Laid back?What is that anyway?

[mika]

Hello everybody.I'm setting up a new HT system and i'm auditioning various speakers at the moment.I read all the time that some speakers sound "laid back".Can someone please explain to me what this means and how to recognize that when i audition a speaker?Thanks in advance.

[Florian]

Well laid back speakers sound a little slow, and easy going. If you would match a Klipsch horn with a Krell for instance you would get everything but a laid back sound. The sound would be horribly harsh and forward. If you use a single tube amp the sound will be softer and more laid back.

-Flo

[Geoffcin]

Hello everybody.I'm setting up a new HT system and i'm auditioning various speakers at the moment.I read all the time that some speakers sound "laid back".Can someone please explain to me what this means and how to recognize that when i audition a speaker?Thanks in advance.

"Laid back" is a term people use to discribe a speakers that's not "in your face" or agressive in any way. It has mostly to do with the treble responce being a bit subdued in the upper range. A "laid back" speaker is easy to listen to and unobtrusive most of the time. Laid back speakers are also very forgiving of less than great recordings. I prefer a neutral to laid back spaker for HT. My HT speakers, the Cambridge Soundworks Newtons, are considered a bit "laid back".

[oddeoowphil38]

Hello everybody.I'm setting up a new HT system and i'm auditioning various speakers at the moment.I read all the time that some speakers sound "laid back".Can someone please explain to me what this means and how to recognize that when i audition a speaker?Thanks in advance.

Mika, when I describe a speaker as being laid back what I am referring to is the speakers neutrality. That is, nothing added or taken away from the source material. Not forward or in your face so to speak. One speaker I describe this way is the B&W 602 S3. Others, have referred to the Ascend CBM-170's or the Paradigm Studio 20's as being somewhat laid back. Usually, laid back speakers take a lot of power to get anything out of them. But when you do, the sound is awesome and free of coloration!!!! Anyways, I hope this helps. Be sure to check out the Paradigm monitor series or the studios if your budget allows for it. Personally, I am a Paradigm fan 4 life.

[Geoffcin]

Mika, when I describe a speaker as being laid back what I am referring to is the speakers neutrality. That is, nothing added or taken away from the source material. Not forward or in your face so to speak. One speaker I describe this way is the B&W 602 S3. Others, have referred to the Ascend CBM-170's or the Paradigm Studio 20's as being somewhat laid back. Usually, laid back speakers take a lot of power to get anything out of them. But when you do, the sound is awesome and free of coloration!!!! Anyways, I hope this helps. Be sure to check out the Paradigm monitor series or the studios if your budget allows for it. Personally, I am a Paradigm fan 4 life.

While some less than efficient speakers have been described as laid back, I don't believe that having a laid back presentation has anything to do with it. Laid back is a form of coloration, really just a depression of the upper treble response, and as such cannot be described as "free of coloration" Also; laid back does NOT mean the speakers are rolled off. Plenty of speakers with a lower presentation of the upper range also have an extended response, just not at a pronounced level.

[vr6ofpain]

IMO:

"Laid back" describes a speaker (or system) with slightly rolled off highs, smooth mids, and comfortable bass. A system that might not reveal every last detail, but you could listen to it for hours on end, with never a need to lower the volume level from fatigue.

With a laid back system, brightness has left the building.

[RGA]

Ask six economists the same question and get six different answers -- audio is nary different with the exception that you'll probably find a dictionary term that is vague enough to still yet be interpretable.

Some lesser Klipsch speakers, certainly not all, would be described as forward.
Castle speakers, namely the Castle Eden, I would describe as a laid back speaker.

The problem of course is that to determine what is forward and what is laid back audibly will be based on what sound you think is netral (or the perfect balance in the center). No speaker of any design at any price is truly neutral so of course now you are dealing in the world of sthe sliding scale. One person may have three speakers let them be:

Speaker A= Person 1 thinks is the most neutral speaker in the world
Speaker B= Person 1 thinks is very laid back or an extreme example of laid back(polite boring lacks dynamics)
Speaker F = Person 1 thinks is extremely forward brash aggressive and just too shouty to listen to -- an extreme example of the forward speaker.

