Philosophical question: Do I want speakers that are aggressive, accurate, or laid ba

[JonW]

Maybe a philosophical audio question for discussion…

I’m looking to build a system up from scratch. I’ve pretty much got nothing now. This will be for 95% music plus the occasional movie. I’ve started with speaker shopping. So far I’ve heard speakers from Sonus Faber, Linn, Paradigm, Klipsch, Dynaudio, Jamo, Totem, B&W, and ATC. (That may be enough for now.) Some of the speakers were just not great (Klipsch, Paradigm). Others (Sonus Faber, Dynaudio) struck me as dull and not very inviting- fine, just not for me. But…

Some speakers like the Linns (Ninkas) and Totems (Forest) I liked right away. I might call these more aggressive speakers. They have a wonderfully crisp, clear sound that I really, really enjoyed. Every song sounded great. Put a smile on my face right away. Super.

The ATC’s (7 and 12) sounded more accurate that anything I’ve ever heard. These are the only speakers in which the bass drum actually sounded like what a real bass drum sounds like- not just a low thump. However, some of my recordings sounded like crap. The accuracy is fun, the poor recordings were unpleasant to hear.

And then there are the laid back speakers. When I first heard the B&W (703) I was not impressed. Sounds fine in all regards, but didn’t suck me in and compel me to listen too much. But then I listened longer and it sounded a little better. And longer and it sounded even better. I liked them more, the more I heard them.

Soooo… Now I’m not sure what I’m after. There were speakers I liked right away. But will I get sick of listening to those on a longer time scale? There were the accurate ones which were nice- and different- in some regards, but didn’t sound good in others. Then there were the laid back ones. They didn’t pull me in right away, but maybe that is better for, say, 1-3 years down the road?

I’m curious as to what you serious music people look for in speakers. It seems I’ve found 3 different flavors. And I’m not sure which way to go. Obviously I have to do some more listening… And this is fun. :-)

[Geoffcin]

Maybe a philosophical audio question for discussion?

I?m curious as to what you serious music people look for in speakers. It seems I?ve found 3 different flavors. And I?m not sure which way to go. Obviously I have to do some more listening? And this is fun. :-)

I'm one that craves accuracy and all else be damned. Poor recordings really show up their flaws in my system though. A lot of my CD collection is relegated to (mostly) car duty because of it. On the other hand, in my HT setup I've got speakers that are much more "laid back" because I've found that a truly accurate (flat) speaker would become painful after two or three hours at theater levels.

I don't like the idea of speakers that have to "grow" on you. To me, speakers that you really like above other models when you audition them are usually the ones that are best for you. I was lucky in that once I had heard my speakers for the first time I absolutely knew that they were the ones for me.

[RGA]

JonW

I would not assume that because some of your recordings are reegated to sounding harsh that you are listening to a more accurate speaker that is revealing poor recordings - while it is true many recordings are not great neither are they as bad as some sepakers make them out to be. I have heard too many dealers use the excuse when there is a harsh sound that "well these speakers are super accurate and they are bringing out all the faults in the recordng or upstream equipment." It sounds very logical after all, but if you start listening longer to a lot of gear I don't fint it to hold much merrit.

For instance if another speaker(let's call it B) is hitting the same upper frequency in a complex violin passage as speaker A), but Speaker A sounds fatiguing or has an echo or an airy noise(detail?) then what is this supposed to mean that it is revealing a fault in the recording while speaker B is not detecting it? Yet if speaker B is producing the instrument in a full extended way then what exactly is that "air" one is hearing -- "air" is not heard at any live event and it is not there when someone just plays the violin in your house. That air which is called detail is grain.

none of this is the least bit important though because you have a choice you can buy a speaker you enjoy or you can buy a speaker that is deemed by OTHER people or magazines as accurate. Accurate to what -- the live event, the recording. Do you listen at live volume levels. I mean if I put on an Aerosmith album what exactly i am supposed to compare the recoridng to? If I was not at the recording session then I have no way to know what the intended recording sounded like. Am i going to compare it to when they came to my town and played their song -- well your system better be able to 125decibals minimum and you better feel the drum in your chest (and here you will be simply compairing your system to whatever amplifier and speaker they were using at the concert in a massive auditorium to your living room.

The article that is in my signature will apply to all the speakers you are evaluating and is another way of conducting auditions that make sense -- no experience and no golden ear telling you what you should or should not like.

The only thing that is of prime importance in listening to the speakers you listed is that they all need to be evaluated in the same room with either the same equipment or equipment that is best complimentary to them. So Paradigm also Makes and often matches Anthem to their speakers -- the designers at Paradigm should then stand by their products and say that one is probably getting the most one can get out of a paradigm when using Anthem Amplification. Anthem however will probably suck donkey balls on my speakers - therefore it would be fitting to use what is recommended byt the maker of my speakers as an amplifier - their own amps. This way in the same room you are hearing what the manufacturer more or less slightly what they intended you to hear. (taking room size recommendation and placement into account as well). My speakers for example are supposed to be placed in corners toed in and preferably use SE amplifiers and preferably from the company making the speakers. So it is not adviseable to if listening and compairing them to other speakers place them in the same position as what is good for a B&W - 3 feet from back and side walls with little to no toe in running a high watt SS amplifier.

Linn I always felt was an underrated speaker maker.

[Geoffcin]

For instance if another speaker(let's call it B) is hitting the same upper frequency in a complex violin passage as speaker A), but Speaker A sounds fatiguing or has an echo or an airy noise(detail?) then what is this supposed to mean that it is revealing a fault in the recording while speaker B is not detecting it? Yet if speaker B is producing the instrument in a full extended way then what exactly is that "air" one is hearing -- "air" is not heard at any live event and it is not there when someone just plays the violin in your house. That air which is called detail is grain.


Accuracy is a pretty simple matter; How much distortion does your speaker produce at your listening level, and how well does your speaker match a frequency test. Although I've seen laughable near field measurements of my speakers (who listens to 6' tall speakers at 1 meter anyway?!), in MY room they are, at my listening position of 14' on axis, +/- 2 dB across most of the range . The THD from my speakers has been measured at less than 1% at my listening levels also. That is what I call accurate. It has nothing to do with my speakers being planar, or dipole for that matter. Many other speakers archive such measurements, and I really like those too, the Totem Mani-2 Signatures for one (incredibly flat across the meat of the midrange, like +/-1dB!), and there are others too, although the prices tend to go up from there (Yes I have heard E-Stats speakers, although not his specifically). Accuracy can't be faked, and once you know what it sounds like you can't forget it. If I was spending the $$$ that this guy wants to spend, then accuracy would mean a whole lot to me.

