Which speakers did you find bright, fatiguing or just disappointing in some way?


OK, controversial subject but it needs asked. I'm curious for your experiences, mainly in your home, not a dealer and esp. not a show demo
greg7

Showing 14 responses by mahgister


Mahgister, have you tried dsp?




Digital signal processing ....No....

Dsp is not acoustic treament and not purely acoustical controls...

It is not designed to replace mechanical (vibrations and resonance) controls...

It is not designed to lower the floor noise of the house grid...

It can help....

I dont need it ....

And remember that my goal is peanuts cost Higher S.Q.

I succeed to a great extent then i dont need nor want to invest money in DSP...

But i will try a free program this summer to adjust my speakers and room with a mic to finetune my results...

My system is more than good now at 2 listening different positions....I trashed so to speak  my 7 pairs of headphones.... Then... I think that my room/speakers are good now... 😊
For those that say that the Focal’s are bright are just not setting them up properly and getting the most out of them.
And, that may be true for all speakers.
For sure you are right no very well known designer of speakers at this price point is stupid...

Most people ignore totally that right out of the box in their room, no speakers at any price can work at their optimal and wished level of S.Q.

They ignore what i was ignoring totally myself before i discovered it by simple experiments in the last 2 years: Any audio system parts and the system itself must be rightfully mechanically and electrically and acoustically embedded...Reviewers sells gear they dont explain HOW to use it at all... Most of the times they ignore it themselves and it is easy to spot when you know....

No upgrade can replace these triple embeddings controls, only hide their fundamental impact behind apparent secondaries "upgrade" in S.Q.

Sorry for those who think they know some  speakers  because they have bought it....Or because it is mainly an firstly a matter of their  "taste"....Embeddings controls has nothing to do with "taste" and "upgrade" either to begin with.... "Taste" play his part at the end and at the last moment when all controls are in place, then someone can speak about "taste" for some speakers and less "taste" for another but  only IF the 2 branded names compared are rightfully embedded....Not before....
I’m inclined to agree. My modest music centre did sound pretty good in our old house. My current system is supposedly vastly superior but not as satisfying.




I will repeat myself but if someone has not lived through a complete transformation of an audio system, without any upgrade of gear, reaching a higher new scale of S.Q. with acoustic treatment and controls ( non electronic one in my case) it is UNIMAGINABLE...

And most people has never experienced it , and if so on an uncomplete and small scale...

My luck is i own a room only for my audio experiments, nothing else, then i lived throught this astounding metamorphosis of a frustrating low cost system to a new one so good that even any system at any price will not urge me to upgrade.... My system is by no means the best there is, but is embedded the best i could during my last 2 years experiments...

If the vibraphone and the piano or the orchestra are in the room with natural timbre perception in 2 listening positions the goal is achieved...

Nobody can exagerate the impact of acoustic, everyone is engaged in the valuation impact of electronic design of amplifier or dac they just bought.... This is consumerism blind to the necessary measures and works linked to the controls of the 3 working dimensions of any audio system....Valorizing mainly electronic design  is an half truth that hide the audio journey precious goal: everybody with a modest system but a good one can enjoy true hi-fi experience modulo the rightful embeddings controls...

My saying is not very popular among those who boast with 200,000 bucks system for sure, especially when they never  have put a great effort in their acoustic management... 😁

But acoustic is more around  80 % of the S.Q. than around 50 %, of the potential which a system can deliver.... i increase my percentage in the last 2 months because of my new Helmholtz room tuner and bottles flabbergasting  impact ... 😊
It is incredibly difficult to find speakers that don’t at least annoy much, in one way or another.
I dont think that my Mission Cyrus are so good and better than the best names people named here...No way... They are good but cannot beat most highly designed speakers... My ols Tannoy were better for example... But why the Mission are so amazing now ?

They had no defect on any count to my ears.... Is it their miraculous design that produce miracles?

Not at all, it is the passive treatment and active controls of my small room...

Save for little cheap box, and some exceptional badly designed speakers, it is the ROOM who kill or ressuscitate speakers...I repeat that because if someone never experience it by himself it is incredible and UNIMAGINABLE...

Some use very,very costly, gear and their sound is bad, fatguing and the timbre unnatural why?

Who really think that a 100,000 bucks speakers are bad? No way, designers at this level are not stupid....


It is the ROOM.....


No speaker can exceed his room, any controlled room can exceed any part of the audio system in potential S.Q.




Focal Sopra 2.



It is not the speakers that lack bass it is probably the room acoustic..... With my 7 inches driver i listen cello with my stomach.... Thanks to my room controls.... If not i would have been here complaining about my Mission Cyrus lack of bass...... Is it possible that a company that sell 19,000 bucks speakers sell them completely lacking the Tuba bass note which is in the bass driver specification description anyway?

I dont doubt your impression and review, but speakers always need controlled acoustic of the room, some speakers especially so.....




