What is the most musical speaker..........?

[Islander]

I love the way people used to write; clear words, unambiguous phrases, useful equations and calculations... nothing like that now days.

You're so right. Many people these days seem to not re-read what they just typed, so we get a mishmash of typos, misspellings and ambiguities, to the point where some postings are nearly or even completely unintelligible.

It's like people aren't talking, they're blurting. Making it worse is that they don't even seem to care, claiming "It doesn't matter what I wrote, you know what I mean." Well, half the time I don't...

[Sandy West]

If accuracy (high fidelity) and acoustic output (power) are the criteria, the long discontinued Altec-Lansing Barcelonas. Using the same criteria, the best modern "tower" style speakers I have heard: RF-7 II's. Best bookshelf or pedestal speakers: B&W.

[jdm56]

Wow. Until I read my own reply, I didn't realize this thread was from seven years ago! Back then I had the k-horn / belle / H2 set-up, so I of course thought that was the most musical thing I'd ever heard.[]

It's still a good question, but I think "musical" is certainly open to interpretation. Maybe the most basic definition would be, "speakers that sound like music" and even that is open to further interpretation: what kind of music? ...performed where? I'll ad my own personal take on the question: speakers that sound like live music but don't necessarily measure well. So factoring all those things into it, I'll stick with my choice from seven years ago. The klipschorn is the most musical speaker I've ever heard. But for the money, and considering the size, in the right room and set-up my Bose 901's do a fantastic job of sounding like live music. Granted, a lot of people may not like that particular perspective on the performance (definitely NOT "front-row, center"), but if you can dig more of a mid-hall acoustic, the 901's can knock your socks off.

[rstudenr]

Hi, I find that the question depends on who finds satisfaction with a musical representation of a particular set of components in a particular environment. In the end you are always listening to the weakest link in the chain. The speaker is the final element in the chain but all of what precedes it does play a significant role. Many years ago I had a set of double large Advents powered by a Macintosh 2105 Amplifier with a C-28 Macintosh Pre-amp and a B&O 3000 Turntable with a SP-12 cartridge. This to my ears was quite musical.Then my Stereo System evolved and today I am many steps removed from that. Yet in 1970 I was completely satisfied with the above described "System". Things do not need to be perfect nor the most expensive to give you a "Musical Illusion". All I can say is that that system was the first time I believed to be in the realm of a "Concert" and I really enjoyed it.

[Sandy West]

Hi, I find that the question depends on who finds satisfaction with a musical representation of a particular set of components in a particular environment. In the end you are always listening to the weakest link in the chain. The speaker is the final element in the chain but all of what precedes it does play a significant role. Many years ago I had a set of double large Advents powered by a Macintosh 2105 Amplifier with a C-28 Macintosh Pre-amp and a B&O 3000 Turntable with a SP-12 cartridge. This to my ears was quite musical.Then my Stereo System evolved and today I am many steps removed from that. Yet in 1970 I was completely satisfied with the above described "System". Things do not need to be perfect nor the most expensive to give you a "Musical Illusion". All I can say is that that system was the first time I believed to be in the realm of a "Concert" and I really enjoyed it.

That McIntosh/Advent system was, and still would be, a very good one!

My definition of a good loudspeaker is one that can accurately reproduce the musical information it is fed. If it is fed a low fidelity, compressed recording, it should emit a low quality, compressed sound. If fed a high fidelity signal with wide dynamic range and frequency response, that is the sound that should come out of the speaker. In other words, a speaker cannot sound "musical" or like a "live concert" per-se (unless, of course, it is fed a REALLY good recording of a live concert).

[pauln]

"My definition of a good loudspeaker is one that can accurately reproduce the musical information it is fed."

There seems to be two big points of view in audio; one says "fidelity to the source" and the other says "sound like the real thing".

It gets kind of confusing beyond that...

[Mallette]

There seems to be two big points of view in audio; one says "fidelity to the source" and the other says "sound like the real thing".

These are the same thing. A well engineered source file will sound like the real thing. To the extent it does not, it is flawed.

Without making a value judgement, this rubric can only be applied to all acoustic music, as mixed down and engineered recordings can be made to sound great, but there is no "real thing" as it is a creation.

Those who prefer engineered recordings are pretty well free to prefer any speaker that sounds good to them. Those who listen predominately to recordings of space/time acoustic events are going to prefer accuracy. That means "fidelity to the original source" and "sound like the real thing."

Dave

[garyrc]

There seems to be two big points of view in audio; one says "fidelity to the source" and the other says "sound like the real thing".

It gets kind of confusing beyond that...

... and the more nearly realistic may not be preferred, or considered "musical" by some people. Just to complicate things, some speakers are more realistic than others in one way (such as frequency response or imaging) and less realistic in another way (such as dynamics, or magnitude of certain kinds of distortion, etc.) Issues:

• In our day to day experiences of listening to recorded music, we think the sound is accurate if it closely resembles the IMAGINED original.