[Feanor]

Ah, words! :confused: Some posters seem rather suspicious of "detail" and "air", suggesting these things are often just "grain".

"Detail" is the resolution of subtle sounds; "air" is (a) the convincing reproduction of spatial clues and/or (b) a life-like sense of the ambiance of a performance venue. "Grain" is a harsh, serrated edge to the higher frequencies mainly.

It is true that the inexperienced listener might, for a time, confuse the sharpness of grain with detail or air. However over time grain is fatiging and disagreeable. Genuine detail and air, on the other hand, grows on you very much.

To me, detail and air are essential if a speaker is to be considered accurate, and equally as important as accurate tonal balance.

[Wireworm5]

For me a laid back speaker I would like the least. I think I would have to place myself in the accuracy camp as well for most important speaker attribute. Particullary tonal accuracy is what I like most about my Studio 100's.
I have to agree with Feanor's defenition on 'air' of a speaker. I recently used the term airiness to discribe what my Bryston 3B-sst added to the sound. And that defininiton is exactly what I meant.

[drseid]

I agree with Geoff, in that it comes down to your preferences... It does appear that you tend to like more agressive sounding speakers... While that preference may not jibe to what I or some others prefer, all of that does not really matter. The only thing that really matters is what *you* prefer. You have auditioned a wide spectrum of brands, so I think you can trust your ears as to what you like, and then go for it. Like Geoff, I have found that first impressions usually hold true in the end... If you did not care for a speaker (assuming the conditions were right), chances are you won't have a major revelation and do a 180...

A couple other brands that might be up your alley based on your preferences are some used speakers from Legacy Audio, and Dali (the Helicon line). This is not to imply the ones you like already should not be bought... I like Linn quite a bit, for example.

Good luck,

---Dave

[theaudiohobby]

Ah, words! :confused: Some posters seem rather suspicious of "detail" and "air", suggesting these things are often just "grain".

"Detail" is the resolution of subtle sounds; "air" is (a) the convincing reproduction of spatial clues and/or (b) a life-like sense of the ambiance of a performance venue. "Grain" is a harsh, serrated edge to the higher frequencies mainly.

It is true that the inexperienced listener might, for a time, confuse the sharpness of grain with detail or air. However over time grain is fatiging and disagreeable. Genuine detail and air, on the other hand, grows on you very much.

To me, detail and air are essential if a speaker is to be considered accurate, and equally as important as accurate tonal balance.

Thanks Feanor for a splendid explanation,

When I am in acoustic performances, I hear the air :) around the instruments, afterall all the players are not sitting on top of each other, however I do not hear grain :) . On piano, I hear the air between notes and oh so sweet detail.

[kexodusc]

Accuracy is a pretty simple matter; How much distortion does your speaker produce at your listening level, and how well does your speaker match a frequency test. Although I've seen laughable near field measurements of my speakers (who listens to 6' tall speakers at 1 meter anyway?!), in MY room they are, at my listening position of 14' on axis, +/- 2 dB across most of the range . The THD from my speakers has been measured at less than 1% at my listening levels also. That is what I call accurate.

Accuracy can't be faked, and once you know what it sounds like you can't forget it. If I was spending the $$$ that this guy wants to spend, then accuracy would mean a whole lot to me.

I have to agree with Geoffcin. Sometimes the audio-world does itself a huge injustice by overcomplicating things. Whenever I'm struggling with a difficult decision, I often take a negative of the situation. That is, let's take the opposite of each option available and examine those. Do I want speakers that are NOT aggessive (laid back), INaccurate, or NOT laid back?

You can see how the choice of agressive vs. laid back is subject to a degree of personal subjectivity. But who in their right mind would shop for a speaker from scratch that can be characterized as "inaccurate"? What would the benefits of this be - other than second guessing every sound you heard, whether it was good or bad? If your speakers are inaccurate, how would you judge the music, or the gear you use with it?

The measurements don't lie. We are quite good at quantifying some very important figures. The problem is there's still a lot of traits for which we haven't yet developed measurements.

Accuracy is tough to define, however. Everyone tends to use that word just a bit differently. If you limit the definition to frequency response and THD, that's fine, but there's more to a speaker than that. It's pretty easy to get a $300 speaker to be accurate, with good THD numbers and a good, flat frequency response that doesn't stray far from the input signal. Yet most $300 speakers probably don't sound as good as most $3000 speakers. Why? You'll have to add some more measurements - transient response is one of my personal favorites, off-axis response can be EXTREMELY important IF you place a lot of value in soundstaging and imaging. Many do not. Some, speakers, such as RGA's Audio Notes might not posess perfect off-axis measurements in anechoic conditions, but it doesn't matter. AN recommends corner placement and significant toe-in for a reason. This is an integral part of the speaker design. When used as such, they perform quite well and present good imaging and soundstage characterstics. Who listens to their speakers in anechoic conditions anyway? Some measurements aren't relevant to the speaker...some are relevant to all speakers.

So now we have a few more measurements, each becoming increasingly more complex to obtain and interpret. Back down that slippery slope of trying to create that perfect measuring speaker...overcomplicating things.

Resolution is much tougher to define. I'm not aware of any universally accepted measurement for resolution. But people sure know it when they hear it. I have 2 pairs of speakers I built recently...both measure about +/- 2 dB in room at 2 meters, similar THD numbers for the most part at volumes I'd use them at, but one contains much more information than the other. It should, it cost 4 times as much. Detail, resolution, whatever you want to call it. It's not captured well by measurements on paper. Or at least the small differences you see on paper are misleading, the real sound differences are much more than the measurements imply.

Again, back at overcomplicating things...let's not go there.

Sounds to me like you're on the right track. Listen to speakers for yourself. Don't pay too much attention to the adjectives used to describe them. Do pay a bit of attention to the measurements, just to help you explain what you're hearing, not to pick the speaker. If a number stands out as being grossly inadequate, you'll probably hear it. If you start comparing to FR plots to each other to help you decide, you're probably over doing it.

