Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?

@invictus005
I stand corrected- I was not aware that anyone had combined a class A and class D amp in the same circuit.

What you may not know is that we have done some class D work as well and have our own patents.

@atmasphere You really should stop spreading misinformation and your lack of knowledge in a lot of these threads.

Devialet uses class A and D hybrid circuitry and have over 100 patents.

And recent examples are what I’m talking about. These circuits have surpassed anything previously designed. Old audiophiles need to get out more.

seems like you’re claiming no amplifier designer knows how to design an amp that will be just as good driving a 4 ohm load as driving an 8 ohm load. Am I correct? I don’t think you speak for all amplifier designers out there.

@dracule1
Yes, you are correct and I think you will find that any designers will admit to the same. Keep in mind though that this is not the same as saying that the X brand amp can or can't double power as impedance is halved.

I know you don't believe me; just look at the specs of any amplifier.

I believe most will disagree with you including myself. Bass grip is not the end all for an amplifier design.

Yes- in fact its not really a 'thing' at all. There really aren't any speakers that need more than a 20:1 damping factor, and most need something a bit less for optimal bass response.

Yes, all are at least partially class D. Class D has an absolute iron grip on bass response. And the above three have gotten so state of the art, that they even surpass the best analog designs. Anyone looking for amazing timbre, look at the above first.

There really isn't anything that is partially class D. It either is or it isn't. IME most class D amps fall apart in the bass until you get to recent examples made in the last few years.

invictus005, I believe most will disagree with you including myself. Bass grip is not the end all for an amplifier design. I auditioned the Devialet, and it doesn’t have the harmonic richness of most tube amps or the best solid state amps.

The best sounding amp circuits today are:

1.) Devialet ADH (Class A D Hybrid)
2.) Hypex Ncore
3.) ICE

Yes, all are at least partially class D. Class D has an absolute iron grip on bass response. And the above three have gotten so state of the art, that they even surpass the best analog designs. Anyone looking for amazing timbre, look at the above first.

Atmasphere, seems like you’re claiming no amplifier designer knows how to design an amp that will be just as good driving a 4 ohm load as driving an 8 ohm load. Am I correct? I don’t think you speak for all amplifier designers out there.

Apogee did “magically” make a 1 ohm and 4 ohm version of the Scintilla.  There are other speaker manufacturers who make different impedance versions of the same model (eg, Tekton).  

Your argument that apogee would sound better if it were higher impedance is false based on imperial evidence.  Case in point the 1 ohm Schintilla sounded better than 4 ohm Schintilla, as long as you could find an amp that could drive 1 ohm load.  

@dracule1
I think you missed my point. As far as I know, there isn't any empirical evidence, because there is no way to make a four ohm speaker magically 8 ohms or more because the design would be different.
I'm looking at this from the point of view of the amplifier, which will sound the best if its distortion is kept to a minimum, and that is done only when the amp drives a higher impedance.
The idea is to avoid the brightness and harshness which is how the ear interprets small amounts of higher ordered harmonic distortion, as well as increased intermodulation distortion. The only way to do that is to have the amp drive a higher impedance. You can't get rid of it by turning down the treble since the brightness is caused by distortion, not frequency response. You can turn down the treble and brightness is still there.

You and I are both not convinced by our rooms at RMAF and the like. We've only gotten sound I really liked at a show twice- once was in Munich, and the other was at THE Show many years ago in Las Vegas.

I hope my DeVore O/93’s are on your list of the speakers that meet your preferred characteristics.

@fsonicsmith

I like them a lot; every time I've heard them they were very convincing. They are a good example of what happens when a speaker is easier to drive.

There was rich timbre of all kinds all over the place at CAF yesterday though a lot but not all happened to cost a pretty penny.

Rich timbre is not rare. Most any well integrated system set up well can do it. Which is best? I think that may be a rhetorical question more so than anything that can be established with any certainty.

