My pet peeve: "revealing" speakers

In no way do I intend this to be an exercise in semantic gymnastics, but- I’ve often used the terms, "resolving" and, "revealing" interchangeably.      ie: A really, "resolving" speaker will be found, "revealing" of whatever is correct or incorrect, in the system before it (sources/media, components, cables, etc).      This article (notwithstanding opinions on Robert Harley, Martin-Logan, Constellation, TAS, the term, "Hi-Fi, etc) exactly describes how I’ve viewed the subject, since 1964: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/tas/261/editorial.htm

Anything with moving mass tends to be the hardest, or most difficult, to remove waveform tracing distortions (in said motional mass) from.

Systems that move about or translate and/or modify this thing called ’electricity’, can be easier to deal with, but that depends upon the given designers of of said systems -whether they understand the actual nature of electricity or not. Very few understand it. Most can cite the textbooks and manipulate formulae, but understanding the nature of electricity or electron flow or atomic function as related to this 'electricity' thing? Almost zero.

Or, that surface views won't give one an in-depth view, so as to be able to go after in-depth problems.

The whole thing becomes circular and redundant. Where inches of minor change are touted as miles and heights.

There seem to be two extremes w.r.t room interactions.
One extreme would be the Bose "direct/reflecting" strategy, which deliberately exploits room interactions.  Another is the magneplanar/electrostatic strategy, which typically aims for a more focused sound that minimizes room interactions. 

Yet, a very nearly flat frequency response curve (with relative absence of room colorations) doesn't necessarily tell us much about how well the speakers reveal subtle details, nor about how well they respond in the time domain.  My Totem speakers, as measured using REW, show a fairly impressive frequency response.  Yet when I apply various filters using HQ Player, I hear little if any difference.  Could be my ears, of course ... or perhaps my gear isn't sufficiently "revealing".  

At any rate, I'd expect a "revealing" system to make subtle details audible at normal listening levels, in addition to having a nearly flat frequency response, with little blurring/smearing due to phase and timing issues.

So, instruments and vocals sound natural and realistic;
the soundstage/image is believable;
subtle details are neither masked nor exaggerated.
Still, a system can sound quite good even if isn't very "revealing" in all these respects.  

newbee -

IMO the easiest way to get ’revealing’ components, including speakers, is to reduce output in the lower mid range which effectively reveals more information in the mid range, or in many instances increasing the output in the upper mid range/lower highs which gives the appearance of better, more extended highs. Both of these can create a sense of increased soundstage, especially depth of image.

mahgister -

I want speakers that gives me the impression of a musical sound living presence, timbre+imaging...And "living" is not colored, nor neutral, it is a living interval between these 2....

dazzlingmd -

My current speakers are far more revealing and unforgiving, to where Gaucho sounds fantastic (better than through my old speakers) and All the World’s a Stage sounds dramatically worse in comparison. The speakers are better at revealing recording/mixing/pressing flaws, which is a double-edged sword, as it showcases the greatness of great recordings but also the issues with poor ones.
I’m not sure how reviewers use the term, but that’s how I’ve understood it.

As an employee for a very focused bespoke loudspeaker manufacturer (who’s actually not particularly wealthy, or high profile other than in his local circles) I know well a story of my employer who was approached by Australia’s Federal Government to build them a pair of speakers.

He delivered the pair of commissioned speakers, and a panel of reviewers reported back, the Sonus Faber Guarneri Homage were the only speakers at the time that could touch them (yes it was some years ago). Yes it could be argued that the Sonus Fabers were off the shelf, and my boss’s speakers were built to best whatever they could, and wasn’t a stock sale item. Like comparing a sports car to a street car someone has heavily modified, tuned for a specific task.

After reading the reports that the Sonus Fabers had something in the sound they projected that made them just sound right, my employer flew down to Canberra, borrowed the Guarneri Homages and listened, and changed his crossover, and listened again, and tweaked throughout the weekend.
He probably didn’t get much sleep, and was in a hotel room, so probably didn’t make friends with the rooms beside him either.

newbee - you’re clever, so anyway, he could hear the interaction with the room gain, and after working out what he was hearing, he called the tuning he uses PRC. He had learnt something from the Italian designer about room gain, and what is does to the overall sound.
mahgister - the voicing of the speaker for a particular sized environment is also a form of embedding, even without room treatment. It’s not just the measurement of the frequency response coming out of the loudspeaker, it’s an understanding of a good average fit for a general room size for the loudspeaker.

dazzlingmd - absolutely bang on. A truly revealing loudspeaker, or an unveiled loudspeaker will with a high degree of fidelity, does resolve what is being fed into it. Correctly designed there will be no restrictive points in delivering the appropriate frequencies and levels of energy to whatever electro mechanical device actually voices the reproduced music.

It is indeed a two edged sword, on a well toned, fit woman a catsuit looks astonishing, a catsuit is much less flattering on someone very much out of shape, where a less revealing outfit is far more flattering. The room, the electronics, the recording, is very much more pronounced and unveiled, by a highly resolving loudspeaker (whatever type it is) and it can be more or less flattering or very much not so.

As for what measurements matter, consideration to how all of the above interact with each other, that’s a lot of measurements that all matter simultaneously.

Yes, you can all consider me an opinionated geezer, I just seem to share a lot of opinions of others in here :-P

I learn a lot in here too.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/tas/261/editorial.htm

Short article but right for me....Thanks rodman....
I never own a system so resolving tough, even rightly embed....

There exist a scale of hi-fi quality for sure....

My system tough gives me a hint of what he described, then it must be rightfully embed indeed:

« In fact, higher resolution renders greater tonal saturation, warmth, and instrumental body by virtue of revealing the timbral micro-structure, which only contributes to a sense of realism and life. Instrumental textures simply sound more like the real thing when the system accurately portrays the instrument's harmonic and dynamic structure in all its finely textured glory. Unfortunately, it's these low-level signal components that are the most fragile and easiest to lose. Resolution is shaved off in every stage of the chain, from tonearm resonances, to electronics, to the mechanical structures in transducers. »

To the mechanical embedding he speak about, i will add the electrical embedding and the powerful acoustical one....