I would suggest finding speakers that you do like, and then putting into words for yourself what you like about them, from both measurements, and qualitative evaluation. Then you can use that explanation as a starting point for evaluating other speakers. Often, picking speakers is just a crapshoot. People don't always hear the same speakers the same way...(the shape of ears contributes a great deal to sound perception). In the end, what you hear matters most.

[topspeed]

Really great posts so far. About the only thing I'd add is that you may want to listen to different types of speakers while on your journey. So far, everything on your list has been a dynamic speaker. Expand your horizons and audition some planar/'stats (Maggie, Martin Logan), bi-polar (DefTech, Mirage), transmission line (Von Schweikert), and even line arrays (VMPS). Every design presents specific merits and faults, it's up to you to decide which best suit your tastes.

Hope this helps.

[GMichael]

Really great posts so far. About the only thing I'd add is that you may want to listen to different types of speakers while on your journey. So far, everything on your list has been a dynamic speaker. Expand your horizons and audition some planar/'stats (Maggie, Martin Logan), bi-polar (DefTech, Mirage), transmission line (Von Schweikert), and even line arrays (VMPS). Every design presents specific merits and faults, it's up to you to decide which best suit your tastes.

Hope this helps.

Listen, listen, listen. After that, listen to more. It's a great time, and will pay off for years. There are as many oppinions as there are listeners. Pick what makes your ears sing. Everything else will take care of itself.

[JonW]

I'm one that craves accuracy and all else be damned. Poor recordings really show up their flaws in my system though. A lot of my CD collection is relegated to (mostly) car duty because of it. On the other hand, in my HT setup I've got speakers that are much more "laid back" because I've found that a truly accurate (flat) speaker would become painful after two or three hours at theater levels.

I don't like the idea of speakers that have to "grow" on you. To me, speakers that you really like above other models when you audition them are usually the ones that are best for you. I was lucky in that once I had heard my speakers for the first time I absolutely knew that they were the ones for me.

Sure, there were speakers that grabbed me right away. Kind of like "Now THAT'S the sound I'm after!" within hearing 10 seconds of the first track. But will I grow sick of that later?

Interesting that you don't like speakers that have to grow on you, but you like accuracy. The speakers I found most accurate (ATC) had to grow on me. Hmmm...

[topspeed]

Sure, there were speakers that grabbed me right away. Kind of like "Now THAT'S the sound I'm after!" within hearing 10 seconds of the first track. But will I grow sick of that later?

Interesting that you don't like speakers that have to grow on you, but you like accuracy. The speakers I found most accurate (ATC) had to grow on me. Hmmm...
Speakers that "grab you" right away have a tendency to be fatiguing after a while. Make sure you try listening to those same speakers for an extended period of time, preferrably thru a home demo, to ensure they don't become grating. While I'm never for anything that has to "grow on you," there is merit to the theory of psychoacoustics whereas your brain has to be given ample time to recalibrate to the new sound.

[JonW]

JonW

I would not assume that because some of your recordings are reegated to sounding harsh that you are listening to a more accurate speaker that is revealing poor recordings - while it is true many recordings are not great neither are they as bad as some sepakers make them out to be. I have heard too many dealers use the excuse when there is a harsh sound that "well these speakers are super accurate and they are bringing out all the faults in the recordng or upstream equipment." It sounds very logical after all, but if you start listening longer to a lot of gear I don't fint it to hold much merrit.

For instance if another speaker(let's call it B) is hitting the same upper frequency in a complex violin passage as speaker A), but Speaker A sounds fatiguing or has an echo or an airy noise(detail?) then what is this supposed to mean that it is revealing a fault in the recording while speaker B is not detecting it? Yet if speaker B is producing the instrument in a full extended way then what exactly is that "air" one is hearing -- "air" is not heard at any live event and it is not there when someone just plays the violin in your house. That air which is called detail is grain.

none of this is the least bit important though because you have a choice you can buy a speaker you enjoy or you can buy a speaker that is deemed by OTHER people or magazines as accurate. Accurate to what -- the live event, the recording. Do you listen at live volume levels. I mean if I put on an Aerosmith album what exactly i am supposed to compare the recoridng to? If I was not at the recording session then I have no way to know what the intended recording sounded like. Am i going to compare it to when they came to my town and played their song -- well your system better be able to 125decibals minimum and you better feel the drum in your chest (and here you will be simply compairing your system to whatever amplifier and speaker they were using at the concert in a massive auditorium to your living room.

The article that is in my signature will apply to all the speakers you are evaluating and is another way of conducting auditions that make sense -- no experience and no golden ear telling you what you should or should not like.

The only thing that is of prime importance in listening to the speakers you listed is that they all need to be evaluated in the same room with either the same equipment or equipment that is best complimentary to them. So Paradigm also Makes and often matches Anthem to their speakers -- the designers at Paradigm should then stand by their products and say that one is probably getting the most one can get out of a paradigm when using Anthem Amplification. Anthem however will probably suck donkey balls on my speakers - therefore it would be fitting to use what is recommended byt the maker of my speakers as an amplifier - their own amps. This way in the same room you are hearing what the manufacturer more or less slightly what they intended you to hear. (taking room size recommendation and placement into account as well). My speakers for example are supposed to be placed in corners toed in and preferably use SE amplifiers and preferably from the company making the speakers. So it is not adviseable to if listening and compairing them to other speakers place them in the same position as what is good for a B&W - 3 feet from back and side walls with little to no toe in running a high watt SS amplifier.

Linn I always felt was an underrated speaker maker.

Hey RGA,

Thanks for the thoughts. Good points- how do I know what is accurate if I wasn't there?

I was thinking that the ATC speakers I heard were more "accurate" because the bass drum really sounded like a bass drum does in real life. Not just that thump. But it was on a recording I had never heard before. That same speaker also made a recording that I thought fine, sound quite poor. But the other songs sounded fine. So that was my basis for saying "accurate," be it correct or not.

Unfortunately, most of these speakers are being heard at different shops. I can't find one place with a full complement of speakers from each of these companies. And this must make a big difference. Heck, the Totems were run by a $750 Jolida tube amp. The B&W's by about $15,000+ of McIntosh amps. That can't be a good comparison. And I am really wondering: the incredibly tight, powerful, deep bass I heard came from the B&W 703, but it's only rated down to 38 Hz. Conversely the Totem Forest is rated as "<33 Hz" and had almost no bass at all. Is that the amp, room, placement, etc? That's probably a topic for a new thread I'll post soon.

