound great, others sound bad or unlistenable) as well as an inability to sound good at low or loud volumes. These are not good audio systems. |
@prof, my comments about “too much or too little” reverberant energy arise from some experiments in varying the amount of reverberant energy while leaving the first-arrival sound untouched. Briefly we used a fairly directional main array aimed at the listening area for the first-arrival sound, and then used a dedicated reverberant-field-only array (optimized for good power response) aimed off in a different direction, so that it made no contribution to the first-arrival sound. By varying the level of the reverberant-field-only array we could independently manipulate the amount of energy in the reverberant field. We found that the additional reverberant energy generally improved timbre, but too much and clarity started to degrade. Hence my comments. @cd318 wrote: “Perhaps @audiokinesis has developed some form of refined DSP (unlike those crude ones found on many surround sound systems) which can subtly change the sound of your room. Perhaps it is possible to increase ’sympathetic’ room reflections which could give a sense of increased realism. Sounds phenomenally difficult but it’s certainly interesting.” No DSP, but your “sympathetic room reflections” guess is right on the money! We borrowed a page from concert hall psychoacoustics: The difference between a good seat and a poor seat in a concert hall arises from the amount of time between the first-arrival sound and the onset of reflections. In a good seat, there is a time gap between the two. In a poor seat there is no such time gap; the reflections start arriving too early, and the effect is, clarity is degraded. These principles can be transported into the listening room, despite the difference in scale. Done “right” (see my reply to prof at the top of this post), we think we can improve timbre with no detriment to clarity. We also think we can reduce “small room signature” such that you actually hear less of your room and more of the acoustic space on the recording. Admittedly it is highly counter-intuitive to think that ADDING reflections can REDUCE your room’s signature, so let me explain the theory behind this: The basic premise is, if your system was in a big room, you would hear more of what’s on the recording because your room’s acoustic signature would be less intrusive. The ear/brain system judges room size by the “center of gravity” of the reverberant energy. The later in time that “center of gravity” occurs, the larger the apparent room size. By injecting additional late-onset reverberant energy, we can push that center of gravity to later in time and thereby increase the apparent room size. By making sure this additional reverberant energy is spectrally correct and by not injecting too much, we preserve clarity. I’ve been working with improving timbre by paying attention to the reverberant field for many years. The increase in apparent room size (thereby reducing small room signature) is an unanticipated but welcome side effect. Duke |
Since I’ve installed 32 Synergistic Research HFTs, my slap echo and other room acoustic anomalies have abated. Each HFT appears to broaden the reflection soundwaves, probably increasing the reflection times. They certainly don’t shorten the soundwave reflection times. In the typical concert hall, seats closest to the rear wall don’t usually sound good because of the hard rear wall surfaces with quick reflection times and in the front rows there is little reflection, nearly all direct sound. As a music reviewer for the UCLA Daily Bruin back 45 years ago in Royce Hall, I swapped my front row ticket for rows 10 through 20 to get the best sound for a combination of direct and long reflective sound. So many people wanted the front row seats there despite the inferior sound. It was probably a visual preference for them. |
@fleschler wrote: "I swapped my front row ticket for rows 10 through 20 to get the best sound for a combination of direct and long reflective sound." Duke replies: [capslock][bold][italics][giant font]YESSSSS!!![/capslock][/bold][/italics][/giant font] Obviously we can’t get those long reflections paths in our living rooms, but the same psychoacoustic principles are applicable... and imo in many cases offer us a window of opportunity to make a worthwhile improvement. |
I was so lucky to have heard Ashkenasy, Arrau,
Bachauer, Ciccolini, Kubelik/Bavarian Orch and so many other great classical musicians in ideal conditions from where I sat. Royce Hall was renovated maybe 15 or 20 years ago and the balcony has good sound now and more consistent sound except in the front 3 rows. |
