Hi all,
Always considering this....what do you think are the biggest factors in getting speakers right, in enjoying tracks?
Here's my list..in a bit of 'remain to change the order of importance state'..
Level freq response. (subject to tonal balance, per following..)
Frequency extension, both high and low, ....with low mattering much more than high....
Max SPL and dynamic headroom.
Tonal balance .
Ability to control track by track tonal balance finely.
(I know this is a bit heretical, but honestly sometimes i think it adds almost as much to enjoyment as all the other stuff combined....which i know can't be true, because the ability to control tonal balance finely comes from all the other factors being being in balance, available for adjustment..)
Smooth pattern transition between driver sections. But so stinking room dependent, it's often hard to appreciate.
Advanced,.... real icing on the cake imo/ime..
Flat phase response.......the effect on transients, timbre, and rhythm.
Tis me best guesses, i guess 🙂
Always considering this....what do you think are the biggest factors in getting speakers right, in enjoying tracks?
Here's my list..in a bit of 'remain to change the order of importance state'..
Level freq response. (subject to tonal balance, per following..)
Frequency extension, both high and low, ....with low mattering much more than high....
Max SPL and dynamic headroom.
Tonal balance .
Ability to control track by track tonal balance finely.
(I know this is a bit heretical, but honestly sometimes i think it adds almost as much to enjoyment as all the other stuff combined....which i know can't be true, because the ability to control tonal balance finely comes from all the other factors being being in balance, available for adjustment..)
Smooth pattern transition between driver sections. But so stinking room dependent, it's often hard to appreciate.
Advanced,.... real icing on the cake imo/ime..
Flat phase response.......the effect on transients, timbre, and rhythm.
Tis me best guesses, i guess 🙂
I try to keep to full range speakers to get rid of the crossover complexity problems.
Been a mobile DJ for 40 years and no one has said I had a bad sound despite using just full rangers or in the early days speakers up to 3KHz.
I also have never used stereo just a big mono amp driving pairs of speakers.
Maybe playing it loud makes up for other down sides ?
Been a mobile DJ for 40 years and no one has said I had a bad sound despite using just full rangers or in the early days speakers up to 3KHz.
I also have never used stereo just a big mono amp driving pairs of speakers.
Maybe playing it loud makes up for other down sides ?
Read my mind; pace, rhythm and timing [PRaT] at vanishingly low distortion, i.e. 'is it live or is it Memorex'. 😉
Got really, really close, but Danley figured out the 'last piece of the puzzle' for me, though based on a recent audition of a tall multi-way using studio quality dbx DSP, mine might have been 'good enough' dialed in with it, all things considered because all I really needed was to sit back far enough to 'blend'/'sum' a ~84" high stack.
GM
Got really, really close, but Danley figured out the 'last piece of the puzzle' for me, though based on a recent audition of a tall multi-way using studio quality dbx DSP, mine might have been 'good enough' dialed in with it, all things considered because all I really needed was to sit back far enough to 'blend'/'sum' a ~84" high stack.
GM
Frequency response matters but I find it is something that you tend to grow into.
Other factors which I find important
1) Non fatiguing sound, ie no funny spike is the waterfall plot at high frequencies around 10kHz.
2) A wholesome sound that fills the room. Feels as if the room is energised. As opposed to a feeling that the sound is coming from the boxes or in your face. That would be radiation pattern, maybe bipolar or dipole or rear /top firing tweeter.
Oon
Other factors which I find important
1) Non fatiguing sound, ie no funny spike is the waterfall plot at high frequencies around 10kHz.
2) A wholesome sound that fills the room. Feels as if the room is energised. As opposed to a feeling that the sound is coming from the boxes or in your face. That would be radiation pattern, maybe bipolar or dipole or rear /top firing tweeter.
Oon
the room has everything to do with it
some are great for sounding like glass shattering
Decent speakers and a great room
Somewhere Toole describes his house and why he stopped using his electrostatics. I assume they were Quads and his reasons were practical and spousal factor. Anybody have the quote?