Yes, I read the article in your signature prior to hearing any speakers. That's a pretty anitseptic approach to it all. What I'm wondering is, at least in part, is that the way to go? Or should I get what moves me right away? Or should I be concerned about what moves me now may become annoying later...?

-Jon

[JonW]

Accuracy can't be faked, and once you know what it sounds like you can't forget it. If I was spending the $$$ that this guy wants to spend, then accuracy would mean a whole lot to me.

So how do I hear some accurate speakers, to know what that sound is?

And would most people agree that it's what you will want, once you know it? In other words, is an accurate speaker enjoyable to listen to?

[JonW]

I agree with Geoff, in that it comes down to your preferences... It does appear that you tend to like more agressive sounding speakers... While that preference may not jibe to what I or some others prefer, all of that does not really matter. The only thing that really matters is what *you* prefer. You have auditioned a wide spectrum of brands, so I think you can trust your ears as to what you like, and then go for it. Like Geoff, I have found that first impressions usually hold true in the end... If you did not care for a speaker (assuming the conditions were right), chances are you won't have a major revelation and do a 180...

A couple other brands that might be up your alley based on your preferences are some used speakers from Legacy Audio, and Dali (the Helicon line). This is not to imply the ones you like already should not be bought... I like Linn quite a bit, for example.

Good luck,

---Dave

First impressions hold true, eh? OK, good to know. I'm just concerned the speakers will be like music- the songs you like right away, you get sick of. The songs you hate right away you hate almost always. But some songs in the middle don't knock your socks off right away, but become the mroe meaningful, long-term favorites for years. You know what I mean. :)

OK, I'll have a look at those other companies if I can. Thanks.

[JonW]

For me a laid back speaker I would like the least. I think I would have to place myself in the accuracy camp as well for most important speaker attribute. Particullary tonal accuracy is what I like most about my Studio 100's.
I have to agree with Feanor's defenition on 'air' of a speaker. I recently used the term airiness to discribe what my Bryston 3B-sst added to the sound. And that defininiton is exactly what I meant.

You like accurach as well, eh? Hmmm... I haven't listened to Studio 100's. But I have heard 20's, 40's, and 60's. To me, they all sounded far from accurate. Like all the detail was not coming through. And they didn't grab me at all. But then put the Linn's or Sonus Fabers in the same room run from the same amp, etc. and there was a big improvement in clarity. The Sonus Fabers were much clearer, but not inviting- just boring. The Linns has something I really liked, in addition to increased clarity. But that's just to my taste.

OK, another fan for accuracy.

[JonW]

I have to agree with Geoffcin. Sometimes the audio-world does itself a huge injustice by overcomplicating things. Whenever I'm struggling with a difficult decision, I often take a negative of the situation. That is, let's take the opposite of each option available and examine those. Do I want speakers that are NOT aggessive (laid back), INaccurate, or NOT laid back?

Interesting way to look at it. But I actually don't know that answer. I could forget accuracy and all that. And just go for what sounds nice now. But will I be sick of that a year from now? And want something different? Obviously no one can answer that for me, but I enjoy getting perspectives from you all.



Sounds to me like you're on the right track. Listen to speakers for yourself. Don't pay too much attention to the adjectives used to describe them. Do pay a bit of attention to the measurements, just to help you explain what you're hearing, not to pick the speaker. If a number stands out as being grossly inadequate, you'll probably hear it. If you start comparing to FR plots to each other to help you decide, you're probably over doing it.

I would suggest finding speakers that you do like, and then putting into words for yourself what you like about them, from both measurements, and qualitative evaluation. Then you can use that explanation as a starting point for evaluating other speakers. Often, picking speakers is just a crapshoot. People don't always hear the same speakers the same way...(the shape of ears contributes a great deal to sound perception). In the end, what you hear matters most.

Actually, I have been taking notes on my impressions as I listen to each speaker. What words come to mind. How it compares to the last one I heard, etc. I've had a couple sale guys tell me not to take notes- just go for what moves me. But I'm in the (pleasant) situation where I could be happy with many of the speakers I've heard. So I'm trying to figure out which one is the best for me. I am really enjoying this. Although it's becoming more difficult than I expected to find a clear winner. I didn't expect such different sound from the different brands. Some I say, right away, are not for me. But of the contenders, what I like about each is different. It's interesting.

[JonW]

Speakers that "grab you" right away have a tendency to be fatiguing after a while. Make sure you try listening to those same speakers for an extended period of time, preferrably thru a home demo, to ensure they don't become grating. While I'm never for anything that has to "grow on you," there is merit to the theory of psychoacoustics whereas your brain has to be given ample time to recalibrate to the new sound.

Yes, this is a big concern here. I don't have a stero system to which I can connect speakers. And I live 2-3 hours a collection of decent shops. So it makes in home auditioning tricky. But I need to consider it.

[JonW]

Really great posts so far. About the only thing I'd add is that you may want to listen to different types of speakers while on your journey. So far, everything on your list has been a dynamic speaker. Expand your horizons and audition some planar/'stats (Maggie, Martin Logan), bi-polar (DefTech, Mirage), transmission line (Von Schweikert), and even line arrays (VMPS). Every design presents specific merits and faults, it's up to you to decide which best suit your tastes.

Hope this helps.

Yes, great posts. People here are quite helpful.

Thanks for the list. Yes, I'll try and have a listen to those.

I wonder how long I can hold out... Listening to speakers from, say, 25 different companies... :)

[Geoffcin]

Heck, the Totems were run by a $750 Jolida tube amp. The B&W's by about $15,000+ of McIntosh amps. That can't be a good comparison. And I am really wondering: the incredibly tight, powerful, deep bass I heard came from the B&W 703, but it's only rated down to 38 Hz. Conversely the Totem Forest is rated as "<33 Hz" and had almost no bass at all. Is that the amp, room, placement, etc? That's probably a topic for a new thread I'll post soon.
-Jon

All of the Totem products that I've heard have very good bass when driven correctly. Vince Bruzzese of Totem even apoligized to me that the Hawks needed an amp with more reserve power to sound their best, and he was using a 200 wpc amp! (that amp sounded just right on the Rainmakers though!) Try the Forest with an amp that can deliver at least 200 wpc into 4 ohms and I'm sure you'll hear a big difference.