Let's suppose person 1 has owned his speakers now for five years and is very used to the sound and thinks they're super and or is self-deluded into think his speaker is perfectly neutral (it is either perfectly neutral or it is not neutral -- 2+2=4 or it does not). So when he hears speaker D which leans say a little more forward than what he owns he will call speaker D a forward speaker. Or perhaps he hears speaker C which seems laid back compared to what he owns so it's "laid back" or lacks a bit of life. Now let's say I'm God (I'm sure some would I have the complex at least) and tell the world that "gee Speaker D is indeed the Neutral speaker after all" now that would mess up the whole thing because speaker A which was though to be neutral would be in fact laid back and what person 1 thought was neutral was indeed preference(self-proclaimed Golden Ear) getting in the way of what indeed was the case.

Martin Colloms started a company called Monitor Audio I believe in the 1970s after basically getting the Nobel prize of Electrical engineering acoustics from the UK. What is currently being measured is the tip of the ice-berg of what is really going on with notions of neutrality/accuracy etc. All of us get into traps of terms like this is accurate that is not -- this is accurate to the recording that is not -- this is accurate to the live event that is not. Some speaker makers did demos against live music and people claimed that the recorded stereo was as good as the live event. Several manufacturers by the way have done this from the very first recordings in the early 1900s and it was never true then as it is not true now. Neutral is the recording engineer who is recording the album in the studio through speaker Y in room Z. If you don't own room Z AND speaker Y set up exactly the same way then what you have is not accurate and it cannot be accurate to the recording because there is only ONE perfectly accurate and the RE has it. And even if you own speakers from a recording studio -- well they all use different ones.

And interestingly, My wharfedale speakers(and most I have heard over the years) make a lot of my recordings sound very similar while my other pair does not. So for example a recording that has a very full bodied deep sound front to back is presented and going to another recording it comes up more in 2 dimensions. And this is just some depth issues, no need to go into frequency. Many speakers tend to have a very prominant stamped sound so My Wharfedales and B&W would present or staging very much alike across albums without really dilineating differences very well. In other words a bright speaker tends to sound bright all of the time in severe examples and have a stamped on sound.

Also speaker positioning relative to room boundries can create colourations and can subdue problems of overly aggressive or overly laid back or muddy sound. Some speakers are also geared up for certain music genres where the expectation from the buyer is that the treble can really belt it out to play drums and cymbals real loud. Sometimes a maker on a budget in doing that has to lose some of the finer details elsewhere which may make an oboe or flute sound shouty.

You simply need to listen over long periods and decide what you like rather than get bogged down in audio-techno-babble which is largely created by people who think they have a superior ear than the regular person -- they may have an experienced ear but that doesn't make them better at hearing. When I recommend equipment I NEVER suggest someone should "take my word for it" and just buy it without hearing it first hand. I want people to take my recommendation and listen to it for a long period of time against several other componants precisely to have them devleop a base off which to judge the recordings, the speaker''s ability to flesh out the differences in recordings and ultimately what is prefferred. It is pointless to bring the favorite CD and say gee it sounds different the cymbal crash is more prominant on my speaker so therefore this speaker I'm hearing is laid back...when in fact it may be that the speaker you're used to in fact could be incredibly bright and the new speaker is getting it more right - but it takes a fair bit of time hours of listening usually (unless it's just so obviously out to lunch).

I don't think I want a speaker that "sounds" Forward, Laid-Back, or Neutral. A speaker should not SOUND any such "way." Neutral doesn't exist - and anyone telling you that you are getting EXACTLY what was recorded is a deluding themselves.

[Geoffcin]

Ask six economists the same question and get six different answers --
.

We're talking frequency response. Frequency response can be presented as a graph, and that graph is a lot easier to interpret than the Canadian economy.

Laid back = NOTHING to do with dynamics.

Laid back speakers have a lower level of high frequency output, NOT extension, OR ability to present dynamics. My Cambridge Soundworks T500's are considered "laid back" but are capable of 110 db+ dynamics with the right amplification. God help you if your next to them when they decide to do such a feat.

Speakers that have a rolled off treble ALSO sound "laid back" but that is NOT necessarily so for all "laid back" sounding speakers. A -3db shelf of the upper treble range is what a "laid back" speaker sounds like, even if it has extension to 25khz or more. I could easily make my Magnepan 3.6r speakers sound "laid back" if I decided to insert a resistor in the tweeter loop, but they would STILL have all the dynamics of the speaker only with a slightly subdued treble response. It would NOT affect the extension of the speakers tweeter, OR the dynamics, only the LEVEL of the high frequency response.

