I use to own the Dunlavy SC-II among many others and agree with Plato that there are many of ways to skin a cat. That's why I enjoy listening to my recently acquired Spendor S8e loudspeakers which are not time/phase coherent but they do the tone/timbre and texture thing quite well!*>)
Is harmonic accuracy and timbre important at all?
Disclaimer: I am not Richard Hardesty in disguise. But I have reached similar ground after many years of listening and equipment swapping and upgrading and would enjoy discourse from a position that is simply not discussed enough here.
I feel a strong need to get on a soap box here, albeit friendly, and I don't mind a rigorous discussion on this topic. My hope is that, increasingly, manufacturers will take notice of this important aspect of music reproduction. I also know that it takes time, talent, money and dedication to accomplish accuracy of timbre in speaker design and that "shamanism" and "snake oil," along with major bux spent on fine cabinetry that may do little to improve the sound, exists everywhere in this industry.
I fully acknowledge that Dunlavy and Meadowlark, a least for now, are gone, and that only Vandersteen and Thiel survive amidst a sea of harmonically inaccurate, and frequently far more expensive, speakers.
Can you help me understand why anyone would want to hear timbre and harmonic content that is anything but as accurate as possible upon transducing the signal fed by the partnering amplifier? It seems to me if you skew the sonic results in any direction away from the goal of timbral accuracy, then you add, or even subtract, any number of poorly understood and potentially chaotic independent and uncontrollable variables to listening enjoyment.
I mean, why would you want to hear only some of the harmonic content of a clarinet or any other instrument that is contained on the recording? Why would you not want the speaker, which we all agree is the critical motor that conveys the musical content at the final stage of music reproduction, to provide you with as much as possible by minimizing harmonic conent loss due to phase errors, intentionally imparted by the speaker designer?
Why anyone would choose a speaker that does this intentionally, by design, and that is the key issue here, is something I simply cannot fathom, unless most simply do not understand what they're missing.
By intentional, I mean inverting the midrange or other drivers in phase in an ill-fated attempt to counter the deleterious effects that inexpensive, high-order crossovers impart upon the harmonic content of timbre. This simply removes harmonic content. None of these manufacurers has ever had the cojones to say that Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen or John Dunlavy were wrong about this fundamental design goal. And none of them ever tries to counter the fact that they intentionally manufacture speakers they know, by their own hand, are sonically inaccurate, while all the all the same in many cases charging unsuspecting so-called audiophiles outlandish summs of money.
Also, the use of multiple drivers assigned identical function which has clearly been shown to smear phase and creates lobing, destroying essentially the point source nature of instruments played in space that give spatial, time and phasing so important to timbre rendering.
I truly belive that as we all get better at listening and enjoying all the music there is on recordings, both digital and analog, of both good and bad recording quality, these things become ever more important. If you learn to hear them, they certainly do matter. But to be fair, this also requires spending time with speakers that, by design, demonstrably present as much harmonic phase accuracy that timbre is built upon, at the current level of the state of the art.
Why would anyone want a speaker to alter that signal coming from the amp by removing some harmonics while retaining or even augmenting others?
And just why in heck does JMLab, Wilson, Pipedreams and many others have to charge such large $um$ at the top of their product lines (cabinetry with Ferrari paint jobs?) to not even care to address nor even attempt to achieve this? So, in the end I have to conclude that extremely expensive, inaccurate timbre is preferred by some hobbyists called audiophiles? I find that simply fascinating. Perhaps the process of accurate timbre appreciation is just a matter of time...but in the end, more will find, as I did, that it does matter.
I feel a strong need to get on a soap box here, albeit friendly, and I don't mind a rigorous discussion on this topic. My hope is that, increasingly, manufacturers will take notice of this important aspect of music reproduction. I also know that it takes time, talent, money and dedication to accomplish accuracy of timbre in speaker design and that "shamanism" and "snake oil," along with major bux spent on fine cabinetry that may do little to improve the sound, exists everywhere in this industry.
I fully acknowledge that Dunlavy and Meadowlark, a least for now, are gone, and that only Vandersteen and Thiel survive amidst a sea of harmonically inaccurate, and frequently far more expensive, speakers.