The 703 is no slouch in bass, but there's very few amps that have the sheer balls of the "Big Mac's", which I'm sure added it's signature to the demo. I think you'ld do best to audition with gear that's similar, at least in power, to the one you are intending to use.

[JonW]

All of the Totem products that I've heard have very good bass when driven correctly. Vince Bruzzese of Totem even apoligized to me that the Hawks needed an amp with more reserve power to sound their best, and he was using a 200 wpc amp! (that amp sounded just right on the Rainmakers though!) Try the Forest with an amp that can deliver at least 200 wpc into 4 ohms and I'm sure you'll hear a big difference.

The 703 is no slouch in bass, but there's very few amps that have the sheer balls of the "Big Mac's", which I'm sure added it's signature to the demo. I think you'ld do best to audition with gear that's similar, at least in power, to the one you are intending to use.

It's really tough to audition any of this gear with even close to similar conditions. Rrrr...

I could hardly believe the bass from the B&W 703's. My leather on the chair was fluttering, 15-20 feet away. Yes, you could easily call that "slam." And I was underwhelmed by the Totem bass- but everything else about the Totem was great. So would you attribute most of the bass difference to the amps? Sounds like maybe yes.

[topspeed]

Be careful with manufacturer quotes for frequency range as there is no standardized method for obtaining the readings. Is it 38hz at -3dB down or -6dB? Was it measured in anechoic conditions or in-room (thereby benefitting from wall re-inforcement)? Statistics are useful to a degree, but always trust your ears. Also remember, most music that isn't orchestral won't have much useful information below 35hz or so. IOW, if you listen to pop, jazz, rock, or blues, the frequency response of the 703's should be plenty.

So would you attribute most of the bass difference to the amps? Sounds like maybe yes.Amps can absolutely have an effect of bass, just not to the degree that speaker design and room acoustics can. Like Geoff said, Macs are like Krells in that they are reknown for their bass, however it sounds like the Totem may have also be suffering from poor placement. The dealer may have put them out in the room to emphasize their imaging and midband at the expense of better corner reinforcement for the bass.

I know home auditions are difficult at best. With that in mind, it's worth it to find a dealer that is willing to accommodate you as your room acoustics are going to play an integral part of this whole process. If nothing else, only work with a dealer that has a good return policy in case the speakers just don't like the room you put them in.

One last thing, if you liked Sonus Faber but felt they were missing that certain something, you might try Vandersteen as they are very similar in their presentation.

Good luck and enjoy the ride.

[RGA]

Hey RGA,

Thanks for the thoughts. Good points- how do I know what is accurate if I wasn't there?

I was thinking that the ATC speakers I heard were more "accurate" because the bass drum really sounded like a bass drum does in real life. Not just that thump. But it was on a recording I had never heard before. That same speaker also made a recording that I thought fine, sound quite poor. But the other songs sounded fine. So that was my basis for saying "accurate," be it correct or not.

Unfortunately, most of these speakers are being heard at different shops. I can't find one place with a full complement of speakers from each of these companies. And this must make a big difference. Heck, the Totems were run by a $750 Jolida tube amp. The B&W's by about $15,000+ of McIntosh amps. That can't be a good comparison. And I am really wondering: the incredibly tight, powerful, deep bass I heard came from the B&W 703, but it's only rated down to 38 Hz. Conversely the Totem Forest is rated as "<33 Hz" and had almost no bass at all. Is that the amp, room, placement, etc? That's probably a topic for a new thread I'll post soon.

Yes, I read the article in your signature prior to hearing any speakers. That's a pretty anitseptic approach to it all. What I'm wondering is, at least in part, is that the way to go? Or should I get what moves me right away? Or should I be concerned about what moves me now may become annoying later...?

-Jon

Well for a start it is very very difficult to hear every speaker in the same room with "fair" equipment driving it. The room and equipment can affect bass response -- how it was measured to start with and the ratings of the speakers. Many makers will provide a number such as -6db or +/-3db etc after with the low frequency -- if none is provided assume it is -10db (because it probably is)

The other thing is some speakers quite simply sound like they have more bass and can do it louder. In lieu of same room auditions you can make inferences. Many dealers carry B&W and bryston in my area and the two are a popular match. If I hear a B&W?Bryston in one shop against say a Jamo and Like the B&W better by a mile and then in shop B I listen to B&W and Dynaudio and Dynaudio is better then B&W then I am pretyt confident that Dynaudio is going to be better than the Jamo -- Even though i have not heard them side by side I have heard all three.

And to note what I was saying earlier because some take things and overblow them (sort of like I was saying with speakers). If you read the article in my signature they explain what they mean by Resolution versus Detail or grain. A speaker isn't broken down to frequency response and distortion -- if it were then most speakers would be very good even completely different designs - and it is not the case.

In the end it isn't always about trying to find the absolute best -- you won;t klive long enough to hear it all and with every combination of gear room acoustics. etc. The main job is to find something you like and will be able to listen to all day all the time and not upgrade outside of the company line.

[Feanor]

First impressions hold true, eh? OK, good to know. I'm just concerned the speakers will be like music- the songs you like right away, you get sick of. The songs you hate right away you hate almost always. But some songs in the middle don't knock your socks off right away, but become the mroe meaningful, long-term favorites for years. You know what I mean. :)

OK, I'll have a look at those other companies if I can. Thanks.
I'd say it's not like getting tired of a song; that's a different process I think

First impressions are more likely to be valid for the experience audiophile than for the newbie. It's not that their hearing is better, only that they know what to listen for.

Nevertheless there are different priorities among audiophiles, e.g. RGA puts a high priority on dynamics, whereas I prefer more on detail and air. Each of us, though, will immediately listen for these qualities in any new loudspeaker we listen to.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'd say it's not like getting tired of a song; that's a different process I think

First impressions are more likely to be valid for the experience audiophile than for the newbie. It's not that their hearing is better, only that they know what to listen for.

Nevertheless there are different priorities among audiophiles, e.g. RGA puts a high priority on dynamics, whereas I prefer more on detail and air. Each of us, though, will immediately listen for these qualities in any new loudspeaker we listen to.