I did hear at least three systems yesterday that did rich timbe very well with speakers under a grand: Vanatoo (two years in a row), KEF, and Quad. Between KEF and Quad the Brits did quite well yesterday offering really good sound for not much cost.

Yes who are all these characters, Rich Timbre, Impedance and THD? What is their relationship with reproduced sound quality?

It's funny how so many simple things aren't really very simple at all once you start to have a closer look. 

Who is Rich Timbre? 

Your argument that apogee would sound better if it were higher impedance is false based on imperial evidence.  Case in point the 1 ohm Schintilla sounded better than 4 ohm Schintilla, as long as you could find an amp that could drive 1 ohm load.  

Sorry, but those Classic speakers driven by your amps never sound correct to me. However, I do remember your amp sounding fantastic on Mirage M1s back in the early 90’s.

@dracule1I think you might be glossing over my comments here.
All amps, tube, solid state and class D, make more distortion driving lower impedances. Its a simple physical fact- you can see it in the specs.
Its also a fact that the human ear converts distortion into tonality, and a further fact that the distortion generated by all amps into lower impedances tends to be higher ordered harmonics and increased IMD. Both are extremely audible to the human ear and contribute to harshness and brightness.
I agree that the Apogee and Magnapans are excellent speakers (and if you have enough power, work quite well with tubes). But what you may not be considering is that if these speakers were higher impedance, they would sound smoother and more detailed- in fact, more real, regardless of the amplifier employed.

If you have a 4 ohm speaker, and a solid state amp, you may have a 3 db argument for 4 ohms if sound pressure is your goal.

But if **sound quality** is your goal than your amplifier investment dollar is best served by a loudspeaker of higher impedance.

Now one problem with a speaker that is simultaneously low impedance and also low efficiency is that you need a lot of power to make it work. There really aren't many amps out there that make a lot of power while also sounding like music. It puts them at a disadvantage. Its really a Bad Idea to make any amp work hard for its living- the result is less musical.

Regarding your comments about the Classic Audio Loudspeakers (which are 16 ohms), as you already know the impedance is not what makes them sound a certain way. Some people look at them and see a horn, and don't take the speaker seriously no matter how it sounds.

In my case, I recorded an LP (Canto General) and because I recorded it, I was actually at the recording sessions :) 

I know what that LP is supposed to sound like- I was there. It makes an excellent reference for me.

The Classic Audio Loudspeakers do more of what is needed to sound like that than any other speaker I've heard, but by no means have I heard all speakers. While many speakers can make the soundstage, often the bass is missing or colored, or the highs don't sound like O'Shaughnessy Hall and so on. My choice to use the Classic Audio Loudspeaker is purely based on them providing the most neutral presentation of that reference. I have high regard for Sound Labs, and would have bought a set if I could have figured out how to make them work in my room (I've also considered Magnaplanars as many of our customers own them, but couldn't make them work in my room either).

Please pardon me for walking my talk. I'm not going to tell you something that I don't believe myself. If you feel that I should not be participating on this thread, please say so.

@atmasphere 
I generally try to ignore your posts because many times you indirectly seem to be hawking your own amps. But I have interject here in protest of your negative statement about 4 ohm speakers. I owned on of your amps in the past and very aware of their limitations. Namely, your amps don’t do well with speakers that are 4 ohms or less.  But it doesn’t mean other great amps have this limitation.  In fact, some of the greatest speakers made are 4 ohm or less and are inefficient  (Apogee and Magnepan are few examples).  Paired to proper amp, these speakers can sound unbelievably real.  Sorry, Atmasphere amps paired with Classic horn speakers always sounded colored and unreal to me despite your claims.

prof, I think you're right about the underdamping of the speaker. I recall getting a wonderfully unrestricted breathing bass from a pair of Rega bookshelves when driven by a cheap 7 watt amp.

