What Are the Best Sounding Speakers UNDER $2,500 that You've Ever Heard.?

[semente]

of course, one can also measure opinions

Yep, you can weigh them.

[ctsooner]

Yep, you can weigh them.

 

What still amazes me after all these years are folks who say you know what a component sounds like by measuring them and not listening to them. That's basically what is said when someone sees a measurement that isn't done properly and totally discounts anything. I realize how proud many of you are by taking your own measurements, but go reread my post earlier in this thread. Those words are from a couple of speaker designers/manufacturers I happen to be close with and they both said the same thing about measuring speakers. The irony is that they are on the opposite side of the design spectrum and their speakers don't have much in common. I then asked a designer of top league electronics and he read the thread and agreed with what I posted.

 

You guys don't need to agree with it, but it's hard to refute what was said, so I decided to share. Yes we all hear differently, but to make a statement that basically says only listeners of classical music care if their music playback is distorted is just incorrect and does nothing to support anything you post. You also seem to make the assumption that many of us don't listen to classical music. Again, poor assumption, even though it shouldn't matter.

 

Most top speaker manufacturers can use just measurements and design a great sounding speaker. They are at the point in their careers where they don't even need to listen to design speakers, but they do listen. They listen to different drivers, wiring, connectors, cabinets etc... but they do design with measurements and that's why I would never say measuring isn't important, but the final sound is the most important. That said, the way folks have talked about measuring is completely wrong according to folks like JA and designers who do this for their income. Not trying to inflame things and you can believe what you want as we can believe what we want. Bottom line is that we are all trying to enjoy our music regardless of what genre we listen to.

[semente]

Yes we all hear differently, but to make a statement that basically says only listeners of classical music care if their music playback is distorted is just incorrect and does nothing to support anything you post.

 

My opinion doesn't say that.

 

But I have been participating in web forums from different countries for 10 years now and I have been led to believe that many audiophiles do not have accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal.

This is obvious from the equipment choices they make although it may not be a conscious choice for studio recordings of amplified or electronic music are not really adequate for evaluating accuracy through listening, not in my opinion at least.

 

R

 

R

[bluesman]

I have been led to believe that many audiophiles do not have accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal.

Then you are too easily led, my friend. I've never encountered an audiophile who didn't seek what he or she considered to be accurate reproduction. The problem is that we don't all hear things the same way, so I may think a system is accurate while you think it's highly colored & vice versa. What's true is simply that many audiophiles do not have your concept of accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal. This is not a problem - we're all entitled to our own opinions. You need to respect that even if you don't agree with any of them.

[semente]

Then you are too easily led, my friend. I've never encountered an audiophile who didn't seek what he or she considered to be accurate reproduction. The problem is that we don't all hear things the same way, so I may think a system is accurate while you think it's highly colored & vice versa. What's true is simply that many audiophiles do not have your concept of accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal. This is not a problem - we're all entitled to our own opinions. You need to respect that even if you don't agree with any of them.

Apparently we don't agree on the meaning of accuracy.

 

 

For me (and I'd dare say most engineers and designers) accuracy means reading, amplifying and transducing the signal with as little distortion as possible.

It's high fidelity to the recorded signal.

Good recordings will sound good, bad recordings will sound bad.

 

It has nothing to do with getting an "enjoyable" / "exciting" sound from your system or making recordings sound more "real" which is what I understand most people are pursuing (especially because studio recordings do not sound "real" in the first place and they're not supposed to).

 

In my opinion and experience critical listening (for accuracy in reproduction) requires the use of minimally mic'ed recordings of acoustic instruments playing in natural reverberant spaces and knowledge of both live (unamplified) and reproduced sound.

And because listening is fallible (in my opinion and experience) we also need to rely on measurements for evaluating accuracy.

 

R

[bluesman]

Apparently we don't agree on the meaning of accuracy.

 

 

For me (and I'd dare say most engineers and designers) accuracy means reading, amplifying and transducing the signal with as little distortion as possible.

It's high fidelity to the recorded signal.

Good recordings will sound good, bad recordings will sound bad.