Can you help me understand why anyone would want to hear timbre and harmonic content that is anything but as accurate as possible upon transducing the signal fed by the partnering amplifier? It seems to me if you skew the sonic results in any direction away from the goal of timbral accuracy, then you add, or even subtract, any number of poorly understood and potentially chaotic independent and uncontrollable variables to listening enjoyment.
I mean, why would you want to hear only some of the harmonic content of a clarinet or any other instrument that is contained on the recording? Why would you not want the speaker, which we all agree is the critical motor that conveys the musical content at the final stage of music reproduction, to provide you with as much as possible by minimizing harmonic conent loss due to phase errors, intentionally imparted by the speaker designer?
Why anyone would choose a speaker that does this intentionally, by design, and that is the key issue here, is something I simply cannot fathom, unless most simply do not understand what they're missing.
By intentional, I mean inverting the midrange or other drivers in phase in an ill-fated attempt to counter the deleterious effects that inexpensive, high-order crossovers impart upon the harmonic content of timbre. This simply removes harmonic content. None of these manufacurers has ever had the cojones to say that Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen or John Dunlavy were wrong about this fundamental design goal. And none of them ever tries to counter the fact that they intentionally manufacture speakers they know, by their own hand, are sonically inaccurate, while all the all the same in many cases charging unsuspecting so-called audiophiles outlandish summs of money.
Also, the use of multiple drivers assigned identical function which has clearly been shown to smear phase and creates lobing, destroying essentially the point source nature of instruments played in space that give spatial, time and phasing so important to timbre rendering.
I truly belive that as we all get better at listening and enjoying all the music there is on recordings, both digital and analog, of both good and bad recording quality, these things become ever more important. If you learn to hear them, they certainly do matter. But to be fair, this also requires spending time with speakers that, by design, demonstrably present as much harmonic phase accuracy that timbre is built upon, at the current level of the state of the art.
Why would anyone want a speaker to alter that signal coming from the amp by removing some harmonics while retaining or even augmenting others?
And just why in heck does JMLab, Wilson, Pipedreams and many others have to charge such large $um$ at the top of their product lines (cabinetry with Ferrari paint jobs?) to not even care to address nor even attempt to achieve this? So, in the end I have to conclude that extremely expensive, inaccurate timbre is preferred by some hobbyists called audiophiles? I find that simply fascinating. Perhaps the process of accurate timbre appreciation is just a matter of time...but in the end, more will find, as I did, that it does matter.
59 responses Add your response
How come no one has anything to say about almost all recording studios using "incorrect" speakers to mix albums? I would think this would make most recordings inherently incorrect, making correct speakers moot, wouldn't it? Isn't this also a problem with live music that isn't acoustic? Most live venues don't use "correct" speakers. Songwriter mentions "live sound direct from an instrument to our ears" but leaves out that much of that music is run through incorrect speakers in very large speaker arrays at large venues such as Madison Square Garden, or Giants Stadium, etc, which use incorrect speakers. Most live music is incorrect unless it is acoustic. I don't understand why no one is addressing these issues. Don't we tolerate incorrect speakers all the time if you take these issues into consideration, or am I missing something? In particular B&W is used in some of the most popular and widely used recording studios around the world, and aren't those time-coherent instead of time-coincident? I'm hoping someone will address what effects these issues have, so I can understand why they aren't significant. If all most all albums we listen to are time coherent but not time coincident, then why would it matter if we play these albums back on 100% "correct" speakers as opposed to fairly "incorrect" speakers. Please have some pity on me with the vocabulary, I do not have a lot of experience with all the terminology being used. I do not know a large amount of terminology but I am very interested in understanding the significance of this thread and all the issues therein. Thank you, Jeff |
