I was reminded again today, as I often am, about my priorities for any speaker that I will own.
I was reminded by listening to a pair of $20,000 speakers, almost full range. They did imaging. They did dynamics.They did detail.
But I sat there unmoved.
Came home and played a number of the same tracks on a pair of speakers I currently have set up in my main system - a tiny lil’ Chihuahua-sized pair of Spendor S 3/5s.
And I was in heaven.
I just couldn’t tear myself away from listening.
Why?
Tone.
The Spendors satisfy my ears (MY ears!) in reproducing music with a gorgeous, organic tone that sounds so "right.". It’s like a tonal massage directly o my auditory system. Strings are silky and illuminated, saxes so warm and reedy, snares have that papery "pop," cymbals that brassy overtone, acoustic guitars have that just-right sparkle and warmth. Voices sound fleshy and human.
In no way do I mean to say the Spendors are objectively "correct" or that anyone else should, or would, share the opinion I had between those two speakers. I’m just saying it’s often experiences like this that re-enforce how deeply important "the right tone/timbral quality" is for me. It’s job one that any speaker has to pass. I’ll listen to music on any speaker as background. But to get me to sit down and listen...gotta have that seductive tone.
Of course that’s only one characteristic I value. Others near the top of the list is "palpability/density," texture, dynamics.
But I’d take those teeny little Spendors over those big expensive speakers every day of the week, due to my own priorities.
Which brings me to throwing out the question to others: What are YOUR priorities in a speaker, especially if you had to pick the one that makes-or-brakes your desire to own the speaker?
Do you have any modest "giant killers" that at least to your way of thinking satisfy you much more than any number of really expensive speakers?
I refer to the entire Harbeth line although I have never heard these speakers in my home. I did, I think, get a very good idea of how they sounded at shows and at a few dealers. I am sure they can sound better but the fundamental "house" is pretty hard to forget.
All Harbeths I have heard all have a tendency to homogenize material. I hate the cabinets and take issue with the designers belief in this being an effective energy dissipation method. Essentially you have a big vibrating box with a large surface area. I dont like large front baffles and I shouldnt have to explain why these are not a good thing. Feel that first order crossovers are best and am guessing a 2nd or 3rd order is used by Harbeth. I certainly dont see any attention paid to time alignment. In addition dont like ported speakers and also feel no science exists that supports this type of design other than a pleasant hump, increased efficiency and a reduction in cabinet size.
So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos" all of which coincidentally reduce the production cost that are then presented as a viable design methodology that doesnt make sense to me and also runs counter to the design philosophies from speakers that I think sound best.
I am not knocking anyone that likes this type of sound. But it is safe to say that those of you that like Harbeths hear things in a very different way than I. Who is to say which of us is correct?
I have learned through many years any speaker that sounds good will sound at least 10-20% better just by upgrading the wiring and rebuild the Xover with Good quality parts 90% of speakers even at 12kor more rarely put top quality capacitors,resistors inductors ,and yes you get what you pay for . Duelund cast capacitors way too expensive and too big unless you have a Big speaker or external Xoverand the $$. On average $1-2k in parts can get you a Exceptional Xover that will transform your speakers.for the majority use Solen or lower grade Clarity or Mundorf ,not their top stuff.I have been doing this for almost 20 years even with your electronics ,it pays big dividends sonicly. I rewired my whole system including electronics with VH Audio solid Core -OCC Teflon copper wire,and only Copper connections throughout, most companies use gold over Brass which is 4x less conductive and bright compared. it made a Huge difference in system synergy ,to complement the Xover upgrade. These are things that cost say $3k in total but better then if I spent 3-4 x that for cable markup alone in name brand cables is 4-5x at least. knowing the quality of the wire and geometry is the main thing then just taking the time to do it and save $1,000s in the process.
The term "tone" gets close to the point for me but I use the word, "coherence." Some speakers give me the feeling of presenting the music as a whole and others seem to break the music down to its component parts. I've listened to several pairs of megabuck Wilsons and they are extremely detailed but they don't sound like music to me. Same with the top model Martin Logan. On the other hand my vintage Mirage M3si's don't provide the extreme level of micro detail but I can close my eyes and imagine I have a band or orchestra in front of me. They don't call attention to themselves or certain components of the music. They fill the room with a gorgeous image of what I think the recording/mixing engineer was shooting for.