 

It has nothing to do with getting an "enjoyable" / "exciting" sound from your system or making recordings sound more "real" which is what I understand most people are pursuing (especially because studio recordings do not sound "real" in the first place and they're not supposed to).

 

In my opinion and experience critical listening (for accuracy in reproduction) requires the use of minimally mic'ed recordings of acoustic instruments playing in natural reverberant spaces and knowledge of both live (unamplified) and reproduced sound.

And because listening is fallible (in my opinion and experience) we also need to rely on measurements for evaluating accuracy.

 

R

If you can't shed your "I'm the only one who knows what's right" schtick and accept that someone somewhere might actually have a different but equally valid opinion, there's no point to attempted communication with you. No one is intentionally buying speakers he or she thinks are inaccurate - you just don't agree with them that their choices achieve the goal.

 

What they hear as accurate you hear as inaccurate. That's fine - if we all heard things the same way, we'd all have the same systems or cost-controlled variants thereof. Your self-described understanding of "what people want" is in reality your self-generated interpretation of what they have.

 

How about simply telling us what you think are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard for under $2500? If you want to say why, and the answer is because you think they're the most accurate reproducers you've ever heard, that's wonderful. Your opinion would make me go out and find a pair to hear. That's how I found & bought many speakers: Rectilinear 3s in 1973, LS3/5as in 1976, IRSs in 1983, etc up to and including the Focals and JBLs I use now. They all shared a quality I perceive as accuracy - and after paying decades of dues to AFM local 77, I kinda think I might have some idea of what live music sounds like. You may disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

So help me/us out here. Recognizing that you prize what you perceive as accuracy over any & all other factors, what are the best sounding speakers you've heard under $2500? I'm sure my wife thinks we need another pair by now anyway.........

[Jud]

If you can't shed your "I'm the only one who knows what's right" schtick and accept that someone somewhere might actually have a different but equally valid opinion, there's no point to attempted communication with you. No one is intentionally buying speakers he or she thinks are inaccurate - you just don't agree with them that their choices achieve the goal.

 

What they hear as accurate you hear as inaccurate. That's fine - if we all heard things the same way, we'd all have the same systems or cost-controlled variants thereof. Your self-described understanding of "what people want" is in reality your self-generated interpretation of what they have.

 

How about simply telling us what you think are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard for under $2500? If you want to say why, and the answer is because you think they're the most accurate reproducers you've ever heard, that's wonderful. Your opinion would make me go out and find a pair to hear. That's how I found & bought many speakers: Rectilinear 3s in 1973, LS3/5as in 1976, IRSs in 1983, etc up to and including the Focals and JBLs I use now. They all shared a quality I perceive as accuracy - and after paying decades of dues to AFM local 77, I kinda think I might have some idea of what live music sounds like. You may disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

So help me/us out here. Recognizing that you prize what you perceive as accuracy over any & all other factors, what are the best sounding speakers you've heard under $2500? I'm sure my wife thinks we need another pair by now anyway.........

 

For the sake of accuracy, you should insert a picture of your wife rolling her eyes.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[r_w]

I'll happily forgo some accuracy (if that's actually what my system is doing) for an engaging, musical, forgiving presentation.

 

If accuracy means sub-par recordings are unlistenable that leaves little left to listen to in my book, as IHMO 90+% of everything I've ever heard in terms of recording/mastering barely passes as good.

 

Each to their own, but it must be sad having to select only great recordings to listen to, as that probably sacrifices enjoying a great many of the brilliant compositions and performances ever captured.

 

Having said that this is a speaker thread and I would prefer the speaker to be as accurate as possible and have any euphony occur earlier in the chain.

 

... that's why I LOVE ATC speakers.

 

 

 

I have been participating in web forums from different countries for 10 years now and I have been led to believe that many audiophiles do not have accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal.

[Jud]

I'll happily forgo some accuracy (if that's actually what my system is doing) for an engaging, musical, forgiving presentation.

 

If accuracy means sub-par recordings are unlistenable that leaves little left to listen to in my book, as IHMO 90+% of everything I've ever heard in terms of recording/mastering barely passes as good.