Great post songwriter! "I suggest that anyone owning a pair of well designed time/phase coherent speakers for 6 months would never be able to go back to what most manufacturers claim as "hi end" again. I have been listening to Green Mountain Audio speakers for the last 3 years and I can now hear the crossover in every non time/phase coherent speaker I hear." Glad I'm not the only one that notices this. I even hear it in 1st orders that aren't time/phase coherent. Tarsando Here's an article on the subject. You may become tired of reading it also. Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers . Plato does make good points. There are certainly no perfect speakers. You pick your poison and live with it. I just hope designers don't get too far away from the time aligned and phase correct approaches. With more and more people listening to compressed crap on Ipods. It looks dismal for the guys designing speakers without the hyped treble and pronounced midbass humps.. |
Steve, good post. The answer to your question is simple: Most speaker designers don't know the physics behind designing a time/phase accurate speaker. It's much easier to claim that it's not audable. I suggest that anyone owning a pair of well designed time/phase coherent speakers for 6 months would never be able to go back to what most manufacturers claim as "hi end" again. I have been listening to Green Mountain Audio speakers for the last 3 years and I can now hear the crossover in every non time/phase coherent speaker I hear. Live sound direct from an instrument to our ears does not have delay that changes with frequency superimposed on its original response. It is an artifact of speaker physics. We would not tolerate such phase smear in our consoles, mixing boards, amplifiers, pre-amps or any other piece of gear. As speaker technology improves, the remaining clues that we are listening to speakers, such as distortion, horn signature and other artifacts, are reduced. Phase delay is a subtle but critical clue to our ears, and its reduction puts us closer to the real thing. All other things being equal, the speaker with the flattest phase response sounds the closest to being there live. Every time. To claim that our rooms cause problems therefore we should accept phase shifts on the order of one full cycle from our loudspeakers does nothing but fuel the fire for the designers that lack the knowledge to build a time/phase coherent product. |
I agree with Plato that harmonic and timbral accuracy are not all there is to compelling music reproduction. I'm sure they are the most important aspects for many people, myself included, but not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that. My Harbeths do not share the design approaches of Vandersteen and Thiel. They image less well than those speaker lines, but in many ways seem to be more true to the sound of instruments. Which brand is more correct? |
If professional sound/recording studios use incorrect speakers to mix the albums they produce (which must be the case since they aren't using the speakers you listed, at least none of the really famous studios I know of), then what does it matter at all how correct your personal home audio speakers are? Anything you listen to was recorded in the studio to sound correct on the so called incorrect speakers. I personally agree with Plato's points. You get rid of one fault for another when you strive for total perfection in one or two areas of speaker design, and total perfection isn't possible, which is probably why these perfect speaker companies aren't cornering the market and in a lot of cases have gone stagnant. An acquaintance of mine was saying their teacher told them about an experiment someone did where they tried to make the perfectly "correct" system you are striving for. The teacher said it might have been correct, but it sounded so boring no one wanted to listen to it. I don't know if this was a real experiment or if his teacher was trying to make a point about the nature of sound, but I am interested in any one's opinion why his teacher said this or why this might be true. |
I got tired of reading your post the second time through but I couldn't figure out what you were saying the first time through. Is it: speaker builders intentionally invert the phase of midrange drivers? And are you saying that Vandersteen and Thiel do this or do not do this? Wilson does or does not? Thanks for the clarification. |
The Vandersteens and Theils may be harmonically accurate, but may also lack speed, dynamics, transient capability, and other qualities that are important to many audiophiles. Also, once you put any loudspeaker into a room and connect it to a bunch of random components, it could be the most accurate speaker in the world, but it sure won't measure or sound that way. I think that is when some of the other performance parameters become important. I find it interesting that many audiophiles claim they strive for accuracy, yet their room acoustics (and lack of addressing serious room problems) may never allow sound that is anywhere near accurate. I mean, would you buy any amp that measured within plus or minus 6 to 10 dBs from 30Hz to 15kHz? That's what many folks are listening to. Plus, everyone has a different idea of what sounds "correct" and accurate to themselves on an individual basis... |
I too have wondered the same thing. It has taken time and listening to understand why it is important. FWIW I agree with you competely. I do feel you may have opened Pandoras box. I also suggest a good flame retardant suit as things may get a little hot around here. :-) Some confuse accuracy with dry and lifeless. It is all a perception of what one believes harmonic and timbre accuracy is. I look forward to Agoner's comments on the subject. |