The sheer unfettered free sound coming from those small boxes was highly compulsive listening. Rega don't give much away regarding construction but as the speakers don't feel particularly heavy I guess some form of thin wall cabinetry
(in best British style) must be involved.

I also remember that you had to turn up the volume to get them singing in this fashion. The timbre of the free flowing bass was as good as I've heard. If only the midrange had been as expressively free. 

Still, whilst not being ideal as main speakers, mainly in terms of scale, openness and bandwidth, they remain far too good for me to ever pass on.

One of my more surprising, and joyous pairings of amp and speaker actually turned out to be my MBL 121 monitors - spec'd at 4ohm/82db sensitivity, and my lil' old Eico HF-81 integrated tube amp.  A measly 14W/side.  It just sounded glorious:  rich, big, detailed, and the overall sound and bass just seemed to enlarge.  The speakers never sounded bigger and more authoritative than on that little Eico.  (Which, though out of my depth here, I presumed was likely due to some underdamping of the speaker, enrichening the bass). 

The problems with measuring THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) in loudspeakers especially seem to be legion.

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/audibility-of-distortion-at-bass/total-harmonic-disto...

Not the easiest of reads, my head still hurts, but this following extract may be especially relevant to our perception of timbre.



"One more factor that can make it more difficult to detect distortion is personal familiarity and understanding of the intended reproduction. For example, most people know what a middle C note of a piano is supposed to sound like, but how many people know what a fist fight between two robots from another world is supposed to sound like? Furthermore, the timbre of musical instruments are heavily defined by the harmonic resonances of the instrument’s fundamental, and these resonances typically occur at even order harmonics, which is considered musical since an even order harmonic is always the same note in an upper octave.

These even-ordered harmonic resonances of musical instruments can make the detection of even ordered harmonic distortions very difficult, since they are ‘tuned’ to the instrument’s fundamental. On the other hand, this fact makes odd-order harmonic distortion a bit easier to hear since the frequency of that distortion doesn’t cleanly relate to the fundamental, at least in the scale of conventional musical notation. In other words, it’s easier to detect ‘off’ components in a sound we are familiar with.

If we have no reference by which to judge the sound, we have no way to know if what we are hearing is apart of the input signal or a distortion in the output. To tie this into the previous discussion, one test showed that even trained listeners were not able to identify as much as 30% distortion peaks from material which had a dense spectra with a high amount of transients and synthesized sounds."



Hopefully, in the not too distant future the type of data revealed by tests such as CEA-2010 will start to become more readily available to any potential customers of high quality loudspeakers.

My Legacy Signature IIIs are 4 ohm and 94db efficiency but only dip a little lower.  They are very easy to drive.  I bought them when I brought along a Sherwood 7100 18 watt receiver.  Fantastic bass and dynamic as well.  I've driven them with Yamaha CR 620 35 watt receivers as well.  Tom Port of Better Records drives his Legacy Focus with the same Yamaha despite their 4 ohm impedance, 1 ohm lower bass impedance than the Signature IIIs but 96 db efficiency.  

I've noted whenever I see difficult to drive speakers like Magico, Wilson and B&W, that the bigger the better solid state amplification is needed.  I'll stick with high efficiency speakers despite lower impedances (which just means that they are often current hungry).  My favorite speakers generally have lower impedence, higher efficiency and easy to drive with smaller tube and solid state amps.   

Ralph; I hope my DeVore O/93’s are on your list of the speakers that meet your preferred characteristics. But be that as it may, I want to add that I made timbre my number one pursuit when I had my last go-round with equipment upgrades. Based on my experimentation, everything makes a difference including-"crap, not again!" cabling. I hate to bring up past beaten-to-death topics but with my ARC Ref6 and Ref 150SE, the cabling between the preamp and amp was critical. The more I invested in cable, the better timbre sounded. I settled on Cardas Clear Beyond. I know you are firmly of the opinion that a properly designed preamp and amp running true balanced obviates the need for elaborate cable, and if you wish to malign ARC as then being sub-optimally designed, I can take that criticism. The very same thing held true with speaker cable. Every speaker cable I tried sounded markedly different. I know all of this makes the average person want to shrug off an impending headache. It is easier to say that this is all a bunch of nonsense. The truth lies somewhere and whether one chooses to search for it or accept what is easy as "truth" is up to each individual.