This is interesting stuff. I will grant that absent near field listening, timbre and reverberant energy are to a degree intertwined. The topic needs to be assessed with the idea of "average listening rooms". Most but not all speaker designers design their speakers for real world conditions in average listening rooms. To do otherwise is commercial hari-kari. With this in mind, and with the concept of all real-world speakers being comprised of strengths and weaknesses, design goals and compromises, the topic of truth of timbre divorced from all this conversation about room design is a valid one. That said, I am skeptical that any DSP, present or future, can make a badly designed-for truth of timbre-speaker sound like a timbre champ. I am very biased. I bought my Devore 0/93's when I heard them at Don Better's home based listening room with my vinyl copy of Gillian Welch's The Harrow and the Harvest playing on Don's SPU-equipped deck and could hear the strings of David Rawlngs guitar hit my brain with the texture of his Martin Darco 80/20 bronze light strings sounding just as haunting and full of soul and ghosts as he could possibly wish to convey. I know that my Devore 0/93's have their strengths and weaknesses. There's a slight discontinuity in the midrange that bothers me at times. But for truth of timbre over most of the frequency range, in an average listening room like mine, it is a champ. |
audiokinesis, Ok. Though I still find it interesting that my experience, at least with regular speakers (as opposed to a multiple array as you described) lead me to apparently the opposite conclusion. I've never heard more room sound contribute to more accurate timbre. (With the sort of exception that I alluded to earlier, that a more live room can make the sound more realistically bright/lively, though at the expense of homogenizing timbre among the various instruments/voices in a track). |
@fsonicsmith Have you heard the Audio Note AN-E's, which just happen to be Devore's principal inspiration? To my ears the originals are still the best in that category that matters to you, truth of timbre.No, but I would like to. Next year I hope to attend the Chicago show and that will likely be my best opportunity. Without discounting your statement/opinion, I know that Art Dudley has heard both and he prefers Devore. My listening preferences tend to mirror his. |
@prof wrote: "I’ve never heard more room sound contribute to more accurate timbre." Thanks for replying! Many speakers do not generate beneficial room sound. Most speakers’ off-axis response has a significantly different spectral balance from the direct sound, and as a result the reverberant energy is not spectrally correct. This can degrade timbre, and can even cause listening fatigue. I can explain the latter if you would like. As an example of what a spectrally-correct reverberant field can contribute, imagine listening to a grand piano outdoors vs in a good recital hall. The timbre is improved (enriched, we might say) by the spectrally-correct reverberant energy in the recital hall. So I’m not an advocate of reflections in general, but I am an advocate of reflections done right. Imo "reflections done right" involves paying attention to the spectral balance, arrival time, total energy, and even arrival direction of the reflections, in particular the first few. Duke |
audiokinesis, Yes I'm aware of the effects of off-axis response. I've had quite a number of speakers with good, even off-axis response (I tend to favour them). For reference, among the speakers I still currently own are the MBL 121 omni-directional monitors (radiate evenly), and the Waveform Mach MC monitor, specifically designed for wide radiating even power response. Here's a review of a Waveform speaker that uses this egg-shaped mid/tweeter module (I had the Mach Solos in my room as well): http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/waveform_mach_solo.html At least in my experience, even speakers that have good off-axis response sound timbrally more true and complex when reducing room sound. Though I can totally see how the right size/room reverberation can add "tonal richness" to the sound - the singing-in-the-shower effect, to some degree. |
Hi Prof, Again, thanks for replying. Imo the size disparity between a 6" midrange cone and a 1" tweeter dome make it impossible for such a speaker’s off-axis response to have the same spectral balance as its on-axis response. At the crossover frequency, the cone will be beaming somewhat but the tweeter’s pattern will be about 180 degrees wide (constrained by the baffle itself), and this wide pattern will hold up for another octave or so higher before it starts to narrow appreciably. Such a speaker’s power response (summed omnidirectional response) can be smooth OR its on-axis response can be smooth, but not BOTH at the same time. And a significant discrepancy between the two is not conducive to good timbre in my opinion. Omni or quasi-omni speakers tend to generate spectrally-correct reverberant fields, but they also (by definition) send a lot of energy towards the nearby walls. So they tend to generate a lot of early reflections. Imo even spectrally-correct early-arrival energy can be detrimental to clarity, as shown by the negative effects of early reflections at "bad" seats in concert halls. This may be somewhat offset by the extra early-arrival energy becoming extra late-arrival energy after a few bounces. I believe that I am at odds with Floyd Toole here - I believe he finds early reflections to be beneficial, assuming they are spectrally correct. My source on the negative effects of early reflections in concert halls is David Griesinger, and it is my opinion that that applies to our listening rooms as well. Duke |