 

Each to their own, but it must be sad having to select only great recordings to listen to, as that probably sacrifices enjoying a great many of the brilliant compositions and performances ever captured.

 

Having said that this is a speaker thread and I would prefer the speaker to be as accurate as possible and have any euphony occur earlier in the chain.

 

... that's why I LOVE ATC speakers.

 

Speakers are far from perfect, and some types of accuracy are inimical to others (speed and low frequency response; multiple drivers and imaging). So we pick the types of accuracy we're most sensitive to.

 

That said, I think many of us have been taught by reviews, friends, or experience to listen for "high fidelity" or the sonically extraordinary rather than plain old accuracy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[r_w]

Yeah... I'll buy that.

 

Speakers are far from perfect, and some types of accuracy are inimical to others (speed and low frequency response; multiple drivers and imaging). So we pick the types of accuracy we're most sensitive to.

 

That said, I think many of us have been taught by reviews, friends, or experience to listen for "high fidelity" or the sonically extraordinary rather than plain old accuracy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[realhifi]

They were actually $2200 ex-demo.

 

Love those Stirling LS3/6's but couldn't find a pair nearly as reasonable as you found! I did however just buy a pair of very late manufacture Spendor BC-1's in mint condition which I believe were very similar in many ways to the Rogers LS3/6 back in the seventies. Of course modern manufacturing, modern materials have improved but they share design principles with each other and I am looking forward to having them play some music for the holidays!

I should receive them today.

[sdolezalek]

Many designers, such as Siegfried Linkwitz, dismiss the audibility of phase and time alignment:

 

"Sound reproduction is about creating an auditory illusion. When the recorded sound is of real instruments or voices there is a familiar, live reference in our auditory memory. The illusion of hearing a realistic reproduction is destroyed by distortion that is added anywhere in the signal chain from microphone to loudspeaker, but the speaker is by far the biggest culprit.

 

Every designer focuses on the on-axis frequency response as if it were the all determining distortion parameter. Sometimes great attention is paid to the phase response in an attempt to preserve waveform fidelity, which at best can only be achieved for a single listening point in space. Ignored usually, though of much greater importance, is resonance in drivers and cabinets and the slow release of stored energy that goes with it. Furthermore, the uniformity and flatness of the off-axis frequency response which we hear via room reverberation and reflections is rarely a design goal.

 

You can check the naturalness of the timbre by listening from another room. Does it sound like a loudspeaker is playing?

The imbalance in the speaker's power response between low and high frequencies destroys the illusion

 

(...)

 

Now, a first-order crossover can be made phase-perfect at one point in space, but I feel quite strongly that you cannot just look at a speaker's performance at one single point in space. The off-axis response is also very important to a speaker's overall performance in a real room, because the radiation in these other directions will add, through reflected and reverberant interactions, to what you hear.

 

Speakers are clearly the part of the audio chain that remains farthest from perfection and most subject to mystery. Because of that, I think we, as consumers, tend to break into three classes:

 

a) Those who care about correct timbre above all else (tend to prefer Maggies and other dipoles);

b) Those who care about phase coherency (tend to prefer Vandersteens);

c) Those who care about room sound pressure/transient response (tend to prefer box speakers);

 

Like all generalizations, the exception breaks the rule, but I think understanding who you are as a listener and what parts of hearing you are most sensitive to, may be the most important criterion in choosing the right speaker for you. Measurements can't tell you that. I may also have the above categories wrong, but I believe there are categories that can describe what our likely speaker preferences will be.

 

For example, the "listening from another room test" may be one that rates high for all of us that love Magneplanars. It is one of their big strengths and one I find interesting because, to the extent Linkwitz is right that it reflects proper timbre response, Maggies often test very poorly in normal frequency response plots. They obviously both suffer more from poor room fit (which may highlight the response curve) and benefit more from great room placement (which may reflect a better decay curve by including boundary responses).

 

Before choosing Magnepan, the Vanderstein line was my second choice. For some reason, I've never been able to get the goosebumps of "I'm there in the room at the performance" from even some of the best box speakers.

[bluesman]

I think many of us have been taught by reviews, friends, or experience to listen for "high fidelity" or the sonically extraordinary rather than plain old accuracy.