Why give up anything, just have it all? I have a DHT DAC that delivers all of these attributes in spades and a phono stage that is even better. I don't need to settle anymore.
I tout these speakers often, and for good reason, the wharfedale diamond 225's imo just do a lot of things right for a measly (on sale) price of 349! Regularly 449...they have bass, they have warmth, they have excellent midrange, and no listener fatigue. I dont care about price honestly, and do not allow it to persuade my judgement. If my ears like it then good. The 225's have to be the biggest bargain in hifi loudspeakers since the original diamonds in the early 80's. I'd recommend a listen to those who may not of thought of these.
bdp24, any loudspeaker is going to change tonality (frequency response characteristics) with different environments. A speaker that sounds right in one room may not in another. Smaller speakers with limited low frequency response are easier to integrate into a room reliably just like the LS 3/5a. It is under 100 Hz where all hell breaks loose in most normally sized domestic rooms. Coloration below 100 Hz most definitely effects the lower midrange (voices). I find coloration like this most annoying. No bass is better than bad bass. (unless you are only into theater) But, put on a record that has someone just talking for a bit. Have someone stand between your speakers reading Shakespeare. There is no mistaking the real voice. It is larger with more resonance. It is not easy making a system reproduce voice at the level where you could be fooled into thinking it was a real voice. So most of us have to compromise in some way depending mostly on what type of music we like to listen to at what volume. The biggest challenge in system set up is choosing the right speaker for the job based on the client's preferences and pocketbook. For someone who was not a bass freak in a smaller room the LS 3/5a was an easy choice. In larger rooms the Dalquist DQ-10 was another easy choice. if you want a modern speaker that sounds like an LS 3/5a on steroids listen to the Sonus Faber Venere S.
I own the spendor s3/5r2’s and I must say I agree. They just sound right. As stereophile reviewer said...these are all I need.....problem is I also own harbeth p3esr's and wharfedale 225's lol. Hard to decide which to listen to at times, but I like having the choices!😁👍
Feeling that in Popular music (non-classical), the melody and vocalist are my number one priority (I am hesitant to say that, as it may seem to minimize my love of harmony and counterpoint, as well as the chord structure of songs), the lifelike reproduction of singers and their vocals has to be my personal number one in the reproduction of recorded music.
J. Gordon Holt was a stickler for the reproduction of vocals without what he called "vowel colorations" (he single-handedly created much of the audiophile vocabulary, though Harry Pearson loved to take credit for that accomplishment) . When I read a review of a loudspeaker by JGH in the very first copy of Stereophile I received in 1972, I immediately knew what he was talking about when he used that phrase. We hear voices everyday, and if a loudspeaker (or recording) produces an un-natural tonal-timbral sound, we instantly recognize it as such. How anyone can listen to music through a "colored" loudspeaker is a mystery to me.
Music is basically a bunch of structured tones so there you go. Might explain why many people are happy listening to portable devices with speakers. They all can do structured tones in one form or another.
@prof Right on!! Too many people these days are being lured, one way or another, to opting for speakers that may be super accurate (debatable) but which aren't pleasant to listen to.
Timbral accuracy is all about getting that unique mix of overtones right, and so ensuring that a viola doesn't sound like a violin.
Tone may be a synonym, or it may be more a question of the overall tonal balance/voicing of the speaker, tilted this way or that.
In my case I agree wholeheartedly that tonality and timbre are priority number one when it comes to selecting a speaker. What can be confounding, though, is that perceived tonality and timbre are dependent on a composite of many factors. And consequently I put it a little differently in the following thread, which addressed a similar question some years ago:
The list could go on and on, but you get the idea. I’m interested to hear which attributes people prioritize above others....
My answer in that thread:
1)Harmonic accuracy.
Which in turn encompasses or is affected by many of the factors that have been mentioned (tonal balance, harmonic content, accuracy, clarity, resolution, coherence, lifting of veils, freedom from distortion, etc.). To me "harmonic accuracy" is the most significant determinant of how "real" the instruments sound. I realize that by lumping its contributing factors together I am begging the question :-)
A perfect example for me would be Harbeth. If this is what you like then
more power to you, but please dont mistake these type of designs as
accurate.