Many ESL enthusiasts are puzzled how you can make good music by shaking heavy cardboard.
B.
Many ESL enthusiasts are puzzled how you can make good music by shaking heavy cardboard.
B.
Tonal balance is the first thing I hear in a speaker and maybe the most important for enjoyment. Second would be "life size" sound.
tonal balance for me and timing: respect of decays in the good recordings without mask effect when the dynamic is present as well.
In order:
1. "Fatigue" free. (..specifically NOT having a narrow-band rise (more than .5 db) that "sets me on edge").
2. Soundstage. Excellent depth of field and width that (recording dependent) extends well beyond the outer-boundaries of the loudspeakers. Speakers are typically placed about 7-8 feet apart from inner loudspeaker side-panels.
3. "Dynamics". (..not as a literal feature, but rather that fast-impulse rise + high(er) eff..)
4. Image definition. (..not "pin-point", which is terribly artificial-sounding, but rather something more "3D").
Ironically I can adapt to broad-band inaccuracies (as long as they aren't too great), and listen in fairly tight "windows" - so freq. linearity and *dispersion per-se aren't deal-breakers for me. Don't get me wrong though, I pretty much demand both of these qualities being excellent in addition to the above qualities.
*though I'd point out that an overall wide horizontal dispersion at higher freq.s is in my experience "key" to producing a wide Soundstage.
1. "Fatigue" free. (..specifically NOT having a narrow-band rise (more than .5 db) that "sets me on edge").
2. Soundstage. Excellent depth of field and width that (recording dependent) extends well beyond the outer-boundaries of the loudspeakers. Speakers are typically placed about 7-8 feet apart from inner loudspeaker side-panels.
3. "Dynamics". (..not as a literal feature, but rather that fast-impulse rise + high(er) eff..)
4. Image definition. (..not "pin-point", which is terribly artificial-sounding, but rather something more "3D").
Ironically I can adapt to broad-band inaccuracies (as long as they aren't too great), and listen in fairly tight "windows" - so freq. linearity and *dispersion per-se aren't deal-breakers for me. Don't get me wrong though, I pretty much demand both of these qualities being excellent in addition to the above qualities.
*though I'd point out that an overall wide horizontal dispersion at higher freq.s is in my experience "key" to producing a wide Soundstage.
Last edited:
100- 1000 hz range. That range fills in so much of the higher frequencies. I have had great 6+1 setups but they need the deep air to complete it.
Good bass extension, smooth frequency response and effortless with what feels like unlimited headroom.
Rob 🙂
Rob 🙂
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Sometimes i get the impression we all basically value the same factors,
but with maybe the biggest variance in our preference rankings being the ratio of direct to indirect we like....and how that equates to imaging and ambiance.
Kinda like the old adage: sounds like the performers are in the room, versus sounds like I'm at the performance....
Personally, i find my preference there seems to depend on the type and quality of the recording.....for instance, for a given track i never know whether stereo or mono will sound best....and when stereo does sound best, i often wish i still had a surround setup to continue with the comparison....
Sometimes i get the impression we all basically value the same factors,
but with maybe the biggest variance in our preference rankings being the ratio of direct to indirect we like....and how that equates to imaging and ambiance.
Kinda like the old adage: sounds like the performers are in the room, versus sounds like I'm at the performance....
Personally, i find my preference there seems to depend on the type and quality of the recording.....for instance, for a given track i never know whether stereo or mono will sound best....and when stereo does sound best, i often wish i still had a surround setup to continue with the comparison....
I understand you.... sometimes I wisch my stereo was a TV behavior with this point source spatial sound but with the rythm and clearness and 3D behavior of a very sota stereo...
Better a good mono than a bad stereo... as told a friend, a good little radio box in the boat is all what one needs ! (which I understand as : the only bad waves you can accept are from the sea 🙂 )
Better a good mono than a bad stereo... as told a friend, a good little radio box in the boat is all what one needs ! (which I understand as : the only bad waves you can accept are from the sea 🙂 )