Your speaker preference:Bright, Warm, laidback or natural?

I Prefer a very clean sound.. The post about speakers that just want to be cranked is my favorite. My B&W 602 S3 have great mids and my sub fills in the low end greatly, and volume is no problem.

That is, your recommendation to use a high proportion of in direct high-frequency sound by, e.g., using an array of HF drivers most firing to the back or sides. Isn't the effect of this to add "reverberation" to the sound through reflection from the adjoining walls? I think if like the concept based on my experience with omnidirectional speakers, (Ohm F), and dipoles, (Magneplanar MMG). Of course it's true that this cannot duplicate actual concert hall reverberation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeptic

Unfortunately, if the recording played back through a two channel stereo system had the same or similar levels of reverberation as a live performance in a concert hall, it wouldn't sound very pleasing because it would sound like the source was inside The Lincoln Tunnel. ...

---

But regarding what you said in my quote, I have to reiterate that recordings, e.g. Mercury Living Presence, that do capture the actual concert hall reverb, can sound better than anything else, (not that they do inevidably). Mercury used only three carefully places omnidirectional microphones to record. And of course, the result really can't be better than the hall itself -- poor hall, bad recording.

My other favorite example is the many live-performance recordings made by the CBC (Canadian Broadcasing Corp.) that I have heard broadcast over CBC Radio 2. They have provided hundreds of superb-sounding broadcasts, notably of choral music, produced using minimal microphoning and mix-down.

You are correct in that you will get additional reverberation, that is the purpose of the array of tweeters. However, don' t expect anything like concert hall reverb from these tweeters, the additional reverb has a relatively short RT and is minimal in amplitude compared to the overall output of the speakers. What you WILL get is early reflections of high frequencies in the same way you already get early reflections of low and mid tones already. Don't forget that you may have to cut back the output of the main direct firing tweeter to compensate for the added indirect hf output. The subjective result IMO is a much clearer, sweeter, more musical sound. You may notice an improvement in imaging but that is a side benefit. If you were to measure the FFT (fast fourier transform) of the direct signal plus early reflections, you would get a much flatter frequency response. Viewed another way, the so called waterfall plots wouldn't show the sharp high frequency falloff that is typical. Let me know what you do and how you like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeptic

The experiment was a DBT where the recording was made using extended frequency response which could be filtered at 20 KHz. The test showed that the listeners could not distinguish any difference whether the harmonics above 20 khz were present or not.

---

So what about the new formats such as DVD-A or SACD. Would they still sound the same if their filtering was moved down to 22 kHz (such as CD) vs current filtering which is at above 44 kHz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

So what about the new formats such as DVD-A or SACD. Would they still sound the same if their filtering was moved down to 22 kHz (such as CD) vs current filtering which is at above 44 kHz?

---

Given that the reproduction of recorded sound from 22Khz to 44Khz is inaudible, I would expect that its removal would make no difference...unless it is somehow causing intermodulation distortion within the audible range due to limitations in the rest of the equipment in which case its removal would be an improvement.

My musical taste for speaker timbre have changed over the years. I used to love bass, bass, and more bass. Makes sense, I'm a bass player. I had a crappy stereo and crappy speakers. Since having.... ahem "seen the light" as it were and now I use more mid and treble than ever. I look for distinct bass as opposed to "mud" now. If I can't hear that bass run I'm dissappointed. I'm listening to remastered Jazz more these days and love to hear the tone of the horn and the brushes on the cymbals..... So make my speakers "laid back", warm and mellow... kinda like me.

Da Worfster

Hi Skeptic,

It has been a pleasure to read your posts, which I find enlighting and educational. Additionaly, it happens I feel close to your reasoning regarding speakers.

On my never ending (more than a month by now) search for the "perfect" speakers (under my budget), and after a long process, I've reduced my shopping list to Salk SongTower QWT and Vandersteen 1Ci Signature. Both very praised speakers, and in the case of the Vandersteen with the bonus of a good offer from the dealer. Other speakers considered: Ascent Sierra-1 and Zu Audio Omen Standard.

Until a couple of days I was almost sold out with the Audio Note AN-J. Well, that was before I read you comments here at Audioreview Forums.

Never thought it could be so hard to buy a pair of speakers, even considering I am layman.

I would appreciate you can point me out some good speakers I should consider? Should I try to find a moderate to budget price main speakers and complement it with a good subwoofer? What are in your opinions the best speakers under say $1000/$2000, or even $3000 (if it proves to be a fantastic for the price I may decided to commit a "financial suicide")?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm just a layman searching for the best speakers I can afford and avoiding a wrong buying decision I would regret.

Regards,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joster

I would appreciate you can point me out some good speakers I should consider? Should I try to find a moderate to budget price main speakers and complement it with a good subwoofer? What are in your opinions the best speakers under say $1000/$2000, or even $3000 (if it proves to be a fantastic for the price I may decided to commit a "financial suicide")?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm just a layman searching for the best speakers I can afford and avoiding a wrong buying decision I would regret.