[RGA]

Show me proof irrifutable of your claim as to what laid back is -- laid back is not JUST about the treble and IMO it also applies to the bass which can also be laid back. All you're talking about is -db points in relation to a perfectly flat frequency -- in which case the speaker itself will yield different results in different rooms. A -3db point at 15khz isn;t going to matter to 98% of the world population and to no one over the age of 30 because they ain't going to hear it anyway. A speaker can be laid back and still be bright.

Dynamics the ability to go from soft to loud applies to every area and is NOT strictly associated with maximum decibal level. A speaker that can hit 120 db versus one that hits a 105 db is about volume level not dynamics. And certainly not microdynamics which very few speakers I've heard do any credible justice to.

A speaker is not just a frequency response -- if it were then you should by any old speakers and a sophisticated equalizer because you can just as easily fix bad speakers to measure flat as you can to compensate for flat speakers which measure badly due to a room -- 3db is barely audible and most certainly audible moreso at certain frequencies than other -- 3-10db at 80hz is likely to be far less problematic than a 2 db increase at 1khz. Or the De Capos 5db dip is likely less irritating to listeners than a 1db rise at that frequency. Granted that is a preference -- but the 1db rise versus the 5db dip at the same frequency does not indicate or should not that the 1db rise is MORE neutral than the one with the more pronounced dip just because it so happens to be closer to the flat line?

And none of this is going to matter much to the listener because they all measure different enough to sound different -- if there is .00000000000000000000001 db rise anywahere in the audible band it ain't neutral. Pick any speaker from Soundstage reviews and let's see the variations from flat. And we have not even started on the room.

I think after writing the preceeding I get what you are referring to -- speakers with that staggered slope shelving down of the treble band will sound laid back or distant and I can agree with that for the obvious that it is doubtful such a speaker will sound agreessive or forward...I'd rather talk about a specific speaker though because then I would know what SOUND you consider bright or forward and what you consider to be laid back - what you heard not what graph you read and presume will be laid back.

Klipsch is agreed on by most so it's easy -- but someone mentioned years ago that the reason their speakers were forward was thatthey didn;t match the sensitivy of the horn to their woofers -- so the treble would certainly jump out ahead of the bass (some not all). So this is clearly forward -- and if what you were saying was laid back would kinda be the opposite of this then yes I agree a speaker where the entire treble band was shleved down 10db then yes it will sound laid back. I consider the B&W 705 to be incredibly polite -- and laid back despite having no trouble hearing the treble -- the highs are not laid back -- the bass is and the thing sounds strained all the time like it's in a coma.

[Geoffcin]

Show me proof irrifutable of your claim as to what laid back is --

From the preponderance of evidence it's quite clear to me that your ability to review anything is severely hampered by your inability to make clear sense of anything. If you tell me a speaker is "laid back" in presentation, according to your reasoning, it could mean almost anything.

[kexodusc]

From the preponderance of evidence it's quite clear to me that your ability to review anything is severely hampered by your inability to make clear sense of anything. If you tell me a speaker is "laid back" in presentation, according to your reasoning, it could mean almost anything.

Geoffcin, I think, is the closest so far in definition, though Florian mentioned "slow and easy going" which I'd also incorporate in there...I find laid back speakers sound nice, don't necessarily have all the detail and lack the sharper transient responses (the faster attacks and more natural decays), and as has been mentioned, are probably a bit less fatiguing than other speakers.

I don't really know what the ISO 9014 : Audiophile definition is, but it seems to me that most laid-back speakers I can think of are also somewhat "warm" sounding...though I think warm has a bit more to do with a stronger presentation of bass and midrange relative the highs...it's all relative...I don't know.
I've never heard a speaker being described as bright or harsh AND laid-back.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "laid-back" or "warm" speakers myself - I think my hearing is less sensitive to highs, so brighter gear sounds more real to me. I do agree that laid-back/warm speakers seem to be a bit easier to get a pleasing sound out of though.
Most of my friends actually do prefer laid-back sound though.