• Only rarely do we have the original at hand to make a direct comparison, as in the live v.s recorded experiments some magazines and some manufacturers, including Klipsch, used to conduct.
• In some of these experiments, surprising things happened, like in the European test pitting on-the-spot recordings played through several good speakers against a real orchestra. All were behind an acoustically transparent fabric. A couple of the speakers were prefered over reality, which came in down the list somewhere, I think third.
• A surprising number of my friends and aquaintences have had very little experience with unamplified live music (especially orchestral), and when they did, often sat in the inexpensive seats, far from the orchestra. They may be at a disadvantage in judging what sounds "real." Their imagined original might be quite different from yours or mine.

[Mallette]

... and the more nearly realistic may not be preferred, or considered "musical" by some people.

You are correct. My comments below were strictly my opinion, and it's a niche one. In my case I've made many direct comparisons of "the real thing" to the recording and my preference comes down on the side of accuracy as the only viable standard. If it sounds "better," it cannot be accurate, and if it sounds "different," either the recording is flawed or the speaker is flawed.

A few loudspeakers, and I not going to name them in order to avoid flawing the discussion, deliver accuracy. When I hear coming out of a speaker what I heard in the venue, I know it's accurate.

While other viewpoints are equally valid as there is no accounting for taste, I do not know what yardsticks could be applied to speakers that sound "better than the original."

Dave

[sunnysal]

I too have noticed that many people, non-audiophiles, seem to comment that my k-horns make music sound "real" and that when visiting my house they feel like they are hearing the real instruments. I actually trust that type of comment more than my own opinion (or my other, audiophile friends) since I am often thinking about technical issues while listening (as much as I would like to deny it). warm regards, tony

btw most musical speakers? why k-horns of course!

[Mallette]

Greetings, Mark.

Def number one is that which fits. We know science is no good at this because it's been well established that measurement doesn't tell you how a speaker actually sounds.

As I've limited my own opinion to that of my experience playing back recordings I've made in person, that's the only methodology I find suitable. BTW, I've had the artists over a number of times to either just listen or to determine what tracks to distribute. Few of them are anything like "audiophiles" of our ilk, but some of them play or have played Amati's, Strads, Selmer's, etc and darn sure have highly trained ears. Many have commented that it was the first time they'd ever heard themselves with any sense of reality and one said she heard a problem with the bridge on her viola she'd not noticed before.

No bragging there, as I've said more than once the process of accurate recording is mind numbingly as simple as putting the mikes where your ears want to be, I only mention it to suggest that "accuracy" in the sense of producing the inverse of the vibrations arriveing at the microphone in one's listening room is quite simple and attainable...as well as definable.

Definition: I knows it when I hears it.

Nothing else matters.

Dave

[Mallette]

am not sure I see a good reason to shoehorn the word "accurate" into stereo systems descriptions. You really have to torture the definition to make it even applicable, don't you?

No sir. Corresponds precisely to def 1 in your post. Further, I have a quorum of reasonable and prudent people who agree on the term so we aren't depending only on Dave's opinion.

"Accurate" in playback can only be defined by listeners. When George Mimms uses his 45 years of experience at the pipe organ to pronounce something like "That sounds like the church" I must assume he is suggesitng what he is hearing is "accurate" by definition.

"Realistic" doesn't refer to anything. Heck, if it's making noise it's "realistic" to something or the other.

Dave

PS - If you are gonna go down the "clear" route, let's just say "more nearly accurate." Nothing is "accurate" nor is anything "clear" by denotation.

[Mallette]

Well, again, this is fine but it renders the word - and idea - meaningless if anyone can declare what an "inch" is. You come to me to buy an ounce of gold and I am sure your use of the word "accurate" simply won't do for either of us.

Fully agree. We will have to agree on what an "inch" is. We will also on what constitutes "accurate" reproduction. Actually, you'd have to dispute reproduction as it's defined by Merriam Webster as:

reproduction, duplicate, copy, facsimile, replica mean a thing made to closely resemble another. reproduction implies an exact or close imitation of an existing thing

That's all I am talking about. You also ignored my PS of "more nearly accurate" since "accuracte" is like "clear" by definition undefinible by any known means when it comes to recording a space/time acoustic event.

Simple assertion doesn't make something free of error or defect. Both precision and exactness are comparative.

In this case, the judgment of those, either musicians or audiophiles who would meet the Daubert standard (you can thank Jeff for bringing that to the table) of expert testimony is the best we can come by, and I have that. You'd be one as well if you were present.

The thing you have to compare it to is some standard. A standard has to have some agreement to have credence.

Which I have provided...expert witnesses.

Good to lock horns with you...I miss it.

Dave

[Mallette]

Ahh, up and had your breakfast out there.

Well, sounds like a hangup to me. The usage in music parallels the usage in other areas equally resistive to measurement by objective means. Very similar to the word "clear" which is almost never used in its denotative sense. If something met the strict definition of "clear" you wouldn't be able to see it, now would you?

"Accurate reproduction" has been used by audiophiles, researchers, engineers, and vendors to describe their products since Edison...though probably never in the denotative sense you are insisting on.

Further, I can't think of anything more appropriate that is likely to take off.

I know what it means and I've yet to have a guest who didn't both understand its usage and have an opinion about what they were hearing that didn't include it.