| Post removed |
+1 @audiokinesis Total agreement. 6 inch woofer is simply too big for the mid range. B&W and countless other speakers never sound completely natural for this very reason. To sound natural a speaker must have wide consistent dispersion across the full frequency range. I also don’t like early reflections as it collapses the sound to the vicinity of the speakers and reduces the stereo image effect |
Hi Duke I am enjoying this thread . In my room I have found the key to a rich sound is to get the bass response in the room correct . I use 4 subs in my room . I was using a set of Ohm Walsh 2000 Omni speakers for years and just changed my speakers to a pair of Klang & Ton NADA speakers from Madisound . The difference in clarity is night and day . I am able to take advantage of this speaker design as my setup is on the long wall and do not have a early reflection point on the side walls .I have a treated wall behind my listening position . Applying your gear to work in the room is the key to good sound . |
Total agreement. 6 inch woofer is simply too big for the mid range. B&W and countless other speakers never sound completely natural for this very reason. To sound natural a speaker must have wide consistent dispersion across the full frequency range. Whenever someone says something "can’t sound natural" in high end audio, I pick up my grain-of-salt shaker and empty another grain. This is because what is "natural" in audio has a subjective component - that is, given the vast majority of playback systems or speakers can not fully reproduce "natural" sound, and speaker designs involve compromise at any reasonable costs, it’s often a case of choosing the set of compromises, and focusing on what a speaker "does most right" to the individual’s ear. Speaker "A" with flat frequency response (or flat power response in room) may be capturing "natural" aspects than speaker "B," but speaker "B" may be producing greater dynamic life and hence be "more natural" in that regard. Then it depends on which aspect of "natural/believable" the individual listener tends to focus upon. There are for instance those who swear by Quad ESl 57s or panel speakers in general as leaving any box speaker shamed in the "natural" department, but when I listen to these panel speakers as much as I love what they do, I'm acutely aware of how they depart in believability from what dynamic speakers can provide. Anyway... I can’t go along with the idea that a 6 inch woofer is "simply too big" for the mid range to sound "natural." For instance, Harbeth speakers like the Monitor 30 and Super HL5 plus with their 7.8" radial drivers doing midrange duty are renowned among reviewers and listeners for their particularly natural quality. I owned the Super HL5 plus and it was stunning particularly with the human voice, in a way that few other speakers I’ve encountered could pull off. I’ve heard other speakers with larger midrange drivers sound quite "natural" in their own way. I think some folks start to get fixated on what they think is the "right way" to do something. This is good in a sense for speaker designers - most get fairly pig-headed about the path they’ve chosen and it helps focus energy and passion, so you get really good iterations of different speaker designs designed by different people who are sure "THIS is the right way to do speakers!" But the fact all sorts of speakers find different enthusiasts, and most of those enthusiasts finding something particularly believable about one design or another, indicates there are various ways to skin the cat. IMO. |
@prof wrote: "I don’t know what speaker you are describing in your last response to me. The Waveform monitor has a 5" woofer - both it and the Mach Solo measured quite well." Duke replies: I couldn’t find the diameter of the Waveform midrange driver in a quick search, so I just decided to make a generic comment. A 5" midwoofer probably has a 3.5" cone diameter, so there may still be a significant off-axis discontinuity in the crossover region because the tweeter’s pattern may be considerably wider than the mid’s. @prof: "speaker designers... get fairly pig-headed about the path they’ve chosen..." Duke replies: Grunt grunt. Oink. |
