@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.
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
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). |
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. |
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. |
@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. |
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. |
@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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 ? |
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 |
@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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
@ 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. |
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. |
ProAcs are getting a few mentions. I've only heard the Future One's many years ago but they did sound good to me on the end of some Marantz gear. It was at a London show and Ken Ishiwata was there. The Future One's were slightly pyramid shaped floorstanders with an open back behind the midrange unit! Some of the people with me thought they sounded fabulous, the best in show. I was in such a hurry to hear everything else that I didn't stay too long to listen to this strange looking expensive speaker from this unknown brand!! |
Ribbons and planars are very good, but take some getting used to, because of the lack of distortion that cone drivers have. They definitely sound less "loud", which I imagine comes from the improved transparency and reduced distortions. Now that I am used to them, cones drivers sound very coloured in sound. They do have a more realistic warmth, if the recording is "warm" sounding. |
Dave or Tory (or both) This post is not ridiculous, cd318 is expressing what many of us have experienced. Most speakers sound artificial regardless of what is fed to them. In my experience some speakers are capable of sounding like a human voice or acoustic instrument, some simply dont have that potential regardless of source, signal or eq. |
So many good points in this discussion. I can’t resist tossing in: for sheer melodiousness, a system I had years ago, now often available used at good prices, was Vandersteen 3A Sigs with 2wq subwoofers. Whether “rich” or “accurate” or both I don’t know, but what I do know is that that sweet sound is still coursing through my veins years and systems later. I replaced them only for reasons of limited power handling. Cheers to all. Jim Heckman |
@colin44ct357 yes the JBL C1s are very lively and amazing for the size and money. Not a final speaker (if there is such a thing!) but great fun. They use some in the community centre and you think, is all that sound really coming from them? Did sound slightly sharp but that might have been the mic setup etc. Talking of final speakers has anyone heard any of the Linkwitz speakers? If anyone could get accurate timbre out if a design, I guess Siegfried Linkwitz might. |
I have as new old wood boxes filled with under-felt AKAI SWT1, popped with a good xover and some skytronics 10's, some good mid's and silk tops. AR8 with QST/QSC drivers, the outer cm is not ribbed so it delivers some mids and the silk tops balances the setup well.Also have JBL control 1's which are not power hungry like my boston A23's.. prefer the C1's, they rock for such small speakers.One can never end when it comes to speakers...all i can say is 3 systems running from the Rotel rdd980 and rcd980 at the same time fills the home, garden and the neighbors...Law enforcement + Police often pop in for a frostie or some coffee! |
Klipschorns, with updated crossovers and other tweaks, such as horn damping and additional cabinet bracing ( and of course, 2 excellent and similar corners ), are very hard to beat, and, especially at the prices they are going for. The simple fact they have been selling longer than anything else, does say something. Admittedly, I am partial, and feel justified having my own opinion on the subject. ( BTW, I own modified Lascalas, as they are not slouches in any area ). Enjoy ! MrD. |
| Post removed |