I think the best approach is to listen for the experience of the music rather than the equipment. If it gives you the same tingle that you get from live performance of the music you prefer in the setting(s) you prefer, it's emotionally accurate. That, for me, is far preferable to the cold and sterile presentations I've heard from many systems with lower measured distortion and technically "better" specs.

 

I went over to a big box retailer to hear a cheap pair of Pioneer bookshelf speakers (SPBS22?) that got a rave review from Stephen Mejias a few years ago and listed for about $130/pair. Yes, they were incredible (especially for the price) despite their clear limitations, e.g. low bass - they had that special something that makes you hear the music through them. For those who haven't seen this interview with Andrew Jones (the designer of both the Pioneers and the TAD Evolution 1s), he offers some pretty sage counsel, e.g.

 

"In the design process, I firstly use music I am intimately familiar with, much of it music that I obtain from studios and engineers where I have either listened in when the recordings have been made, or am able to get the opinion of the recording engineers as to the capability of the speaker. This is generally the same music that I use at shows. Additionally, it is always music that I personally find emotionally involving. I rarely play music that is simply a “demo” piece. Even with the dynamically spectacular type pieces, they are still ones that I enjoy listening to. This way I know that if a prototype doesn’t give me that emotional connection, then it isn’t yet tuned correctly."

 

 

"Clearly, a good speaker is one that has wide bandwidth, low distortion, controlled directivity, and high resolution. However, it should not be resolving in a way that initially sounds impressive, but ultimately fails to be musically satisfying. I want to relax back in my seat when listening, not be on the edge of my seat. Too many systems sound like 'hi-fi!'”

 

 

The AJ-designed Pioneer series go on a list of "best speakers ever for under $300" for sure!

[Jud]

I have those Pioneers as my desktop speakers. Paid $49 for the pair on sale at Best Buy!

 

And they are just as good as you and the reviewer say.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I think the best approach is to listen for the experience of the music rather than the equipment. If it gives you the same tingle that you get from live performance of the music you prefer in the setting(s) you prefer, it's emotionally accurate. That, for me, is far preferable to the cold and sterile presentations I've heard from many systems with lower measured distortion and technically "better" specs.

 

I went over to a big box retailer to hear a cheap pair of Pioneer bookshelf speakers (SPBS22?) that got a rave review from Stephen Mejias a few years ago and listed for about $130/pair. Yes, they were incredible (especially for the price) despite their clear limitations, e.g. low bass - they had that special something that makes you hear the music through them. For those who haven't seen this interview with Andrew Jones (the designer of both the Pioneers and the TAD Evolution 1s), he offers some pretty sage counsel, e.g.

 

"In the design process, I firstly use music I am intimately familiar with, much of it music that I obtain from studios and engineers where I have either listened in when the recordings have been made, or am able to get the opinion of the recording engineers as to the capability of the speaker. This is generally the same music that I use at shows. Additionally, it is always music that I personally find emotionally involving. I rarely play music that is simply a “demo” piece. Even with the dynamically spectacular type pieces, they are still ones that I enjoy listening to. This way I know that if a prototype doesn’t give me that emotional connection, then it isn’t yet tuned correctly."

 

 

"Clearly, a good speaker is one that has wide bandwidth, low distortion, controlled directivity, and high resolution. However, it should not be resolving in a way that initially sounds impressive, but ultimately fails to be musically satisfying. I want to relax back in my seat when listening, not be on the edge of my seat. Too many systems sound like 'hi-fi!'”

 

 

The AJ-designed Pioneer series go on a list of "best speakers ever for under $300" for sure!

 

++1.

I have the Pioneer, and they do a lot of things "right". You can pay a lot more for far less enjoyment.

 

In the ultimate budget category, I also have a pair of small powered speaker, "Genius", sold on Amazon for 30€, and they kick a** - sound much better than an entry model Q Acoustics I had, costing 3x the price.

 

I have a feeling with speakers it can really be "hit and miss", whatever the price range.

[Ralf11]

I think the Pioneers were designed partly as a challenge to see how good a low cost speaker could be.