As an amplifier designer I can tell you that many speaker designers have very little grasp on the relationship that has to exist between the amp and speaker.
If the speaker is harder to drive, the amp makes more distortion. In particular if the amp is solid state, the distortion will be mostly higher ordered harmonics to which the ear is keenly sensitive as it uses those harmonics to sense sound pressure.
So to prevent this, the speaker should be higher impedance and no weird phase angles. This pretty well precludes four ohm speakers unless they are really efficient! Why four ohms is a Bad Choice if your goal is high end state-of-the-art reproduction is a topic worthy of its own thread!

IOW distortion plays an enormous role, because our ear/brain system simply converts distortion into some form of tonality. So if you want a rich timbre, your best approach will be to obtain a speaker that is easily driven by a tube amplifier, since tube amps make less of the higher ordered harmonics, and thus are smoother. At the very least, a higher impedance loudspeaker means that a solid state amp will make less distortion, and so will sound smoother and more detailed. When 'smooth' and 'detailed' occur at the same time, that's when you are making progress.

I do not think this means any sacrifice need be made to detail and neutrality on the part of the loudspeaker! An excellent example of this sort of craft are the loudspeakers made by Duke (audiokinesis) which are easier to drive due to moderate efficiencies and higher impedances. I can name quite a few others but in a nutshell, the actual tech isn't nearly as important (so long as the designer knows what he is doing) as is the simple drive-ability of the finished loudspeaker.

Frequencies and Sound Explained #4
Harmonics and Harmonic Distortion

https://youtu.be/FzeZbJceKZE

Interesting Youtube clip on harmonics. I had to watch it a few times before it made much sense.

It seems as if all sound is composed of fundamental notes which also have harmonic counterparts occurring at higher multiples of the fundamental frequency. Its these harmonic counterparts that help identify timbre (tonal colour).

I guess some might find the narrator's findings on tube and transistor amps problematic - but the situation seems even worse when it comes to loudspeakers. It looks like no one even attempts to measure %THD (total harmonic distortion) - not even in high end designs!

While I currently have a dedicated listening room 25X20X12.5 built 25 years ago, I built it wrong with a vaulted ceiling, windows, staggered 6" studs on an 8" plate and dual 5/8" X drywall. Yes, my wife can sleep through 100db sound at night but the inside sound suffered.  My Legacy Focus speakers are 6’+ from any wall and I use 2 pairs of Hallographs for 15+ years and added 32 SR HFTs to correct for slap echo and lack of focus. No bass problem though.  Before the tweaks, my listening room sounded bright and unfocused. Now, resplendent with horn-like dynamics and smooth 35hz to ? extended highs, captivating mid-range.  It didn't hurt to add Omega E-Mats.

I am about to build in my new house, a new listening room but following the principles of first addressing bass absorption where the fundamental notes and mid/high overtones begin (and I’ll save a lot of money).
I intend to follow Dennis at Acoustic Fields recommendation of a dual shell building, ordinary on the outside but with carbon filter panels on a 12" deep interior shell, using birch plywood on the inside surface. Flat 12’ ceiling also treated. This is based on modern sound principals and not my guessing. A turnkey procedure to obtain even better sound than I have now from the start. Basically, the Cardas Golden Rule is not golden and non-parallel walls are so much more difficult to engineer probably using physics. Most audiophiles mistake using home theater, studio and orchestral hall physics and dimensions for use in dedicated 2 channel listening rooms. I don’t want to make that mistake.