Dave

[sunnysal]

Perhaps you guys aren't really comparing the same things and perhaps the words aren't conveying what you want to say. The underlying issue that may be at fault is that many people do not believe that the current list of measurements used to confirm "scientifically" if a speaker is indeed accurate completely reflects the accurate reproduction of music, that those measurement fall short of guaranteeing sonic nirvana. That measuring the flatness of frequency response, polar charting, impulse response, etc. does not give the whole picture and that while all measurements can be indicating accurate reproduction is being achieved can lead to a musical sound that deviates substantially from the standard (what was recorded). That is not to say that errors detected do not lead to audible deviations but perhaps the simple satisfaction of a limited set of measurable criteria do not guarantee perfect reproduction, there may be more out there to measure...

It is only natural that people tend rely on their ears as an instrument to measure and while quantifiable data cannot be easily derived from this (other than DBT testing, etc. subjective data) I think there is no doubt that our ear/brain is an amazing test instrument capable of detecting things that even high quality equipment sometimes cannot. Ears, I do believe, can be used for "quality control" for example where they are only required to detect a difference not quantify it. I also believe that ear/brain can sometimes handle and process complex, multivariable data better than equipment can, most measurement by equipment is limited to one issue at a time, limiting its relevance in complex environments. Eye/brain and ear/brain input, processing and analysis accomplishes some things that mechanical and electronic equipment cannot.

Anyway, while I always review specifications when trying to understand what a speaker can do and does, I am not sure it paints the complete sonic picture and I am not sure that measurements will ever paint the complete sonic picture, thus I rely on my ears to make final decisions. In the end what pleases me is what I want, my goal is to please myself musically I am not ashamed of that. YMMV, IMHO, etc. I would never claim that someone is wrong for pursuing measured perfection in thier components but since I think there is still space for improvement of the scientific approach I also don’t criticize people who let their ears decide what sounds musical to them.

Warm regards,

Tony

[Mallette]

I with you, Tony. I don't think anyone questions that measurements are just measurements so far, and may or may not be translated by the brain into "accuracy." While you'll get a lot of deviation from "I hear nothing different" to "PROFOUND!" from audiophiles listening to various tubes, I find very little either in audiophiles or just casual listeners using first rate source material and a top knotch system. In fact, most (including yours truly) can detect an accurate recording even on a decent car radio.

I do not think I have deviated from my "GIGO" position in my 8500 or whatever posts or that it is all about the source material. Yet I see constantly in these pages indications that large numbers of experienced audiophiles really don't get it. I keep hearing "so and so" sounds so awesome and real, but su and su sounds awful...should I change my speakers?" Crikey. No way to deal with that...

Dave

[sunnysal]

what was the phrase (loosely) ?

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"

Hard to get common ground established

[pauln]

"what was the phrase (loosely) ?

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"

Hard to get common ground established"

There's always hard science... E=mc^2 +/-3db

I'm still pushing for the new DDT protocol (Double Deaf Testing)

[garyrc]

While we can't specify a set of measurements that will fully describe the sound of a speaker, and while a speaker that measures better than another (with the few measurements we have developed so far) can certainly sound worse to some listeners (myself included) -- with the same program material -- there are certain defects, such as an obvious and sufficiently big and broad peak or dip in response, that could allow us to say, "in this one regard, this speaker is inaccurate."

[Mallette]

The word "accurate" is most commonly used, and properly so, to refer to an objective direct measure.

[bs] I hear the word used almost every day, and it's almost never dealing with whether a ruler is any good or not. Furthermore, by the extremes you are pushing no yardstick is accurate...every one of them is slight off, including the one in the Bureau of Standards.

From your experience in the audio industry I can certainly understand why you'd fed up with hearing it.

We are talking hear though about source material and whether the speaker playing it is significantly...and I use that word to differentiate between some non-existent formula of the future that will be able to sample a recording and pronounce it "accurate"...failing to provide the inverse of the mike diaphragms travels and coupling that to the air.

On location, I listen A. with my ears B. with a headset that closely duplicates the mike pickup since I always record with some variation of coincedental placement and then back home C. On loudspeakers placed far enough a part to provide the image that correct use of the mikes provides.

It is an inherently simple process, though one must thoroughly understand "where the ears want to be," the characteristics of the microphones (one reason that I prefer ribbons with their really "ear like" pickup pattern), and have a setup that provides good imaging from the speakers.

In your case, you must understand that you are conditioned. Thankfully, I didn't spend most of my life in the audio industry or I might be conditioned as you are. Heck, career artillery officers inevitably retire darn near deaf. Goes with the occupation.

I've also yet to hear reproduction that completely recreated a sonic hologram of St. Marks or Lincoln Center. However, I've heard recordings good enough to be able to determine those locations almost immediately. The room, furnishings, carpet, background noise, limits of the system and such are all noted...but immediately subtracted and nullified by the brain. Otherwise, I'd probably feel like you about what I was hearing.

My cat can't make hide nor hair of my HD TV. Just a bunch of colored lights as she isn't conditioned as we are to make sense of it. However, a snarling dog on the loudspeakers will send her up the wall in a heartbeat.

Can we use Mallette's Cat as a standard for "accuracy?"

Dave