Whoever said the Paradigm Studio's are "laid-back" must have some powerful tastes for bright, forward sounding gear...My Studio 20's and 40's were anything BUT laid-back...more "wham-bam-in-your-face" detail and punchiness, with a pretty neutralish midrange. That's what I liked about them...I wouldn't want the highs to be any more pronounced or the sound anymore forward...yikes! I think this is just another example of differences of taste.

An audiologist acquaintance of mine once showed me some research papers on the ear where the doctors/scientists had determined that the freakin' shape of our ear lobes and size of our ears can influence the perception of sound more than the choice of our speakers or even room acoustics...geez, how do you compensate for that? This could very well be responsible for the inconsistency in descriptions some gear gets...I always laugh when I hear universal statements like "all NAD's are warm" or "All Japanese amps are bright and thin". I've heard the exact opposite in some cases.
I keep waiting for the industry snake-oil salesmen to sell EQ'ing hearing aids to the audiophiles...

[theaudiohobby]

Audiophile approved definitions (from the Stereophile glossary)

**Laid-back: Recessed, distant-sounding, having exaggerated depth, usually because of a dished midrange **

not to be confused with

** Smooth Sound reproduction having no irritating qualities; free from HF peaks, easy and relaxing to listen to. Effortless. Not necessarily a positive system attribute if accompanied by a slow, uninvolving character. **

i.e You can have speaker that is smooth i.e. gentle roll off in the top end but yet not laidback and vice versa.

[kexodusc]

Audiophile approved definitions (from the Stereophile glossary)

**Laid-back: Recessed, distant-sounding, having exaggerated depth, usually because of a dished midrange **

not to be confused with

** Smooth Sound reproduction having no irritating qualities; free from HF peaks, easy and relaxing to listen to. Effortless. Not necessarily a positive system attribute if accompanied by a slow, uninvolving character. **

i.e You can have speaker that is smooth i.e. gentle roll off in the top end but yet not laidback and vice versa.

Thanks TAH.
That sounds about right, too, though I often hear people just using "recessed mid-range" to describe that...anybody else fundamentally opposed to using any definitions self-proclaimed by Stereophool Magazine? Which Audiophiles (with what credibiltiy and credentials) approved these definitions?
To further confuse things, the sages at Soundstage! and Home Theater Mag use the dictionary slang definition that refers to music - "relaxed or unhurried: laid-back music rhythms", which seems to coincide with that pace and speed reference Florian gave.

Do we use total subscriptions or sales as the deterimining factor?

Too bad we couldn't simplify things things...like this speaker sounds "Good" or "Bad" to varying degrees.

[theaudiohobby]

Thanks TAH.
That sounds about right, too, though I often hear people just using "recessed mid-range" to describe that...anybody else fundamentally opposed to using any definitions self-proclaimed by Stereophool Magazine? Which Audiophiles (with what credibiltiy and credentials) approved these definitions?
To further confuse things, the sages at Soundstage! and Home Theater Mag use the dictionary slang definition that refers to music - "relaxed or unhurried: laid-back music rhythms", which seems to coincide with that pace and speed reference Florian gave.

Do we use total subscriptions or sales as the deterimining factor?

Too bad we couldn't simplify things things...like this speaker sounds "Good" or "Bad" to varying degrees.

** Which Audiophiles (with what credibiltiy and credentials) approved these definitions? **
apart from Mr. Holt I dunno

[Florian]

The best advice i can give you is to go out and buy the speaker you like.

[RGA]

Well the Stereophile one seems fine -- Of course because the Bible says God exists doesn;t make it so -- but it would be easier to have a better working dictionary.

[newbsterv2]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is distortion at certain frequencies. Sure a speaker can be pretty flat in its measurements but what about the waterfall plots?? Some of the most pleasing speakers I've heard have had both extremely clean waterfall plots and frequency response measurements that were very even without many peaks and/or dips. I've heard speakers like the Revel F50's which were very flat(and expensive) to my ear but were very neutral and enjoyable and not hard sounding through the midrange. They also displayed subtle differences between recordings moreso than ANY other speaker I've heard. When I compared them to the Studio 40's the Studio's still had a very similar balance but the sound was harder and more glassy I guess you could say. Interesting since they employ 2nd order crossovers and use kevlar which breaks up a lot in its upper passband.......I actually find that the midrange of the Monitor line is much cleaner if a little more distant just because of the fact that that line uses a steeper 3rd order crossover as well as polypropylene(plastic) for its midrange driver that has much cleaner characteristics in its upper passband than kevlar does. Since most people are most sensitive to midrange sounds then distortion and ringing in this band will probably make or break a speaker for listeners I believe. I know this is a little off topic but I just thought I'd add it in because I've been listening to different speakers for quite some time now and have a good idea of what a good speaker sounds like and a bad one sounds like. Well a good speaker doesn't sound like anything but the source its being fed.