Well, I do have the dedicated listening room with sound treatment on the walls and ceiling at the first reflection points and corner traps. I have sound treatment on the front wall between my DeVore 0/93's. My speakers are positioned for best sound well into the room. I do however have my equip rack up against the front wall. The prospect of long speaker cables snaking around the corner of the room from the side (I use Cardas Clear, not cheap) is just too daunting. And I have a room with parallel walls because once again, I am out there but not that out there. For those that can afford to configure a room with non-parallel walls, good for them. They are at the margins of the margins. 

Right, music has to be enjoyed in our shared living spaces. No way acoustic panels and such will ever be in our family living space/music room.  Just not going to happen. Same with speakers 7 feet off the wall behind them etc....not at all practical. However, one can still have good sounding music in that space. Today folks like a Lyngdorf offer SOTA room correction that helps a great deal. 

IMHO, Audiokinesis has added more useful insight into the attainment of true timbre than anyone else. Sure, it helps to have a "rich timbre" speaker to begin with, but despite all the evidence and professional agreement, the average audiophile refuses to work the room as advised by Jim Smith and so many others. What percentage of audiophiles have dedicated 2 channel listening rooms with no flat screen in between the speakers, room treatment on the walls and ceiling at first reflection points, and loudspeakers placed well out into the room with best sound as the only criteria? 2%? Then add having the equipment rack to the side rather than between the speakers and elimination of parallel sidewalls and you come down to what, .01%?

I also have an SME Model 10 with Clearaudio Maestro V2, a Bel Canto Dac 3.7  and a Bel Canto Ref phono stage with vbs power supply, rogue audio M 180 mono blocks and Rel sub. It sounds fantastic. 

@chrissain This was at the flagship Harman store in NYC with ML equipment, so if they can't set it up to sound nothing short of spectacular, that's on them. Mark Levinson stuff is okay, it used to be better. Levinson is hiding out in Europe, trying to evade taxes these days.

I hope you realize that I was messing with you a bit in some of my responses, I would never want anyone to listen to or own equipment they don't emotionally connect to. Everyone hears differently and has different preferences. That's what makes this so much fun and that's why we have so many options.

I just get irked when people put so much faith in Harman's testing/listening room, which was created by their marketing department. 

As for other speakers... If we're still talking about Samsung speakers, then I would pick JBL Synthesis any day over Revels.

I personally own speakers from Devialet, B&W, and Goldmund. And electronics from Devialet, SME, and Micromega.

I know that with everything, details matter. A neutral low distortion speaker can sound amazing or awful,  depending on set up in the room and the gear behind it. I can't tell you how many times I have seen audiophiles try to spend their way out of a problem that can't be fixed just because of the room, or they are too lazy to experiment with speaker placement and the like. 

Do you think it has to do with what they are being partnered with when you addition them? I don't really care for the levinson house sound and that is what they usually are paired with at shows. I will tell you most of of my friends that don't have FU money I know and are in this hobby have one thing in common, revels. And they can make them sound spectacular, and by that that I mean engaging and down right fun to listen to. I used to sell hi end gear at the two best stores in Minneapolis. I have had extensive experience listening to some of the most esoteric the industry offered, too many to list,  and most of the time they only disappointed me. Revel on the other had has constantly surprised me with their performance verse their price. They used to be made in California and wish they still were, and that's my only nicpic. As for sound I personally haven't heard a speaker that sounds more real for the price. Serious question, what do you like better?  

@chrissain I find that they do everything well, or at least okay, but nothing exceptional. It’s almost as if they’re more interested in checking off all of the boxes. It’s safe. It’s the worst kind of product.

They lack the crazy visionary. The Steve Jobs. The Elon Musk.

Sound is not just science. It’s also art. My ears want to be inspired. I need that ASMR. But after a few minutes of listening, I rather go on a bike ride, or something.

I heard the entire Be line at the NYC store.

