Speakers for aging audiophiles - What's with today bass emphasis ?


I'd love to pick your brains on a issue and possibly a suggestion
My system has 2 sources, a Logitech transporter and Thorens 126 MKIII / SME / Supex.  Ampli recently changed to a Musical Fidelity M6si. My listening is 80% streaming and 20% vinyl. It's mostly classic and prog rock but also acoustic jazz and classic chamber music.
I have an issue with my current speakers setup: Dynaudio BM6 passive.
I have been using those for some months now and find that while they are satisfying in terms of scene, detail, resolution they are exceedingly strong in the bass (say 50 to 200 Hz) and not adequately balanced in the middle / treble, say from 1k Hz up. It seems as though the bass player stand in front with a big amplifier and everyone else is back in the stage.
I have changed the amplifier to the Musical Fidelity but while I am happy with that I did not see much change in respect to the issue I am describing.

I relate this issue to 2 causes:

1. Today's recordings emphasizes the bass unrealistically. Let me just give you an example. I recently bought Steve Wilson remix of Marillion "Misplaced Childhood". Great work. The mix is shining but compared to the old vinyl I have got you get this feeling of too much bass. Bass quality is great, well defined, solid, no complain but just too much of a good thing.

2. I am ageing, over 60 now. It is well know that as you age your sensitivity to the high frequencies falls down

Given those factors I'd like to change speakers to get something that:
- Is very open on the highs
- It's very analytical
- Does not over emphasize basses
- Bookshelf
- Ballpark cost 2 - 2.5 K

Can anyone make suggestions ? I was inclined to the Harbeths M30 but read several blogs where they say they do emphasize the bass. Maybe Dynaudio Special or Focus  ? How about Totem Sky ?

I don't mind spending a few more bucks to get what I want / need.

Thanks a lot everyone.

Mark.
marklings

Showing 4 responses by vtvmtodvm

marklings—Yes, you're likely correct about digital popular music mixes being more bass heavy than when intended for vinyl media, but that's for good reason. LP discs are the product of a 1948 compromise that traded fidelity for the means to fit 25 minutes/side onto a 12 inch record. Bass response was sacrificed to reduce groove excursion, and treble was boosted to mask surface noise. Complementary equalization is introduced during playback, but analog LPs still measure poorly when compared to standard “Red Book” CD media. CDs convey a dynamic range > 30 dB better than vinyl, with much flatter frequency response, far less harmonic distortion, and near-noiseless playback, so the bass will certainly be more apparent.

And, as noted, sealed speakers will provide a smoother and more natural bass falloff than ported reflex speakers, but they won't extend as deeply. That's why I prefer to use fully sealed mini-monitor main speakers with dual self-powered subwoofers for the low bass, with the main-to-bass crossover functions managed by an active electronic crossover control unit, e.g. Marchand XM66. This makes it convenient to set/reset a desired mains-to-subwoofer acoustic ratio from a single, central location; no need to crawl out to each individual subwoofer.


cleeds—Hey, let's be fair, as well as merely accurate…

The cited CD hi-frequency "trade-off" actually involves frequencies > 20kHz.

Those "CD counterparts" that you reference are all pop market CDs that have been intentionally “hyper-comped”—meaning they’re mastered with gross dynamic range compression—to assure that they’ll peak the level meters (sound loud) when given airplay. This odious digital distortion will cause this freak CD to sound inferior when compared to its vinyl equivalent. Analog discs can’t be artificially despoiled to this same extent, so it's the CD that gets intentionally compromised.

And I didn't say that "…sealed speakers don't reproduce LF as well as ported." I said that "sealed speakers provide a smoother and more natural bass falloff."

jimman2—Oh boy! I don't think that I've actually heard 20kHz (10kHz? 8kHz?) in more than 50 years! And probably more!

My comment about 20kHz was not related to its significance, but rather to the technical fact that 20kHz is the frequency beyond which Philips and Sony compromised CD high frequency response against cost. It's "baked in" to the "Red Book" CD specifications. (Refer cleeds' comment about that compromise.) I consider flat response to 20kHz to be more than sufficient, but some (perhaps many) audiophiles definitely do not. They want digital files far in excess of the "Red Book" CD standard.

I agree with you concerning speakers. You can design good or bad speakers regardless of whether sealed or ported. But my sweeping generality is applicable: Sealed speakers will provide a smoother and more natural bass falloff than ported reflex speakers, but ported speakers will extend deeper (go lower in frequency) than the equivalent sealed enclosure speaker. The key here is "equivalent". This is just a basic "given" in the course of speaker design compromise.
jimman2—Here is some good background FYI: https://www.kirkville.com/music-not-sound-why-high-resolution-music-is-a-marketing-ploy/

There are a great many audiophiles today who do not believe that basic "Red Book" (CD) 16 bit/44kHz digital sampling is sufficient. They want 24 bit/96kHz sampling or higher. (This latter technology was not economically viable in 1981-82, when Sony & Philips created the CD format.) Personally, I feel that there's zero audible benefit in going beyond 16/44 as delivered to the final listener, but then I don't subscribe to lots of other audiophile esoterica either. I like measurements.