IMO you need dynamics, detail and air to be accurate. These are all of the ingredients in most live recordings. I think these should be evaluated equally, rather than as seperate attributes.

[drseid]

First impressions hold true, eh? OK, good to know. I'm just concerned the speakers will be like music- the songs you like right away, you get sick of. The songs you hate right away you hate almost always. But some songs in the middle don't knock your socks off right away, but become the mroe meaningful, long-term favorites for years. You know what I mean. :)

OK, I'll have a look at those other companies if I can. Thanks.
I hear you... It may be strange, but while that happens to me too with songs quite often, it rarely happens to me with first impressions of speakers. If I don't like a speaker early on, it is rare I will like it later.

---Dave

[JonW]

In lieu of same room auditions you can make inferences. Many dealers carry B&W and bryston in my area and the two are a popular match. If I hear a B&W?Bryston in one shop against say a Jamo and Like the B&W better by a mile and then in shop B I listen to B&W and Dynaudio and Dynaudio is better then B&W then I am pretyt confident that Dynaudio is going to be better than the Jamo -- Even though i have not heard them side by side I have heard all three

Yup, that's exactly what I've been trying to do.


In the end it isn't always about trying to find the absolute best -- you won;t klive long enough to hear it all

Indeed, you are right. :)

[JonW]

I'd say it's not like getting tired of a song; that's a different process I think

First impressions are more likely to be valid for the experience audiophile than for the newbie. It's not that their hearing is better, only that they know what to listen for.

Nevertheless there are different priorities among audiophiles, e.g. RGA puts a high priority on dynamics, whereas I prefer more on detail and air. Each of us, though, will immediately listen for these qualities in any new loudspeaker we listen to.

Oh, so you think it's different. That first imrpessions are more valid here. Interesting. Hmmm...

[JonW]

Be careful with manufacturer quotes for frequency range as there is no standardized method for obtaining the readings. Is it 38hz at -3dB down or -6dB? Was it measured in anechoic conditions or in-room (thereby benefitting from wall re-inforcement)? Statistics are useful to a degree, but always trust your ears. Also remember, most music that isn't orchestral won't have much useful information below 35hz or so. IOW, if you listen to pop, jazz, rock, or blues, the frequency response of the 703's should be plenty.
Amps can absolutely have an effect of bass, just not to the degree that speaker design and room acoustics can. Like Geoff said, Macs are like Krells in that they are reknown for their bass, however it sounds like the Totem may have also be suffering from poor placement. The dealer may have put them out in the room to emphasize their imaging and midband at the expense of better corner reinforcement for the bass.

I know home auditions are difficult at best. With that in mind, it's worth it to find a dealer that is willing to accommodate you as your room acoustics are going to play an integral part of this whole process. If nothing else, only work with a dealer that has a good return policy in case the speakers just don't like the room you put them in.

One last thing, if you liked Sonus Faber but felt they were missing that certain something, you might try Vandersteen as they are very similar in their presentation.

Good luck and enjoy the ride.

Thanks for the education and other thoughts- all are great. I'll check the dB numbers, although most of the brochures don't seem to list them. Grrr... And I'll have a look at the Vandersteens. Yeah, the SF's were definitely missing that special something.

[JonW]

I hear you... It may be strange, but while that happens to me too with songs quite often, it rarely happens to me with first impressions of speakers. If I don't like a speaker early on, it is rare I will like it later.

---Dave

Interesting you say that. Because Feanor said the same thing.

[Pyrrho]

First impressions hold true, eh? OK, good to know. I'm just concerned the speakers will be like music- the songs you like right away, you get sick of. The songs you hate right away you hate almost always. But some songs in the middle don't knock your socks off right away, but become the mroe meaningful, long-term favorites for years. You know what I mean. :)

OK, I'll have a look at those other companies if I can. Thanks.

The same holds for some speakers. If, for example, there is a "hump" in the bass of the frequency response of a speaker, it may sound great at first hearing, but may be very undesirable later with a different recording. First impressions do not always hold true. (Also, two speakers rated at 35-20kHz +/- 3dB may have considerable differences in the frequency response curve, such that one has elevated bass near the low end, and the other may have diminished bass near the low end, so there can be as much as 6 dB difference between the two, even if the ratings are perfectly accurate and measured according to the same standards.)

When selecting speakers, you should listen to every type of music that you ever listen to, as certain kinds of flaws are more objectionable with some music than others.

If you want "accurate" speakers, I strongly suggest that you listen to some live acoustic music first, and then listen to recordings of similar acoustic music. (It has to be acoustic music, or you will be listening to speakers in the live performance, which will tell you what some speakers sound like, not instruments.) "Accurate" speakers reproduce acoustic music more like hearing it live than "inaccurate" speakers.

I personally am fond of ribbon tweeters, found in speakers like Magnepan and many Aurum Cantus speakers, among others.

As for the lack of fairness in comparing speakers in different rooms, there is probably not much you can do about it. But you should also realize that even if you stick two speakers side by side in the same room and hook them to the same equipment, you still wouldn't have a fair comparison, for at least three reasons. First, being not exactly in the same place, they won't sound the same. Second, different speakers can require different placement for them to sound their best. Third, different speakers often differ in efficiency, so that one will sound louder than the other with the same amplifier with the same volume control setting. This is a far more serious problem than it may appear at first, because human hearing is not linear, and as volume decreases, bass and treble subjectively seem to diminish faster than midrange, so that the louder of two speakers (if otherwise identical) will sound like it has more bass and treble, giving a "richer", more pleasing sound. (Many pieces of equipment, especially old two channel equipment, have Loudness Compensation circuits to boost the bass [and sometimes also the treble] that can be used when listening at lower volumes because of this aspect of human hearing.)

One last point: You are not asking a philosophical question in your original title; you are asking a question about your personal preferences, which, ultimately, you must decide for yourself.

[Florian]

You want a speaker with no coloration, no character, and no box and no own signature. No weight to carry around, very fast repsonce times.

-Flo

PS: Speakers are not supposed to make music, they are only supposed to transport a given signal.

[RGA]

IMO you need dynamics, detail and air to be accurate. These are all of the ingredients in most live recordings. I think these should be evaluated equally, rather than as seperate attributes.