I guess all the posters think that my Kevlar 7" pair of mid-range drivers produce poor mid-range sound and don't integrate with my dome tweeter and ribbon super-tweeter. However, somehow Legacy has managed to make a superlative sounding speaker, using cheap drivers like these and a trio of cheap 12" paper cone woofers. No one who has heard my main system will argue with the results. The Legacy Focus is a great speaker, with cheap drivers in a vibrating/heavy cabinet. Harbeth's sound great too and they use thin wall construction with drivers that shouldn't integrate either. Go figure. |
@fleschler , I wouldn’t worry. Until we get a sound indistinguishable from reality or at least one that listeners cannot identify as a recording, it’s always going to be a matter of choosing the compromises you can best live with. Our imaginations can always try and do the rest. Your comments regarding best seating in the concert hall also apply to the cinema albeit to a lesser extent. Except that it’s usually the case of finding the least worst seats - usually in the middle of the middle rows. I’ve almost given up watching superhero films there unless I’m looking for a low level headache. Far more enjoyable at home, just need a bigger television. It’s funny looking back how we used watch on 21" screens. @prof yes this pleasing ’bathroom’ effect can obviously add tonal richness. It’s never seemed to matter to the music industry whether it’s seen as accurate or not. In order to make vocals sound fuller they tend to use compression and effects (eg double tracking, delay etc) rather than employ sympathetic room reverb. So I guess they, in their own way, are trying to make the sound more interesting. No one is seriously trying to make the vocals sound thinner and weaker. It’s this pleasing warmth/ timbre that is being sought. |
@prof Yes, I'm aware that I'm in a minority, though from alone. Devore's tend a little more to the "modern sound" that is shared by most recently designed speakers in the 5K and up range. I don't want to use the adjective bright, but they are doing something in the treble range that speakers with an "older sound"--e.g. Audio Note, the original Spendor S100's--don't do. To each his own, obviously, but people should be aware. |
In terms of naturalness of timbre, the AN's hit it out of the park for me. But then, they do need to be close to a front wall, and ideally close to a corner, for maximum bass reinforcement. Judging by the number of photos I see of conventional speakers jammed up against walls, this should be an advantage for a large constituency. On the other hand, I really like the sense of depth, air, perspective, from speakers positioned reasonably well away from boundaries, and despite AN's and the dealer's protestations to the contrary, I didn't feel the AN's had as much air as quality conventional speakers optimally positioned. |
Just to get a few comments on this......What would you call: the ability of a speaker to reproduce the image of ....let's say....the almost separate particles of sound, laid side by side in tight succession..... as in a bow on a bass fiddle's low string.....as opposed to a plucked electric bass string. Is this 'texture', 'timbre' or 'resonance' or something else? Hope my explanation above made sense. |
Exactly. The notes might be the same but the harmonics are totally different. That's why good speakers allow you to hear differences in guitars, violins etc. I wonder whether some people could be called harmonically deaf in the same way some are said to be colour blind? If so, this whole thread would seem pointless. The whole business about how we hear and especially interpret sound is individual to each of us. Keeping a complex subject as simple as possible by focussing on speakers alone there has been a lot of support here for those made by DeVore Fidelity. John DeVore seems to be a great example of the enthusiast made good. Sometimes I wish I had thought of going into building loudspeakers before leaving school. There are worse ways of spending your working life! |
twoleftears, Agreed. That quality of differentiating timbre as you describe it is something I really value in a speaker. I think mono recordings can really be a test of timbre differentiation in that regard, because in a mono recording, say of a jazz quartet and some singers, the instruments and voices are piled behind one another in a central location on the soundstage. Whereas in stereo sources it’s much easier to be able to pay attention to each instrument individually, because they are separated spatially in the stereo imaging. A speaker that is really great with timbre can make it much more effortless to untangle one mono instrument from another, be it two voices on top of one another, a guitar and a banjo playing simultaneously, vibes and piano, or whatever. When the timbral harmonics are coming through accurately, it’s easy to hear out one instrument/voice from another almost as if they were spatially delineated. This is one reason I’ve been really interested in Joseph Audio speakers because to my ears they do this like few other speaker brands I’ve