Why do we use "smooth" as a description for speakers?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
  • Not being able to hear many of the speakers I am curious about, I will often message someone and ask them for their opinion of what their own speakers sound like. Although I know they will be biased, I find it interesting the word smooth seems to be used most often as the 1st words to describe their speakers. No one likes to hear edgy sounding speakers, but music is usually dynamic more than smooth . So when we refer to our speakers as smooth and easy to listen to, does that mean that we don't find extremely revealing, dynamic, and engaging speakers , also to be good designs?

    What would a person do if they didn't want only smooth, but also dynamic and revealing as well? Cant really high efficiency Pro designs, with extreme dynamics also be smooth? And why don't you ever hear a person describing speakers as, "can play really loud, yet still won't fatigue your ears after listening". Wouldn't that be a more impressive feat of design, and way of describing speakers?
 
When I used that term it's about the frequency response.

Smoothness in this sense is something I'm very sensitive to. Lots of speakers have peaks and valleys, sometimes contributing to the signature sound.

What is called "revealing" is often having a ragged response, accentuating some notes, and damping others. This "unmasks" (and I use the term related to hearing and perception) certain notes, making you feel the speaker now shows you things you never heard before.

Then, there is smooth, but bright. Magico S1 is one of those in my book. Better than average speaker for low level listening.
 
Smooth means its not harsh sounding even when listening at higher volume levels. Which in turn usually means less fatigue when listening to music for prolong periods of time. A speaker can still be revealing, dynamic and engaging and still sound smooth.

I hear only good things about GR Research's (Danny Richie's) speakers sounding really good and smooth. He even has informative videos on youtube.
 
I think that the limitations of the ear in analysing what is going on, plus the difficulty of describing subjective perceptions with any rigour make things very difficult.

That sentence will get you nominated for the understatement of the year award.

There is quite simply no way to tell someone what you are hearing without common frames of reference.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Smooth is a very poor descriptor imo. These responses affirm it. It could mean anything. It has no tangible points of reference attached to it except pure imagination. I hate seeing it. It means nothing. There are plenty of good descriptors to define the sound of a speaker, even a standardized table of them precisely explained for those who want to carry on an informed conversation. Again, in audio, this word is meaningless.
 
I've been around the block with speakers a few times.

Back in the 1970's we used to throw a few bucks at the uncoloured Chartwell PM 400 BBC sound:

516239d1448329878-british-bargain-kef-b200-celestion-hf1300-coles-4001-wimslow-chartwell-pm400-jpg


Nothing offensive there. But on Party Night, 15" Tannoy used to get everybody on their feet:

516242d1448329878-british-bargain-kef-b200-celestion-hf1300-coles-4001-wimslow-tannoy-15inch-speaker-jpg


Somehow Tina Turner never did SMOOTH. YouTube
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Have you actually read the op, title and all?
Indeed I have. Let's take this for example:

  • And why don't you ever hear a person describing speakers as, "can play really loud, yet still won't fatigue your ears after listening".

  • I have certainly heard that type of statement many times. It was mostly in reference to well balanced high efficiency systems with horns. I've owned some like that. Also double stacked electrostatic panels. I'd say that L'Acoustic PA is also there. Very smooth, very dynamic. Doesn't hurt your ears when used within reasonable SPL.

    It's a seductive effect. It's why I like high efficiency systems. They can be tricky to get a good tonal balance, but once achieved, it's wonderful and lifelike.
 
Smooth is a very poor descriptor imo. These responses affirm it. It could mean anything. It has no tangible points of reference attached to it except pure imagination. I hate seeing it. It means nothing. There are plenty of good descriptors to define the sound of a speaker, even a standardized table of them precisely explained for those who want to carry on an informed conversation. Again, in audio, this word is meaningless.
I kinda of understand your point.

Listening to a live symphony in a state of the art concert room is the definition of smooth. Even if the violin in that setting can sound piercing, its still smooth, transparent and detailed.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.