The problem is that for the conversation to really work one needs to know exactly what eachother is saying about a specific recording. Normal Air at a live event works in conjuctions with a soundstage -- I can hear the violin separated "by air" or space with the piano and another instrument say a Sax as physical entities. I have heard people say about certain speakers they have good air. Some companies refer to things differently and I suspect the words detail and resolution is simply being used exactly the same way. If I listen to banjo and guitar say from Allison Kraus I can hear the individual pics while some speakers "blur" the sound. I suppose the speaker that picks up on the individual pics are being referred by others as detail - if so we're on the same page different words.

Many systems also however have a tizzy etchy sound most noticable in the ttreble region that people referred to as detail -- and that is where I disagree. It's a kind of grain and distortion that is not the least bit part of the musical signal -- it is a high frequency excessive add-on that can sound "powerful" and noticeable and IMO that is false detail or grain being added by the speaker to standout from the others in short listening sessions which can annoy long term. It's not all on the speakers - amplifiers and sources can be ruinous.

[RGA]

Oh, so you think it's different. That first imrpessions are more valid here. Interesting. Hmmm...

The article in my sig line is all that is required to be able to find accurate speakers. Compairing to live doesn't really work outside of general tonallity and even then you won't know which Piano was being used a Steinway or a Strad unless you know what all those sound like. The speaker that can call up the most differences between recordings is the one that si not homogonizing them is more accurate than a speaker that has a stamped on sound. Listening to the Cerwin Vega D9 or the Bose 901 you can get an idea of what is being said in that these two have a tendency to imprint a huge presence on everything played. The Cerwin has a massive bass hump -- that impacts so strongly on the music that Cher sounds like a man. Bose presents a huge totally unrealistic soundstage making everything bigger than it normally is.

Many speakers, all speakers, have some sort of stamp -- or they hide varios problems by not giving you strengths that were on the disc. For example panels don' credibly do dance pop or timbral balances on some instruments very well nor do they measure very well on frequency response -- nor do they sound good off axis and much of the midrange lacks a true 3 dimensial presence sounding, well, like they look, 2 dimensional. They also don't have the pressurization of vibrant instruments in a living space. They are a little less coloured though but that depends on whether you consider decay a colouration -- I do not. This is why there is so much choice. Wading through it all took me four years to find something worth upgrading.

[Florian]

Many speakers, all speakers, have some sort of stamp -- or they hide varios problems by not giving you strengths that were on the disc.
For example panels don' credibly do dance pop or timbral balances on some instruments very well nor do they measure very well on frequency response You know, normaly i would try to argue with you. But now i am just going to laugh and wish you a nice day :p To the thread starter: Don't buy into the adverts and buy the speaker you like.

Oh and just before i forget this. But don't worry, the IRS-V is not a AudioNote speaker and definetly will NEVER touch it in dynamic and un-coloration.


In fact, the Divas nearly matched the IRS Series V in being able to deliver the entire bass without any coloration or power loss in the mid-bass and the upper bass/lower midrange.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The problem is that for the conversation to really work one needs to know exactly what eachother is saying about a specific recording. Normal Air at a live event works in conjuctions with a soundstage -- I can hear the violin separated "by air" or space with the piano and another instrument say a Sax as physical entities. I have heard people say about certain speakers they have good air. Some companies refer to things differently and I suspect the words detail and resolution is simply being used exactly the same way. If I listen to banjo and guitar say from Allison Kraus I can hear the individual pics while some speakers "blur" the sound. I suppose the speaker that picks up on the individual pics are being referred by others as detail - if so we're on the same page different words.

Actually, normal air is charactized by a speakers extended top end. That is what at least in recording terms the characteristic describes. An airy sounding speaker is a speaker with an extended high end response that allows a recording to sound open and full of breath.


Many systems also however have a tizzy etchy sound most noticable in the ttreble region that people referred to as detail -- and that is where I disagree. It's a kind of grain and distortion that is not the least bit part of the musical signal -- it is a high frequency excessive add-on that can sound "powerful" and noticeable and IMO that is false detail or grain being added by the speaker to standout from the others in short listening sessions which can annoy long term. It's not all on the speakers - amplifiers and sources can be ruinous.

What you describe is not what I would call detail. I call detail the ability to hear a mallet strick a drum, and be able to recognized whether it is a rubber mallet(very percussive), tight transient attack) or a mallet with felt on it(less percussive, blunted transient attack) Detail is the ability to hear the woodiness in a cello or viola. Or the ability to tell the difference between a clarinet, flute and oboe in its upper registers(some speakers make these instrument sound alike in the upper registers). Plucked strings are more distinct, you can sometimes hear the air conditioning system in the hall, musicians turning pages, low level coughs or throat clearing.

Only the really good speakers can flush this kind of detail out of a recording. Good speakers do not hide bad recordings, it reveals them.

[thekid]

I am not sure the "stick in the water" analogy holds water....( pun intended ). The stick in the water represents an optical illusion which you can detect using other methods which will uncover the true nature of the stick. If there is such a thing as a audio illusion it may be able to be detected by machines taking measurements but ultimately your ears are your only audio "detector" so the "audio illusion" is your reality. IMO if you are able to take speakers you are considering buying home and listen to them as you plan to place that is the best way to find the speakers you like. Listening to speakers in a store or using stats to determine your purchase is usually futile because it is not the same environment you will use them. That is why people are often disappointed with their purchases once they get them home.

[RGA]

Actually, normal air is charactized by a speakers extended top end. That is what at least in recording terms the characteristic describes. An airy sounding speaker is a speaker with an extended high end response that allows a recording to sound open and full of breath.

What you describe is not what I would call detail. I call detail the ability to hear a mallet strick a drum, and be able to recognized whether it is a rubber mallet(very percussive), tight transient attack) or a mallet with felt on it(less percussive, blunted transient attack) Detail is the ability to hear the woodiness in a cello or viola. Or the ability to tell the difference between a clarinet, flute and oboe in its upper registers(some speakers make these instrument sound alike in the upper registers). Plucked strings are more distinct, you can sometimes hear the air conditioning system in the hall, musicians turning pages, low level coughs or throat clearing.

Only the really good speakers can flush this kind of detail out of a recording. Good speakers do not hide bad recordings, it reveals them.

I don't have any problem with any of what you say - I can't argue since it is to a tee what my system does -- you should write the reviews.