encountered. (I also found the old Hales Transcendence speakers were great for this, and many others). Beware those who are bored easily, here comes a mini-essay concerning my further thoughts on this issue: There is, to my mind, a difference between really getting the timbral character of an instrument exact, and giving enough information to let you know what instrument you are hearing. That may seem a weird distinction but I’d explain it this way: Take the analogy of photographs. Imagine a BLACK AND WHITE photograph of 3 different string instruments: viola, violin, cello. Imagine it’s really blurry (.e.g poor resolution in the system) to the point of being hard to tell which instrument is which. As you in increase resolution, the instruments will come in to focus and you will at some point easily be able to say "that’s a viola, that’s a violin, that’s the cello." If you increase resolution even more, you may even end up seeing enough detail to discern the type of each instrument: "Ah, I can see that’s a stradivarius...or a Gotting...or whatever..." But though the increase in resolution has allowed you to make some very fine differentiations between the instruments, and even identify tell-tale signs for specific instruments...the instruments still don’t in fact look fully real and accurate. Because the photo is in BLACK AND WHITE. Adding accurate color is when the instrument takes another full step to what it looks like in real life. A similar analogy is for instance the fact we can all easily recognize differences between voices on our phones, we can know "that’s my mother on the end of the line" but the fact we have been given enough sonic information to *recognize* one person from another on the phone doesn’t entail that the voice on the phone is just how it actually sounds from the person in real life in front of you. There’s a difference between the experience of recognizing your mother’s voice on the phone and what your mother’s voice actually sounds like in real life, without the technological intervention. I suggest that many "high resolution" sound systems mimic this problem insofar as they seem like they can provide high levels of detail that differentiate instruments and voices *within the confines of the music piece being played* or within *the confines of music generally played on that system*. They can give plenty of detail in a "black and white photograph" sense to allow you to finely identify certain characteristics of singers and instruments, while still withholding the actual "color" or full timbral realism. I remember this experience really hitting me hard when, in the late 90’s or so I finally heard a massive Infinity IRS speaker system. Playing an orchestral piece, for the first time closing my eyes I had the sensation of something like a full symphony orchestra playing in front of me. Except....the "color" was missing from the picture. That is, though I could easily identify all the solo instruments or sections, timbrally speaking they seemed made of the "wrong" stuff, like plasticized/electronic/metallic versions homogenizing everything. It just missed the effortless timbral rainbows that I hear from the real thing. That really impressed upon me the problem of timbral believability, and the value any speaker would have that can increase timbral variety and believability for me. And we all bring to a system our particular personal template of how we have perceived real life sounds of voices and instruments we care about. So on this view, when I hear or read someone saying things like "the resolution of this system allowed me to differentiate between X and Y singer or instruments" that is a good sign....but it doesn’t tell me whether the instruments actually sound like the real instruments. Whether the timbrally true color is there. I used to have recordings of instruments I play, that my sons played, my wife’s voice etc, that I’d play on speakers I owned or auditioned to look for this timbrally-true quality. On many high resolution speakers I could certainly tell "yes, that’s my guitar being played." But they didn’t actually *sound* like my guitar REALLY being played in front of me, because it was the wrong timbral "color/tone." It was some other electronic confection. Only on some speakers has my guitar recording sounds not just detailed, but *as it does timbrally* when I’m playing that guitar. There’s an inherent "Yes, that’s it" sensation when this happens. It’s depressingly rare, though. |
That was an interesting essay. The black and white photo analogy will help me better explain to my wife what I mean when I say some songs just don't sound right or natural. I play a sort of instrument, a mountain dulcimer and when I play Jeanie Ritchie I can tell she is playing the dulcimer but it doesn't sound like it does when I heard her live or what mine sounds like. Most of the speakers mentioned in this thread I can never afford but it's an insightful thread. |