Bad example, I think. At least for certain models. The SuperHL5plus I owned was beautifully neutral-sounding. JA from Stereophile in measuring said it measured "superbly even" aside from a lively cabinet it measured "beyond reproach."
Stereonet sent it for extensive measurements and the result was what they deemed a combination of frequency extension and linearity that was to their memory "unprecedented."
Perhaps you are thinking of other Harbeth models? (Though I still find Harbeth to get tone "right" in a way that escapes many other speakers).
Anyway, not gonna say more on that as that's not the reason for this thread. Anyone can prefer what he prefers of course.
but please dont mistake these type of designs as accurate. For me a speaker should as much as possible reproduce what they are handed and this is not what speakers like Harbeths or Spendors for that matter actually accomplish.
I agree that personal preference is important, but I'm puzzled by your assertions here. Harbeths measure quite well. Subjectively, I'd say I've never heard string instruments and voice (sounds for which I have frequent live reference) as accurately reproduced as on a Harbeth. What, specifically, is inaccurate, and to which model do you refer?
Often I find that people define tone as pleasant coloration. When you examine how a speaker is made and all of the specifics of this design, you can usually predict very accurately how this speaker will sound. A perfect example for me would be Harbeth. If this is what you like then more power to you, but please dont mistake these type of designs as accurate. For me a speaker should as much as possible reproduce what they are handed and this is not what speakers like Harbeths or Spendors for that matter actually accomplish. Having said this, I far prefer these designs to examples representing the "West Coast" sound.
The LS 3/5a is a magic little loudspeaker. We listened to them in awe back in the late 70's and they were part of our ultimate apartment system. Sub woofers were just coming around then and I never got a chance to match them up with subs but I can not help to think that the results would be fantastic....in a smaller room where levels over 90 db were not required. A funny thing happens when there is a mismatch between image size and volume. Distortion levels may be fine but as volume exceeds image size the illusion of reality collapses and there is no denying that you are listening to an electronic recreation. The best way to minimize this is to get the speakers up on stands at ear level. This is why tower systems have become the norm as they sound "larger." But what they are trying to mimic is an LS 3/5a on stands! It was the speaker that started it all. Now back to everybody's favorite subject psychoacoustics. We get very use to what we have been listening to and deviations from our norm will sound wrong. Speakers can sound quite different with just small shifts in frequency response. As an example a speaker with a small dip in and around 3000 Hz will sound smoother than a speaker with a flat response in this region. This takes the sting out of sibilance. When you have the ability to alter the frequency response of a system you can discover all kinds of tricks like dropping 100 Hz 3 db takes the fatness out of some speakers giving you a seemingly tighter more detailed bass. Speakers that are flat out to 20K sound fine a low levels but as the volume increases become progressively shriller. The squint factor. So the way a speaker performs depend very much on the volume you like to listen at. Here lies the importance of tone controls. As the volume increases you lower the treble from flat. As the volume decreases you increase the bass from flat. Tonality is thus a moving target.
Having listened to different speakers in different rooms and systems, my personal conclusion is that a speaker needs to sound "right" when I hear it as a single speaker with a mono recording. The rest of the (audiophile) attributes such as imaging, soundstage, etc., generally fall into place when the pair is set up properly.
I love the Spendor tone too and cherish my old SP2/2 in my media rig. Some day, I'll pick up a pair of SP100/R2. I also love my Quad ESL57s. Not expensive, not full range but just so perfect for voice and acoustic, and jazz, and techno, actually anything you throw at them!
@prof - I love the sound from my vintage 1980 Infinity RS1.5s. They might not be as accurate as some other speakers I've owned. But! They don't give me a headache and don't give me listener fatigue. They are sealed and have the famous EMIT tweeters and Watkins dual voicecoil woofers. They have smooth highs, good midrange and extended bass for a large bookshelf speaker. No subwoofer necessary and the sealed design allows for easy placement anywhere in my room.
BTW, I paid $264 for them a few years ago. Been loving them ever since and haven't really been searching for replacements. I can afford $10K plus speakers, but prefer to spend my expendable funds on stuff like family vacations, etc. The inexpensive Infinity's keep me happy and not feeling like I need to look for new speakers.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