 I honestly think one can make almost any speaker work well in his room with proper set up, system matching and acoustic treatments. If I was disappointed in the performance of several reputable speakers in my room, I might well blame the room instead of the speakers.
I am glad to be not the only one with this opinion....

My best to you.... 
Wow I can’t believe the negative crap I hear. Most of the speakers that were mentioned are pretty darn good.
Most people dont know and dont understand that it is the acoustic that create the Sound quality on par and sometimes more than the electronic design....

Very few people has lived a complete transformation of S.Q. coming from speakers embedded in a rightful way in the right acoustical setting....

Simple.... They " magically" attribute sound to the speakers.... 😁

Saying that  speakers X is "bright" make no sense most of the times save for very few small bad designed box....

They would better think about the huge impact of the  acoustical setting of the room, the vibrations affecting their speakers and the noise floor of the house electrical grid....
Designed huh? Ooookay. Human speech is relatively new in our evolution but obviously important but just one aspect of survival of the species as it relates to hearing. W.r.t.. "tone" and emotion most mammals can detect that independent of other information context. It’s not uniquely human.
"Designed" because language ALWAYS present an"irreducible complexity"on 2 levels...

Human language are not reducible to signaling system, human language exist on 2 levels of reality: " real" and "imaginary" in the sense of the complex numbers and these 2 levels are always actual...In signaling system one level is only potential the other actual...
When i signal to another animal to go there, i must point the place.... and add a sound...
In human language the place continue" to exist" before the pointing and before the sound in the collective memory with the words representing it....It is a mutation of the brain that make human able to transport and convey this another Imaginary reality permanently...
Also there is the "poetical" level and the "prosaic" level but i cannot explain it here it will be too long... Suffice to say that language exist on 2 levels at the same time, the brain processing the 2 one into the other at the same time...




Also music and language begun together and comes from one another....speech and music are Body act not only mouth act...Language here also work on 2 levels simultaneously: the body and the mouth apparatus...Studies in the genesis of oral tradition demonstrated this fact long ago....

«Timbre is, beyond question, the primary parameter that allows us to discriminate between different vowels, but vowels also have intrinsic pitch, intensity, and duration. There are striking correspondences between the number of vowels and the number of pitches in musical scales across cultures: an upper limit of roughly 12 elements, a lower limit of 2, and a frequency peak at 5–7 elements. Moreover, there is evidence for correspondences between vowels and scales even in specific cultures, e.g., cultures with three vowels tend to have tritonic scales. We report a match between vowel pitch and musical pitch in meaningless syllables of Alpine yodelers, and highlight the relevance of vocal timbre in the music of many non-Western cultures, in which vocal timbre/vowel timbre and musical melody are often intertwined. Studies showing the pivotal role of vowels and their musical qualities in the ontogeny of language and in infant directed speech, will be used as further arguments supporting the hypothesis that music and speech evolved from a common prosodic precursor, where the vowels exhibited both pitch and timbre variations.»

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01581/full



The recognition of human sound timbre and speech is more immediate and more faster than any other prepared or artificial sounds....Survival of human group ask for that...


«Human listeners seem to have an impressive ability to recognize a wide variety of natural sounds. However, there is surprisingly little quantitative evidence to characterize this fundamental ability. Here the speed and accuracy of musical-sound recognition were measured psychophysically with a rich but acoustically balanced stimulus set. The set comprised recordings of notes from musical instruments and sung vowels. In a first experiment, reaction times were collected for three target categories: voice, percussion, and strings. In a go/no-go task, listeners reacted as quickly as possible to members of a target category while withholding responses to distractors (a diverse set of musical instruments). Results showed near-perfect accuracy and fast reaction times, particularly for voices. In a second experiment, voices were recognized among strings and vice-versa. Again, reaction times to voices were faster. In a third experiment, auditory chimeras were created to retain only spectral or temporal features of the voice. Chimeras were recognized accurately, but not as quickly as natural voices. Altogether, the data suggest rapid and accurate neural mechanisms for musical-sound recognition based on selectivity to complex spectro-temporal signatures of sound sources.»


https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.3701865




Then language designed on these 2 levels are uniquely for highly evoluated mammals like human or dolphins probably  or other similar bio type in the cosmos ......It is an irreducible complexity working/processing phenomenon, a new stasis in the history of evolution.... Denying that is making appeal to an old static genetic innate paradigm like the Chomskyan one....The genetic code is no more perceived like in the sixties and seventies of the last century....

I found all speakers tiresome until I put more effort into the acoustics of my room.
 Report this
Well said and better said than my own posts....

My best to you....
Is it not fair to say that, apart from the chest thumping bass that some speakers are able to deliver, that headphones generally do everything better?
You know that your audio system is very good when the "timbre" of instrument sound natural and like me when your 7 pairs of headphones, 2 Stax, 1 hybrid, 2 dynamic, 1 magneplanar, did not give you any pleasure anymore because they are inferior to your working speakers...I listened mainly to headphones many years and bought all these headphones because i was not pleased by my speakers to begin with...