Regards,

---

Wow, you woke up a long ago thread.

I just got to hear the new Dynaudio Excite line and can tell you for the money you listed, I would give them a big listen. I have both Audience 82s and 42s which the Excite line replaced.

I was always a big bass head but when I got my hands on an old pair of Clearfield Continentals, early Von Schweikert when he worked for Counterpoint, I learned what midrange was and now the bass falls just behind that quality in a speaker.

I don't know the pricing of VSs but if I could afford em, I'd be ordering.

Holy thread resurrection Batman!:eek6:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joster

Hi Skeptic,

---

Sorry, but Skeptic was banned here about six years ago. You can, however, find him over at Classic Speaker pages as "Soundminded". He'll tell you to buy thirty year old AR-9s.

rw

My vote would be for the Salk song towers, you could do a lot worse. PSB Synchrony's are also a very good sounding speaker but you just have to see what sounds good to your ears. Dynaudio's are definitely worth a look as are Thiels.

I guess what I consider my style of listening to be is "warm and punchy". I don't like bloated bass, but I need to know it's there. I also hate it when the highs are thin, bright and/or brittle. So warm and punchy is about where I stand./

Worf

I'm not sure which sound I like best. With several systems in my house, I often flip-flop as to what sound makes me the happiest. My system in the basement has no sub, but the DIY speakers are very punchy. There is plenty of base for music, and while I'm down there that is my favorite sound. Then I go upstairs. That system has a 4000 watt DIY sub, and two main planner speakers with built in 350 watt subs each. All tuned in using both channels of a BFD. When I turn that on, I wonder how I was satisfied with less downstairs. When bombs explode, you'd think my house was coming down. With the BFD taming the subs, music sounds outstanding. Everything sounds perfect. While upstairs, that is the sound I prefer. When I go into the bedroom, that system has more mid-base and highs. The JBL speakers give me that "West Coast Sound" that is very enjoyable for classic rock. When I'm in there, that's the sound for me. If I go into the master bathroom, the two Yamaha speakers are not great, but have a mid-range sound that is so clear and crisp that I wonder why I can't get that in the bedroom as well.

Maybe I just like them all, but differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeptic

I think Mash is right. We've discussed this extensively in the past and the Japanese demonstration (I hesitate to call it an experiment because it merely confirmed what had been known for a long time and proven again and again) that there is no audible difference if harmonics above 20 KHz are included or not. This conformed to all other scientific expectations based on waveform theory. On the other hand, you can feel the impact of vibrations below 20hz on your body even if your eardrums don't send signals to your brain so they aren't termed hearing.

The tonal balance shifts away from a higher percentage of high frequencies as you get further away from the orchestra because the direct field is relatively (and absolutely) weaker compared to the reverberant field. As I said in the other post, as the sound decays, the high frequencies decay faster than middle and low frequencies and the spectral balance shifts over the time we hear each note. Without the ability to accurately reproduce this reverberant field, you cannot reproduce the spectral aspects of the insturments as they would be heard in a concert hall either.

---

skeptic,
Oohashi's paper did not come to the conclusions that you state. I have that AES white paper in my library. His white paper concluded that listeners where indeed responding to the ultrasonic components in the music. We probably cannot hear ultrasonic signals, but perhaps we can feel them like we can signals below 20hz.

The rest of your post is spot on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skeptic

I think Mash is right. We've discussed this extensively in the past and the Japanese demonstration (I hesitate to call it an experiment because it merely confirmed what had been known for a long time and proven again and again) that there is no audible difference if harmonics above 20 KHz are included or not. This conformed to all other scientific expectations based on waveform theory. On the other hand, you can feel the impact of vibrations below 20hz on your body even if your eardrums don't send signals to your brain so they aren't termed hearing.

The tonal balance shifts away from a higher percentage of high frequencies as you get further away from the orchestra because the direct field is relatively (and absolutely) weaker compared to the reverberant field. As I said in the other post, as the sound decays, the high frequencies decay faster than middle and low frequencies and the spectral balance shifts over the time we hear each note. Without the ability to accurately reproduce this reverberant field, you cannot reproduce the spectral aspects of the insturments as they would be heard in a concert hall either.

---

skeptic,
Oohashi's paper did not come to the conclusions that you state. I have that AES white paper in my library. His white paper concluded that listeners where indeed responding to the ultrasonic components in the music. We probably cannot hear ultrasonic signals, but perhaps we can feel them like we can signals below 20hz.

The rest of your post is spot on!

---

Gads! Skeptic wrote that in 2003.

It's long been my simple layman's assertion that close-microphoning, at least not done well done, results in a unnatural balance of frequencies that most people find disagreeable vs. live performance.

This has spawned the whole vinyl - tube - SET - full-range drive cult in an effort to artificially recreate the mellowness of live performance vs. indifferently made recordings.

For my part I still perfer neutral, transparent equipment that accurately reproduces the recording.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

skeptic,

---

Yo, Terrence. Skeptic hasn't posted here in over six years since he was banned. Don't take it personal if you don't get a reply from him. :)

rw