 

BTW, besides timbre Maggies are often said to offer speed (which I assume usually boils down to transient response), a wide sweet spot, etc.

[semente]

If you can't shed your "I'm the only one who knows what's right" schtick and accept that someone somewhere might actually have a different but equally valid opinion, there's no point to attempted communication with you. No one is intentionally buying speakers he or she thinks are inaccurate - you just don't agree with them that their choices achieve the goal.

 

What they hear as accurate you hear as inaccurate. That's fine - if we all heard things the same way, we'd all have the same systems or cost-controlled variants thereof. Your self-described understanding of "what people want" is in reality your self-generated interpretation of what they have.

 

How about simply telling us what you think are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard for under $2500? If you want to say why, and the answer is because you think they're the most accurate reproducers you've ever heard, that's wonderful. Your opinion would make me go out and find a pair to hear. That's how I found & bought many speakers: Rectilinear 3s in 1973, LS3/5as in 1976, IRSs in 1983, etc up to and including the Focals and JBLs I use now. They all shared a quality I perceive as accuracy - and after paying decades of dues to AFM local 77, I kinda think I might have some idea of what live music sounds like. You may disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

So help me/us out here. Recognizing that you prize what you perceive as accuracy over any & all other factors, what are the best sounding speakers you've heard under $2500? I'm sure my wife thinks we need another pair by now anyway.........

I agree that what I perceive as accurate you may perceive as inaccurate.

I don't doubt that my listening abilities are imperfect and can mislead my judgement.

 

This is why measurements are important.

They'll provide information about problems and shortcomings and will even help us understand certain peculiarities which we perceived through listening.

 

What people like and dislike has nothing to do with accuracy, even if I do acknowledge that the ultimate goal of the system is to provide listening pleasure.

That's just taste.

 

R

[semente]

I think the best approach is to listen for the experience of the music rather than the equipment. If it gives you the same tingle that you get from live performance of the music you prefer in the setting(s) you prefer, it's emotionally accurate. That, for me, is far preferable to the cold and sterile presentations I've heard from many systems with lower measured distortion and technically "better" specs.

 

I went over to a big box retailer to hear a cheap pair of Pioneer bookshelf speakers (SPBS22?) that got a rave review from Stephen Mejias a few years ago and listed for about $130/pair. Yes, they were incredible (especially for the price) despite their clear limitations, e.g. low bass - they had that special something that makes you hear the music through them. For those who haven't seen this interview with Andrew Jones (the designer of both the Pioneers and the TAD Evolution 1s), he offers some pretty sage counsel, e.g.

 

"In the design process, I firstly use music I am intimately familiar with, much of it music that I obtain from studios and engineers where I have either listened in when the recordings have been made, or am able to get the opinion of the recording engineers as to the capability of the speaker. This is generally the same music that I use at shows. Additionally, it is always music that I personally find emotionally involving. I rarely play music that is simply a “demo” piece. Even with the dynamically spectacular type pieces, they are still ones that I enjoy listening to. This way I know that if a prototype doesn’t give me that emotional connection, then it isn’t yet tuned correctly."

 

 

"Clearly, a good speaker is one that has wide bandwidth, low distortion, controlled directivity, and high resolution. However, it should not be resolving in a way that initially sounds impressive, but ultimately fails to be musically satisfying. I want to relax back in my seat when listening, not be on the edge of my seat. Too many systems sound like 'hi-fi!'”

 

 

The AJ-designed Pioneer series go on a list of "best speakers ever for under $300" for sure!

Here's another interview with Andrew Jones

 

First comes the measurement.

There are a lot of parameters in speakers that can be measured that are known to correlate well with listening.

The problem that I see so often from those who doubt such correlation exists is that they don't know how to measure accurately!

I see their curves and I see the artifacts in the curves that are the result of measurement errors and nothing to do with the behaviour of the speaker itself!

Accurate measurements and a sufficient set of measurements go a long way to revealing the performance, and allow us to get towards the final result very much quicker than with just listening alone.

My approach is to set a design goal for the measured performance, meet this as close as possible, then evaluate the result by listening, but ONLY once I believe I have met the initial design objective.