Why the same speakers please me so much now?

My audio system cost is 500 bucks, BUT is NOW rightfully embedded mechanically, electrically and especially acoustically...

I read that often, that headphone are better, more detailed; it is not true; in my nearfield listening my speakers beat or are on par with my Stax for details...In regular listening position they trash dynamically and with more timbre naturalness all my headphones with almost the same details....My headphones are retired now for many months definitively....I will never use them again....

😊


OK apart from electrostatics, which loudspeakers sound most like headphones?
Any relatively good speakers well embeddded in the 3 working dimensions will beat most headphone for realism, naturalness and will be on par with details...

Save for insanely costly headphone like Raal Sr1 for example....


I answered your post precisely because i read that all over the place 8 years ago, that headphones are most of the times better, and i believed it because i never experienced well embedded speakers before... And i owned dual concentric Tannoy (better than my actual Mission Cyrus that are good) at this time but badly embeddded... Then i go in rush to buy one headphone after the other ....

Till the day i learned how to embed my audio system.... I trash my headphones after....😁

That is my story....

P.S. i sold my 2 pairs of Tannoy speakers because i believed this false opinion, i regret it to this day because the Tannoy are better than even my Mission Cyrus...The Mission well embedded make me trash all headphones...I never listen to my Tannoy at all well embeddded alas!... It is a pity....

You can understand now  why this saying about headphones make me to react....

Can you revise the question to be "Which did not..."?
Much shorter list.
Why is this so?

A clue:

What ALL speakers that sound too bright had in common? 

Very interesting, and reminds me of this interesting quote from Alan Shaw, designer of Harbeth speakers:

The core issue is this. Forget music entirely. Imagine that it never existed, had never been invented. Play well recorded human speech on those so-called high end speakers and the vast majority - practically all of them - have colorations, peculiarities, weird subjective characteristics that are in many cases simply laughable.

So then, why will you never find a hifi reviewer who even attempts to grade loudspeakers by listening to human speech over them? Absurd and pathetic, considering that we are surrounded by speech - not music - all day and every day, and unsurprisingly, our ear/brain is finely tuned to interpreting extremely subtle nuances in speech, even on a telephone line. If we were to be talking now on the restricted bandwidth of a phone line, we could understand each other’s emotions, guess at our age and education, probably income, detect if we are being truthful or concealing something, decide if we are friendly or trying to deceive us or sell us something and so on just by microscopic nuanced changes in loudness, pitch, strain and delivery. Human speech is the ultimate loudspeaker test tool because of the way it can impose its own nature on the underlying subtleties of reproduced speech, changing the listener’s interpretation a little or a lot.

Thanks very interesting post.... the most important post of this thread indeed....

Human ears are DESIGNED to identify immediately the human voice TIMBRE in all acoustical settings.... Music was created around this fact....This is history, history of science, history of music, history of acoustic.....

A good speakers must always be able to give the natural human voice timbre first and last period.... Recognition of human timbre is one of the most important social and biological fact for survival and bonding....Music was created and centered around this fact.... This is very fundamental for acoustic, Alan Shaw is very right....

I am glad to know that because even if my actual speakers satisfied me, i sensed that the Harbeth could do more... I think i was right.... 😊 A designer who know that natural voice timbre phenomenon to be fundamental know the essential for me ....

Ultimate test for speakers are NOT some numbers measures but human voice test....Contradicting this fact will always reveal ignorance about what is music for humans....Music is not any  sound, it is a voice/ timbre/ centered event..... 



How can someone can passed a judgement on any speakers in an uncontrolled and untreated room?

This the the proof almost no one lived through an acoustic room transformation...

A too warmish, too low centered speakers cannot be elevated to the "lark ascending highs" for sure; in this case if they are perhaps not bad but really are not so good speakers....

But a too harsh, too cold and too detailed speakers with fatiguing highs is most of the times the results of an undercontrolled or undertreated room...I already detected many times horrible unnnatural harsh sound coming from the costlier speakers it seems...No way that was the room unbeknownst to the listener boasting about them....

It is easy to put a fatiguing speaker on the other end of the spectrum if it is not a design defect....Most very costly speakers are not defect design....For sure little box speakers with no bass are fatiguing without redemption... But Focal speakers need a room for example we cannot fault the design....

Then most really should put their critic with more caution....

"Taste" is the audio word signifying most of the times i dont know what i speak about...



A natural timbre instrumental sound coming from some speakers are always what musicians and true audiophiles wanted and it has nothing to do with "taste".... It is always a relatively "objective-subjective" experience with the musicians in an orchestra and more of a consensus among them and an habit than a particular "taste"....It is a "learned" experience all along their musical life.... Not a taste....


Except for bad designed one, no speakers sound "really" bad......

The factors most of the times explaining the opposite opinion comes from the bad or uncontrolled  acoustical settings of the room, and secondarily to bad mechanical controls and uncontrolled electrical grid...