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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[RGA]

Good idea

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

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.

[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.

[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...

[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 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.