Where did you hear the F228 Be? If you don't like their house sound sound why have you listened to "every speaker they have made since the early 2000s"  ? 

revel is its own company who's parent company is Harmon, not to difficult to understand, and so what? And the don't rig their  tests lol, what in the hell would be the point in that? Why even spend the money on blind tests and a moving double blind floor? Yes Tool can be just that sometimes, but he has also published more papers on speaker design than any other living person, so I would trust what he has to say over yours any day. So fine, for whatever reason you don't like the company, what is it you don't like about the sound since you obviously have extensive  experience listening to them?   

Revel has their own factories dude, everything is built in house. Cabinets are made in Indonesia. Revel has Floyd tool and Kevin Vocks, arguably the best speaker designers on the planet, who have an embarrassment    of resources availible to them for speaker design, resources that most other speaker manufactures could only dream of. That’s why their new 10k speaker sounds better than most regardless of cost, and puts much more expensive speakers to shame. It’s called science, sorry if they are not esoteric or expensive enough for you. If you actually knew the company well you would know all about how much emphasis they put on truth of Timbre and how to achieve it.   

@chrissain So who builds them? IKEA?

I’ve heard every speaker they made since the early 2000s. 

Invicus005 with comment I will bet money you have never heard them since you clearly don't know what you are talking about, Revel makes one of the best performing best engineered speaker on the planet regardless of cost. And they are not built by Samsung lol.  

@invictus005, I agree that ’The market is filled with anemic audiophile speakers. And they sound edgy and boring and unengaging’. This can also apply to some very expensive designs too.

Also, "This is why audiophiles seek out speakers that have larger cones, or cones made out of paper, or more resonant real wood enclosures". How could I not agree, having owned Tannoys for the last 10 years?

However, I would go further and say  that for a loudspeaker to reproduce timbre accurately, (ie not lose it via the cone materials / crossover issues or smother it under cabinet resonance ’mush’), it must have excellent handling of harmonics.

The fact that a speaker usually needs two or more drivers separated by a crossover to cover the audio band can only make the task of reproducing timbre accurately incredibly difficult, especially when considering things happening on a harmonic level.

It's not necessarily the midbass that produces rich timbre and warmth. It's the 200Hz-250Hz range. Reduce energy there by making it flatter and or dipped and the speakers will sound like absolute trash. The market is filled with anemic audiophile speakers. And they sound edgy and boring and unengaging. 

This is why audiophiles seek out speakers that have larger cones, or cones made out of paper, or more resonant real wood enclosures. Larger cones also help reduce some energy in the 3kHz range giving a bit of that good old BBC dip. 

I would personally stay away from Samsung built Revel line. 

Well I don't know what is in the water at Revel but the new 228be has aluminum/ceramic drivers and they are resolving and musical,  and they have ported bass and it is very articulate with zero port noise or hump. Very impressive. 

I agree with helomech.  Paper & pulp cones may breakup smoothly relative to rigid/metal cones.  I didn't know that paper & pulp cones had a limited bandwith.  Many full range and coincident cone speakers use paper & pulp cones.

pulp and paper cones are outstanding - beautifully damped, stiff and light weight. They must not be driven in to breakup - so the operating bandwidth is less than more rigid cones.

Hmm... I think you’ve got that backwards. It’s extremely rigid/metal cones you don’t want operating near their breakup as they tend to be rather brash about it. I can’t off the top of my head think of any manufacturers that crossover metal midwoofers into the 3kHz^ band, however, many do it with paper and plastic cones.

It’s refreshing when a designer appears to have similar goals to your own.

So then what about Zu? Sean Casey seems to often mention the importance of tone and harmonics in his designs.

@cd318 Ah, my bad. Rich Timbre is very well known to Harbeth, Daedalus, Quad ESL 57, Apogee (if set up right), Divore Fidelity, Hyperion (now almost if not defunct), etc.  Not as elusive as you thought.

Older Sonus faber.  Vienna acoustics