Then I try and honestly evaluate the result, and if (when……) I hear something wrong I go back and see if I can correlate this to the measurements.

Maybe I was too enthusiastic in my evaluation of having met my target.

Maybe my target is just wrong.

I go back and make changes based on the re-evaluation, then re-listen.

But I am always cross referring to the measurements.

 

I am not implying that we can measure everything that we hear.

But we can measure a lot so we can shorten the design process.

We can also however hear a lot of what isn't actually there!

We can be easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist.

With too many variables during the design process we can also become confused.

So we have to be as careful in our listening as we have to be in our measuring.

[zackthedog]

Love those Stirling LS3/6's but couldn't find a pair nearly as reasonable as you found! I did however just buy a pair of very late manufacture Spendor BC-1's in mint condition which I believe were very similar in many ways to the Rogers LS3/6 back in the seventies. Of course modern manufacturing, modern materials have improved but they share design principles with each other and I am looking forward to having them play some music for the holidays!

I should receive them today.

 

How nice! You'll get the lovely midrange with some extra extention at the top and bottom. Let us know how you like them.

[semente]

Love those Stirling LS3/6's but couldn't find a pair nearly as reasonable as you found! I did however just buy a pair of very late manufacture Spendor BC-1's in mint condition which I believe were very similar in many ways to the Rogers LS3/6 back in the seventies. Of course modern manufacturing, modern materials have improved but they share design principles with each other and I am looking forward to having them play some music for the holidays!

I should receive them today.

Hope you'll enjoy them!

I'd start by measuring the frequency response of each speakers, outdoors if possible and compare the results to the original plots:

 

 

Some form or reconditioning may be in order (either way, I'd have them checked up).

 

R

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

[semente]

Speakers are clearly the part of the audio chain that remains farthest from perfection and most subject to mystery. Because of that, I think we, as consumers, tend to break into three classes:

 

a) Those who care about correct timbre above all else (tend to prefer Maggies and other dipoles);

b) Those who care about phase coherency (tend to prefer Vandersteens);

c) Those who care about room sound pressure/transient response (tend to prefer box speakers);

 

Hi @sdolezalek

 

I may be wrong here but I would have thought that phase coherent speakers would produce a more accurate transient response.

 

And what do you mean by correct "timbre"?

 

Why do you think that dipoles reproduce "timbre" or the signal (which encompasses all aspects from frequency response to phase coherence to unrestrained dynamics to low level detail retrieval to "silent" drivers and cabinets or frames) better than box speakers or horns?

 

As Jud mentioned, all topologies have specific shortcomings but having a flat frequency response should be a requirement for any speaker irregardless of it's topology, just as colour accurateness should be a requirement for TVs.

It's essential for correct "timbre".

 

I generally use the computer/video display calibration analogy because one can easily see the effects of a wrong balance:

 

 

 

 

One may of course choose to abdicate correct tonal balance for phase coherence (which will probably have a noticeable impact on imaging and little or no effect on "timbre") or for spectacular dynamic abilities or we may even find that flat is "boring" and we prefer "excitement" and "liveliness"...

Ultimately no speaker is perfect and tastes vary wildly.

 

R

[r_w]

IME, those who care about all three tend to go for active ATCs.

 

 

 

Speakers are clearly the part of the audio chain that remains farthest from perfection and most subject to mystery. Because of that, I think we, as consumers, tend to break into three classes:

a) Those who care about correct timbre above all else (tend to prefer Maggies and other dipoles);

b) Those who care about phase coherency (tend to prefer Vandersteens);

c) Those who care about room sound pressure/transient response (tend to prefer box speakers);

 

[sdolezalek]

Hi @sdolezalek

 

I may be wrong here but I would have thought that phase coherent speakers would produce a more accurate transient response.

 

And what do you mean by correct "timbre"? Why do you think that dipoles reproduce "timbre" or the signal (which encompasses all aspects from frequency response to phase coherence to unrestrained dynamics to low level detail retrieval to "silent" drivers and cabinets or frames) better than box speakers or horns?