I think what I am saying is that there is an etchy brighntess to a number of speakers that is stamped on to most everything regardless of recordings - and is being CALLED detail or air wehen it clearly isn't. A Violin crescendo coming out of black silent background as opposed to a surrounding ssssssss is not bringing out the detail - it is treble noise . Plus I don't want to get into specific speakers too much. It won't help for a basis of comparison without the same speakers being heard and compared in the same room. Consider the advertising on the tweeters at a major British Speaker making who likes yellow Kevlar drivers and you may see my problem with some of them. The problems they work to fix is improved "supposedly" on the higher models which means they are "leaking" some of the nasties on the lower models -- those nasties may not show up on the down and dirty frequency plots but audibly it is there and it isn't detail.

[theaudiohobby]

--snip--

I think what I am saying is that there is an etchy brighntess to a number of speakers that is stamped on to most everything regardless of recordings - and is being CALLED detail or air when it clearly isn't. A Violin crescendo coming out of black silent background as opposed to a surrounding ssssssss is not bringing out the detail - it is treble noise

-snip-
.

What you are describing is referred to EDGINESS and that is a form of distortion, strictly speaking it is measurable but let's not go there, a speaker can be edgy without being detailed and vice-versa, the lack of edge in a speaker gives it a sense of effortlessness. Not sure of what you are referring to a treble noise, the black background or the surrounding sssssss?

[Feanor]

The problem is that for the conversation to really work one needs to know exactly what eachother is saying about a specific recording...
Yes, detail and resolution are necessary to produce "air". And like you, I was talking about the same space between instruments, etc.. That is what I meant by "spatial clues". "Transparency" too depends on great resolution.

And for sure, some speakers and other components such as amplifiers can sound "tizzy". Which I take to be a combination of upper mid and/or high brightness and grain. My old Phase Linear 400 amp had this, and for a while I took this for detail but after I upgraded to better speakers it became irritating. What a revelation it was when I heard newer and much better quality amps; of course, I ended up with a Bel Canto eV02i which is definitely detailed and transparent.

[Feanor]

I...
I think what I am saying is that there is an etchy brighntess to a number of speakers that is stamped on to most everything regardless of recordings - and is being CALLED detail or air wehen it clearly isn't. A Violin crescendo coming out of black silent background as opposed to a surrounding ssssssss is not bringing out the detail - it is treble noise . ...
That accoustic instruments, notably brass but also strings, etc., played loud, can most definitely have a certain "glare". A speaker that reproduces this in its true intensity is not necessarly edgy nor inaccurate.

[kexodusc]

Plus I don't want to get into specific speakers too much.
Good idea


It won't help for a basis of comparison without the same speakers being heard and compared in the same room. Consider the advertising on the tweeters at a major British Speaker making who likes yellow Kevlar drivers and you may see my problem with some of them.
How subtle and cryptic. I wonder who you're referring to...can you give us a hint? Please? :D

The problems they work to fix is improved "supposedly" on the higher models which means they are "leaking" some of the nasties on the lower models -- those nasties may not show up on the down and dirty frequency plots but audibly it is there and it isn't detail.
Truth is, that stuff does show up in measurements. Call it what you want, but it's very easy to spot. The problem is it's often withheld or even hidden by the people presenting the data. The way measurements (especially FR plots) are delivered to the public is the problem...rediculous amounts of octave smoothing is the worst trick I've seen. Now that I have some measurement gear and access to more sophisticated instruments, I've been able to see just how poorly Stereophile and SoundStage! present a lot of data. In house measurements by a company measuring its own stuff are even worse.

[theaudiohobby]

That accoustic instruments, notably brass but also strings, etc., played loud, can most definitely have a certain "glare". A speaker that reproduces this in its true intensity is not necessarly edgy nor inaccurate.

A point that will not missed by anyone who has the good fortune ( or not as the case may be) of sitting close to a Jazz band or even a Classical string quartet in full flow. :D

[RGA]

Good idea

How subtle and cryptic. I wonder who you're referring to...can you give us a hint? Please? :D

Truth is, that stuff does show up in measurements. Call it what you want, but it's very easy to spot. The problem is it's often withheld or even hidden by the people presenting the data. The way measurements (especially FR plots) are delivered to the public is the problem...rediculous amounts of octave smoothing is the worst trick I've seen. Now that I have some measurement gear and access to more sophisticated instruments, I've been able to see just how poorly Stereophile and SoundStage! present a lot of data. In house measurements by a company measuring its own stuff are even worse.

Well yes I know one maker who bought the industry standard speaker measuring system and tested his own and several compeitors speakers and concluded the measuring system was so totally innacurate and downright lousy that he is now not surprised by the state of affairs in the loudspeaker industry. Luckily they built their own for a higher level of precision. Kind of like using a 3 band $29.00 Graphic Equalizer to fix stereo systems and that is the industry standard. You say what a load of crap and go build a $50,000.00 $800 band graphic equalizer with premium parts trhoughout. Not perfect but way the hell better.

[RGA]

That accoustic instruments, notably brass but also strings, etc., played loud, can most definitely have a certain "glare". A speaker that reproduces this in its true intensity is not necessarly edgy nor inaccurate.

Playing loud should not induce a problem that wasn't there at 70db. Obviously within the volume capabilities of the system. Brass can have bite - But I have listened to live unamplified Jazz with many horns and it is often presented artificially - a pre echo or ringing in many audio systems (not jsut a blame of the speaker though).

Your phase linear example is what I'm talking about -- mistaking grain and tizzyness for detail when it in fact is grain and tizzyness. That isn;t to say EVERYTHING that is perceived as detail is grain - just that that edginess can be mistaken for detail especially in typical short term listening sessions -- that extra bite on the violin that extra ssshh on the trumpet and that added ringy dingy on the cymbal can often be speaker induced noise passing itself off as more detail. Especially at high frequency where we are less able to discen qualitative differences on short term listening. After a while we tune out of the presentation or get fatigued by it. I can listen to live unamplified Jazz up close and I don't get fatigued by trumpets -- that glare is the fundamentals of that instrument but on home systems it can fatigue rapidly so something is amiss. Drum kits the same goes for the Cymbals - they don;t in themselves sound etchy edgy or harsh - they have a lot of energy in their frequency band but that's different.