Geoffcin, I think, is the closest so far in definition, though Florian mentioned "slow and easy going" which I'd also incorporate in there...I find laid back speakers sound nice, don't necessarily have all the detail and lack the sharper transient responses (the faster attacks and more natural decays), and as has been mentioned, are probably a bit less fatiguing than other speakers.

I don't really know what the ISO 9014 : Audiophile definition is, but it seems to me that most laid-back speakers I can think of are also somewhat "warm" sounding...though I think warm has a bit more to do with a stronger presentation of bass and midrange relative the highs...it's all relative...I don't know.
I've never heard a speaker being described as bright or harsh AND laid-back.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "laid-back" or "warm" speakers myself - I think my hearing is less sensitive to highs, so brighter gear sounds more real to me. I do agree that laid-back/warm speakers seem to be a bit easier to get a pleasing sound out of though.
Most of my friends actually do prefer laid-back sound though.

Whoever said the Paradigm Studio's are "laid-back" must have some powerful tastes for bright, forward sounding gear...My Studio 20's and 40's were anything BUT laid-back...more "wham-bam-in-your-face" detail and punchiness, with a pretty neutralish midrange. That's what I liked about them...I wouldn't want the highs to be any more pronounced or the sound anymore forward...yikes! I think this is just another example of differences of taste.

An audiologist acquaintance of mine once showed me some research papers on the ear where the doctors/scientists had determined that the freakin' shape of our ear lobes and size of our ears can influence the perception of sound more than the choice of our speakers or even room acoustics...geez, how do you compensate for that? This could very well be responsible for the inconsistency in descriptions some gear gets...I always laugh when I hear universal statements like "all NAD's are warm" or "All Japanese amps are bright and thin". I've heard the exact opposite in some cases.
I keep waiting for the industry snake-oil salesmen to sell EQ'ing hearing aids to the audiophiles...

[theaudiohobby]

Well the Stereophile one seems fine -- Of course because the Bible says God exists doesn;t make it so -- but it would be easier to have a better working dictionary.

The stuff about JGH was a joke, the definitions in the Hi-Fi Choice glossary are broadly similar, I think that Hi-Fi News and Hi-F+ broadly follow the same definitions, so the glossary is not as narrow as you think.

[theaudiohobby]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is distortion at certain frequencies. Sure a speaker can be pretty flat in its measurements but what about the waterfall plots?? Some of the most pleasing speakers I've heard have had both extremely clean waterfall plots and frequency response measurements that were very even without many peaks and/or dips. I've heard speakers like the Revel F50's which were very flat(and expensive) to my ear but were very neutral and enjoyable and not hard sounding through the midrange. They also displayed subtle differences between recordings moreso than ANY other speaker I've heard. When I compared them to the Studio 40's the Studio's still had a very similar balance but the sound was harder and more glassy I guess you could say. Interesting since they employ 2nd order crossovers and use kevlar which breaks up a lot in its upper passband.......I actually find that the midrange of the Monitor line is much cleaner if a little more distant just because of the fact that that line uses a steeper 3rd order crossover as well as polypropylene(plastic) for its midrange driver that has much cleaner characteristics in its upper passband than kevlar does. Since most people are most sensitive to midrange sounds then distortion and ringing in this band will probably make or break a speaker for listeners I believe. I know this is a little off topic but I just thought I'd add it in because I've been listening to different speakers for quite some time now and have a good idea of what a good speaker sounds like and a bad one sounds like. Well a good speaker doesn't sound like anything but the source its being fed.

Not sure of what this has to do with a laidback speaker, I suggest that if you want to discuss crossovers and driver materials, it is best to start a new thread, cos amongst audiophiles crossovers and driver materials are based more on myth (or old wives fables) than reality , it is likely to get heated very quickly and the useful information here on laidback speakers will get lost in the heated arguments that will ensue.