 

As Jud mentioned, all topologies have specific shortcomings but having a flat frequency response should be a requirement for any speaker irregardless of it's topology, just as colour accurateness should be a requirement for TVs.

It's essential for correct "timbre".

 

I generally use the computer/video display calibration analogy because one can easily see the effects of a wrong balance:

 

One may of course choose to abdicate correct tonal balance for phase coherence (which will probably have a noticeable impact on imaging and little or no effect on "timbre") or for spectacular dynamic abilities or we may even find that flat is "boring" and we prefer "excitement" and "liveliness"...

 

Ultimately no speaker is perfect and tastes vary wildly.

 

R

 

Richard: I tend to think of sound in terms of pitch, loudness, and timbre. Your definition of timbre is more all encompassing to the point where I would refer to what you call timbre as just overall signal quality. "Timbre," to my mind, are the sound characteristics that allow us to distinguish between sounds which otherwise have the same pitch and loudness. I believe Timbre is mainly determined by harmonic content and dynamic characteristics of the sound such as vibrato and the attack-decay envelope of the sound.

 

Flat panel dipoles often have both very fast transient response times and because of their dipole nature couple differently to a room than front-firing box speakers. Thus they are able to produce a very natural sounding timbre even if their frequency response (pitch) characteristics aren't completely flat. The problem with those same flat panels is generally that they are less "dynamic" (which goes to perceived loudness) and either less flat or cover less of the full frequency spectrum (so less satisfying on the pitch criteria).

 

Big boxes are often great on dynamics or slam and thus win the loudness criteria, but can also win on pitch.

 

But we also know that there are small box speakers that fall short on bass but can otherwise be hugely satisfying because they do a lot of other things right. As you point out, some of these smaller boxes "abdicate correct tonal balance for phase coherence" and thus are, I suspect, more attractive to those ears that are particularly phase/imaging sensitive.

 

Lastly, you refer to the lack of dynamics in panels and I agree. Much as you showed in your photo calibration example, a lot of people choose photos that are massively oversaturated. The listening equivalent of oversaturation is probably extended bass and "excitement" or "liveliness" and thus favors a different speaker choice.

 

My overall point was really just to suggest that understanding what type of listener you are may be the first step in figuring out what kind of speaker you should buy.

[Jud]

Richard: I tend to think of sound in terms of pitch, loudness, and timbre. Your definition of timbre is more all encompassing to the point where I would refer to what you call timbre as just overall signal quality. "Timbre," to my mind, are the sound characteristics that allow us to distinguish between sounds which otherwise have the same pitch and loudness. I believe Timbre is mainly determined by harmonic content and dynamic characteristics of the sound such as vibrato and the attack-decay envelope of the sound.

Because timbre is defined to a great extent by what it *isn't* (everything other than pitch and loudness that makes an audible difference), whether or not to include phase has been a subject of a fair amount of disagreement. Those who feel the ear is relatively insensitive to phase tend to exclude it; those who feel the effects of phase have been underestimated tend to include it. See for example Definitions of Timbre (by G. Sandel).

 

Because phase effects tend to make a considerable difference in my system and with the music I listen to, I personally feel it's a good idea to include it, but of course that feeling has no definitional force.

[sdolezalek]

Because timbre is defined to a great extent by what it *isn't* (everything other than pitch and loudness that makes an audible difference), whether or not to include phase has been a subject of a fair amount of disagreement. Those who feel the ear is relatively insensitive to phase tend to exclude it; those who feel the effects of phase have been underestimated tend to include it. See for example Definitions of Timbre (by G. Sandel).

 

Because phase effects tend to make a considerable difference in my system and with the music I listen to, I personally feel it's a good idea to include it, but of course that feeling has no definitional force.

 

Jud: I tend to agree and think that "Phase" probably deserves to be a category of its own.

 

As to your second point, is it that "Phase effects make a considerable difference in my system" or is it "My hearing is particularly sensitive to phase effects, thus I have chosen a system that..."?

 

I think if there was broader agreement here on CA that we do each hear differently and are sensitive to different things (particularly if we knew exactly what those differences led to), then we might actually agree on more stuff, because we took the variability of our subjective hearing out of the equation.